Superman II (1980)

His close relationship with Lois Lane as both Clark Kent and Superman is putting strain on our hero; she has feelings for him and he has feelings for her although she only likes one half of his personality (although she doesn't realise this). However one thing Lois can rely on is the Superman is always there to help her. So when she is looking into terrorists with a hydrogen bomb Superman comes to the rescue and throws it into space where it safely explodes. Unknown to him though, the nuclear blast frees the prisoners imprisoned in Krypton and blasted into space for eternity. So while Superman and Lois are making cooing noises at one another, General Zod and his colleagues arrive on Earth with crime on their mind to find that have super powers thanks to the power of the Sun.

I'm not sure why this film is such an uneven affair but I assume that the change of directors far into the film's production is the cause of the majority of this film's problems. By this I am referring to the messy delivery the whole film has. On a narrative level we seem to jump around between threads and themes – an effect not helped by the poor continuity across the whole (caused by bits being shot much later than other bits). More than the narrative jumps is the problem with the tone of the film. It veers wildly throughout; one moment being a tragic bit about Superman becoming human, the next a load of funny lines in a comic scene. It has a weird effect on the film as a whole because it did make me feel like I was watching two different movies rammed together into one (which in essence I suppose I was). Despite the mix not really working, individual moments are generally good. The comedy, drama, "humanity" and action are mostly fun and enjoyable even it is hard to overlook the mess of them all being rammed together.

The cast deal with it quite well because most of them are put into boxes for each scene. Reeve has the hardest job because he must cope with comedy, drama and action. Despite me never being a big fan of his, he does well with his individual scenes even if he cannot hold them together into one flow. I've never liked Kidder that much and she isn't that good here even if she does do the job. Stamp is marvellously camp and OTT throughout the film and his performance is enjoyable (albeit maybe not for the reasons he meant it to be). He is support by Willoughby (sexy when I was a child) and O'Halloran (fun and contributes with a good presence and comic touch). Hackman exists in the comedy part of the film and he loves it – producing a performance that genuinely uplifts the film with only a few scenes and effortlessly produces a feeling of fun that such a film needs.

Overall then this is not a great film but it is a generally entertaining one. The mishmash of tones and material is jarring but individually they sort of work. The cast helps because the serious bits are carried by the performances but it is hard not to wiggle with pleasure when Stamp and Hackman come onto the screen to liven things up with some silly fun.

Fmovies: I have a confession to make. I love Superman II. Such innocent, almost niave, filmmaking, it personifies the term "family entertainment" and is, simply, great fun to watch.

Other superheroes have floundered at the box office, and maybe this is to do with lack of affinity between the makers and the source material. Certainly, the Superman films are tongue-in-cheek but never so that they're disrespectful to their content or their audience. The Crow was a good example of the "graphic novel" set, and the Batman series did well under the underrated Michael Keaton, but floundered under the flat Val Kilmer and increasingly childish set-pieces. The less said about "Batman and Robin" the better.

Of course, Superman had his own "Batman and Robin" in the guise of "Superman VI: The Quest For Peace", a movie made four years after the third and with seemingly a fraction of the budget. But Superman II was the series at its' peak. The theme music, a startling Star Wars sound-a-like by John Williams, fades to edited recaps of the previous film. These involve Superman as a baby being sent from the destruction of his home planet and are cleverly spliced together so as to avoid having to pay Marlon Brando any more royalties. (Yet we do see Brando's hand. Surely that's worth half a million?). 20% of this movie was shot alongside the 1978 vehicle and so we get reminded in this sequence of the three Kryptonian villains, about to be accidentally released by Superman in a h-bomb explosion.

This was still in the days when films were properly constructed to allow for a genuine build-up, a fully-formed middle and a proper end. Even minor players, such as Perry White (Jackie Cooper) have great lines and characterisation thrusted upon them. This may be just a "fun" movie, but it is lovingly put together, not "thrown together" as many films are. All the actors are wonderful, Christopher Reeve is just right as Superman, Margot Kidder is the definitive Lois Lane (despite almost drowning in soft focus for her close-ups) and Gene Hackman is, of course, absolutely hilarious as Lex Luthor.

But my favourite player in this sequel is Terence Camp as General Zod. Terence plays Zod exactly the same as he plays Bernadette in "The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" and makes great work of the lead villain that must be, in Hollywood circles, always English. "Why do you say these things when you know I will kill you for it?" he minces to Hackman with great effect.

Of course, now twenty years old, this film is less "You'll believe a man can fly" than "You'll believe a man can swing on wires in front of an unconvincing backdrop" but this is still wonderful entertainment. Maybe the middle section, with Clark getting cut to ribbons after being thrown through a plate glass window is a little violent, as is the confrontation between Superman and the trio of villains. There's also the nagging feeling that this section is the biggest single example of product placement ever seen on film. Or is it coincidence that a Superman who featured in a comicbook anti-smoking campaign (against "Nick O'Teen", no less) is continually thrown into a Malboro van? Even Zod gets to know "things look better with Coca-Cola" as he is unceremoniously hurled into a neon sign for the corporation.

But these are minor gripes, and how anyone can hold them against such a harmless film is beyo

After the rushing into pre-production of Superman, Superman II footage remained in vaults in Pinewood Studios for the time being. This was where the cast and crew were supposed to pick up filming of Superman II in early February of 1979. However a new order was called in by producer Ilya Salkind. A new director to be exact, and that was the dellima of Superman II. In 1977-78, Richard Donner shot a near estimate of 80 % of Superman II simultaneously with Superman, but that is not the point. The point is that his version was a much more subtle version, which followed the characters emotions from the blockbuster first film, and had an exciting plot of Lois and Superman falling in love, villains killing earth beings, and Superman almost having to risk it all for the world...or the woman he loves! But when director Richard Lester came in to do reshoots and shoot all new scenes, he had a different vision in mind. His version was simple. Make the villains look like dumb butts, while Lois and Superman enjoy an unequal relationship where Lois is given the back seat treatment to mediocre looks and a Superman that would rather make the metropolis people laugh than save the world! As that is what so wrongly happens, we shall go over the facts. Superman and Lois are supposed to have the kind of love that EVERY American dreams of having. Donner insured this in never seen love scenes which would have garnered the film an R-rating. Lester's love scenes are cheap and tacky with hilarious dialogue and no wit to back it up. The villains scenes in the Donner version are cruel, ruthless, and downright evil. In Lester's scenes, the villains pronounce names wrong, look at eachother in stupidity, and act like imbeciles. The film had a good premise going for it: Superman has just saved the world from nuclear destruction and then the villains arrive and start destruction. Meanwhile, Lois and Superman fall in love. That was still the plot, but the myth and mystique which made the original film such a classic are nowhere to be seen here. Instead we get NASA jerks talking about a "curl" in space! Lester was really trashing the mythology with this peice of junk. America had thought that the second Superman film would be a film that they would remember. No such luck as one would have guessed. The film is basically two unfinished films sloppily put together in this turkey! Superman II is NOT without interest. In fact, alot of the scenes are fun to watch because of the action sequences. But it is true what others say, that it seems like Lester was trying at a Beatles/Superman film. Clumsy comedy and stupid chaos ensues as the villains blow through metropolis. Another thing that gets on this writer's nerves is when the townspeople are rooting for Superman in the battle sequence! This villains are trying to kill these people and what do they do? They don't run in fear as they should, but root for Superman when he beats the villains up, calling out rediculous dialogue such as "C'mon! Get 'em Superman!" as if they are present at a high school football match! Too much stupid writing and directing. I will always have respect for Superman II because the whole Superman series has been a part of my better memories in life for a long time. We have yet to see if the true version of Superman will ever be released on DVD, in the form of the Richard Donner cut, as so many fans like to call it. IT is really Ilya Salkinds cut, as he has the contract to the rights of ALL the films(including Supergirl) and their footage. All in all, Superman

Superman II fmovies. SUPERMAN II is, IMO, one of the best films ever made, and one of the most underrated. I put it in the same category as the STAR WARS or INDIANA JONES films. It had all of the makings of those films - big budget, "movie brat" director, and based on what was traditionally considered a "low" genre, in this case, comic books. But SUPERMAN II takes those basic concepts and really runs with them, and as a child, I found it unforgettable.

We have ALL asked, "what if Lois Lane knew that he was really Superman?" In SUPERMAN II, we find out. Whenever we see a superhero movie, we want to see a knock-down, drag out fight, and we get it in the scene when Superman fights all three villains in Metropolis, a scene that runs a good half hour. And it even continues the thematic elements of "God in human form" as introduced in the first film, when Superman needs his powers back and calls for his "Father," practically asking, "why hast thou foresaken me?" I based every adventure fight / story / whatever I wrote for the rest of my life on the general patterns / pacing / scope of this film, and to an sci-fi / action fan, it's an absolute winner. One of my favorite movies of all time.

SUPERMAN II

This is another classic from my childhood... as it is still good, but for some reason I didn't think it was as good as I remember.

I did watch the Richard Donner cut... there are a few scenes that were replaced. If you remember the scene where Lois jumped into the Niagra Falls and Clark had to save her without revealing his identity... that was not in the film. It is a shame because I love that scene. Instead, Lois shoots Clark to prove he is Superman. There are also a few more scenes cut out and replaced with other scenes. It is very interesting to see a different version of the film. But I have great memories of watching this film when I was a kid so I prefer the original version.

The action is great, the acting is great and the story is great. I love this film... but it is not as good as the original. But then it is very very rare for a sequel to be better than the original.

All of the original cast returned in this film from the first movie. You even see more performance from Marlon Brando. Also, the Richard Donner cut is dedicated to the memory of Christopher Reeve.

I love the villains from this film too... you saw them briefly at the beginning of the original movie. General Zod and his sidekicks... 3 people with the same super powers as Superman... and they just happen to arrive to take over the planet when Superman gives up his super powers and becomes human.

I will give this film 7 out of 10... but I will give the original version 8 out of 10.

Very good and enjoyable, but not as good as the original.

For more reviews, please like my Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ordinary-Person-Movie- Reviews/456572047728204?ref=hl

"Superman II" opens up with a spectacular opening shot of Superman(Christopher Reeve)saving Lois Lane(Margot Kidder)from danger at the Eiffel Tower in Paris and goes on to deliver exciting events at every turn that gives this film plenty of firepower and the viewer alot of heart racing excitement."Superman II" continues te events of the man of steel in which he must battle three supervillains(Terence Stamp,Jack O'Halloran and Sarah Douglas)with the same powers he has.These villains take over the world which results in plenty of nonstop excitement that I thought was spectacular in every way.I enjoy fast paced action films and "Superman II" is one of them.The romance between Superman and Lois Lane is given first class treatment and the score by Ken Thorne is grand and really great.The battle scenes in Metropolis is a perfect example of great special effects. "Superman II" is a film that entertains to the fullest.