Christopher Reeve: Superman Movies

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

I've always found Puzo an extremely over-rated writer. He is remembered more fondly than he deserves, thanks largely to Francis Ford Coppola, who took a very mediocre book (The Godfather), and turned it into one of the greatest movies ever. People watch The Godfather and think Puzo was a great writer. Try reading The Godfather some time --- or any of Puzo's other books. They are mediocre at best, and most are just downright bad.

As for the original Superman, I like the first half hour of the movie, and I love Christopher Reeve. The rest of the movie is pretty dumb and VERY 1970s. And not the good stuff from the '70s. All the stuff we'd like to forget.

As for Superman II, again Christopher Reeve was brilliant. Those moments of the movie that focus on Clark/Superman are really good. The rest ... laughably bad.

Bryan Cranston recently commented that great acting can lift bad writing ... but only so far. A great actress like Meryl Streep can take a C-level script and lift up to B-quality. But not even the greatest acting in the world can lift a D-script to A-status. That's kind of how I view the old Superman flicks. Reeve is really, spectacularly good. But the writing is so, so, so bad.

I have the opposite view of nearly everything that you write above. Reeve was a lightweight actor who lucked into a part which was perfect for his looks and modest acting talents. The script is what made the film, providing enough wit so that the absence of material depth could be overlooked.

Perhaps it is a matter of age. I saw the film in its original release in the theaters when its special effects were state of the art for the time. I'm guessing you first saw it later, when by then industry standards had moved higher and the film's culture was quaint rather than contemporary.

I've read "The Godfather" many times and find it to have a powerful narrative voices, completely addicting and really putting you inside the heads of the characters.

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

I have the opposite view of nearly everything that you write above. Reeve was a lightweight actor who lucked into a part which was perfect for his looks and modest acting talents. The script is what made the film, providing enough wit so that the absence of material depth could be overlooked.

I guess I just have a different definition of "wit" than you do. The humor in Superman was very '70s. Very Three's Company. I guess I'm just glad they didn't cast John Ritter or Don Knotts as Lex Luthor. Its only attempt at intelligence was the first Act of the movie, which is the best part. After that, we just get a live-action cartoon.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Perhaps it is a matter of age. I saw the film in its original release in the theaters when its special effects were state of the art for the time. I'm guessing you first saw it later, when by then industry standards had moved higher and the film's culture was quaint rather than contemporary.

Nope. I saw it in the theater during its original release. I had grown up on Star Trek and Hammer films, so bad special effects never slowed my enjoyment of a story.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

I've read "The Godfather" many times and find it to have a powerful narrative voices, completely addicting and really putting you inside the heads of the characters.

Ick. The Point of View wanders all over the place. Characters' actions have no motivation to the point of being cartoonish (lookin at you, Luca). The prose is turgid. And Puzo spends page after page after page on the least interesting storyline in the whole book (the doctor in Vegas and the very weird subplot on vaginal surgery for Sonny's mistress).

I tried reading Puzo's The Sicilian. The nicest thing I can say about it is that it made The Godfather novel look good by comparison.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

Characters' actions have no motivation to the point of being cartoonish (lookin at you, Luca).

That you would write such a thing makes me wonder if you really read the book. Do you not recall the passages concerning the young Vito's decision to kill Don Fanuci? Do you have no recollection of the wonderful backstory provided for Al Nieri (which isn't in the film) Have you no memory of Don Corleone explaining to Michael what makes a man like Luca tick and what was the secret of controlling such a man for one's own benefit? How about the passages describing how Clemenza determined who would replace the murdered Paulie in his capo regime? Puzo provided plenty of deeply fascinating motivation, it was hardly cartoonish.

Your above charge is inconsistent with what was actually there.

Our one area of agreement would be concerning the whole Doctor/Lucy/Johnny Fontaine sub plot, it did nothing to move the overall story along and seemed like a separate saga completely.

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Do you have no recollection of the wonderful backstory provided for Al Nieri (which isn't in the film)

I do. And that was actually the one part of the book I really enjoyed.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Have you no memory of Don Corleone explaining to Michael what makes a man like Luca tick and what was the secret of controlling such a man for one's own benefit?

I didn't buy it. Luca seemed like a comic book villain, not a human being. His actions in the book weren't just brutal, they were monstrous.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Your above charge is inconsistent with what was actually there.

Admittedly, I haven't read it in about 15 years. But I so disliked it and every other attempt I've made to read Puzo that I have no idea to give it another go. Life is too short to spend in a bad book, when there are so many good books still needing to be read.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Our one area of agreement would be concerning the whole Doctor/Lucy/Johnny Fontaine sub plot, it did nothing to move the overall story along and seemed like a separate saga completely.

Yep. It was just needless and distracting. It was creepy. Very fetishistic. I felt like I needed a bath in bleach after reading those bits.

[renault]

Originally Posted by blktoptrvl

Am I the only person in America who found Margot Kidder's portrayal of Lois Lane unattractive?

I am not speaking of the woman herself, but if the way she acted. The way she smoked with her cig hanging limp out if her mouth as she spoke. The way she talked incessantly. The way she was annoying, rude, and crude. I imagine she was trying to play her as a "tough nosed" woman of the world reported who had to mix it up with the boys.

But to me she just came off as the kind of woman you might find at some skid row dive bar.

I could never see what it was that Superman found attractive about her.

I tend to agree. Margot was too much of a toughie in Superman to be attractive but that is purely subjective. I had the same problem with Karen Allen in Raiders of the Lost Ark (Margot's doppleganger). OTOH, these types of female characters are very rare to see in the movies so I can understand how they would appeal to a certain demographic. To each their own. They were at the very least, memorable.

[blktoptrvl]

Originally Posted by renault

I tend to agree. Margot was too much of a toughie in Superman to be attractive but that is purely subjective. I had the same problem with Karen Allen in Raiders of the Lost Ark (Margot's doppleganger). OTOH, these types of female characters are very rare to see in the movies so I can understand how they would appeal to a certain demographic. To each their own. They were at the very least, memorable.

That's interesting, because I always found Karen Allen's (Marion Ravenwood) character to be quite attractive. I liked that she could drink the guys under the table, run a bar off in the middle of nowhere, fight, and generally take care of herself. I think the difference in the two was that while Lois acted tough, Marion WAS tough.

I think I would have liked to see Karen Allen's version of Lois Lane.

[Mark S.]

The thing about Karen Allen: She wasn't in very many big movies, but almost every one she was in turned out to be great. RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, THE WANDERERS, ANIMAL HOUSE, STARMAN, SCROOGED, KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL (I liked it; sue me).