In Defense Of..
I must admit that while I consider myself a cinephile, I enjoy watching a lot of crap. I believe it’s possible to be entertained by certain films (not all) that are objectively bad. Many fall under the “so bad they’re good” category, others are well-intentioned misfires, and still more contain one or two bright spots that enable me to revisit them multiple times. And then there are the films so unfairly maligned, I must take up their cause. In this occasional series we’ll discuss efforts that fall under all these categories.
Why I am doing this? Why not? It’s easy to sing the praises of Spielberg or Kubrick, and quite frankly, people much more articulate than me have already done so countless times. I like to think of myself as crossing all kinds of cinematic boundaries – I’m a sci-fi geek, action junkie and an art house aficionado. I love schlock horror, blacxploitation and light British comedy. And I like a lot of crap that many of my friends probably consider indefensible.
So here goes. Feel free to hurl your bile and venom my way. If I can raise your blood pressure a few levels I’ve succeeded. If you get really bent, just chill. They’re only movies.
Superman IV
Now this is a tough one. Bear in mind I’m not saying these films are good. I am saying that even the crappiest films have some merit. Superman IV is the sad end to the first cinematic saga of the Man of Steel. After two stellar outings and one lousy one (which I find more difficult to watch than Part IV, with the exception of the Clark Vs. Supe battle), the series was sold to low-rent schlockmeisters Cannon Films, the purveyors of nearly every B-action film produced in the 1980s.
They wisely enticed Christopher Reeve back to the fold with the promise of extensive story input, and agreed to produce any project of his choosing. Reeve was disappointed with the campy Superman III (a film whose attempts at humor are painful to watch) and wanted to tackle a serious issue, one worthy of Superman’s attention and ultimately, intervention.
So what’s wrong with Superman IV? The better question is what’s right with it? I’ll get to that in a second, but in case anyone thinks I’m completely nuts, here’s what’s wrong. The story is a heavy handed attempt by Reeve to bash us over the head with an admittedly noble message, which might be forgivable were it not for the film’s other major faults.
The Superman series was known for its state of the art visuals. We believed a man could fly. Cannon refused to budget this film accordingly, and even as a 17-year old, I could tell something was dreadfully wrong from the outset. The film’s effects were probably worse than the George Reeves TV show. The awful blue screen shots of Superman flying were used over and over again, matte lines were glaring and Superman’s costume turned green whenever they were employed (since fixed on the blu-ray).
The film re-used some of the worst tropes of the series (“the kiss of forgetfulness,” the re-powering energy crystal, the never before seen powers, such as “Rebuilding Great Wall of China Vision”). Not only that, it completely dispensed with the laws of physics. Love that bit when Nuclear Man kidnaps Lacy Warfield into space and she doesn’t explode at the speed of light!
Comic books possess their own internal logic that is often a combination of real science and pseudo science, but this film didn’t even try! Lex Luthor steals some Supeman DNA (from a lock of his hair), shoots it into the sun and walla! Nuclear Man is born! Yikes.
The acting of the non-regulars is awful. Jon Cryer should’ve been banned from the profession for his performance as Lex’s Valley Boy nephew Lenny. Mariel Hemingway can’t act her way out of a paper bag and Mark Pillow? Well, we’ll never know since he was dubbed by Gene Hackman (???) but given his status as the Klinton Splisbury of the Superman series, let’s assume he added nothing of value.
The plot (such as it was) was rendered completely incomprehensible when the producers shorn it of 45 minutes to accommodate more showings per day. Any film that runs less than 90 minutes should give you pause. A Superman film that’s 89 minutes? That should scare the hell out of you!
Have I covered it all? Lame plot, shoddy effects, hammy performances, slashed to bits editing
So what’s good?
Christopher Reeve. It makes me so sad that he went out on this lemon, but he plays Superman and Clark as earnestly as he ever did and there are a few moments in the film where he’s…dare I say, poignant? Reeve took his role as caretaker of this character very seriously, and he had every desire to make a good film (and make up for III) but he was screwed.
Reeve essentially performed this role four times, and say what you want about Superman IV, he did not phone it in. By this time, he had both roles nailed, and there are some bits in this film I really enjoy, such as Clark at the family farm and Superman addressing the General Assembly – yes I know it’s heavy handed, but he conveys a real nobility and determined purpose in that scene.
Hackman, for my money, also does not phone it in. He’s the same old conniving, snarky Lex, albeit saddled with the worst foil in the history of anything. You can’t tell me Ned Beatty and Valerie Perrine would’ve said no to this.
It’s great to see Margot Kidder, Jackie Cooper and Marc McClure as well. Kidder and Reeve had an undeniable chemistry, and if you can see past the hokey dialogue and the bad effects, you’ll see it’s still there.
Reeve was my Superman and as such, I can admit a certain bias, but you can’t say I’m not aware of the film’s faults. However, I would watch Reeve do Superman in a dinner theatre production. He’s that good. He embodies the character that well. He is the gold standard. He’s Connery as Bond. He’s Errol Flynn as Robin Hood.
I watch Superman IV and I think of the missed opportunities of the entire series. I think of four or five films directed Richard Donner (a man who had no problem doing sequels) that explored the Superman mythos, pitting Reeve against villains like Brainiac, Bizzaro and Metallo, not unfunny Richard Pryor and his Uniblab or Muscle Bound Blonde Guy with Hackman’s voice.
But I can still watch it. Every time it’s released on a new format, or (and I know this sounds awful to purists) when I don’t have enough time for something longer, I can throw it on and between the moans and groans, I see glimpses of something very special. I see an actor born to play a role giving it his best under the worst conditions. That’s why I can watch it.
I'm ready for your virtual eggs and tomatoes!
Comments