Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

"No pain, no gain..."

 You know those "bad" films that are actually fun to watch and sort of entertain you in spite of everything? Well...

I mean, I can see why this was the last Superman film of its series. The special effects are endearingly crap. The script is cartoonish. The whole thing is very silly. And yet the whole thing remains eminently watchable.

It helps that the characters are well-established, and that Reeve,
Kidder and Hackman are as excellent as always; this film isn’t big, it isn’t clever, it isn’t particularly well made. But it’s fun. So let’s ignore the silliness and the plot holes, including the one where the superpowers don’t seem to resent Superman for throwing billions worth of expensive nukes into the Sun in a scene which harms back to the left-wing wish fulfilment scenes of the early comic books. Let’s not study the political message of the film too closely, though; this is not exactly a detailed philosophical examination of nuclear disarmament.

So, yes. The film is silly, shoddily made and killed the franchise. But it’s also perfect light viewing after a two hundred mile round trip.

Superman III (1983)

"I just don't believe a man can fly..."

Well, this is a very odd way to do a Superman film. We've had two films based very much on the existing mythology but here we have a perfectly entertaining film in which Richard Pryor is superb, but there's very little about the Superman mythos here, even with the same director helming the film. Even the Kryptonite used to turn Superman nasty isn't red. And Robert Vaughn, while excellent, seems to be playing an ersatz Lex Luthor. Lois Lane conveniently sods off at the start so Clark Kent can get all romantic with Lana Lang. And the film starts with an extended sequence of physical comedy. It's a very odd instalment in the series. Thing is, though, when looked at simply as a film, this is actually rather good.

Gus Gorman is unemployed, lazy, but likeable, and when he turns out to be an unlikely computer genius (of a very early '80s type) and much chaos ensues, although the film is always careful to keep him likeable and make it clear that he isn't a bad sort. We also have a rare film appearance from Pamela Stephenson as a bimbo who enjoys reading Kant.

The scenes where Superman deals with the fire at the chemical plant are awesome, and there's some good character stuff in Smallville with Clark and Lana. But possibly the best bit is Superman straightening the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

We end with a very '80s huge computer that Superman has to fight to avoid being turned into a cyborg, after a rather cliched fight in a junkyard between evil Superman and Clark Kent. It's a very weird approach to a Superman film, and I'm bemused as to how this script ever got to be the way it is. But, bizarrely, the film works.

Superman II (1980)

"Well, geez, Mr. White! That's terrible!"

"That's why they call them 'terrorists', Kent..."

I'll come back to the Richard Donner cut later; this blog post is about the theatrical release credited to Richard Lester; a straightforwardly directed, action-packed and, without comparing it to the other cut, magnificent film with only two drawbacks, both of which are arguably excusable in context.

This is 1980; to produce a superhero film that is both excellent viewing for a wide audience- with romance as well as thrills- and to remain broadly faithful to the spirit of the comics while doing this is  a considerable achievement. Mario Puzo's script (what a writer to get!) respects the characters on their own terms while giving us a truly epic tale of a god who gives up his powers for love and ultimately gives up his chance of happiness for the greater good. We're halfway to the cliche that is a Christ metaphor but it isn't overdone. I'm not sure that Superman's regaining his powers is adequately explained- finding the crystal at the Fortress of Solitude is not really enough- but I suppose we don't have to be splinter anything. More problematic is the reset button at the end, both in narrative terms (it renders the romance between Lois and Clark meaningless after all they've been through and all the weight that was placed upon it) and in terms of the simple fact that the main female character has her freedom of action taken away be a man to the point of altering her memory, which is undoubtedly a kind of violation. Still... it's only 1980.

Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder are superb as individuals and, just as importantly, together; they carry this film. Terence Stamp is an effective if actually underplayed villain; I would have liked a little more overacting for a part like this. It's surprising to see Clifton James from Live and Let Die here... in Idaho??? Is the state really as southern as its being portrayed here?

All that notwithstanding, though, this is easily the best superhero film up to this point and arguably for many years after. The bar is well and truly set.