Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice Review

Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
Starring: Henry Cavill, Ben Affleck, Amy Adams
Directed by: Zack Snyder


The wait is finally over! Batman and Superman are finally going at it on the big screen! This is going to be....OH MY GOD NOOOOOO!!!!! If you have been paying attention to the internet since the release of Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, the general consensus is pretty split between critics and fanboys. Critics have generally panned the film and fanboys have generally been satisfied by the epic collision between the Dark Knight and the Man of Steel. I, being both a critic and a fanboy, felt the need to walk into this movie with as open a mind as possible. The result was 2 1/2 hours of one of the most disappointing movie experiences of my life. The movie was fine in some areas and really good in others, but we live in a world where comic book movies with as much hype as this one can't just be "ok." It's Batman fighting Superman! This is going to have huge expectations going in and fanboys can't be expected to accept the mediocre storytelling just because it's disguised with action, effects, and Justice League teases. We've come to a point where we deserve much better with our comic book movies. So let's see what they got right and where they went completely wrong with Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice.

So let's go ahead and address the one thing in the film that really works: Ben Affleck as Batman. When he was cast, the entire universe freaked out over it. I never saw a huge problem with it and the more footage I saw, the more I thought he would make for a good Batman. He does really well as both Batman and Bruce Wayne and I really can't wait to see more of him in his own solo movie. He was much more violent than previous Batman adaptations, but I didn't mind it. I had read The Dark Knight Returns, a graphic novel that heavily inspires this film, and was prepared for Affleck to be an older, angrier Batman. I also really enjoyed seeing what Jeremy Irons as Alfred. Both performances were different from what we've seen. Darker and grittier from either any film version we've seen so far, this is a Batman film universe that had me gripped to the edge of my seat.

As far as a sequel to Man of Steel is concerned, the film doesn't do too bad of a job with it either. There are some interesting concepts that really had me thinking. In this movie, Superman is being held accountable for the destruction of Metropolis in the last film. There's a lot of political debate and questioning theologies that discuss the conversation of if the world needs a Superman and what the world would be able to do if Superman decided he could rule over all of us. It even gives Henry Cavill a chance to question himself and wonder if what he's doing is worth it. I like when the film is able to do that. If this and the stuff with Batman were the only two plots, leading up to an ethical and logical clash between the two, this could have been a great movie. If only the writers had stopped with just these two plots.

Because DC and Warner Bros. feel the need to play years of catchup in order to go head to head with Marvel, Batman v. Superman falls victim to tons of new characters and future plots being shoehorned into this film. Some of these end up doing alright, like Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. It's still a bit too early to judge her performance, since we didn't get to see a whole lot or know everything about her. Her solo movie next year will be the proper test of how she measures up in this universe, but for now, she's doing a fine job. Then there's some that really don't work at all, like Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. Good Lord, he was a strange choice for Lex. I think he's a good actor, but he's not right for Lex. He's too cartoony and quirky. Kind of reminds me of the Gene Hackman version, but that kind of worked for its time. This one...doesn't. I'm looking for the Lex Luthor you'd see in Superman: The Animated Series, or Smallville, or even Kevin Spacey's portrayal in Superman Returns. There's also a very weak subplot unveiling some of our future Justice League members. Some of them are kinda cool, but then there's some that just feel lazy and tacked on to get some fanboy buzz circulating. But the most frustrating shoehorn for me was in the form of Doomsday showing up in the third act to be the final villain. No, I didn't spoil anything because the trailers already did that. This was NOT necessary. Superman fighting Doomsday in a Death of Superman adaptation would've been great one, maybe two Man of Steel sequels down the road. It's not necessary here and just feels like a big waste of potential, which feels like the overall theme with majority of this film.

With so many components crammed into one movie, it's no wonder it all doesn't really work. Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice fails to live up to the hype because it lacks proper storytelling that would allow the huge showdown to make sense. Heck, even on the action standpoint, the big fight fails as a whole because there are two action scenes immediately afterwards that put the Batman/Superman fight to shame. Zack Snyder is still making all the mistakes he did with Man of Steel. Shameless product placement, tons of pointless destruction, and main heroes that are cold blooded killers. The only difference with Batman v. Superman is that it had a lot more riding on the line, making the failure hurt a lot more to diehard fans that were looking for one of the greatest superhero movies of all-time. Just tell us the story of how Batman and Superman went at it. There were ideas that really worked. Leave Wonder Woman out of it. Leave Lex Luthor out of it. Leave the Justice League out of it. And for goodness sake, leave Doomsday out of it. This is all stuff that could've been introduced much later, in other DC films. At this point, maybe the problem is Snyder as director and Warner Bros. should really consider picking someone else to direct Justice League. If it's in his hands, we could be in store for another disaster from DC.


Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

While the stuff with Batman really works, not much else does. Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice proves that the current creative process in the DC Cinematic Universe is to promote style over substance. Good luck to the rest of the DC movies coming out in the future, because right now the entire franchise could be dead on arrival.

Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice and movie images are copyrighted by Warner Bros.

Superman Retrospective: Man of Steel

Man of Steel (2013)
Starring: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon
Directed by: Zack Snyder


With Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice only days away, it's finally time to review the film's predecessor, Man of Steel. In terms of comic book movies, this is one of the biggest split-decision movies to take place in quite some time. People either love this move or absolutely hate it. Fans were quick to notice the flaws and saying that this is a version of Superman that contradicts the morals of the Superman from the comics. Meanwhile, other viewers were saying they liked the new approach to the story. So which side plays out when I watch it? While certainly not a perfect movie, it left me mildly entertained. I can't go on record to say it's a complete disaster. There are some casting decisions and style elements that I actually think are pretty good. But still, this movie was a mess to me 3 years ago and I'm sure it's still a mess now. The only thing that might differ is my level of tolerance and forgiveness for what Man of Steel did both right and wrong.

When it comes to Henry Cavill as Superman, I think he does a good job at looking the part of Superman, but I don't buy him as Clark Kent. I think he's just too bulky to be that kind, yet unassuming teenager from Smallville, but that might just be me. Plus, I don't think Cavill is given too much to do with the role in terms of acting range or depth. When Clark is being developed, it's usually through flashbacks with child actors. When we get to Cavill's performance, he's just kind of bland and monotonous. Hopefully he improves, because I do like the look he brings to Superman. Plus, I would like to think he'll be able to play the bumbling Clark Kent at the Daily Planet, instead of just a hot guy wearing glasses.

The supporting cast is really good, a quality that seems to keep popping up whenever they do these Superman movies. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane play Clark's parents on Earth, Laurence Fishburne plays Perry White, and Russell Crowe plays Jor-El. All of them do really well, but they aren't explored as much as I'd like and I don't necessarily see these actors become the roles. I still see the big name actors. I really enjoyed what Amy Adams did with Lois Lane, looking much more intelligent and credible as a journalist than the other film incarnations, and still able to deliver that trademark snark that we saw in Margot Kidder's portrayal. As for the main villain, I don't mind a good actor like Michael Shannon to play General Zod, but he really needs to pick a tone and stick to it. He runs a gamut that ranges from completely over the top to completely underplayed. He's delightfully hammy in the role and I can't deny that I have a fun time watching Zod.

I think where the film's biggest amount of pros and cons are in the action and effects department. On the pro side, I really like the scenes of Superman flying. Just the amount of atmosphere those scenes are able to create are a sight to behold. Like Zack Snyder's other movies, there's a strong amount of detail in the production design and I commend the film for going very bold and epic with the film's scale. But, and I'm not sure if it's just the Blu-ray transfer, one of the major cons of the film is that a lot of the effects look way too cartoony in some scenes. I get that they're made in a computer, but I'm not supposed to notice or care about that when I'm watching. That's what a good film should be able to do. In Superman: The Movie, I didn't focus on the harness or wires needed to make Christopher Reeve fly. I saw Superman flying on the big screen. This makes the film's action scenes a little distracting. They look entirely too CGI, and that's a BIG problem when you see how many action scenes are in the film.

Sure, there's more bad things I could probably talk about with Man of Steel, but odds are you've heard them all elsewhere. You've heard about the amount of shameless product placement, the gratuitous action and destruction scenes, and the "controversial" ending of Superman's confrontation with Zod. People have complained until they were blue in the face about these commonly hated moments in the film, and I admittedly do roll my eyes when they happen, but it's been 3 years and I've stopped my harping for the most part. When I re-watched this film to get ready for Batman v. Superman, I tried my hardest to find new things wrong with the film or silver linings that held up well for me. I think my feelings towards Man of Steel have broke even and I still need some more time to think if any of these choices are working towards the greater good of the DC Cinematic Universe. Will they learn from the mistakes? Will they use these mistakes as an indicator of what to improve on with their upcoming film releases? Will they continue to make the same mistakes over and over? I have a current indifference towards Man of Steel, but it also gives me hope that DC can be able to produce some great films as they continue to expand this movie universe.


Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

If you want to see the Superman story get a dark Nolan-esque reboot, then you'll probably enjoy Man of Steel. If you're a Superman purist who isn't very good at accepting change, you're going to most likely hate this film. It's as simple as that. For me, the movie is fine, but I hope the DC Cinematic Universe learns from this film's mistakes and improves their quality of film as we head into Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Man of Steel and movie images are copyrighted by Warner Bros.

Superman Retrospective: Superman Returns

Superman Returns (2006)
Starring: Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth, Kevin Spacey
Directed by: Bryan Singer


After the last two attempts at making a Superman movie, it seemed impossible to properly bring the Man of Steel back to life on the big screen. There were a few attempts that were ultimately cancelled, including one directed by Tim Burton and starring Nicolas Cage as Superman. I'm not kidding, look that up if you want to be entertained and horrified. In 2006, director Bryan Singer decided to give Superman a much needed revamp and return to film. Superman Returns was Singer's attempt at putting a modern sequel-slash-reboot to the Superman lore. I use the phrase sequel-slash-reboot because it's clear that there are nods to the previous Superman series (at least the first 2 movies anyways), but it is set in a much more modern setting with updated technology and a younger looking cast. The film has been considered by many to be another flop, but I can value a number of things with it. Maybe it's because the third and fourth movies are beyond awful, but I actually enjoy Superman Returns for the most part. I just need to be in for the long haul, as it is over 2 1/2 hours and has way more talkie bits and plot setup than it does major action sequences. Still, what's good is good, so let's sit back and see why I tend to lean to the pros side of Superman Returns instead of the cons.

Let's start by talking about Superman, played by Brandon Routh. I know Routh gets a lot of flak from fanboys, but to be perfectly honest, I don't mind his performance. On a purely physical standpoint, he looks like Superman. More accurately, he looks like Christopher Reeve. Once again, we have an actor that needs to do very little to alter his appearance in order to fool the world into thinking Clark Kent and Superman are two completely different people. I think where I could see some complaints is that he doesn't have a whole lot to work with when he's Superman. As in, he doesn't do an awful lot of talking, leaving his acting range to appear limited. But looking the part of Superman is one of the most important parts of the role and I think Routh does that well. I know most people think he's more suited as The Atom on Arrow, so seeing him here might seem very foreign. Trust me when I say it's been 10 years since he donned the red cape and boots, give the guy a break. He wasn't THAT bad.

The supporting cast is pretty good too. Sam Huntington is a good Jimmy Olsen, Frank Langella is a fantastic Perry White. There are newer characters played by Parker Posey and James Marsden that I like. They have a competent child actor playing Lois's son (Who's the father? I think you know.). They were even nice enough to use archive footage of Marlon Brando to create some hologram scenes with Jor-El. That was an AWESOME touch! I think the one I'm a little on the fence about was Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, but I think that's because she looks too young. With Routh, he was young, but you had the idea that he could be from the same universe of films because he looked so much like Christopher Reeve. Bosworth looks nothing like Margot Kidder to me and when she says she's winning the Pulitzer Prize, I'm not buying it. Minor critique, but otherwise, a good cast.

But the character I'm having the most fun with in Superman Returns is Lex Luthor, played by Kevin Spacey. Good God, THIS is the Lex Luthor I was waiting for. This shouldn't be too surprising for me, since Spacey is one of my favorite character actors ever. He's a much more menacing criminal mind than Gene Hackman ever was, in my opinion. Plus, he rocks the bald look a lot better. This just felt a lot more like what Lex Luthor should be in a Superman film, having cheesy moments here and there but also able to plan and plot with a fair amount of intimidation and savvy. This guy could go toe to toe with Superman and I'd be able to believe it.

I really wish Superman Returns could've been better. While not a financial or critical failure by any means, it can't be denied that there is a large amount of disappointment associated with this movie. Plans for a sequel were completely scrapped by Warner Bros. in favor of starting all over and rebooting the story of Superman instead. I think with the amount of Superman adaptations out there, this isn't the worst one ever done, it's just not as exciting as others. On the plus side, the film is a tremendous production and effects film that Bryan Singer should be proud of. If you enjoy behind the scenes documentaries that go into detail on how everything was done, then Superman Returns is a Blu-ray that needs to be added to your collection immediately. They put in hours of footage on how this film was made and you can't help but appreciate the effort. This film was made with love and respect to the source material, but at the end of the day, I think people wanted a bit more action with their Superman film.


Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

Superman Returns is a mixed bag for some. Yes, there is a lot of talking and it can be boring, but when the Superman action picks up, it's pretty enjoyable. The cast is good, the effects and visual aspects of the film a spectacle to behold, and I think it was one of the better Superman films we've seen thus far. It showed that a modern representation of Superman could be achieved, it just probably needed a few more scenes that would've kept audiences riveted.

Superman Returns and movie images are copyrighted by Warner Bros.

Batman: The Animated Series- Batman: Mask of the Phantasm Review

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993)
Starring: Kevin Conroy, Mark Hamill, Dana Delany
Directed by: Bruce Timm and Eric Radomski


In between my season reviews of Batman: The Animated Series from my television blog, I thought I'd take the time to review the first time this version of Batman made the jump to the big screen. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm was originally supposed to be a straight to VHS release, but it was pushed for a theatrical release at the end of 1993. There was very little advertisement for it, and as a result, was not the big box office success it could have been. Since then, the film has garnered a huge following as an underrated animated classic. After watching it, I can definitely see where that statement holds merit. Think about it, the show is one of the best animated shows in existence, so as long as the directors and animators kept it in the same style as the show, it would be a hit no matter what kind of story they gave to us. With a heightened budget, this really felt like a proper film based on the animated series just stretched to the length of about 4 episodes. Not only that, Mask of the Phantasm is pound for pound one of the best Batman movies I've ever seen and one of the best animated movies I've ever seen to not come from Disney. So let's see what makes Batman: Mask of the Phantasm great.

Like the show it's based on, Batman: Mask of the Phantasm has a wonderful cast of voices to bring the Gotham characters to life. If you're part of geek culture, it's pretty well-known that Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill ARE Batman and The Joker for a lot of people, myself included. They do their job well as usual, but I really think Conroy gets a lot of great material to sink his teeth into with playing Bruce Wayne. We get a lot of looks into his past, so you can see a lot of emotional range that spans a full-length story arc. He is able to keep the emotion going for well over an hour and you can really sympathize with him during his emotional trauma. And then you can root for him when he kicks the bad guys' faces in. Other strong voice additions to the cast include Dana Delany as Andrea Beaumont, a lost love from Bruce's past who has returned to Gotham, and Stacy Keach as the voice of the Phantasm, a new vigilante in Gotham that is terrorizing foes with more deadly intent than Batman ever had.

If you like the music and animation style from the show, you'll really like how they're able to expand upon it in Mask of the Phantasm. You have a much bigger budget to bring the world of Gotham to life in film rather than on television, and the showrunners knew that heading in. The backgrounds look much more defined, lines on character sketches are crisper, colors are more vibrant, and shadows appear more brooding than ever. This was really a great way to preserve the animation style we already knew from the store and improve the quality even further.

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm deserves the praise it has had since it was released. More and more people are discovering it and I'm so glad that's the case. The animation is great, the music is great, the voice cast is great, and the story is great. Like, really great. There's a fantastic amount of film noir and mystery added into the film, not relying on a mainstream villain for the plot. Of course, they do throw the Joker in, but still, he's not the main focus. He's a scene stealer like always, but he's still able to be in the background until he's important to the main story. The film focuses as a good way to dive deep into Bruce's past to see the life he almost had, the choices that led to him accepting his vow to justice, and early glimpses into how he became Batman. All this is done in an hour and 15 minutes and I don't feel like anything is rushed or missing. The people who created this phenomenal animated franchise really knew what they were doing in executing it. They had the mindsets of the show's devoted fans and casual fans of the comic books in mind when doing this. But the most important aspect the creators had was that they had a deep love and appreciation for the source material and it greatly shows in their work.


Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

If you're a fan of Batman: The Animated Series, you'll love Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. It maintains the quality and integrity of the show and brings it to life on the big screen with a compelling mystery, great characters, and fantastic animation. Don't let this film wait in the shadows any longer. Discover it for yourself as soon as you can. You won't be disappointed.

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm and movie images are copyrighted by Warner Bros.

Superman Retrospective: Superman IV: The Quest for Peace

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)
Starring: Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, Margot Kidder
Directed by: Sidney J. Furie


We got another bad one here, but this one is considered the absolute worst of the Superman movies. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace is one of the biggest failures in film history. It was a critical and financial flop and was the final nail in the coffin of the Christopher Reeve Superman movies. The Man of Steel wouldn't be seen on the big screen again for nearly 20 years, and we have this movie to blame. So what was so bad about it? Well, with a preachy message, a cheesy script, mediocre acting, atrocious effects, and an overall film experience that feels as far removed from the original movie as possible, how would you expect a movie like that to be a success? That being said, this movie is a huge guilty pleasure to sit through. I won't in any way say that it's a good movie, in fact it's awful, but I can't deny that I had a really fun time watching it. It was unintentionally hilarious, one of the worst comic book movies I've ever seen, and a film that shows all the things we'd like to forget about the '80s. So let's see why Superman IV: The Quest for Peace is terrible, but has a certain campy charm to it.

The last main character of the original movies that I've neglected to talk about yet is Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor. I'm aware that Hackman is one of the great actors of his era, but I never really took to this depiction of Lex. Maybe it's an accurate depiction based on the golden age of comics, but based on the versions that have come out since I've been born, Hackman's version was way too cheesy for me. Not to mention this film gave us his goofy nephew Lenny Luthor, played by Duckie himself Jon Cryer. I'm really surprised Hackman returned to the role of Lex Luthor considering his falling out with the producers over the firing of Richard Donner. I'm even more surprised he returned after he read the script.

Gene Hackman also voices the new supervillain Nuclear Man, who is played by Mark Pillow. What else needs to be said? He has a ridiculous look, costume, powers, and isn't from the comic books. Comic fans and movie fans can easily see Nuclear Man as one of the most laughable villains in movie history. The man has super scratchy nails for crying out loud. My goodness.

The Superman movies used to be regarded and praised for their attention to detail in state of the art special effects. All that is completely flushed down the toilet when you watch Superman IV. The amount of poorly used green screen effects and recycled shots of Superman flying create some of the most poorly conceived action sequences in comic book movie history. Look at the awful, slow motion sissy fights between Superman and Nuclear Man. Watch some poor stop-motion that is used with the random "rebuilding the Great Wall of China" powers. Pay attention to how staged it looks when someone breaks through a wall or flies through the ceiling. And speaking of flying, cringe at the amount of wires you can see in this film. The first film in the series proved to the world a man could fly, but Superman IV proves to the world that a studio can cut as many corners in the effects department to save money.

One positive with Superman IV: The Quest for Peace is that I think they know it would be a bit of a schlockfest, so they decided to cut it to an hour and a half runtime. With that in mind, that makes this a little easier to power through if you want to just get it over with, but this is still not the way Christopher Reeve should've gone out as Superman on the big screen. There's an overly preachy anti-nuclear missile message, horrible special effects, a million subplots that don't go anywhere, and is probably the film entry in the franchise that shows the time period it was made in the most. You can tell that a movie like this is a product of the '80s and not in a good way. This is the kind of Superman movie that you would expect to be made specifically for TV or straight to VHS. This shouldn't have been a theatrical release and it shouldn't have borrowed the actors and continuity of the original movies.


Rating: 0.5 out of 5 stars

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace is one of those movies that are just so bad, but so much fun to watch. If you can go 90 minutes without taking Superman too seriously, I'm sure you'll have a good laugh at the performances, the effects, and the cheesy message that belongs in a Captain Planet episode. If you love the Son of Krypton with your heart and soul, you need to avoid this film at all costs.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace and movie images are copyrighted by Warner Bros.

Superman Retrospective: Superman III

Superman III (1983)
Starring: Christopher Reeve, Richard Pryor, Robert Vaughn
Directed by: Richard Lester


You may have noticed I haven't gone ahead and put the Superman series under my "Favorite Franchises." We've arrived to the main reason I'm not able to consider it a favorite: Any of the movies to take place after Superman II. I don't have a novelty or nostalgia for Superman and I'm discovering a lot of these movies for the first time, so I'm still figuring out how I feel about the original Superman series before I can label it a favorite. However, if my reactions to the next couple of films are like how the other moviegoers have reacted to them, I think the title of my reviews will remain how they are. Superman III was the beginning of the end in quality for the original series of films. Where did it go wrong? Had the novelty worn off? Had the studios run out of idea? I can't say for sure, but I can say that it's just a really boring movie, with a handful of decent effects and maybe one or two good ideas, that made the biggest mistake a Superman movie can make by making a movie that isn't really about Superman.

So, who is Superman III about? Richard Pryor as computer genius Gus Gorman. Talk about completely missing the mark with a role. I won't dispute that Pryor was one of the best comedians of his era, but he doesn't belong in this movie. AT ALL. He has more camera time in the film than Superman does. And that's just wrong. His performance is so bumbling and awkward that it's actually painful to watch. If you watched this performance and I told you Pryor's day job was being a standup comedian, you'd assume I'm lying. It's THAT bad of a performance. There's other villains in the film, but they're pretty generic in comparison to how much of a ham Pryor is trying to be. To think, the logic of Warner Bros. at the time was to follow up great villains like Lex Luthor and General Zod with Richard Pryor. Were they smoking Kryptonite or something?

There's not a whole bunch to write home about in Superman III, so I might as well talk up a few pros the series has going for it that I haven't brought up yet. I'll start with Clark Kent's day job at the Daily Planet. It holds two very good depictions of classic Superman characters. Perry White, played by Jackie Cooper, is a great no-nonsense editor for the paper and Jimmy Olsen, played by Marc McClure, is a young and energetic photographer. Both play a key part in the environment that takes up most of Clark's time, so we get to know them a little more over the course of the movies. Interestingly, McClure is the first person to appear as a comic book movie character 5 different times (the 4 Superman movies and the Supergirl spinoff). That's something you'd expect to be achieved first by Hugh Jackman or Robert Downey, Jr., not from the guy who played Jimmy Olsen. Cooper was part of the 4 Superman movies as well, making these two the only main characters and actors to be in the same number of movies as Superman and Lois Lane.

Now's a better time than any to address that epic Superman theme song, courtesy of John Williams. All the movies in the original series used this majestic song, despite having different composers for every film. They just kept coming back to that John Williams theme because it so perfectly captures the spectacle of the Man of Steel. Odds are this is the song that comes to mind when you picture Superman. It's John Williams for crying out loud. Of course it's going to be a fantastic song.

Trying way too hard to be funny, Superman III comes off more as a giant bore. Having Christopher Reeve step aside for Richard Pryor in the battle for screen time is not the memorable blockbuster experience moviegoers were looking for. And that's a real shame because there are a couple of things worth noting that actually work in the film. There are a number of scenes where they really brought their A game in terms of special effects and I wish these effects could have been utilized for a much better film. There's an amazing, but brief, subplot involving Superman turning into a bit of a jerk. This gives Reeve an amazing opportunity to take Superman to that attitude and behavior he would normally never get to go and could even draw some inspiration from Bizarro. There's an amazing tease for an impending love triangle between Clark Kent, Lois Lane, and Lana Lang, played by Annette O'Toole (a fun easter egg for all you Smallville fans out there), and it goes absolutely nowhere by the next film. All these ideas work, but the problem is they aren't even remotely memorable when you look at the film as a whole. When you say the title Superman III, all I can remember is that it is inferior to the first 2 movies and made the idiotic mistake of having Richard Pryor be the main character in a Superman movie.


Rating: 1 out of 5 stars

The two biggest problems I can have with Superman III is that it's a boring movie, as well as a movie that feels more like fans of Richard Pryor instead of fans of Superman. If you like visual effects or the hint at Bizarro Superman, then you might like a few scenes here and there, but this is one you can easily skip.

Superman III and movie images are copyrighted by Warner Bros.

Superman Retrospective: Superman II- Theatrical Version vs. Richard Donner Director's Cut

Superman II (1980)
Starring: Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, Margot Kidder
Directed by; Richard Lester (or Richard Donner, depending on the version you watch)


The production history for Superman: The Movie was a complete nightmare. Director Richard Donner went over budget numerous times and multiple delays led to them wrapping up filming only a couple of months before the final film was to be released. Because of this, the producers decided to fire Richard Donner and replace him with Richard Lester as director for Superman II. The only problem, Donner had already begun filming Superman II and had quite a bit of it shot before he was fired. By the time Lester took over and shot his own footage, many of the actors were upset about Donner's dismissal and the end of production was filled with tension and mixed feelings towards the new director. So in 2006, around the release of Superman Returns, interest was buzzing to see what Donner's version of Superman II would look like, leading to the restored and re-edited director's cut known as Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut. Rather than do two separate reviews and repeat myself a lot, I thought I'd touch base on the major focal points of the original Superman II, but also offer my thoughts in comparison with The Richard Donner Cut, as they are 2 completely different movies in many ways. So let's see which version of Superman 2 makes for the better movie experience, as well as the better sequel to the original film.

One of the major pros of Superman II are the villains. General Zod, played by Terence Stamp, is a terrific main bad guy because he's hungry on power. He loves the idea of defeating someone, making them feel inferior, and absorbing all land and power that they possess. If he goes unchallenged, he gets bored. That's fantastic. Non, played by Jack O'Halloran, is your standard silent muscle character. And then there's Ursa, played by Sarah Douglas. This chick is just plain CRUEL. She has a blood lust and really enjoys causing pain, hurting others, making people feel inferior. At least someone like Zod has an air of political nature and wisdom in his conquests, but Ursa is just about causing pain to others. And it's very enjoyable to watch. These are three Kryptonian fugitives who have the same powers as Superman does, leading to awesome displays of power you would never see from the Man of Steel.

The competency of Lois Lane, played by Margot Kidder, varies depending on which version of the film you're watching. I think she works strongest in The Richard Donner Cut. Thanks to the order of a couple of scenes, she is able to figure out quickly that Superman and Clark Kent are the same person, then puts it to the test. In the theatrical version, she's still playing around with the idea for the first half, and it's only because of him slipping up that she finally gets confirmation. The Richard Donner Cut makes her feel more resourceful, which you would believe from a top journalist like Lois Lane. She has a theory early on and goes to any lengths to prove that theory right. I like that a lot more than her being in the right place at the right time.

At the end of the day, Richard Lester had a challenge ahead of him when he joined Superman II. With most of the scenes already filmed, he had to go and reshoot stuff that felt like a movie he would make. Because of that, there's a number of scenes and sequences that are altered or completely redone before making it to the final product. The film opens with a scene involving terrorists in France, leading to the way Zod, Ursa, and Non are released from the Phantom Zone. The scenes in the Fortress of Solitude feature all Kryptonians not named Jor-El appearing due to the amount of money it would have cost to put Marlon Brando in the film. This and a few other creative decisions definitely give the film a different flavor in comparison, but I think the big positive take away from it is that it gives Lester his own style as a director. If the goal was to capture some of the heart that the original had, while still creating a sequel that can stand on its own, then I think Lester's version succeeded. The film opens with a complete recap of the first movie to cover the common ground established in the series and is then able to explore and expand the story possibilities. I like that quite a bit.

However, I'm a much stronger fan of continuity, so I like The Richard Donner Cut more than just "quite a bit." For starters, this film has Jor-El in it, which always helps thanks to the magnitude Marlon Brando had as a star. Not to mention a lot of the plot points and creative decisions call back to moments from the first movie, like how Zod and the others are freed from the Phantom Zone. I think a lot of that boils down to the idea that the story was written for 2 movies, which Donner began filming consecutively. The story feels more complete with Donner's version, created as a way to be a companion film with Superman: The Movie. Sure, Donner's version features a couple of scenes from the Lester version, but that's just something you have to get over for the sake of finalizing a film project. Also, the effects are a little primitive, which I almost considered a negative. But when I saw the bonus features and they said they were trying to replicate effects that were plausible at the time the film would have been released, I forgave it and actually considered it a stroke of creative genius. It's with The Richard Donner Cut that I can really see a lot of love and respect put into a project like this. This was 30 years after the original version was released, so this wasn't something that NEEDED to be made. But an overwhelming number of requests from the fans motivated them to bring this project to life. I definitely can appreciate the dedication it took to restore this lost film and create something that rivals, and in many ways triumphs over the actual theatrical version.


Rating: 3 out of 5 stars for the Theatrical Version / 4 out of 5 stars for The Donner Cut

Both versions of Superman II are good movies, but I definitely have a favorite. The Richard Donner Cut is a much better companion piece to Superman: The Movie, which would arguably make it the better sequel. And I'd argue that it's the best Superman movie from the original series. If you have the time, I'd recommend checking out both versions of the film to see which one holds greater value with you. But, if you've only got the patience to sit through one version, I'd give a stronger nod to The Richard Donner Cut.

Superman II and movie images are copyrighted by Warner Bros.