AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Brightlyme i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

GazerRise Fantastic!

Majorthebys Charming and brutal

Ian (Flash Review)This was shot at the same time as Superman but had directorial turmoil. Thus as the first director left, Gene Hackman quit the film! Anyway, in this movie, three criminals escape and flee to Earth. At the same time Superman has fallen in love with Lois and is learning to be equal/human with her, he must give up his Superman powers. Will he sacrifice so much to be with Lois? How will the villains be stopped if he doesn't have his powers? How will Lex Luthor jockey the villain hierarchy? Those are the core tension plot points. The three villains are great. So many memorable scenes and they have such peculiar 80's styles. The story was a good way to showcase superpowers and fun battles. Very good effects for its time. Another classic movie.

zkonedog After viewing "Superman: The Movie", it is difficult to believe that any sequel could top the story, effects, and just the overall aura of that masterful film. Well, Superman II is at least as good, and some would argue better, for two main reasons:First, the special effects (many of them filmed at the same time as scenes from Superman I) are still incredible (at least by early 1980s standards). The action scenes, where as many as four beings are flying through the air simultaneously, are even more exciting than those from the first film. Also, the comedic and heroic tone of the first film remains intact for this effort (likely because parts of both were filmed together). Thus, Christopher Reeve is still the same old bumbling, stumbling Clark Kent but wholesomely heroic Superman, Lois Lane is just as rambunctious, and Lex Luthor is just as comically maniacal. In essence, it wasn't as if there was a big break in shooting and the actors had to rediscover their roles again...and that stability is very refreshing.Of course, the second reason the film succeeds so well is that it introduces enough change to not become old hat. Instead of thwarting Luthor, Superman dukes it out with three Kryptonian baddies (led by the merciless General Zod). Instead of fooling Lois, Clark reveals his deepest secret to her (and, ultimately, puts the world in grave danger for doing so).I have always felt that most sequels fail due to one of two (or maybe both!) issues: Either the film is too repetitive, or the actors can no longer fully regain the passion for the roles as they once had. However, with the combination of a fresh plot and the fact that both the first two Superman films were mostly filmed together, this film was able to avoid those traps.So, if you were enthralled by Superman: The Movie, Superman II will not let you down in any way. The visuals are still stunning, the drama is still palpable, the humor is still funny, and I can guarantee that the closing scene will have you on your feet and cheering at your television!

RobTheConqueror While 1978's Superman launched the superhero movies genre and proved that good movies could be made out of (to be blunt) childish comic book characters, it was it's sequel that set the standard for just how great superhero movies could be. Sam Raimi's wonderful first two Spider-Man films (in particular his second one, a masterpiece) can both be traced back to this, as it focuses on the man behind the blue costume. The film focuses on Superman ultimately being forced to reveal his secret identity to love interest Lois Lane after a series of clues causes her to catch on. As they fall deeper in love, he ultimately decides he wants to be with her, and gives up all of his powers to do, although after an ugly encounter with a man named Rocky at a cafe that makes him uncomfortable with how vulnerable he now is, and the arrival of escaped Kryptonion criminal, the ruthless General Zod, who conquers Earth with the help of his equally dangerous associates Ursa and Non, he is forced reconsider. The plot ultimately resolves itself after Zod's defeat, with Lois becoming depressed at the thought of never being able to be with him or or move on from him, so Clark does the noble thing of wiping her memory of his true identity to spare her the pain. This aspect is very well written and one of the few romance story lines in the superhero genre they've managed to get right.Acting wise, I can't even express how good Reeve is as Clark/Superman. He absolutely nails Clark's awkward facade to a tee, and strikes the perfect line between corny and badass as Superman. I'm still not sure how he manages to pull off this character so well. It's uncanny. Kidder also impresses as Lois, being given a much wider range of scenes and emotions in this, and thus more to do. Gene Hackman also returns as chief antagonist Lex Luthor in a supporting role, and even he is much better in this than the previous one, finally free of his annoying associates and awful dialogue that dragged his character down in the first movie. It's Terrance Stamp who owns the entire thing though, with his scene stealing performance as the diabolical General Zod, completely nailing every line, facial expression and movement for his character. He's so good that he managed to turn a forgettable character from the comics into a cultural icon.This movie had a troubled production, with director Richard Donner being replaced after completing half of the movie due to conflicts with the producers, with credited director Richard Lester finishing the product. Donner's full vision for the film would be released as "The Richard Donner cut" in 2006, and is also brilliant, but the theatrical version remains just as good and just as well made despite the behind-the-scenes nightmare. In fact, Lester's more comedic version seems to work well here, blending in with the drama seamlessly (with the exception of the terrible slapstick used during the Metropolis battle scene) to to create a highly enjoyable film filled with romance, humour, action and drama and ultimately the best Superman movie of then all. Just a shame Lester then ruined it all with the...Uh....next installment.

adonis98-743-186503 Superman II is bigger in everything but that doesn't mean that is better than the first film. What bagged me the most about the film is the humor which it was kinda weak at times and this whole thing of Superman sacrificing his powers in order to be with Lois Lane what the hell was that? Sure Clark deserves a little bit happiness in his life but getting his ass kicked by a mortal was kinda stupid. Also the 3 villains could be better if they didn't acted as cartoons of themselves i think Man of Steel gave Zod a much better story. Gene Hackman reprises his role as Lex Luthor but he doesn't have enough screen time. What i loved about the first film was that it was serious but also the humor was great in it and Richard Donner was all by himself in directing and not Richard Lester and him teaming up. Christopher Reeve remains a badass and an amazing Superman/ Clark Kent tho as always. I give the film a 9 out of 10 it's basically the Batman Returns of the Superman Series it's entertaining but not better than the first movie.