BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

adonis98-743-186503 When underground beings explore the surface world from a deep oil well and inadvertantly cause a panic, only Superman can prevent a tragedy. Superman and the Mole-Men is packed with cartoony effects of the time, terrible acting and some of the dumbest humans i have ever seen in movie history, we don't even see him flying for god shakes the camera is like first person instead of 3rd one except one scene where he saves one of the mole men. Overall one of DC's absolute worst films and one huge waste of time and except an alright perfomance from George Reeves the film is just ridiculous. (2/10)

Ian (Flash Review)It clocks in at 1hr yet it has a properly thought out story. I had no idea what this would be like but I was presently surprised. Oil men drill a hole 23 miles down or something into the Earth and these hilarious little creature people living way down there ascend upon the outer crust. They makes friends with a little girl but of course the itchy trigger finger locals want them gone. Once threatened, they bring up a kickass ray gun that takes two of them to hold. Superman must come to save the day! Shot in black & white, it was a bummer not to see his costume in full color but it was interesting to see the effects they create to give the impression of him flying. One is a high POV shot from a crane over the town with a loud wind roar for the audio. Humorous. The acting is firm and dry but overall it was a solid film showing Superman's powerful traits. Films geeks should check this out.

John T. Ryan DESIGNED AS SORT of a big screen kick-off for the ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN TV Series, the MOLE MEN feature is somewhat mixed bag of a film. On the one hand , it has an obvious look of a frugal budget. As a feature accompanying the bottom line, the picture was released by Hollywood's "Poverty Row" member, Lippert Pictures, Inc.BEING THAT THIS is the first on screen teaming of George Reeves with Phyllis Coates as Kent/Superman and Lois Lane, it came across very well and convincingly. When the feature is viewed by a true aficionado of the TV Series, there is little evidence as to its being the initial paring; save for the intensity displayed by George. He obviously was still growing into the role and developing his own interpretation. (You know, "What's my motivation Lee?" to director Sholem.) THERE ARE NO scenes depicting the Man of Steel flying over us in the sky; which would become so popular and expected in the series. They did have him shown taking off sand landing and one shot depicts his point of view of the land below; an interesting and effective process that was never used again. Also, animation is used to portray Superman's rescue of a wounded Mole Man from a fall off of the dam. (This was similar to the cartoon flying effect used in the two Columbia serials, SUPERMAN (1948) and ATOM MAN VS. SUPERMAN (1950).THE TONE AND mood of the movie was the same as that which permeated the entire first season of television. Some thought them to be just a trifle too serious and violent for the small fry viewers, sort of Film Noir. This was changed in season number two. The shift in content's emotional tone was accomplished by replacing producer Robert Maxwell with DC Comics editor, Whitney Ellsworth. WITH THE RUNNING time of 58 minutes, it was the perfect length to cut into two episodes of the television series (the only two part story they had). The titles were "The Unknown People" parts one and two; which were wisely made into the last two episodes of season one. The regular characters of Jimmy Olsen and Perry White did not appear and weren't mentioned in the credits.ALTHOUGH THERE WERE certainly some short comings, the over all effect was a good one. Lois Lane, Clark Kent and Superman all hit the ground running and are still doing so on television outlets like METV and Heroes & Icons.

lemon_magic I don't think that anyone who cares about such things would deny that George Reeves brought a certain dignity and gravitas to the "Superman" role, or that the series (or this movie) wouldn't have been nearly as good without him. So let's get that issue out of the way early - yes, I am a fan of Reeves. He provided the standard that all other wearers of the tights have to be measured against. I am also aware that the crews that put these things together back in the 50's had extremely limited budgets and shooting schedules. Given the expanded SFX capabilities, materials and budgets (and personal trainers) of the modern era, I am willing to bet that those directors and film crews could come up with products that compare favorably to any of the modern superhero movies that we laud. Originally I thought this movie was "Superman Versus The Mole Men", so I was kind of surprised ***spoiler warning***when the Mole Men turned out to be timid, harmless midgets who were the victims of a misunderstanding, so Superman spends most of the movie trying to save them, instead of fighting them.***spoiler ends*** But that's OK - the plot had a flavor of seriousness and sincerity that has aged well; there was a strong message of tolerance and understanding between different cultures, which was pretty good writing for the 50s. Any battle scenes they could afford to stage back then would have been pretty lame anyway. So actually, my main beef with "Superman and the Mole Men" is that it doesn't have enough of Superman in it. Whenever Reeves is on the screen, either in the tights or in his "Clark Kent" sack suit, the eight year old inside me is still tickled silly. But there are long, draggy stretches of the movie where the movie makers try to advance the plot, but actually just pad things out. ****mild spoiler**** Especially useless is a long, extended chase scene where the townspeople chase one of the Mole Men cross country with bloodhounds for at least 10 minutes, until they finally trap him in a small shack and set it on fire (the Mole Man escapes by going through the floorboards). I believe this extended scene was deleted in the two part "adaptation" of this movie to television, which shows that the editors basically agreed with me. ***end of spoiler*** The other problem with the screenplay lies with the way some of the townspeople are depicted: an older guys, "Pops", dies of a heart attack at the sight of, well, munchkins. The oil well boss doesn't warn the crews of the danger they face drilling through radioactive rocks, he just hides the drills. The leader of the lynch mob is not only a xenophobe, and by implication a racist, he's an idiot. How else can you explain the way he takes a swing at the flying bulletproof man who can bend steel in his bare hands - and who knocks him out with one punch -...and then repeatedly tries to shoot the guy in later scenes? Also, no one ever seems to notice that for a "mild mannered reporter", Clark Kent is a very decisive, take-charge kind of guy. He is, in fact, larger than life even in his secret identity, and it defies belief that no one in this movie, or over the years of the series, ever gives "Clark Kent" credit for his deeds and pivotal roles as a reporter. They really did add up. The character of "Superman" requires a suspension of disbelief in the laws of biology and physics, but the character of "Clark Kent" requires a weird kind of suspension of disbelief in human character and motivation. Lois Lane (no matter who played her), for all her charms, must have actually been dumber than a bag of hammers.Anyway; Reeves is the only reason to watch the movie, and there isn't enough Reeves in it. That's why only six stars.