User Reviews

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!

The 1930's was the heyday of Tarzan, the Lone Ranger, the Shadow, the Spider, the Green Hornet, Captain Midnight, Gene Autry, Flash Gordon, and eventually Superman and Batman. A great pantheon of pop culture heroes flourished in pulp magazines, comic strips, radio shows, and movie serials.

The 1960's gave us Adam West as Batman, Derek Flint, Maxwell Smart, 007, and many other hero spoofs(not to mention the theater then unfolding in the socio-political realms); the concept of the hero emerged from this period battered and shaken.

The early 1970's saw the emergence of a new type of rather angry anti-hero: Dirty Harry, Shaft, Billy Jack, Superfly, etc.

Producer George Pal had accurately predicted the sci-fi craze of the 1950's, and so he produced the first picture of that cycle as well as producing the classic and best versions of 'War of the Worlds' and 'The Time Machine'. George Pal correctly understood that by the mid-1970's the collective unconscious of America was hungry for a return of the old school hero, 1930's style.

George Pal knew that to make an adventure of this sort with a hero like Doc Savage that you had to somehow acknowledge the absurdity of it all. Unfortunately, while Indiana Jones and the Rocketeer gave the audience the equivalent of a knowing wink, Doc Savage's director stopped just an inch short of having Doc Savage slip on a banana peel. This film, then, is an uneasy mix of authentic 1930's style pulp magazine adventure and ham-fisted attempts at camp.

The single worst thing in this film is the soundtrack, a creative but ultimately dreadful batch of John Phillip Sousa marches, including a custom Doc Savage lyric, which is especially loathsome. It is indeed fortunate that a good many parts of this film managed to escape this score.

Negatives aside, this film will be mildly enjoyable to fans of pulp magazines, old comics, radio and serial heroes, etc. Fans of Doc Savage should be mollified by the many elements of the source material which were faithfully realized, and that compared to more recent super-hero flicks, the writers took relatively few liberties. Overall, the cast is pretty good, and Ron Ely looks exactly like the vision of Doc Savage on the covers of the original pulps. I think he pulls off the role pretty well. And there are old style cars, airplanes, clothes, and fight scenes, so it's a pretty fun ride.

George Pal might have missed the mark here, but not by much. Just a year after this film came 'Star Wars,' which was basically a retooling of the old Flash Gordon serials. In 1978 came 'Superman, the Movie.' Two years after that came the 1st Indiana Jones flick, set smack dab in the 1930's, just like Doc Savage. All of these latter productions, however, benefited by taking their source material or inspiration just a little bit more seriously than Pal did.

But since 'Doc Savage,' more1930's throwback films have flopped than succeeded, at least commercially: 'The Legend of the Lone Ranger,' 'The Phantom,' 'The Rocketeer,' 'The Shadow,' and 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.' All of these were big budget affairs. For some reason, certain persons amongst us are irresistibly drawn to that long lost decade, when imagination populated the world with mythic heroes. Too bad these heroes usually remain one step beyond our reach.

I love Doc Savage stories. I won't pretend to have read all 180+ of them, anyone who has is probably obsessive, but I have read 15 or so, and will probably read at least that many more in the future. The stories are well paced, engaging and Lester Dent tried to pass on some new bit of "information" in each, most likely the topic he had studied up on in order to write the next monthly installment of Doc's magazine. In one story you learn a bit about blimps, something about Cairo in the next, then the Bermuda Triangle, and so on until you decide you have read enough Doc books for one lifetime. It was a good formula and Lester Dent made it work with this character for longer than any person could have expected. It was a real accomplishment.

The other element of charm contained in the Doc books are the characters. They are likable enough, but there is more to it than that. They are pure and good. Too pure, and too perfect, that is completely true. And Doc himself always took purity and perfection to the nth degree. But since the books were written in an earnest voice this quality came across as refreshing, perhaps even a bit inspirational. Each book I laugh a few times at the ridiculous feats Doc accomplishes due to his meticulous mental and physical training. His unblemished virtue brings out the same a few times. The thing is, it all works in the books because Dent was not winking at his readers. He obviously knew he was writing ridiculous material and creating impossible characters, but he sold it straight, and so while it can bring a smile to your face, it does not produce scorn or embarrassment. It is a world and people you want to be a part of, not mock.

I wrote the above to give those people who watch the Doc Savage movie more of a sense of how the movie got Savage wrong. There is quite a bit in the movie that works, and it is fun at points, and I think Ely is well cast, but too often it violates the essential spirit of Dent's books by refusing to give the audience the option of taking the characters or the adventure seriously. If the film went for "over the top" instead of "goof ball" in a few scenes I suspect it all would have worked. "Worked" at least well enough to let Doc Savage fans feel like they had seen the heroes they knew on the screen, and well enough to let the rest of the viewers feel they had seen an honest attempt at a retro-action serial. Instead we have a movie that we can probably best describe as a curiosity carrying more than a whiff of missed potential, but one ultimately defined by its poor choices.

If you are not a Doc purist, the movie is not horrible. One always wishes for more than such a bottom line.

I was fortunate enough to meet George Pal (and still have my DS:TMOB poster autographed by him) at a convention shortly after the release, and asked him why he chose to do the film "camp". Before he could answer, two studio flacks intercepted and lectured me on how the studio "knew best" and how "no one will take such a film seriously". I had been reading the Bantam reprints for a couple of years thanks to a friend (ComiCon attendees of the 1970s will recall Blackhawk and his band? I was in a couple of years of that with him), and had higher hopes than what we got.

The flacks insisted that no high adventure would ever be done seriously, and so doing 'camp' was the only way. Several other fans jumped in on my side, with Pal listening as best he could. At the end of the little event, Pal came up to us and apologized, wishing he could have done more and better.

STAR WARS put the lie to the flacks, and a year after Pal's death, Spielberg and Lucas proved that Doc Savage could have easily been the next major movie franchise...if it hadn't been for the flacks.

Tear out the memory or history of Doc, and the film would have been worth a 6/10 rating as nothing more than a mindless popcorn seller.

But destroying the legacy like that was no less an abomination than killing a baby in the crib.

Doc Savage can still come to the screen, and survive the inevitable comparisons by the ill-informed to Indiana Jones, but it would have to be done in all seriousness and earnest to reclaim the glory that we should expect from the First American Superhero.

SIDENOTES: Yes, there was a second script for ARCHENEMY OF EVIL, and it's a lot more serious. Yes, there was simultaneous footage shot, but mostly establishing shots and very little with actors. And, yes, there _is_ a one-sheet of Ron Ely leaping over a brick wall and blasting at something over his shoulder with a specially built bronze pistol. Ely's wearing a duster over a button down white shirt with a bronze tie, and the words "DOC SAVAGE: ARCHENEMY OF EVIL...Coming Next Summer!" POSTSCRIPT: If anyone knows who the studio flacks were that accompanied George Pal in 1975 to San Diego for the convention, smack the idiots up the side of the head and call them the idiots that they are. At the time, they were doing dorkknobs and Fu Manchu in stripes and baggy canvas pants, and carrying Paramount portfolios.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze is a horrible movie. Poorly scripted, over-acted, and just plain silly. That being said... it is actually an enjoyable movie on some level. This movie begs to be watched in a group with an ample supply of cheap beer. It's one of those movies like "Santa Claus conquers the Martians" or "Yor, the Hunter from the Future"... so bad it is almost good. If you have the right group of people this movie is a blast to watch. It's campy. It's fun. It has a theme by Sousa. If you're looking for a good movie though, look elsewhere. 3/10.

BTW, I've heard rumors some studio is exploring the possibility of a remake...

We so often talk of cinema landmarks - Kane, The Godfather, A Bout de Souffle. One film however is too often overlooked by "serious" film critics. I am talking of course about the classic Doc Savage (M.o.B.)

This film is not only exciting but also seriously explores the issue of exploitation of the developing nations by US imperialism. Not to mention kung-fu.

It also possessed the greatest soundtrack in film history (until of course Queen's breathtaking work on Flash Gordon). Although a bit of a rarity, this film is well worth seeking out - it will repay the effort of your search ten-fold.

Having read many of the other reviews for this film on the IMDb there is ostensibly a consensus amongst purists that this film is nothing like the books upon which it is based. Upon this point I cannot comment, having never actually read any of the protagonists adventures previously. However, what I can say with certainty, is that it strikes me that many of the said reviewers must have surely undergone a sense of humour bypass; Let's be honest here - this film is just so much fun!

OK…..so I must concede the point that the film apparently is not representative of the character/s but let's put this into a clear perspective…..do the same individuals who are carping on about this film also bemoan the fact that the classic 1960's Batman series does not remain faithful to the original DC comic book character? Or perhaps is there STILL unrest in same persons that the 1980 film version of Flash Gordon was too much of a departure from the original series?

The point is, yes this film is incredibly camp but that's precisely its charm!

Former Tarzan, Ron Ely plays the eponymous hero in this (and bears more than a passing resemblance to Gary Busey to boot!) and is backed up by a great supporting cast who all look to be having a ball with their respective roles. Also look out for a very brief but highly welcome appearance by horror movie favourite Michael Berryman.

Best scene? Far too many to choose from but check out the hilarious facial expressions adopted by the waiter when Savage and his men commit the ultimate faux pas of ordering coke, lemonade and milk at a formal occasion! Also the often noted scene near the end of the film wherein Savage tackles his nemesis Captain Seas utilising various martial arts disciplines which are labelled on screen! – Priceless!

Simply put, the film doesn't take itself at all seriously and is all the more fun for it. Great fun from start to finish! (and you'll be singing the John Phillip Sousa adapted theme song for days afterwards guaranteed!)

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.

This film is wrong in so many ways. It was done on the cheap, the script is bad, the dialogue is horrid, the action non-existant, the acting a travesty, and the music was completely out of place.

The film is loosely based around the first Doc Savage adventure, but makes a mess out of every element. As adventure, it is boring; as camp, it isn't funny. Ron Ely is physically imposing, but has little charisma and no acting talent. There are some fine actors in the roles of Doc's assistants, but their parts are so badly written. Ham and Monk, the comic highlights of the pulps, don't even make a fifth-rate Oscar and Felix.

The Sousa music is fine for a concert or marching band, but doesn't fit an adventure story. A nice John Williams score, ala Indiana Jones would have been far better.

Doc Savage was one of the best of the pulp adventure heroes. Sure, the stories were formulaic, but anything put out on a monthly basis for so long is going to be. There was still a great amount of imagination and character in those stories. There are none of these things in this movie.

Forget this film. Go down to your favorite used book store and hunt up "The Man of Bronze", "The Fortress of Solitude", "The Devil Ghengis" or any other the numerous other Doc Savage books. The James Bama covers alone are worth it.

The movie is based on Doc's first adventure, The Man of Bronze, with elements from several other stories. It's remarkably faithful to the source material, unlike so many of the 1970's (and even today) adaptions. From Doc's Fabulous Five (Monk, Ham, Renny, Long Tom and Little Johnny), which would go on to inspire superhero teams and the Hong Kong Cavaliers, to his Fortress of Solitude (which inspired Superman's), Mink's pet pig, Doc's gadgets and more, there is so much taken from the original pulp stories.

The hard part of the film comes from how campy it gets, from patriotic theme songs dedicated to Doc with lyrics telling us how great he is to him having an animated twinkle in his eye. The TV Batman style died hard in Hollywood. Witness 1979's Legends of the Superheroes TV movies.

The movie opens at Doc Savage's (Ron Ely, Tarzan) Fortress of Solitude, where our hero learns his father died under a cloud of mystery. While he looks at his father's papers, a Native American assassin with red fingers and a tattoo of a Mayan god tries to kill him. Doc gives chase, but his would-be murderer falls to his death.When he gets back to his apartment, his father's notes have been destroyed.

Throughout the film, Captain Seas tries to kill Doc and his friends. Of note, Long Tom is played by Paul Gleason, Richard Vernon from The Breakfast Club.

Meanwhile, Doc finds out that his father received a land grant in the interior of Hidalgo from the Quetzamal, a Mayan tribe that has disappeared. Despite government corruption, Mona Flores offers to lead Doc and his friends to the land.

It turns out that Captain Seas is using the Green Death, an airborne plague, to keep the natives under his control (and he also used it to kill Doc's father). Most of the bad guys get covered in molten gold, while the chief of the natives offers the gold and land to Doc, who pledges to use it for the cause of justice.

Unlike other pulp heroes, Doc doesn't kill. He rehabilitates with acupuncture and education, a fact that we see in action as Doc finds Captain Seas and his henchwomen ringing the Salvation Army bell for charity.

As Doc gets back home, he gets a message that he's needed. He rushes out for his next adventure, which was to be titled Doc Savage: The Arch Enemy of Evil.

Oh yeah — Michael Berryman (The Hills Have Eyes) shows up here as a coroner!

As helmed by Michael Anderson (Logan's Run, Orca, Around the World in 80 Days), this is a big, bombastic film. It flopped hard when released, though Norma Dent was said to have loved the film. How much you'll enjoy it depends on your love of silliness, John Phillip Sousa and the superheroes of the past. Me? I have a spot in my heart for this film and dreamed of having a shirt like Doc's that would be all ripped and cling to me when I sprung to action. However, I was a chubby six-year-old and had no villains to battle outside of the bullies who routinely kicked my ass. That said, as I grew older, I gave them all acupuncture, forgiveness and education, just like Doc Savage taught me!

Read more at http://bit.ly/2i8sPNM

Fantastically putrid. I don't mean to imply above that only a few people should avoid "Doc Savage." Almost every demographic group would be bored by this trivial, TV-movie-quality production. It's a little like the 60's "Batman" TV series, except it's not funny. Even accidentally. You're better off taking a nap.

I believe I only saw this George Pal production only once on TV as a kid, but it's one that I remember kind of making my head explode at the time and for whatever reason has always stuck with me. I'm not familiar with the young adult book series about the barrel-chested, super-genius, adventure and his team, The Fabulous Five (one of whom is played by a young Paul Gleason, best known as the jerk principal in "The Breakfast Club"), who are all experts in their fields. Watching the film now as an adult it's super corny, but still a whole lot of fun. The film is going for a Saturday matinée serial type of feel (i.e. Flash Gordon or The Perils of Pauline), which I'd say the underrated Disney film "The Rocketeer" got pitch perfect, though this film doesn't nail it quite as well. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" mined similar source material, but abandoned the knowing light hearted camp and took the film to a new level of high adventure, but "Doc Savage" wanted to be that family friendly film that was knowingly comic book-like. "Doc Savage" crosses the fine line between light camp and just plain silly too often (the grown man in the crib was just dumb). Still, I was really entertained by the movie and loved the vivid photography, the fun George Pal special effects, and was also tickled at seeing how similar Doc and his team were to Buckaroo Banzai and his team (which made me like "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension" even more). You also get a weirdly young Michael Berryman as a prim and proper top hat wearing coroner with a British accent. Filled with tommy guns, vintage yachts, period cars, iconic skyscrapers, and lot of fun action, I quite enjoyed re- watching this childhood favorite.

After having seen the movie the first question arising in my mind was: Is this supposed to be irony or not? After reading a few comments about the character Doc Savage and the comic series, I knew this film was not meant to be ironic. So, the story tells us about an US-American Super-Doc saving a south American republic from evil. Sounds like a typical story. But this one comes in such an unrealistic way that it becomes ridiculous. The mandatory end-fight shows the worst presentation of martial arts I have ever seen. The film might be interesting for low budget movie designers as a bad example.

When l saw this movie l'was around twenty years or so, as Ron Ely made part of my childhood as Tarzan's series, l'd stay tuned on this camp picture, further one my favorite director George Pal who made "Time Machine" wrote a robust screenplay, and it increased my interest on it, an older Ron Ely always overact in their roles, here he plays some kind hero without powers, his mates called "fabulous five" a sort of weird crazy guys are really funny, this second class production was poor and predicable, the sets are crap, fake jungle, fake cave, everything is really bad, but somehow had a fine plot and there some many fine special effects, as a green death and the deeply valley on the edge of the world, some years ago l've wondering if someday this trash picture could come out on DVD, for my surprise it happens soon l can expected!!!

Resume:

First watch: 1987 How many: 3 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 6.5

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.

Outragously entertaining period piece set in the 30s, it is a spin on the classic cliffhanger series, as much as "Raiders of the Lost Ark", only done on a low budget and much campier by director Michael Anderson. The opening scenes laces liberal amount of gothic art nuveau, predating Batman by two decades. Starring Ron Ely (Tarzan) as a perfectly cast hero and the gorgeous Pamela Hensley as the local latina Mona tagging on to our hero on a goldhunt in the non-existent latin american country of Hidalgo. Best line, our hero to Mona, holding a fist to her chin just as you expect him to be tender with her and give her a hug: "Mona, you're a brick!"

Paul Wexler's ham-and-cheese blackhat, Captain Seas is a an absolute delight. Expect a little "Raiders..", a dash of "Batman", a little "The Lost World", a little "Lost Horizons" and a whole lot of campiness and you'll get it just right. Watch out for cult favorite Michael Berryman in a small part as undertaker and enjoy the campy use of John Philip Sousa's patriotic music. A prime candidate for DVD release, it is certainly overdue. An unmissable treat for the whole family. 9/10

It sounds and looks just like 1970s TV shows for kids. All it needs is a laugh track to make it just like Batman, Gilligan's Island, and the Monkeys. The sets look cheap, like you could knock down any wall with a good push. Yeah, there's a lot of other things wrong with this film. But it is just so badly dated, and was when it first came out. Yes it can be mildly amusing, but for all the wrong reasons. I did read some of the books, before seeing this film in theaters, where I was working as an usher,and I was immediately disappointed. Doc deserves better.