I don't think that anyone who cares about such things would deny that George Reeves brought a certain dignity and gravitas to the "Superman" role, or that the series (or this movie) wouldn't have been nearly as good without him. So let's get that issue out of the way early - yes, I am a fan of Reeves. He provided the standard that all other wearers of the tights have to be measured against.
I am also aware that the crews that put these things together back in the 50's had extremely limited budgets and shooting schedules. Given the expanded SFX capabilities, materials and budgets (and personal trainers) of the modern era, I am willing to bet that those directors and film crews could come up with products that compare favorably to any of the modern superhero movies that we laud.
Originally I thought this movie was "Superman Versus The Mole Men", so I was kind of surprised ***spoiler warning***when the Mole Men turned out to be timid, harmless midgets who were the victims of a misunderstanding, so Superman spends most of the movie trying to save them, instead of fighting them.***spoiler ends*** But that's OK - the plot had a flavor of seriousness and sincerity that has aged well; there was a strong message of tolerance and understanding between different cultures, which was pretty good writing for the 50s. Any battle scenes they could afford to stage back then would have been pretty lame anyway.
So actually, my main beef with "Superman and the Mole Men" is that it doesn't have enough of Superman in it. Whenever Reeves is on the screen, either in the tights or in his "Clark Kent" sack suit, the eight year old inside me is still tickled silly. But there are long, draggy stretches of the movie where the movie makers try to advance the plot, but actually just pad things out. ****mild spoiler**** Especially useless is a long, extended chase scene where the townspeople chase one of the Mole Men cross country with bloodhounds for at least 10 minutes, until they finally trap him in a small shack and set it on fire (the Mole Man escapes by going through the floorboards). I believe this extended scene was deleted in the two part "adaptation" of this movie to television, which shows that the editors basically agreed with me. ***end of spoiler***
The other problem with the screenplay lies with the way some of the townspeople are depicted: an older guys, "Pops", dies of a heart attack at the sight of, well, munchkins. The oil well boss doesn't warn the crews of the danger they face drilling through radioactive rocks, he just hides the drills. The leader of the lynch mob is not only a xenophobe, and by implication a racist, he's an idiot. How else can you explain the way he takes a swing at the flying bulletproof man who can bend steel in his bare hands - and who knocks him out with one punch -...and then repeatedly tries to shoot the guy in later scenes?
Also, no one ever seems to notice that for a "mild mannered reporter", Clark Kent is a very decisive, take-charge kind of guy. He is, in fact, larger than life even in his secret identity, and it defies belief that no one in this movie, or over the years of the series, ever gives "Clark Kent" credit for his deeds and pivotal roles as a reporter. They really did add up. The character of "Superman" requires a suspension of disbelief in the laws of biology and physics, but the character of "Clark Kent" requires a weird kind of suspension of disbelief in human character and motivation. Lois Lane (no matter who played her), for all her charms, must have actually been dumber than a bag of hammers.
Anyway; Reeves is the only reason to watch the movie, and there isn't enough Reeves in it. That's why only six stars.
I am also aware that the crews that put these things together back in the 50's had extremely limited budgets and shooting schedules. Given the expanded SFX capabilities, materials and budgets (and personal trainers) of the modern era, I am willing to bet that those directors and film crews could come up with products that compare favorably to any of the modern superhero movies that we laud.
Originally I thought this movie was "Superman Versus The Mole Men", so I was kind of surprised ***spoiler warning***when the Mole Men turned out to be timid, harmless midgets who were the victims of a misunderstanding, so Superman spends most of the movie trying to save them, instead of fighting them.***spoiler ends*** But that's OK - the plot had a flavor of seriousness and sincerity that has aged well; there was a strong message of tolerance and understanding between different cultures, which was pretty good writing for the 50s. Any battle scenes they could afford to stage back then would have been pretty lame anyway.
So actually, my main beef with "Superman and the Mole Men" is that it doesn't have enough of Superman in it. Whenever Reeves is on the screen, either in the tights or in his "Clark Kent" sack suit, the eight year old inside me is still tickled silly. But there are long, draggy stretches of the movie where the movie makers try to advance the plot, but actually just pad things out. ****mild spoiler**** Especially useless is a long, extended chase scene where the townspeople chase one of the Mole Men cross country with bloodhounds for at least 10 minutes, until they finally trap him in a small shack and set it on fire (the Mole Man escapes by going through the floorboards). I believe this extended scene was deleted in the two part "adaptation" of this movie to television, which shows that the editors basically agreed with me. ***end of spoiler***
The other problem with the screenplay lies with the way some of the townspeople are depicted: an older guys, "Pops", dies of a heart attack at the sight of, well, munchkins. The oil well boss doesn't warn the crews of the danger they face drilling through radioactive rocks, he just hides the drills. The leader of the lynch mob is not only a xenophobe, and by implication a racist, he's an idiot. How else can you explain the way he takes a swing at the flying bulletproof man who can bend steel in his bare hands - and who knocks him out with one punch -...and then repeatedly tries to shoot the guy in later scenes?
Also, no one ever seems to notice that for a "mild mannered reporter", Clark Kent is a very decisive, take-charge kind of guy. He is, in fact, larger than life even in his secret identity, and it defies belief that no one in this movie, or over the years of the series, ever gives "Clark Kent" credit for his deeds and pivotal roles as a reporter. They really did add up. The character of "Superman" requires a suspension of disbelief in the laws of biology and physics, but the character of "Clark Kent" requires a weird kind of suspension of disbelief in human character and motivation. Lois Lane (no matter who played her), for all her charms, must have actually been dumber than a bag of hammers.
Anyway; Reeves is the only reason to watch the movie, and there isn't enough Reeves in it. That's why only six stars.