DVD Review: Batman (1989)

Sometimes I revisit older movies even though I know they aren't as good as what replaced them. I saw the DVD of the 1989 version of Batman starring Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson at my local library and figured "what the heck". At the time, it was the only live action film made about the Dark Knight (the 1943 Batman movie serial doesn't count). Just because Heath Ledger totally owned the role of the Joker in The Dark Knight (2008) doesn't mean I can't appreciate Nicholson's interpretation.

It wasn't bad. It wasn't great. I remembered all of the controversy about Keaton being cast at Bruce Wayne/Batman (and my own confusion about why Burton would go with Keaton). At the time, Nicholson's Joker was just menacing enough without being truly frightening for younger audiences. Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger) was a Lois Lane copy, both in the comic books and in the film. Michael Gough competently played the faithful Alfred, always there to pick up after Bruce, but I missed the chemistry between Christian Bale's Bruce and Michael Caine's Alfred.

I'm trying not to compare this Batman against the Dark Knight Trilogy, but it's tough.

In the 1989 film, we come across Batman who is already well into his career. The origin story, the death of Bruce's parents, are shown in flashbacks, but we don't get the full treatment of how Bruce "develops" Batman as we see in Batman Begins (2005). Keaton's Bruce is absent-minded and distracted most of the time, like a child with an attentional disorder. I suppose this was to "disguise" him so he wouldn't be suspected of being Batman, but one wonders who is making money at Wayne Enterprises if Bruce isn't in that game (not that Wayne Enterprises is ever mentioned in the film).

Much more attention was paid to the origin of the Joker and his original relationship to crime syndicate head "Boss" Carl Grissom (Jack Palance). Feeling the heat from the new D.A. in Gotham, Harvey Dent (played by Billy Dee Williams in a role that was a waste of his time and talent), Grissom orders Jack Napier (the Joker's "real name") to break into a chemical company and destroy records that implicate their gang in some sort of crime (just exactly what the threat is to Grissom isn't made clear).

Jack and the boys find out that there are no records. It's a set up. Grissom has used his connections to corrupt cop Eckhart (William Hootens) to arrange a police raid of the plant with orders to shoot to kill. All this is over Grissom's girlfriend Alicia (Jerry Hall) who is two-timing him with Jack. The old man doesn't like his "sugarplums" being "sugarplummed" by another man, especially his "right-hand man".

Batman gets wind of the raid (Commissioner Gordon was at a party at Bruce's mansion earlier and had to "leave suddenly" because he finds out about Eckhart's raid) and shows up to help out. Batman and Napier tangle and one slip later, Jack falls into a vat of toxic chemicals and is flushed out to a nearby river (Gotham must have a horrible environmental safety record).

The Joker kills Grissom, takes over the mobs, invents Smilex, a chemical that kills through inducing laughing seizures, and competes with Bruce over the attentions of Vicki Vale.

I used to watch this movie a lot, so I can't tell if it feels predictable because it was written that way or because I remember it so well. The movie was a "so-what" at the theater (really, that's all there is?) but plays better on the small screen. Maybe it reminds me more of a made-for-TV movie than a major motion picture release. That doesn't say much for director Tim Burton, but then he was early in his career, and even Jack Palance became irritated with the young and inexperienced Burton on the set.

Batman was made in an era when Hollywood still hadn't figured out how to take costumed heroes seriously. It wasn't exactly "campy" but it didn't feel "real" either. The film tries to be dark and gritty and styles mimic the 1930s and 40s to some degree (Batman's natural habitat apparently) but in the end, the costumes and sets still look like a comic book come to life.

I have to remember though, that if it wasn't for this film, the Batman animated series of the 1990s probably wouldn't have happened. Up until Christian Bale's performance of Batman, I considered the animated series the best presentation of Batman not in a comic book or graphic novel. A fact I was reminded of in the first few minutes of Burton's Batman film when Danny Elfman's opening theme plays and I recognized it from the animated series. If that was the only legacy of Burton's Batman, then it did it's job.

I'm probably being too hard on Burton's film. It has the benefit of being the first serious film on Batman and it sailed uncharted waters. There's even this:

In an interview with About.com, Christopher Nolan (director of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight) described this film as "...a brilliant film, visionary and extraordinarily idiosyncratic...".

 I think it was for its time, though it was certainly flawed as I've already described.

Tim Burton's Batman has a well deserved place of honor in the history of the Dark Knight in film, but it was somewhat "damaged goods" when it was new. Now that nearly a quarter of a century has passed since its original theatrical release, it has aged, much like "Boss" Grissom. Another Batman has come to Gotham and it is his time to reign.

And should Warner Bros. decide to pursue a Justice League film, they'll need yet another Batman. Who will inherit the mantle of the Bat and how will be wear it in comparison to Keaton and Bale?

Superman Reborn

Couldn't resist posting this. Awesome Superman image.

Iconic Supermen

The cover of People Magazine for January 1979 gave the world the now iconic photograph of Superman as played by Christopher Reeve. For the general public, this was perhaps the first time they believed that a man could fly and this image will live on in their memories and in all our memories as the one and only Superman for generations.

This month's cover of Entertainment Weekly attempts to paint, for the current generation, the portrait of Reeve's heir apparent, Henry Cavill as the Man of Steel. I am posting both covers side-by-side in an effort to illustrate the passing of the torch. Reeve first appeared on the big screen as Superman in 1978 when he was 26 years old. Sadly, he passed away on October 10, 2004 at the age of 52. For many people, Christopher Reeve was their Last Son of Krypton, and for them, that was the day their Superman died.

Cavill, who turns 30 next month, picks up the mantle and the cape that Reeve in death had allowed to fall to the ground. Can Henry Cavill fill the red boots and wear the red and yellow shield in honor of the Superman who came before him? Can he inspire this generation and those who come after as the Superman of the 21st century? Will his image on the cover of Entertainment Weekly replace that of Reeve's, and will be he the hero we need to inspire us as we rush headlong into the future?

Superman: Man of Steel premieres in the United States on June 14, 2013. That's when we'll get our answers.

Review: A Good Day to Die Hard

Unlike the previous films in the series, A Good Day to Die Hard was widely panned by critics. Based on 177 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes, the film received a 16% approval rating from critics, with an average score of 4/10. By comparison, Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating in the 0–100 range based on reviews from top mainstream critics, calculated an average score of 29 based on 39 reviews, indicating "generally unfavorable" reaction. On both websites, the film ranked lowest among the Die Hard films. CinemaScore polls reported that the average grade cinemagoers gave the film was "B+" on an A+ to F scale, and that audiences skewed slightly male and older.

-Wikipedia

Warning! Spoilers ahead! This is not a drill!

Actually, I liked it. No, I didn't think the latest film in the Die Hard franchise was terrific or fabulous, but it's a pretty good way to kill 97 minutes and watch lots of chase scenes, shootouts, and explosions. In the opening scenes, Bruce Willis shows his age (he'll be 58 next month) with very visible grey in his beard and hair (both remarkably short but visible), which I suppose is to highlight the fact that he has just discovered that his estranged son Jack (played by Australian actor Jai Courtney) has been put in a Russian prison for murder. Of course, John has no way to know that his son is an operative for the CIA and this is all a clever plot to put him in the same Moscow courtroom as Yuri Komarov (Sebastian Koch), a former terrorist and former partner of corrupt Viktor Chagarin (Sergei Kolesnikov) who "grew a conscience" in prison and is now going to testify against Chagarin, implicating him in some unmentioned (at the beginning of the film) chicanery.

John shows up in Moscow just as Jack is being taken into court. He manages to get to the outside of the courthouse, but the courtroom with Jack and Komarov is sealed, presumably to prevent another assassination attempt against Komarov.

John looks around and spies a rather unusual vehicle but doesn't put two and two together in time before the plot is hatched and a gang of Russian thugs led by Alik (Radivoje Bukvić) blows up a ton of parked cars, blasts a hole in the courtroom freeing Jack and Komarov, and kills just about everyone inside.

Jack manages to get out of the courthouse with Komarov, avoiding a hit squad that was sent in to make sure of Komarov's death and steal a van. The problem is, as Jack and Komarov are making their getaway, John steps in front of the van, thinking his son is a fugitive from justice, and stops them. During the delay, even though Jack and Komarov escape John, they miss their exit window and are stuck with "plan B," a safe house in Moscow.

The usually competant John McClaine gets egg on his face on multiple occasions early in the film as he realizes he's blundered into a scenario far outside his normal "cops and robbers" scope. This does nothing to help repair the already trashed relationship John has with Jack. Even after John manages to stop Jack's pursuers in a spectacular car chase that you'll have to see to believe, Jack still thinks his father is a total screw up. Thus the three of them arrive at the so-called "safe house," which is where John finally sees who and what his son really is...a CIA agent.

But Jack's partner is abruptly killed before getting "the file" from Komarov, so with no allies left in Moscow, John, Jack, and Kamarov go it alone in search of "the file" that Kamarov is supposed to have and will give to Jack in exchange for getting him and his daughter Irina (Yuliya Snigir) out of Russia.

Of course, it's not that easy. One key acquired, one double-cross, one beating, one shootout, and one helecopter attack later, Komarov, Irina and the key to the file are gone, in the hands of the bad guys while Jack and John are left battered and bleeding with no "plan C" or any other letter of the alphabet left. Jack, who up until this point, has always played by the rules, is out of options, but this is where his "shoot from the hip" Dad feels right at home.

The film seems a little forced or awkward during the conversations where John and Jack are supposed to be trying to relate to each other as father and son, but then again, their relationship as father and son is forced and awkward, so it fits. Neither of them know what to say to each other and when John finally says, "I love you boy," you can feel the weight of his age and the long years that stand between them in his words and his voice.

But there's another double-cross. Komarov and Irina aren't the victims, they're the predators. The prize never was a file full of evidence, it was a crap-ton of weapons grade uranium hidden in a vault in the one place in the world no one in their right mind would want to go: Chernobyl.

The place should still be incredibly radioactive, but except for protection suits worn by Kamarov and his party while locating the vault, that doesn't seem to be a problem. Irina uses some sort of device to "neutralize" the radiation, then all protective gear is no longer required. Komarov caps Alik and has Chagarin's neck broken by his own masseuse.

Then the McClaine father and son team, who have providentially stolen a car loaded with body armor and weapons, drive the twelve hours it would take to go from Moscow to Chernobyl, Ukraine, and kick ass.

The good guys win but not until a series of death defying feats that should have put them bothin intensive care and lots and lots of bodies, bullets, and explosions happen, which is why we watch these types of films anyway.

There's a horrible hint that Jack might take over the "Die Hard" films, retiring Willis and replacing him with Courtney (and possibly Mary Elizabeth Winstead playing Jack's sister Lucy who was featured in the previous film and who briefly appeared in this one). I really hope I'm wrong.

On a scale of 1 to 10, this film is solid "OK." It was entertaining, but I really didn't need to see it on the big screen. It would have been just as good as a DVD and that's probably when I'll see it again.

I tend to think that the original film Die Hard (1988) and Die Hard with a Vengence (1995) were the best in the series. The fourth film was pretty good and certainly one, three, and four beat the current film, not to mention the terrible Die Hard 2 (1990), which was just a lame recycling of the first film.

Yeah, it was a good shooting, explosion, thrill rush film for guys and I'm not sorry I saw it, but if you don't want to blow your hard earned dough on seeing it in the theatre, I'm sure it'll look just as good on the small screen at home.

Oh, the one thing I would have liked a little more of is the "steamy" side of Irina. But her hottiness is revealed just in passing.

DVD Review: V for Vendetta

Last November, I reviewed the V for Vendetta graphic novel. I was generally impressed, but a lot of "dystopia" material came out of the latter half of the 20th century, so by the time I got around to reading Moore and Lloyd's work, I found it hard to be overly impressed. Also, the length of the story and the numerous elements introduced made it difficult to follow at times. That figures prominently into my review of the film V for Vendetta (2005).

First of all, who wouldn't be excited to watch a film starring Hugo Weaving (as "V"), Natalie Portman (as "Evey") and particularly John Hurt (as "Adam Sutler")? I was really looking forward to the experience but at the same time, worried because films almost never do justice to their original print or graphic novel source. This time, I'm not so sure the rule holds.

I mentioned before that I believe Moore was a bit too lengthy in his writing of the graphic novel. It made it difficult for me as the reader to be able to grasp and hold all of the various threads he introduced and have them all come together in a cohesive manner by the last page. As a film where everything had to be introduced, expressed, and resolved in 132 minutes (the film's running time), brevity and economy was forced upon the story, making the movie version of "V for Vendetta" quite a bit more efficient than the print version. Of course, part of the motivation behind cutting down the length was to accommodate modern audiences, both in how long they can tolerate sitting on their bum in a movie theatre, and in appealing to a wider population than might be attracted to Moore and Lloyd's production.

Any film or other creative work is not only a product of the artists involved but of the point in history in which it was made. The graphic novel was written over a period of years in the 1980s while the film version was released in 2005. While the span of two decades didn't overly affect the content of the film compared to the graphic novel (although the film "tightened things up" quite a bit, it was still pretty faithful to its source), the world in the film wasn't quite as dark and depressing as the graphic novel.

It made "V" somewhat less "scary" in the film and it allowed for the police, and particularly Chief Inspector Finch (played by Stephen Rea) to actually portray "good guys" rather than government stooges, wife beaters, and homicidal maniacs.

There were weak spots. I thought it was a little too convenient for Creedy to be able to deliver Adam Sutler, the dictator of the UK in the film, to "V" more or less on command. Someone like Sutler would have had multiple layers of protection and I can't believe someone as paranoid as Sutler would have allowed himself to be put in a position not only to be captured, but spirited away from his stronghold to an underground train station just to be shot in the head.

I understand that "aging" Evey was probably necessary, but in the graphic novel she was 15 years old. Making her an adult took away some of her vulnerability and the "transference" of her dependence to "V" as a father figure after the assassination of her parents (this dynamic is shifted into a "beauty and the beast" type of love story). Yes, I previously acknowledged Portman's star power and audience attraction, and comprehend why she would have been cast as Evey, but it made especially the scene where she had to dress up as a little girl to be used as bait to set up pedophile Bishop Lilliman a little ridiculous.

Not everyone is good at accents. When I first saw Bob Hoskins in the role of Private Detective Eddie Valiant in the film Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988), it never occurred to me that Hoskins wasn't an American. In fact, if someone had suggested to me back then that Hoskins was British, I would have bet any amount of money against the possibility...

...and I would have lost my shirt. The guy played the drunken, down-and-out, "cheap detective," brilliantly.

Which brings me back to Natalie Portman who is also a brilliant actress and an asset to this film...but her British accent was awful. First of all, even when she was able to maintain the accent for more than a minute or two, I just knew by listening to her that she wasn't British. Then too was her inability to maintain the accent consistently throughout the film. More often than not, she spoke her lines just like Natalie Portman would have spoken her lines in a dozen other films where she wasn't expected to pretend that she was a native of the UK. Frankly, if the accent was such a problem, Portman should have just ditched it. The story writers could have created a line or two of dialogue explaining her American accent or just ignored it completely and let the story tell itself. After all, who even cares about Arnold Schwarzenegger's accent, regardless of what role he's playing? For the purposes of this movie, Portman's usual speaking voice would have been fine.

I didn't like the ending, but I understood it was the sort of populist stuff the film makers thought the audience would want. In the end, "V" dies, but in the graphic novel, no one realizes this since Evey takes over his role, mask and all. At the end of the film, Evey never dons the mask and even partners up with Finch! At the end, all of the "rioting" citizens take off their masks, revealing ordinary human faces (even the people who had died in the film were in the crowd). I'm surprised that all of London didn't break out into a chorus of We Are the World.

No mass shootings. No atrocities at the film's climax (plenty of them during the film, however). The soldiers, lacking their dictator and his number one henchman to guide them (they're both dead, victims of "V" by this point in the movie), they stand down and just let the crowd sort of wash over them. We know from the much more tame Occupy Wall Street movement that when police and soldiers are confronted with an advancing mob of thousands or tens of thousands, all wearing Guy Fawkes masks, who have an uncertain intent, people end up getting gassed, beaten, arrested, detained, restrained, and shot. Something like that should have happened here, but it wouldn't have been the happy ending the audience wanted to see (or the happy ending the film makers thought the audience wanted to see).

And who was going to be the new leader?

I know what the film was trying to say. It was trying to say that "the people" would run their own lives. However, history shows us that in any revolution (from the American revolution in the U.S. to the Communist revolution in Cuba), the revolutionaries create a temporary state of anarchy when they overthrow the corrupt government, but then the revolutionaries form the basis of the new government. Even if that government is supposed to be by and for the people, eventually, it will take on a life of its own, establish its own priorities, and enforce its own existence.

At the end of the graphic novel, just as in the film, "V" realizes that he isn't the one to be part of rebuilding the nation. He is perfect for introducing anarchy, but rage, hate, and revenge aren't a good platform upon which to build the people's utopia. That's where Evey comes in. But in the novel, she dons the mask, the hat, and the cape and she becomes "V". No one knows the difference but she's a different "V", one who has the capacity for love, tenderness, and hope. Everyone was looking to "V" for the future once he ended the corruption of the past. If Evey doesn't fill the void, then who will?

Beyond the film and the graphic novel (and the Occupy movement for that matter), there is no sustainable "happy ending." After the ending credits roll, in real life, real people will still live on and people tend to form systems, from family systems to governmental systems. That might not make a good movie, but not addressing that reality made the "conclusions" of the stories for "V for Vendetta" ring hollow.

All that said, the film is a worthwhile watch. Given the events occurring in the world today, revolution is hard not to think about. "V for Vendetta" speaks to those thoughts and feelings, so I can understand the popularity of this film. It is well written and except for what I've already mentioned, well acted. I'm glad that I saw the film and read the graphic novel. I just don't believe it would have all ended so well.

DVD Review: Smallville Season 1, The Pilot

Somebody, save me. No, not really. I was in the public library the other day looking at the DVDs and saw that the Smallville season 1 collection was available. That's kind of unusual. Almost none of the Smallville DVDs are on the shelves for very long and in fact, season 1 was the only season of Smallville there. On a whim, and because I have only seen each season once, I decided to check out the first season of Smallville from the library. Figured it would be entertaining holiday fare, since I took a few days off for Christmas.

I remember the first time I saw the pilot episode. I had no idea what to expect. Well, scratch that. I had an idea of what to expect. I was just wrong. For one thing, I didn't expect a meteor shower of kryptonite. I didn't expect Lana's parents to be blown to bits. And who the heck is Aunt Nell?

I thought casting John Schneider and Annette O'Toole as Jonathan and Martha Kent was brilliant but unexpected (a young Ma and Pa Kent). I didn't realize just how much of a divergent trajectory Smallville would take from previous Superman canon. Actually, I wouldn't realize that for quite some time and eventually, it would get to be a real problem, but in the pilot episode, it worked out well.

Smallville has always been an uneven series. Some episodes just rocked while others were total dogs. So far, I'm about halfway through the first season and some of them are just ridiculous. It's amazing how kryptonite gives individual "meteor freaks" abilities that go so well with their personalities and personal problems (a fat girl who suddenly loses weight but has to eat a ton of fat to keep from starving?).

In the pilot, Clark already has powers but they're not fully developed. This was a real boon, since the audience can experience Clark's evolution toward becoming Superman along with him, which is the point of the series. He's fast, he's strong, he's durable, but that's about all he's got in the pilot. Oh, and he's very charming in a shy sort of way. Having achieved his abilities slowly and having been raised by parents who are caring and strong, Clark has been given the perfect platform for not abusing what he's got while at the same time, struggling to be popular in high school like any other 15 year old boy (I had some trouble picturing Welling and a number of the other "students" as that young, though).

Nobody knows what kryptonite is. They do know about meteor rock, but only Chloe suspects that the stuff has anything to do with the weirdness that's been happening in and around Smallville for the past twelve years or so. Meteor freaks would be the main catalyst in the first season, providing Clark with most of the foes he would battle. Most of them aren't bad people, just human beings whose bodies have been involuntarily changed and mutated by radiation exposure. The annoying thing about these freaks though is how they just disappear after Clark beats them. Sure, some die, but others are just (supposedly) taken away by the authorities. I think that's explained in subsequent seasons, but never entirely to my satisfaction.

These are super-powered metahumans, many who know that Clark is "special" himself. No one ever tells the cops, "Oh, by the way, the kid who stopped me has a punch like a crashing jet plane and can move about as fast?"

Lex Luthor.

More than any other character in the pilot and first season, he stands out as the somewhat dangerous but loyal big brother Clark never had. While driven by his own conflicts with his father Lionel (wonderfully played by John Glover), Lex is positively affected, not just by having Clark save his life, but by who Clark is. For most of Lex's life, he's been influenced by people who were primarily interested in power and manipulating others. Clark, super powers or no, is a truly transparent (except for his secrets), authentic human being (well, he looks human) who doesn't want anything from Lex except just to be friends.

Lex does everything he can do to help Clark and his family, though his methods definitely come from the "dark side" of being a Luthor, his intentions at this point are good. Lex's behavior shows us that he loves his friends (and as far as we know, Clark is his only friend) and hates his enemies. He's a great guy to have in your corner, but never, ever cross him or he'll find a way to get you.

Chloe Sullivan.

I hadn't realized just how annoying she was in the beginning. She's bitchy, and cranky, and sarcastic, and geez, would somebody shut her up. Quick to judge, slow to forgive, opinionated, and kind of full of herself. In some ways, she's like Lex in that she doesn't care who she hurts to get what she wants, which in her case, is the next "wall of weird" story. Unlike Lex, she's not calculating about it and in fact, she is rather careless, pursuing the goal without seeing the consequences. She matures as the show continues, but as I recall, by the series ending, she was still a little cold-hearted and goal driven.

In the beginning, she's a bright but unpopular person. Her hair always looks like a small explosion has scattered it at odd angles. She's the ugly duckling who is jealous of Clark's attention to Lana's beautiful swan. At one point in the first season, she calls the school paper her identity and in another episode, she refers to her laptop as her life. At age 15, Chloe is only as good and as interesting as what she writes about, which is probably why she goes after the unusual stories, rather than sticking to typical school activities. She's a proto-Lois Lane and is displaced by Lois in season four and afterward, which is why she has to develop other skill sets to stay interesting as a character. But in season 1, the writers of Smallville seemed to think Clark needed to play off of a Lois-type character from the very beginning.

Lana Lang.

Cute. Not as superficial as she seems for a cheerleader. Like most kids, she's trying to find out who she is and where she's going, which is another big point of the first season, since that's Clark's quest in spades. Having her parents die in the meteor shower when she was three mirrors Clark's own mystery, not having known his birth parents at all or even what planet they were from. Lana at least has Nell to fill in the blanks, along with pictures, diaries, and other documentation. Clark has a spaceship that, as of the middle of the first season, he's seen only once (as the series progresses, we get to see tons and tons of Kryptonian stuff and people and it finally gets rather oppressive how much we learn about a planet that blew up a long time ago). And of course, Lana has to wear that pesky little kryptonite necklace which disappears at odd times allowing her and Clark to actually have a conversation while standing closer than five feet apart. By the middle of season 1, Clark is weaning her from wearing it, which makes developing a friendship that includes more than phone calls and email easier to film.

Whitney Fordman.

He's not as big a pain as I remember him. Most of the time, he's actually a nice guy, for a jock with limited internal resources. He's authentically devoted to Lana, insecure enough to be jealous of Clark, worried about his future, and struggling with his father's heart disease (something Clark will have to deal with in his own Dad as time goes on). He's actually an OK guy and I can see why Lana likes him. On the other hand, Lana is smart enough to outgrow Whitney in a few years which is why it's a good thing he's eventually killed off. Oh, and that makes room for Clark to move in and hook up with her...until Lois shows up by season four.

Pete Ross.

Every guy needs a buddy and Pete is Clark's. Besides Lana and Clark's parents, Pete is one of the few people that comes from the silver age comic books. Of course, back in the 1960s, Pete is tall and blond and white...kind of like how Whitney looks. Of course, this is the early 21st century and in real life, even Smallville has a diverse population. I also didn't realize how well actor Sam Jones III was built. We expect the occasional beefcake shot of Clark in the boys locker room, but I noted Pete looking really buff himself.

Truth be told, Pete is really Chloe's buddy more than Clark's. In the pilot, Pete and Chloe bet whether or not Clark makes it to the bus stop in time to get his ride to school, and again whether or not Clark will stumble and act like a buffoon when he gets anywhere near Lana. Chloe and Pete are most often the two people you see actually working on stories for the Torch (Smallville High's school paper) and just as friends, they go to the homecoming dance together (neither being popular enough to score their own dates). Pete joins the football team to increase his popularity, which is natural, but you never get an impression that he's there to do much more than back up Clark and Chloe.

Relationships.

The whole "shipper" emphasis of Smallville wasn't in full swing in season 1 since the audience is still trying to figure out who people are supposed to be. We do see the beginnings, though. Whitney and Lana are dating, but Clark is totally pining for Lana. Somewhere inside, Lana realizes this but it doesn't come to fruition this early in the game. Lex, for his part, sees all this and repeatedly tries to set up situations where Clark and Lana are together. Chloe has a "thing" for Clark, but it's not so overpowering that she doesn't have interests in another guy (such as womanizing student Sean Kelvin, played by Michael Coristine in the episode Cool). Eventually, this will develop into a "shipper" issue of Clark/Lana vs. Clark/Chloe, but we aren't there yet.

And thankfully, that's all of the "shipper" drama we get to see in season 1. At this point, there's still a strong teenage angst thread running through the series, which I'm sure is present to satisfy the demands of its target audience, but for me, Smallville season 1 is mainly about watching Clark discover who he is as the future "Man of Steel."

Conclusion.

I particularly like the pilot episode of Smallville and a number of developments in Clark as a person and a "superhero" in season 1. It's "good clean fun," so to speak. I'm even thinking of getting season 2 after I'm done with this set of disks.