Superman II 1980

Still good but not as good as part one. In general too comedic and even stupid at times. And I noticed the dialogue was sometimes weird. Someone said something and then camera switches to another character and there's a slight pause beofore the reply. As if the editing was off.

The whole thing with Lois finding out Clark is Superman was weak. It was supposed to make him understand his purpose I guess. And then a full one-eighty by having her memory wiped with a kiss ? How does this work?

And another huge whole: if he steps into the chamber it can't be reversed. And then he finds the green crystal and everthing's just fine. And the control panels where still burned down so he didn't re-create the Fortress. Since he gets his power from the yellow sun anyway it's all very sketchy. At least a little explanation would be nice.

I found Zod a bit overdone. Only thing missing was him twirling his mustache. And I always had problems when someone talks about himself in the 3rd person. I understand the purpose of making him look overconfident or even mentally unstable. But on the other hand he looks like a caricature not to be taken serious.

Well, probably too much analyzing on my side and it's still fun to watch overall.

The Five Faces of Superman II

:heart_eyes:

Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder are still wonderful and impressive in their respective parts and it's great to see the natural chemistry between them develop and sparkle. The Clark/Lois relationship is greatly developed in this film and their scenes together form some of the best moments in the entire movie.

Some of the dialogue is genuinely warm, funny and witty; Reeve's spot on delivery helps land the jokes.

It is still impressive and awesome how well Reeve transitions from Clark Kent to Superman and nails both characters, and their contrasting personalities, perfectly.

Bigger and bolder action scenes form the bulk of the film. They're mostly well-written and performed and always entertaining.

:smiley:

This time we are introduced to the villains early on, in an ominous, albeit campy, sequence om Earth's moon.

Superman II further extends the world and characters established in the first film, so the film feels bigger and more international in its depiction of Superman.

The climax with Superman battling Zod's squad is surprisingly creative and entertaining, but also unintentionally hilarious and very, very campy. Seriously, the lengthy showdown is one of the most memorable battles in all of superhero cinema.

:neutral_face:

There is a hastily and clumsily constructed recap at the beginning of the film - it's probably one of the worst and most unusable recaps I have ever seen - like a combo of a film trailer and a "previously on"-feature from a TV show. You could essentially skip the first movie and jump right to this one.

Superman II feels like watching the first episode of a second season of a TV show in the way we are thrown into events. Since the first two movies were filmed back to back, the introductions and backstory are left to the first movie and this one focuses more on action and heroics, since we know the characters already.

Some sequences are so implausible or illogical that they stop making any sense. The film doesn't really try to hide that fact or explain those sequences.

New composer Ken Thorne samples John Williams' amazing score from the first film, but doesn't quite hit the right notes when it comes to producing his own emotional or memorable tunes.

General Zod and his squad are a mixed bag. While they make for some interesting villains and actual challenge for Superman, they remain very simple and superfluous as characters. Terence Stamp is iconic as Zod but less resound when compared to Michael Shannon in Man of Steel. There is an odd stiffness in his performance, far from the intensity presented by Shannon. Sarah Douglas is the most interesting of the trio, while Jack O'Halloran is just a stupid version of Jaws or Hodor, thrown in for comic relief.

At least Superman losing his powers creates some kind of tension - for 5 minutes. That could have been an interesting direction for a larger story arc, but becomes just a minor sidestep throughout the adventure.

:frowning2:

There are some visually demanding scenes, and unfortunately most of the wonky special effects look incredibly dated and a whole lot worse compared to Superman.

Superman II is lighter in tone compared to the first film and a whole lot more campier. It feels like the filmmakers stopped taking themselves and their project seriously. Some of the campier parts are cringe-worthy and really hurt the overall enjoyment. This is particularly palpable in scenes involving Luthor and his bumbling sidekicks.

There are some problems with the story and pacing. It's mostly Clark and Lois globetrotting and being cute as well as three Kryptonian baddies walking around and causing mischief to unsuspecting people. The trouble is, the story really doesn't go anywhere, doesn't cook up trouble or create real tension. The script is highly predictable and not very original.

The villains in this film have even less of a motive to kill and destroy than Luthor did in the last film (apart from the stereotypical motive of world domination) and they suffer from the same God complex as Superman does.

I respect the talented Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor, but he really has no role to play in this film and could have been easily left out. There is really no point in him appearing in this movie at all. His dialogue is self-centered and he has no character development whatsoever.

:face_vomiting:

How on Earth do the characters manage to throw each other across great distances in perfect slow motion? Now that's a power to be jealous of!

And then we ONCE AGAIN get an ending that ruin everything that the movie built up throughout its run-time. It's an unnecessary twist that just ruins everything that came before.

The Final Face: :neutral_face: