Beautiful, moving film.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Firing Richard Donner was one of the dumbest things the Salkinds could do. Fleischer does a workman like job, but this has none of the pizzazz of the first film and some of the dumbest ideas, only overtaken by Shumachers ruination of Batman. The super kiss, the silly cellophane symbol, all take away from what should have been a superior sequel. The only thing that shines is Chris Reeves as Superman.

After viewing "Superman: The Movie", it is difficult to believe that any sequel could top the story, effects, and just the overall aura of that masterful film. Well, Superman II is at least as good, and some would argue better, for two main reasons:First, the special effects (many of them filmed at the same time as scenes from Superman I) are still incredible (at least by early 1980s standards). The action scenes, where as many as four beings are flying through the air simultaneously, are even more exciting than those from the first film. Also, the comedic and heroic tone of the first film remains intact for this effort (likely because parts of both were filmed together). Thus, Christopher Reeve is still the same old bumbling, stumbling Clark Kent but wholesomely heroic Superman, Lois Lane is just as rambunctious, and Lex Luthor is just as comically maniacal. In essence, it wasn't as if there was a big break in shooting and the actors had to rediscover their roles again...and that stability is very refreshing.Of course, the second reason the film succeeds so well is that it introduces enough change to not become old hat. Instead of thwarting Luthor, Superman dukes it out with three Kryptonian baddies (led by the merciless General Zod). Instead of fooling Lois, Clark reveals his deepest secret to her (and, ultimately, puts the world in grave danger for doing so).I have always felt that most sequels fail due to one of two (or maybe both!) issues: Either the film is too repetitive, or the actors can no longer fully regain the passion for the roles as they once had. However, with the combination of a fresh plot and the fact that both the first two Superman films were mostly filmed together, this film was able to avoid those traps.So, if you were enthralled by Superman: The Movie, Superman II will not let you down in any way. The visuals are still stunning, the drama is still palpable, the humor is still funny, and I can guarantee that the closing scene will have you on your feet and cheering at your television!

I'm glad this movie is actually good, although I would have liked it if Richard Donner had stayed on for this. That's why Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut is better than this. Positives: Christopher Reeve is Awesome, General Zod is a great villain, Terence Stamp nails it, and this movie has 3 PEOPLE TO FIGHT SUPERMAN. Negatives however: It's a teeny bit more campy, it's trying to be MORE like a comic book than the first one, and Richard Lester and the Salkinds Booted Donner off of the set. For the most part though, I like it. I'm gonna give Superman II a B. 7/10. 3.5/5, etc. If you loved the first movie like I did, you'll have less fun with this, but fun nonetheless. Go break a leg with Superman II.

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.