100 Days of Superheroes- Day 1: Superman and the Mole Men (1951)

100 Days of Superheroes- Day 1: Superman and the Mole Men (1951)

First film in my 100 film Marathon. How does this old black white film (considered by many to be the first true superhero film) hold out?

Review Opinion
By ToDandy - Jun 27, 2011 03:06 PM EST
Filed Under: Superman

Hello one and all!

Welcome to my first review of my lengthy, difficult, ongoing movie marathon. I don't want to waste too much of your time so here is a brief introduction. Let me take a little time here to tell you what this is all about. I'm attempting to watch and review all the major theatrically released superhero films leading up to the release of The Dark Knight Rises, The Amazing Spider-Man, Man of Steel, and Avengers. I threw in a few extra just to get a nice round number for you peoples. I'll be regularly posting reviews and after every 10, a ranking will be posted, depicting the placement of each film on a scale. This ranking will be determined by a combination of both my review score and audience participation rankings. So be sure to VOTE!

As should be obvious by the title, today's film is Superman and the Mole Men, from 1951.

I will typically post the trailer but seeing as this film is so old, I had difficulty finding one. So I'll cut straight to the chase. Here it is, enjoy!..... hopefully.





"There is only one man who can handle a job like this, and that’s Superman!"


Seeing as it began the entire superhero comic book movement, it isn’t surprising that the first theatrical released superhero film was with the character of Superman. Now this is far from his first on screen début, as he appeared in multiple serials beforehand, but it is the fist time a super powered hero was brought to the large cinemas and featured as a major release. What can I say. Apparently outwards underwear and tights were the most badass fashion of the 50's



As with everything else, the first outing rarely gets it just right. Superman and the Mole Men tells a single of many presumed Superman’s adventures. It only mentions briefly a summery about the origins of Superman through a short, choppy narration. However the main story depicts Clark Kent and Lois Lane traveling to a small town, barely over a thousand, to cover a story on the deepest hole ever drilled, a pit dug nearly six miles under the earths crust. Lois is angry at the assignment and thinks it beneath her. But that changes when it is revealed that an underground race of “mole men” have emerged from the hole drilled in the ground.

The film is campy and goofy without a doubt. It is very much the predecessor of the all to similar Superman TV series that followed it. Lois Lane played by Phyliss Coates is well portrayed in her traditional snappy, fashion. George Reeves plays a very bland Clark Kent and Superman. He really couldn’t be more wooden if he was carved out of driftwood.

There is little to no mention of the famous Superman-Lois relationship and appears to have been written out of this version mythos entirely. Here Lois and Clark just seem like respectful colleagues and Lois never goes goggly eyed over Supes. Some will be more thankful for that than not, but to me, it just seemed to loose a sense of its humanity as a result.



Yet the film does give an interesting villain in the character of Luke Benson. Rather than making a horror-like story with Superman fighting a group of underground demons, rather it becomes a story about tolerance. The Mole Men are innocent creatures that people accused of murders and hunted down. Superman must save them.

The effects were about as bad as they could get. Cheap and dated. That's not the real issue though, it's the fact that even for the 50's they were lackluster. Some just got lazy. High on the list is when Superman flew off and three characters were supposed to be watching him go....except they were all looking in different direction.



But by no means can any of this be taken seriously. It suffers from the overall hamyness, cheap effects, and overly long chase scenes. Yet if any credit can be given to it it’s that it help to further solidify Superman’s popularity back in the 50’s leading to the eventual Richard Donner/ Christopher Reeve films which perfectly capture the character.


FINAL RATING: 4/10 (40%)


NOTE: reminder that polls are used in ranking process so PLEASE VOTE!

SUPERMAN Director James Gunn Confirms Frank Grillo's Role: This Isn't Just A Good Guy
Related:

SUPERMAN Director James Gunn Confirms Frank Grillo's Role: "This Isn't Just A Good Guy"

SUPERMAN Star David Corenswet Details His Intense Weight Gain To Become The DCU's New Man Of Steel
Recommended For You:

SUPERMAN Star David Corenswet Details His Intense Weight Gain To Become The DCU's New Man Of Steel

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

ManofSteel23
ManofSteel23 - 6/28/2011, 11:28 AM
Thats because old films like this are shitty,Im glad I live in the 21st Century tbh,if I had to live in those days and watch that shit,Id of been laughing at the effects in those days too lol
blackcelebration
blackcelebration - 6/28/2011, 11:58 AM
I've got to say that was a terrible review.

The reason there was no Superman/Clark or Lois romance wasn't because they decided not to have it, but because it didn't exist in the 1950's.

Also, it is really unfair to judge the films effects to modern or even 1970's standards. And in no way was George Reeve's Clark wooden.

Yes, Donner revolutionised Superman, there is no doubt. But, Superman and The Mole Men was also important for different reasons.

I'd suggest you research a bit more about what was happening to these characters at the time of their release before judging the material on rewrites that were done over twenty years later.

MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION OF THIS FILM

A well told story that captures the feeling on how Superman was interoperated during the 1950's.

7/10.

blackcelebration
blackcelebration - 6/28/2011, 11:58 AM
I've got to say that was a terrible review.

The reason there was no Superman/Clark or Lois romance wasn't because they decided not to have it, but because it didn't exist in the 1950's.

Also, it is really unfair to judge the films effects to modern or even 1970's standards. And in no way was George Reeve's Clark wooden.

Yes, Donner revolutionised Superman, there is no doubt. But, Superman and The Mole Men was also important for different reasons.

I'd suggest you research a bit more about what was happening to these characters at the time of their release before judging the material on rewrites that were done over twenty years later.

MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION OF THIS FILM

A well told story that captures the feeling on how Superman was interoperated during the 1950's.

7/10.

blackcelebration
blackcelebration - 6/28/2011, 3:41 PM
@dragonking555

I have no problem in you disagreeing with me. The main point is that you concentrated more on things that the film wouldn't be able to prevent because of when it was made (Effects, Superman/Clark & Lois Lane relationship, Superman's powers).

As far as the Clark and Lois relationship goes, you have to remember that back in the 50's their relationship was merely working, and allot of the time Clark/Superman would be investigating crimes by himself allot, with Lois as a side kick. Her role was smaller than it is now. Clark Kent was more like a detective, who would find out about crimes and then use Superman if needed.

Superman was less powerful in the 50's than he is now. So, he couldn't just fly grab ten guys and then chuck them in the hole. Allot of the time he would actually go fist to fist with the villains. Back then he was a man with Superhuman strength, not the man with God like powers we know he is now.

Also, without trying to blabber on a history lesson, racism was a serious subject back then. And how the humans act is similar (Although, a bit over the top) to how some counties were treating different species).

What I'm saying is that it is best to watch the film and forget about the Superman you and I were bought up with but remember the Superman they knew in the 1950's.




blackcelebration
blackcelebration - 6/29/2011, 5:24 AM
@dragonking555

I'm also a film major, although, in my opinion in doesn't make anyone's opinion wrong.

Also, Clark as a detective came through ok I felt.

Also, what does Wizard of Oz have to do with a Comic Book Movie?

That film has had enhancements done since. Also, the 1930's King Kong movie had stunning effects for its time.

I'm not saying this is the Citizen Kane of Comic Book movies, I just felt you needed to explain some points about where the characters were in the comics at this point before going into subjects that weren't created.

Also, Wizard of Oz is a good example for effects, but this was never mentioned in the review.
BBally
BBally - 7/10/2011, 5:33 PM
I agree with blackcelebration, for it was (a feature length trial run for the Adventures of Superman TV series), it was quite enjoyable. Since Superman is my favorite superhero, it's interesting to see stuff like this where it preaches for tolerance. As well as the 1940's radio serial where Superman took on the KKK.
View Recorder