Based on the 1930's pulp fiction and radio drama series, the film pits the hero against his arch enemy, Shiwan Khan, who plans to take over the world by holding a city ransom using an atom bomb. Using his powers of invisibility and "The power to cloud men's minds", the Shadow comes blazing to the city's rescue with explosive results.Written by
Michael Ross <M.I.Rossemail@example.com>
The movie Shadow character is a combination of the radio show and the pulp magazine versions. The elements from the radio show are his ability to be become invisible, the appearance of Margo Lane, and the establishment of Lamont Cranston as the Shadow's actual civilian identity. The pulp magazine elements include his costume, his network of agents at his disposal, and his twin automatic pistols. See more »
The timer on the bomb counts down to 1:02:52, in the next scene it is 1:03:00. See more »
Misunderstood is an understatement. Some critics (the esteemed Roger Ebert included) understood both the direction and aim of this film, while others, and many movie goers completely missed the point.
This film is meant to be a visualization of a 1930's pulp novel - that is, its point is to provide that stereotypical "campy" atmosphere of the old Shadow radio plays, novels, and even films of that era. This is in many ways the "stereotypical" super-hero film. We have a mad scientist, a fiendishly evil conquerer(there's some retro terminology) a super-hero who is not a perfect being, but a flawed man, and of course, an atomic bomb.
People forget that it is the Shadow, and other early pulp-fiction characters that set these "stereotypes" in the first place - therefore how can one call this show a "rip-off" when it set the standards of this genre so long ago? If the Shadow character had been invented in the 1990's, yes, this film could be said to be a humongous rip-off of Batman, Spider-man, and pretty much any other heroic character. But as it is, the Shadow in its entirety predates ALL of these characters and clichés. Batman himself was even based on the Shadow by the creators own admission.
The long and short is, if you look at this from the perspective of contemporary modern film, you'll be disappointed. If however you look at this as a visual interpretation of classic 1930's adventure escapism, you'll enjoy it greatly. Your perspective is critical here, and I urge you to remember that this is the original caped crusader. He shouldn't be brushed off simply because his movie came out later!
11 of 13 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this