Review of Superman and the Mole Men (1951) by The Critic ( — 15 Aug 2012

It's considered by many to be the first legitimate Superhero film but it's really not that much better than the many TV serials that came before it. Hammy, campy, with lackluster acting, this one misses.

Day 1: Superman and the Mole Men.

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 dà (C)but, 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.

As with everything else, the first outing rarely gets it 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 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 dug by a drill, 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 couldn't be more wooden if he was carved out of driftwood.

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

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.