Superman II (Richard Lester, 1980)

"What sort of fragile life-form is this...?"

Introduction

Considering Marlon Brando's voice is used a considerable amount in Superman Returns, you imagine his presence would be integral to the original four films. In reality, this original theatrical cut, he was purposefully ignored to save money. So again, we have a production plagued with problems. Sequences were filmed years apart; Gene Hackman refused to re-film scenes forcing director Richard Lester to use a stand-in - and watching the film back-to-back with Superman means that you notice, in one instance, the exact same establishing shot outside The Daily Planet. With all these serious faults, the film does manage to raise a few interesting points with a plot involving General Zod (Terence Stamp) landing on Earth to cause havoc...

Strange Set-Up

Within the space of an extended opening-credits sequence, we are shown Superman in small, bite-size clips. I can imagine this is merely a contextual issue as audiences had not seen the film since 1978 - something completely different to this "cinema-to-DVD within six-months" world we live in now. But harking back to the previous film and then ignoring the top-billed actor is never going to go unnoticed.

The film consequently moves to Paris to set-up a convoluted story whereby terrorists (amongst them a young Richard Griffiths) threaten to set-off a nuclear bomb from the Eiffel Tower - and Lois Lane simply "happens" to be covering the story. This nuclear bomb, when thrown into space, is the catalyst that sets free Ursa, Non and General Zod from the sheet of glass they were trapped inside at the beginning of Superman. Despite a four-star review from Roger Ebert, Superman II seems equally bogged down with the problem of Superman. A brilliant concept in forcing Superman to lose his powers - something his Mother tells him is "irreversible". Suffice to say, it is reversible and Superman manages to save the day simply enough.

Who would under-use Gene Hackman?

As noted earlier, all of Gene Hackmans scenes were products of Richard Donner's original footage from the aborted back-to-back creation of both films - but funnily enough, Gene Hackman remains top-billed despite his lack of participation under Lester's direction. The story is clearly about Superman defeating the three escapees Ursa, Non and Zod - Lex Luthor is merely a side-kick or, dare I say it, henchman to the three villains. Hardly the top-billed role.

Or maybe Terence Stamp manages to out-act Gene Hackman? The 'campy' attributes of Lex and his sidekicks often jarred and portrayed Luthor in a manner that undermined his intelligence. He seemed to tell us how clever he was, but in comparison to General Zod, he is only someone simply after a quick-buck. (Maybe that is the point. Superman representing the decent American against Lex Luthor representing the corporate money-obsessed American) In contrast, General Zod has the presence and power to demand others to "Kneel before Zod" and, shockingly, we witness the President of the US kneel down before him. Considering Bryan Singer would go onto direct Superman Returns, the break-in at the White House in Superman II must be a source of reference when writing and filming X2. Is General Zod the true threat to America? The power-obsessed dictator?

"Tighter? Leaner?"

This is a flawed sequel. Akin to Superman, Christopher Reeve remains the driving force towards anything credible. General Zod seems to be awkwardly shoe-horned into a plot whereby Superman fights his own demons and desires to be human - but this theme is not weaved into the various other strands in the story. 

We have come a long way since 1980 and it is clear that Superman II was only beginning to understand what audiences expect from a tent-pole comic-book film. Moments as Superman loses his powers are brutal and heart-breaking but these are undermined as he quickly regains the powers he lost. I adore the characters and thoroughly appreciate the intentions but it is too much of a mixed bag to truly enjoy. As a comic-book film, the genre is in its infancy - and the flawed production, again, destroys any chance of fluidity in the narrative. And then, afterwards, he plants the Super-Kiss whereby he can eras Lois' memory completely. 

So, after all that ... we're back to square one.

Superman (Richard Donner, 1978)

"I want the name of this flying whatchamacallit to go with the Daily Planet like bacon and eggs"

Introduction

In the current climate, it is always interesting to think back to a time when comic-book films did not exist. To imagine a time whereby "young buck" Stallone was considered for the role of Superman seems a ridiculous notion - but, fresh off 'Best Picture' Oscar winner Rocky, it didn't seem a bad idea in 1978. The infamous production of Superman was also one of the first productions filmed 'back-to-back' with it's sequel - the vast majority of the sequel was in the can before the first film had even been released. But the job turned into a nightmare for director Richard Donner as producers took a gamble and ceased production on the sequel midway through, to focus on the origin-story of the Man of Steel.

This is a film whereby the lead characters Father and foe were billed above the title - and above the lead actor himself. "Marlon Brando. Gene Hackman. Superman." - oh, and of course a young-chump called Christopher Reeve. In this modern age whereby we are told about scriptwriters and directors years in advance - with paparazzi photos of actors on set - this would be a film that would've been destroyed before even the first trailer arrived. That world didn't exist yet and so the success jettisoned a sequel, using the majority of footage from Donner's shooting, but replacing him with a different director.

Where is Christopher Reeve?

The film begins by almost fifty-minutes of origin. On the planet Krypton, Jor-El (Marlon Brando) and members of the planets government sentence three criminals, including General Zod, to exile, placing them on a sheet of glass and catapulting them into space. Following this, Jor-El reveals to the council - and us - the inevitable extinction of Krypton and he ensures that his son is sent to Earth to survive. Two Smallville residents, Jonathan (Glenn Ford) and Martha Kent (Phyllis Thaxter) find the boy and raise him as their own. Almost fifty minutes in and, without any clear explanation, Clark Kent - following the death of his father and training inside a Mini-Krypton/Fortress of Solitude - is now in Metropolis (aka, New York City). He works at The Daily Plant, alongside Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) and boss Perry Mason (Jackie Cooper). We see Superman, in full gear, saving the day in Metropolis leading to a time-travel manouvre to save the day for his love Lois Lane.

It is 156 minutes long and it is broken in a clear three-act structure. Krypton to Metropolis to California. As we watch the film, it seems epic in scale but something seems amiss. Despite what you may believe is a simple structure, there are many stories that are weaved into the epic length of the film - General Zod at the start is introduced and then disappears only to be seen again in Superman II (an original ending saw Zod destroying Earth - which apparently appears in the Richard Donner cut). The death of Jonathan Kent is a catalyst for Superman to train at the Fortress of Solitude, but seems to bear no clear purpose outside of that. Considering the plot can be summarised in one paragraph without anything noting the arch-enemy of Superman only serves to clarify how redundant he is - and he's not alone either as Luthor (Hackman) has a bumbling sidekick (Ned Beatty) and bimbo-squeeze (Valerie Perrine). What ensures the film is exciting, engaging and enjoyable is one actor alone: Christopher Reeve.

A God among Men

He is iconic in the role and is the sole reason the series managed to spawn a further three sequels. Christopher Reeve is a towering man and manages to balance the two contrasting characters of Clark Kent and Superman effortlessly. In fact, watching the film, you constantly ask whether Lois would see through his "disguise" - I honestly don't know. The entire persona is completely different - his posture changes; his speech-pattern is adjusted.

His performance alone is what holds this film high - and it is a testament to actors across the world. You could argue that the role is what made Christopher Reeve - I would disagree; it is Christopher Reeve that defined the role of Superman and fulfilled it so successfully. Many films have failed considerably due to weak lead actors - the original Captian America is the first which comes to mind. Superman on the other hand holds an actor that, even now, women swoon over and can only compare him to Jon Hamm. Even then, Jon Hamm is shorter so isn't "as perfect" as Christopher Reeve.

Harsh Criticism

Suffice to say, it seems critics in 1978 equally held Christopher Reeve in high regard. Pauline Kael opened her own review praising his talents before destroying the film as a whole - highlighting the lack of reality in the film. Why would Lois Lane be so against an attraction to Clark Kent in the seventies? In a world whereby Woody Allen and his awkward stumbles and grumbles seemed to become a perfect New Yorker - Clark Kent could surely be a lot worse. Kael, of course, is much more eloquent with her words by weaving in the use of-images in Pop Art, comic-strip style filmmaking by Jean Luc Godard and the inevitable saviour-parrallel.

But it remains clear that Superman was ahead of its time, managing to set-up what was clearly hoped to be a series akin to James Bond (definitive theme tune, easy-to-reproduce opening credits, repeatable finale as Superman winks to camera, etc) but instead, bogged down in production-problems, the series seems to have fallen at the first hurdle. I can only imagine the future of the series if the plan was stuck to - two films that worked as a duo; a cliffhanger-ending that would go down in the history books. If it worked, I'm sure we would be watching films in the same canon today - and I'll bet that was why Bryan Singer wanted to create a film that didn't ignore the series completely. But Christopher Reeve remains - immortalised on screen for us to watch again and again.

The Omen (Richard Donner, 1976)

"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast; for it is the number of a man; and his number is 666"

Introduction

I borrowed this from friend Jo who you may notice, often puts his view of films as comments on this very blog, but I raided his collection as soon as he moved to London and amongst the films he had was this. A 'classic' horror film - so they say - that I felt I really should watch so that I know my horror films. Bear in mind this is four years after 'The Exorcist' and three years after Roeg's 'Don't Look Now', so horror films that involve families and demon-children/dead children seem to be a recurring theme in 70's films. But, this seem to warrant many sequels - akin to 'The Exorcist' - and so, the orginal was worth the watch ...

Quick Synopsis

Switched at birth, Damien (Harvey Stephens) is child of Robert (Gregory Peck) and Katherine Thorn (Lee Remick). The Dad, Robert, switched the child as his actual child was a still born. It is 6th June 1966. 6am. The happy family move to England, whereby Robert Thorn is appointed US ambassador to England.

Damien turns five and the family nanny hangs herself in front of everyone and, at the same time, a rottweiler dog barks. Mrs Baylock - a new nanny arrives, and she is clearly a bit weird, while a Priest begins stalking Robert, confronting him on many occassions, warning him about Damien who, he believes, is the anti-christ. Not to mention that Satan himself has decided how Katherines current child, still in her womb, shall not be born.

Not long after telling him this, the priest falls from onto a church spire impaling himself, and, turns out, Katherine is preggers. It's not long before 'Damien' strikes again and he pushes Katherine over a banister. Robert needs to find out more - especially when he sees photographs taken showing ghostly images of the cause-of-death, before the death of the nanny and the priest (E.g. the spire the priest fell onto). That seems unclear, read it again and it should make sense.

The photographer and Robert visit Italy, where Damien was initially adopted and the hospital has since burned down alongside all the birth records. Finding the head priest of the hospital, he is found very ill indeed - having been severely burned giving him only movement in his left hand. But alas, he uses a small piece of charcoal to point them in the direction of Damiens mother. At a graveyard they find that inside one grave is a jackal skeleton - seems he wasn't born of a human and may actually be the antichrist, while in the other grave is the body of Robert and Katherines first child showing that it was not a stillborn but was, in fact, murdered at birth. Cue rottweiler dogs and, luckily, they escape. Robert calls the wife, Katherine, asking her to come to Italy but, before she gets a chance, she is thrown out of the hospital window by Mrs Baylock. Robert is devastated and the photographer and him travel to Israel to find an archaeologist who can stop the antichrist. Bugenhagen, the archaeologist, tells him that there is a way to stop him: by stabbing him with the seven daggers of Meggido. Easy.

Robert can't kill a child though - thats crazy talk - and he throws the daggers to the side. The photographer on the other hand goes to grab them and is suddenyl decapitated by a pane of glass. Robert can kill a child and will. He gets the daggers and returns to England.

He finds Damien and - just in case - he checks his body and finds 666, just as Bugenhagen said, confirming the fact that he is the antichrist. Mrs Baylock trys to kill him but, luckily, he has a knife and kills her - taking Damien to a church. He pulls the first knife and - police break in and shoot him. Robert and Katherine are both dead and have a double funeral.

So Damien has new parents - no other than the President of the US of A. Credits.

What I reckon...

Its all a little messed up to be honest. I watched this a while ago and came away feeling non-plussed. I think the idea of an antichrist is clearly a great idea for a movie, while practically having an actor effective as the antichrist is something different. Probably why the film rests on Gregory Peck's shoulders, and even Damien - the antichrist - needs a nanny to fight off the good guys.

Now, maybe its rooted in some fascinating back-story and history - akin to the history of Dracula and Frankenstein, but I have a funny feeling its not. I mean, 666. Yeah, we get it - the number of the devil. "Born on the the 6th of the 6th of 1966" at 6.06am. Just because you can't do 6.66am. Or maybe you can. he is the antichrist.

As mentioned in the introduction - it wasn't particularly new. Exorcist and Don't Look Now was years before this, so you know it was a product of the new kids-as-evil craze that was sweeping through Hollywood so you have to ask yourself the question - what was so special about this one, because, honestly, I'm not too sure. Its a boy for one - alot of the pre-pubescent girls-who-are-possessed/evil often have some subtext of girls growing up and all that puberty stuff. Exorcist is a prime example, while this is a boy possessed since birth. The horrors are visual also - impaling on a church fence and the dogs, which are adds to the fear factor, but I felt it was all a bit horror-by-numbers and, alas, I am in an awkwards position because I don't know exactly the context it was released within in '76 as I was not born for another four years. maybe there is something about modern day outlook (London) versus traditional, religious outlook (Rome/Vatican). aith was beginning to be less important in society in the seventies, so these little digs at Catholocism might be a product of that - how technology (photography) is, bit-by-bit, making us ignore the real question of faith.

I can't knock the score by Jerry Goldsmith - but it hardly beats The Exorcist now, does it? The little gander I have had of other materials claims that it got more credability because it is played as a Thriller (hmmm...) and that the sequence of the lady hanging herself, happy-as-larry ("this is all for you Damien") is indeed, messed up and can't be really topped by other horrors.

Nevertheless, I have a funny feeling that the franchise this spawned, combined with the notion of a 'Damien/antichrist' tag (To the point that Only Fools and Horses references it) used in pop culture has given us the impression that this film is important to the canon of cinema - or at the very least of horror, when in fact, it just happened to benefit from publicity it didn't ask for.