Change Your Image
runawayman71
Reviews
Superman (1978)
Most overrated movie of all time
"Superman: The Movie" has, by far, the worst plot ever put on film. No movie ever made has a plot that depends so much on stupidity as the plot of Superman. Not even movies about stupidity (e.g., Dumber And Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd) can top it in that category.
But let's take a look at the plot: Lex Luthor buys cheap mid-western real state with the intention of sending a nuclear missile to San Andreas fault, thus sinking the whole west coast, which would cause his cheap real state to become the new west coast, thus making him rich. Never mind the fact that the plan is neither physically possible nor economically viable, those are the least of this movie's problems. The problems start when, luckily for Luthor, the US Army, who are depicted as the most incompetent group of buffoons in the history of cinema, decide to launch 2 nuclear missiles within US territory, with enough fuel to reach both coasts and no failsafes whatsoever. They literally just plan to hurl the missiles up into the air and hope for the best because if anything goes wrong, they're screwed. The missiles are going to be transported from the base where they are stored to the launching base (where no one will ever check if anything went wrong) by a group of soldiers so dumb and horny they'll leave their post in unison at the sight of a scantily-clad woman lying in the pavement ahead of them.
It's bad enough that the only real difference between Luthor's plan to hijack the missiles and a Coyote's plan to capture the Road Runner is the number of empty Acme boxes lying around afterwards. It's bad enough that the plan actually works, thanks to the spectacular incompetence of the US Army. It's bad enough that Otis (Luthor's henchman) demonstrates that he is the stupidest living being ever put on film by screwing up a task a 6-year-old child would've done correctly. But what makes this sequence completely unbearable is the fact that Otis' screw up is going to play such an important part in the plot later on. Quite literally, Otis' braindead screw up is the one and only reason Superman manages to defeat Luthor.
Then Luthor realizes that Superman could still foil his plans so he decides to get rid of him, and using reasoning that Uwe Boll would've been ashamed to put on film, he "deduces", out of the blue, the existence and effects of Kryptonite. Then he lures Superman into his lair (in the sewers) so he can kill him. At this point, Superman is completely clueless regarding the missiles and Luthor's plan. If Luthor has kept his mouth shut, he would've won. But just to prove that this movie is nothing but a bad James Bond movie written by Ed Wood, and that Luthor is nothing more than a poor man's Goldfinger, he tells Superman everything about his plan, including how to stop it if he desires to do so. Then he puts the Kryptonite necklace on Superman, pushes him into a pool, and continues his James Bond-villain impersonation by conveniently walking away for no readily apparent reason, hoping that Superman is nice enough to die unsupervised and stupid enough not no realize that all he has to do is to bend over and let the necklace slip from his neck. All Luthor had to do was to wait two minutes for Superman to drown. If he was in a hurry, he could've helped him. But no, he walks away.
So Superman is in the pool, a Kryptonite necklace slowly draining away his powers and even his very life. This is the first time in the whole movie that Superman cannot simply muscle his way out of a problem. So what does he do? Does he demonstrate that being a hero is about the heart, not the muscles? Does he demonstrate that a hero might be down, but he's never out? Does he demonstrate that a true hero will always find a way to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat no matter what the odds are? No, that would be SuperGIRL. What Superman demonstrates is that he's absolutely worthless without his muscles. So how does he get out of there? Well, it turns out that Otis' screw up in programming the missile has conveniently sent it to the town where the grandparents of Luthor's henchwoman live. And she saves Superman so he can save her grandparents, in what is effectively the worst "plot twist" in the history of cinema.
And when you thought things couldn't get any stupider, they do. Superman stops the first missile, but not the second one, which strikes San Andreas fault and causes a huge earthquake. Several really crappy FX scenes later (including one where Superman lifts a whole mountain range which, incredibly enough, stops the earthquake instead of causing a bigger one) Lois Lane dies. So (and prepare your brain cells for this one) Superman flies around the Earth, reversing Earth's rotation, and thus reversing time, magically undoing all the stuff that had just happened. He literally just hits the "undo" button and makes all the bad things go away.
If a lesser superhero, let alone a female one, had tried to get away with this kind of garbage it would've instantly won a Razzie for worst screenplay of the century.
Supergirl (1984)
A considerable improvement over the Superman movies
The way some people see Supergirl is the perfect demonstration that feminists have been right all along: a woman does have to work twice as hard just to earn half the pay and a tenth the respect of a man.
The double standard is astounding; the same people who can watch Superman reverse time by reversing Earth's rotation without so much as blinking, are the same ones who complain that they never explained where Supergirl got her outfit. They see nothing wrong with a depowered Superman who walks all the way to the North Pole without food, water or so much as a scarf, where he recovers his powers without explanation. Then they turn around and complain that Supergirl wasn't wet when she came out of the lake. When the depowered Superman discovers the world has been taken over by a superpowered madman, he walks to the North Pole. He doesn't run, or jog, or ride a dogsled or anything; he walks there. When Supergirl arrives to Earth, she decides that having a base of operations, sleeping on a comfortable bed, and eating real food are better than sleeping in the woods eating crickets. Guess who is accused of not showing enough desperation in the face of adversity and who isn't.
Most of the flaws that people see in Supergirl exist only in their imagination. For instance, Supergirl's costume. The movie clearly shows that Supergirl can change the shape of her outfit at will. She does it when you first see her in her Supergirl outfit, then when she changes to Linda, then when she flies out the window to confront the invisible monster, etc., etc. So why is it that people complain about the wrong thing (the first appearance of her Supergirl outfit) rather than the right one (her unexplained ability to change her clothes)? Because they were not interested in watching the movie, they were only interested in finding flaws in it. But how can she change her clothes anyway? Let's see, she's a superpowered being who can move at nearly the speed of light, who comes from a civilization several hundred years ahead of ours and who wasn't exactly wearing clothes bought at Kmart to begin with. Maybe she uses her speed. Maybe her clothes can chance their shape. Who knows? By the way, is there anyone over six years old who believes that Peter Parker could've made such a stunning costume by himself when it took a small army of designers and seamstresses to make the ones used in the movie? Of course not. Is there anyone who cares? Of course not, it's just a freaking costume. Oddly enough, this reasoning, though perfectly valid when applied to Spidey, is never used with Supergirl.
Another complaint is that the movie never explains how Supergirl knows so much about Superman. Er, did anyone miss the fact that half the movie is spent with Selena chasing Supergirl all over the universe using a device from Argo City? Do I need to remind anyone that Kryptonians aren't exactly Amish?
Some people claim the movie has bad dialogues. Like when Supergirl asks a thug "why are you doing this?" and he responds "that's just the way we are." Let's assume for a moment the apparently preposterous notion that what characters say should be the result of their intelligence, knowledge, independent thought process, plus the context of the dialogue. So here's the scene: two thugs confront Supergirl with the intention of "having fun" with her. She easily throws one of them away and asks him why he is doing this (this is the first time she's ever met a "bad guy"). And what exactly do people expect his response to be? Shakespeare? A 2-hour dissertation on the psychological origins of his motivations? A one-liner so full of charm and wit that would make Jon Stewart insane with envy? This guy is neither an English professor nor a rocket scientist and the only things in his mind were the curvier parts of Supergirl's anatomy. He's not interested in impressing anyone or sounding witty. He simply says the first thing that comes to his mind, and what he says is pretty much within the ballpark of what you'd expect from him given the circumstances. The problem is that people are too used to characters in other superhero movies who are nothing more than a mouth and an attitude, plus a collection of puns and one-liners waiting to happen, where the idea of characterization is to have a guy yell "kneel before Zod!" every ten minutes.
But the silliest complaint is that she joins a school instead of going bananas trying to find the Omegahedron. Let's see, when you're looking for a needle in a haystack, what would be more productive: to be smart and methodical or to run around like a headless chicken? Supergirl chooses the first option. She finds herself a comfortable base of operations (where she can easily find all the information she needs about Earth), where she hides during the day, using the night as a cover while she searches. But why would she hide? Because when you're searching for a dangerous weapon, the last thing you'd want to do is let its current owners know you're looking for them. They'll either hide or sneak up on you. Once again, people are so used to stupid superhero behavior (e.g., Superman struggling to pull the Kryptonite necklace over his head instead of just bending over) that they're unable to recognize the one time when someone uses her brain.
In the end, there's nothing that Supergirl does wrong that Superman doesn't do ten times worse, yet all the disastrous flaws in Superman are either ignored or dismissed as nice little quirks that give the movie a lovely homemade feeling while every tiny detail in Supergirl is regarded as a crime against humanity. Is that sexism? You bet.