Superman vs Superman

"Superman the Movie" is the best super hero film every made. Which is pretty remarkable because it was made over 30 years ago (1978 to be precise). Why is this? The answer is simple; unlike other super hero films this one has managed to do something others haven't. Its an epic, it has sweep and grandeur. By having these elements "Superman the Movie" accomplices the main mission of a comic book which is to be modern day mythology. This is only appropriate because Superman is the one comic book character that transcends his medium. He is the gold standard of comic book characters. That I like this movie as much as do is pretty remarkable because I can't stand Superman the comic book character. He's a goody too shoes, his only weakness is courtesy of rock from his home plant of Krypton, and his main villain (Lex Luthor) has no super powers. His motivation for hating Superman as I once read (and agree with) is the worst motivation for a super villain ever. He lost his hair as a result of Superman. Let's not forget Superman's clever disguise for his secret identity consists of a pair of glasses and him slouching. The movie counteracts all these problems by making us care about the character. Plus there is the joy factor. Superman enjoys being a super hero and because he does we enjoy him. There are other positives about this film. The cinematography is amazing, the special effects hold up over 30 years later (they received an Oscar ), and of course that iconic score composed by John Williams (Oscar nominated). I reserve my highest praise for two other important components-the directing and the acting. Richard Donnar was the right person with the right approach. The wrong direction would of sunk the movie. Instead it received the right direction so the movie soars. As for the acting, gold medals both to late Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder. Kidder isn't the prettiest woman but what does have going for her is two great attributes. A great attitude (she very determined) and an intelligence that suits the character. Because of this we understand why Superman would fall for her. As for Reeve what is there to say. He is the physical personification of the character. Plus he so relishes playing not only Superman but Clark Kent its infectious. As for "Superman Returns" nothing in it goes right. Which is shame. It seemed like the right approach (pretend that parts 3 & 4 never happened; we could be so lucky.) Instead it is set 5 years after the events of "Superman II" (one of the best sequels ever made) and the events of this film transpire from there. It was directed by Bryan Singer who seemed like the ideal choice for this role. He enjoyed both critical acclaim (for his film debut the "Usual Suspects") as well as box office success due to his helming the first two "X Men" movies. ("X2" is one of the best super hero films every made). He was the one who came up with the film's approach which would wind up handicapping it. He seemed to be guided by the principal of W.W.R.D.D. (What would Richard Donnar do). He should have used his own style. Instead he tried to replicate someone else's. The film is totally miscast. Poor Brandon Routh tries so hard as Clark Kent/Superman. Which is his problem. He acts as if the weight of the world is on his shoulders. Christopher Reeve on the other hand is Clark Kent/Superman. He accepts his role and doesn't let it take away from the joy that can be derived from it. Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, while prettier than Margot Kidder, has neither the determination nor intelligence that Margot Kidder brought to the role. She has no chemistry with Routh which is one of the cornerstones of the Superman saga. Reeve and Kidder had it in spades. Than there's the fact that she portrays a mom in this film. I think the fact she isn't a mom in real life hurts her portrayal. I don't think a person has to be a parent to effective portray one but it certainly helps. I say that a different Kate should have been used-Kate Beckinsale. She every bit if not prettier than Bosworth. She's a mom so that would not have been a stretch. She would have brought the determination and intelligence to the role that Kidder did. Plus she has a sci-fi connection due to the "Underworld" films. I always felt that one of the few weakness of "Superman the Movie" was Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor. I wanted him to play the role more seriously not so broadly. But after seeing Kevin Spacey play the role this way I'm no longer certain if that's a valid concern. The scene where he stabs Superman with kryptonite seems out of place and just plain vicious. If that had occurred in just about any other super hero film it would seem in keeping with the average comic book. But Superman is more mythical than the average comic book. Therefore a scene like that can't exist in the Superman universe. Another problem is the film's length. It runs 154 minutes compared to Superman the Movies' 143 theatrical cut and 151 in its restoration cut for DVD. This was keeping with Singer wanting to replicate Donnar. The original was epic so this one must be. It fails. You feel all of the 154 minutes. Whereas with the original you hardly feel the length. I say hardly because the opening sequence on Krypton feels a bit ponderous due to the acting. This is offset by the striking cinematography, costumes, and production design. Plus you get a glimpse of General Zod, the outstanding villain, who is showcased in part II. Lastly the story is a retard of some of the best elements of the original. Superman saves a space shuttle that's about crash (an airplane in the original), he takes Lois on a romantic flight, and thwarts Lex's attempt to create new real estate. I was once told 'don't try to be just be.' "Supeman the Movie" is and "Superman Returns" tries to be; that's the difference.