July 12, 2025

<em>'Superman and the Mole Men'</em> is actually pretty solid. I knew nothing coming into it, yet wasn't expecting all that much from such a short run time of 58 minutes. It turns out, I was satisfied. It admittedly isn't anything overly enthralling, but it is a watchable Superman flick.

George Reeves is stronger as Clark Kent than as the main man, though that can be down to the fact that he is Kent for the vast majority - and I liked him in t… read the rest.

<em>'Superman and the Mole Men'</em> is actually pretty solid. I knew nothing coming into it, yet wasn't expecting all that much from such a short run time of 58 minutes. It turns out, I was satisfied. It admittedly isn't anything overly enthralling, but it is a watchable Superman flick.

George Reeves is stronger as Clark Kent than as the main man, though that can be down to the fact that he is Kent for the vast majority - and I liked him in that role. Phyllis Coates' Lois Lane feels like Lois Lane, so that's another positive. The rest of the cast are all alright too.

I, somewhat surprisingly given the obvious limitations that the (independent) filmmakers had back in 1951, really enjoyed the Mole Men. They do look rather dorky and kinda silly, but to be honest their minimal design more than did the job for me. I was happy to see 'em onscreen.

The first feature film based on a DC Comics character, how about that. It's always fascinating to me with situations like this, like imagine telling the people involved with this back in 1951 that superhero flicks would become so gargantuan around 70 years later. Trailblazers!

show less