Mjeteconer
Just perfect...
Edwin
The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.
Matt Greene
I'm convinced there's never been a more perfect superhero casting than Reeve as Superman. This sequel picks up tonally & narratively right where the first left off, only better capturing the childlike silliness yet warranted sincerity of the Superman mythos. Yes, the relationship arc between Clark & Lois is rushed, & the final fight is almost comically leisurely paced. But Niagara Falls is great, the moon is impressive, and the politics are wonderful.
alfCycle
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
ryanskywalker-87402
Aside from its clashing tones and mismatched narrative elements, Richard Lester's "Superman II" is a solidly entertaining, nearly great superhero film. Its flaws may be writ large across the screen, but, thanks to an appealing leading man and some engaging notes of darkness, the action film manages to stand-out.A sequel to Richard Donner's "Superman," "Superman II" finds Christopher Reeve's man of steel squaring off against three criminals from his homeworld. This would be plot enough, but the narrative also includes the return of Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor and a subplot where Clark Kent rids himself of his immortality in order to be with Margot Kidder's Lois Lane.Less overstuffed than it is disjunct, the story rarely feels cohesive. Plot elements seem at odds with one another, never fitting into place with the next. More importantly, the tone ranges from goofy to dark with little effort made to make the different tones layer seamlessly. Fortunately, the story elements and tonal shades that do work overshadow those that do not.The sequel is a fitting complement to Donner's first film. It is a colorful, energetic work that boasts a now-iconic cast in Reeve and Terence Stamp. Action beats are strong when they do not turn to silliness, and, despite a certain cheapness that permeates some scenes, effects work is rousing. It is a grand, sometimes goofy superhero opera.A clear case of the final product being more impressive that its separate parts, "Superman II" makes for an impactful spectacle. At its best when it is its darkest, those more textured beats may be fleeting; but they are memorable, and those moments of thematic and cinematic urgency elevate the entire exiting action affair.
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!
