I see what they were going for. But the execution of it was not very good. I know George Reeves went to be a popular Superman at that time, but he doesn’t strike me personally as Superman. The acting in this film was a range from alright to meh. Would I watch it again? Not likely.

'Superman and the Mole Men' is actually pretty solid. I knew nothing coming into it, yet wasn't expecting all that much from such a short run time of 58 minutes. It turns out, I was satisfied. It admittedly isn't anything overly enthralling, but it is a watchable Superman flick. George Reeves is stronger as Clark Kent than as the main man, though that can be down to the fact that he is Kent for the vast majority - and I liked him in that role. Phyllis Coates' Lois Lane feels like Lois Lane, so that's another positive. The rest of the cast are all alright too. I, somewhat surprisingly given the obvious limitations that the (independent) filmmakers had back in 1951, really enjoyed the Mole Men. They do look rather dorky and kinda silly, but to be honest their minimal design more than did the job for me. I was happy to see 'em onscreen. The first feature film based on a DC Comics character, how about that. It's always fascinating to me with situations like this, like imagine telling the people involved with this back in 1951 that superhero flicks would become so gargantuan around 70 years later. Trailblazers!

DC Marathon, #1 "Superman and the Mole-Men" (1951) It's not a great start on my journey through all feature length DC films. The story feels uninspired and underdeveloped with nothing really at stake and therefore the story lacks any reason to exist. The characters feel bland and boring but with huge room for potential. Largely thanks to George Reeves performance as Superman and Phyllis Coates performance as Lois Lane. Great to be starting this journey through DC! I'M looking immensely forward to seeing where this journey will be taking me.