User Reviews

Three prisoners of Krypton find they are freed, and soon discover they have powers beyond their dreams, as they make their way to Earth, the saviour rescinds all his worth, the potential to protect, greatly recedes. Lex Luthor makes escape and finds the fortress, where he gorges on Krypton and feeds his malice, connects with Zod, Ursa and Non, they all collude against the one, who has reversed his past mistake, repealed regress. The battle for the world is then established, the man of steel fights for his life, won't be dismissed, in solitude tables turn, fissures open and intern, past memories are removed, with a brief kiss.

This is the best of the Superman movies because of the three villains, played by Terrence Stamp, Sarah Douglas and Jack O'Halloran.

Those three are so good, particularly Stamp, that they make this easily the most memorable of the four films. The scenes with them on the moon, their first encounter on earth and their climactic fight against Superman in the skies above Metropolis are all outstanding.

Once again, Superman goes a little overboard in his romance to Lois Lane (do you believe some reviewers are upset there weren't explicit sex scenes in the film?) Hey, folks, it's just a comic book and it's supposed to be innocent, clean fun. Sorry that turns you off. For the rest of us, this is generally very enjoyable film from start to finish, with no real lulls.

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 beyond me. Superman II isn't Citizen Kane by any means, but I defy you to sit through this movie and not love it.

This film can be summed up in two words. Superman Trouble. That is the case. There are two versions of the film "Superman II." One is the vision of acclaimed director Richard Donner, full of color flourishes, and camera work by the late Geoffrey Unsworth. The second, is the vision put on director Richard Lester, by choice of the film's producers, Alexander and Ilya Salkind. Both the films contain the same story and characters, but each was shot with a different tone, different dialogue and footage, which clash with intention. So in the end, footage from each are woven into one movie which film buffs all over the world will notice is somewhat difficult to grasp. Due to the different directing styles of each director, the final cut of Superman II ends up being a cliche work of special effects, mismatched character analysis, and central themes. The film deals with Superman and Lois falling in love, and the three super villains from the prologue of the first film landing on earth and ultimately trying to take over. Very intense stuff. But this is where we as an audience need to know all the facts, and here they are: The first version of Superman II, known as "Superman II: The Adventure Continues" was directed by Richard Donner and supposed to be straight forward with serious tones and action packed sequences. This version was shot simultaneously with the original "Superman" in 1977-78. Originally to be released back to back with the original, "Superman II" was filmed with vigorous explosions, dangerous situations, and tense, irrefutable drama. In the opening, a female liberation symbol, Lois Lane, tries to prove that Clark Kent is Superman by throwing herself out a window, knowing that Clark(Superman) will fly out and save her. In another scene, Superman gives up his powers and nearly kills himself, only to get them back later on, nearly killing himself again. This nailbittingly tense script brought back old characters and was to bring the original "Superman" to a full closure. All actors are fully concentrated and the print is a paragon. 80& of this film was finished when the producers fired director Donner due to some arguments that are still unknown to this day, and replaced him with director Richard Lester, and thusly, "Superman II: The Adventure Continues" was culminated. This is where the Richard Lester vision of the film comes into place. Simply titles "Superman II", the Richard Lester version is full of clumsy comedy, amateur plotting, and is nowhere near as affective as the Donner version. Lester is a comic director, whom had worked on the previous Beatles films, "Help" and "Hard Days Night" and had no experience directing any international blockbusters. To give him more credit than Richard Donner, the producers rewrote most of the footage that Donner shot and went in with the actors for re-shoots...even though Donner had already taken care of this! The villains are portrayed here as careless and comic, whereas in Donner's version they were cold as steel, and not to be messed with. In one re-shot scene, we see three villains who are Superman's foes land on earth and take interest in a snake. The snake bites the female villain and instead of showing her wrath on nature, as was seen in Donner's moon scene which she kills an innocent astronaut in cold blood, she sets the reptile on fire and giggles about it! Central themes of love and home were lost because of this as well. Because of budget problems and deadline, the producers could not finish the re-shoot and "Superman II", and had to fill the gaps with Donner footage from the vault, making "Superman II" confusing and abstruce, and that is what made "Superman II" an atavistic failure. 70% of the film is clumsy, contrived comedy and useless violence, while 30% of the film is straight forward, full of munificent morals and such. The final cut has one scene showing the villains breaking into the white house and consequently taking over the world, with sheer John Williams music, the next scene you see them bored and incoherently complaining about being on a world where "mankind doesn't even resist." The first film "Superman" had morals of justice, and the American way, while the second film was supposed to show morals of love and home, and earthly pleasures that remind people of the good in the world-in a sense, taking along with the "truth, justice, and the American way." This message was lost between the footage by raconteur Donner and comic Lester. Nonetheless, the film was a box office success, and many critics, including the late Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert praised the film for it's portrayal of good versus evil in the modern day society. Some of the footage shot by Donner that was not put into the final cut of the film has since been seen on network television showings and bootlegs, but not all of it. The original opening which gave the film a better sense of dangerous excitement, scenes involving Kal-El and his father were scrapped(Due to the Marlon Brando court case) and the full original ending have all been locked away in London vaults and never before seen by anyone. So on the all in all level, "Superman II" fails because it is nothing more than two films put together, one a comedy, one an action drama, and this keeps "Superman II' from being anything close to what the original has become.

Simply put, Superman II is one of the best action/comic-oriented films of all time. I'd rank it second only to the original Superman: The Movie and only X-Men is right up there.

The thing about this movie that bugs me is that I grew up watching the ABC expanded version. That's the version my dad taped for me, so for years I thought the expanded version was the only version. It wasn't until the mid-80s when I saw SII on HBO that I realized what the theatrical cut was and how much of the expanded version added to the film.

So if you ask me about Superman II expanded edition, I'd definitely rank that as the best comic oriented film all time. Hopefully, Warner Bros. will put together an interesting DVD on the film with all the supplemental footage, including the never-before-seen Marlon Brando segment that was completely removed from the picture. The making of this film was a big time headache. All of Gene Hackman's scenes were filmed by Superman I director Richard Donner, and then he was fired, and Richard Lester was brought in. So it would be really cool and really insightful if a future DVD came out on the making of the film. But I digress.

The (theatrical version) film, while a bit aged, is still tremendous fun. Christopher Reeve remains the embodiment of the Man of Steel and remains a case for one example of perfect casting. He makes the whole Clark Kent/Superman thing plausible by making Kent an insecure, bumbling reporter. Terrence Stamp is also wonderfully cast as arch-villain General Zod.

The climax in Times Square is still exciting and funny. And the whole relationship between Lois and Clark/Superman is brought to the fore-front.

I'd definitely put this film as a supreme candidate for the full DVD red carpet treatment complete because the current DVD lacks big time.

In my opinion this movie is still not quite as good as the first movie, it still manages to keep the flavour and charm of the original.

For me what really stood out about this movie was the villains, which are Zod and his gang and Lex Luthor. Terrance Stamp stole the show as General Zod and really sold me on the character's arrogance in relation to Earth. This arrogance was best depicted during the whitehouse scene when upon learning that superman would challenge him, he merely retorts "Who is this imbecile?". What I liked about the Kryptonians in this movie was that all 3 of them were their own character with differing personalities, something which I felt was lacking in Man of Steel (No disrespect to Michael Shannon). Gene Hackman once again is brilliant as Lex Luthor, although for me he was overshadowed by Zod (Which is OK as Zod is the main villain of the movie).

Ken Thorne's score is great and manages to hold up next to the John Williams score of the original.

The special effects, while appearing dated by todays standards are very good for the time and still look very believable. These effects stood out during Superman's fight with Zodd in Metropolis and with the depiction of the Phantom Zone at the beginning of the movie.

Unfortunately this is the last of the Christopher Reeve Superman movies that was of high quality. If you're planning on watching these movies I would recommend that you watch all 4 at least once, but for every subsequent viewing just watch the first 2.

Also RIP Mr Snake, all he wanted to do was say hi

"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.

It's really a shame that those jerks the Salkinds fired Richard Donner after he made the first Superman movie into a smash hit. For one thing, the 2nd one could have and would have been better with Donner still at the helm and, quite possibly, "Superman III" and "Supergirl" may not have sucked. The only thing in the movie that Richard Lester really deserves any credit for is directing the 12 minute fight in Metropolis between Superman, General Zod, Non and Ursa. That scene is still fun to watch, even with today's overblown CGI.

Well, #2 is the love story entry in the series as Lois Lane discovers that Superman and Clark Kent are the same guy and she lets him know about her infatuation with him. They go steady in his Fortress of Solitude, he gives up his powers so he can live a normal life with her (which the comic book Superman WOULD NEVER DO) then he has to get them restored after he finds out that the villains General Zod, Ursa and Non are raising hell and taking over the planet. Lex Luther is also back for the 2nd go around.

People keep complaining that the film doesn't explain how Superman got his powers restored. Well, I have an old copy of an ABC Sunday night showing of "Superman II" and, mind you I still haven't bought the DVD, the TV showing implied that Superman used the green crystal - the same one that started off his awakening in the first movie and built the Fortress of Solitude - to restore his powers. And according to an interview I read with Richard Donner, the whole idea was that Superman restored his powers by draining all the crystals in his Fortress of Solitude and lost the ability to contact the ghosts of his parents in the process. Another plot hole I can't get over is how Superman ever fell for the Margot Kidder version of Lois Lane - she's an illiterate, chain smoking scatter brain! Gene Hackman still gives the worst performance of his career as Lex Luther, but hey, it's Gene!

Legend has it that Hackman refused to do "Superman III" because he was outraged over the way the Salkinds had treated Richard Donner.

Christopher Reeve is still a good Superman though, and here he actually has a real threat in the form of cold blooded Terence Stamp as General Zod, who is helped by Jack O'Halloran's mute hulk Non and Sarah Douglas's misanthropic Ursa (she later played the evil queen in "Conan the Destroyer"). And as mentioned above, the fight between Superman and Zod's trio is a knock out. Don't miss Christopher Reeve/Superman throwing Terence Stamp/Zod into the giant neon Coke sign!

The story behind SUPERMAN 2 is well known. SUPERMAN THE MOVIE director, Richard Donner, was fired from SUPERMAN 2 after shooting something like 75% of the film. The producers hired Richard Lester and shot many new scenes that were to be combined with some of the scenes Donner directed. The end result is that the film looks like a terrible patchwork of many things and SUPERMAN 2 just feels like a HUGE sloppy production.

As an aficionado of movie mistakes and continuity errors, the only thing I can say about SUPERMAN 2 is that it's a feast for my eyes. It's really fascinating to watch. In the Richard Donner scenes, Margot Kidder looks healthy and beautiful. In the Lester scenes, Margot looks positively gaunt and anorexic. The effect of seeing Margot change from unhealthy to healthy and back to unhealthy throughout the movie is jarring. Then there's the slight alterations that were made to the villains costumes from the Donner shots and the new Lester shots. Notice Ursa's costume is more revealing in the Donner scenes than in the Lester directed ones. Also, Terence Stamp looks much thinner in the Lester shots. And the villains also have less white makeup in the Lester directed shots.

But even if the jarring effect of watching the Donner and Lester scenes coexist together is enough to make one's head spin, the individually directed scenes of SUPERMAN 2, mainly the Lester ones, can only be described as all round sloppy. For instance, the whole Paris scene. In Metropolis, Perry White tells Clark that Lois Lane is in Paris covering the story of terrorists with a hydrogen bomb, but the scene after that one we see Lois in Paris, talking to the police officer and she's told by the police officer that there's a hydrogen bomb in the Eiffel Tower and Lois acts surprised, like she was just told about it for the first time. I'm sure the scene with Lois in Paris was supposed to appear first and then followed by Perry telling Clark about Lois in Paris. But as it is in the film, the order of the scenes doesn't make any sense.

When Superman and Non chase each other over the water, we actually see the wake of the boat filming the footage of the river and cityscape. This shot shouldn't have made it in the final cut. Why did Lester leave it in? It's really bad. There there's the whole battle at the end, which is played strictly for camp. People losing their wigs. Ice cream flying into people's faces. Phone booths falling with people inside. A-ha...not. Note to Richard Lester: this is not a Beatles movie.

For a film that cost $50 million, everything about SUPERMAN 2 feels cheap.

Cheap production values, like the moon set or the NY city street set, the village set, etc. The village set is probably the least convincing movie set ever built for a major movie.

Cheap use of stock footage, from the first SUPERMAN movie, such as when Clark and Lois return from the north pole and the car driving through the Rockies is actually the car that's flipped over in SUPERMAN THE MOVIE. Or the use of fly over footage taken from the first movie which was used for the rockets is now used for the villains when they fly towards the village.

Cheap special effects, like the dreadful animation when the phantom zone thingy goes through shockwave from the nuclear blast. Zod walking on water and you can clearly see the plank underneath the surface of the water. The helicopter being tossed around by Ursa's kiss. The use of little dolls for Superman or the villains flying all over NY city scape. There are some good FX here and there (my favorite is when Non goes through the buildings) but most of the special effects are *really* bad, even for that time.

Sloppy writing. The inconsistent use of superpowers. In SUPERMAN THE MOVIE, Superman could fly super fast and affect time itself. But in SUPERMAN 2, it takes Superman forever to arrive in Paris. The villains (and Superman) have bizarre powers like levitating objects with their eyes or by just pointing their fingers. When Ursa is bitten by the snake, it hurts her. The snake must have fangs made out of steel. Zod easily destroys cars with his laser eyes but it takes him forever to blow up a tanker truck. Non and Ursa throw a bus at Superman, which crushes him like a ton of bricks. But didn't Superman change the direction of the rotation of the earth in SUPERMAN THE MOVIE? What's a bus compared to the gravitational force of a whole planet?

Then there's the whole stupid moment in Niagara. Who came up with this stupid script?!?! And some of the dialogue is just painful. And to make things even worse, there are tons of product placement throughout the movie.

By reading this, you might think I hate the movie. And to a certain extent, there's something about SUPERMAN 2 I just don't like but I admit that the spirit of the film is goofy. The awe and majesty of SUPERMAN THE MOVIE is replaced by schlocky, stupid fun. Like the producers just didn't care about anything and decided, "What the hell. Who cares about all of this. Let's make fun of it all."

The one thing I really like in SUPERMAN 2 is URSA. Sarah Douglas is the best thing in the movie. Ursa ROCKS!!!!!!! The highlight of the film is when Ursa flips a manhole cover and throws it mercilessly at Superman. Cool.

Anyway, my main problem with SUPERMAN 2, aside from the really stupid script, is that's it's just cheap looking. It's the cheapest looking big budget movie of all time. It cost $50 million back then. That's $200 million today? Where did the money go?!?!

Superman II stars Gene Hackman, Christopher Reeve, Terence Stamp, Ned Beatty, Sarah Douglas, Margot Kidder, and Jack O'Halloran. It was to be a troubled shoot that saw two directors involved with the project. Richard Donner had completed about three quarters of the film before being taken off the project, so Richard Lester then came in to finish the film. Because of the back stage problems there are a host of writers credited on the film and both Robert Paynter & Geoffrey Unsworth were involved with the cinematography. Filmed using the Megasound system the score is a reworking of John Williams original score by Ken Thorne.

Something of a miracle in itself that Superman II, in spite of all the behind the scenes shenanigans, is a very fine sequel to the massively successful Superman from 78. Sure there's some odd tonal shifts, a couple of things don't quite add up (to be corrected later on down the line with the release of the Richard Donner cut), while the villains are badly under written, but this has enough comic book adaptation savvy to please most comic book lovers.

This time around sees Superman pitted against three villains who have been released from their prison due to Superman himself detonating a hydrogen bomb in space. The big kicker here being that the three convicts, General Zod, Ursa and Non, are from his home planet of Krypton and had been imprisoned by his father Jor-El. Now they are free they are hell bent on revenge against the son of Jor-El and the planet that worships him. If that was not enough for Superman to contend with, he also has affairs of the heart to deal with as his love for Lois Lane grows ever stronger by the day. While a certain Lex Luthor is plotting his escape from prison...

Pic nicely fuses a humanistic heart with exciting set pieces, to make Superman II a worthy sequel to the wonderful template that is the first film. Ultimately we should embrace both cuts of Superman II or it would go downhill from here... 7/10

In the early 1980s, comic book adaptations were the big thing, chiefly because special effects technology had finally caught up to what was required. The 1978 film's tagline said it all, we did believe Superman could really fly, even if the quality of the footage took a noticeable dive when he did so. And thus, a battle broke out in terms of how to treat the story. In one corner, we had writers and directors who took the mythos of their subjects seriously, exploring the characters in dramatic ways. Then in the other corner, we had the writers and directors who assumed these films were exclusively for children, and therefore did not need to be treated with respect. It is a testament to the stupidity of the human creature that this debate continues to rage in Hollywood after monumental disappointments such as Superman III, Batman & Robin, or the recent pile of droppings they attempted to pass off as a third X-Men film. Put simply, whereas directors like Richard Donner or Bryan Singer will be revered for decades to come for their adaptations, Richard Lester's name is mud among Superman fans.

It all began with arguments over creative direction. Warner Brothers and the Salkind estate made bucketloads of money out of the original Superman adaptation, which took the box office by storm. Exactly how they got the idea that they would make even more money by emulating the 1960s Batman television show where possible is beyond me, but get the idea they did. Arguments ensued over how the characters should speak, how the powers of Superman should be represented, and even how the film should be financed. The end result was that Donner was ousted as director and replaced by Richard Lester, who as I have already explained, came from the opposite camp with regard to respect for the source material. Lester's penchant for physical comedy presents a noticeable conflict between various scenes in the film, although it is fortunately not up to the sheer level of annoyance exhibited in the third film. The result is somewhat like putting two films in a bowl, blending, and presenting what comes out.

Fortunately, the principal strength of the Superman films to that point had been in the storytelling and casting. Christopher Reeve was a miraculous find in the titular role, presenting a strong and forceful Superman without overwhelming his support cast. I cannot say I appreciate the Clark Kent alter ego to the same extent, but that's a minor aside. An action film's hero is only as good as his antagonist, and we get three great antagonists here. Jack O'Halloran has the toughest assignment as Non, who menaces almost all around him without speaking a singular word. O'Halloran plays the part entirely with body language and gestures, and gives one of the best performances in the film. Sarah Douglas holds up the side brilliantly as Ursa, a ridiculously cruel woman who seems either be totally unaware of the extreme pain she puts her prey through, or totally unmoved by it. Half the time, it is even money as to whether Ursa or Non make the more intimidating support villain.

But it is Terence Stamp as General Zod who walks away with the acting prize here. In a contrast to stereotypical comic book villains of the time, he plays Zod as a quiet, reflective man. Not only does it make for a great contrast to the psychopathic woman and caveman-throwback he is seen with at all times, it lets the viewer know that he has more than one dimension. In many a review of a bad film in which one character is made out to be more evil than evil, the proposition that the actor went to the director and tried to make the case that the character does not see themselves as evil has been put forth. Zod takes it a bit further. He knows he is quite evil, and makes no bones about it. He is evil because his contempt for creatures around him that he sees as weak or cowardly removes all limits to his actions. In many ways, he reflects a more clandestine evil in our present world that would probably attempt to "cure" Superman of his superpowers. Stamp is a true actor's actor, and nowhere is this clearer than in Superman II.

The problem is that Lester shows great contempt for his audience. The slapstick gags would have been fine had they been kept in context and given some limits. The real problem is that Lester does not seem to care about preserving the continuity of the film series, or even the laws of the world that Superman inhabits. Nor does he seem to care about the little micro-laws that dictate Superman's reactions to situations. Things like the amnesia kiss (a power from the comic books so rarely used that it was pretty much retired) were not so much the problem as the seeming inability to make the film without plot convenience. Many directors before and since, Peter Jackson and Brett Ratner being good recent examples, have demonstrated that they would jump out of the window before waiting for the paint that has them trapped in the corner to dry. His second personal quote in his IMDb biography is especially hypocritical in light of what he did here. Fortunately, as the likes of Bryan Singer serve to remind us of why we go to see these films in the first place, Lester's is a dying breed.

For all these reasons, I gave Richard Lester's version of Superman II a five out of ten. Richard Donner has said that all the good parts of Superman II are his, and it is these parts one should watch it for.

This movie is just great fun!! The 3 evil villains are so good and funny. I especially like the woman villain and her comments on how superman's weakness is the human's and he "cares for these human's, like pets" This movie is cheesy I admit but it's great cheese!! And I mean the ending where superman puts the American Flag on top of the White House is so Classic!! After all superman fights for "Life, Liberty and the American Way! I recommend this movie to all!

Two years after the smash hit Superman revitalized the superhero film industry a sequel was released that brings back almost all of the cast and continues where Superman left off. At the beginning of Superman Jor-El exiles three villainous criminals from Krypton. They are cast out into the Phantom Zone and we don't hear from them again for the rest of the film. Then comes Superman II when the three Kryptonian criminals manage to escape the Phantom Zone and they head for Earth so as to conquer it. Obviously, Superman is the only thing standing in their way, and he is also the only thing that can protect Earth from total domination.

After the release of Superman there was incredible fallout between the director and the producers. Once all the debris had settled we were left with the same producers but a new director. Richard Lester had come on board to replace Richard Donner and he branded the Superman franchise with a slightly different style. One that appeals more to a comic book aesthetic more than the grand scale David Lean-esque epic style that Donner created with the first film. Thus, Superman II is a little campier and less magnificent than it's predecessor. There are certain things about it that I liked more than the first film, and some things I like less.

Superman had a streak of light hearted humor and playful campiness to it, but Superman II accelerates that to a whole new level. The humor in the sequel almost seems to mock the superhero at times. It's fun and it makes the film entertaining, but it doesn't feel quite right, and it detracts from the overall impact of the film much more than Superman did.

My biggest issue with Superman II, however, has to be the continuity and the plot holes that run rampant throughout the film. The film is full of logical fallacies which get on my nerves, and a lot of these you just have to look past because, at the end of the day, it is a Superman film. But what really got me was the logic in the plot at times. One of the major events of the plot is Superman having to give up his powers to be with Lois Lane. His mother tells him he will never be able to get his powers back after he gives them up, yet about twenty minutes after he gives them up and General Zod and company are attacking Metropolis, Superman returns all suited up and ready to fight. It never explains how he got his powers back and I'm just left wondering how something like that slipped through the cracks. It's pretty aggravating, and it made Superman II a slightly less enjoyable experience.

But, looking past the gaps in the plot, as a simple superhero action flick Superman II really does succeed. There are some great fights throughout the film and some very excitingly well shot action sequences. The fight between the three Kryptonian villains and Superman in downtown Metropolis has all the Superman action we could ever ask for, and the final showdown in Superman's crystal fortress is awesome as well. Superman II has it's issues that keep it from being as good as it's predecessor, and I also didn't like it as much just out of personal taste. But it's definitely a pretty good film and as a Superman film it most certainly delivers. If you enjoyed the first film at all you shouldn't miss out on Superman II.

For those who are into the comic book movie craze today, this one is one of the best comic-y movies from the beginning of the summer blockbuster heyday. The original Superman is really an excellent film with solid, honest direction by Richard Donner. Donner shot around half of this sequel and his scenes are all excellent (Note: Every Gene Hackman scene was shot by Donner - Hackman refused to return to production after Donner was fired).

There is still much hope that Donner's footage will re-surface. Most importantly of all there are vital scenes with Marlon Brando returning as Superman's father, Jor-El and giving his "life" to save his son and save the planet from the evil villains he vanquished from Krypton. It would also be interesting for audiences to see the difference between Donner's scenes and the ones re-shot by Lester.

The characters are great. Superman, played by Christopher Reeve, is in solid form and he and Lois are given the opportunity to enhance their relationship from the original story. Jackie Cooper is once again great as Perry White, the chief editor of the Daily Planet.

What makes this movie move is the villains. Gene Hackman is funnier and still up to no good and the villains from Krypton are menacing. His dialogue is truly witty and Hackman's timing is perfect. Terence Stamp is the power hungry General Zod, out for revenge against the son of Jor-El. Stamp plays it straight and his scenes directed by Donner show a true megalomaniac. Jack O'Halloran is solid as the hulking Non.

Best of all is Sarah Douglas as the cold and evil Ursa in a truly underrated performance. She is the most curious and most interesting of the bunch. She collects badges as trophies for her conquering of earth, wearing them to mock male hierarchy. Ursa seems to be a forerunner of all of the sexy female superwomen today, but her role is not overstated and stale. She is not given gratuitous cleavage shots or anything of the sort. Ursa is a beautiful vamp and a tease, and if anything we wish she would have more screen time. Sarah Douglas constantly gives us hints as to Ursa's wishes, and we can only try to surmise what evil plans she is up to.

The music is John Williams' score from the first film, but used differently. Not sure if much of the music is original. Ken Thorne does a good job here of accenting cuts with Williams' original score (Williams too refused to return after Donner was fired.) Some great cues are Superman returning to fight the villains, which is wonderfully heroic; Ursa's shocking appearance to both the astronauts on the moon (a violent scene that uses the darkest motifs from Krypton in the first film); and the whole Metropolis battle in the end, which is well supported by the music.

The effects are very good for 1980. I keep reading how people are unhappy and always apologize for the FX in any movie more than a couple of years old. This one is solid and for the film it serves, does well. The only major goof is when Superman delivers the American Flag at the end - The water fountain in front of the White House is clearly a model with "frozen" bursting water! The scene in the de-powering chamber is not well-handled either.

Overall, this is a very entertaining film, and really amazingly considering it is obviously the work of two directors. Of all the comic book movies made from the 60s thru the 90s, this one definitely rates in the top five along with the first Superman, the first two Batmans. Supermans 3 and 4 were really poor. It is too bad that Christopher Reeve did not make more good Superman films. This one has some camp, but it's way too entertaining and it's the only sequel to still have the flavor of the original. And please, let's see a special edition DVD with all of the missing Richard Donner footage!!!!!

Firing Richard Donner was one of the dumbest things the Salkinds could do. Fleischer does a workman like job, but this has none of the pizzazz of the first film and some of the dumbest ideas, only overtaken by Shumachers ruination of Batman. The super kiss, the silly cellophane symbol, all take away from what should have been a superior sequel. The only thing that shines is Chris Reeves as Superman.

This Superman movie has got to be the bench mark for future producers of Superman movies. They must be sat down with this film, because it is an absolute classic, and as far as Superman films go it will be hard to top. Richard Lester, is not very popular with some Superman fans, because he took over on a movie that they feel would have been better had Richard Donner been allowed to complete. But Lester has his admirers, and iam one of them. The first Superman movie tended to go along with boring philosophising, or over sentimental dramatics, these are mainly absent in Superman II,. They are replaced with cut to the action dramatics by Richard Lester who in my opinion saved the movie, or at least made it all the more exciting. I enjoy his sense of comic book adventure, and the final Times Square battle between Superman vs Zod,Non and Ursa is straight out of a comic book and is all Lesters. The main thing that complements the movie is the towering performance by Christopher Reeve as Clark Kent/Superman. Reeve is hillarious in his Cary Grant-a-like interpretation of Kent and wonderfull as a humanistic Superman. Margot Kidder is fabulous to and it is the acting of theese two that makes the Superman//Lois love triangle work. Terance Stamp as Zod is very creepy, and Sarah Douglas as Ursa very sexy, but the man who very nearly steels the show is Gene Hackman hilarious as Lex Luther. The special effects are brilliant, because they look glossy, and the Ken Thorne variation of John Williams Superman theme is at its best here. The best aspects though is the action, the aforementioned Times Square battle, and the interaction between the actors. Well done Richard Lester. A True classic of Superhero cinema.

1st watched 5/27/2001 - 6 out of 10 (Dir-Richard Lester): Campy, but fun entry in the Superman series. In this episode, Lex Luthor is not near as menacing as a threesome jailed by Superman's father and finds themselves on Earth to take revenge upon Superman and takes it out on the good old USA as well. The special effects are not top-notch if you compare them to today's standards, but the movie works because we know it is based on a comic-strip character(this is not supposed to be real, people). This is similar to the impact of other comic book movies like Popeye and Flash Gordon, where the filmmakers don't try to make everything seem real because it's not. A little romance between Superman and Lois Lane also adds to the appeal.

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.