|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 26, 2021 3:11:15 GMT -5
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850 
|
Post by dejan on Jan 28, 2021 9:26:36 GMT -5
I personally agree with these 2 chaps (I also would have agreed with them if had seen this review in 1983). Here in the UK we had someone called Barry Norman who was a bit of a tough cookie with fantasy stuff. Siskel (as always) loves a good love story. It's the main reason why he liked I & II. III has a love story(which in my opinion is still well recited) which ultimately never pays off. i.e - If Webster and co had kidnapped Lana(for whatever reason!---can work on that one!) it would have made Supe's final showdown with the baddies that much more engaging. Ebert still says III is fun and entertaining but it's not that special. When I left the theater in 83' (aged 9) my primary feeling was that whilst I still enjoyed what I saw.....it was not as good as I & II. I still preferred it to War Games and Octozippy mongoose though!....but SIII was not as good as Jedi which I saw a month or so before(that feels longer for a 9 year old!). lol---Octopzippy mongoose!----gotta love these command corrections.  |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 29, 2021 3:42:19 GMT -5
I personally agree with these 2 chaps (I also would have agreed with them if had seen this review in 1983). Here in the UK we had someone called Barry Norman who was a bit of a tough cookie with fantasy stuff. Siskel (as always) loves a good love story. It's the main reason why he liked I & II. III has a love story(which in my opinion is still well recited) which ultimately never pays off. i.e - If Webster and co had kidnapped Lana(for whatever reason!---can work on that one!) it would have made Supe's final showdown with the baddies that much more engaging. Ebert still says III is fun and entertaining but it's not that special. When I left the theater in 83' (aged 9) my primary feeling was that whilst I still enjoyed what I saw.....it was not as good as I & II. I still preferred it to War Games and Octozippy mongoose though!....but SIII was not as good as Jedi which I saw a month or so before(that feels longer for a 9 year old!). lol---Octopzippy mongoose!----gotta love these command corrections. I applauded Lana being used somehow & Annette O Toole was a great choice, but I thought her inclusion had a chance to be a bit deeper. STM and SII were giant hits, I think they could have taken a 'chance' with more depth. Perhaps they could have even gotten the actors who played high school Lana and Clark in STM & had flashbacks where she knew some of his secret. Instead, I felt from reading the script, they just wanted something very light and tried to cash in on what they felt was going to be be a big hit with Richard Pryor being quite popular at the time. One critic said it was the only Superman film where Superman was a bit of a guest star in his own movie. I don't quite agree with that, but the priorities for the script smacked more on packaging a hit rather than making a great Superman film. There are good bits in it, but STM and parts of SII made me hungry for more character stuff. They could have had a story that had the cool superhero material and deeper character stuff at the same time. |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Jan 29, 2021 20:03:29 GMT -5
@cam
Totally agreed with all your points there.
Reeve said several times in interviews promoting III that he thought it was still a good movie.
Years later when he was able to speak more freely he denounced it completely.
It was a missed opportunity to go out on a real high.
However given the fact that in 83' there really was only Jedi....III still stood out as piece of high end entertainment.
Technically it's great......it's weakness really came down to the lack of efficacy with regards to the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 30, 2021 1:36:11 GMT -5
@cam Totally agreed with all your points there. Reeve said several times in interviews promoting III that he thought it was still a good movie. Years later when he was able to speak more freely he denounced it completely. It was a missed opportunity to go out on a real high. However given the fact that in 83' there really was only Jedi....III still stood out as piece of high end entertainment. Technically it's great......it's weakness really came down to the lack of efficacy with regards to the story. Richard Lester had the same light approach for SIII as for Three Musketeers.... but it was a perfect fit there. That film is a classic and the best Musketeers adaptation imo. Lester is a capable director but I just thought his aesthetics didn’t make for the best interpretation for Superman. Maybe another superhero like Plastic Man or Deadpool. |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Jan 30, 2021 14:23:35 GMT -5
@cam Totally agreed with all your points there. Reeve said several times in interviews promoting III that he thought it was still a good movie. Years later when he was able to speak more freely he denounced it completely. It was a missed opportunity to go out on a real high. However given the fact that in 83' there really was only Jedi....III still stood out as piece of high end entertainment. Technically it's great......it's weakness really came down to the lack of efficacy with regards to the story. Richard Lester had the same light approach for SIII as for Three Musketeers.... but it was a perfect fit there. That film is a classic and the best Musketeers adaptation imo. Lester is a capable director but I just thought his aesthetics didn’t make for the best interpretation for Superman. Maybe another superhero like Plastic Man or Deadpool. Haha Deadpool done by Lester! Personally was not much of a fan of the actual Deadpool that we got(might be in a minority on that one).....so I will take a hypothetical Lester version any day ( just kidding!). Totally agree with the aesthetics analysis/verdict there. But with one caveat. Because of STM's structure: The first 2 parts(Krypton and Smallville) were intrinsically serious.....with the final 3rd, being more comic book in tonality.....although Lois's death could have been lifted directly from the Omen!. So by and large(excluding Lois's death) ,from an aesthetic viewpoint, Lester's SII and SIII don't diverge that much(tonally or technically) from the final 3rd of STM IMHO(maybe we can have a discussion on that in another thread). I would be curious how Lester would have handled melancholic scenes like Smallville or the tragic fate of Krypton if he had helmed STM?!(maybe not very well!). Having said that, Lester did direct Juggernaut in 1974 which is a thriller-disaster movie. Have not seen it for a couple of decades.Seem to remember enjoying it. Might bag it on blu ray at some point. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 30, 2021 15:21:09 GMT -5
Richard Lester had the same light approach for SIII as for Three Musketeers.... but it was a perfect fit there. That film is a classic and the best Musketeers adaptation imo. Lester is a capable director but I just thought his aesthetics didn’t make for the best interpretation for Superman. Maybe another superhero like Plastic Man or Deadpool. Haha Deadpool done by Lester! Personally was not much of a fan of the actual Deadpool that we got(might be in a minority on that one).....so I will take a hypothetical Lester version any day ( just kidding!). Totally agree with the aesthetics analysis/verdict there. But with one caveat. Because of STM's structure: The first 2 parts(Krypton and Smallville) were intrinsically serious.....with the final 3rd, being more comic book in tonality.....although Lois's death could have been lifted directly from the Omen!. So by and large(excluding Lois's death) ,from an aesthetic viewpoint, Lester's SII and SIII don't diverge that much(tonally or technically) from the final 3rd of STM IMHO(maybe we can have a discussion on that in another thread). I would be curious how Lester would have handled melancholic scenes like Smallville or the tragic fate of Krypton if he had helmed STM?!(maybe not very well!). Having said that, Lester did direct Juggernaut in 1974 which is a thriller-disaster movie. Have not seen it for a couple of decades.Seem to remember enjoying it. Might bag it on blu ray at some point. Honestly, I wasn't crazy on first view of the change of tones in STM - and particularly with Luthor as used car/real estate salesman---in fact, on first view, it drove me nuts! With SII and seeing the scenes Donner shot playing him off of the 'super-serious' villains was hilarious and was a perfect counterbalance. Before I saw the script (much later on) for Donner's SII- I just felt the scary/exhiliarating 'Zod' in the beginning of STM and the moon attack of SII was the kind of Darth Vader-level villain I wanted for Superman..... not the watered down version for laughs with Lester's rewrite. Zod became a two dimensional cartoon alternating with the charismatic/scary Donner version of Zod, imo. Under Donner & Mank- Zod was done as a psychopath, quietly whipsering everything until he blows up during the 'kneel before ZOd!!!' Daily Planet scene. Under Lester's rewrite, he's fascinated with the siren at the top of a police car, lets the sheriff and deputy leave alive for no reason (under Mank's script- the villains are killing just about everyone in their path- far different and more 'Dark Knight'- like than the Newman's rewrite- which is more arbitrary in what's important to them in the script... maybe it's more family friendly - though the scene with the killing of the kid seems more offensive than the other scenes by Donner in its way.) There's a consistency to the villains behavior and action in the Mank script. In the Lester rewrite, it's more arbitrary (as well as the powers). I think you are correct in that- because of the shift in tones in the first movie, it allowed freedom to go either directon from there. The tone for SII could have shifted either way and arguably could 'kind of' fit--- either with a dominance of darker or sillier. Lester chose sillier for much of it (though he kept the Donner scenes intact mostly) . Donner's script was definitely darker.... but Donner's script bore in mind tying things directly from things started in part 1. I probably would be less annoyed if there were enough footage to truly have had a real Donner cut. Though.... if Donner hadn't put out the idea that enough was there - misleading or not- if he had said there were only a few scenes completed- then we might NEVER have seen the footage that did exist that I was curious about. On the flip side: What about the scenes that even Ilya Salkind mentioned were already shot? Why couldn't we see Ursa's carving up of Mount Rushmore? What of the prelude to the White House scene? (Possibly not shot, but who knows now?)-- In the script, the White house scene has even more impact because the defense was planned towards them coming through the front door- and so the attack from the ceiling is even more of a suprise. |
|
