Superman (1978)


Action | Sci-Fi


Richard Donner




Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, Gene Hackman, Marlon Brando, Ned Beatty, Jackie Cooper, Glenn Ford, Trevor Howard, Jack O'Halloran, Valerie Perrine, Maria Schell, Terence Stamp, Phyllis Thaxter, Susannah York, Jeff East, Marc McClure, Sarah Douglas, Harry Andrews


The infant Kal-El, of the planet Krypton, makes his journey to Earth in a ship constructed by his father, Jor-El (Marlon Brando), just as the planet explodes. As he grows to manhood, Kal-El (Christopher Reeve) learns he possesses super-powers, and becomes the Earth's greatest superhero.


Although I've been addicted to "Smallville" for about 10 years, I've never been a Superman fan. Singer's "Superman Returns" wasn't that bad, and the new Snyder's films are okay. Still, not enough to make me love the Kryptonian. I thought maybe the original movie would have changed my mind. Turns out I'm probably the only one on the "Superman is a terrible movie" island and I honestly don't get why people love this film so much.

I mean, "Superman" is a very boring, poor film, aged in the worst way, with a screenplay that seems written by a 5-year-old kid.

I haven't read the comic books, so I don't know how faithful the film is, but I can point out the dumbness that laying in the plot. I used to think Kal-El was a smart guy. Apparently he is so smart that tells to a reporter all of his secrets, especially his weaknesses, so said reporter can publish every single word he said for his enemies to read. Deserving a price for smartest guy in the film is also Lex Luthor. Just like his enemy, he is so smart that brings Superman at his own secret place and tells him his plans. As if being that smart wasn't enough, Lex isn't even some insane criminal, but just a crook who wants to take over some real estate. In the process of stopping this badass, Lois Lane dies, so Superman travels back in time to save her. But why didn't he time travel to prevent the nuclear bomb to go off?

I really can't believe Mario Puzo, the guy who wrote a masterpiece such as "The Godfather" took part in this. How that even happened?

Anyway, what makes me cringe the most are the special effects. I'm not comparing them with modern films but with films of the same era, like "Star Wars" that came out one year earlier. And I fail to see how this movie managed to win the Oscar for best special effects. I really fail to. Also the sets, especially the alien ones, are goddamn awful.

However, the film ain't a hundred percent rotten. I really liked Clark Kent as he is the best, funniest part of the entire film, John Williams's score is beautiful, and Christopher Reeve is actually able to give a believable performance as Superman, and despite the film he makes you care for him.


  1. I am one who loves this film. For me, it is the best of the live-action films involving the character. Reeve is just so good in the role, like you said, he makes you care for him. And that score by John Williams is pure greatness.

    I agree Supes completely goofed in the interview with Lois. However, I think that has as much to do with being naive and, possibly, arrogant. He believes in the overall goodness of man, and has never faced a real physical threat in his life. Luthor spilling the beans is completely due to arrogance. He is fully confident he is going to beat Superman. In other words, I'm more forgiving of these instances.

    I am right with you on how far back in time Superman goes. He really could have undone the whole thing with a few more spins round the globe. I'm also with you on how bad the special fx have aged. I'd have to go back and see what else came out that year, but it does seem implausible that this had the best special fx.

    1. I kinda see why many loved this film so much. It just wasn't for me I guess.