Watch Superman II For Free

Sorry, this movie sucks

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Fresh and Exciting

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

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.

As I stated in my Superman (1978) review, I am not really a Superman fan. I have always been a big Batman, X-Men, Spider-Man fan, but never got into Superman. I thought the original movie was decently entertaining, but not that great of a movie (see that review for more info). Superman II has elements that I liked more than the original, but also elements that I disliked more. On the positive side, I definitely liked General Zod way more than Gene Hackman's cartoonish Chairface Chippendale-esque portrayal of Lex Luthor from the first movie. Superman actually has someone to fight. However, the biggest negative has to be with the wildly inconsistent tone of the movie. This most likely comes from the change in director part way through filming. Half the movie is played with a more serious tone, whereas the other half is basically a slapstick comedy/spoof in the vein of the Adam West Batman series, though nowhere near as clever. There are also a bunch of annoying plot holes that I found hard to ignore. Mainly, how the hell did he get all the way back to the freaking Arctic without his powers? You're not telling me he hitchhiked and walked to the North Pole? And how did he actually get his powers back anyway? At least give me some dumb explanation. Not saying I'm some idiot that needs every detail fed to me, but that is a pretty big plot point. Not like this is a Stanley Kubrick / David Lynch film where you have to piece things together for yourself. At least in, say, The Dark Knight Rises, you can "explain" the question of how did Bruce Wayne get back into Gotham with the obligatory "He's Batman!", but in this movie he's not even Superman at the time, he's just some dude that gets easily beaten up at restaurants by a-hole truck drivers. Also, if Superman can erase people's minds with a kiss, does that mean he has telepathic powers like Professor X? Can he control anybody's mind? Does he need to touch them to do so? Is it strictly through oral application? Is it saliva based mind control? Couldn't he just put it in a spray gun and shoot super-mind control spit on Lex Luthor and make him rethink his life choices? Anyway, I will give this movie the same rating out of 10 that I gave the first movie, but if I had to rank them, I would put the original slightly above this one.6/10Recommended for those that enjoy "previously on..."'s, two sided floating space ipads, exploding space elevators, hot air balloon rides, white water lie detectors, kneeling before Zod!, not so subtle product placement, the old switcharoo, mind control spit......but that's just like, my opinion, man# Of Times Watched: Three

Where's all this criticism come from? So it's old, so it's dated, but who cares? Superman II is a splendid mix of romance, action, suspense and comedy. It was made in a time when they actually used practical effects and models because they didn't have the computerised technology they have these days. I was impressed with the wire work and the action sequences were an awesome spectacle to behold. Actors like Christopher Reeve and Gene Hackman make their triumphant return to the series as does Ned Beaty, Terrance Stamp, Margot Kidder and the lovely Valerie Perrine. The score by Ken Thorne is never given the credit it deserves, neither does Richard Lester's fun, slapstick-filled direction. He simply did the job he was brought in to do. He's no Richard Donner, but the franchise was never bad with Lester at the helm. All in all, Superman II is a wonderful motion picture and a great companion piece to the original.

At some point with certain kinds of movies, you just have to ignore whatever preconceived notions you have about the subject matter, sit back, and enjoy what unfolds before you on screen. I wouldn't call myself a Superman fan, per se, but midway through this film I decided to stop resisting and let it be. I wouldn't exactly call SUPERMAN II superb filmmaking, but as a blockbuster sequel it's certainly up there in terms of quality. It also makes a knowing turn toward the silly, which was present in the first one, but here is utilized even more. Yes, there are plot elements that make no sense, but what's important is that I had some fun.The film begins by doing a recap of its predecessor, in case you forgot the events that occurred beforehand and then launches straight into the main story. When Superman saves a bunch of tourists (and Lois Lane) in Paris from terrorists wielding a hydrogen bomb, he leaves Earth's atmosphere and releases it into space. The force of the explosion shatters the Phantom Zone prison where Zod, Ursa and Non are kept and they make their way to Earth in order to rule it. There's also the risible subplot about Superman giving up his powers in order to be with Lois Lane, but thankfully that doesn't take up as much screen time as you'd think. Lex Luthor also shows up for a few scenes, but isn't really given that much to do.First, the good. At first, I was taken aback at just how silly the film was. However, it grew on me. Zod and his minions were easily the best part of the whole film. Campy? Yes. But what exactly did you expect from an alien whose only motive is subjugation, and who is completely out of touch with Earth culture? I think I liked Michael Shannon's take on the character better, but Terence Stamp was great too, in a different way. Other elements I liked were the improved special effects, although a climactic fight scene between Zod and Superman in the air kind of showed the limitations of what was achievable in the early 80's. Still, the production values were excellent. And the sweeping vistas during the flying sequences were something to behold. Acting was generally good across the board, although no one was "awards-worthy." Christopher Reeve was undoubtedly the best among the cast, and I like how played up the differences between Clark Kent and Superman. And of course, the score was phenomenal. Apparently, John Williams wasn't the composer this time around, but they used a lot of his material from the first film.All of my complaints are largely to do with incredulous or ludicrous plot elements. First: Superman gives up his powers to be with Lois Lane? Come on. He's supposed to be devoted to "truth, justice, and the American way" (however corny that is), and he lets a woman come in between him and the mission handed down to him from his father? Sure, whatever. Directly tying into that scene, how does he get back to Metropolis after giving up his power of flight? In the scene where he goes back to his Fortress of Solitude to reverse his previous decision it's implied that he walk. But seriously? Not only does he walk from the North Pole to Metropolis, but does it twice? That part really took me out of the story. And then there's the part towards the end where he uses the Superman symbol on his chest to incapacitate Non. Even in a movie that's knowingly campy, that was a little much.However, despite the campiness there was a sense that the filmmakers were aware of this fact, which made the film more palatable to me. The source material isn't the greatest stuff in the world and yet they managed to make an entertaining blockbuster sequel that builds on what they created in the first one. Yes, there are some absolutely gut-busting funny moments, and not necessarily in a good way, but there was a pervasive sense of fun that allowed me to overlook a lot of what didn't work. If pressed to choose, I still think I enjoyed SUPERMAN a little more, but SUPERMAN II is no slouch either.