Uriah43 The previous movie began with the introduction of 3 villains on Krypton by the names of "General Zod" (Terence Stamp), "Ursa" (Sarah Douglas) and "Non" (Jack O'Halloran) who were tried and imprisoned in a device known as the "phantom zone" and exiled into outer space. On a similar note, the film ended with another sinister villain named "Lex Luthor" (Gene Hackman) being cast into prison by "Superman" (Christopher Reeve) for trying to detonate two nuclear bombs in the United States. However, at the start of this movie Lex Luthor manages to escape and the subsequent detonation of a hydrogen bomb in outer space also frees the 3 criminals from Krypton. This results in Superman having to fight against all 4 villains at the same time—and he is not only outnumbered but has also lost all of his super powers as well. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that I thought this particular film was even better than the original. Of course, it should be noted that the first movie had the mundane task of setting up the characters and events which tended to slow the film down a bit. In any case, I enjoyed this film and have rated it accordingly. Above average.

Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki The villains make the difference here, and succeed in making this one of the very rare times I can think of when I prefer part 2 over the first film. Terence Stamp clearly relishes his role as the ruthless, yet (mostly) calm and collected General Zod, who, with his two cohorts, were banished from Krypton shortly before its destruction in the early stages of the first film. Freed by shock waves from a blast in deep space, the trio head to Earth to wreak havoc, and gain control of the entire planet. Meanwhile, a love story between Superman and Lois Lane is playing out. A few scenes require a suspension of disbelief, but it's a comic book superhero adventure, and a great one at that, and can be forgiven.

RobTheConqueror While 1978's Superman launched the superhero movies genre and proved that good movies could be made out of (to be blunt) childish comic book characters, it was it's sequel that set the standard for just how great superhero movies could be. Sam Raimi's wonderful first two Spider-Man films (in particular his second one, a masterpiece) can both be traced back to this, as it focuses on the man behind the blue costume. The film focuses on Superman ultimately being forced to reveal his secret identity to love interest Lois Lane after a series of clues causes her to catch on. As they fall deeper in love, he ultimately decides he wants to be with her, and gives up all of his powers to do, although after an ugly encounter with a man named Rocky at a cafe that makes him uncomfortable with how vulnerable he now is, and the arrival of escaped Kryptonion criminal, the ruthless General Zod, who conquers Earth with the help of his equally dangerous associates Ursa and Non, he is forced reconsider. The plot ultimately resolves itself after Zod's defeat, with Lois becoming depressed at the thought of never being able to be with him or or move on from him, so Clark does the noble thing of wiping her memory of his true identity to spare her the pain. This aspect is very well written and one of the few romance story lines in the superhero genre they've managed to get right.Acting wise, I can't even express how good Reeve is as Clark/Superman. He absolutely nails Clark's awkward facade to a tee, and strikes the perfect line between corny and badass as Superman. I'm still not sure how he manages to pull off this character so well. It's uncanny. Kidder also impresses as Lois, being given a much wider range of scenes and emotions in this, and thus more to do. Gene Hackman also returns as chief antagonist Lex Luthor in a supporting role, and even he is much better in this than the previous one, finally free of his annoying associates and awful dialogue that dragged his character down in the first movie. It's Terrance Stamp who owns the entire thing though, with his scene stealing performance as the diabolical General Zod, completely nailing every line, facial expression and movement for his character. He's so good that he managed to turn a forgettable character from the comics into a cultural icon.This movie had a troubled production, with director Richard Donner being replaced after completing half of the movie due to conflicts with the producers, with credited director Richard Lester finishing the product. Donner's full vision for the film would be released as "The Richard Donner cut" in 2006, and is also brilliant, but the theatrical version remains just as good and just as well made despite the behind-the-scenes nightmare. In fact, Lester's more comedic version seems to work well here, blending in with the drama seamlessly (with the exception of the terrible slapstick used during the Metropolis battle scene) to to create a highly enjoyable film filled with romance, humour, action and drama and ultimately the best Superman movie of then all. Just a shame Lester then ruined it all with the...Uh....next installment.

brchthethird 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.