BRADFORD, YORK & MOSI SAVED?

Being reported in the Manchester Evening News today, there are very strong indications that the three museums up for closure, Bradford Media, York Railway and MOSI have ALL been saved, for now at least. Manchester University’s Prof Brian Cox has led a campaign with I took part in, which 40,000 signatures were committed to a petition.

Here is an exerpt from the M.E.N.

“The Museum of Science and Industry will be saved – following a massive campaign by M.E.N readers.

Culture minister Ed Vaizey insisted the landmark museum or its two sister sites in Yorkshire would ‘not close’.

The Manchester landmark museum, York’s National Rail Museum and the National Media Museum in Bradford were all named as potentially ‘at risk’ by their parent organisation earlier this month.

The Science Museum Group (SMG) said it may be forced into shutting one of the venues due to an expected £6m deficit in its budget, forced by government cuts.

But nearly 40,000 M.E.N. readers signed a petition calling for the Manchester attraction to be saved – and our campaign was backed by star scientists including Prof Brian Cox.

Petition to save the Museum of Science and Industry

Mr Vaizey today told the BBC: “They [the SMG] asserted if there was a certain level of cuts they would have to look at closing one.”They are not going to receive those level of cuts so there is no reason why any of these museums should close.”Let’s not beat about the bush – they won’t close.”

However, there was no confirmation from the DCMS this morning about the minister’s statement – or whether any new commitment had been given.

It was reported that instead of a 10 per cent budget cut could the SMG could instead face a lesser five per cent reduction.

The Science Museum Group said it was also looking into the matter.”

This is obviously great news. The loss of any museum is this day and age is scandalous and to lose our local industrial museum, MOSI and Bradford’s Media, possibly including the country’s last remaining Cinerama screen, the Pictureville cinema. Good luck to all three and hopefully this will be an end to the threats of closure and not just the first round in a long running battle to save our heritage.

THE QUIET MAN

1952

DIRECTOR: John Ford

NOT A PART OF OUR COLLECTION

May Contain Spoilers!

Will we be adding this to our collection? YES

John Wayne died the year after I was born and as such grew up with the image of a man who as a gung-ho American action heroic icon, often propagated by his legendary feature films with director, John Ford. But here, instead of a Western, we have a gentle, solid and timeless comedy in which The Quiet Man (Wayne), returns to his home village in Ireland in the 1920′s to get away from tragedy in the U.S.

Wayne’s boxing career had ending in tragedy when he killed his opponent in the ring and racked with guilt, he vows never to fight again. Once in Ireland, probably the worst place in the world to try to up hold such a vow, he falls out with his burly neighbour Will Daneher (Victor McLaglen) and in love with his strong-willed sister (Moureen O’Hara) prompting a conflict through the veil of some serous Irish stereotyping. It’s ALL here but done with such reverence it’s hard to take offence, even at lines uttered by the friendly IRA representative who retorts to Danaher at one point that if they were involved that his house would have been burned to ground!

But the romance is as strong as the drama is dramatic  and comedy is funny, both are plausible. But this has to be one of John Wayne’s finest performances, playing against his perceived type, yet still bringing that edge, he holds this film together with a strong brooding but lighthearted character, which plays well against the ensemble with few, if any, weak links.

Far from politically correct but still a loving portrayal of Ireland, beautifully filmed and Ford managed to create a timeless classic.

A note about the current DVD releases. Back in the 1990′s it was easy to pick this up an a bargain bin VHS but now, it’s quite a pricey addition to your collection, but the video quality was poor on the version which I have seen and is currently available for around £10 on Amazon. But it certainly doesn’t justify the price tag as a DVD. The film is priceless but the image quality is far from it. Hopefully we were just unlucky with our edition and whether this issue is across the board I do not know. Beware.

 

THE ROCK

1996

DIRECTOR: Michael Bay

May Contain Spoilers!

Back in 1996, the idea of a sympathetic villain in an action blockbuster such as this seemed to be something out of left field. Yet we have General Frank Hummel (Ed Harris) leading his troops into a top-secret weapons base to steal sixteen VX rockets, which if deployed, any one could take out an entire city with a vicious poisonous gas. But soon after, he makes his demands and they are to make amends by paying out millions to them which should have been paid to Black Ops soldiers, if the system was fairer.

But when all is said and done, Harris is a leading a group of mercenaries and terrorist who are holding the city of San Francisco to ransom, or are they…? Enter Stan Goodspeed (Nic Cage) and John Mason (Sean Connery). Cage is a chemical weapons expert sent to disarm the missiles and Connery is an ex S.A.S. officer, not too dissimilar to James Bond, who has been incarcerated for 30 years for not giving up a microfilm which contains all the U.S.’s most valuable secrets.

He is also the only person to have escaped from The Rock, or Alcatraz, which is where Harris has placed his missiles, as well has taken a tourist group hostage. The beauty of this, Michael Bay’s second feature following Bad Boys (1994), is that is so well paced. The opening sets up the VX missiles and that Harris is the bad guy, then we move on to an action scene in which we meet Cage and he has to defuse a bomb. Then The Rock is taken, the threat to San Francisco is set up and the we finally meet Connery.

But it’s here, about 30 minutes in, that the film takes a 25 minute detour into a new movie! Bay seems to dump The Rock plot and spends the next half hour establishing Mason and his past, as well as planting the seeds for Goodspeed and Mason’s partnership later.

But it works. Soon after the team is sent to The Rock and the film which we expected to watch is finally here. The beauty is that there are levels of complexity which set this apart from his contemporary counterparts. The terror is good and makes enough sense, the motives are both honourable and practical and the S.E.A.L. incursion of which Cage and Connery are a part, is played really well.

Plausibility is on their side even though this an action film to the extreme. It is pure fantasy and is in no way likely to happen and even if such a terror plot was to take place, the idea of freeing James Bond to help out a geek is about as plausible as sending a team of oil drillers into space… oh hang on… Armageddon…?

All in all, The Rock is a roller coaster ride of a movie, taking a layered plot, filled with enjoyable characters and situations and have fun with them. But the weight of the drama and threat is taken seriously but lightened by these characters in order for us not to look too hard at the details of what is actually going on. Because if we did, we wouldn’t survive the plot holes.

Highly Recommended

THE END OF SUPERMAN…

… Week, that is. If you’re not a not a fan of the 75-year-old superhero, the movie franchises and or building up the release of Man Of Steel (2013), then the week commencing 10th June would have been a long one. But it’s all over now, with regular service resuming tomorrow morning at 9:00am (GMT) but barring next Friday’s review of Man OF Steel, nEoFILM now has a complete collection of theatrical movie reviews, spanning 1941 – 2006. The high points were Superman: The Movie (1978) with 9/10 and Superman Returns (2006) 8/10, though many would disagree with that last choice. The rest of Christopher Reeve entries did pretty well, 7/10 and 6/10, Superman IV: A Quest For Peace (1987) not being half as bad as fans would suggest. Still no masterpiece though, either.

Early entries such as the Max Fleischer cartoons (1941 – 1943) did really well, 9/10 making them joint top with Superman: The Movie, but the George Reeves pilot movie, Superman And The Mole-Men (1951) only rated at 4/10. But the lowest entry of the week was a film which only came to my attention due to a review by Now Playing Podcast, as part of their Superman Retrospective Series, Steel (1997). Based on a comic book character, a replacement for Superman after his comic book death in 1993, Steel had little to do with the Superman franchise in film terms, instead going down the Batman route, but I couldn’t resist reviewing it as so few have seen it. It only scored 3/10 though and there’s a reason as to why it’s not widely available.

So, that’s all folks. Superman was 75 in April and the latest movie has hit theatres with good reviews, though not perfect, but on Wednesday I’m on my way to see it and should have my thought up load a clear by Friday morning, so stay tuned.

SUPERMAN RETURNS

2006

DIRECTOR: Bryan Singer

May Contain Spoilers!

The return of Superman in 2006 was met with mixed reviews. 2005 had seen Batman Begin(s) his rise to the top of the DC Comic genre, and in my opinion, the top of the comic book adaptation genre full stop. The idea of finally getting Superman back on the big screen after 19 years was brilliant.

There had been so many rumours, director’s and ideas since the 1987 disaster that was Superman IV: The Quest For Peace, with Nic Cage and Tim Burton’s adapt sticking in my mind, but X-Men director Bryan Singer was hired for the job and took some very interesting and classy decisions. Firstly, this was a not a reboot as such, though in many ways, it was in all but name.

This was a recasting of the 1978 Richard Donnor mold, with a Christopher Reeve look-a-like, Brandon Routh as Clark Kent/Superman, though be it with an updated suit and a plot with states that Superman had returned to the remains of Krypton after the events of Superman II, when he defeated Terrance Stamp’s, General Zod.

So, this is a sequel to Superman II, the Richard Lester theatrical version mind, NOT the Richard Donnor cut released after but in the works during, this film’s theatrical release. Confused yet? Now, we take Superman: The Movie as cannon; Superman II, the original cut, as cannon; But we dismiss Supe’s II, The Donnor Cut, for the reason that by the end of this version which my be superior, the events are erased as Superman turns time back, again; We also must ignore the Richard Prior vehicle, Superman III and the flop which was number IV.

This is my problem with Superman Returns. The idea seemed to be that if you make a sequel then you get away from explaining the well-worn origin story of Kal-El’s arrival on earth and eventual decision to become the Man Of Steel we end up with an all this anyway. Granted, he returns, but in manner not dissimilar to the way that he arrived and there’s still flashbacks of his youth.

We also get a plot sequel but it’s hard to take this as a sequel when all but Routh doing great Reeve impression, all the other character’s bear little resemblance to the original cast members and then there’s the sets and production design. Metropolis of the 1978 was New York City of the same era, but Singer’s 2006 Metropolis is an Art Deco work of art and it looks stunning, but not in keeping with the 1978 vision.

So, all besides the events of the first two movies being sighted vaguely in the cannon, with the most notable being references to the article Lois Lane wrote upon meeting and naming Superman entitled “I spent the night with Superman”, and some the of iconic musical cues, that’s about it. Editor/Composer’s John Ottman’s score is nice and makes great use of the John William’s original cues.

The rest is a reworking of the original movie, down to Lex Luthor’s played brilliantly by Kevin Spacey, destructive real estate plans, earthquake of sorts and the obvious angst between Lois and Superman. But this is a treat as this is what Superman: The Movie would have been if it had been shot today. Let’s not forget that Superman: The Movie was a spectacular special effects epic of the time, with the tagline, “You’ll believe a man can fly”. And that may well have been true.

But in this film, you do. The visual effects are outstanding throughout and the general feel is classy and grown up, but that leads to times of ponderously slow pacing, angst and melancholy. But this was clearly what X-Men was to X2. Bryan Singer needs to get it into his head that starting a franchises with films that he will later declare to be trailers for the second as his did with the X-Men series is not a good idea full stop, but certainly not when number 2 isn’t forthcoming.

This was a financial failure which I find hard to accept as it certainly made a large profit but not as much as they were expecting or wanted. This is the end of the franchise as we know it, even though this was clearly only half of the story. We’ll never see how this version was going to pan out and that is crying shame but for me, who is a great fan of the Donnor original and grew up loving Lester’s sequel, this was Superman envisioned at it’s best.

The action sequences were stunning in detail and pacing. A delicate hand, held this Goliath together, as did a great cast with the exception of Kate Bosworth who I feel was the film’s main mis-step in casting. This is a long film clocking in at around two and half hours and is seemingly aimed at an adult audience which is a mistake if ever there was one.  Surely a glossy film about a man with limitless superpowers is surely a one for all ages, and kids must be the core audience for this, I know I was for the originals.

Overall, this a beautifully crafted film, well cast, directed and shot but it may be TOO well put together and missed the mark as to who its true audience is. Kids, Teenagers and Fans. Everyone else can like it or lump it. I was 26 when this came out, so I was not a kid, a teenager or a fan of anything more than the films, but I liked it but I didn’t love it. I do however wish that Singer had been allowed to complete his vision and that Superman had returned again; The 2013 Reboot not withstanding…

Tomorrow sees the U.K. release of the Man Of Steel (2013), with the production team behind The Dark Knight Trilogy (2005 – 2012) and the director of Watchmen (2009) and 300 (2006), this could either be a game changer or another noble effort. Only time will tell…

N.B. This review was originally posted on 26th April 2011. This post contains a few minor revisions.

STEEL (1997)

1997

DIRECTOR: Kenneth Johnson

NOT A PART OF OUR COLLECTION

May Contain Spoilers!

Will we be adding this to our collection? NO

I know Kenneth Johnson namely from V, the 1980′s cult mini-series in which humanoid aliens, who turn out to be lizards in human suits,  begin a Nazi styled takeover of the world, but he is also known for Alien Nation (1988), both the film and the subsequent TV series and his work on The Incredible Hulk TV show. Here, after stating that he was  not interested in doing another superhero project, he was seduced by the idea of doing another version of Batman.

Only Steel isn’t Batman, he supposed to be Superman’s successor following the character’s death in 1993, in DC Comics that is. In that period there were several successors to Superman and Steel was one of them. But by the time the 1997 movie was being produced, basketball players where becoming film stars, in no small part due to the appalling Space Jam(1996) starring Michael Jordan, the year earlier. So, as Steel we have Shaquille O’Neal taking on the role which quite frankly, could have been performed by any part of the SET better.

The plot is derivative and almost too boring to recount and the overall tone is that of a television movie rather than a blockbuster, and in fact the $16,000,000 movie only made little over $1,000,000 back, only being released in the U.S. and two other territories. In the U.K. it was a straight to video release and was therefore seen by nobody, sparing millions from having to sit through the ridiculous title sequence, featuring what sounds like porn music and cheap footage of molten steel being poured. But is this a lost classic?

Absolutely not! The unreleased The Fantastic Four (1994) was not a gem but it was still better that this. O’Neal’s performance is appalling but so are the hammy performances from the better known supporting cast, including Charles Napier who seems to think that this is a comedy. Should this have been a comedy? It can’t have been any worse but no, I think that it could have been treated properly and still held its own better than this but with the ridiculous casting choice of  O’Neal as the leading man and the TV-sentric tone of the whole project, this resembles a pilot rather than a motion picture.

A real shame that this relatively unknown DC character from the early 1990′s has been wasted like this. The film almost goes out of its way to distance itself from Superman, who Steel is effectively there to replace, in the comics at least. This  can only benefit the flagging Superman franchise at this time though, trust me.

Until recently, I had never heard of this film, and it is only available by Warner Archives in the U.S. where they burn a copy to order, a service which I thought was for the golden era classics, but here it is, as well as YouTube, which is where I watched it. The best place for it to be honest.

Thanks to Now Playing Podcasts for introducing me to this film and finding the tedious link to the Superman franchise in their own retrospective review series. That link is paper-thin in the film world guys, but still it’s rare movie, which is hardly a surprise based on its poor quality, but still it’s always nice to see something which you may otherwise have missed.

Overall I would give this a miss. It’s not the Steel from the comics if you like that and in turn it’s nothing to do with Superman. The quality is worse than that of Superman And The Mole-Men (1951), George Reeves’ first Superman feature and trust me, that was no gem either.

THE ‘REEL’ MAN OF STEEL: SUPERMAN AND THE MOVIES

Today we celebrate the release of Man Of Steel, in which Henry Cavill will be donning the red cape but no red underpants, as Superman. The review will be up next Friday but for now, let’s take a look at some of what we’ve had so far, in the cinema anyway…

• SUPERMAN (MAX FLEISCHER CARTOONS (SHORTS) 1941 – 1943 Max Fleischer (9/10) was a man more famous for Popeye than Superman, but these shorts were integral part in the evolution of the Man of Steel. Here, he didn’t fly, he leaped buildings in a single bound and was yet to be affected by Kryptonite. In 1941, Superman was barely three years old and was established in comics, hitting cinema screens for the first time and also on the air waves with his radio serials, all of which added something to story would be included in the other. The cartoons are good, simple and short, just a colourful and entertaining animated effects real, portraying Superman in ways which would be beyond the live action incarnations for over 70 years.

• SUPERMAN AND THE MOLE-MEN 1951 Lee Sholem (4/10)The pilot for the 1950′s TV series led by George Reeves. The series was what you would expect but this is still important and without “films” and TV shows such as this,  Superman may well have been consigned to the printed page forever.

-

-

• SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE 1978 Richard Donner (9/10) Bold, brash and epic. This was where Superman as we know him today began, with an all-star cast, new look,  ground-breaking special effects and it was penned by the writer of The Godfather, Mario Puzo! And what about John Williams’ theme… Brilliant!

-
-
-

• SUPERMAN II 1980 Richard Lester & Richard Donner (7/10) Considered to be the best, but either way it was the most enjoyable. Shot back to back with Superman (1978) this is part 2 of the Superman revival. Kneel to Zod!

-

-

-

• SUPERMAN II (THE RICHARD DONNER CUT) (1980)/2006 Richard Donner & Richard Lester (7/10) A brilliant and insightful concept of completing what was effectively a lost film, but it was never going to be fully realised so many years on. Still good and enjoyable but lacking the cohesion needed to flat-out beat the Lester version. Both are equally as enjoyable as they are flawed.

-

• SUPERMAN III 1983 Richard Lester (7/10) More humourous and the beginning of the end for Christopher Reeve’s Man Of Steel, Superman III was more slapstick than epic.

-

-

-

-

• SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE 1987 Sidney J. Furie (6/10) Often dismissed as ludicrous, but it’s much better than it looks. This looks at Superman’s acceptance as  citizen of earth and his choice to intervene in it’s future, in this case, the Nuclear arms race. The Film is poor though on almost every technical level but entertaining enough and with a message or two wedged in.

-

-

• SUPERMAN RETURNS 2006 Bryan Singer (8/10) A much better version than many think, this is a serious take on the last son of Krypton (Brandon Routh). It’s not perfect but it’s scale is epic and it’s focus is mature. But the action may have been sacrificed in it’s favour. Still My second favourite movie after Superman: The Movie (1978).

-

-

• MAN OF STEEL 2013 Zack Snyder Superman is reborn, or rebooted, take your pick. Henry Cavill is taking on the mantle and the responsibility of bringing the Man Of Steel to life once more. With Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer and Zack Snyder producing, writing and directing, there’s a lot going for it. But there’s also a who heap of hype to contend with too…

-

-

Between 1987 and 2006, there were several attempts to revive the franchise, with many names coming to fore including the prospects of Nicolas Cage and Tim Burton! And even after the lukewarm reception of Superman Returns (2006), Singer was planning his sequel, which I would have very much liked to have seen, even holding back a few deleted scenes for it, such as Kal-El’s return to Krypton.

So, today’s the day, will Superman actually return for good or is this just going be another failed effort. But with the Marvel universe leading the way, this is certainly the best time to succeed so good luck Supes!

Man Of Steel is out in Cinemas today!

THE MAN OF STEEL RETURNS…

Today sees the return of Superman, now with Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan’s production team at the helm.

With New York’s red carpet premier last Monday night, the reviews flooded the internet by Tuesday morning and they were generally very positive. No 5 star or 10/10 reviews though. The highest that I have read so far rates the film at 9/10. Empire and Total Film give the film 4/5 and the general consensus is the films is action packed, well paced and spectacular but is lacking a certain amount of emotional depth and fun.

But 4/5 is a great review in my book and was pretty much what I was expecting. I will be seeing this film next Wednesday with the review due next Friday so stay tuned for my views if your interested, that is. This is also the final day of what has been a week dominated by Superman, beginning with a Top 10 Superhero movie list, in which Superman: The Movie (1978) and Superman Returns (2006) both featured and was swiftly followed by the first Superman review of the collection, the Max Fleischer Cartoons of the 1940′s.

George Reeves’ Superman And The Mole-Men (1951) laid the ground for the four Christopher Reeve features, leaving two more reviews today to cap the week off.

By the time the collection is finished, there will have been a couple of re-posts, with yesterday’s Superman IV: The Quest For Peace being one of them but this is my definitive collection of reviews and articles of The Man Of Steel, and by next Friday with Man Of Steel (2013), it will be completed.

For all those going out this  weekend to watch what may be the most anticipated movie of the year, then I hope that you enjoy yourselves.

Also, a very happy birthday to by Step-daughter, Georgia, who is 12 today!

SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE

1987

DIRECTOR: Sidney J. Furie

May Contain Spoilers!

Was Superman IV the Batman & Robin (1998) of the Superman franchise? Absolutely not! Was Superman IV a franchise killer? Afraid so, but what it isn’t is a terrible movie, as many would claim. In 1978, Richard Donner brought us a comic book movie which blended comic book extravagance with sentimentality and characters which were crafted. Superman was our savoir, rather than a corny superhero, yet with Gene Hackman’s comedic take on Lex Luthor, the film walked the line between both family entertainment and an epic film scribed by the writer of The Godfather (1972)!

Hackman is back in his role here, as is the late Christopher Reeves, but with different producers, less money and in the end, a poorly developed screenplay and film on the whole. But as many believe that Superman IV: The Quest For Peace is a load of nonsense, I would disagree. The concept is good. The dilemma as to whether Superman should intervene in the nuclear arms race and end the threat of nuclear armageddon was topical in 1987 and is interesting as Superman makes planet affecting decisions every day, yet it is within the lore that Superman must not directly interfere with the planet’s evolution.

If Jesus has destroyed the Roman Empire would he have saved the world in the same way as Christians believe? No. Then we get Nuclear Man, a superman created by Lex Luther in order to destroy the real Superman and take over the world. The plans sound good except for the fact that Luther is NOT GOD! The creation of Nuclear Man is ridiculous though the results aren’t so bad. Not quite General Zod and his band Kryptonian criminals from Superman II (1980) but there’s always something fun about two superheroes smacking each other down.

But the effects let this down, as ropy isn’t the word. But a surprise here is the score, composed by a man who is most famous for creating the original Star Trek theme, here he delivers a kinetic score, which defiantly suits the tone of the movie and plays well with John Williams’ iconic themes.

Overall, this was a flop back in 1987 and it would 19 years before Singers effort, Superman Returns (2006), one which I liked but many did not. The effects are poor but with more time and money this could have been improved, as the concepts behinds them was not. The film may well have been better, but some the of the writing was ludicrous, such as the fact that humans can apparently be taken up into space with no ill effects and even after Superman declared war the worlds nuclear weapons, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. continued to launch them for no reason except as a plot conceit so that the Man Of Steel can collect them, place them into a gigantic net and throw them into the sun!

More fun that you probably remember and more enjoyable that it should be but no masterpiece and the worst in the series as a whole.

N.B. Originally reviewed 16th January 2013.

Man Of Steel flies into cinemas tomorrow

SUPERMAN III

1983

DIRECTOR: Richard Lester

May Contain Spoilers!

The last Superman movie to be produced my the Salkinds, with Supergirl (1984) ending their relationship once and for all, Superman III was let off the leash as it were and Christopher Reeve shed many of the tropes from the previous two films, whether directed by Richard Donner or not. But Richard Lester, of Superman II (Theatrical Version) was back, now free to bring his over the top sense of slapstick humour to the franchise in earnest.

This is where Superman’s third outing went wrong. Opening with a credits sequence set over a well choreographed slapstick sequence, which leads to the Man Of Steel’s entrance, sets the film’s tone, but in all fairness, if you take that down a notch, there’s more to Superman III than first appears.

Gone is Lex Luthor and in is Robert Vaughn’s (The Man From U.N.C.L.E) Webster, along with his sister Vera (Annie Ross) and lover Lorelie (Pamela Stevenson), who’s blond bimbo act is just that, as she tips her hands a few times during the movie. But this is as much a Richard Pryor comedy as it is a Christopher Reeve Superman blockbuster. But the plot, which takes Supes away from Metropolis for much of the run time, is well conceived, following multiple strands, including a simple super-villiany scheme to control the price of coffee, and then oil by using computers, which back in 1983 could absolutely ANYTHING, to hack into satellites and what not.

In the course of all this, Superman becomes infected with a poorly manufactured composition of Kryptonite, which is effectively the same as Red Kryptonite as for the effects. For a time he becomes evil, dark and is only cured by the famous scrap-yard confrontation in which Superman splits into his two halves, the other being Clark Kent and they fight it out, with the good Superman winning out.

It all ends up in a fight in the Grand Canyon at the site of a super-computer designed by Pryor’s Gus Gorman and is good fun, but all in all, this is not epic Superman, it’s just fun action Superman. But is that a bad thing? Well, it all depends on what Superman is to you. I love the dark, brooding Christ-like superhero, the savour but Superman has been many things in his 75 year history and Superman III is a throw-back to the simpler, lighter character who is distant from the one established in the 1978 epic, which is arguably responsible for the serious comic movies which we enjoy today.

Before Richard Donner’s Superman: The Movie (1978), the genre was a joke and this is the direction which Lester was taking the franchise. The jokes were well handled but many were in the wrong movie and  the screenplay wasn’t bad at all, just would have been better served with the stupidity of the humour. But not all the jokes were bad and there are some genuine laughs.

But Christopher Reeve plays his role well, often typecast as Superman up until his tragic accident in 1993, he was a very decent actor, capable of handling the split personalities of bumbling Clark Kent and the charismatic boy-scout, Superman as well as making it look easy. Well, it isn’t.

Many will consider this the last of the Superman movies, others a step too far, with Superman IV: The Quest For Peace (1987) being all but dismissed, unfairly might I add. But it’s not always the case that a film must live up to its promise to be enjoyable. Not every film is The Godfather (1972), Jaws (1975) or The Dark Knight (2008) but it is often the case that we judge these failures harshly.

Superman III is a step down in class from the first two, but as a child, I loved it! And now, watching it back after 30 years,  I still find it to be enjoyable for what it is. Yes, the logic of Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor) skiing off a skyscraper is ludicrous but the dark Superman stuff, the action packed conclusion and the Clark Kent’s story of returning to Smallville were all well-played.

Just sit back and enjoy it. Try to pick it apart all you want, it almost unravels in your hands but so will so many films. And Superman IV isn’t half as bad as you remember it either…