On S List of Movie Reviews
(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)
Superman II (1980)
Rate:
4
Viewed:
7/08, 8/25
7/08:
For the most part, I was thinking of giving Superman II either a '4' or a '5'.
Then, the last ten minutes came which left me with a sour taste. Hence, I decided on '3'. Speaking of the opener,
it should be cut out because if I want a reminder of what happened, I'll rewatch the original.
Well, the first and second parts are about even in all areas. But this time, I'm glad to see the sequel is
shorter by a great deal. It has mundane action and is therefore aimed at kids under 12 while the acting is
fair.
At times, I don't like Clark Kent. He comes across to me as a selfish person who's willing to give up his
superpowers for a silly, worthless girl. When he can't handle the limits of a human being for at least
one hour, it's only because of the avoidable fight with a bum. After Clark Kent is defeated, he's back to his
old self, so he can deliver a payback to the bum at the end. It's a weird message, I must say.
The worst moment is when the caped superhero spun back the earth again. I felt cheated by it because simply put:
why was there a sequel when he could've done it before meeting Lex Luthor for the second time in the original film?
So, I guess, from now on, every time something bad happens, Superman will turn back time whenever he pleases.
On the other hand, the special effects are outstanding for the time. I love the scene when the president of
the United States said he "would protect the people of the world." Since when was he appointed to do so?
All in all, Superman II is silly.
8/25:
Superman II...nope.
It's a very slow movie despite being more than an hour shorter than the other one. I don't know how much of
the film is Richard Donner's and Richard Lester's because there's a marked difference between both halves
with the second being better. There are tons of product placements as well. Who knew Superman would be a
champion of Marlboro cigarettes?
Most of all, I feel insulted by the end when Superman spun the Earth back which is to say everything that happened
in the film was a waste of time. All he has to do is find the moment the three criminals from Krypton came close
to the moon and shatter the thingy trapping them. Then again, doing something to the Earth doesn't even turn back
time elsewhere in the universe. Coming in second is when Superman decided to get his powers back after losing a
simple but pointless fight to a human being.
Christopher Reeve isn't bad once again but has no famous movie moments. It's strange that he's never wooden in
the first two Superman films compared to afterwards.
What's really the difference? If Christopher Reeve could fix this issue in time, his career would've lasted
longer. On the other hand, Margot Kidder is awful while Gene Hackman is decent, having been largely
helped by the absence of Ned Beatty and Valerie Perrine.
By the way, Terence Stamp passed away a couple of days ago. It's disappointing the media highlighted his
career by focusing on General Zod the most. Please...he had done much better films, especially
Billy Budd (his greatest performance),
The Hit, Wall Street, and the most
underrated of them all: The Limey.
All in all, retaining a lot of elements from the original such as the fantastic opening credits and more than
half of the principal cast is the biggest reason why Superman II stayed somewhat buoyant.