John’s Movie Musings

Way back in 5th grade, I was Pente champion of Ranchwood Elementary School. In 6th, I came in 3rd after a brutal defeat to my brother. After my two years of near dominance, Pente is now just a topic of self-lifting conversation whenever I see people playing. Fortunately, those conversations end after I get beat in 5 rounds.

Now imagine if Pente had consumed my life from 5th Grade to Thirty-something (and beyond). And instead of Pente, it was Donkey Kong. You’d have a pretty good idea of what King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters is about.

“But wait,” you say. “This is a movie about video games. By law, it must suck.” True, that is the law, but this documentary transcends Kong and offers a look into the lives of those consumed by some inner drive to win.

Back when I was winning at Pente, Billy Mitchell was winning at Donkey Kong. And he got famous for it, setting the world record high score. He was so good, no one touched his score for decades. Finally, some teacher named Steve Weibe decided he could beat that score. King of Kong follows Steve into the freaking bizarre world of classic arcade competitions in his attempts to beat Billy’s untouchable score.

As you might imagine, that world is a bit unusual. Cameras and natural light rarely make an appearance. And while it’s easy (almost too easy) to mock the denizens of this world, King of Kong looks deeper into their culture. I watched this like a Natural Geographic show on the pygmies, asking why these people continued to pour their lives into decades-old games the rest of the world had left behind.

And then it hit me. During a moment where the Guinness Book of World Records gets involved, Steve Weibe’s daughter asks a simple, innocent question that cuts to the heart of everything. This movie is not about Donkey Kong or classic arcade games. It’s about those meaningless things in our lives that consume us, for one reason or another. After that, the 8-bit shell encasing the movie crumbled to reveal a universal question about what we devote our lives to.

And it’s all brilliant. Steve’s determination and humility makes you root for him. Then, after the interviews with his wife, he gets your pity. Billy Mitchell is the definition of evil, complete with a cult of star-struck followers. He’ll make you swear at the TV, I promise.

This is a must see. You may even start to re-examine the priorities in your life. With a bit of wisdom, that’s a very good thing.

Grade: A

So I accidentally threw myself into a theme of director’s cuts. Like Payback, Superman II also got “the director is whining, so let’s give him his own version” treatment. I also recognize that in my review of Superman: Doomsday, I said I wasn’t the biggest fan, but this makes the second Superman movie I’ve seen in less than a month. I’ll humbly keep quiet while you point and laugh.

So here’s the story on Superman I and II. The original Superman (starring Christopher Reeve) was directed by Richard Donner and written by Mario Puzo, the same guy who wrote The Godfather. Donner had a two-part story in mind, so he filmed I and II at the same time. Superman II was about 70% done when Donner had to shift his attention to editing I because it was running behind schedule.

After Superman I was released in theaters (to outstanding reviews), Donner and the studio had a major falling out and Donner was cut from Superman II. In his place, the studio put Richard Lester in charge. In order to have his name on the credits as director, 51% of the movie had to be his, so he cut major sections of Donner’s version and put in his own. Lester, who also directed Superman III, had a campier (read: crappier) vision for the series, so Puzo’s more serious script was rewritten to include more “jokes.” Marlon Brando also wanted an insane amount of money for his scenes (already filmed) to be used in II. The studio didn’t want that, so Brando was cut out completely. The movie was released in theaters and started the downward spiral of increasingly bad Superman films.

Fast forward almost 20 years and people on the internets started talking about what Superman II would have looked like if Donner could have completed his vision. I knew nothing of this, so I assume these discussions were buried under the arguments about how much more awesome Batman is.

Anyway, after going back and forth on it, Donner settled the legal issues and restored/ re-edited his vision of Superman II. Or at least as close as he could get since he couldn’t go back film any more (Rest in peace, Christopher Reeve). He also didn’t want to Lucas-ize it and add today’s special effects into an 80s movie, so he just cut together what he already had.

So how is it? From a big picture perspective, it’s fascinating to see what happens when a studio gets in the way of a director’s vision. Donner’s version fits a lot more closely with the original Superman and expands some themes from it. Over half the movie is “new” and with Brando’s scenes back in, there’s a lot of added character development that helps set a new tone to the story.

Not all is perfect, though. Donner originally intended for the first movie to end in a cliffhanger with the three super-villains escaping from their mirror prison and wreaking havoc on the moon. That scene got moved to Superman II, so I ended with Superman rolling back time (remember Supes flying backwards around the earth?). However, that was supposed to be the ending to II. Since this is Donner’s version of how II should have looked, you have Superman I and II with the same beginning and ending. That’s odd, to say the least, but taking the series as a whole, it’s neat to see “what should have been.”

There’s not many of you who will be interested in this. And that’s ok. But for those of you who enjoy listening to the director’s commentary on DVDs, this is a must see. If you are a Superman fan, rent Superman I, then this. Or, if you have lots of spare time, rent Lester’s Superman II and watch it before this one. For everyone else, just read the Wiki.

Grade: B+