Originally Posted by
Adekis
Reeve is phenomenal in the role, I think we can pretty much all agree on that, but I don't think any of the movies hold up that well.
There's a lot of things I could point to in Superman I from Gene Hackman pretending his real hair is a wig playing an overly goofy Luthor who for some reason is obsessed with real estate, to the sterile Krypton which had nothing to say about the dynamic, beautiful Krypton of the comics at the time. I could talk about the questionable time travel inconsistent with time travel in the comics at the time, or just having a Lois who isn't quite hard boiled enough for me, or Otis, the hated one. I could talk about how bad I think that poem Lois reads comes across.
Ultimately though, my biggest problem with Superman I is that the Salkinds think Superman is a paragon of old-fashioned values, standing against the cynical modern world, instead of the historically progressive figure Superman actually is. Superman and the Mole Men did a good job with the progressive Superman. This is a problem which informs every movie in the Reeve series, but since the first one is the most influential, I think bringing it up here is fine.
Superman II tries to experiment with the character, and I respect that, and Reeve's acting as he experiments, but ultimately I think the movie creates the impression that Superman is totally useless without his powers, not only losing his physical abilities but his ability to effectively stand up to bullies as well. I know some people hate that Superman went back and got revenge on Rocky in the diner. I'm more annoyed that he lost the first fight to begin with. Reeve deftly switches between Clark and Superman multiple times per sentence as he tries to stand up to Rocky, completely unsure of how to comport himself without any powers. It's masterful acting and dreadful characterization. And then of course, at the end of the movie after killing Zod, he mind wipes Lois without her consent, which is absolutely reprehensible, an utterly horrific and immoral action which grants her no agency and treats her with no respect. I will never forgive that bit.
Superman III is probably my favorite of the four films. It's got a really mediocre and goofy main plot, but the sub plot with Lana is sublime and the weird thing with Clark fighting ******* Superman actually stands to codify the later universal idea of Clark as Superman's conscience. I legitimately love all that. Gus and the Luthor stand-in aren't great at all though. At least Superman for once doesn't use any powers he doesn't have in the comics! And Jimmy actually puts himself in danger on purpose to get the shot. I definitely love that.
Superman IV is a really frustrating combination between a good faith effort to make a meaningful, political Superman movie (albeit with a political message which in retrospect is utterly and completely uncontroversial, no idea if it was read that way at the time), and a cynical cash grab that retreads all the worst parts of Superman I and II. We're reminded that Superman mind-wiped Lois, we get a worse version of the flight scene without the good effects, Clark once again regains his powers in an unexplained way summed up as "magic crystals", etc. I kind of like Nuclear Man, and I think this movie actually has my favorite relationship between Luthor and Superman, but it's definitely not very good in total.
Reeve's a great actor with a great performance as Superman. I just wish I thought one of his movies was unequivocally good, because I don't.