Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Sammy-Jo Cervantes There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Dalbert Pringle "It's a bird! It's a plane! It's...(heck, you know the rest)!" Bullets just bounce off him. Criminal masterminds can't outfox him. And even the deadly, destructive gizmos dreamed up by mad scientists can't blast him into smithereens.With powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men, Superman had the super-strength and super-endurance to defeat all of his many determined foes.This highly-enjoyable, low-budget, action-packed, TV series from the fabulous 1950s is great fun for all ages. This was a show that was very representative of its time in American culture.Containing surprisingly little gunfire (except at Superman) and a significantly toned-down approach to its violence (where Superman often resorted to banging the criminals' heads together), this lighthearted and often whimsical superhero show featured villains who were clearly caricatures of themselves, playing their parts in a very tongue-in-cheek fashion.Featuring an excellent cast, The Adventures Of Superman was impressively headlined by actor George Reeves, as the Man of Steel. With his athletic build, square-jawed good looks and likable screen persona, Reeves was, undoubtedly, an ideal choice to play the ultimate superhero of the 20th Century.As essential viewing for anyone interested in 1950's pop culture and the very beginnings of TV superheroes, The Adventures Of Superman is sure to please one and all with its fast-paced, half-hour episodes that come at you (faster than a speeding bullet) in living color (starting with the show's second seasons).

mikelmike77 The Adventyres of Superman was a lot of fun for boys and girls of the 50s and 60s for sure .Although the acting was second rate , the special effects non- existent , and the writing terrible , it didn't have to be great , just great fun and that it was !!! George Reeves as Superman was good although there really was that much real acting involved in his part as Superman . For me Perry White always going off on Jimmy Olsen was very funny and one of the few parts of the show that you could count on to be funny and regularly present each episode . The shots of Reeves doing a super stunt were really 10th rate at best , I assume the budget was 100 dollars per episode if that , the quality was very low but I still love watching this fun , nostalgic series .

John T. Ryan Well now, Itis with great pride to be able to tell the world that it was over Channel 7, the ABC affiliate here in Chicago, that the ADVENTURES of SUPERMAN was first aired. Although it would be a lie to say that our household was viewing for what was unceremonious 'World Premier', we were viewers a short time thereafter.It must be understood that this was much more than just another filmed television series. It was a catalyst to a whole other imaginary world. It opened our imagination to this other level of noble heroes doing super feats for the greater good of mankind.There were 5 of us Ryan kids in our household and save for our older sister, the Late Joanne Ryan (1942-1990), none of us had any experience with Superman. Joanne had read some of the comic books (though never a regular reader) and was old enough to have followed the SUPERMAN Radio Progran over the Mutual Radio Network. The rest of us-one sister and three brothers-all got our original Super-contact with the television episodes.* And what a great relationship it was. Although we all knew we were watching a filmed, fictional story, just as we knew that HOWDY DOODY was make believe, puppetry & scenery, the Superman series provided something that was, and still is, much more.Using our ability to own copies of the whole series, we can view and compare episode to episode, even season to season. If we were to rely on our memories, we would probably come out with a sort of somewhat blurred montage of overlapping shows and plots, all equaling an overview of our imaginations.When viewed today in a relatively short span of time, we can readily see the differences between episodes of different seasons. We can say that one of the obvious changes to take place is the incidental music, or the musical ques that set the mood, underline the action. There is a steady evolution of themes, quite different from season to season.** There was seemingly a whole different set of themes for each succeeding year. But that would only constitute a most obvious and superficial set of differences.Most people will tell you that they prefer the first two seasons, this writer would concur, making the second season my personal favourite. But recently, my admittedly slow moving gray matter came up with this observation and hypothesis.Okay, we'll concede that seasons one and two are better made, have a lot more outdoor scenes and generally aimed at the whole family, and not just the juvenile trade. Season one in particular seems to be much more violent, with more killings, more sinister occurrences, and an almost Film Noir tone to much of the out put. Even Superman's behaviour is less restrained as he really throws punches, where in later episodes/seasons, a little tap would do.*** But one great difference, which we couldn't have noticed by hardly any body viewing the episodes in the one at a time, season after season. That is although seasons 1 & 2 are, generally better stories,made in a more overall family friendly, yet in such a manner as to invite viewing by all, not just the kiddies.The 3rd and successive seasons saw some cutbacks in budgetary matters and some of the stories,while no more or less fantastic, were filmed in less different sets and with less outdoor scenes. Even so, they have a certain friendly feeling to them. This is so because, in the opinion of this writer, of a collective build-up of strong feelings for the characters of the series.We boys all had recognized a deep seeded attraction for Lois (both of 'em!),just as the girls recognized Kent/Superman as a true gentleman, a latter day Sir Galahad. (more about Reeves later). We found that John Hamilton's characterization of Perry White as short tempered, blustery and so autocratic-whereas underneath it all, we knew Perry was a sweet tempered, old softie.I guess, in short what it all comes down to the following premise. Whereas the 1st and 2nd seasons were a little more expensive budgetary, the subsequent seasons portrayed more empathy to and from the audience, mainly because of the depth of characterizations, built over the whole life of the series.That certainly goes especially for Mr. Reeves, whose character was at once good, strong, decent, intelligent and kind to the nth degree. I guess that is why we all had that numb, hurt and empty feeling on that fateful day of June 16, 1959.* At this time we did have comic books in the house, but no super hero types. They were generally the likes of DENNIS THE MENACE, LITTLE LULU and like all good little Catholic School Kids, TREASURE CHEST (remember?)!** The music varied quite a bit from season to season. Of course other than the heroic opening/closing theme, the incidental music changed drastically over the years. This was subject of a detailed, well documented article in one of those comic journal type magazines several years ago.*** It seemed that there weren't too many restrictions put on the Man of Steel in the first season. He really threw some hard punches at so many of those thugs! There were quite a few brutal killings (not by Superman) In what would be a completely unacceptable and totally politically incorrect moves, in the episode THE MISSING COSTUME, Superman kidnaps Gangster (Dan Seymour) and his Moll (Veda Ann Borg), confining up at the top of a snowy mountain because they've discovered his identity as Clark Kent!

schappe1 I made my reacquaintence with this icon of my youth, (I was born in 1953 and saw it on reruns), when I purchased the second season DVD in a local store. It was interesting seeing the old show after several decades. I watched the first two Christopher Reeve films but not much after that. I was into more "adult" stuff but it's interesting what value you can find in the things you watched as a kid.I found the old show nearly as entertaining as I did in the old days. The positive lessons were rather muted by the comic nature of the villains. One episode was memorable in this regard, however- the only one with a death in it in the second season. Two clowns are dressed in the same costume – one is an imposter who has stolen some money from a telethon. They are having a fight on top of a roof. Which is which? One of the clowns gets the better of the other and pushes him off the roof. But he loses his balance as well. Superman can't catch both at once. He makes a choice and catches the "good" clown. The other, dying, wants to know how he knew. Because the good clown, even in his anger, would not have pushed his rival off the roof. Good stuff.Due to the budget, the effects are limited but they work for the most part. The science fiction angle is limited to a few episodes. It's mostly Superman vs. Damon Runyon gangsters. The two great villains of the comic books, Lex Luthor and Brainiac, never make an appearance. The comic aspect is entertaining, particularly when Clark Kent is assailed by the crew of a ship and has no chance to change into his costume and can't give himself away by winning the fight: he addresses the audience and says "Where is Superman when you need him?" I also like the episode where he has to keep swallowing an unstable explosive and having it blow up inside of him. He finally says "Not again!" George Reeves may or may not have been the best Superman but he was certainly the best Clark Kent. Kent here is not a nerdy beginner but an ace reporter who has earned everyone's respect. Reeve's comic talents and natural charm come to the fore and yet he can be an authoritative hero when the occasion demands. All the top heroes of the shows designed to appeal to children in those days had this combination of strength and gentleness in their manner- William Boyd, Clayton Moore, Kirby Grant, etc. What's really amazing is that it's well known that Reeves was ambivalent at best about playing this role- Jack Larson says in a commentary that he'd often storm off the set and stay in his dressing room for hours. But there isn't a hint of that in any scene.One difference between the movies and the TV show is that the movies are about Superman- he's the identity character. We follow him from birth through childhood to the Fortess of Solitude to Metropolis where he's starting a career as a journalist. Lois Lane is already an accomplished professional who is dismissive of Clark but who idolizes Superman. Can he get Lois to love him- both of them? On the TV show, it seems to me the identity characters are Lois and Jimmy. They have more scenes than Clark and Superman. They create the action, because both are trying to prove they can "make it" in their profession. Clark and Superman are there to rescue them Most of Reeves' lines as Clark are exposition- figuring out what's going on. His Superman sequences are action scenes with minimal dialog. I think the series is really about Lois and Jimmy, who know Clark Kent and Superman, in the way that the Sherlock Holmes stories are really the story of Dr. John Watson and his adventures with his great friend.