I have a split vote. I would vote for a tie between Kevin Spacey and Gene Hackman. Officially I voted for Gene Hackman though.
I've noticed a lot of the people so far stating their cases for Michael Rosenbaum, and while I understand peoples explanations I just can't agree for a number of reasons, and I have a hunch as to why so many of you are drawn that way.
First of all, although his back story has been altered before, Lex Luthor and Superman did not know each other as teenagers and were not both from Smallville, nor was Lex a young man or a teenager when he first met Superman in the comics. He was always portrayed as either a mad scientist or a corrupt ceo, not a brainiac teenager with a jealousy for the man of steel or some personal vendetta that is spawned over multiple seasons of a television series. For these reasons and others, I just do not connect with the Smallville Lex Luthor. He just isn't Lex Luthor, he's someone elses interpretation of Lex Luthor made to fit a television series that also doesn't really connect to the actual source material and re-imagines the teenage years of Superman which I also don't connect with.
I think that a lot of people are more connected to that because they have more of a relationship with that actor, that show, and that imagining of Lex Luthor, and why wouldn't you? He is what you've been presented over the course of many years on a re-occurring episodic television series revolving around Superman and as a result, him as well. You've all been able to watch him evolve and grow as a character for many years, and as a result have more of an understanding and an attachment to him. I can not fault anyone for that, just as I wouldn't want anyone to fault me for having more of a connection to the Gene Hackman version of Lex Luthor.
I prefer Hackman because not only do I see him as being more true to the original imaginings of the character, but I believe he actually portrayed Lex Luthor better than anyone else and was the direct influence for Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor who was also very true to the original imaginings. Hackman's Lex Luthor is every bit as ruthless and evil as any of the other imaginings, the difference is, he dances in it, he loves it, and he enjoys it. He knows he's the greatest criminal mind in history and relishes that fact, he's tickled by his own genius and greatness, and that's part of the horror. Hackman was very menacing at times, and it was a beautiful contrast to his joking and mugging. A lot of his sinister is subtle and under the surface rather than outright and blatant like Spacey and Rosenbaum. They all laid it on thick with a dark brooding Luthor, and that takes away from the character for me. Part of what makes Lex Luthor so sinister and evil is that he's very personable, charismatic, and charming, all the while also being a mad genius. The dark brooding thing is kind of a bad guy cliche and cheap when it comes to acting.
I noticed someone mention that the Michael Rosenbaum version was someone you could relate to in a sense, and everyone knows someone kind of like the character he portrayed. That for me is one of the main reasons I don't like him. You shouldn't be able to connect with him, and he shouldn't be like anyone else you know, that just makes him in my view another generic-dark-brooding-over reaching portrayal of a villain. It's too much depth, it's too much reason. This character shouldn't seem reasonable at all, he's hell bent on world domination and killing Superman, the only thing that really stands in the way of his devious plots. I also find it hard to believe that a mere teenager could be so complex and have acquired so much genius at such a young age. Even though they do their best to instill all of that in the tv show and make the character in that way, it just comes across to me as being very unbelievable and poorly though out as they build and build and build on this young version of the character to make him more and more and more of who he is actually supposed to be and was in the comic books. I realize it plays well to the vanity of the core audience who are also teenagers and young adults, but I don't feel like it's true to the Superman story or Lex Luthor as a character.
Hackman gave Lex the personality that the character needed AND made him seem REAL. He portrayed real genius in perfect contrast to Superman's super powers. That's what the feud was always about, Lex Luthor's brains against Superman's brawn and super human capabilities. He was no physical match for Superman, so he had to be smarter, and he was. He didn't need to be dark and brooding and blatantly sinister and so deep and complex. His motives were simple, his tactics, no so much, that was where the genius always came in. Hackman nailed all of that. Luthor was powerful because of his wits, not his depth, and the depth of the character was in his wits. Like I said before, the madness, the horror, the true evil, all that was subtle in a sense. He didn't act outwardly mad, horrific, evil, or any of that, he was very controlled, calculating, and merciless, but he had a real personality.
Hackman brought all of that to the screen and to life like no one else could have, and I believe no one else has. I liked Kevin Spacey's version because he was very reminiscent of Hackman in a lot of ways, but he was also to outwardly expressed. Subtlety and subtext are dying arts and additives to movies and role portrayals. Now days everything has to be spelled out for the viewer and underscored and overemphasized, or it goes the complete opposite way and we get shit like in Twilight where every emotion is projected by the same expression and undersold in the attempt to be subtle and to infuse sub-text by overdoing it and missing the mark completely. I think they nailed it in Superman I, II, and IV with Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor, and all others have missed the mark making the exact errors I've noted above. Gene Hackman is a special talent who played the role in a very special way, with artistry and flare that allowed the imagination to do a lot of the work, and that's exactly what story and film is supposed to do. It gives you a visual representation, but the true depth of everything takes place in the mind as you comprehend it, understand it, and interpret it for yourself.
