rdoyle29
Generally speaking, I have no fondness for this series of films. I think Reeves is okay as Superman (a character I have no fondness for), but the humour that permeates this series is asinine and childish. So while I would admit that this film is astonishingly shoddy and stupid compared to the previous entries (or at least the first two films), I can't say that I like it any less than any of the other films. In fact, I probably enjoyed it a bit more, but that's not really to the film's credit. A lot can be made of the fact that this film's budget was cut by about 2/3 due to Cannon's financial difficulties, but although that really shows in the film's insanely shoddy effects work and poor subbing of London for New York City, you can't really argue that this would be a good film if the effects were better. This is a film where Superman seems surprised that an elevator won't hold someone with strength similar to his. This is a film where Superman pushes the moon out of orbit with no repercussions. To be fair, it's also a film where the comedic elements are just as idiotic if not worse that the previous films. I grant all that ... but somehow the fact that this film is clearly junk makes it's stupidity less egregious than the stupidity of the earlier big budget studio films.
pyrocitor
The late 1980s. Shoulder pads were higher than the hairdos, a movie star was the president, and it was a toss-up between whether nuclear apocalypse, some newfangled disease, or a real-life Star Wars would kill you. Who could possibly save us but Superman? And, in 1987, save us he did - from the monotony of movies obeying outdated notions like physics, logic, or quality. Found 2016's Doctor Strange an insufficiently brain-bending super-flick? Look - up in the sky! Decided Superman could use more half-baked politics? It's a bird, it's a plane! Thought Batman and Robin was an offensively garish fourth instalment to a comic book franchise already on the decline? Well, you're right. But also - it's Superman IV: The Quest for Peace! A film that, defying all expectations, manages to be even more bone-headed than its title! Okay - but to give the film what scraps of credit it's due: its conceit of Superman, following suit from his 1940s WWII self (or perhaps Mark Millar's Red Son...), using his powers to intervene on a global sociopolitical scale by making the executive decision to rid the world of its nuclear weapons, IS interesting. Interesting in that the film could perilously easily teeter into a condescending dogmatic diatribe, or a risible, earnest portrayal of a messianic utopia, with humanity joining hands and singing like the Whos at the end of Dr. Seuss' The Grinch. Amazingly, director Sidney J. Furie achieves the worst of both and still manages to lower the bar, with scores of vacuous, patronizingly chirpy speeches (written in response to, and, hilariously, seemingly by, a 10 year old), and political engagement peaking with a shot of a giant net full of nuclear missiles being slung into the sun, so flamboyantly daft you can practically feel your eyes bleed. Oh, and the UN does cheer once Superman announces he will de-nuke them. Fah Who Forres, Dah Who Dorres. Superman IV's production is far more amusing than ridiculing the final product itself (which is saying something), with legends abound of the film's already threadbare budget being cut nearly in half. Rest assured: every absent penny is painfully present in every frame. If the first half's brain- melting speeches weren't enough, the second half, exclusively relying on cutting-edge special effects (for the 1950s), is enough to sink the nail in the kryptonite coffin. In this surreal, metaphysical Mr. Mxyzptlk world, everything moves in slow motion, all gravity is drunk or on vacation, Lois Lane can breathe in space, and Superman has accrued the formidable power of...time-reversing vision...? The plot isn't as plagued with holes as gaping space/time vacuums (here, Clark Kent changes into Superman literally in front of Lois, and she immediately, inexplicably, forgets, as if disturbingly super-roofied). And poor (but exquisitely named) Mark Pillow, as arch-foe Nuclear Man, looking like he's walked off the set of a Flash Gordon porn parody, spends the film either nonsensically battling Superman by running away, bellowing like a demented buffalo, or scratching at him with nails to make Sex in the City envious. Why does he speak with Gene Hackman's voice? Why not ask how his spandex is born with him when cloned in...the sun. Did I mention he's defeated by the power of the mighty elevator? Hey - at least he can have a sympathetic beer with Spider- Man's Sandman, who was vanquished by a vacuum cleaner. Back in 1963. Naturally, Furie's execution manages to make the film even more impossibly awful than the sum of its parts, with such agonizingly slow, clumsy editing, the film promises a second calling as an interrogation torture device. The single kernel of redemption: even this sort of torpid embarrassment can't help but be elevated by John Williams' incomparably soaring score. Still, he's never employed his talents so sheepishly, with each reprise of the Superman theme feeling more apologetic than triumphant. All this, and Superman pauses, mid-fight scene, to barely refrain from making out with the American flag on the moon? Suddenly the raving "False God" animosity he incurs in Zack Snyder's fellow campsterpiece Batman v. Superman makes so much sense. You'd expect an ounce of enjoyment to come from the returning cast, but...no, you wouldn't expect much of anything after all this. Granted, even if his Superman is unbearably smug, Christopher Reeve's Clark Kent is as endearingly nebbish as ever. So, just when he threatens to allow an ounce of promise, his oblivious posturing in a romantic triangle subplot with Lois and the even more irritating Mariel Hemingway is enough to knead out any pesky lumps of enjoyment amidst the quagmire of inadequacy (phew!). Margot Kidder's Lois is so astronomically vacant that she, at times, nearly passes as an overly made up mannequin, while Gene Hackman, grins like a Cheshire Cat throughout, looking like he spent his (assuredly mighty) salary on the menagerie of prop giraffes that nonsensically populate Luthor's lair. And yes, that is Jon Cryer from Two and a Half Men as Luthor's cringeworthy, MTV-addled nephew. Duuuuuude. Almost commendable in just how audaciously lazy and terrible it is, Superman: The Quest for Peace proudly takes its place in the annals of 'ill-advised part IVs turned worst films ever made,' alongside Jaws IV, and, yep, Batman and Robin. It's prime mock-watching/drinking game territory, but beware: the film is so insidiously dumb it nearly qualifies as a controlled substance unto itself. It's a shame Superman used up all his energy stopping the train in the film's opening act, or perhaps he could have broken the fourth wall and stopped the train wreck of his own cinematic epitaph. -2/10
Uriah43
Although he is imprisoned, Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) further demonstrates that there is no correction facility that can hold him as he breaks out once again and plots revenge on the man that put him there. To that end, he fiendishly combines Superman's DNA and nuclear fusion to create a superhuman being he calls "Nuclear Man" (Mark Pillow). Meanwhile, the newspaper known as the Daily Planet has been bought by a wealthy tabloid publisher named "David Warfield" (Sam Wanamaker) who promptly changes the journalistic format of the newspaper to one that specializes in cheap sensationalism. He also replaces the editor "Perry White" (Jackie Cooper) with his daughter "Lacy Warfield" (Mariel Hemingway) to solidify the new format. Interestingly enough, while "Lois Lane" (Margot Kidder) continues to harbor a deep infatuation for "Superman" (Christopher Reeve) Lacy develops a romantic interest in "Clark Kent" (also played by Christopher Reeve) instead. And this creates a unique problem in itself when Lois and Lacy agree have a double-date with both Superman and Clark Kent. Now, rather than reveal any more let me just state that I am perfectly aware that this particular film has been roundly condemned by a vast majority of critics and even had the dubious distinction of garnering two Golden Raspberry nominations: "Worst Supporting Actress" (Mariel Hemingway) and "Worst Visual Effects". Additionally, Esquire magazine ranked it at #40 of the worst 50 movies ever made. That's pretty bad. Even so, while I agree that the special effects could have used significant improvement, I disagree with the assessment concerning Mariel Hemingway's performance. For starters, I didn't think her performance was that bad and I certainly don't think it merited a Raspberry Award nomination. If anything, I thought her presence actually helped liven up the picture to a certain degree. Likewise, I also disagree with the overall evaluation of the film by Esquire magazine. Case in point, it was nominated for an International Fantasy Film Award in the category for "Best Film" and ranked #4 at the box office upon its release. So there you have it. In any case--and not that it means anything--I personally thought this movie was better than its predecessor. So, for all of the reasons just mentioned, I have rated this film accordingly. Slightly above average.
