Supergirl (1984) - Comic to Movie #3

A stormdragon? A Supergirl!

Director
Jeannot Szwarc

Cast
Helen Slater - Kara Zor-El/ Linda Lee/ Supergirl
Peter O' Toole - Zaltar
Mia Farrow - Alura In-Ze
Peter Cook - Nigel
Brenda Vaccaro - Bianca
Hart Bochner - Ethan
Maureen Teefy - Lucy Lane
Marc McClure - Jimmy Olsen

I'm reviewing the 1984 movie Supergirl more for my own sake than for anyone who reads this blog and never realized this movie exists. Or, maybe they once heard about a Supergirl movie, but didn't care enough to see if it actually exists. Well, it exists. It's not necessarily obscure, but I have met many people who weren't around when this movie was released, or even in the same decade of its release, and never heard of it.
My family had a copy of Supergirl recorded off television when I was a kid. I liked it back then because it's Supergirl - a continuation of sorts to the Superman movies. But I haven't watched it since I was really young. That was about 30 years ago. So, I only recalled a few random scenes here and there.
Today, though the movie is often panned, some still hold it in somewhat of a high regard. So, I wanted to make it a part of this "comic to movie" thread I have going on, on this blog. I want to see what I think of Supergirl now that I've matured since those days of watching the TV version.
Helen Slater who plays Supergirl is still fondly remembered for this role. She appeared on Smallville as Superman's real mother, Lara. And Slater also appeared as Supergirl's adoptive mother on the current series, Supergirl.
How many female superheroes where featured in their own movie prior to 1984? Lynda Carter played Wonder Woman on TV between 1975 and 1979. She's the only other person who comes to mind.
But female superhereos weren't deemed as marketable back then for the big screen as their male counterparts were. So, despite whether Supergirl is good, bad, or in-between, it has a special place for paving the way for other female hero films like Tank Girl, Elektra, WonderWoman, and Captain Marvel to name a few titles. They only got better and better.

Helen Slater.

In the movie, Kara Zor-El (Helen Slater), the biological cousin of Kal-El (Superman), lives in a community of Kryptonians inside a place called Argo City.
One Kryptonian named Zaltar (Peter O'Toole) lets Kara witness first hand the power and ability of an object called the Omegahedron - a powerful tool that, along with another piece of technology called the alphahedron, powers the entire city.
Zaltar has the Omegahedron without the knowledge of the Argo City leaders. When he's questioned about it, he secretly kicks it over to Kara who's sitting on the floor attempting to create a large dragonfly, or some kind of big colorful insect, out of her imagination with a tool that goes with the Omegahedron.
The insect comes to life, starts flying around her, and then flies through a window causing the Omegahedron to get sucked out and shoot through space.
It travels all the way to earth and lands at a picnic site where the kind-of sorceress, Selena (Faye Dunaway), and maybe-warlock, Nigel (Peter Cook), are hanging out.
Selena claims it despite having no idea what it is or where it came from. Somehow, she happens to know how to use this alien object. Poor writing is common throughout the movie and this is one example.
As Selena is driving away, we hear on the car radio that Superman is on a "peace seeking mission" in some distant galaxy. That's Hollywood speak for Christopher Reeve probably read the script and said "nope." Reeve was slated to be in the movie but dropped out early on.
Kara arrives on earth to find the technology she lost in Argo City. Once she exits her spaceship, which landed in the bottom of a lake, Kara discovers all her powers insanely quickly. Keep in mind it took Superman years from when he landed on earth to when he developed his fortress of solitude to learn of his powers and abilities. Kara took a few minutes with a drawn out flight scene.
So, now she's Supergirl and decides to disguise herself as Linda Lee - a mild mannered student in a girls school. She also identifies herself as Clark Kent's cousin.
Linda becomes roomies with a girl named Lucy Lane, the sister of none other than Louis Lane. Whatta coincidence! And guess who teaches at this school. Nigel!
Meanwhile, Selena, who hides out inside a carnival haunted house ride, realizes the Omegahedron has the power to make her spells real.
She works towards gaining power and influence, but soon becomes enamored with a school grounds keeper named Ethan (Hart Bochner).
She makes a love potion and lures Ethan into her spooky ride lair. He unwittingly drinks it, and passes out.
When he wakes up, and Selena is distracted by a knock at the door, Ethan walks out and ultimately finds Linda whom he falls in love with thanks to the spell.
(As I write this, I'm now finding the story rather convoluted.)
Selena spies on him through some magical spell, and grows angry when he sees him fall in love with this random student. She uses her magic to bring Ethan back, but he's rescued by Supergirl.
So, this battle of good versus evil really boils down to a fight over a guy! How laughable.

Peter O'Toole and Mia Farrow in Supergirl.

After sometime, Selena traps Supergirl and sends her to the Phantom Zone where she runs into an exhiled Zaltar.
Having lost her powers in the Phantom Zone, Zaltar shows her how to escape while sacrificing himself.
Supergirl comes back to earth, and battles Selena.
There are too many inconsistencies in the cutaways. It seems there's poor execution in camera work, and no one cared enough to clean up some of the shots during the editing process.
And the poor writing makes the movie feel rushed. This is evident with Kara figuring out her powers and abilities immediately upon arriving to earth. She can figure all that out with no problem, but can't seem to grasp simple earthly idiosyncrasies and behavior. Also, how did she acquire her outfit upon arriving on earth? 
And how did Alura know about the Phantom Zone? There's too many plot holes.

Aside from the nearly all-star cast of high profile actors, the movie is very imaginative in its imagery. As Selena is a kind-of witch, using black magic and sorcery to gain power, the imagery fits but still leaves the movie coming across at times like a bad fever dream.
Jimmy Olson (Marc McClure) is the only character from Superman who returns in this movie. Otherwise, the only other cameo is Reeve's Superman on a poster hanging on Lucy's dorm wall.
Supergirl just falls flat on its face. But somehow still maintains an integral place in the genre of comic book movies.
It's the writing and story that makes the movie collapse. But the studio must have had confidence in this production. The cast in the movie speaks for itself.
I'm sure the bulk of the budget went towards casting such high profile actors like Peter O'Toole, Faye Dunaway, Mia Farrow (who plays Alura In-Ze - Superman's aunt), and Peter Cook. I wonder if that hurt the special effects budget, as well as budgets elsewhere. With such a stellar cast, you'd think producers would want a more solid movie. Someone must have thought "we really need to clean this up."
A theatrical remake has great potential to make Supergirl the movie superhero she deserves to be.

Don't Fast Forward This One: How The Wizard of Oz Can Settle Some Movie Debates

Escape from Reality

A few years ago, I was talking to an old high school friend - one I had a huge crush on while in school, but have remained good friends with since - who at the time had never seen any Star Wars movies.
Claiming she only enjoyed westerns, she argued that Star Wars wasn't based in reality, so watching it would be a complete waste of time.
As ridiculous a statement as that is, I was baffled by it. Movies are meant to pull audiences out of reality and into a fictional (to some degree or another) story. It's why people go to the movies. Everyone needs a pause in life. Everyone wants to just escape reality and put their worries aside, even if just for an hour or two. Movies are a great, imaginative, and intriguing way to do just that.
"Well, The Wizard of Oz certainly isn't based on reality, either. But I wouldn't dare throw that movie away," I said.
The fact that Oz strays from reality is what makes it remarkable and enjoyable. It's what gets people watching again and again 80-years later. It's an absolute masterpiece. I think of it as one of those movies that everyone has to see at least once, like E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, and of course Star Wars: A New Hope.
If movies were supposed to be based completely in reality, they would have died as a trend long ago.

Good Witches vs. Bad Witches
Now, I'm not much of a Harry Potter fan. I have read all but one of the books. Despite the story being imaginative, original, and clever, the writing is rather poor. But that's beside the point.
As for the movies, I've watched each one of them.
The first of the series was fun and enjoyable, but each sequel gradually grew worse than before. I can't even remember the last four or so.
Nevertheless, I appreciate and respect the fanbase behind Harry Potter. When author J.K. Rowling was pounding out those books, and Hollywood was making millions upon millions off her work, a lot of arguments surfaced, and stuck around to this day, among critics, especially the religious ones.
There's claims that the Harry Potter stories were "evil" due to the use of magic, wizards, witches, and the like within the stories.
There are good witches and wizards, and there are bad ones in Harry Potter. It's pretty easy to distinguish the good ones from the bad ones. Same with the spells they cast- bad spells, and not-so-bad spells. But their presence in the story is somehow evil altogether according to the Christian standpoint.
Well, if that's the case, then I guess The Wizard of Oz is evil, too.
In Oz, there's a (ahem) "good" witch and a wicked witch. Both of whom cast spells. And that's pretty much what's taking place in Harry Potter, but on a dominant scale.
So, if one is o.k., why isn't the other? Is it because one's old, and one's currently popular?
The good and evil is distinguishable in both stories. Neither is depicted as the opposite (i.e. good is evil, and evil is good). I'd have an issue with that if such was the case.
When it comes to the Harry Potter spells in themselves, some critics claim they're real spells actually used in black magic thus making the books and movies off limits to Christians and other religious folks.
Despite that claim being completely untrue as the words are based on ancient languages, especially Latin, to sound real and old, and stuff, people still throw it around. Those spells are completely fictitious, just like the spells used by the Wicked Witch in The Wizard of Oz. 
But some religious individuals might still claim the story glamorizes and encourages black magic. I guess imagination and creativity to tell a story can take a hike. Are fiction writers never to use witches, wizards, magicians, etc., in their stories? L. Frank Baum did.
They're simply tools used to tell a story. Nothing more.

"But it wasn't like the book!"
That classic, yet unsavory, argument is always, always brought up when a movie based on a book is released. It's nails on a chalkboard with me.
Of course, a movie should respect the source material, but the quality of a film shouldn't be judged on how closely it follows the book.
Normally, the author of whatever book a movie is based on isn't sitting in the producer nor director's chair. Maybe they'll join in the production as an adviser, like Roald Dahl did for Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, or Stephen King for a ton of movies based on his books. But with movies, someone else is telling the story.
The Wizard of Oz was written by L. Frank Baum. The movie was directed by Victor Fleming, and strays quite a bit from the book. So, in reality the movie should be called The Wizard of Oz as told by Victor Fleming.
This is true for any movie adaptation. The Lord of the Rings as told by Peter Jackson. Breakfast at Tiffany's as told by Blake Edwards. Mary Poppins as told by Walt Disney.
And though such movies are never exactly like the book to some degree or another, they still work and are deemed movie classics.

The Wizard of Oz film changes the silver slippers as seen in the book to the famous ruby slippers for production's sake.
If I were to ask 50 random people what color Dorothy's shoes were in the story (not distinguishing movie or book), I'm willing to bet more people would say "red" than "silver."
Also in the movie, the Wizard appears in the same form when Dorothy and the gang all visit him at the same time rather than one at a time, on consecutive days as depicted in the book. He takes on different forms for each character.
And no one in the movie is required to wear green shades when entering the Emerald City like they were in the book.
The books are more imaginative and creative than the movie lets on. But overtime, it seems audiences are o.k. with that. I know I am.
There's a lot of changes between the book and the movie, but it doesn't matter much. The movie respects the source material, and that's the most important thing. In other words, the message of the author still manages to come through in the movie no matter how much movie writers try to make the story their own.
This is always the case in Disney animated adaptations of books. When someone says "Pinocchio," how many people think immediately of Carlo Collodi before thinking of Walt Disney? My guess is not many. Disney managed to tell a lot of stories written by various authors, and make so many his own. Pinocchio, and pretty much all those other Disney animated classics bear the label "Walt Disney's Masterpiece." Wow! Masterpiece! The definition of masterpiece is "a work of outstanding artistry, skill, and workmanship." With Pinocchio, Disney's version barely resembles Collodi's original story. Yet... "masterpiece!"
What's kind of funny is that no one ever complains when a novelization doesn't quite follow a movie.
The novelization of the 1989 movie Batman has a scene with Batman riding a horse! That part isn't in the movie. And that's just one example. Imagine if the movie had Batman on horseback. Epic! Maybe? It certainly would have changed Batman's persona a bit.
Nevertheless, The Wizard of Oz is proof a movie adaptation doesn't need to precisely follow the book it's based on. And why should it? How many book lovers are fully satisfied with a story's movie version?
Movies such as Chitty Chitty, Bang Bang and Who Framed Roger Rabbit barely resemble the books they're based on, and yet, they're fantastic and held in high regard just like The Wizard of Oz.
Even the movie The Ten Commandments strays from the Book of Exodus found in the Old Testament. Is that a bad movie?
Movies are a different medium than paper and ink. That's why movie makers often don't bother retelling the story the same way the author did it first. So, they just throw some book references towards the audience, and still wind up with fantastic, spectacular films...like The Wizard of Oz, with its good and bad witches, and the way it pulls the audiences out of reality.

Don't Fast Forward This One: The Movie 'Stan and Ollie' Made Me See 'Chaplin' In a New Light

Robert Downy, Jr. as Charlie Chaplin in the 1992 film Chaplin.

When it comes to biographical movies, portraying the entire life of a person can be tricky. Sometimes it works. Often, there's too much content to process in one sitting and results in the audience loosing interest.
I prefer bio pictures that focus on one particular part of a person's life as opposed to a long movie attempting to cram an entire life into two-plus hours of screen time.

Again, that's not to say doing so doesn't work. It certainly worked for the 2004 movie Ray about the life of singer and songwriter, Ray Charles.
The recent movie Judy about legendary actress and singer Judy Garland worked well overall as it focuses primarily on Garland's London tour and the events of her past that effected her up to that last year of her life during that tour. It was an overall great movie, and certainly not cluttered and crammed with facts and events.
I suppose how a person's life is portrayed on screen depends on who the movie is all about.
The 2005 movie Walk the Line covers a lot of life events surrounding singer Johnny Cash and his talent as a musician. But the central focus of the movie is his love for and pursuit of June Carter. There's something consistent for viewers to grasp on to while watching this depiction of his life.
One recent bio pic Stan and Ollie (2018) depicts famous comedy duo Laurel and Hardy. The movie is a success as it portrays the team, who's real life fame peeked in the 1930s, during a European tour in the 1950s. By that time, they were still famous but were older and not quite the duo they used to be film. It's a fantastic movie, hands down!
What makes the movie work is its focus on one particular part of their lives (i.e. their last tour), and how they manage to maintain their passion for comedy as well as working together despite hardships, setbacks, anger and frustration. Still, Stan and Ollie maintain their deep rooted friendship, even amidst an argument and gradually attract new fans during their shows.
There's something in that movie for the audience to take away. We can see just from this particular depicted event from Laurel and Hardy's life what made them both beloved and an admired, talented team.
Watching Stan and Ollie made me see another bio pic I love in a new light.

As one critic put it regarding the 1992 biopic Chaplin about the life and career of comedian Charlie Chaplin, the movie covers too much ground. And it does!
The movie begins with Chaplin's poverty during his youth, to the mental breakdown of his mother, jumping to his begins as a comedian in London's Vaudeville, and then on to Hollywood, all the way up to his Oscar win in 1972. That's an entire lifetime packed into two hours and 25 minutes. For what that is, it's fine. The general premise is that Chaplin is relaying his life to a fictional biographer played by Anthony Hopkins. I get what the movie is trying to do. Still, it misses something.
Robert Downy, Jr., is the perfect casting choice to play Chaplin in the movie. He is just as memorable playing Charlie Chaplin as he is as Iron Man in the Marvel Comic movies. I can't picture anyone else in the role.
But it clicked after so many years of loving this movie that Chaplin covers way too much of the comedian's life, and doesn't touch on what made this entertainment icon so talented and memorable nearly enough.
Sure, there are depictions of how dedicated to the art of film making he was, and how much passion he had. It's there. Chaplin was a writer, producer, director, and actor. He also wrote the music to his own movies. But there's too much focus on his personal love life in the movie. I mean, it doesn't add anything to the story. What's the audience supposed to take away from such tabloid content? 
Even the tagline for the movie reads, "Everyone has a wild side. Even a legend." So, is the movie about his "wildside" or about what made Charles Spencer Chaplin into "Charlie Chaplin."

Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly as Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy in

Stan and Ollie (2018).

Yes, Chaplin loved women! Many famous actors do. That's certainly no revelation. He was married several times, and to put it bluntly, he loved sex... a lot! But is that what made him the memorable icon he is? Is that what made his popularity withstand the test of time? Of course not.
The focus Chaplin has on his love life distracts from the real gem of Charlie's life - his remarkable talent. That's way more interesting than the tabloid stuff of who he fooled around with before settling down with his fourth wife, Oona O'Neill.
For one thing, Chaplin made two successful silent movies when talking movies had already been established as the new norm in motion pictures - City Lights and Modern Times. The latter is considered one of the greatest social commentary films ever made. This talent Chaplin had to accomplish such a feat would have been a real interesting aspect for the movie to explore deeply rather than mention it and move on.
Or, a film surrounding his expulsion from the United States during the Sen. McCarthy era, and what that meant to this actor who spent years and years working to entertain American audiences, would have been an eye-opening movie.
But what we got in 1992 was, well...as critic Peter Travers of Rolling Stone Magazine put it, "soporific."
One specific part of the movie always bothered me because it's just blatantly wrong.
Chaplin's very first on-screen appearance was in a movie called Making A Living (1914). It wasn't until his second movie Kid Auto Races at Venice (1914) that Chaplin dawned his iconic appearance with his Derby hat, bamboo cane, toothbrush mustache, and famous walk. It's the screen debut of his character, the "little tramp."
The movie shows a camera man trying to film a "baby-cart race" while a spectator (Chaplin) keeps standing in front of the camera, intrigued by the aspect of being on film. It's a showcase of his famous character which he went on to portray until his 1940 movie The Great Dictator. 
However, the 1992 movie claims Chaplin's first appearance was in some made-up silent movie showing Charlie butting in on a wedding photo and attempting to woo the bride while the rest of the party end up chasing him around the set. Really? I understand liberties are often taken in biography movies for the sake of production. But this movie couldn't get this absolutely crucial part of his life correct? Come on!

Marisa Tomei and Robert Downy, Jr.

Don't get me wrong. There's so much about Chaplin that's fantastic! It's an imperfect movie, but certainly not a bad one. I love the acting. I love how Chaplin's own daughter, Geraldine Chaplin, was cast as her own grandmother (Charlie's mother). I love how this film depicts the impact his mother's mental breakdown had on him. I love how many well known actors were also cast in this as though it was Hollywood's homage to one of its prime pioneers. I even love the soundtrack. There's a ton of effort in this movie, especially from Robert Downy, Jr. He certainly did his homework before going into this project.
But I realized after watching Stan and Ollie that Chaplin is rather misguided and lacking.
Chaplin wasn't just a persecuted millionaire who loved women maybe a little too much. There's so much more to him.
But the movie focuses too much on too many other things (i.e. Chaplin's sex life and scandals) that didn't contribute to his greatness nor his legacy. Yes, those are things that are a part of his life, and can't be ignored. But why director Richard Attenborough decided to focus so much on that, I really don't know.
Where Stan & Ollie dealt with the aspects of what made Laurel and Hardy memorable as people and as entertainers, Chaplin depicts an entertainer who was great but it slows down after that.
The elements of Chaplin's greatness are there, but not on the level they should be. Maybe Hollywood will take another look at this pioneer of motion pictures, and depict his life better in a future movie.
I could ask more questions about Chaplin, but critic Roger Ebert beat me to it.
"Why not more about the movies? And where in the finished film is the greatness of Chaplin that presumable inspire you to make it?"

Heathcliff: The Movie (1986) - Comic to Movie #2

"Heathcliff just won't be undone..."

Director
Bruno Bianchi

Cast
Mel Blanc - Heathcliff
Donna Christie - Iggy
Peter Cullen - Pop
Marilyn Lightstone - Sonja

"Heathcliff, Heathcliff, no one should terrorize their neighborhood." That's the first line of the opening theme to the 1980s animated series Heathcliff. For the movie version of this show, it would be more accurate to replace "terrorize" with "rip-off."
Back in the early 1990s, I watched this cartoon at 6 a.m. each weekday morning before being hauled off to school. It was about the only cartoon on that early during the week. My only options at that hour were this, or The Flintstones. I alternated.
I'm glad I didn't know there was a theatrical release of the children's cartoon, Heathcliff.
I wasn't a die hard fan of the series. I watched it mainly because it was something to watch while eating breakfast before school.
Had I known there was a movie, and asked my mom to take me to see it back in 1986, I would have felt cheated. I know I would have.
If anyone watched the TV series before going to see this movie back then, then chances are they already saw the movie before even buying a movie ticket.
The cartoon series originally ran from 1984 to 1988. Reruns aired after the last season.
The program is based on the comic strip about an orange cat who torments the owner of the "Elite Fish Market", Mr. Schultz, and is just a general nuisance to the residents in the town of Westfinster.
Heathcliff was created by George Gately in 1973, nearly five years before Garfield made his first appearance. So, yep! Garfield isn't the original orange cat after all. Nevertheless, I don't find Heathcliff nearly as funny as Garfield.
I believe the comic strip, Heathcliff, is still published in newspapers and can be read at GoComics.com.
The movie is composed of seven different cartoons that all originally aired on television before hitting the big screen. So, it goes without saying this doesn't feel like a motion picture at all. The opening song and credits are the same as the TV series. The end credits are, too. Everything is the same. No creative differences to give audiences a little something extra and new. Nothing for fans to look forward to. It's like a TV special that got a theatrical release.
In this movie, Heathcliff relates his past shenanigans and misadventures to his three bored nephews, who lazily look exactly like their uncle, as they're stuck in the house on a rainy day.
The first story, Cat Food for Thought, sees Heathcliff become television celebrity.
In the next story, Heathcliff's Double, well...I think the title speaks for itself.
After that, the segment The Siamese Twins centers around two Siamese cats who meander through town ruining Heathcliff's reputation.

Scene from An Officer and an Alley Cat

And then in An Officer and an Alleycat, Healthcliff attends obedience school for a chance to win a lifetime supply of free cat food.
The Catfather is a parody of The Godfather.
Heathcliff enters the ring with a famous feline boxer in the segment Boom Boom Pussini.
For a children's cartoon, the last segment, Pop on Parole, leans a little dark. It's about Heathcliff's father who's out of jail on parole. His son thinks he broke out and that the police are looking for him. He does all he can to save his dad from being arrested again, only to find out the situation is not what it should be. 
Some segments continue right after the other like a big segue.
And overall, like the nephews, I was bored from the beginning all the way to the abrupt ending. I struggled to pay attention, and forced myself to be interested to what was happening.  
The studio (DiC Enterprises at the time) really ripped audiences off making them buy a ticket to watch seven cartoons they already saw on TV.
The movie is like a long, drawn out flashback episode of any given sitcom. I hated those, and still do. Those kinds of episodes are a poor attempt by studios to save money while still filling air time. Only with Heathcliff: The Movie, audiences were required to buy a ticket.
The movie does feature the voice talent of the legendary Mel Blanc (if you don't know who he is, I'm sorry for you) as Heathcliff, and Peter Cullen (the voice of Optimus Prime in Transformers among other notable characters) as Pop.
Blanc's voice talent in the series is enough to make Heathcliff memorable.
Director Bruno Bianchi was a French cartoonist, comic artist, and a co-creator of the popular cartoon, Inspector Gadget.
He started his career at DiC Entertainment, which produced the Heathcliff cartoon series.
Bianchi was also a director for other iconic 80s titles such as Rainbow Bright, M.A.S.K., and the short-lived series Popples based on the once popular toyline.

Riff-Raff and Cleo.

Watchers of the cartoon series may remember the first half of each episode dealt with Heathcliff's various escapades.
The second half of the show centered around "The Catillac Cats" - a gang of junkyard cats (Hector, Wordsworth, Mongo, and Cleo) led by another orange cat named Riff-Raff.
These characters make a few random appearances (except for Riff-Raff and Cleo) in the movie, but it's all focused on Heathcliff. Points for consistency!
Any kind of storyline, no matter how poor, would have been a better idea than this big disappointment.
It's pathetic. It's dull. Heathcliff: The Movie is the worst attempt at a cash grab I have seen so far in my life. I can't find a big enough word to emphasize how forgettable this is. No one should rip-off their neighborhood.


About "Comic to Movie"
In this new year, I'm going to sort through over 30 obscure, forgotten, or overlooked titles based on comic books and comic strips. I'll see which ones still deserve appreciation, and which are better left in the garbage can of comic book cinema - forever disposed like those childhood comics your mom threw away when you moved out of the house.