'Supergirl' was the fourth movie in the first Superman franchise, sandwiched between 'Superman III' and 'Superman IV'. It's almost automatically categorised in with those two inferior sequels but it's actually an odd little beast all its own. Yes it's campy nonsense still, but it's also a very innocent and naive little film, and shares very little creative personnel with the Superman films. The theatrical version is a bit fuzzy in my mind so comparison would be futile but the director's cut is actually a pretty consistent and coherent story. Apart from bizarre magic clothing changes it's quite logical. Or I'm completely insane. It's a pretty tricky decision to make.
The story is the usual 'girl in pocket dimension city loses power source and comes to Earth to find it and save her home' idea, as we see in so many movies. This time the girl is Helen Slater as Kara the eponymous Supergirl and the villain is a witch called Selena who gets boosted by the power source. While you might think that's hokey, it does mean we can skip a lot of the exposition and just have bad things happen because of magic, and Faye Dunaway really doesn't chew up the scenery too much. It's definitely a better choice than the fairly disastrous happenings of 'Superman III', which film's failure apparently stopped 'Supergirl' being theatrically released in the US at all. As a consequence, perhaps, 'Supergirl' has been forever tainted by it's failed predecessor and it's quite unfair especially when the Director's Cut is a vast improvement. At least I hope it is. I wonder if Helen Slater would have got more jobs if it had been released there. I miss Helen Slater; She had a lovely innocent eyes thing going on. I think 'City Slickers' is due a rewatch.
As with 'Real Steel' the value in this movie is in its self-consistency and reasonable targets. Also in common with the other movie is that it's in no way a masterpiece. It's just an enjoyable and silly romp, albeit one with an impressive Jerry Goldsmith score. It doesn't have the dramatic under-story of 'Superman' and 'Superman II' that presumably originated from Mario Puzo's original treatment but it does have a fairly interesting and novel female coming of age tale. There are reasons to suggest this movie be better thought of simply because it's a uniquely female-led superhero movie. There's not really anything else like it anywhere, especially with the atrocity that was 'Catwoman' and the mediocrity of 'Elektra', admittedly neither of which I've seen.
It's strange to have a movie where Faye Dunaway doesn't rub me up the wrong way. Normally I can't stand her but somehow she's unrecognisable here. Perhaps it's the wig that's dulling her powers, allowing her to quite good. She's no Gene Hackman but who could be really? This movie has been roundly criticised for campiness and over-acting but I don't really see it, not even in Peter Cook's role as the mathematician (yes!) turned warlock Nigel. The worst that can be said is that there are stupid jokes. Helen Slater is fairly good if a little vacant as Supergirl, and the supporting cast supports competently. The worst acting performance is the handsome bloke that Selena and Supergirl end up nominally fighting over in addition to the vital power source 'The Omegahedron'. He starts off as really terribly dumb but improves slowly. His improvement may have been due to the precision coconut strike to the head from the clear blue sky, and I really didn't make that up. There are precision coconut strikes in this film.
One of the main questions that pop into my mind is 'Is cuteness and naivete acceptable in movies?' and it's quite divisive. I say yes, it's totally acceptable. You can make movies like 'Real Steel', 'Speed Racer' and 'Supergirl' and it's fine because I enjoy them. To the world at large, though, it doesn't seem to be something that people want any more. There's no time to be innocent any more, which is why Superman is a problematic characer. It's all so cynical and the people who like these things are organised into little cells, resisting the tide of fist fights and rampant and gratuitous destruction and hoping for better times. Rampant destruction just isn't a Superman thing.
Lingering notes: Peter O'Toole is pretty good as Supergirl's oddly unmotivated or badly written uncle Zaltar. The cheapness of the titles is kind of disappointing. The cinematography is midway between the awesomeness of the Donner cuts of the first two movies and the cheapness of the Lester films. The whole thing has a very European movie vibe to it which is interesting. It's such an odd film. The effects are better than I thought they would be.
To summarise, the director's cut of 'Supergirl' is a lot better than people would have you believe, and it's certainly not as bad as 'Superman III' or the lamentable 'Superman IV'. It's coherent and not a complete mess although it does very much depend on your personal taste. I can imagine people hating it for not having fights or gratuitous violence and too many teenage girls wandering about being girly. It's... cute and small-scale. You might like it.
O.
PS I'll take that precision coconut strike to the head please.
PPS For people that care, you do see Comiskey Park from the air in this film.
No comments:
Post a Comment