User Reviews

A more consistent movie compared to the last movie and utilizing the first movies opening for the main villains of this movie and showcasing some of Supermans more silly abilities its a fun watch but personally I found Lois less likable in this movie then the first one

If the first Superman made us believe a man could fly, this sequel showed us that even the greatest hero can lose everything. Superman II is not just the best film of the Reeve era — it’s arguably the best Superman film ever made. And it’s not just because of the action, or the arrival of General Zod and his crew. It’s because this movie has **** starts strong and never lets go. From the opening, with the silent trial of Zod, Ursa, and Non, to the climactic battle in Metropolis, there's something more here than spectacle. There’s emotion, drama, difficult choices, and moments when you truly doubt Superman will make it through. In that sense, it has more in common than it seems with The Empire Strikes Back, another legendary sequel where evil appears to win.Christopher Reeve is perfect. No one has ever balanced Clark Kent and Superman as effortlessly as he did. His vulnerability in this chapter — giving up his powers for love — humanizes him without weakening the character. He bleeds, he suffers, he makes mistakes… and that’s exactly why he moves ****, the dual direction between Richard Donner and Richard Lester creates a few tonal inconsistencies, but overall, it works. There’s humor, but also real emotional weight. The Metropolis showdown remains iconic, and Superman’s return after his seeming defeat is a goosebumps **** villains, especially Terence Stamp as Zod, are among the best in superhero cinema. Elegant, merciless, and unforgettable — that “Kneel before Zod!” line is now immortal.Superman II is one of those rare sequels that not only holds up but often surpasses the original. It’s got heart, scale, and an irreplaceable Reeve. Henry Cavill did a fine job, but the definitive Superman already has a name — and it will always be Christopher Reeve.

This movie introduced us to the iconic villain and kryptonian General Zod while keeping up with Superman and Lex Luthor's battles. The cast is large and amazing with an iconic portrayal of General Zod that left fans wanting more.

It's been somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty years since the last time I saw the theatrical version of Superman II, but after doing a bit of online research, I think I have a decent understanding of the differences between the two films. In some ways, the Donner cut is a big improvement, particularly in how it intertwines the sequel's story with that of the original. Marlon Brando was completely sliced out of the initial release, and while his performance is an egregious display of glum cinematic sleepwalking, his role actually adds several essential wrinkles to the story. General Zod and his envoy are also treated with more awe and respect, granting their eventual stare-down with big blue a more stern, serious slant. At the core of its being, though, Superman II remains a thoroughly campy, semi-serious film with a ridiculously nonsensical plot and a pathetic recycled ending that might actually be worse than the reviled "amnesia kiss" of the original cut. Margot Kidder and Christopher Reeve efficiently play their parts, but they aren't put in a position to recapture the magic of their date in the original Superman, while Gene Hackman underachieves badly once again as Lex Luthor, this time relegated to a second-fiddle bad guy. A marginal improvement over the horribly-aged initial release, it's packed full of grand logic holes and stiff, contrived moments of peril.

This is a SPOILER FREE review of the DONNER VERSION OF THE FILM: This movie was a huge imporvement over the first film. It has much better antagonists and Superman has a really good internal conflict that paved the way for movies like Spider-Man 2, which is one of the greatest superhero films of all time. I highly suggest watching this film. Overall, this gets a 7/10, go watch it!

A good Sequel with what seems to be more budget and exciting scenes, however, there are some things in this movie that feel a bit tacky but it gets the job done well enough. Comparing this to Man of Steel 2013, I see where Zack Znyder got his ideas for his first Superman film. This film compared to the first is somewhat better actually to the first. The first just drags a little too much, here, there are things going on but the plot with Superman feels too forced and at times none sensical which makes it lesser than the previous film. All in all it's a great Sequel and I like it, these older films do delve deep into the characters that are portrayed and that's great as opposed to recent films. And Again it takes its time and doesn't rush the plot even if it's a bit mashed up at times. 8/10, still great, a bit lesser in consistency but still great. KNEEL BEFORE ZOD, So I can Watch Superman III.

Its better than the first one if we're talking about the Richard Donner Cut and the original version is right beside the first Superman.

A fantastic sequel that follows the furthur adventures of superman to a tee

I love the original Superman film and consider it one of the all time great superhero films. This sequel is a worthy one. While it is uneven in tone, that I agree, and a tad overlong, the special effects are above decent and the score is superb. The dialogue is pretty good and this film is probably the best plotted of all the films put together, being not too serious and not as silly as the succeeding two. The pacing is secure, and the subplot is sweet and doesn't distract. The direction is good, and the acting is fine. Christopher Reeve is still likable, and Gene Hackman and Terrence Stamp are rock-solid in the roles of Lex Luthor and General Zod. Overall, it isn't as good as the first film but it is the first and I think only worthy sequel(the third being lacklustre despite some good moments and the fourth being awful). 8/10 Bethany Cox

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.

His greatest success is to preserve the charisma of the previous installment, now with more dangerous villains and a sub-story of love that is functional enough and an epic climactic battle. The only drawback is that for current generations the special effects look rustic. What I don't understand is why there are two different editions; it is a matter of seeing both and comparing. In loving memory of Christopher Reeve.

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.

INCREDIBLE SEQUEL, Truly better than the first it ups the ante by adding General Zod and having (Once Again) Lex Luthor in the mix (played Excellently by Gene Hackman) truly a Magnificent film

The original Superman film was great but Christopher Reeve returns for Superman II... Three villains escape after a blast or something in space, they go causing havoc on earth and the leader is General Zod.... Sarah Douglas who plays one of the villains is ridiculous and can't act to save her life. Full of cheesey lines and gags and a horrible script and acting I'd say Superman II is one of the worst sequels ever made.

It's not as good as the first Superman but it's still a decent sequel neither the less.

In my opinion, this sequel was better than the original. Though overall it maintains the previous movie's campy tone, it's much darker and more intense. Reeve shines as Superman once again, and the chemistry between him and Lois Lane was great. Gene Hackman's Luthor, along with Zod and his cronies, were fantastic in this movie as well.

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.

This movie is definitely one of the best superhero movies of all time. much better than black panther, and it deserves a better rating than that movie. Even after about 40 years, this movie is worth to watch. the special effects where ahead of its time. people have to watch it.

I'm surprise this movie has a higher score than Superman (1978). Christopher Reeves does a great job as Clark and Superman. It's a good sequel but the first still tops it.

Guests That Takes Us For Granted. Superman II Lester's more cheesy and more flawed super-ness is, against all odds, more entertaining. With glorifying characteristics of the characters to its best at the most critical moments to give a jarringly exhilarating, is a way of saying how grand the characters are, just in a loud voice. There was a very easy way to mend the broken in here, but unaware of the lack of lucid narration, the knack for a knockout enthralling punch feels empty. As far as the conversations are concerned, they grow one dimensional and more questionable than its first installment. If Hackman gets that same over confident and self praising role to portray, the shallowness of Stamp's character, is something that outnumbers it on potential. As it was previously, the only thing charms its way out, no matter how cringe-worthy, is the repartee between Reeve and Kidder that is ought to be cheesy, and hence lands safely to the tone of the storytelling. The creation of the environment of the Moon, the final battle and the logistics of both the physics and character's perspective; all these essential points are poorly crafted out. On terms of performance, Reeve's plastered non-expressive performance fails to deliver the gravitas of the scene especially the one where out protagonist gets beaten to blood, even then there is none whatsoever genuineness on his portrayal. Kidder on the other hand, as on overly obsessed reporter somehow works, whilst once again, Hackman is misused completely from head to toe. But as much as uncomfortable these flaws makes you, there is a lot to be amazed at, lot to reboot your mind to a kid-like, scoffing the limitations on the visual effects, it surely feels a blockbuster. Superman II is a far better and engaging than its previous one, a rare thing to come across and to pull off.

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.

Superman (Christopher Reeve) foils the plot of terrorists by hurtling their nuclear device into outer space, but the bomb's shock waves free the Kryptonian villain General Zod (Terence Stamp) and his henchmen Ursa (Sarah Douglas) and Non (Jack O'Halloran) from their imprisonment. Traveling to Earth, they threaten the planet with destruction at the same time that Superman decides to renounce his superpowers in order to live a normal life as Clark Kent with his new love, Lois Lane (Margot Kidder).

'Superman II' is an incredible sequel, filled with everything you loved about the first movie, and takes it to a tight story with some incredibly paced work and an overall, satisfying installment to the "Superman" franchise. Clark Kent (Christopher Reeve) is back, and must now face his toughest enemy yet, General Zod (Terrence Stamp), while Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) thinks that she might be closer to the identity of Superman than she thinks. Overall, 'Superman II' is still a visually stunning sequel, with a great story wrapped in there, the execution may be clunky in a few places, but you will have fun with it.

Superman II was a great film. Way better than 3 or 4 and it has almost no flaws. General Zod is amazing and Reeve as Superman is amazing, as well. This movie is a 10/10.

boasting a better story line, better villains and overall a better movie Superman II is in my opinion the best superman movie to ever be released, just great stuff.

I don't know how in the world is this ranked higher than the original Superman, but don't question critic logic. Just enjoy what they have in store for you.

While not as good as the first one, this superman story continues the superman legacy that lasted two movies. With a entertaining villian, superman still heroic, and story, this was the superman movie that was the last good one before the 2000"s.

Here's a new one: a director's cut from someone who isn't the credited director. When producers Alexander and Ilya Salkind decided to make a Superman film, they adopted the same strategy they chose for The Three Musketeers and The Four Musketeers: shoot two at once and save some money. But as with the Musketeers films, the plan didn't quite work out. The Salkinds fired Superman director Richard Donner before he could complete the sequel, brought in Musketeers director Richard Lester to replace him, and lost the participation of Gene Hackman (who declined to come back for the Lester-shot footage) and Marlon Brando (whose footage was cut after he raised a stink over missing profits from the first Superman). Released in 1980 in Europe and 1981 in America, Superman II met with popular success, but fans, teased by footage that showed up in TV cuts, kept the idea of a truer, Donner-ier version alive, and the clamor has finally culminated in a new cut reconstructed by Michael Thau with Donner's approval. The standard line holds Lester's version as too camp, blaming him for all the film's failings and crediting Donner with everything that works. That wouldn't be fair even if it didn't disrespect Lester (here repeatedly called "the other director"), who helmed masterpieces like A Hard Day's Night and Petulia, especially since the new cut reveals that Donner deserves a great deal of the credit and blame for both versions of Superman II. Most of the key scenes originated with Donner, and while his cut solves some of the original version's problems (no more Superman logo snares made out of cellophane), it has problems of its own. Big problems. Anyone wanting to avoid camp will want to fast-forward through the painful comedic scenes featuring Hackman as Lex Luthor, with moll Valerie Perrine. One key scene obviously comes from patched-together screen tests, and the finale maddeningly repeats a cheap trick from the first Superman film. It's nice to see the Brando footage and the restored scenes of Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder's breezy chemistry. But where the original cut at least played as a relatively cohesive movie, loose ends and all, this looks like little but loose ends. It's a curio, not a corrective.

Superman 2 is a rare sequel that improves upon the original the action for its time is very solid the characters are great and is easily one of the most fun and entertaining superhero films to watch.

Just like the first film, Superman II is one of the greatest movie ever! The best fight scene between the Man of Steel and the three Kryptonian criminals including General Zod is quite a tremendous battle and he is one bad-ass villain for this movie.Same script made by Mario Puzo(who previously worked on the Godfather trilogy) and as for Lex Luthor now a supporting role he is even more comical than the first film.

A trio of Krypton villains threaten havoc on Earth, while Superman and Lois Lane are just becoming involved in a long awaited love affair -- an affair which may cost Superman his super powers.

More villains and more action than before create a better and more exciting film, though at times like its predecessor, Reeves performance as the Man of Steel as well as Terrance Stamp's Zod cause Superman II to nearly top the original.

Much better than the pointless, dim-witted named as "Man of Steel". Just when you thought the classic was already enough, studio Warner Bros. brings another well-paced, stylish and nicely acted flick.

Worse than the first and since the first is out of time now... yeah... It couldn't have the great action of course so it focused again on the humor part. Even more this time. It almost became a kids cartoon.

The best out of the QUADRILOGY LOVED IT SOO MUCH!!! Great Cast, Great Bad guy, Great Lines, Great super AND A GREAT DIRECTOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RICHARD DONNER DID IT AGAIN!!!

Superman's back and this time he's had it. Actually in all seriousness this is the best of the Reeve Superman films as he battles his own kind and has to defend the planet he calls home.

Although this was even more cheesy than the first Superman, it still has a great amount of cool that made this movie a decent sequel. This will always be my favorite Superman sequel, ever.

Featuring still decent effects for its time, soul-filled humor, and a story that shows tremendous heart, this sequel is an exciting and faithful follow-up to the phenomenal original.

Although the original Superman will always be the strongest in my eyes, I still really quite enjoyed this film. With a montage to start the film off, just in case you have forgotten anything from the previous film, but this film is simply just fun, and the most entertaining thing for me was watch Lois lane and Superman play off each other and see how their relationship developed. That and General Zod of course, who is a truly great villain played by the one and only Terence Stamp. I will be interested to see Michael Shannon's take of the character in Man of steel... Had to mention it at some point. It's a Superman review. And it is Superman week. Lets face it. The main problem I had with the film is that I felt that there were some bits that felt too placed, and could have been cut out completely. The film does seem to drag in the middle a little bit which could arguably be down to the troubled production, with a switch of director in the middle of production from Richard Donner to Richard Lester. This resulted in a problem with the tone of the film, as Donner wanted a dark film while Lester tried to add in a lot of slapstick- which to be honest were the bits that dragged the film down- what I would call the silly parts, when the film suddenly becomes a cartoon for a few minutes. I will be interested to see Richard Donner's cut. I enjoyed Superman 2, although it doesn't have the same magic of the first one it is still a great superhero film.

I was so impressionable as a kid that I had no idea how to criticize a movie or compare it to others on special effects. To me it was one of the greatest movies from a child's perspective. I grew up and now realize it was a B movie and I'm not comparing it to today's special effects films because that's unfair, instead I'm comparing it to Star Wars which is the movie which was truly ahead of its time in production, acting, storyline and special effects. Star Wars has truly stood the test of time. Sorry, but Superman II is a joke and people seem endeared to Christopher Reeves out of nostalgia and patriotism but he was a terrible actor. The only actor in that film worth anything was Gene Hackman

I seen the movie man of steel and i give 3 and a half star's that doesn't mean it is a bad movie., i like more Superman (1978) and Superman II (1980) and the soundtrack of Superman (1978) is better.

No, I do not think that this movie is the best Superhero movie of all time. However, I do think that this is a very good movie. This movie was made back in a time when people thought superheroes were more romantic and silly than anything else (if you want another movie like that, all three of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies). This movie is a perfect movie that shows what superheroes were like during that era. I believe that the main reason a lot of people do not like this film as much as they used too is merely because this is the era of more grown up superhero movies (Christopher Nolan's Batman movies) which are much darker. Superman II is definitely the perfect movie for romantic superhero fans. It is very charismatic and heroic at the same time. It has a simple plot with villains threatening to take over the world, but the hero always triumphs in the end, and also gets the girl. While this plot is simple, so were the original Spider-Man movies which came out much later. Probably my only real complaint about this movie is that even though the romantic hero plot was good for the time, it is a little outdated now, as more grown up superhero movies have been released. I still think that this a great movie nonetheless.

Caught this on T.V. with my friend one night. Hadn't seen it since I was about 6 and it was cringe worthy to the point of not being able to look away. I wasn't expecting a timeless classic, you have to lower your standards this being a super hero movie and being a product of the 80's. But my god, I was not expecting such a hilariously unwatchable disaster. It's not the bad special fx, or even the somewhat dated feel of the movie... Superman II's biggest problem is it's actors delivery and total lack of subtlety in their performance. Some of it can surely be blamed on the director for accepting the takes, but a lot of the lines are delivered so unbelievably bad you wonder how they made it past the cutting room floor. The story isn't much better, just an excuse to have an all out brawl in the middle of the city... you can see where directors like Michael Bay major influences are. Grab some popcorn and spend hour and a half re-familiarizing yourself with this movie. Even my friend who's fairly open to watching almost any mindless action flick couldn't contain his laughter re-watching this.

liked this one a lot, in my opinion it was probably even better than the first one. One of the biggest reasons would probably be the villains. They are a physical match for superman so they pose more of a threat than lex luthers so called intelligence. Since supermans new villains can fly there is one really good scene of them battling it out and throwing large objects at each other and fighting while flying. The dated special effects add a cheese factor but its really fun to watch. There is also a very cool scene on the moon that felt very sci-fi like, this was a great scene i thought looked very cool. These two things were in my opinion better than anything that happened in the origonal. On the negative side though there was some pretty stupid plot elements that might be hard for some people to look passed, i personally just laughed and shrugged it off. One thing i found funny was how supermans mom tells him he can turn into a human but will never be able to regain his old powers and then he easilly gets his powers back using the green crystal, that was ridiculous, also lex luthers escape from jail in a hot air balloon was silly. Overall superman 2 is a cheesy good time i found more entertaining than the first

"Superman II" has none of the charm of its predecessor, and it is plagued by particularly bad special effects. The character of Superman is more deeply developed and the narrative is artfully paced.

It can be campy but it's fun and original, exploring a fallible side of Superman through his decision to rid himself of his powers for Lois Lane. Zod, of course, is classic. It's a shame Donner couldn't finish his version, but I feel Lester did a fine job finishing the project.

My favorite of the Superman movies. I don't know how on Earth this film got a 5.8 User Score. This was also the most interesting, as Superman finally had someone who could really challenge him and he doesn't always emerge victorious. This film also explores Clark's and Lois' relationship much more than in the first film, which proves to me that its an improvement.

Superman II is every bit as good as the first, and even possibly better. When it comes to stories in superhero movies, this is about as good as it gets.

I'm giving this movie a 2 because I like the idea of it. The actual implementation has much to be desired. The special effects are awful in context with the times. The fight scenes are laughable. Watching equally strong (invincible) superbeings fight is much more boring than watching a regular street fight. It always amazes me that Hollywood could never put together a great Superman movie. The original Superman movie was decent but fell apart in the second half. This movie is dumb from start to finish.