Undoubtedly the worst Superman film, I can't see anyone ranking the other films any lower than this one.

The story is complete garbage, the actors look bored for the most part, the special effects are at their cheapest, and the film isn't even complete, so just watching it feels wrong.

Also, Nuclear Man is a ridiculous concept even by campy Superman standards, and his actor looks like he just walked off a bad 80's porn film.

Just about the only good things I can say for Superman 4 are that there is an occassional good scene, usually those which don't involve special effects such as Clark at the farmhouse with the buyer and the speech by Superman, and the 95% of the movie which is bad is so terrible that it actually comes off as amazing at times (i.e. so bad its good).

Some people might be surprised that I rank this film so low, and I know this movie has its fans, but I was never one of the hardcore ones.

While I do appreciate all the effort that Bryan Singer went through in order
to faithfully re-create the Donnerverse (even getting footage of Marlon Brando which cost millions), the fan-service just doesn't fix the problems of the films, which are too many.

Firstly, the characterizations are completely off.

Superman is constantly moping and brooding, and spending time spying on Lois instead of saving people like he usually should.

Also, why did he leave to look for Krypton for 5 years? He knows his home planet was destroyed, and even if it wasn't, Superman is bound by his duties to protect Earth.

I don't even think I need to mention the problems with Lois, I don't know what Bryan Singer was thinking when he cast her.

Speaking of casting, while Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor was fantastic, and minor roles such as Eve Techmascher, Richard White, Perry White and Jimmy Olsen have good actors, there are major issues with the issues of Superman and Lois.

Brandon Routh may look like Christopher Reeve, but his performance leaves much to be desired, while I can't think of anything about Lois' acting in this film which even remotely resembles Margot Kidder from the original.

That being said, there are positives to this film.

There may be a lack of action, but some scenes such as the airplane rescue are pretty awesome, as well as Superman lifting the island.

The colour palette may be washed out, but some of the setpieces were pretty good too (such as the Kryptonite island and the farmhouse).

And finally, while there are so many inconsistencies that this film has with the Donner films (which it supposed to be a sequel to), it is atleast a coherent film, which is more than what I can say for Superman 4.

I actually like this film, and rank it a lot higher than what many people usually would.

For all the criticism it gets, I think that this film doesn't get enough recognition for all the positives.

Christopher Reeve is at his most confident here, not only excelling in acting but looking part too with him being the most muscular for Superman 3 out of all of his films.

There are great scenes everywhere, from The Superman vs Superman junkyard fight, Clark and Lana Lang in Smallvile, Evil Superman's rampage, The end fight with the robot, the fun Atari-style game which the robot shows when tracking down superman, etc., etc.

The special effects are good, and Richard Lester, despite his love for campiness, was still a competent director.

That being said, while I didn't mind the camp too much, the film was still a rather mediocre follow up to the one that came before it.

After the epicness of General Zod in Superman 2, what we get is a lame businessman with generic motivations and not any interesting personality traits.

Also, Richard Pryor? What in the world does he have to do with Superman?

I enjoy this film immensely, but in my eyes, is more like a direct-to tv special than an actual theatrical follow-up to the near-perfect first two films (more on them later).

A polarizing film no doubt.

For all the criticism it gets though, I absolutely love it.

Unlike Superman Returns, which was trying to re-create Richard Donner's Superman, this is an entirely new take on him.

The entire point of the film is to show an inexperienced Clark, who is only beginning to realize his powers and purpose, which is portrayed wonderfully.

Henry Cavil is great in this role, not only showcasing his struggle with the world around him, but when he actually rises up to save humanity, its all the more uplifting.

Just that amazing smile at the end when Clark joins the Daily Planet (which even Reeve would be proud of) gave me hope that since he has now overcome his internal struggles, he will become the Superman we all know in love (until Batman vs Superman happened).

Jor-El, Jonathon Kent, General Zod, Lois Lane, Martha Kent and Perry White are perfectly cast, no questions asked.

The film also has a ton of amazing action, a bit too much infact but I guess it makes up for a single punch not being thrown in Superman Returns.

There is little that I can say bad about this film, and the following entries are ranked higher, not because Man of Steel is flawed, but because even a great film like it would have a hard time living up to what was Superman in his Prime.

Moving on...

Basically a less polished version of the theatrical Superman 2, in my opinion.

There are certainly things I like about this cut better than Lester's version, like the greater prominence of Lex Luthor, and the footage of Jor El, who was completely absent from the theatrical cut due to Marlon Brando's insane and legendary demands.

Also, the Richard Donner cut of Superman 2 is tonally closer to the first film (with less camp, which I didn't mind too much in the first place), but suffers from being an incomplete film, with Richard Donner himself stating that he would've done many scenes differently, had he been able to complete the film.

So in the end, what we get is a great film, but a great film littered with errors, such as the time travel ending, screen test footage, shoddy editing in regards to music/scene composition, bad special effects from time to time, and some of the performances not seeming quite as refined due to the Donner directed scenes of Superman 2 being filmed quite early on, when the actors hadn't quite settled into their roles yet.

An amazing film, despite its hugely troubled production which saw a change of directors.

Almost everything I love about the Donner cut, is present in the theatrical cut as well, and some more.

The scenes with the super villains in Houston, the fight in Metropolis, Lara in the Fortress of Solitude and Superman helping repairing the White House at the end were all excellently done by Richard Lester in my opinion.

The enhancements by Lester on scenes shot by Donner, were also better done than Donner's original scenes in my opinion, but not because of Donner being a bad director, far from it.

Rather, Richard Lester was given the luxury of being able to finish the film and refine it to a high standard.

When watching side by side comparisons of the same scenes in both cuts (such as Superman saving the child at Niagra falls, and the defeat of General Zod), I end up preferring the theatrical versions, which often have a better choice of music that fits the mood of the situation much more.

The tone is slightly more campy than the first film, and has less of the epic grandiose that Donner was going for, but as it is, the theatrical cut of Superman 2 is an excellent follow up to the first film with a great story, performances and presentation. Only one film is superior.

Perfection Incarnate, nothing more I can say.

Richard Donner sought to honour the concept of verisimilitude with the making of this film, and he succeeded on all fronts by making a film that changed the Hollywood Superhero genre forever.

I made a huge mistake before seeing this movie for the first time, and spent the week beforehand watching the old Reeve films and a bunch of cartoons (Most of my comics were in storage at the time). Thus, the first time I saw MoS was odd because it was such a tonal and stylistic clash with what I had just watched. But after seeing it many more times, as well as re-reading a lot of my old comics, it's easily my favorite. For one thing, right off the bat, there's the way Snyder and the writers seamlessly welded almost 80 years of conflicting canon into one singular origin story that paid homage to every damn thing. Just the merging of Silver Age Krypton and Byrne's 1980s depiction (with a heavy dose of Mike Turner's early-2000s visuals for good measure) is noteworthy. Nothing in the Superman lore has been tinkered with more than Krypton itself, but MoS took all the contrasting versions and presented one that was both entirely fresh but also completely reverent to what inspired it. Again, at first I wasn't thrilled by it, but then I re-read a bunch of Silver Age stuff, and once I recognized and understood what the inspiration was, I "got" it. And that's just the opening scene.

I'm not going to address every single thing that has been said and re-said about the rest of the film; In brief, if a person reads comics - specifically and primarily the comics from 1986 through 2010 or so - they'll recognize the material. Any and all claims that the filmmakers "didn't understand" the character are false; the rest is personal preference. I grew up with the Reeve films, but they never fully satisfied me. All my life, I wanted a Superman film that was both comics-faithful and paid more attention to "Year One" Superman, which other adaptations always skip over. I get it; everyone wants him "perfect" out of the box, they don't like seeing him struggle or try to figure things out. Well, I do, that's what I'm used to seeing in books so it's what I expect to see in a movie, especially one where he literally just got his start five minutes ago. In many ways, this was the Superman movie I always wanted but never got.

I've never loved the suit - especially that weird chest emblem, although I get it, it's yet another homage but I definitely would have gone more traditional with that one thing, especially - but it's grown on me. I adore everything else, from the ENTIRE cast to the visuals to the musical score to the action scenes. Everything about the movie gets better upon repeat viewings; not only are there countless homages and "Easter Eggs" for hardcore fans like me, but the action scenes, which many people felt were "too hard" to follow initially, definitely play out better once you know where the "high spots" are. They kinda zipped by for me at first, too, but by this point I can call every beat, and man, are they good. My only complaint is that it took them so long to actually make a super-hero movie with fight scenes that appropriately match the source material, both in scale but also brutality. "The Battle Of Smallville" might be my favorite movie fight scene, period.

I also have to mention that Cavill easily hurdles everyone else to be my favorite live-action Superman (it certainly doesn't hurt that facially, he looks almost identical to the way Dan Jurgens drew him in the 1990s). Countless things have been said about Clark's characterization in this, but again, I can't find fault with anything at all. In every single version of the comics since 1938, when he starts out as Superman he's always more forceful, cocky, reckless, and even violent during his first year or so, and he makes a lot of mistakes until he gets it nailed down. I fully want and expect a movie based on his earliest adventures to depict that. Most of peoples' criticisms of his portrayal can easily be dismissed with, "It's Day One Superman, not Year Five Superman". But that is what it is.

I could go on, and I have, but that's enough for now. Any complaints I have with this one are the most minor of nitpicks. One of my favorite movies of all time, period.

Sure, he has to share the starring role, but there are still a ton of great moments for any hardcore fan. Like MoS, I could spend a month just listing all of the comic book references and Easter Eggs alone (I'd almost forgotten the Flash/Batman scene was an homage, for example, until I recently re-read "Crisis On Infinite Earths" and was blown away; there's a TON of those moments in this movie). And as almost as big a Batman fan, I found a ton of things to like in this movie even though Superman only has half of the bill. Both characters get to recreate a ton of iconic moments from the comics, albeit slightly tweaked. And everyone's character motivation was totally on-point; Affleck was perfect in portraying Bruce after Jason's murder, and Cavill was spot-on in his struggle to keep doing "the right thing" in a world that didn't exactly want him to do that. Again, I can only assume that since I've seen versions of these stories told many, many times, they're more familiar to me and thus more entertaining. "Since when does Superman go off in the mountains to wax introspective about his place in the world?", some people ask. "Like, a lot, like literally all the time," anyone who reads comic books would say. :trazz:

I have to point out a lot of smaller things Cavill put into his Clark Kent performance that I don't feel he gets enough credit for. He totally nails the "Crusading Reporter" in a way that nobody except Dean Cain and George Reeves ever came close to, especially his sincere frustration that he's not being allowed to exercise his full potential and is relegated to fluff journalism instead of actually addressing things that would do some good. But there's other little things, too; like how he rides a bike to work, or takes a ferry to Gotham, or cooks his own eggs on a stove. He could surely do these things much more simply by using his powers, but the fact is, Clark generally prefers not to abuse his gifts like that. I really liked that they made it a point to show him "being human" in Snyder's films. I also liked how he was visibly uncomfortable with being labelled or viewed as "godlike", instead viewing himself as "just a guy trying to do the right thing". It reminded me of the longstanding arc in the comics, where there was literally a sect of people who view and worship him as a god, and he was never really okay with that, either.

I'll count myself in the minority who liked Lex a lot, although I certainly would have used different takes. I can see why Eisenberg's vocal inflections wouldn't have sat well with some or most people. I ignore that and focus on the script. This is the only live-action Lex that I recognize from the comics; not a crooked real estate mogul or a misunderstood kid with Daddy issues and a broken heart; just an unrepentant sociopath whose feelings of "superiority" give him license to do anything he wants, and what he wants is Everything. I really dug it. I would have toned down some of the over-the-top bits, but I liked how it was scripted and most of how it was performed. The things he did are the kinds of things Lex does. I also liked how he was actively involved in Doomsday's creation; I never liked it in the comics how Lex had zero to do with Superman's death, and this felt like they actually fixed a longstanding problem with an otherwise-good comic book story.

I also always wanted to finally get "The Doomsday Movie", and I was mostly fine with it. My only complaints were that it should have been even bigger, but since MoS was "too dark and violent", they had to neuter the Doomsday fight and have it take place in completely empty and un-populated areas, which felt like some blatant pandering nonsense. If anything, Metropolis should have been wrecked even moreso than in MoS, and a lot of people should have been killed. BUT, then people would whine even more than they already did. So, I get it, but... I feel like there's times when you have to stick to your guns and do what's best for the story, not for the little kids or the action figures. But I know I'm way outvoted on that.

Anyways, I loved it then, love it still. "Ultimate Edition" really is the only way to go, as the theatrical cut moved a few scenes around and removed several good parts that flesh out the story and explain some of the fuzzier plot points. It's honestly neck-and-neck with MoS, and on any given day I might be more apt to put this one on, but since MoS is 100% a solo Superman film I have to put that one ahead on points.

As is, I usually watch MoS and BvS back-to-back as one long movie, and it's always a good time.

This was actually the first Superman movie I ever saw in theaters. Overall, it's about even with the original film as far as quality, but a few things make it more fun to watch, for me. Spacey's a much better Lex, for one thing; even though he's using Hackman's portrayal as a springboard he takes it to much more sinister places. I also love the visuals; remove everything else from it that people find contentious, and it's still an absolutely gorgeous film. I also own the soundtrack album, and like everything else in the film, while it uses the original film as a jumping-off point it also does some dynamic and unique things with the score that I feel surpasses the original.

I thought the entire cast was perfect, with the exception of Kate Bosworth, who I felt was far too young but still passable (and I'd still put her far ahead of Margot Kidder in yet another Highly Controversial opinion). I thought Routh was a great Superman, I just felt like they had no confidence to actually let him "flex" in the role. They didn't give him many lines, and most of the ones he had were repeated from the Reeve films, so you could tell that their main interest was mimicking what had worked before. But he still does a lot with facial expressions and body language (Cavill, also and especially, excelled at playing Superman through "facial acting" whenever he didn't have much to say; I feel like neither he nor Routh gets enough credit, here, because it's a difficult but important skill in playing a super-hero). And the kid they got for Jimmy Olsen was perfect. Perfect! I also appreciated the cameos from Noel Niell and Jack Larson from the George Reeves show.

Again, some very nice comic book homages, albeit mostly in visuals. Singer famously never reads comics, but he did pore over thousands of Superman comic book covers as visual inspiration, and it definitely shows, because just about every scene of the movie has either a direct "re-shoot" of a famous cover, or an homage to one. I always appreciate that kind of thing. But there's also some more obscure references to the books. Like Jack Larsen as Bibbo, and the Ace O'Clubs bar. I marked out huge for that; that's a deep cut.

I feel like the film takes a beating for being very long yet having few big action scenes, but having re-watched it recently, it does have a lot of action (it just also has a ton of "talky" parts), and the Big Action scenes are superb. The plane rescue scene alone is one of the best "rescue" scenes in any super-hero film, bar none, and the boat rescue at the end never fails to bring some goosebumps. I don't know; I think people expected more of an action movie like X-Men 3 (which had just come out two weeks earlier) while this was an action/drama.

A lot has been said of it being "downbeat", but I also think that's unfair criticism given that they were deliberately trying to tell a bittersweet and poignant story. Maybe that's not what everyone wanted, but the concept of Superman returning to a world that had moved on without him certainly isn't one that's been done to death, and carries a lot of intrigue and storytelling potential. I personally enjoyed the premise and thought they mostly executed it well.

As for, "Why would Superman go looking for Kryton if Marlon Brando already told him it was gone?", well, once again, this has happened in the comics as well. Numerous times. For any number of reasons, there have been many stories where it somehow appears that Krypton somehow survives, and Superman has to go see for himself what's going on. It's always a different story, but it happens more than you'd think. For some reason, "The crystal said so" wasn't enough evidence. Go figure, right? Some people claim that the entire film's premise is flawed, but I can't agree because it happens SO often in the comics. Like yeah, he has his mission, but that would be a pretty extreme extenuating circumstance.

Also, in the script (and comic adaptation) but cut from the actual film for time, they cleared it up by explicitly saying that Lex and Kal Penn's character had faked actual physical evidence; they'd discovered the floating Kryptonite belt in space, and faked records that Krypton itself was still intact at that location so that Superman would be tempted to go there, and then he'd die in space when exposed to the Kryptonite radiation (as seen in the film's deleted opening scene where he almost does die). Just for the sake of argument.

I can't disagree with the folks who say it's almost too close to the original film, but since that was on purpose (a decision most likely made out of fear, I will grant) I can't take points off for it. It's the movie everyone thought they wanted, and for what it's worth, I think in some ways it does certain things better than the first. The flying scene with Lois is 1000x better, just for not having that stupid poem laid over it. The soundtrack is a little better, the sound a little "thicker" and more bombastic. And I prefer Routh's more subdued (yet still "geeky") portrayal of Clark over Reeve's "bumbling idiot" version. It's like a much more polished version of the original. Everything it mimics, it mostly improves on.

One oft-cited criticism is that him "spying" on Lois felt out-of-character and "stalker-y". Guys... again, this is a thing Superman does. Always has. He doesn't like, get abusive with it, but he always keeps an especially close eye on the people he's closest to (although he makes it a point to "tune out" when things are especially personal or private). It's part of the routine. Which also makes perfect sense when you remember that the people he's closest to happen to wind up in spectacular danger more often than most people.

It's very funny to me that both this film and the Snyder films contain numerous instances of Superman acting entirely in-character, and in turn those scenes are picked at for being somehow OUT of character to some viewers. Again, they're not out of character, you simply have to know the material.

Like the original film, it definitely feels like a love letter to the character, moreso in some ways because it's a lot more faithful to the comics in ways the Reeve films never were. So I give it high marks. I can't take points off for things that are canon, and I thought the cast, music, and visuals were stellar. I'd have changed a few things, but nothing major. I was always sad that they never got to make the sequel.

Trivia Note: Anyone who's curious how Routh would do as Superman with more material to work with should check out the Superman Returns video game. It's average, but he has a lot of dialog and predictably does a great job, which is both satisfying and frustrating, because it shows how much more he could have done in the movie if they'd let him.

First off, I've seen this movie thousands of times. It's probably the first movie I ever even sat through as a toddler. I tied the towel around my neck and jumped off the couch literally a thousand times as a kid. I do love the movie.

That said, it's kind of overrated and I've always had a ton of problems with it. I know that's not accepted by many, but it's true.

Right off the bat, let me again say, "my" Superman is from the comics. I found the character through this film, but I remained a fan by reading the comics, and frankly, this movie is completely its own thing. Some of the things they went for work, some of them don't. Most of them were budget-motivated. Like "Ice Krypton". It definitely works, but they originally wanted something more vibrant and fantastic; they just couldn't afford it. I give them all the credit for how iconic what they developed turned out to be, but they didn't go with that design because it was their preferred choice, they did it because it was cheap. Pretty much 100% of the film's budget is making the guy fly, the rest is smoke and mirrors. Again, points for making it work as well as they did, but by design they weren't going to be able to do the character or the canon true justice given what restrictions they had imposed on them from the start.

Reeve is great and the suit is (almost) perfect. I hate the teal-blue and the cape is too short and flimsy, like a bath towel, but it's pretty good. I much prefer Dean Cain's "final" suit on "Lois & Clark", to be honest, if we're actually dealing with spandex. But for what they had in 1977, it's pretty good. I will say, I've never liked "bumbling idiot" Clark Kent, though I will concede that it WAS still faithful to the canon at the time they made the movie (although they'd very recently started getting away from it by that point, already, so it was already kind of a dated portrayal). It's just that he didn't always act that way, and I feel it sinks too much of the Reeve films into needless camp. George Reeves (and much later, Dean Cain and Henry Cavill) did a fine job presenting a "tough" Clark Kent who was still unique enough so that no one would ever confuse him with Superman. That's my preference. Points for being accurate to the time, but definitely not my preference. His Superman, in this film, is fine. No complaints, except for that one scene in the Extended Cut where he sulks to Marlon Brando about "So when can I stop doing this?" You JUST started, guy! :roll: The first of what would eventually be SEVERAL egregious and out-of-character moments for Reeve's Superman. It just comes off as super-whiny, which is why I think Donner originally trimmed it.

The cast is all pretty good, mostly - Do we really need Otis? - and Jackie Cooper was awesome as Perry White (quietly one of the best parts of the entire series). BUT. And people hate me for this, but I don't care. Margot Kidder was AWFUL as Lois Lane. Just awful. I'm going to come off as exceedingly harsh, but I have to be honest. Even as a kid, I NEVER got why "Superman" would fall for THIS one. What's the attraction? The chain-smoking? The fact that she can't even spell at a third-grade level, yet is supposed to be a highly-acclaimed reporter? The fact that she looks at least a third older than she probably was, and in some scenes appears to not have her teeth in? The fact that her only defining character trait in this film is, "Fawns over Superman"? She drags the entire movie down; I don't necessarily blame Margot Kidder entirely, although I would have cast someone more attractive, but as-written, aside from the iconic "You've got me? Who's got you?!" line, her role was given a terrible script. Worst Lois Lane ever, by a wide margin. What's shocking is, she gets WORSE in the role as the movies go along.

As mentioned in my "Superman Returns" critique, I cannot stand "Can You Read My Mind?" The entire scene suffers incredibly for that ungodly piece of cheese. So many new cuts of this movie, and nobody thinks to present one with that sh*t removed, and just letting the soundtrack play and the moment "breathe", like in SR? For f*ck's sake. It's terrible. NOBODY I've ever watched this movie with can get through this part without laughing, and it's not supposed to be funny. UGH.

Obviously the soundtrack is great (although it sounds "thin" by modern recording standards), and the special effects are actually pretty amazing given what they were working with at the time. Like Star Wars, they had to invent a lot of stuff on the fly, and in doing so changed the way that movies were made. So I give them a ton of credit for that. The effects are dated, but they do still hold up.

Less forgivable are the super-dated late-1970s fashions. Oof. It's hard to actually take points off for that, and I know it's not their fault, but geez, the sh*t people wore back then was godawful to look at. Flannel prints and corduroy everywhere. So many earth tones. Superman being greeted at his public debut by "A Pimp Named Slickback". Just brutal.

The movie's full of great moments, and I won't rehash them; it's a classic film for a reason and it mostly gets things right (at least better than the rest of the series would). But good GAWD, that ending. THAT ENDING is one of the main reasons why I can't put this movie on a pedestal like most people do, and why to this day I can't get through it without gritting my teeth. I can forgive everything else, to a point, but NOT that ending.

Let me preface by saying, I understand the real-life "Why" of it: This was the planned (and shot) ending for "Superman II", which was shot concurrently. The studio cancelled production because they were bleeding money, thus the scripted ending for Part I was never shot, and they stapled the "spin Earth backwards" bit on since they'd spent a fortune on it, reasoning that since Part II might not happen, they might as well put the shot to use. I get it.

It still sucks. It's bullsh*t. It's a cop-out, it's out of character, and it creates a giant plot hole the movie doesn't even TRY to explain.

1. Superman can't generally do that. I know, he has on occasion, but no, not really, not most of the time. It's a super lazy plot device, which is why they don't use it.

2. Even if he could do that, he wouldn't do that. Superman doesn't use the "Cosmic Mulligan" button when really bad things happen, no matter what the circumstances.

3. He actually let all those other people die, didn't he?

I mean, seriously. The movie jumps right over it - and different people who worked on the film have explained it differently, so even they can't agree - but he can't be in two places at once, so if he went back in time and chose to save Lois, he had to have done it instead of saving the other people. Which means Superman chose to let a lot of people die so he could save his girlfriend. YET, the movie acts like he saved everyone, even though that makes no sense given the information the film provides. The only thing I can think of is if it's a "Back to the Future" situation and now there are TWO Supermans existing simultaneously, but even that is ridiculous and this ending really should not be so complicated. The movie knows you're confused, so it jumps right to the ending before you can question it. But I always do. I HATE that ending. For better or worse, at least all the other films I've placed above it have a coherent finale.

Overall, I still love the movie but I have to give it some "tough love". It's far from perfect, even though it's better than its mostly-terrible sequels. And yes, I include Part II in that statement. Fight me.

Man... I grew up reading about this movie. It was like this mythical, fabled thing... the "Better Version" of Superman II that they never finished. Superman II was on cable a lot more than Superman I back in those days - probably because it was shorter - so I'd seen II a bunch, but like the first, parts of it always bothered me. I especially never liked the corny "humor" and all the slapstick comedy. So hearing that another version existed that had all of that stuff excised was tantalizing, even knowing that it had some "rough cut" footage spliced in to fill it out.

It's definitely a lot better than the theatrical cut of II - especially the Marlon Brando scenes in the Fortress - but it still has some issues. The rough cut footage is glaringly obvious; I, personally, try to meet the filmmakers halfway on most things, so I don't take points off for it, it doesn't hurt my own personal enjoyment, but I know it does hurt many people's own enjoyment and ruins the immersion for them, so it's unfortunate. Also, some line readings/alternate takes were superior in the theatrical version; I prefer "General... would you care to step outside?" far more than "Haven't you heard of freedom of the press?", and I think most people do. And I liked the "I won't let you down again" ending, as well, and it's missed in the Donner cut.

But for the most part, it's a tighter story (running almost too short), the worst bits of II were cleaned up and a lot of the stuff that linked it more closely to Part I were added back in. This does feel like the "true" sequel, and I'd almost always rather watch it than the theatrical cut. Warts and all, it's the better version of the story. But, it still has a lot that I don't love.

Lois looks especially haggard, in Part II (either version). Again, not a fan at all. Although she looks a bit "healthier" in the scenes Donner shot.

For me, THIS is the Superman movie with the unbelievable premise and the out-of-character behavior. (Deep Breath) Superman would NOT give up his powers and abandon his mission for pussy. He doesn't DO things like that! Oh, sure, there's been times when he LOST his powers and tried to make the best of it, but he would NEVER just go and give them up because he would rather bang Margot Kidder. That's bullsh*t. They didn't need to do that just to do the Zod invasion (see Man Of Steel, the movie this one wishes it could be). Rumor has it, they heard the comics might be pairing Lois and Clark finally and the movie people wanted to beat them to the punch, thus this movie's storyline. I can believe that. Regardless, it's really not consistent with who he is or what his values are. It's actually much more believable for him to go into space to look for Krypton - something he fully expects to come back from in a couple of days - than it is for him to give up being Superman forever (as far as he knows). This movie's plot is plain and simple bullsh*t, and Zod and his gang are all that saves it. They're great, so that's fine, but holy sh*t... they're still the B-Plot. And the A-plot is stupid.

And, again, THAT ENDING. Once more, I know that the "spin Earth backwards" gimmick was written and shot for Superman II, and for what it's worth, it DOES feel like it fits better here. It's still out of character, it's still a quick and lazy way to wrap things up because "We're outta time, folks!", and furthermore, when watching Superman I and then this movie back-to-back, it is jarring to see the exact same ending twice. If you're watching it with someone, you have to explain the whole thing to them and get into all the real-life behind-the-scenes gaga or else it doesn't make any sense. "Didn't we just watch this in the last one?" "Yeah, but..." And that just sucks.

And that scene where he goes back to the diner and beats up the truck driver? Again... HE DOESN'T DO SH*T LIKE THAT! Holy sh*t, people actually whined about Clark smashing that guy's truck in MoS, yet this sh*t is fine? No, no, that was acceptable, THIS is totally not. And this cut of movie makes it much, MUCH worse, because as noted, he goes back in time to before the events of the film ever happened... they explicitly show you EVERY scene playing reverse to before it all started... which means they didn't happen... which means he never even got beaten up at the diner... but he goes back to the diner and beats the guy up anyway! OY! :roll: It was already one of my least-favorite and most unacceptably out-of-character moments in the entire film series, but the implications from the time travel ending make it completely unforgivable.

So yeah, I like the Donner Cut more than the Theatrical by a wide margin, but it's still not perfect and still not great. Just better.

I won't actually have a ton to say about the theatrical cut, because plot-wise, they're the same movie.

Superman II: The "Funny" Version. I don't think it's funny. I don't need the pink bear. I don't need the slapstick during the "Takeover Of Metropolis". I didn't miss any of that in the Donner cut.

It's important to note that the official director the studio hired to replace Donner, Richard Lester (who'd go on to make Superman III), hates Superman. Outspokenly does not like the character, thinks comic books are stupid junk for children and that it's stupid to take them seriously, only did the movie as a favor. Knowing all of that makes this movie make a lot more sense. Pretty much all the Richard Lester bits (notorious by their exclusion from the Donner Cut and therefore easy to spot) are garbage, although the Eiffel tower scene isn't terrible as an alternative opening.

Another thing that really brings my piss to a boil (and would get worse in later movies) is the "Let's Just Make Up Random Super-Powers" game. Holy SH*T, were these movies bad with that. Levitation, teleportation, that... that THING where Superman rips a plastic "S" off his chest and it turns into a, a, a "net" or something... Jesus CHRIST, they don't DO any of that stuff! Even by 1980, the list of things Superman (and Kryptonians in general) could and couldn't do was already pretty well set in stone despite some Early-Installment Weirdness in the '40s. Again, if you want fidelity to the comic book source material, you won't find it in these movies.

The one and only thing about Superman II that truly shines is Zod and his gang. They pretty much save the entire thing because they're all perfectly cast and fun to watch. Regardless of how out-of-character Clark is acting, or how many jokes Lester is trying to cram onto the screen, or how batsh*t insane some of the new powers are, Zod and Co. are consistently awesome throughout. I think they're so good that most people forget (or forgive) how bad the rest of the movie really is.

The Battle Of Metropolis is pretty good, with some great and iconic moments (like the Marlboro truck :lol: Again, people called out MoS for product placement? It's been done, guys! :trazz:). But again, if you think for more than five seconds about how powerful these characters are... you start wondering why they don't try anything more elaborate than whipping hubcaps at each other, and then you realize that MoS really pulled this exact scene off way better in "The Battle Of Smallville" by actually playing it the way it would actually BE if a bunch of Kryptonians started tearing sh*t up unfettered by any budget restrictions.

I've seen it a ton, never thrilled me, but not exactly a terrible movie... just a pretty weak "Superman" movie. The Donner Cut fixes some of its problems, but not all. In either cut, Zod steals the show and everything else is just killing time. Although Lex has some of his best lines, in either cut.

I know some people think this one is the best, but geez... I can't get on with that at all. For one thing, the Donner Cut, warts and all, is a ton better, but for another, even that one builds its house on a pretty flimsy premise, and has its own set of problems. As for the theatrical cut, I hardly ever watch it anymore.

Jesus Christ. It would be dead last if not for the sheer and unapologetic incompetence of IV.

This entire movie was a joke that got too far out of hand. They couldn't do their hoped-for "Brainiac and Supergirl" script because it was too expensive. "Kramer vs. Kramer" had been popular fairly recently, so someone made a joke about "Superman Vs. Superman" being the next film in the series (and that was actually the title for a very long time, before they went with the much simpler "Superman III"). That's how this fiasco got started. "Brainiac" became a generic super-computer, and the rest of it was "How do we contrive a scenario where Superman has to fight an evil version of himself?"

Upfront, let me say, I generally love "Evil Doppelganger" stories, and this is no exception. It's even been done with Superman a few times, so it's not unprecedented or in any way a bad idea. It's not even done all that badly, for what it was, and it gave Reeve a lot of room to really stretch his acting muscles in what was typically a very one-dimensional role. If they had enough faith in the concept to leave it at that, this could have been a very good movie. The fight scene in the junkyard has always been, and remains, one of my favorite scenes of Superman on film. But they didn't leave well enough alone, and it's a mess.

To put it succinctly, this one could be called, "Chris Reeve and Annette O'Toole (and her awesome rack!) Do A Stellar Job In An Otherwise Terrible Movie". They're great, everything else sucks. Reeve especially does a great job here because he was given a lot more to do, character-wise (although Superman - the title character - could have been given more stuff to do); but even his Clark Kent "grew up" a little bit, to good effect. And Annette was great as Lana, no doubt.

But... Richard Pryor? Again, a joke that got out of hand; he was on a talk show raving about "Superman II", so the studio thought putting him in the next one (at his peak of popularity, more or less) would be a neat bit of synergy and double the box office by enticing non-Superman fans. It didn't work! People stayed away in droves once word got out what a clunker this one is. Turns out, people liked Richard Pryor when he was shouting N-bombs at people and talking candidly about his drug and sex addictions; not so much when he's doing G-rated comedy in a super-hero movie that isn't really built for him. Go figure!

There are a few good bits. The chemical plant disaster is VERY good, and belongs in a much better Superman movie. And we see just enough of the scene of him saving the coffee fields under Pryor's "narration", that you can tell it would have been an awesome scene IF we were allowed to actually watch it play out, rather than just see two-second clips with Pryor babbling over them. And again, the junkyard scene is great, as is Drunk Superman at the bar. Lots of really great bits that DON'T add up to an awesome movie. Rather, what I find is, the rest of the movie is so bad that I forget how good the good bits are until I see them again.

The problem started with Lester, who again, hated Superman and figured doing this movie would give him an easy paycheck, and also, the studio not wanting to spend any money on it. It looks absolutely dreadful compared to I and II; even the film stock looks like the kind used for Made-For-TV movies in the early-'80s, not the stuff used in an actual Hollywood film. They cheaped out nearly everywhere they could, and in some scenes on DVD/blu-Ray you can even see the wires and flying harness; sloppy mistakes like that wouldn't have "flown" under Donner's direction. But the effects and props are generally piss-poor; the plastic kiddie pool that serves as an "invisible force field" near the end has to take the cake. This one is about twenty steps back from the visual marvel of the first film.

It has its moments, but I almost never watch it anymore except for marathons. It's better than IV, though, but then again almost everything is.

Trivia Fact: Of the original four Superman films, this was the last one I saw (I saw them in order from I, II, IV, then finally III). I didn't end up seeing it until 1993 on WPIX 11, shortly after Superman died in the comics and they did a movie marathon "tribute". When I was a kid, no rental store in the area had a copy of III and it never aired on TV (whereas II was on a lot, IV was on fairly-often since it was the most recent, and the original was at the very least usually on around Christmas, but sometimes shown in two parts over two nights). III was "the forgotten one", it seemed. Then I finally saw it, and was underwhelmed. I guess the universe was trying to spare me the grief. :lol:

Trivia Fact II: An odd but oft-noted thing about this movie is, it has at least three different opening scenes, with Clark going along the streets of Metropolis while a different set of cartoon "disasters" happen all around him. I've since seen the film on VHS, DVD, and broadcast TV multiple times, and there are many different sequences of events. The rest of the film also has a lot of smaller "alternate takes" that only show up in certain versions. But there is no "complete" version that includes all of the footage, not even on the special editions. Very odd.

I think Richard Pryor himself described the film the best: "For a piece of sh*t, it smells great!" :lol:

It really doesn't get much worse than this! By far, one of the all-time worst movies I've ever seen, period. It's like a masterpiece of bullsh*t. "How To Murder Your Film Franchise In 88 Minutes".

Their heart was in the right place, and that's the sad thing. They did a comic book adaptation of this one, based on the original script, and I gotta say, it's not terrible, and it proves that the basic story itself had some merit. But by god, you CAN'T make a Superman movie with the loose change you find digging under your couch, you just can't.

The film rights were bought by the notoriously low-budget Canon Films; their BEST movie of all time is arguably "Masters of the Universe", a movie I enjoy but is again notorious for being a bit half-baked and made on the cheap, so if that was their best work, well... you can imagine how this turned out. Fun Fact: A LOT of this movie's original budget was instead given to MotU through some creative bookkeeping! Crazy! When you watch that movie and this one, though, you can see which one they cared about more. Not this one!

Reeve himself "wrote" the script; in quotes because he actually read a script someone gave to him, rejected it, then wrote a nearly-identical version and stuck his name on it. He THEN got sued by the original writer and spent every cent of his "Superman IV" earnings on legal fees. Point of fact, a LOT of people who worked with him have less-than-inspiring stories about Chris Reeve The Guy. He was well-known for being a prima donna, but apparently he was a bit of a thief, as well. So I guess him not even making any money on IV was karma for stealing the script in the first place.

It's not like the premise of Superman trying to wipe out nuclear weapons is bad; again, the comics have done some very interesting things with that exact premise. But the execution is very much lacking. For one thing, Superman says he's gonna take everyone's nukes... and they let him. And nobody complains (except Lex and the crooked arms dealers)! In the comics, at least, it's always been a Big Huge Global Event when he tries anything like that, with various governments and military leaders standing up in defiance and even regular ordinary people wondering who gave him the right to act so unilaterally. It generally plays out a lot like the events of BvS, which is what you'd expect if you are a rational person and some guy falls out of the sky and says, "Hey guys, I'm gonna go ahead and dismantle the entire global military because I've decided that I know what's best for everyone. No big deal." Ayn Rand would have a f*cking field day with how easily everyone in Superman IV just rolls over and accepts that Superman is now a God-King and he's only gonna let us do what he thinks is "acceptable", otherwise he'll take our toys away and spank us. Good grief. It's such a childish and juvenile approach to what should be a much deeper and more thought-provoking story. But nope. "Superman's the good guy, he's gonna disarm the world because the story says so, and he's still the good guy because the story says so." No pushback, nobody even questions it.

Lex could've been great, for this. As is, he's merely adequate. But it would be far better served if his humanist elements were brought to the surface; him questioning what gives Superman the right to make such decisions for all mankind, using that as his motivation to kill him (aside from and in addition to petty revenge), even maybe trying to win over the public by positioning himself as the "good guy" and Superman as a "menace" who's overstepped his self-imposed authority. Again, the basic story leaves room for a lot of intriguing possibilities, but they would require a competent writer and a decent budget to actually explore them.

Mariel Hemingway gets brought in as a foil for Lois, and also to pine over Clark the way Lois moons over Superman. This is mostly filler. True story, Hemingway's character only exists because the producers thought that Margot Kidder was far too old and haggard-looking to play Lois anymore. They simply either didn't want to re-cast because they feared backlash, OR were contractually obligated to keep her in the role, depending on who you believe. Either way, they wanted a younger, sexier love interest, thus Hemingway. And she's fine, she just doesn't really add anything - except making Kidder look even worse by comparison. Kidder as Lois subsequently gets almost nothing to do.

The soundtrack is a far cry from the earlier ones, re-purposing clips from the other films' soundtracks and splicing them in seemingly at random. And the effects... Hoooo boy, what hasn't been said? It's the sh*ts. It is the most bush-league, grade school-looking thing you've ever seen. It almost defies belief. I've never seen a worse-looking film that was actually a Hollywood production. Every shot of Superman flying is the same ONE shot pasted over different backgrounds! The George Reeves show was more convincing. Just awful.

I actually don't mind Nuclear Man as much as most people do, I just think it could have been done better. For one thing, he's supposed to essentially be a "clone" of sorts of Superman, yet they look nothing alike; Lex says something about their DNA being identical, or something, but they don't really have anything in common physically. And the "Lee Press-On Nails Of Death" is f*cking ridiculous. I like that he was rather "unhinged" and relentless, but again, in a movie this bad it mostly comes off as campy and corny. In a better movie with a better director it might have played more sinister and menacing. But he goes out like a chump in the end, anyway. And his weakness never really made any sense; again, he's a hyped-up clone of Superman, thus he's powered by the Sun like Superman... except Nuclear Man is completely useless and immobile if he's obscured by even the faintest shadow... while Superman doesn't suffer any ill effects from not being in direct sunlight, so why should Nuclear Man? If anything, Nuclear Man is supposed to be STRONGER than Superman, so one would think that his cells would process solar energy MORE efficiently than Superman's, not a million times LESS efficiently!

But then again, this movie's writers apparently only got through second grade science, so I guess it's expected. You've got Superman having a cheerful conversation in outer space about 5 minutes in, and then at the end Nuclear Man is flying in deep space with Mariel Hemingway, and not only is her head not exploding or her eyes popping out or anything, she's actually breathing quite normally, and then he DROPS her, and she starts FALLING - in OUTER SPACE - and SCREAMING - in OUTER SPACE! - and at this point, I'm usually screaming "F*CK!" at my TV, over and over. "Who booked this sh*t?!"

"Let's Just Make Sh*t Up" returns again, this time with Superman's "Rebuild The Great Wall Of China-Vision" super-power. I wish I were kidding. "Guys... we can't afford to have Superman fix the Wall." "...Can we have him stare at it?" "...Yeah." "Great, so what exactly is the problem?" I hate these people. I don't even know them, and I hate them.

Reeve is fine as usual, despite the terrible material. Hackman is fine, although he doesn't get as much to do as he usually does, and I feel they missed a lot of opportunities to expand on his role given the nature of the material. Jon Cryer as Lenny is ridiculous, but actually one of the few entertaining parts of the film, or at least memorable for anything besides being lousy. The movie's few quiet, "sincere" moments come off alright, but whenever they actually have to spend a buck or do any "super-hero" stuff, it goes headfirst into the sh*tter.

Oddly enough, I watched this movie the most as a kid, because I was about 5 when it came out and so it was being replayed a lot on cable and Channel 11 for the next two years. On a tiny, grainy TV with mediocre reception, it wasn't the worst thing I'd ever seen, and it was enough to entertain me at that age, but once I started watching the entire series more regularly - and on better TV sets - the flaws are really glaring and unforgivable, even before you get into the half-baked plot. The entire thing, beginning to end, looks like it was held together with Scotch tape. The dollar store kind.

If I'm doing a marathon, I'll put it on, but only out of obligation. I always have to watch a better Superman movie immediately after, or I spend the whole day pissed off.