Superman II

It boasts a more consistent tone, better special effects (such as villains throwing buses around like paper planes), and even an affecting love story.

A sequel that retains the gee-whiz geniality of the original while still going in interesting new directions.

Poking fun at its American mythos, but never descending into camp comedy, this sequel makes for a wonderful time.

Superman II is a success, a stirring sequel to the smash of '79. Whether you will prefer it to the original is like choosing between root beer and Fresca. They're both bubbly, but the flavor is different. What the follow-up doesn't have is the epic lyricism of Richard Donner's version; it's harder edged, fleeter on its feet, less reverential. [22 June 1981, p.87]

A stylish, well-paced film with a good variety of moods and moves.

The film's message may be a clichéd staple of comic books - with great power comes great responsibility - but it's handled with sincerity and skill.

Superman II" gets off to a fast start (in part by recapitulating the plot of the original film in the credit sequence), only to evolve into a curiously absent-minded follow-up...What seems to have been lost is the straightforward heroic exuberance of the original film, despite Reeve's gallant and endearing efforts. [19 June 1981, p.C1]

This movie wipes the floor with the first. In every way. Given that these movies are upwards of 40 years old now, we can forgive the aging of the effects, surely. Doesn’t take a genius to realise that technology was limited in 1980. However, this film manages to be dazzling all the same, and does not deserve this user score. It’s a 10, and I hope my 10 drags the score up a little. Far better than the first. Far far far better. Pacing is perfect, no boring parts like the first one. Just so much better than the first. Better better better.

Clearly a worse movie, than the first one: The character Superman doesnt get much new aspects and the worst of all: Some characters in the movie behave so dumb, that you think this movie is slapstick or a B movie. Especially the naivety of Clark Kent is annoying. What is good? It is a superman movie.

This is tame by modern standards. The plot is extremely straightforward and Superman and the three Kryptonians only meet after 95 minutes of the movie. The graphics are weak even by 1980s standards (A New Hope, 1977, has better graphics). Yet it is the best of the Christopher Reeve tetralogy, and the most entertaining.

After the success of the first film, a sequel was predictable. However, I can't say it's as good or impressive as the first movie. In fact, if the first one seems old to me, this film looks even more dated and there is no doubt that it has fallen into complete oblivion. The script follows the story of the first film and reveals how Lois comes to know the identity of Clark Kent, with whom she begins to live a romance, despite the chaos that is caused by the arrival of three more Krypton inhabitants: the criminals who, soon at the beginning of the first movie, we have seen being thrown into space. The film is, on the whole, a poor sequel. I felt there was an effort to learn from mistakes and improve the story told, but I think Clark and Lois' romance is one of the less interesting points of the film, and that it may have displeased many comic book fans. For me, who enjoyed seeing the way he hid his identity and tried to court her at the same time, it was a bit annoying. One of the most notable improvements is the introduction of three truly menacing villains, capable of making the "man of steel" sweat a little, despite the maintenance of the despicable Lex Luthor and the tiresome and somewhat fetishistic mania that Zod, the leader of the villains, has to have people kneeling before him. Christopher Reeve remains an honorable and dignified Superman, even though he's not as fresh and committed as would be desirable. Also, Margot Kidder seems to be doing well and Gene Hackman, despite hardly showing up, takes advantage of the opportunities to try to do better than he did in the first film. Overall I liked the work of Terence Stamp, an actor who usually did not appear in big productions and is not so flashy and recognized, but has talent and ability. Even so, I felt that he overacts and sounds artificial many times. On a technical level, the film continues to focus on elaborate and eye-catching visual effects, following in the footsteps of the first film. It's not surprising, then, nor how cheap, primitive and unbelievable it is for our eyes, today. The cinematography seems to me slightly better than in the first film, as it is not so nebulous and makes a positive use of the filming locations and sets, which are more natural and elegant. It's a shorter than its predecessor, and that's another notable improvement. The soundtrack, on the other hand, is basically inherited from the initial movie, which is good.

Same thought as with first one. Not of a fan of this, I much rather watch Batman v Superman. That to me is Superman 2. Is totally unfair that BvS was slammed as hell by critics.