The Greatest Trick

If you are one of the two people on this planet who have not seen Superman II, this is going to be a spoiler filled review, so I suggest doing the following immediately: 1. If you haven’t already, watch Superman ASAP. It’s the best comic book film of all time. 2. Watch Superman II in its original cinema cut. It’s not as good as the first Superman film, but it is a terrific sequel nonetheless.

For those who are familiar with Superman II, you may or may not know that Richard Donner was originally set to direct both Superman and Superman II back to back, and that he indeed shot about 70 per cent of Superman II before it became clear the money was running out and that it was best to put all effort into finishing the first film. When Superman became a box office smash, the producers Alexander and Ilya Salkind turned their attention to finishing the sequel, but instead of re-hiring Donner, whom they felt had wasted too much of their money, they inexplicably turned to British director Richard Lester (who directed Beatles flick A Hard Days Night) to call the remaining shots. In order to qualify for a director’s credit, Lester had to reshoot much of Donner’s work, so that the overall percentage of footage in the finished product was his. In addition, costs on Superman II were further cut by firing John Williams who had originally been set to record an entirely new music score (Ken Thorne instead re-recorded Williams classic score for the first film). Gene Hackman refused to return after he heard Donner had been fired, so a body double was used in several shots in Lester’s version, and most critically of all, footage Donner had already shot with Marlon Brando was scrapped, since Brando was demanding silly money for using it. This created a huge plot hole: it is never explained how Superman regained his powers after giving them up to be with Lois Lane.

The finished article ought to have been a mess, but miraculously it wasn’t. It became the Superman II we all know and love. However, for years fans aware of the film’s bizarre history have wanted to see Donner’s version, and after nearly three decades, an internet petition was started that got the attention of the executives at Warner Brothers. As a result, film historian Michael Thau set about painstakingly reassembling Richard Donner’s version of Superman II, using the bare minimum of Lester’s footage to fill in the blanks.

The result is a startling and radically different version. Watching the Donner cut is a deeply weird experience for anyone who knows the film virtually shot for shot as I do. What follows is a summary of the main differences:

The opening recap of the first film is entirely different and has several new shots of the Phantom Zone villains, including one or two inside the Phantom Zone itself. All of this is neither better nor worse than the Lester cut, but there is no doubt the acting was better in Donner’s version of General Zod’s trial, and it’s nice to see Brando again instead of that silly voiceover from Lester’s version.

The Paris bomb sequence is gone entirely. Instead, the Phantom Zone villains are released because of the nuclear bomb Superman hurls into space from the first film (in an unconvincing cheap looking CGI sequence). Frankly, I much prefer starting Superman II with a bang, so I prefer Lester’s opening.

In Donner’s version, the first post opening credits sequence is where Lois twigs Clark is Superman, and throws herself out of a skyscraper window. It is the same idea as the Niagara Falls sequence in Lester’s version, and it works quite well. However, I have to say I prefer Lester’s version as it seems a bit more credible. The new scene is good though, and how Clark manages to save Lois without revealing he is Superman is amusing.

There are additional comedy moments as Lex Luthor tries to escape prison which neither add not subtract a great deal.

The arrival at Niagara Falls has been trimmed to ensure the inside of Clark and Lois’ hotel room is not shown. This was necessary for the Donner cut, as I will explain later. However, I have to say I rather miss the slimy concierge who tells Clark to have a “happy whatever”. The censorial glare Clark gives him at that moment is priceless.

Much of the mayhem caused by the Kryptonian villains at that redneck town in Idaho has been trimmed, since this was all Lester footage and Donner apparently hated it, saying it was “an Englishman’s view of America.” Donner had apparently planned to shoot footage of Zod and co trashing Tokyo, Washington, etc instead and this could have worked well. But we’ll never know. Perhaps since I am an Englishman, I never had any problem with watching rednecks getting their backsides kicked by General Zod et al, and once again I prefer the Lester version, although I must say having a random English boy there was always an odd choice (“Please Mr General, please put my daddy down!”). This boy has been cut entirely, and on that point at least, I agree with Donner. By the way, the general who says, “I answer only to the President” has been redubbed to sound less southern.

The reason the interior of Clark and Lois’ Niagara Falls room could not be shown is because Donner wanted to include his version of how Lois finds out Clark is Superman. In it, she shoots him with a gun. Clark then takes of his glasses and says “if you had been wrong, Clark would have been dead”, to which Lois replies “it was a blank”. It’s a cute scene, but because it was only shot as screen test footage, both Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder look considerably younger, and the continuity errors between shots of Reeve’s hair are very distracting. The scene could have been brilliant if they had actually got round to shooting it, but seeing it in this test footage version gives a reasonable idea of what would have been a better scene than Clark tripping over a pink bear.

All the stuff with Superman’s mother has been replaced with the same scenes shot with Marlon Brando as Jor-El, and to a degree this works. In particular, the scene where Superman gives up his powers is a lot more dramatic, and the tone is far more of a son rebelling against his father. But there are a few reasons I prefer Lester’s version, the main one being the Donner cut he sleeps with Lois before losing his powers. This doesn’t seem right, as I always viewed the giving up of his powers as quasi-marriage vows. Furthermore, if he can consummate his relationship without losing his powers, then why bother to follow his father’s instructions to become human? It always seemed like a far greater incentive in the Lester version if he could not have a physical relationship with Lois unless he did this.

On the other hand, the one scene with Brando that is vital, and that I infinitely prefer, is the new scene, where he sacrifices what remains of his life-force so Superman’s powers can be restored. It is a powerful, emotional moment that reveals that this course of events has been foretold in a Kryptonian prophecy – “the son becomes the father, the father the son” – familiar words which are finally understood, and the age-old Superman II plot hole is filled in. Later, when Zod confronts Superman in the fortress, he even says “I sense the presence of Jor-El”.

There is a brief new sequence of Zod et al destroying the Washington monument, replacing the Mount Rushmore bit. Neither here nor there, to be honest.

The full version of the White House attack is included, and is far better than in the Lester version. This sequence was originally shot by Donner in any case (as was the moon sequence which is almost the same here as the Lester cut).

The Daily Planet scenes before the battle in Metropolis are different, as is much of the final battle. New bits and pieces such as Superman being punched into the statue of Liberty add are far better, and Donner has trimmed much of the out of place Lester slapstick when the Krypton villains blow a huge wind. But, I am pleased to report the Donner cut still has that hilarious bad acting moment when Non and Ursa throw the bus (“No! Don’t do it! The people!”). The Metropolis battle is better in Donner’s version.

And so is the finale in the fortress of solitude. All that silly stuff with Superman throwing a cellophane “S” at Non and so on, has been cut. Instead, we have Donner’s footage which is more low-key, but far more dramatic and satisfying. It even has Superman destroying the fortress of solitude at the end, because he can no longer speak to his father.

In a new scene, Lois and Superman share a tearful farewell, before Superman turns back time like he did in the first film so Lois forgets his identity and Zod and co end up back in the Phantom Zone. Apparently this ending was originally scripted for Superman II, but Donner used it in the first film instead. He said he would have thought of a different ending had he been allowed to finish the film properly, but since he wasn’t, he returned to what was originally scripted. Does it work? Not really. I prefer Lester’s memory wipe kiss, even though its a bit cheesy. In the first film, Superman turning the earth backwards worked as an act of desperation, violating his father’s rule about non-interference. But he wouldn’t do such a thing lightly and that is what comes across here. Besides, its a deus ex machine ending that ultimately causes all sorts of continuity problems, such as why Clark goes and beats up the thug in the café at the end (since he turned time back, the thug wouldn’t have beaten him up in the first place).

After turning back time there is another new resolution scene in the Daily Planet that replaces the memory wipe kiss scene, which again is quite cute, and has a good joke where Lois tells Clark he’s “really super”.

All music used is now from the original John Williams recordings.

So, as you have no doubt concluded by now, overall I prefer the Lester version. If I could, I would recut Lester’s film to include the new Brando scene, the full version of the Whitehouse fight, the new Metropolis battle, and the new finale in the fortress of solitude. But other than that, I think I would have left it as is. The absence of the Paris bomb and the radical trimming of the Idaho sequences highlight the inherent problem with the Donner cut: the pacing is off, and unlike Lester’s version, it doesn’t feel action packed enough. To be fair, this film is only a glimpse at “what might have been” so it’s unfair to judge it as such since Donner never had time to finish what he started. Therefore, his cut of Superman II is a fascinating and curious trip to a parallel universe, but not the definitive version of the film, as some hardcore fans have claimed.

Simon Dillon, December 2006.

Clint Eastwood’s most recent directorial project Flags of our Fathers is a sombre, meditative fact-based war film concerning the battle for Iwo Jima in World War II, and how three soldiers came to be regarded as heroes simply for appearing in a photograph which showed them raising the American flag. This photograph proved to be excellent morale raising propaganda back in the States, and was even turned into a famous memorial statue in Washington DC after the war.

The film tells the story of John Bradley (Jesse Bradford), Rene Gagnon (Ryan Phillippe), and Ira Hayes (Adam Beach), three of the soldiers who appeared in the photograph. Following the battle to secure Iwo Jima, they are ordered to return to the States to help raise money to cover the ever escalating costs of the war by giving interviews and appearing at functions where they are endlessly praised as heroes.

Bradley is ambivalent about his new found celebrity status, and simply sees his task as following orders. Gagnon attempts to take as much advantage of the publicity as he can, as does his fiancé Melanie (Pauline Harnois). But Hayes feels guilt-ridden and slides into alcoholism because he cannot see why he should be regarded as any more of a hero than his comrades simply because he appeared in the photo.

The fascinating facts surrounding the actual flag raising are later revealed as it becomes clear one of the soldiers in the photo who later died was misidentified. Furthermore, for complicated reasons, the actual flag raising was done twice, which is what led to the confusion over exactly who was in it. These factors all contribute to Hayes increasing despair, and ultimately when the war is won, his tragic fall into obscurity provides the most interesting dramatic arc of the film. One particularly poignant moment sees him being refused alcohol in a bar in spite of his status as an all American hero, because he is a Native American.

The film is structured in rather awkward flashbacks, and certainly feels too long. A framing device involving Bradley’s son investigating his father’s life seems tacked on and as a result falls flat emotionally.

On the plus side, performances are all good, especially from Ryan Phillippe and Adam Beach. There are also some good bit parts from the likes of Robert Patrick, Barry Pepper and Jamie Bell. The battle scenes are both epic and appropriately gritty. Steven Spielberg, who acts as producer on this film, redefined the look of the war film with Saving Private Ryan, and visually this continues the trend of fierce graphic violence, muted colours, and hand-held camerawork. But Eastwood tries to make the film his own by introducing swooping shots of the battleships and warplanes which give the film a more epic feel. He doesn’t succeed entirely, and the mixture of old-school war epics and post Saving Private Ryan documentary realism feels a bit like attempting to mix oil and water.

On the whole, Flags of our Fathers is a modest success. It’s good, but not as powerful or moving as it should be, and at times veers dangerously close to the “worthy-but-dull” category. Its insights into the nature of heroism are interesting, but not terribly profound. It makes the obvious points that it was a necessary evil to make heroes out of those men, but that war is hell, and the real heroes are those who died. I am looking forward to seeing Letters from Iwo Jima, Eastwood’s companion piece due out next year, which apparently tells the story from the side of the Japanese. By all accounts, it is a far more interesting picture than Flags of our Fathers.

But if you do see this, see it on a big screen, and stay for the closing credits which contain photographs from the actual battle for Iwo Jima. These are far more haunting than anything Eastwood has staged.

Simon Dillon, December 2006.

On first glance, Happy Feet may appear to be yet another empty-headed piece of seasonal fluff, but it is anything but. What it is, in fact, is a superbly persuasive piece of propaganda and one of the most bizarre mainstream cartoon features ever made. It is also the best animated film of the year; a tremendous achievement for Australian director George Miller (who also helmed the likes of Mad Max and wrote the screenplay for Babe).

Mumble the penguin was born unable to sing, which is unfortunate since Emperor Penguins find their soul mates through song. But he can tap dance, and throughout the first forty five minutes, he tries to win over Gloria, the love of his life, with his dance moves and the help of some hip Latino penguins from a neighbouring colony. So far, so animated Moulin Rouge; as Mumble and co belt out a number of well chosen classic pop songs.

But something is rotten in the State of Antarctica. Mysterious metal creatures have been sighted, birds with plastic tags on their legs complain about “alien abductions”, and fish supplies are running dangerously low. The Elders amongst the Emperor Penguins declare that Mumble’s subversive tap dancing has aroused the wrath of the Penguin god, and that is why fishing supplies are low. Mumble and his Latino chums are banished, but he promises to return with proof that the lack of fish is down to “aliens” and not the wrath of the Penguin god.

It is here Happy Feet takes a sudden turn into much darker territory, as Mumble and his friends take a dangerous journey to find the aliens, who of course turn out to be humans in their fishing fleets. There are moments here that will possibly scare younger children (such as a prolonged chase involving a vicious sea-leopard), and disturb older children (Mumble’s encounter with the vast ships and his subsequent emotional breakdown in the zoo). Some have criticized the film for this admittedly uneven and sudden shift in tone, but I don’t agree. Children should not be patronised. All the best children’s stories from early Disney’s such as Snow White and Bambi to modern classics including ET and Babe do not mollycoddle from the harsher realities of life, but instead empower children to help deal with them.

Not that this is exclusively a children’s film; there is plenty for the whole family to enjoy, as the likes of Elijah Wood, Nicole Kidman, Brittany Murphy, Hugo Weaving and Hugh Jackman lend exceptional vocal support to their computer generated alter-egos. There is some mild sexual innuendo that will go over the heads of the children, but nothing else offensive.

The animation itself is staggeringly good and proves that rare beast: a rival to Pixar. Snowscapes and oceans are stunningly rendered making terrific use of widescreen space, and provide a beautiful contrast with the vast hulks of steel and rust that characterise the human world. The Antarctic creatures from Elephant seals to the penguins themselves are magnificently and flawlessly characterised, allowing the audience to make the necessary emotional connections to the surreal setting and suspend disbelief. Oh, and it’s chock full of unforgettable cinematic images that will be rendered useless on television – such as a brilliant overhead shot of Mumble diving from a vast cliff then splashing into the sea and swimming away. So please, please, please see it at the cinema.

Environmental concerns such as global warming and over fishing have had unusual media precedence in 2006. Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth has so far been cinema’s foremost contributor to this trend, but I suspect Happy Feet will win far more converts to the cause, given its huge box office success and appeal to family audiences. Al Gore’s hard facts and figures are no substitute for a cute little penguin who simply wants his fish, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if millions of children across the world suddenly take a much greater interest in environmental issues.

As far as I’m concerned, this is no bad thing. It is all too easy for Christians (especially American right wing neo-conservatives) to dismiss environmental concerns as being PC nonsense. Although environmentalist groups often over-egg the pudding by saying humans are not a part of the natural order, it doesn’t mean we are not guilty of fishing beyond what we need. The Bible makes it clear that we are to be good stewards of our resources, and to take care of the Earth. If left unchecked, the alternatives are very gloomy indeed. Towards the end of the film, someone is heard yelling “I don’t want to live in a world without penguins!” I couldn’t agree more.

Simon Dillon, December 2006.

Let me preface this review by saying I drove two hours to Bristol to see Pan’s Labyrinth – the furthest I have ever travelled simply to see a film – since it has inexplicably been given a very limited release. When it didn’t turn up at Plymouth I was aghast, given how critically acclaimed it had been. I hadn’t been this upset about the non-arrival of a film at a local cinema since distributors gave Peter Weir’s 1994 film Fearless similar treatment. Whether driving such a distance (and back) makes me a phenomenally dedicated film buff or merely deeply sad is a question I’d rather was left unanswered.

Anyway, to the matter at hand. Yes, Pan’s Labyrinth is as good as all the critics have been saying. It is a remarkably bizarre, vivid and powerful picture – at once offbeat, dark and grim, yet also phenomenally beautiful and moving. Filled with unforgettable images, it is unquestionably a landmark in fantasy cinema. One would have expected the mixture of gritty realism and fairytale to be awkward, yet bizarrely, it works.

Director Guillermo Del Toro is best known for Hollywood fare such as Blade II and Hellboy, and amongst film buffs for his Spanish language pictures Cronos and The Devil’s Backbone. But Pan’s Labyrinth, another Spanish work, is his best to date. It contains inspiration from many movies including The Wizard of Oz, Brazil, Jean Cocteau’s La Belle a la Bette, the films of Jean-Pierre Jeunet (Delicatessen, The City of Lost Children and particularly A Very Long Engagement), and books including Alice in Wonderland, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and Phillip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy. Yet it also manages to remarkably unique in its own right.

Set in 1944 Spain, the film picks up as Franco is wiping up the remaining pockets of Communist guerrillas. Ten year old Ofelia travels with her pregnant mother Carmen to meet her new husband, Captain Vidal, at his posting in a forest, where he is tracking the Communists. Upon arrival it becomes apparent that Vidal is a particularly brutal man, an evil stepparent in the classic tradition, and Ofelia takes an immediate dislike to him. A child on the verge of puberty, Ofelia seems at odds with the adult world; unable to understand why her mother was lonely and wanted to remarry, and still obsessed with fairy tales, despite being told she is too old for them.

On her first night in the woods, Ofelia is led by a fairy into a sinister old labyrinth behind the military headquarters, and it is here she meets a mysterious faun who tells her she is a long lost princess of a secret underground world. But in order to return, she has to complete three dangerous tasks.

The story of Ofelia’s quest to complete the three tasks is intercut with Vidal’s increasingly vicious attempts to smoke out the Communist guerrilla’s in the woods, and although these storylines appear unrelated, each subtly parallels the other. The various monstrous creatures that Ofelia encounters are symbolic. For example, in the riveting and terrifying Pale Man sequence, the Pale Man symbolises authoritarianism. The Pale Man offers temptation merely as an excuse to murder, as demonstrated by the hideous pictures on its walls of it killing children and babies. What is read into that – whether it be Franco’s Spain, or any other oppressive authority – is left to the viewer.

One of the things I liked most about the film was its ambiguity. Towards the end it is hinted that Ofelia might be delusional and has retreated into the fantasy world of her beloved fairy tales, because she has seen the brutal reality of the adult world and wants no part of it. But at the same time, it could be that only she can see the faun and the other magical creatures, and that her mysterious underground kingdom really does exist. Which interpretation one subscribes to determines whether or not the ending is happy, sad or bittersweet. Make no mistake; this is a film that will rattle around in your subconscious for a long time afterwards.

Ivana Baquero is radiant as Ofelia, perfectly capturing the melancholy of a pre-pubescent innocent desperately trying to cling onto her childlike innocence amid the intense cruelty and brutality of the worlds around her – both “real” and “fantasy”. As the Captain, Sergi Lopez makes Vidal every bit as monstrous as Ralph Fiennes Amon Goeth in Schindler’s List. His brutality – especially when he explains how he is going to torture his victims before doing so, make him a truly memorable villain. Elsewhere Maribel Verdú, Ariadna Gil, and Álex Angulo provide fine support as the Captain’s housekeeper, Ofelia’s mother, and the local doctor, respectively.

By now, it should be apparent that this is an unrelentingly cruel story, as all good fairy tales should be. From a spiritual perspective however, it is mostly bad news. The film puts forward several Buddhist/New Age notions such as reincarnation, and although the faun is not Pan, he does allude to pagan spirituality in his dialogue by saying he is the earth, the wood, the wind and so forth. The main moral of the story seems to be that you shouldn’t obey authority unquestioningly, which is true to a point, but then from a Christian perspective God does sometimes ask us to do this, for our own good. Elsewhere other peripheral contentious elements, such as mercy killing, make an appearance, adding up to an overall anti-Christian worldview. Thankfully, since this is most emphatically not a children’s film, at least young minds won’t be confused.

Pan’s Labyrinth is probably a film of somewhat limited appeal given that it is only likely to appeal to fantasy obsessives or hardened film buffs. Since I belong in both categories, I can’t help but rave about this film, but if you are not one of the above, please take my review with a pinch of salt. This is certainly not a film for everyone, nor as I have already explained can it be described as spiritually sound. It’s also worth noting that the blood and gore levels are very shocking, and there is some swearing. On that basis, I will conclude by saying Pan’s Labyrinth is indeed a masterpiece, but approach with extreme caution.

Simon Dillon, December 2006.