I can't think of a suitable place to begin with this rant. I've just this minute finnished watching the movie, and everything about it is awful. The lousy acting (especially Reeve and Stamp), the obvious special effects, the writing and dialogue in this movie can only be described as shoddy and borish at best.
I hope that Zack Snyder can bring the franchise back from the hangover that's been left by a series of morons.
That is all.
Your "review" SUCKS.
That is all.
Watched it yesterday, this movie is bad even for 1970's, can't understand how can anybody consider this a good movie. Stupid situations, Looney Toons have more reason then this Superman franchise. His fight for American way of living is horrible, i can't express how horrible is that use of Superman for Cold war propaganda. Now we have Captain America, but this character have a good explanation. Maybe 21st century audience evolved in the past 30-40 years.
share[deleted]
I agree! Saying it is awful is a compliment, it absolutely stinks! It wasn't that the acting was awful, it was that there was no acting.
And the plot is absurd. While it fed off the commonly known elements of the Superman genre, everything in-between was vacuous.
For example, take the mighty struggle between Superman and the other 3 in the streets. There were such corny scenes, like the camera zooming in on an ice cream cone with the ice cream being blown clear off its cone! And the guy trying to make a phone call in the middle of cars blowing up, and the power of the 3 blowing was sooooo darn strong it literally blew him 6 feet down the sidewalk, while he mightily tried in vain to continue his chit chat! It wasn’t even comical, it was just stupid!
And when the 3 others were trying to communicate about how to vanquish Superman at the beginning of the fight, their voices were all dubbed, it was just so cheesy! It is hard to categorize a movie this stupendously awful. It just makes one mad for being so stupid to have watched the whole thing.
The directing, producing, writing, and special effects were so bad! And for those in this thread who say yeah but that was over 30 years ago, when technology was not what it is today, I say that is no excuse. I have seen movies from the 1930's that far exceed this movie's expertise. I can only think that the producers decided that no matter how lazy they were, that people would go watch it, and that was all that mattered.
With that said, the first half hour of the first movie in this series I give a 10 out of 10 stars. It had everything! Marlon Brando, Glenn Ford, and it introduced admirably one of the best comic book stories of all time. After that 30 minutes it was all down hill, with each sequel getting worse and worse, on all levels. I think the only reason some folks defend these movies is because of their respect and love and sympathy for Christopher Reeve.
I give it a 3 of 10 stars, and I think that is pretty generous.
I think the only reason some folks defend these movies is because of their respect and love and sympathy for Christopher Reeve.
Exactly, that is petty. I don't allow sentiment cloud my judgement about what I like or dislike.
share
The scene in downtown Metropolis when he's fighting them had me in stitches! Who wrote the script?! The lines that the extras were coming out with were hilarious.
''All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain .... Time to die''.
You were prob in a nappy when this came out so what would you know about it.
share[deleted]
The movie was released two years before I was born, I basically grew up with it, but even I can see its flaws. The crowd reactions during the Metropolis fight scene were ridiculous. What the hell is this, a sports game? I'd be in a train out of there, for all it's worth, given that Zod and his buddies can go anywhere in under five minutes. It's smarter than being at what is potentially ground zero, though.
"Why do you say this to me when you know I will kill you for it?"
So why don't you go back to 1980 and make it with the resources you'd be given, which wasn't much...
Stamp and Reeve play their roles VERY well.
"Borish"? "Boorish", surely?
And what do the Finnish have to do with this movie?
(Sorry to mock, but the moment you had to insult the people who made these movies as "morons" and rather glibly so, you'd know you'd be getting a lot of responses, and some nowhere near as polite as mine.)
So why don't you go back to 1980 and make it with the resources you'd be given, which wasn't much...
Reeves was amazing and Stamp was great considering he had some pretty cheesy lines
My momma loved me but she died
Hud Bannon
I just finished watching both films back-to-back and found Superman II inferior in every way possible. It does have some decent moments (Lester's slapstick comedy included) but overall the direction felt average and so did the story (all over the place, from the alternative opening scene to the final battle), cinematography (flat, and on purpose I might add - according to the trivia), visual effects (they discarded the front projection technique used in the first one and came up with a new, more comic book-like technique instead) and so on etc. Lex Luthor's body double was a pain in the ass to watch and so was Superman's mother and council when it was obvious it should have been Brando.
But more importantly, what was wrong with Margot Kidder's face? I know they were shot back-to-back but she looked more thin than usual, and thus different (haircut aside). I mean, you could clearly tell it was her yet I kept asking myself "Why does she look so different?"
--
A picture with a smile - and perhaps, a tear.
I think when I was younger, I was able to ignore many of the flaws associated with Superman II. Today, I certainly see them. There are a lot of inconsistencies, implausible plot sequences, and use of stupid comedy. Still, I feel that the Metropolis battle was spectacular considering the time this was filmed. Lester's inclusion of some really out of place "comedy" during the battle was unfortunate, but otherwise, I thought that this sequence was the highlight of the four Reeve films. Clearly, had Donner been able to finish Superman II, a more cohesive film would have resulted. While the theatrical version of Superman II is far from perfect, I don't know how it can be called "awful."
share