Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze

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.

I saw this movie when I was 15 and fell in love with it. Sure, it was campy but so much fun. I was so enthralled by the concept and the characters that I went out and read every one of the novels by Lester Dent (Kenneth Roberson). I am also still upset that they never made a sequel.

Now it's time for a new Doc Savage film! But, anyone who makes it needs to consider the following:

1. The 70s film -- while I enjoyed it very much -- was a spoof like the 60s Batman TV show. A new film should ignore it totally and start from scratch. It needs to be fun and excited -- NOT a cartoon like the original.

2. Keep it in the same 30's time period of the books like they did with the recent King Kong film. A modern version would be a disgrace.

3. MOST IMPORTANT: Do not -- I repeat, do NOT hire a muscle bound, pump freak like the Rock, as some people have suggested, to play Doc. A few years ago Arnold Schwarzenegger was up or the part of Doc Savage and thank God they dropped the project! His participation would have been a joke and an insult to the character -- and us. Remember that the Doc character was NEVER a pumped up balloon like Ah-nold and the Rock. Like Batman (in the comics, not the films), he was in excellent shape, but NOT pumped up. Doc was also a genius, and in no way, shape, or form, would ANYONE accept Arnold, the Rock or any other WWF reject or athletic pseudo-celeb as a genius. Take a look at Ron Ely in the 70's film. He was perfect for the role at that time and an actor today needs to have the same physical look he had -- AND look intelligent.

Otherwise don't waste your time -- or ours.

JK

Out of the 30s came a number of superheroes, some of which are still with us, e.g., Batman, Superman, etc. The comics still have their followers and collectors. If I'd saved all my funnybooks from that era, I no doubt would be a wealthy man today, but I didn't and am not at all wealthy. However, the 30s was also the time of pulp heroes, e.g., the Saint, and Doc Savage. I remember seeing the paperbacks (called pocketbooks back then) with Doc Savage on the cover, usually draped in a torn shirt, showing his hyperdeveloped upper body and sculpted hair, his face in a contorted grimace suggesting pain or constipation. I never read any of the books and in fact, was living in South America when this film was released. In fact, it was a crazy friend and fellow colleague anthropologist who touted the film to me and got me curious. So, when it showed up on the late show, I watched it with interest. Ron Ely was an excellent choice for the title role. He had been a TV Tarzan (one of the better ones, BTW) and handled the action quite well. The story? Well, high adventure, whatever that means. Sadly, the thrills of the 30s do not always play well into the present day. They certainly didn't back in the late 70s when I saw this film. It was fun, entertaining but not particularly memorable. The good guys were good and the villain was villainous. Good triumphed but not without a struggle. What more can I say? There have been some schlock films which play on this theme. Some suffer from terrible writing, some from terrible acting and direction-- some from both. This film comes out a bit better than average in my estimation. Fun to watch but like yesterday's Chinese blue plate special, not very memory-provoking.

The problem is that the movie rode in on the coattails of the 60's-created concept that comic books could only be done as "camp" (i.e., the 60's Batman show) for TV and movie. Thus you have combat sequences with subtitles (come on!), a cluelessly unromantic Doc Savage (he was uncomfortable around women in the pulps, not an idiot), Monk Mayfair in a nightsheet (a scene guaranteed to give you nightmares for several nights), and the totally hokey ending with the secondary bad guy encased in gold like a Herve Villechez posing for an Oscar statute. And when they're not doing booming Sousa march scores, the tinkly little "funny" music undercuts much of the drama.

Even as such, this movie is...okay. It's fun, and when it stays serious it's a very accurate representation of the pulps. Except for Monk, as has been mentioned before: he's hugely muscled, not obese. And Long Tom, who is supposed to be a pale scrawny guy with an attitude, not Paul Gleason with an (inexplicable) scarf.

The Green Death sequences, for instance, are remarkably gruesome and not something I'd recommend for children. But they are very close to the feel of the pulps. When the writers and producers get it right, they do get it right - I'll give them that.

But if the producers had done Doc with the loving care and scripting of, say, Reeves' first two Superman movies, think what we might have had then. I think the problem is the movie's schizophrenic. There's a definite sense of trying to do a 30's homage, but they're also trying to give in to the "heroes must be camp" attitude that Batman created. One gets the impression there was a sober, pulp-style first draft and then someone came in and said, "Hey, let's make it funny - it worked with the Batman show 8 years ago!"

But Doc lives on, thanks to Earl MacRauch and Buckaroo Banzai. If MacRauch ain't doing a homage to Doc Savage in that movie, the man is truly demented. So when the series actually gets on TV (allegedly mid-season in '99-00), Doc Savage, updated to the 90's, will live once more.

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!