Reviews on movie Superman II (16)

Superman 2 (1980) is a direct sequel to the first part. Moreover, two directors managed to work on the film: Richard Donner, who worked on the first part, and Richard Lester. But as a result of the conflict, Donner dropped out of the project. And then they all told themselves who shot how much material. In any case, we, the audience got quite a good story about a flying superhero.

The second film about the Superman did not hit his face in the dirt. With sequels, this scourge often happens. As a result, he even surpassed his predecessor. But in some places, of course, did not reach the (or pulled) . Everything is in order.

Discussing who has invested more and in what part is difficult, and ungrateful. Moreover, the scenes included in the second “Superman” a considerable share were shot during the production of the first picture.
The real revelation for me was the opening of Clark's face to Lois Lane. Really. Well, I couldn't have known what was going to happen next and how that moment would play out, but I don't have the opportunity to talk about that here because of the publishing rules. It's different.

I found it very, very pleasing that the creators of the story began again with Krypton. But they are already focusing on General Zoda and his two henchmen: Ursa and Nona. I was waiting for them to appear in the original source. True, the release of them from the space prison I do not like, but ... what do we have, as they say ... The villains themselves are hyperbolized. But maybe there were no others at the time. But there is also Lex Luthor. I’ve always loved having a lot of antipodes.

Another arch is the continuation of the line Clark and Lois. Will our hero give up his superpowers for love? And if so, how did he get them back? Thus, the presence of drama appeared in the tape!
Overall, an absolutely decent continuation. Even with the further development of characters and their stories. Soups even opens up new possibilities (but it is also impossible to talk about what these possibilities are due to the presence of spoilers).

Cons? Well, they must be villains. It is interesting to see the same opportunities as Superman, only aimed at evil purposes. But most of the time, we've got the usual duboloms. Lex Luthor? Well... it was enough from the first film, but he did not spoil the picture, and thank you for that.
Should I watch the second part? Definitely, yes. Pleasure is almost guaranteed. And I... I'll move on to the triquel...

8 out of 10

Superman 1978 caused a huge furor and caused positive reviews of the audience, and, of course, the first was followed by a second, and the second and third films.
Superman 2 was released in 1980, 2 years after the first. In this film, the directors introduced three new villains at once (they appeared in the first film, but were third-rate characters and disappeared at the very beginning). The problem is that these three villains look terribly stupid throughout the film, guided by incomprehensible motives, and when they get their way, they just sit and stare dullly into space.

The story of the new Superman, in my opinion, turned out quite normal. There are not so many plot holes, they do not catch the eye, and it looks more or less logical. True, some of the actions of the main characters (especially Superman) look unreasonable and cause surprise, but this can be attributed to the character of the characters.

The actors are also well selected, Christopher Reeve plays as well as in the first part, the rest of the actors are worse, but tolerant.
The special effects hold the same as in the first part - everything is realistic, plausible and quite lookable.
I would like to note that this film is much better than the first revealed Lois Lane, it is given more timekeeping, and, if not for a rather bad performance of the actress, it would be generally good.

Of the drawbacks of the film, of course, is again tight. This is especially true of the beginning of the film, in which the events of the first part are repeated for ten minutes. Then everything goes better, there is no such a long story as in the first part.
In general, the second part of the franchise turned out almost the same as the first. The team tried to correct the excessive length of the first film, it turned out to be good, but not perfect. Better than in the first part, the character of Lois Lane is revealed, the confrontation of the characters is better shown, there are no terribly absurd moments, as in the first part, General Zod is poorly disclosed, unfinished humor is poorly inserted and the motives of the characters are poorly invented.

7 out of 10

Blaming the naiveté of the second Superman is a lost and unnecessary attempt. In any case, the matter here is with superhero fiction at the time of its origin and formation, and this, like no other, is completely conditional.

According to the classical tradition, comparing the original original and the sequel, the “brotherly” opposition suggests itself to mind: the production of the first part about the superman in red-blue-yellow tights was epochal and really powerful for its time (not without “punctures”, of course, but still). But the scandalous duo namesake Richard Lester and Donner, who created the continuation of the upcoming franchise, gave birth to a copy of himself. A copy of the repeated success is technical, but not pumped part more mental, dramatic. A kind of “overgrown child”, repeating the movements behind the older brother. It turns out barely looks, awkward and very playful.

If the first time the lack of a coherent plot was opposed to special effects (really good for the time), then in this case the producers and writers are trying to ride the same “horse” without bringing anything new. Yes, money is now more, Superman has more serious and angry enemies, and the love of humanity and one lady theoretically brings the series to a new level. It sounds great only in the text.

Earlier, a less observed dynamics changes to some fragmentary lines, the motivations of the antagonists do not go beyond the framework of a children's fairy tale (but for some reason they break in the cinema), and an incompetent journalist (and no more competent actress Margot Kidder) has "eggs" stronger than Clark Kent himself.
By the way, speaking of the latter, the main villain could be called Lois Lane, whose character in the picture was spelled out very twice. An infantile and two-faced bitch turns the hero as she wants, pushing her “wants” and “pink” dreams into Kent’s selfless heart. He is also good and leads to “love”, not realizing that if he did not have a chic tight suit, the friendzone would be provided for the rest of the days.

Well, in general, at the beginning of the 80s, serious and thinking cinema comes into vogue again (remember the new French wave) and Superman 2 looks very serious against all this background, albeit remaining within its genre. What happened “behind the scenes” at the two called-up directors, you can leave tabloids and rumors, but to build a movie on one panorama of Metropolis (not New York at all), well, somehow bad.
4 out of 10

You're in mourning for him. You're mad at me for taking the Joker away from you. That's right. Hide behind your fucking mask. You loved it when he swirled around like an idiot who lacked attention. Your enemy for life. You both played your stupid games and people died.
The Joker tricked Superman into killing Lois when he saw Doomsday in her. It's the Scarecrow poison of green kryptonite. Together with Lois, the life of their unborn son stopped. Metropolis is destroyed. Strong moment. Source: "Injustice: Gods Among Us"
Superman 2

It’s no secret that over the past 20 years, we’ve seen a rapid increase in the number of films based on Marvel and DC comics. If someone dares to criticize a film based on one of the characters, the fan fights not only take it as personal, but also unite, chanting in unison: "Pretentious snobs!" This is an entertaining movie, what else do you want? But trouble is, they don't even like comics. A lot of people don't know anything about them. Most people love movies before they even watch them. More egregious are the personal insults of the critic. Remarkably, we rarely see such public outrage over a dramatic film or comedy. This reaction comes only from viewers of religious paintings (for example, Noah in 2014) and comic book viewers, which is not accidental. Indeed, the reaction of some Marvel/DC extremists/fans to criticism of movies about their deities can be compared to an attack on someone’s faith. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster deliberately created the character using mythology similar to that of the pious Christ. It is said that at one point there was a religious devotion to this character, who possesses great power, flies, has X-ray vision and wears underwear over his pants. I once read an old article that said that the clergy recognized religious devotion to Clark Kent and that he was a serious competitive threat to Jesus. Of course, Hollywood adopted comic books and launched a gold mine.
According to the original plan, Superman 2 was to be released immediately after the first Superman. The idea was to make two movies back to back. However, before the work was completed, Richard Donner was dropped from the project. Thus, before another director was recruited to take the reins, the fate of the picture was in the clouds, unfinished and unreleased. The summer of 1979 passed without Superman, as did the summer of 1980. Finally, Richard Lester was hired to lead the troubled production. Notably, the final version contains material from both Donner and Leicester. Perhaps surprisingly, it is almost impossible to say where one person’s work ends and another person’s work begins. Editors deserve the lion’s share of praise for keeping the tone of the picture stable.
Do you believe that man can fly? Of course, since Superman came out on '78, it's rare to see a blockbuster where people walk around. It's the sequel that moviegoers of the '70s wanted, isn't it? Everyone wanted to see what would happen if this superman came across one, two, or even three others like him. If Superman's only weakness is kryptonite, how would he use it against them? I'm not sure why Superman has everything he needs in the Fortress of Solitude that could take away his powers. I mean, if Jor-El and we, respectively, know that Clark's powers are laid down by the genetic code, how can you change the genetic code? If you forgive some omissions and lack of specifics, this is a really entertaining movie. In the opening shots of the 1st film, we see Jor-El and the Krypton Council send General Zod and his two co-workers to the Phantom Zone, a terrifying prison in which they arrive in perpetual limbo. By the way, when I was in school, I was very late for class once. I walked into the classroom and found that the teacher was not there yet. In a stormy theatrical voice, I shouted, “Kneel down before Zod!” Nobody knew what I was doing. It was a sad day for me. It was the day I realized everyone I went to school with sucked! Yes, I'm sorry to say that despite my childhood memories of General Zod's amazingness, cinema itself does not stand up to the competition with the original film, which, as I said, became a reference for the genre.
The writers could take a different path, make Clark realize he can't be a hero while someone is worried about whether he'll come home. Think for yourself, the finale of the previous film showed Superman largely defying all the rules of reality. So, I think the disempowerment and the realization that mortality is real should have been the motivation to fight Zod and his minions, not Lois. And as for Lois's attraction to Superman, I think it's all because Superman is the imagination of a childhood fantasy that she's long since abandoned as a cynical adult. As with the first films, the comic comes to life. It’s a fantasy, and as a result, the deeper you apply rational thought to what’s happening on screen, the faster you’ll be disappointed. Anyway, in the brightest female role, Sarah Douglas shines as a cold and angry Ursa in a really underrated performance. She's the most curious and interesting of Zod's minions. Sarah Douglas constantly hints at Ursa's wishes, and we can only try to understand what sinister plans she is up to. Ursa seems to be the harbinger of all sexy female superheroines, but it’s a bit exaggerated. I noticed the perfect combination of the Reagan era and Freudian sentiment. It is all about the detrimental influence of dominant women on traditional masculinity. For example, Ursa has no respect for accomplished and successful men. She destroys soldiers, policemen and astronauts, and then rips off their badges and medals, wearing them to mock the male hierarchy.

Cinema is in no hurry to blow something up, its literally epic fairy tale unravels at a leisurely pace. Most importantly, Superman 2 fulfills the promise of the original film. Both paintings succeed in different ways. Superman introduces us to the characters. Superman 2 takes the themes of the original story and, in many ways, solves them. Obviously, the best approach is to watch both movies back-to-back if possible, of course. They are as closely related as The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi or Star Trek 2: Khan's Wrath and Star Trek 3: Searching for Spock.

- You're not the president. “A man who bends so many things would never fall to his knees so quickly.”
After an enchanting success with critics and viewers, Richard Donner’s blockbuster based on classic comics received a sequel. Strictly speaking, the creation of the second film began almost as soon as the first was finished. So, who played the opponent Jor Ella – General Zod – Terrence Stump, agreed to play a cameo role in the prologue of the first “Superman”, knowing that his character will play a key role in the sequel. However, during the filming of the sequel, unforeseen disagreements began between the director and the producers, who eventually suspended Donner from work and hired a new director who was to complete the film. This director was the namesake of Donner - Richard Lester (specializing mainly in action - paintings), and no matter what anyone says - he is a master of a cool genre. Today in nature there are two versions of the second “Superman” – authored by Lester (a well-known, classic production) and Richard Donner, who used his influence and personal resources, many years later released the picture in his own edition. Filmmakers consider both versions equally successful, but so far I have only watched the classic production. And I really liked her. Of course, with an eye on the date of the creation of the picture. Because it would be foolish to compare that Superman and the Man of Steel by Zack Snyder. And it’s not just about the quality of action – scenes. The plots of old paintings are more childish (that is not to say primitive), naive, or what.
So the film opens with an episode in which terrorists intend to detonate a hydrogen bomb located in a gasoline barrel (!) at the very top of the Eiffel Tower! Today, this is appropriate unless you are in a superhero cartoon, but not as not in a multimillion-dollar blockbuster. Christopher Nolan’s films changed the way we approach comics, even an updated version of Superman – a more serious, dramatic and moderately realistic adaptation. While Donner and Lester were filming the fairy tale, even the prologue of the first part suggests that the authors did not strive to make some pretentious canvas out of the comic. Their “Superman” is designed for schoolchildren, a bright, full of adventure and exciting fights fairy tale. For only in a fairy tale can you change the rotation of the Earth - wind back time in order to save your girlfriend. Therefore, such "excesses" in such a movie and do not cause anyone's complaints, as it is quite permissible here. Moreover, in technical terms, Superman 2 will give a head start to any Soviet film for teenagers of that time. Special effects masters have created many impressive scenes in which aliens fly over the city, fight in the air and smash buildings to pieces, hurling cars falling under their arms. Of course, this is filmed with the help of combined shootings, manipulations with the camera or against the background of the image projected onto the screen. And the scale of destruction, arranged by aliens is not so great, unlike the blockbuster Snyder, in which in the name of saving the planet, Superman fighting with Zod blows to hell the whole city consisting of skyscrapers.
Clark Kent / Superman continues to work in the newspaper “Dele Planet”, posing as a clumsy weakling – glasses. Meticulous journalist Lois Lane notices that Superman and her colleague Kent never appear in the same place, and begins to suspect that Kent is a disguise of the famous superhero. While the lovers are on a mission - exposing a hotel near Niagara Falls in overpriced fraud, the last surviving compatriots of Superman invade the Earth. Caused by the blast wave arranged by the hero in space (there he sent a bomb taken from the Paris terrorists), the removal of a special capsule from criminals sentenced to forever wander in an immense galaxy led to the fact that the rebellious Kryptonian General Zod and his associates found freedom. On Earth, they have unprecedented powers, in nothing inferior to Superman. However, the duel of the hero and Zod greatly complicates the fact that Superman decided to permanently part with his abilities, choosing for life with Lois Lane the guise of frail glasses Kark Kent. Moreover, at the same time from prison makes a daring escape longtime enemy of Superman – scientist Lex Luthor!
The picture again combines adventure action movie, science fiction and comedy. For the last component of the tape is responsible cunning and sneaky hero Gene Hackman. His Lex Luthor is a woeful criminal, to whom a rich mind does not bring satisfaction, as he seeks revenge - defeating Superman himself. The flight of Luther and his longtime dull assistant to the North Polis in a hot air balloon is hilarious eccentricity in its purest form! Terrence Stemp received more screen time, turned in a negative image in full - his arrogant and self-confident General Zod - not devoid of charisma, is the main opponent of the hero in this series. One of the best, the scenes of the capture of the White House came out, where the aliens broke into carrying Soviet and American standards, previously captured from astronauts studying the surface of the moon. The woman - the warrior Ursa (Sarah Douglas) and the pumped Ambal Non (Jack O' Holloran) - Zod's associates, also memorable and colorful images. Christopher Reeve for the second film has finally got used to the role of Superman, and Margot Kidder – again creates the image of the beloved hero – journalist Lois Lane.
The script of the sequel was written by the same Newman brothers and writer Mario Puzo. To shoot the picture began the former cameraman Jeffrey Unsworth, and completed another – Robert Paineter. The new director also fired composer John Williams, replacing him with Ken Thorne. At a cost of 54 million, coming to the screens of “Superman-2” earned in the United States alone more than $ 100 million. Many viewers consider the second film the best in the franchise, which eventually slid to thrash in the best traditions of low-budget "B" - cinema. But more on that later. Right now, I wish you a pleasant viewing. If you decide to watch - do not expect much from the film, just hope to see a good, entertaining picture. Superman 2 will not disappoint you.

The second part about the adventures of Clark Kent as “Superman”, not much different in the “feed” and narrative, from the first, despite the “conflict” between two directors – Donner and Lester, which could well “destroy” the picture, in the course of their disagreements. Perhaps the most significant difference from the “original” is that the sequel looks “easier”. The action is more or less evenly divided throughout the film. Timekeeping is also reduced, the titles are no longer so “infinite”. You don’t have to wait an hour (as it was in the first part) until Clark puts on a suit and gets to work.
The main plus, as in the previous film – Christopher Reeve. The actor perfectly copes with the role, does not overplay. He knows when to add drama or dilute comedy. In addition, very convincingly “plays” the melodrama, showing that even an alien is able to love no worse than an “ordinary” person. Which he proves during the movie, not once. And Sarah Douglas as Lois Lane already looks more “persuasive”, and not as “typical” as before.
Also shown are "new" abilities of Soups (ice breathing and laser vision). The Kryptonians were also credited with telekinesis. I don’t know how “canonical” it is (I don’t read comics), and it is not so important.
Superman's final fight with the Kryptonians looks pretty good, albeit somewhat naive and "uniform." In general, with the exception of a couple of inaccuracies, rather “strange” and sometimes silly moments, a good sequel. Not to mention the following pictures.

7.5 out of 10

The first part of the history of Man of Steel was quite complete, integral and interesting work, in addition, quite breakthrough for its time. The second part of the epic about Superman did not bring anything new. And the fact that the film was shot by two directors did not go to the benefit of the tape. Especially when you consider that the manner of shooting they have different, and you can even guess what scenes were filmed by whom.
Especially alien look strained attempts to add humor to the picture, I will not say that there were many, but almost all of them failed. And excessive melodrama is not exactly what you expect when watching a superhero tape. All these tossings about whether he is almost a deity or for the sake of love to become an ordinary person look crazy.
General Zod's line looks interesting, but exactly until he begins to behave like a banal gopnik who broke into power. Still, for a super-being who has come to success, he is acting too stupid. And as a result, the almighty Kryptonians are quietly manipulated by an ordinary person. And the fact that the Kryptonian civilization saved the criminals is ironic.
As a result, Superman 2 does not look like a whole movie, it is a set of scenes and ideas, quite good, about not brought to mind.
5 out of 10

... to become an ordinary person. This is the basis of the second film about the adventures of Superman. He has to make a choice between the peaceful life of earthlings and his personal human happiness. Making a choice in favor of the second, he does not even know what it will turn out for the whole world. After all, the fault of the explosion of a hydrogen bomb in space, arranged by Superman, was destroyed “Phantom zone” (space prison). And several dangerous prisoners, led by General Zod, broke free, threatening all of humanity. Including a descendant of Jor-El, who once condemned them.
The sequel to the 1978 film is much more impressive than the original. And it is not the number of main antagonists, but rather the greater disclosure of the inner world of Superman, his emotions and experiences. It is shown here that the Man of Steel is not alien to human problems. Life gives him a choice, and he, like an ordinary person, tries to do the right thing. But it doesn't always turn out the way we want it to. How it was designed...

All the actors performed their roles perfectly. Except that Terence Stamp is not quite, as I think, outwardly suitable for the role of Zod. And one more thing. This is my second movie watching Gene Hackman. And I can tell you this is not the Lex Luther I'd like to see. Instead of a brilliant scientist, an overbearing millionaire, he looks more like Marv from Home Alone or Doctor Evil. A loser with a little above average intelligence. And his flat jokes only add to this image of mediocrity.

- Is he alone? -Yes. Three of you. Or four, if you count it twice.
There are no complaints about special effects and picture quality. For 1980, they're great. I especially liked the moment on Mount Rushmore, with the faces of the presidents. Now it is clear where the fashion went to destroy world-famous buildings in superhero blockbusters. Separately, I would like to note the musical accompaniment. The stunning soundtrack, written by John Williams (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Home Alone, Harry Potter, etc.), accompanies the entire quadrology of Superman.
A great continuation of a great movie.

8 out of 10

... to become an ordinary person. This is the basis of the second film about the adventures of Superman. He has to make a choice between the peaceful life of earthlings and his personal human happiness. Making a choice in favor of the second, he does not even know what it will turn out for the whole world. After all, the fault of the explosion of a hydrogen bomb in space, arranged by Superman, was destroyed “Phantom zone” (space prison). And several dangerous prisoners, led by General Zod, broke free, threatening all of humanity. Including a descendant of Jor-El, who once condemned them.
The sequel to the 1978 film is much more impressive than the original. And it is not the number of main antagonists, but rather the greater disclosure of the inner world of Superman, his emotions and experiences. It is shown here that the Man of Steel is not alien to human problems. Life gives him a choice, and he, like an ordinary person, tries to do the right thing. But it doesn't always turn out the way we want it to. How it was designed...

All the actors performed their roles perfectly. Except that Terence Stamp is not quite, as I think, outwardly suitable for the role of Zod. And one more thing. This is my second movie watching Gene Hackman. And I can tell you this is not the Lex Luther I'd like to see. Instead of a brilliant scientist, an overbearing millionaire, he looks more like Marv from Home Alone or Doctor Evil. A loser with a little above average intelligence. And his flat jokes only add to this image of mediocrity.

- Is he alone? -Yes. Three of you. Or four, if you count it twice.
There are no complaints about special effects and picture quality. For 1980, they're great. I especially liked the moment on Mount Rushmore, with the faces of the presidents. Now it is clear where the fashion went to destroy world-famous buildings in superhero blockbusters. Separately, I would like to note the musical accompaniment. The stunning soundtrack, written by John Williams (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Home Alone, Harry Potter, etc.), accompanies the entire quadrology of Superman.
A great continuation of a great movie.

8 out of 10

The adaptation of the story of perhaps the most famous comic book character in history, released in 1978 became a real box office hit, literally created a whole new genre, dipping the audience of the Big Cinema into a new world of people with superpowers. The blockbuster "Superman" authored by Richard Donner in modern times, of course, is unlikely to impress the modern viewer with its plot twists or visual chips, but as part of the history of cinema, it is an integral part of it, because it is from here that all the main stamps and templates of the genre went.
Unfortunately, this can be said about only the first part of the new franchise, because since the sequel, it fell deeper and deeper into the abyss. Before us, the sequel to the original picture, which, contrary to the rules of sequestration, did not become twice as large, twice as spectacular and so on. On the contrary, it has become more chaotic, boring and... much smaller. Seriously, bright picture, creative (for its time, of course) action from the original, the sequel contrasts the ridiculous fight in the bar of Clark Kent, a very, very mediocre introduction to the terrorists in Paris, and more or less sane final battle of Krypton conquerors with, in fact, Kal-El.
“Ruddy” and “Chaotic” are perhaps the two main epithets that characterize this film. Take at least the storytelling. In the original, it was built around the personality of Clark Kent, his growing up and accepting his own abilities, only occasionally in the second half of the timing smoothly jumped onto the storyline Lex Luthor. Here, the writers, despite the introduction of a whole bunch of new Kryptonian characters, as well as the return of Lex Luthor, make a completely stupid maneuver and shift the focus of the main narrative to ... an extremely boring and predictable romantic line between Clark and Lois Lane. As a result, the plot constantly jumps chaotically from one character to another, unnecessarily confusing and stretching everything. In a good way, the local plot could well fit in 1 hour 20 minutes, because too long Kryptonians master the Earth, and Clark too long builds himself a hero-lover with hints of self-sacrifice. It was all very ridiculous.

It did not help all this ugliness and acting charm of the local lyceums. To the acting in principle, you can not stick with it, but too academic and raw, their acting work turned out. Jean Hackman somewhere put his light and sparkle in the eyes and the local Lex Luthor is not at all impressive, and in the second half and is completely lost against the background of Kryptonians. Terrence Stamp was not given a good turn, since the speech of his character was limited only to the phrase "Bow to Zod" and its derivatives. Margot Kidder and Christopher Reeve, on the relationship which was a serious emphasis, also did not cope well. It’s fun to watch, but nothing more.

As a result, we can say that it was far from the worst, but still not justified by hopes, the continuation. Superman II is a vivid example of how the potential of the source can be easily destroyed by an indistinct plot construction. The picture is not bad, in itself, but with the slightest comparison with the original tape, the shortcomings pop up literally at every step and for such a high-profile franchise as “Superman”, this is certainly not a success, which we can already say with confidence almost 30 years after the release of this tape in rental. The franchise about the most famous of the superheroes stopped, not having time to really start.
6 out of 10

Perhaps it's all about the production conflict, as a result of which the film received two directors - Donner and Lester. The picture looks too slick, academic. The main twist takes place around the love line - the sacrifice of the main character, ready to sacrifice his superpowers for the sake of his beloved woman. He calmly assumes human form, with all the inherent weaknesses. He is quietly losing the "blowdown" at the bar. When it comes to saving humanity, he becomes a superhero. Saving the world this time will look completely everyday and simple. Villains, which will be performed by famous characteristic actors will show a very modest performing level. Habitually charming Hackman just gets lost in the background of all the shooting rays from the eyes. Infernal Terence Stamp will also not produce the expected effect. All attention will be paid to the boring Christopher Reeve, sometimes changing discreet clothes to the colorful shape of Superman.
Now all simple staged and scripted culbites of the picture will not cause the expected impression. There have been too many comic book adaptations. However, even in 1980, the tape was completely lost against the background of the second part of Star Wars and even Flash Gordon. Academically, straightforwardly, ingeniously. Translating everything into the language of cooking before us is a simple American Big Mac. Template, with a very simple filling. Nothing special.

4 out of 10

The continuation of the hit of 1978 based on the comic book of the same name "Superman" was marked by an unexpected conflict that arose at the studio with the director of the first part of Richard Donner, who was suspended from the filming of the sequel, and after the premiere of the long-awaited "Superman 2" Donner had a strong argument with the director who took his place, Richard Lester. Now, with the imposition of scandals and naked photos of current celebrities from the media and constant publications, this moment in the history of the creation of Superman could attract more viewers, but in 1980, I think few people were so interested, the quality of the picture was much more important. And it should be noted that it did not disappoint fans of the superhero and its adaptation.

In the case that the picture attracted the viewer, I tend to note three guiding facts in the tape Superman 2. The first thing to note is that I personally liked the plot. It turns out that the inhabitant of the planet Krypton is not the last of the survivors, three criminals, among whom the leadership qualities and ambitions of the tyrant are distinguished by General Zod, go to Earth to challenge Superman and avenge him for his father. On Earth, they are waiting with open arms for a dangerous intellectual scientist, and in combination with Superman’s enemy, bald Lex Luthor, the antagonist from the first part. Together, they pose a great danger not only to our hero, but also to the entire planet. So, the enemy is stronger, far more dangerous, and has the same superpowers as Superman himself, and Lex Luthor’s mighty brain also joined them. In general, you need to see how the superhero copes with such an unsurpassed force. In addition, it will take place in the middle of the romantic relationship between Superman and his alter ego Clark Kent and journalist Lois Lane. A good, sustained, confident plot, where fiction is intertwined with the high sensuality of the heroes and pathos pleasant for us, ordinary earthlings.
The second point I mentioned was the increased quality and quantity of special effects and combined shooting. Of course, the latter now look weak, because it is noticeable that there is a patch, but at that time the flight through space, the extraordinary aggression of the huge hero Jack O’Halloran and his ability to smash everything with ease, looked quite authentic and convincing. Thus, the second part of the blockbuster "Superman" on this parameter was not inferior to its predecessor.
And the third is the good performance of all the actors. Of course, a little confused by the fact that the charismatic Lex Luthor (Jean Hackman) retreated to the background, but even there was enough talent of the actor to look at him and not even say that you have hatred for him, because he is a villain, you feel more sympathy, because the game is very presentable. Terence Stamp has long been called the real personification of General Zod, so he liked critics. I can’t say I was as excited about his performance, but when comparing him to Michael Shannon’s Man of Steel, I prefer the former. Lois Lane this time I liked more than in the first picture, it appeared notes of arrogance and indulgence with high-society manners, and some soulful and open. Somewhere in the eye you could read that she, not her character, was in love with Superman/Clark Kent. But for Christopher Reeve, does it make sense to say anything? Splendid!

In general, if you saw the first picture, do not miss this in any case. Those who begin to receive “cinema education” on the basis of tapes from the studio Marvel also advise to see the second Superman, find out where the comic book genre originates.

8 out of 10

The second part of the Superman franchise seemed to me a little weaker than the first, but still quite able to surprise and admire. It has its own bit of naivety, but first of all it is a fantastic fairy tale, so we should perceive this story. Of course, now there is no impressive legend in the fairy tale about how a messenger from another planet became the greatest and most powerful creator of good deeds, the hope of the American people, but there is still a struggle with evil, with himself, with his weaknesses and his own strength. That he and Superman, which can not be simple: this character will always be followed by a halo of some mystery that the audience knew and wanted to know people who were attacked by villains and rescued from a stranger in a red cloak.
As before, the film retains the atmosphere of the recreated comic book universe, however, as usual, every universe sooner or later undergoes changes. This time, several antagonists are rushing to power: three Kryptonians and one Earthman. In the process, they are forced to cooperate with each other, then not trust each other. And while Clark Kent decides whether to admit to his lover who he really is, and she in turn falls more in love and learns more and more, a bunch of pests make their dirty plans, and then immediately get down to business. The last half hour is devoted to the consequences of their actions: destruction, chaos, the achievement of power. Nobody knows what happens to Superman when he's needed, when he's the only one who can save the world. And now, in a moment of complete despair, the inevitable happens.
There is nothing more to say about Superman 2. This is a worthy film from the past, ready to surprise retrophiles with its unusual energy, because first of all the film has a soul, not one fantastic action.
Of course, I would like to see the soul in modern films too. More often.

7 out of 10

In the sequel to Superman, a new director joins the project. In addition to Richard Donner, Richard Lester, the producer of the predecessor, is working on Superman 2. The sequel itself in its structure is significantly different from the first film: it becomes more dynamic.
Plot

In the prologue to the predecessor, we learn that shortly before the destruction of Krypton, a dangerous war criminal General Zod with two subordinates was imprisoned in the Phantom Zone - dimension-prison. But years later, the prison was accidentally destroyed and the villains fled. Once inside the solar system, Zod and his henchmen gained the power of Superman and attacked the Earth. But Superman couldn't answer. In order to get close to Lois Lane, who learned his secret, Clark deprives himself of unusual abilities. I really like this version of the story. First, the plot pits Superman against other Kryptonians, previously he prevented disasters and stopped criminals. Secondly, the feeling of excitement increases. The main character was powerless at the moment when he was needed most. Many elements of the plot also became more serious. At the beginning of the film, the lives of Parisians are in danger because of terrorists, Zod himself brings even more cruelty to the film, we are shown for the first time in a comic book film serious doubts of the main character about whether he is doing the right thing and what is more important to him.

The cast of

Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder and Gene Hackman return to their roles from the first film. If Superman's image as a lofty defender didn't change, Lois Lane changed. She became a risky adventurer. Sometimes for sensationalism, sometimes for people, like in that scene where she tried to defuse the bomb. This is what a journalist should be. In this film, she was shown to be more vulnerable, easier to believe. Lex Luthor does not lose his sarcastic and complacent character. In the comics, Lex later became president of the United States and in Superman 2, his political ambitions were shown, which is nice. In the sequel, the next logical step is the cooperation between the two villains. General Zod was played by actor Terence Stamp, and for the most part played the role worthy, but Zod by nature is no more interesting than Lbtor. It seemed to me monotonous and a bit monosyllabic. But again, in the '80s, there was no standard for supervillains in cinema, compared to the comic book, this Zod had an impact on the comic book, it's quite threatening and destructive. But I can’t help but point out that he spent decades in prison, he should be angry at Superman and genuinely want to destroy him, but it doesn’t feel that much in the movie. However, a big plus in the image of Zod became his subordinates, loyal to him even after receiving abilities. It underlines his power. To sum up, the villains of the film did not disappoint me.

Visual and technical part

The effects are beautiful, and some are complex and so well executed that they still leave questions about how the creators succeeded. But the most intense scene remains the Battle of Metropolis, which perfectly captures the spirit of the comics. As I said before, Superman doesn’t just face an equal opponent, he faces three.
Bottom line:

Superman 2 is a great sequel, only slightly inferior to the original. He logically continues the story of Superman and confronts him with new challenges and enemies. Richard Donner was unable to gain full control of the filming process, so he left the project, the remaining scenes were completed by Richard Lester. However, in 2006, Donner will release a director's version, which will include everything he did not have time to say in the theater. Going back to this version, if you liked the first movie, Superman 2 will also not leave you indifferent.
9 out of 10

Richard Donner's 'Superman'... I wish I could remember that picture. A great movie about a great superhero should have gained well-deserved fame ... and found! The sequel was only a matter of time.

It was released 2 years after the original film. I wonder what this picture has gained, and what has lost compared to its predecessor?
As we remember, at the beginning of the first part of Superman’s father Jor-El captured three rebels, convicted and sent to a long resort in the Phantom Zone (space prison for especially dangerous criminals). But the launched boomerang returns - so General Zod, Non and Ursa returned to get even with the son of their jailer Jor-El - Superman.
The return of their truth is not very well furnished - evil and terrible terrorists mine the Eiffel Tower, Superman throws an elevator with a bomb into space, an explosion wave frees the dark trinity. Quite ridiculous, agree - especially considering that sound (as well as any other) waves in space do not propagate, because there is a vacuum. So for that minus - everything could be arranged differently.

Then, General Zod and his brethren, having warmed up with astronauts on the moon, arrive on Earth in search of Superman. This is where it all starts.

In general, I noticed that this film has a lower rating compared to the first part. No, I, as an ardent Superman fan, could growl, something like 'you're all idiots, you just don't understand anything', but I'm a balanced person, and therefore I admit there are flaws in the film.
In addition to the above, I was embarrassed by Lex Luthor’s escape from prison, which was too easy. And then, in a couple of days, he flies to Antarctica in a balloon, which also looks a little strange (and also - how does he not freeze to fly in a prison robe?).

And, of course, the scale of action in the sequel narrowed - if in the first picture Superman rushed around the East Coast, chasing missiles, stopping the dam break and saving people on the bridge, then all the action scenes are reduced to the fight with Zod, Non and Ursa. But I must admit that these scenes are impressive. I will note that the film is based not only on them - the actors worked with dignity. Christopher Reeve, I repeat, IMMEDIATE as Superman/Clark Kent. Brandon Ruth from Superman Returns isn't around. Comparing Reeve to Tom Welling from Smallville’s Secrets is a bit of a mistake, as Welling played Clark in his youth.

Who else? Margot Kidder and Gene Hackman are as brilliant as they were in the first film. Terrance Stamp - he perfectly played Zod - a real tyrant, a despot, a conqueror. Sarah Douglas (Ursa) and Jack O'Halloran (Non) did not stand out, but they did not hit their face in the mud - Douglas turned out to be a great space witch, and O'Halloran soundly played a dull and mute, but angry boogie.
To sum up, I could have put this film 7 out of 10 and let it go in peace. But -- it's sacred to me. Someone honors the work of Ingmar Bergman, someone Belgian waffles, someone gums "Love is ..." with liners ... So, I honor Superman -- who's like the guy in the next yard, just very strong, flying and doing all sorts of other miracles. Therefore, for those who look at this film exclusively from a cinematic point of view - 7 out of 10.
And for me and other fans of such a great hero as Superman:
10 out of 10