Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze (1975)

I'll tell you why so serious

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

I believe I only saw this George Pal production only once on TV as a kid, but it's one that I remember kind of making my head explode at the time and for whatever reason has always stuck with me. I'm not familiar with the young adult book series about the barrel-chested, super-genius, adventure and his team, The Fabulous Five (one of whom is played by a young Paul Gleason, best known as the jerk principal in "The Breakfast Club"), who are all experts in their fields. Watching the film now as an adult it's super corny, but still a whole lot of fun. The film is going for a Saturday matinée serial type of feel (i.e. Flash Gordon or The Perils of Pauline), which I'd say the underrated Disney film "The Rocketeer" got pitch perfect, though this film doesn't nail it quite as well. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" mined similar source material, but abandoned the knowing light hearted camp and took the film to a new level of high adventure, but "Doc Savage" wanted to be that family friendly film that was knowingly comic book-like. "Doc Savage" crosses the fine line between light camp and just plain silly too often (the grown man in the crib was just dumb). Still, I was really entertained by the movie and loved the vivid photography, the fun George Pal special effects, and was also tickled at seeing how similar Doc and his team were to Buckaroo Banzai and his team (which made me like "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension" even more). You also get a weirdly young Michael Berryman as a prim and proper top hat wearing coroner with a British accent. Filled with tommy guns, vintage yachts, period cars, iconic skyscrapers, and lot of fun action, I quite enjoyed re- watching this childhood favorite.

Michael Anderson, the director, did some fine movies, but stumbled badly here, and the sometimes cliché-ridden script didn't help matters. The huge problem with this movie is that a lack of respect was shown for the character of Doc Savage and his chums. No movie about a superhero can succeed if the filmmakers seem to snicker and jeer at their own lead character! The approach to Doc was much like the approach to "Batman" in the 1960's TV series--making the hero appear silly, not heroic. Amazingly, Ron Ely nearly makes the film work, despite the wrongheaded direction.It's similar to how filmmakers, trying to cash in on James Bond, didn't understand that the magic of Bond movies was, they took themselves seriously. The humor was not aimed at the story being told. The Matt Helm movies didn't take themselves seriously, and neither could audiences. Doc Savage could have been a classic! Making it a farce is an example of what not to do with a superhero!

I started reading the Bantam paperbacks in 1968 as a boy in England. They are a tremendous read and for years they promised, '..And there's a feature motion picture and a television series in his future' and for years I waited, only to be disappointed by this far too camped up film version. If they wanted to be amusing they only needed to treat it seriously, the far fetched aspects would have made strangers laugh and fans overjoyed. As for casting, Ron Ely's okay but Clint Walker would have been my choice (certainly when I started reading the books anyway) as for the 'Monk' in this movie, casting is appalling, the fellow is fat, Monk was like ' a good looking gorilla' and therefore an Ernest Borgnine, Bob Hoskins look-a-like would have been more suitable. No mention of Ham ever having a moustache in the books, but Renny was good casting. Having said that, like other commentators I usually watch the first half-hour and the last ten minutes which are set in period New York and do retain the flavour of the books. The rest of it is sadly clap-trap. And why in the film 'Rocketeer' did they substitute Howard Hughes for Doc Savage (as it is Doc who appears in the graphic novel) that might just have rekindled his cinematic career.

Doc Savage returns early from his fortress of solitude in the Antarctic as he senses something is wrong. He arrives at his home to find the members of the elite Amazing Five group all waiting for him with news that his father has died and that his last words are in a letter in his safe. One failed assassination attempt by a mysterious Indian and a fire later and Doc is left with no letter and no information. Along with the Amazing Five, he sets out for the Caribbean where they must confront the evil plot of Captain Seas and the threat of the mysterious `Green Death'.I can vaguely remember seeing this film years ago and thought I'd better be fair to it and see it again before reviewing it. The film immediately hits you with a style that I can only hope was tongue in cheek; the Amazing Five are not the usual geniuses you'd expect and Savage himself is so wooden and all-American that he can only be a send up of that type of comic book character. The plot is nonsense of course - just an excuse to pit Savage against the typically evil and driven bad guy Captain Seas. If you can watch more than half the film and really give a toss about where it's going then you are likely taking it all too seriously!Certainly the film doesn't take it too serious: everything from the script, the characters and the special effects. Special mention goes to the laughable `Green Death'. I realise this film is almost 30 years old at time of writing but these are basic even by standards then! My problem with the film is that it was clearly meant as a spoof (dear God, please tell me it was meant as a spoof!). Having wooden characters, a guy sleeping in a giant cot, eccentric baddies and ludicrous plotting certainly suggests a spoof was the intention. However if it is a spoof then where are the laughs? It is all too silly to be funny and, because it draws on the sheer absurdity of the situation, it is hard to be sure as it has few outright gags. Leslie Neilson plays it straight but the laughs never stop; here I can only assuming this is a spoof.If it isn't a spoof then, God help me, this is one of the worst things I have ever seen. Being a misfiring spoof is one thing; being a straight film that is this awful is quite another! Anyway - in keeping with the spoof idea, the majority of the Amazing Five all play it for laughs, but the idea of a slob who is also a world-renowned chemist is just silly and not funny. Ely plays it straight in what I imagine is a spoof of the heroic types. Sadly he has no comic timing and his lack of acting skills and bulky frame combine to make him seem even more wooden than he was. Gleason is the only actor I have seen since but he has a very small part here. Wexler is actually quite good, he plays it over animated and over the top that it can only be a spoof: the only time I actually laughed during the film was due to Wexler's performance (in a good way!).Overall this is a poor film no matter what it's intentions were. As a superhero/matinee/TV series spoof it had potential but simply lacks laughs. However, if it was meant as a straight film with laughs, it is even worse and can only be described as a mess. If you are in the mood for a `camp', silly film with very low production values then this might just make you giggle in a cheesy way - but you're better avoiding it.