In this precursor to the Superman series, Superman comes to the defense of subterranean creatures who are under attack from local townspeople. The script is good as is George Reeves' acting, but all others are one-dimensional. The creatures look like little people (either midgets or children) with skull caps on. There are no interesting visuals or props, except for a weapon that looks like a child's toy only larger and it is really too large for the creatures to handle. The high point in the movie is George Reeves' performance, both his acting and superhuman feats.
33 Reviews
No 'Mild Mannered Reporter' Here! Kent Fights Racism!
Chance2000esl28 April 2007
This film is notable for three reasons.
First, apparently capitalizing on the success of the two 'Superman' serials, this low budget feature was made and released to theaters, marking George Reeves' and Phyllis Coates' initial appearances as Clark Kent / Superman and Lois Lane. Part of the opening is re-used in the series. Outside the town of Silby, a six-mile deep oil well penetrates the 'hollow Earth' allowing the 'Mole-Men' to come to the surface. Forget about the other holes (those in the plot).
Second, unlike most SF invasion films of the fifties, the hero plays a dominant (and controlling) force in preaching and enforcing tolerance and acceptance of difference against a raging mob of segregationist vigilantes. No 'mild mannered reporter' here! Clark Kent, knowledgeable and self-assertive, grabs control of the situation throughout ("I'll handle this!"), even assisting in a hospital gown in the removal of a bullet from a Mole-Man! As Superman, he is gentler than Clark towards the feisty Lois, but is also the voice of reason and tolerance as he rails against the vigilantes as "Nazi storm troopers."
Third, you will notice that the transition from the Fleisher-like cartoon animated flying of Superman in the two serials to the 'live action' flying in the 'Adventures of Superman' had not yet been made.
First, apparently capitalizing on the success of the two 'Superman' serials, this low budget feature was made and released to theaters, marking George Reeves' and Phyllis Coates' initial appearances as Clark Kent / Superman and Lois Lane. Part of the opening is re-used in the series. Outside the town of Silby, a six-mile deep oil well penetrates the 'hollow Earth' allowing the 'Mole-Men' to come to the surface. Forget about the other holes (those in the plot).
Second, unlike most SF invasion films of the fifties, the hero plays a dominant (and controlling) force in preaching and enforcing tolerance and acceptance of difference against a raging mob of segregationist vigilantes. No 'mild mannered reporter' here! Clark Kent, knowledgeable and self-assertive, grabs control of the situation throughout ("I'll handle this!"), even assisting in a hospital gown in the removal of a bullet from a Mole-Man! As Superman, he is gentler than Clark towards the feisty Lois, but is also the voice of reason and tolerance as he rails against the vigilantes as "Nazi storm troopers."
Third, you will notice that the transition from the Fleisher-like cartoon animated flying of Superman in the two serials to the 'live action' flying in the 'Adventures of Superman' had not yet been made.
Made to sell TV stations on airing the TV show
AlsExGal22 December 2019
Daily Planet reporters Clark Kent (George Reeves) and Lois Lane (Phyllis Coates) arrive in the small town of Silsby to do a story on the closing of the world's deepest oil well. Not long after, a group of small, glowing beings emerge from the well tunnel and strike fear in the hearts of the locals, who soon form a vigilante posse in order to kill the strange invaders. It's up to Kent, in his guise as Superman, to stop the mob violence before it's too late.
This was an independently produced presentation piece intended to sell local stations on buying the Adventures of Superman TV series. Lippert thought it was good enough for a theatrical release. It was later aired as a two-part episode of the show. Despite being the first episode, the filmmakers forego a Superman origin story, and instead present this rather meager story. Superman in costume is actually present very little. Jeff Corey, as the detestable leader of the vigilante mob, seems to be on screen longer Reeves. This runs less than an hour.
This was an independently produced presentation piece intended to sell local stations on buying the Adventures of Superman TV series. Lippert thought it was good enough for a theatrical release. It was later aired as a two-part episode of the show. Despite being the first episode, the filmmakers forego a Superman origin story, and instead present this rather meager story. Superman in costume is actually present very little. Jeff Corey, as the detestable leader of the vigilante mob, seems to be on screen longer Reeves. This runs less than an hour.
Reeves' Debut as Man of Steel Still Timely...
cariart21 September 2003
In anticipation of the television series, 'The Adventures of Superman', this third 'live-action' Superman was the first 'feature' film (the previous entries had been serials). Replacing serial 'King' Kirk Alyn as the 'Man of Steel' was George Reeves, a gifted 37-year old actor who had been impressive in such 'A'-list productions as 'Gone With the Wind', 'The Strawberry Blonde', 'Lydia', and 'So Proudly We Hail!' Returning from the war, however, his career, as was the case with so many other young actors, had stalled. Reduced to supporting roles, or leads in 'B' films and serials, 'Superman and the Mole Men' represented yet another minor film, but Reeves hoped the exposure from both film and television might jump-start his flagging career...
He little anticipated what impact Superman was about to have on his life!
A cautionary tale, with elements 'lifted' from 'Frankenstein' and 'The Day The Earth Stood Still', begins as miners drill the world's deepest shaft, and break through to an underground world. Two of it's inhabitants, bald, radioactive midgets, decide to secretly investigate our world. Doing a feature story on the well for the 'Daily Planet', reporters Lois Lane (Phyllis Coates, inheriting the role from the serials' Noel Neill), and Clark Kent (Reeves), finds a town gripped with fear and prejudice, as an old man had suffered a heart attack after seeing the 'visitors'. Despite pleas for tolerance, the residents arm themselves, and plan to 'shoot first and ask questions later', particularly after the ball of a little girl who sees them (and has an innocent encounter), has enough residual radioactivity to glow in the dark. Shots are fired, the aliens bring up their own weapons, and it's up to Superman to 'save the day'!
Reeves' interpretation of 'Clark Kent/Superman' was far less jovial and buoyant than Alyn's; decisive, serious, and nearly combative, this was a 'Superman' you didn't mess with (the characterization would be toned down, for television). Square-jawed and more muscular (aided by a tee shirt with sewn-in shoulder pads, beneath the costume, to make him even more formidable-looking), the greatest variance between his interpretation and the comic books' was in his 'take' on Clark Kent. Reeves gave the reporter courage and integrity, as opposed to the 'meek, mild-mannered' geek that readers were familiar with (and who would be revived by Christopher Reeve, 26 years later). While some critics complained that he made Kent and Superman's personalities too similar, Reeves and the producers wisely realized that as budgetary restraints kept Superman's presence in the movie (with the FX required to show his 'super powers') to a minimum (there aren't ANY flying sequences in 'Superman and the Mole Men, only cast comments..."Look, up in the sky"... and a close-up of his 'catching' a falling alien), Clark Kent would be on-screen more, 'standing in' for the Man of Steel. Kent 'had' to be stronger, to fill the void.
Phyllis Coates was fabulous, as Lois Lane. No longer the serials' air-headed girl reporter who kept getting into trouble, Coates' Lois was strong, smart, and every bit Clark Kent's equal. She redefined the role, and when Noel Neill returned to the part, on TV several years later, she had big shoes to fill!
Aided by an excellent supporting cast (including screen veterans Jeff Corey, Walter Reed, and J. Farrell MacDonald), 'Superman and the Mole Men', despite its small budget, offered excellent performances, and a theme of tolerance that still rings true, today.
With the success of the film, 'Superman' moved on to television...and history was about to be made!
He little anticipated what impact Superman was about to have on his life!
A cautionary tale, with elements 'lifted' from 'Frankenstein' and 'The Day The Earth Stood Still', begins as miners drill the world's deepest shaft, and break through to an underground world. Two of it's inhabitants, bald, radioactive midgets, decide to secretly investigate our world. Doing a feature story on the well for the 'Daily Planet', reporters Lois Lane (Phyllis Coates, inheriting the role from the serials' Noel Neill), and Clark Kent (Reeves), finds a town gripped with fear and prejudice, as an old man had suffered a heart attack after seeing the 'visitors'. Despite pleas for tolerance, the residents arm themselves, and plan to 'shoot first and ask questions later', particularly after the ball of a little girl who sees them (and has an innocent encounter), has enough residual radioactivity to glow in the dark. Shots are fired, the aliens bring up their own weapons, and it's up to Superman to 'save the day'!
Reeves' interpretation of 'Clark Kent/Superman' was far less jovial and buoyant than Alyn's; decisive, serious, and nearly combative, this was a 'Superman' you didn't mess with (the characterization would be toned down, for television). Square-jawed and more muscular (aided by a tee shirt with sewn-in shoulder pads, beneath the costume, to make him even more formidable-looking), the greatest variance between his interpretation and the comic books' was in his 'take' on Clark Kent. Reeves gave the reporter courage and integrity, as opposed to the 'meek, mild-mannered' geek that readers were familiar with (and who would be revived by Christopher Reeve, 26 years later). While some critics complained that he made Kent and Superman's personalities too similar, Reeves and the producers wisely realized that as budgetary restraints kept Superman's presence in the movie (with the FX required to show his 'super powers') to a minimum (there aren't ANY flying sequences in 'Superman and the Mole Men, only cast comments..."Look, up in the sky"... and a close-up of his 'catching' a falling alien), Clark Kent would be on-screen more, 'standing in' for the Man of Steel. Kent 'had' to be stronger, to fill the void.
Phyllis Coates was fabulous, as Lois Lane. No longer the serials' air-headed girl reporter who kept getting into trouble, Coates' Lois was strong, smart, and every bit Clark Kent's equal. She redefined the role, and when Noel Neill returned to the part, on TV several years later, she had big shoes to fill!
Aided by an excellent supporting cast (including screen veterans Jeff Corey, Walter Reed, and J. Farrell MacDonald), 'Superman and the Mole Men', despite its small budget, offered excellent performances, and a theme of tolerance that still rings true, today.
With the success of the film, 'Superman' moved on to television...and history was about to be made!
The first superhero movie!
ericstevenson1 April 2017
Yep, this is in fact the first superhero movie ever made! The movie itself isn't that good, but it's great to watch if only because I got to see literally the only black and white superhero movie ever made. Superman was the original comic book superhero so it only fits it would be about him. I'm launching Superhero Month and will try to spend April watching every superhero movie ever made! Well, the ones I haven't seen. Anyway, besides that, the movie itself isn't really that good. It was actually originally a two or three part episode of the George Reeves Superman show.
Could this also be the first movie based on a TV show? No, because this led up to the TV show. Anyway, the movie itself has pretty bad special effects. The worst scene is probably when Superman is rescuing one of the mole men and it just looks awful. This had no appearance by Lex Luthor or any other Superman villain or any Superman character besides him and Lois Lane. Still, I couldn't help but have fun watching such an old superhero movie. It's just great to know how far we've come and I do love my superheroes. **
Could this also be the first movie based on a TV show? No, because this led up to the TV show. Anyway, the movie itself has pretty bad special effects. The worst scene is probably when Superman is rescuing one of the mole men and it just looks awful. This had no appearance by Lex Luthor or any other Superman villain or any Superman character besides him and Lois Lane. Still, I couldn't help but have fun watching such an old superhero movie. It's just great to know how far we've come and I do love my superheroes. **
Superman and the Mole-Men: Considerably better than you'd assume
Platypuschow24 December 2017
Before Henry Cavill, before Brandon Routh, before Dean Cain, even before Christopher Reeve but after Kirk Alyn we had George Reeves as Superman. Make no mistake the man was iconic and many would argue the real Superman as he was in over 100 episodes of the original Superman television series.
Here in his first and sadly due to his passing last big screen adventure Superman has to tackle mysterious creatures that have come up through a drilling site.
This "Movie" is actually a two parter from the television series that they stuck together and released in cinemas. For that reason it's only an hour long but is just the right length for such a brief story.
It's not action packed, the creatures aren't super villians and no super powers are really seen. This is a more subtle approach and see's the citizens as the antagonists as they rally together into a mob (As people probably would in such a situation)
I didn't expect to enjoy this as much as I did but it's a nice short bit of take your brain out entertainment and considerably better than anything Cavill has done as the worlds most famous superhero.
The Good:
Simple story
Well written
A more realistic approach
The Bad:
The Mole People look ridiculous
Here in his first and sadly due to his passing last big screen adventure Superman has to tackle mysterious creatures that have come up through a drilling site.
This "Movie" is actually a two parter from the television series that they stuck together and released in cinemas. For that reason it's only an hour long but is just the right length for such a brief story.
It's not action packed, the creatures aren't super villians and no super powers are really seen. This is a more subtle approach and see's the citizens as the antagonists as they rally together into a mob (As people probably would in such a situation)
I didn't expect to enjoy this as much as I did but it's a nice short bit of take your brain out entertainment and considerably better than anything Cavill has done as the worlds most famous superhero.
The Good:
Simple story
Well written
A more realistic approach
The Bad:
The Mole People look ridiculous
Boring
ashfordofficial11 April 2023
The first feature film based on any DC Comics character.
Originally served as a trial balloon release for the syndicated Adventures of Superman TV series, for which it became the only two-part episode, "The Unknown People". A science fiction mystery starring Man of Steel. A story with themes of mob lynching and radiation poisoning. One of the best Clark Kent / Superman and Lois Lane live-action portrayals. I liked how they made Superman's flight very creatively.
The movie started as okay but then it gets really tiresome. It's not a bad movie, it's just boring.
The first feature film based on any DC Comics character.
Originally served as a trial balloon release for the syndicated Adventures of Superman TV series, for which it became the only two-part episode, "The Unknown People". A science fiction mystery starring Man of Steel. A story with themes of mob lynching and radiation poisoning. One of the best Clark Kent / Superman and Lois Lane live-action portrayals. I liked how they made Superman's flight very creatively.
The movie started as okay but then it gets really tiresome. It's not a bad movie, it's just boring.
The first feature film based on any DC Comics character.
Superman's First Feature has Lasting Appeal
mstomaso27 August 2009
I rented this film from Netflix for two reasons - I was in the mood for what I thought would be a silly '50s sci-fi-asco and because it is the first feature-length Superman film. Needless to say, after about 15 minutes I found myself thoroughly engaged and very pleasantly surprised.
An experimental oil well has penetrated about six miles into the earth and is being shut down by the sponsor. Lois and Clark show up to get the scoop but are disappointed that the deepest well ever drilled will no longer be in operation. A day later, strange events at the well make for a story more appropriate for Superman than Clark Kent. It seems that the radioactive Mole Men have invaded from their six-mile deep home near the earth's core.
Supermen and the Mole Men is a simplistic but well-made piece of social realism. Released in 1951, starring a lead actor who served in World War II, the moral of the story seems to be that Americans are just as capable of becoming fascists as anybody else. To drive this point home in a typically straightforward Superman manner, Reeves even accuses the lynch mob hunting the Mole Men of being 'Nazis' at one point.
Even in the 1950s, the science underlying this film was nonexistent. Six miles of drilling through continental crust would not have even penetrated the upper mantle, let alone the "hollow center of the earth" - which, in any case does not exist. Forgivable - keep in mind that this film is based on a golden age comic book.
The film is a little unevenly paced. Although the Molemen are interesting, a bit creepy, and nicely portrayed, there are several Corman-esquire scenes which spend too much time redundantly showing us their odd behavior. The script is intelligent and economical. By today's standards, the costuming is poor to fair, but for its time, this film's special effects and costuming were quite good. The cinematography is also generally very good, and the acting is much better than one might expect. I was particularly impressed with Reeves, Jeff Corey and Walter Reed.
An experimental oil well has penetrated about six miles into the earth and is being shut down by the sponsor. Lois and Clark show up to get the scoop but are disappointed that the deepest well ever drilled will no longer be in operation. A day later, strange events at the well make for a story more appropriate for Superman than Clark Kent. It seems that the radioactive Mole Men have invaded from their six-mile deep home near the earth's core.
Supermen and the Mole Men is a simplistic but well-made piece of social realism. Released in 1951, starring a lead actor who served in World War II, the moral of the story seems to be that Americans are just as capable of becoming fascists as anybody else. To drive this point home in a typically straightforward Superman manner, Reeves even accuses the lynch mob hunting the Mole Men of being 'Nazis' at one point.
Even in the 1950s, the science underlying this film was nonexistent. Six miles of drilling through continental crust would not have even penetrated the upper mantle, let alone the "hollow center of the earth" - which, in any case does not exist. Forgivable - keep in mind that this film is based on a golden age comic book.
The film is a little unevenly paced. Although the Molemen are interesting, a bit creepy, and nicely portrayed, there are several Corman-esquire scenes which spend too much time redundantly showing us their odd behavior. The script is intelligent and economical. By today's standards, the costuming is poor to fair, but for its time, this film's special effects and costuming were quite good. The cinematography is also generally very good, and the acting is much better than one might expect. I was particularly impressed with Reeves, Jeff Corey and Walter Reed.
The Super Start Of Something Super Big
redryan6427 November 2016
DESIGNED AS SORT of a big screen kick-off for the ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN TV Series, the MOLE MEN feature is somewhat mixed bag of a film. On the one hand , it has an obvious look of a frugal budget. As a feature accompanying the bottom line, the picture was released by Hollywood's "Poverty Row" member, Lippert Pictures, Inc.
BEING THAT THIS is the first on screen teaming of George Reeves with Phyllis Coates as Kent/Superman and Lois Lane, it came across very well and convincingly. When the feature is viewed by a true aficionado of the TV Series, there is little evidence as to its being the initial paring; save for the intensity displayed by George. He obviously was still growing into the role and developing his own interpretation. (You know, "What's my motivation Lee?" to director Sholem.)
THERE ARE NO scenes depicting the Man of Steel flying over us in the sky; which would become so popular and expected in the series. They did have him shown taking off sand landing and one shot depicts his point of view of the land below; an interesting and effective process that was never used again. Also, animation is used to portray Superman's rescue of a wounded Mole Man from a fall off of the dam. (This was similar to the cartoon flying effect used in the two Columbia serials, SUPERMAN (1948) and ATOM MAN VS. SUPERMAN (1950).
THE TONE AND mood of the movie was the same as that which permeated the entire first season of television. Some thought them to be just a trifle too serious and violent for the small fry viewers, sort of Film Noir. This was changed in season number two. The shift in content's emotional tone was accomplished by replacing producer Robert Maxwell with DC Comics editor, Whitney Ellsworth.
WITH THE RUNNING time of 58 minutes, it was the perfect length to cut into two episodes of the television series (the only two part story they had). The titles were "The Unknown People" parts one and two; which were wisely made into the last two episodes of season one. The regular characters of Jimmy Olsen and Perry White did not appear and weren't mentioned in the credits.
ALTHOUGH THERE WERE certainly some short comings, the over all effect was a good one. Lois Lane, Clark Kent and Superman all hit the ground running and are still doing so on television outlets like METV and Heroes & Icons.
BEING THAT THIS is the first on screen teaming of George Reeves with Phyllis Coates as Kent/Superman and Lois Lane, it came across very well and convincingly. When the feature is viewed by a true aficionado of the TV Series, there is little evidence as to its being the initial paring; save for the intensity displayed by George. He obviously was still growing into the role and developing his own interpretation. (You know, "What's my motivation Lee?" to director Sholem.)
THERE ARE NO scenes depicting the Man of Steel flying over us in the sky; which would become so popular and expected in the series. They did have him shown taking off sand landing and one shot depicts his point of view of the land below; an interesting and effective process that was never used again. Also, animation is used to portray Superman's rescue of a wounded Mole Man from a fall off of the dam. (This was similar to the cartoon flying effect used in the two Columbia serials, SUPERMAN (1948) and ATOM MAN VS. SUPERMAN (1950).
THE TONE AND mood of the movie was the same as that which permeated the entire first season of television. Some thought them to be just a trifle too serious and violent for the small fry viewers, sort of Film Noir. This was changed in season number two. The shift in content's emotional tone was accomplished by replacing producer Robert Maxwell with DC Comics editor, Whitney Ellsworth.
WITH THE RUNNING time of 58 minutes, it was the perfect length to cut into two episodes of the television series (the only two part story they had). The titles were "The Unknown People" parts one and two; which were wisely made into the last two episodes of season one. The regular characters of Jimmy Olsen and Perry White did not appear and weren't mentioned in the credits.
ALTHOUGH THERE WERE certainly some short comings, the over all effect was a good one. Lois Lane, Clark Kent and Superman all hit the ground running and are still doing so on television outlets like METV and Heroes & Icons.
Worse than I remembered
TVholic4 December 2005
Back in the 1970s, WPIX ran "The Adventures of Superman" every weekday afternoon for quite a few years. Every once in a while, we'd get a treat when they would preempt neighboring shows to air "Superman and the Mole Men." I always looked forward to those days. Watching it recently, I was surprised at just how bad it really was.
It wasn't bad because of the special effects, or lack thereof. True, George Reeves' Superman costume was pretty bad, the edges of the foam padding used to make him look more imposing being plainly visible. And true, the Mole Men's costumes were even worse. What was supposed to be a furry covering wouldn't have fooled a ten year-old, since the zippers, sleeve hems and badly pilling fabric badly tailored into baggy costumes were all painfully obvious. But these were forgivable shortcomings.
No, what made it bad were the contrived plot devices. Time and again, Superman failed to do anything to keep the situation from deteriorating. A lynch mob is searching for the creatures? Rather than round up the hysterical crowd or search for the creatures himself, he stands around explaining the dangers of the situation to Lois and the PR man. The creatures are cornered? Again, he stands around watching and talking but doesn't save them until they're shot. Luke Benson, the town's rabble-rouser, shoots at him? Attempted murder to any reasonable person, but Superman releases the man over and over to cause more problems. Superman had quite a few opportunities to nip the problem in the bud, but never once took advantage of them.
That said, both George Reeves and Phyllis Coates played their characters well, seemingly instantly comfortable in the roles. If only they had been given a better script to work with.
It wasn't bad because of the special effects, or lack thereof. True, George Reeves' Superman costume was pretty bad, the edges of the foam padding used to make him look more imposing being plainly visible. And true, the Mole Men's costumes were even worse. What was supposed to be a furry covering wouldn't have fooled a ten year-old, since the zippers, sleeve hems and badly pilling fabric badly tailored into baggy costumes were all painfully obvious. But these were forgivable shortcomings.
No, what made it bad were the contrived plot devices. Time and again, Superman failed to do anything to keep the situation from deteriorating. A lynch mob is searching for the creatures? Rather than round up the hysterical crowd or search for the creatures himself, he stands around explaining the dangers of the situation to Lois and the PR man. The creatures are cornered? Again, he stands around watching and talking but doesn't save them until they're shot. Luke Benson, the town's rabble-rouser, shoots at him? Attempted murder to any reasonable person, but Superman releases the man over and over to cause more problems. Superman had quite a few opportunities to nip the problem in the bud, but never once took advantage of them.
That said, both George Reeves and Phyllis Coates played their characters well, seemingly instantly comfortable in the roles. If only they had been given a better script to work with.
I went to the local theater and saw this one on the big screen.
padutchland-19 April 2006
It must have been several years after it was released, so don't know why it was at the movies. But as a kid I enjoyed it. I just found a VHS tape of Superman and the Mole Men at the flea market and decided to watch it again (it's been a lot of years). I wasn't expecting much, now knowing how the B movies were made at that time. But I was pleasantly surprised to find the movie very watchable and the acting by all outstanding. Usual acting in these type movies leaves a lot to be desired. Surprisingly, the writing wasn't bad either. Forget the fact that Superman went from sequence to sequence and could have kicked all their butts in the beginning, because then the story would have ended, right?! OK, the mole men costumes were hokey and not very scary (they didn't even scare me as a kid). However, making allowances for the probable low budget for background and costumes, it was a job well done by all. I recognized the sheriff right away as The Old Ranger from Death Valley Days and plenty of supporting roles in TV westerns. J. Farrell MacDonald played old Pop and was always a great supporting actor in more movies than I can count. Walter Reed and Jeff Corey were familiar faces as well from other movies. Did you recognize the old doctor as the captain of the ship that went to get King Kong? Did you recognize the little girl rolling the ball to the mole men as Lisbeth Searcy in Old Yeller? Some of the mole men were famous too. Jerry Maren has played Mayor McCheese for McDonalds, Little Oscar Mayer, was the Munchkin that handed Dorothy the lollipop, was on a Seifeld episode and a wealth of other work. Billy Curtis played an unforgettable part with Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter, was one of the friends met by the star in Incredible Shrinking Man, he had a part in a movie I just luckily grabbed at a flea market titled My Gal Sal with Rita Hayworth, Wizard of Oz and plenty of other parts - great actor. John Brambury was also a Munchkin. Phillis Coates, who played Lois Lane in this movie, was without question wonderful in the part and George Reeves as Superman/Clark Kent WAS Superman. He did a great job of playing the strong man. Bottom line to all I've said is that this movie is worth watching because of the cast and writing in dealing with a pretty flimsy idea for a movie. But it was the 50's and anything was possible from intruders from outer space to mole men from inner space. It is definitely worth seeing, there isn't a bad actor in the group. Whomever put the cast together was very, very fortunate to get so many gifted actors into a B type film. Some already had a wealth of experience and some were about to obtain a wealth of experience - but all were gifted. So if you get a chance to see the film, forget the dopey costumes and just enjoy the excitement and acting. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, just a good, old fashioned movie to enjoy!
"It's Almost As If They're Saying, You Live Your Lives & We'll Live Ours"
Blooeyz20018 June 2003
"Superman & The Mole Men" tells a story that's way ahead of it's time for 1951. Clark Kent & Lois Lane go to the small town Silsby to do a story on "The World's Largest Oil Well". When they arrive they find out the well is being shut down due to complications that have come about. They had drilled 6 miles down, & realized the earth's center is hollow, & there may be life down there. Their suspicions are correct when small (possibly radioactive) "mole men" start coming up & roaming around the town. (They aren't very frightening, but may have been by 1951 standards). One old man, at the well, sees them & has a heart attack & dies. Lois sees them too & describes them as having, "the bodies of moles with big human heads". A child encounters them in her bedroom & plays ball with them. She demonstrates the innocence of unjaded youth who sees someone without prejudice. The majority of the small town goes ballistic & wants to destroy the unknown "visitors". This is an excellent portrayal of small town ignorance ready to snuff out something that they don't understand, is different, out of the ordinary, or "strange" in their opinion(s). These "mole men" not only signify 'out of this world' beings, but people in one's own society as well (ridiculed for one's race, sexuality, etc.) The movie "Powder" represented the same premise in 1995! I can't write this review without mentioning that Phyllis Coates was the BEST actress to play Lois Lane! She portrayed her as feisty, sassy, independent, & resilient.
When we watch George Reeves as Superman, we understand how important has been Christopher Reeve
guisreis21 May 2014
This was probably the first feature-length superhero film ever made. It has some serious flaws, that are not related to the unsophisticated visual effects of that time (which are not a problem; indeed, they are interesting to see).
First of all, it had not a great story. Do not expect an interesting opponent like Lex Luthor or the Kryptonian criminals from the Phantom Zone.
Besides that, it is amazing how little was the time spent to show Superman. We see Clark Kent all the time, but the caped superhero, perhaps because of technical difficulties to show him flying, does not appear very much.
The third serious flaw is just related to Clark Kent. George Reeves portrays him so proud that one cannot be convinced that the journalist was a disguise to avoid people knowing he was Superman.
The film is historically significant, but it is certainly not good. When we see George Reeves as the man of steel, the importance of Christopher Reeve for the superhero becomes really flagrant.
First of all, it had not a great story. Do not expect an interesting opponent like Lex Luthor or the Kryptonian criminals from the Phantom Zone.
Besides that, it is amazing how little was the time spent to show Superman. We see Clark Kent all the time, but the caped superhero, perhaps because of technical difficulties to show him flying, does not appear very much.
The third serious flaw is just related to Clark Kent. George Reeves portrays him so proud that one cannot be convinced that the journalist was a disguise to avoid people knowing he was Superman.
The film is historically significant, but it is certainly not good. When we see George Reeves as the man of steel, the importance of Christopher Reeve for the superhero becomes really flagrant.
Welcome, George Reeves
Hitchcoc12 December 2016
This was included in a boxed set of "The Adventures of Superman." If one is not perceptive, he might think it was part of the series. It is not but it fits nicely into the whole thing. Some miners have invaded an underground society where "mole people" live. They are odd looking little guys who really mean no harm. They are merely trying to survive and have been threatened. They could be obliterated because the miners decide to kill any of these creatures that make an appearance. This is a job for Superman as we hear so many times later. He steps forward and challenges anyone who threatens the little guys. If this was an audition for the series, George Reeves did a good job as the benevolent Man of Steel.
Skip it, even if you are hard core DC fan
Bored_Dragon4 March 2017
First Superman movie, and probably the first superhero movie at all, is complete crap. There are just two positive sides to it. Acting is relatively good and there is bunch of experienced faces for B production movie. Bunch of them you can see in A production movies which is rare. Second good thing is message that it sends against racism, guns and oil exploitation. Other than that this movie is total failure. Fact that it's made almost 70 years ago isn't valid excuse for any of its flaws. Screenplay is one of the very worst I have ever seen. Not only full of holes but extremely stupid as well. Costumes, effects and complete production are terrible. Light years below average even for B production of 50's. This is probably the lowest budgeted thing I ever saw. If you think I am exaggerating, feel free to watch Batman from 1943. Eight years older and still much better in every possible way. I do not recommend this even to hard core DC fans. Complete waste of time.
A rather inauspicious feature debut for arguably the most famous comic book hero of all time
brchthethird8 June 2015
Where to even begin? For starters, this is more of a B-grade science-fiction picture that happens to feature Superman than a "Superman" movie outright. Whatever the intentions of the producers, it certainly is a product of its time. By that, and given its low budget, I mean that it's kind of what you'd expect from a sci-fi film in the 1950's: shoddy production values, questionable acting, and overt message-making. Still despite all of this there is a certain B-movie charm, and of course George Reeves has a great screen presence as the Man of Steel (not so much Clark Kent, who is played too similarly). Other than Clark Kent/Superman and Lois Lane, though, there isn't much else here that ties it to the Action Comics source material. Ergo, no Daily Planet, no Metropolis, etc. But I didn't really mind. As long as you do away with any expectations of what a Superman movie "should" be, this film can be a lot of fun. And, at 58 minutes, it never wears out its welcome. Considering the time in which this film was made, with liberal Hollywood under attack by fear-mongering by the likes of Joseph McCarthy and racial tensions coming to a boil, the message it conveys is actually quite radical (again, for its time). It basically says that as beings who inhabit this planet, we should all just get along regardless of who we are. There are also other things you could read into it, like anti-oil drilling and gun control, but those are secondary concerns. Did I like it? Well, yes and no. It isn't my idea of what a comic movie should be, but taken as a cheesy sci-movie, it has its charms. I wouldn't bend over backwards to see this if you haven't already, but fans of George Reeves of Superman would be remiss for not checking it out.
In retrospect, not insanely bad. Still ain't so good.
NpMoviez29 April 2021
Considering the era, the technology they had back then and the goofy treatment of the genre, it's somewhat watchable. Also, as much as I remember, it was the first ever DC film and second superhero film. So, in a way, it also showed the possibility of a whole new genre. You might loathe it for many genuine reasons but you must acknowledge the objective reality that if these movies were never made, none of the great films in the genre would have ever existed (probably).
Now, coming to the story. It is an era specific movie. It's really cheesy and goofy. I don't if Mole Men were there in DC material, and I don't even know whether Lex Luthor was there in the sources during the time, and I could care less. But had they had Lex Luthor, he could've been used as a villain. But probably that would've never served the purpose since they had to make it goofy back then. And the mole men served all the purpose of goofiness.
Superman, in this movie, does what he does. He cares about people, he helps them, he saves them .... but why? Only he knows. And he doesn't feel like a humane character like that from Man of Steel or Superman/Doomsday. He is just a fish out of water who is super strong and shows his abilities. He is completely generic. The special effects are hilarious and awful, if you see them now. But it was in the 50s. So, I must say it was amazing that they even bothered using one. The direction it takes is really childish and kids are more likely enjoy it if they can turn their brains off.
Surprisingly, it is coherent and insanely better than Superman 3, Superman 4 and the two mockeries of Batman by Joel Schumacher. It doesn't aim to be the greatest film but does hit some level, though not to high. George Reeves is okay as Superman. At least people remember him as Superman. The acting was below par and over the top to say the least.
I am not going to bash it because it's an age old movie. At the same time, during the 40s and 50s, Hollywood had given a LOT of excellent films. So, it's not that it can get away with all the excuses of being an age old movie.
Rating : 5.2/10, Grade : C-
Now, coming to the story. It is an era specific movie. It's really cheesy and goofy. I don't if Mole Men were there in DC material, and I don't even know whether Lex Luthor was there in the sources during the time, and I could care less. But had they had Lex Luthor, he could've been used as a villain. But probably that would've never served the purpose since they had to make it goofy back then. And the mole men served all the purpose of goofiness.
Superman, in this movie, does what he does. He cares about people, he helps them, he saves them .... but why? Only he knows. And he doesn't feel like a humane character like that from Man of Steel or Superman/Doomsday. He is just a fish out of water who is super strong and shows his abilities. He is completely generic. The special effects are hilarious and awful, if you see them now. But it was in the 50s. So, I must say it was amazing that they even bothered using one. The direction it takes is really childish and kids are more likely enjoy it if they can turn their brains off.
Surprisingly, it is coherent and insanely better than Superman 3, Superman 4 and the two mockeries of Batman by Joel Schumacher. It doesn't aim to be the greatest film but does hit some level, though not to high. George Reeves is okay as Superman. At least people remember him as Superman. The acting was below par and over the top to say the least.
I am not going to bash it because it's an age old movie. At the same time, during the 40s and 50s, Hollywood had given a LOT of excellent films. So, it's not that it can get away with all the excuses of being an age old movie.
Rating : 5.2/10, Grade : C-
A Classic Adventure
mst8624 May 2000
Superman and the Mole Men is quite possibly Superman's toughest adventures ever.
Lois Lane and Clark Kent are sent to Silsby, home of the world's deepest oil well. While there, some radioactive mole men come up through the oil well and explore the town. Jeff Corey and many other townspeople try to dispose of the invading mole men. Can Superman change the people's ways in time to save the mole men? Can Superman warn the people in time about the radioactive danger the mole men bring?
In my opinion, Superman and the Mole Men is a very intelligent, well-written and well-acted movie. Even though we only get to see Superman fly once briefly, It still makes a great Superman adventure. A must see for anyone.
10/10 Stars
Lois Lane and Clark Kent are sent to Silsby, home of the world's deepest oil well. While there, some radioactive mole men come up through the oil well and explore the town. Jeff Corey and many other townspeople try to dispose of the invading mole men. Can Superman change the people's ways in time to save the mole men? Can Superman warn the people in time about the radioactive danger the mole men bring?
In my opinion, Superman and the Mole Men is a very intelligent, well-written and well-acted movie. Even though we only get to see Superman fly once briefly, It still makes a great Superman adventure. A must see for anyone.
10/10 Stars
Not Bad
baileycrawly7 December 2022
Superman and the Mole-Men certainly doesn't hold a candle to at least the first two Christopher Reeve-helmed Superman movies, but it isn't a bad little film either. More a plot attempt to sell a television series to a network than an actual film, Superman and the Mole-Men certainly has a made-for-TV feeling to it.
It takes its subject matter more seriously than the Superman films that followed, but that doesn't make this film inherently bad, either. It's good if you're looking for a fun way to spend an hour. It's not game-changing in its field in retrospect but, as the first "film" adaptation of a DC property, it does manage to hold up relatively well. I enjoyed it, and I would absolutely watch it again.
Ultimately, the thought this short film left me with was that Christoper Reeve was vastly superior in the man-in-tights role.
It takes its subject matter more seriously than the Superman films that followed, but that doesn't make this film inherently bad, either. It's good if you're looking for a fun way to spend an hour. It's not game-changing in its field in retrospect but, as the first "film" adaptation of a DC property, it does manage to hold up relatively well. I enjoyed it, and I would absolutely watch it again.
Ultimately, the thought this short film left me with was that Christoper Reeve was vastly superior in the man-in-tights role.
Didn't know what I expected
k_g_barreto6 January 2020
Didn't expect nothing before seeing it, didn't felt nothing after seeing it. Basically, I've seen myself unresponsive towards the film. It's worthy as a 'historical piece', it is the first Superman film, so you can you watch for the sake of curiosity, but don't expect much.
George Reeves is still THE Superman!
Michael-20228 June 1999
Considering it was shot in 11 days; considering its "special effects" are something less than primitive, George Reeves and this film still pack a Kryptonite-sized wallop.
Mysterious Mole-Men emerge from "the world's deepest oil well," and scare the inhabitants of the nearby town of Silsby. Despite pleas for tolerance and patience, Superman must disarm the town and protect the aliens while hard-headed Luke Benson repeatedly tries to kill them.
FACTOID #1: Despite other accounts, this film was NOT a "pilot" for the eventual series. In fact, there WAS no pilot. The day after shooting wrapped, the company spent another 12 weeks shooting 24 half-hour episodes. The comic book company decided to include a feature film as part of the schedule, so they'd be sure to recoup their investment at the box office in case no one bought the series. Lucky for us, that didn't come to pass.
FACTOID #2: Although the two-part TV version, "Unknown People," had been edited and packaged with the other 24 half-hours, it had to be withheld during the series' original run. It had been produced in 1951, and SAG rules forbade films copyrighted after 9/48 to air on TV without residuals. Not until 1960, when the rules were revised, did "Unknown People" appear.
Mysterious Mole-Men emerge from "the world's deepest oil well," and scare the inhabitants of the nearby town of Silsby. Despite pleas for tolerance and patience, Superman must disarm the town and protect the aliens while hard-headed Luke Benson repeatedly tries to kill them.
FACTOID #1: Despite other accounts, this film was NOT a "pilot" for the eventual series. In fact, there WAS no pilot. The day after shooting wrapped, the company spent another 12 weeks shooting 24 half-hour episodes. The comic book company decided to include a feature film as part of the schedule, so they'd be sure to recoup their investment at the box office in case no one bought the series. Lucky for us, that didn't come to pass.
FACTOID #2: Although the two-part TV version, "Unknown People," had been edited and packaged with the other 24 half-hours, it had to be withheld during the series' original run. It had been produced in 1951, and SAG rules forbade films copyrighted after 9/48 to air on TV without residuals. Not until 1960, when the rules were revised, did "Unknown People" appear.
Weird
davidmvining6 May 2022
Filmed as a glorified television pilot before they were all that common place, Superman and the Mole Men feels like a subpar two-parter of a series. It eventually became a two-parter in the series Adventures of Superman that filmed after this, starring George Reeves as the eponymous hero, and that's where it probably appropriately belongs. This is technically a feature film, even at only 58 minutes, but it's more accurately remembered as a forgettable entry in a hardly remembered television series.
Clark Kent (Reeves) and Lois Lane (Phyllis Coates) have been sent to the remote Texas drilling town of Silsby to do a story for the Daily Planet on the deepest drill in the world. There's a problem, though, that the company representative is trying to shut down the well because of unexplained damage to the drill equipment. He's trying to cover it up, and when Kent and Lane arrive with seemingly no story, it seems as though they are going to go home with nothing to give back to Perry White. That is, until three mole-men rise up from the hole in the ground and give an old man a heart attack. With news of happenings, limited to an old man having a heart attack, Clarke and Lane stay in Silsby to investigate and get their story.
One thing that should be noted is how little Superman is actually in this film. It's usually more of a common criticism with Batman movies that the balance of hero/alter-ego are out of whack, but it's way out of whack here. Superman is barely in the first 50 minutes of this 58-minute film, and that's probably because the problem the characters face is so small. There are larger implications that the movie never explores, but ultimately this is about two strangers wandering into a town and then trying to get out. This is hardly the stuff of Superman adventures. I well know the limits of filmmaking in the early-50s, but the very nature of this conflict is wrong for Superman. This ends up feeling like one of the more pessimistic Twilight Zone episodes than an early adventure of the man in red and blue.
Anyway, two mole-men climb up out of the hole, and they just kind of wander around until they climb into a small girl's bedroom. The small girl rolls a ball to them when her mother walks into the room and screams, alerting the town. So sets off a mole-manhunt led by Luke (Jeff Corey), out to kill the two mole-men no matter what. This is what sets off the whole rest of the film. Three guys out to murder two small men. I get it, to an extent. This is Superman standing athwart humanity and holding himself up as the American ideal, so having a counterexample for him to stand against makes sense. However, Luke ends up the only prominent member of the community, so it ends up feeling like Superman against all of humanity. I don't think that's supposed to be the point.
Luke shoots one on top of a wall, Superman saves the falling one through flight, and the other gets cornered in a remote tool shed that Luke and his buddies set fire to. Well, this sounds like a great opportunity for some daring-do from our great flying superman. He can come in at the last second and save the little guy from certain death. Except he never shows up. The mole man pries lose some floorboards and crawls out in an extended bit that really drags, feeling like we're waiting for Superman to come along. When he never does, and it's just the mole man squirrelling away, everything just feels wrong.
This is such a low stakes affair where Superman ends up doing shockingly little that I find it curious that it excited anyone enough to lead to a television series. The mole man shouldn't be saving himself. Superman should be swooping in at the last second, doing some derring-do conveyed with primitive and adorable early special effects to fly off with the little guy. It's so weird.
Anyway, the guy gets away, gets two more mole men, and they carry around a comically large thing that's supposed to be some kind of gun. Meanwhile, the hospital administrator is threatening to fire the doctor who admitted the mole man into the hospital because they don't treat dogs. It's a metaphor. However, Clark Kent convinces the doctor to perform life-saving surgery anyway, despite the threat of potential radium poisoning, and the mole man is all fixed up in time for the three new mole men to come upon the hospital, nearly kill Luke, and give Superman the time to present their healing friend and show Luke how awful he is by saving his life.
What was I expecting from this? Great art? No, not really. I was expecting competent serial-like thrills, and this fell below that. Stolid, stilted, and not really all that exciting with a curious story that seems to just be about how America is kind of awful, Superman and the Mole-Men is just not that much fun.
Clark Kent (Reeves) and Lois Lane (Phyllis Coates) have been sent to the remote Texas drilling town of Silsby to do a story for the Daily Planet on the deepest drill in the world. There's a problem, though, that the company representative is trying to shut down the well because of unexplained damage to the drill equipment. He's trying to cover it up, and when Kent and Lane arrive with seemingly no story, it seems as though they are going to go home with nothing to give back to Perry White. That is, until three mole-men rise up from the hole in the ground and give an old man a heart attack. With news of happenings, limited to an old man having a heart attack, Clarke and Lane stay in Silsby to investigate and get their story.
One thing that should be noted is how little Superman is actually in this film. It's usually more of a common criticism with Batman movies that the balance of hero/alter-ego are out of whack, but it's way out of whack here. Superman is barely in the first 50 minutes of this 58-minute film, and that's probably because the problem the characters face is so small. There are larger implications that the movie never explores, but ultimately this is about two strangers wandering into a town and then trying to get out. This is hardly the stuff of Superman adventures. I well know the limits of filmmaking in the early-50s, but the very nature of this conflict is wrong for Superman. This ends up feeling like one of the more pessimistic Twilight Zone episodes than an early adventure of the man in red and blue.
Anyway, two mole-men climb up out of the hole, and they just kind of wander around until they climb into a small girl's bedroom. The small girl rolls a ball to them when her mother walks into the room and screams, alerting the town. So sets off a mole-manhunt led by Luke (Jeff Corey), out to kill the two mole-men no matter what. This is what sets off the whole rest of the film. Three guys out to murder two small men. I get it, to an extent. This is Superman standing athwart humanity and holding himself up as the American ideal, so having a counterexample for him to stand against makes sense. However, Luke ends up the only prominent member of the community, so it ends up feeling like Superman against all of humanity. I don't think that's supposed to be the point.
Luke shoots one on top of a wall, Superman saves the falling one through flight, and the other gets cornered in a remote tool shed that Luke and his buddies set fire to. Well, this sounds like a great opportunity for some daring-do from our great flying superman. He can come in at the last second and save the little guy from certain death. Except he never shows up. The mole man pries lose some floorboards and crawls out in an extended bit that really drags, feeling like we're waiting for Superman to come along. When he never does, and it's just the mole man squirrelling away, everything just feels wrong.
This is such a low stakes affair where Superman ends up doing shockingly little that I find it curious that it excited anyone enough to lead to a television series. The mole man shouldn't be saving himself. Superman should be swooping in at the last second, doing some derring-do conveyed with primitive and adorable early special effects to fly off with the little guy. It's so weird.
Anyway, the guy gets away, gets two more mole men, and they carry around a comically large thing that's supposed to be some kind of gun. Meanwhile, the hospital administrator is threatening to fire the doctor who admitted the mole man into the hospital because they don't treat dogs. It's a metaphor. However, Clark Kent convinces the doctor to perform life-saving surgery anyway, despite the threat of potential radium poisoning, and the mole man is all fixed up in time for the three new mole men to come upon the hospital, nearly kill Luke, and give Superman the time to present their healing friend and show Luke how awful he is by saving his life.
What was I expecting from this? Great art? No, not really. I was expecting competent serial-like thrills, and this fell below that. Stolid, stilted, and not really all that exciting with a curious story that seems to just be about how America is kind of awful, Superman and the Mole-Men is just not that much fun.
it's not a good Superman movie
erminahotmail6 November 2023
Then every person I hear says that this is a good Superman film I saw it and I no longer liked it The only positive thing about this film the actor who plays Superman is very good but otherwise nothing I can save him I tell you that the villains in this film are not for nothingInteresting is this film has really aged too badly some will say But it's a film from the 50's But I know other films from older years that have aged much better than this film I know that some of it is a cult but I haven't been able to like it this movie is not as good as iChristopher Reeve's film isn't even DC Universe's
to conclude with a 4 rating.
Skip it, even if you are hardcore DC fan
Bored_Dragon19 October 2018
First Superman movie is complete crap. There are just two positive sides to it. Acting is relatively good and there is a bunch of experienced faces for B production movie. Bunch of them you can see in A production movies which is rare. Second good thing is the message that it sends against racism, guns and oil exploitation. Other than that this movie is a total failure. Fact that it's made almost 70 years ago isn't a valid excuse for any of its flaws. The screenplay is one of the very worst I have ever seen, not only full of holes but extremely stupid as well. Costumes, effects and complete production are terrible. Light years below average even for B production of the 50's. This is probably the lowest budgeted thing I ever saw. If you think I am exaggerating, feel free to watch Batman from 1943. Eight years older and still much better in every possible way. I do not recommend this even to hardcore DC fans. Complete waste of time.
3/10
3/10
My favorite of the George Reeves Superman's'
mhorg201814 July 2018
Originally made as a film, and as touted, the first full length Superman movie, this was folded into the following series. Done seriously and well directed, Lois Lane and Clark Kent are sent to Oklahoma where strange occurrences are taking place at a new oil well. Turns out they've tapped into a civilization at the center of the earth. This is really classic Superman. He uses his powers wisely and protects humans and the little creatures. One of the best, if the show had remained this serious, I'd have liked it more.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
