Boring

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

"Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze" adapts the fiction of Kenneth Robeson for the screen with engaging results. It's a harmless, gloriously goofy throwback to 1930s era pulp nonsense. Clearly it's NOT meant to be taken all that seriously, even though most of the cast do a fine job of maintaining poker faces (which is usually the right way to play this sort of material). It's spirited, lively stuff, played to perfection by the talented actors and crew.Ron Ely, star of the 1966-68 'Tarzan' TV series, makes for an appealing hero as Doc Savage, a jack of all trades who goes on various globe trotting adventures with his team The Fabulous Five: Paul Gleason as Long Tom, William Lucking as Renny, Michael Miller as Monk, Eldon Quick as Johnny, and Darrell Zwerling as Ham. Each man has his own area of expertise, and they're always ready to help out their friend Doc. Doc receives word that his father has died and left a precious natural resource to him, but also comes to believe that the old man may have been murdered. Our merry band of protagonists are soon doing battle with greedy, nefarious Captain Seas (Paul Wexler) and his minions.Fans of the literature excoriate this movie as an adaptation, but it's great fun if one doesn't have that previous association. It's often quite amusing, and is suitable for family audiences, if not particularly politically correct. The oddest but funniest touch: one of the villains, the sniveling Don Rubio Gorro (Bob Corso), sleeps in a constantly rocking crib, tucked into a fetal position! The Sousa march based music score is absolutely priceless, and it's hard not to sing along with that theme.Some of the principal creative talent are old pros at this sort of thing: George Pal ("The War of the Worlds" '53, "The Time Machine" '60) is producer and co-writer, and Michael Anderson ("Around the World in 80 Days", "Logan's Run") is director. And the look for the picture is just right. It would have fit in just fine during the days of old time movie serials.The acting is generally agreeable. Wexler is a delicious if not very threatening villain. Miller provides the most blatant comedy relief as the chemist who dotes on a pet piglet. Pamela Hensley ("Rollerball", 'Matt Houston'), Robyn Hilton ("Blazing Saddles"), and Janice Heiden provide appreciable eye candy. Appearing in bits are Michael Berryman (in his film debut) as a coroner and Robert Tessier as a henchman. And an unbilled Paul Frees is the narrator.At the end there's an advertisement for a sequel, although no sequel ever got made.One of my favorite touches? Doc and Captain Seas implementing various fighting methods during their climactic showdown, with accompanying text on screen.Eight out of 10.

I dug this out and watched it tonight. I honestly think it must be 20 years since the last time I saw it. I remember it being a seriously flawed film. I don't remember it being THIS bad!!!!!I am absolutely aghast that a project with this much potential should have been mistreated so reprehensibly. Who am I to blame for this? The 2 guys who wrote (and I use that word loosely) the script? The casting directors who so terribly miscast at least 3 major characters in the story? (Only 2 of them are among "the amazing 5".) The director, who clearly refused to take it seriously, and kept shoving awful music on top of bad writing & bad acting everywhere? (I LIKED the theme song-- but it should never have been used all the way throughout the entire film!) Don Black, who should be ASHAMED at some of the lyrics he wrote for that music?It figures that I should pull this out, less than a week after re-reading the comic-book adaptation. The first 15-20 minutes of the film more-or-less (really, LESS) parallel the first issue of the comic. As I watched it tonight, I kept wondering-- why was ALMOST every single detail changed? Doc showing up, then using his wrist-watch remote-control to open the safe, and the sniper's bullet missing him by 5 inches because the refractive glass, were just about the only things left the same. I mean, if you're gonna do an "adaptation", WHY in God's name change EVERYTHING???Once they leave Doc's HQ, virtually NOTHING is as it was in the comic (which, given Roy Thomas, I figure probably follows the book). I read somewhere they actually combined elements of 2 different novels into one movie. Again-- WHY? I've heard it was changed because they weren't able to secure the kind of budget they wanted. I look at the film, and think... LACK OF MONEY in NO WAY explains what I saw on the screen!!You know, when people complain about Joel Schumacher, they should really take a look at this thing. The best thing I can say is, I think it would make a great double-feature with the 1966 BATMAN feature-- and probably a great triple-bill with that and the 1980 FLASH GORDON. All 3 films are "silly". Maybe we can "blame" the 1966 film (and TV series) for this. Some fans have complained over the years that Adam West's BATMAN ruined the image of comic-books in the minds of generations of non-comics fans. I think the same could be said for Hollywood. I'm reminded of how many really, really BAD films based on "classic" characters have been made over the years, especially (it seems to me) in the late 70's & early 80's. Charlie Chan, Fu Manchu, Tarzan, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, The Lone Ranger-- all "murdered" by Hollywood types who think, "OH, comic-books! So you know it's supposed to be STUPID!" More like they're the "stupid" ones. What a waste of potential.Let me say some good things... Despite the script and the directing, Ron Ely is GREAT. When I read a DOC SAVAGE story, I don't think of the James Bama paintings, I think of Ely. Bill Lucking (who later was a regular on THE A-TEAM) is terrific. Eldon Quick (who I've seen somewhere else, but can't recall where) is terrific. Paul Gleason-- who I absolutely HATED with a passion and a vengeance in THE BREAKFAST CLUB ("teachers" like the one he played should be banned from ever teaching anywhere), may be the best of the "amazing 5" in the film. Pamela Hensley-- though her part was almost unrecognizable from the original story-- is terrific. Before she let her hair down, I also realized she looked a HELL of a lot like "Ardala Valmar" from those awful John Calkins BUCK ROGERS strips I just read the other day. She's got a big nose like Ardala-- only not quite as pronounced. The comics Ardala actually looked more like the 1936 movie Princess Aura-- or Cher. Or maybe Streisand. Take yer pick. (Ardala actually got plastic surgery in the George Tuska strips-- after, she was stunning!)Paul Wexler, funny enough, I saw just last week in a GET SMART episode. I wonder if he was anything like the character he was supposed to be playing? I don't know, because that character sure wasn't in the movie the film takes its title from.

I saw this film in its premier week in 1975. I was 13 years old and at that time I found it adequate and somewhat fun. I then came to discover the WORLD of Doc Savage through the Bantam novels of the old pulp magazine stories. I had no idea before any of this of the realm of Doc, but I fast became one of the most avid Doc Savage fans you could ever meet. I read (and still own) all of the Bantam books, I started going to comic book cons (along with Star Trek and Doctor Who and all manner of geeky fat kid events) and had a wonderful time with each adventure I took with Doc and the ORIGINAL Fab 5. Philip Jose Farmer's Book - The Apocalyptic Life of Doc Savage became a bit of a bible for me and to this day I have very fond feelings regarding my Doc phase. In so saying I have to admit now years later that this film really missed the boat. It is a film that did not know what it wanted to be when it grew up. The screenplay was infantile and bore little resemblance to the pulp story. These stories from the 30's were short and if one looked at Lester Dent's (AKA Kenneth Robeson) outline for writing them, they broke down into PERFECT 3 act dramas that screamed for screen treatment. One would have thought that with George Pal and Michael Anderson at the helm, it would have turned out better. The spoof elements miss the target and the more serious moments almost get there, but then fall short. It is interesting to watch though in that they hired second-string character actors (guys that had really been only bit players and extras before this film) who all acquit themselves very well. Paul Gleason of course has gone on to be a fine utility player in all facets of entertainment and Bill Lucking is a television perennial. All the rest have fallen off the map sadly. I do wish to own a copy of this film as it is the only movie version of my hero, but I fear I will not watch it much as it is too painful. I would say 0 but I give it 2 out of 10 instead for some of the period art direction (Doc's answering machine at the end was a nice touch) and the cast of 3rd stingers getting a moment in the sun.

DOC SAVAGE: THE MAN OF BRONZE (1 outta 5 stars)Dreadful, dreadful movie... based on the pulp magazine/paperback series by Lester Dent/Kenneth Robeson... about a super-heroic adventure hero in the '30s and his five assistants, all experts in some field of endeavor that allows them to combat evil. It was a pretty hokey series... but kinda fun to read when I was a teenager. I knew they made a movie version in the '70s, starring Ron (Tarzan) Ely... but I never got a chance to see it. It never played in theaters where I lived and was never shown on TV. Now that I have finally seen the film I can understand why. The plot and characters are never treated seriously... it's all kind of tongue-in-cheek and campy... kind of like the old Batman TV series... only without the benefit of being funny... or having any visual flair. Corny dialogue, cheesy special effects, dumb stereotypes, crummy action scenes and bad, bad acting. Actually, I find it kind of fascinating in its badness... what could they have possibly been thinking? Arnold Schwarzenegger was rumoured to be starring in a modern-day remake... but I don't imagine that would have turned out to be much better.