Your opinion on the Superman movies starring Christopher Reeve.

[Linda Lee]

Please write or gif your opinions on the Superman films starring Christopher Reeve.

I like superman more than superman ll because I have never enjoyed the part when kal-el gets beat up by rocky in the diner. Even though it gave us the perfect " Gee that's funny I've never seen garbage eat garbage before" and "I've been working out " lines.

[superduperman]

The Donner movies defined how I see Superman. Or at least one of two versions that defined the character for me. Keep in mind, Superman 2 wasn't necessarily written by Donner so the "goofier" elements like that weren't his idea. I was about eight when I first saw Superman 2 so I didn't notice the flaws in it until later on. I don't know that I'd have as high an opinion of it today if I first saw it now. Didn't care for Superman 3 but didn't mind Superman 4 as much as everyone else did.

[kurenai24]

These movies were my first introduction to Superman but as a kid growing up in the 90's you would think it would be the animated series.

This movie impacted how I viewed the character of Lois Lane and her relationship with Clark and his alter ego. As a little kid, I saw her as never really liking Clark and only liking him when she found out he was Superman, I also thought she took advantage of him, and I didn't like that Superman was always there for her and essentially came at her beck and call ...of course as a kid I couldn't define this but when I was a little older and did a rewatch, I was able to pin it down.

As a result of the characterization of Lois and the relationship shown in these movies, it really soured me on the character Superman and it wasn't until I watched the Justice League animated series that I realized that Superman is a cool character and that I liked him as long as he wasn't attached to this character I disliked and would (in the future) continue to dislike no matter what iteration it was.

I think this movie had the opposite effect on me as a child, I think for others the portrayls done in this movie ecapsulate and define these characters but it didn't for me, but I did enjoy them overall, as a kid it was nice entertainment.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

The first one is an all-time classic. The second one is half a film (even the Richard Donner Cut). The rest are complete trash with a few good moments because Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder are flat out perfectly cast.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

And John Williams theme is unsurpassed in terms of superhero films

[TheFalcon72]

The first two movies are great and I think the first is a masterpiece of filmmaking from Richard Donner especially as it invoked the quintessential Americana in the Smallville scenes. I think the young Clark Kent was great especially the scenes with Glenn Ford and Donner's sweeping pan over the Kent Cornfield. How Richard Donner got the nuanced performance from Marlon Brando is a myster to me. While I've never worked in the media I would imagine the scenes in the Daily Planet captured the chaos of a newsroom. Super mans first night in costume was suitably heroic and even the minor scenes where the little girl is spanked by her mother after her cat is rescued was by Superman reminded me somewhat of my childhood during the 1970s.

Having said that I think one of my favourite scene in a Superman movie is the school bus rescue and starship reveal in Man of Steel.

[dancj]

They're all flawed.

The Movie

The whole long long section set on Krypton is a bit tedious. The arrival on Earth and growing up stuff was good. Christopher Reeve was perfect casting and is spot on in the role. Margot Kidder is good too. Gene Hackman could be perfect casting, but they chose to create a comic relief villain with no resemblance to Lex Luthor. I don't blame Hackman for that, but it's a terrible version.

The ending gives a big reset switch that he could use in every film that follows. Big msitake.

As a whole, the film was groundbreaking, but doesn't date well.

II

Horribly dated costumes for the Kryptonians, but they were good in the roles.

The biggest problem here is that they hadn't learn how to do Superhero fights (or maybe the technology wasn't there yet). The way they stand there and take turns attacking each other is just weird.

There were some good bits, and Reeve is excellent, but again, it dates badly.

III

Honestly I really like this one. I don't know why. Most of the jokes fall quite flat, but Lana Lang was well cast and Robert Vaughan made a good prototype for the new Luthor which Byrne and Wolfman would bring out a few years later.

The fight in the scrapyard suffers the same problem as the one in the previous film, but as I see that fight as more symbolic than physical, it kind of gets away with it.

It also dates badly, but I think I'd be more likely to watch this than any other.

Reeves is still excellent.

The Quest for Peace

Just terrible. Reeves was probably still good, but for the most part I've blotted it from my memory.

[stargazer01]

Superman 1 was great, but the campy villains (mostly Otis) haven't aged well. Also the turning back time scene makes me cringe now because is cheating and too convenient. Still somehow it works for this Superman. And Chris Reeve is perfect as Superman. His Clark is too over the top for me now. Loved it as a kid.

Superman 2 is good, but more flawed. Still very enjoyable. Really don't like the amnesia kiss and Superman giving up his powers to be with Lois.

Superman 3 is not very good, but it's fun in a weird way. Chris Reeve looks amazing and some scenes like the Superman/Clark fight really work.

Superman 4 is a mess but it has good intentions. Only for big Reeve fans.



I wish we had had a solid Superman 3 movie worthy of the character. These series of movies would be a lot more satisfying.. We Superman fans just can't win when it comes to live action films..

[Zero Hunter]

To me they are a product of their time.

[Linda Lee]

They're all flawed.

The Movie

The whole long long section set on Krypton is a bit tedious. The arrival on Earth and growing up stuff was good. Christopher Reeve was perfect casting and is spot on in the role. Margot Kidder is good too. Gene Hackman could be perfect casting, but they chose to create a comic relief villain with no resemblance to Lex Luthor. I don't blame Hackman for that, but it's a terrible version.

The ending gives a big reset switch that he could use in every film that follows. Big msitake.

As a whole, the film was groundbreaking, but doesn't date well.

II

Horribly dated costumes for the Kryptonians, but they were good in the roles.

The biggest problem here is that they hadn't learn how to do Superhero fights (or maybe the technology wasn't there yet). The way they stand there and take turns attacking each other is just weird.

There were some good bits, and Reeve is excellent, but again, it dates badly.

III

Honestly I really like this one. I don't know why. Most of the jokes fall quite flat, but Lana Lang was well cast and Robert Vaughan made a good prototype for the new Luthor which Byrne and Wolfman would bring out a few years later.

The fight in the scrapyard suffers the same problem as the one in the previous film, but as I see that fight as more symbolic than physical, it kind of gets away with it.

It also dates badly, but I think I'd be more likely to watch this than any other.

Reeves is still excellent.

The Quest for Peace

Just terrible. Reeves was probably still good, but for the most part I've blotted it from my memory.

None of the movies are flawed. Just because you disliked certain things doesnt mean there actually flawed. I like all of the movies for exactly what they are. Some scenes envoke different emotions ( like when rocky beats up superman I get defensive) but that doesnt mean that there wrong or flawed. That's how the movie was released.

[Linda Lee]

Superman 1 was great, but the campy villains (mostly Otis) haven't aged well. Also the turning back time scene makes me cringe now because is cheating and too convenient. Still somehow it works for this Superman. And Chris Reeve is perfect as Superman. His Clark is too over the top for me now. Loved it as a kid.

Superman 2 is good, but more flawed. Still very enjoyable. Really don't like the amnesia kiss and Superman giving up his powers to be with Lois.

Superman 3 is not very good, but it's fun in a weird way. Chris Reeve looks amazing and some scenes like the Superman/Clark fight really work.

Superman 4 is a mess but it has good intentions. Only for big Reeve fans.



I wish we had had a solid Superman 3 movie worthy of the character. These series of movies would be a lot more satisfying.. We Superman fans just can't win when it comes to live action films..

Thanks for writing. I agree that Reeve was perfect. I dont understand the public hate for superman 4....

[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.

[LordUltimus]

Important in the realms of comic and movie history, but writers need to move on from it, stop using crystaltech, and let Lois Lane be a better speller than your average first grader.

[Linda Lee]

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.

Thank you very much for taking the time to write this. I agree with alot of your opinions. I think that Clark should have never have sought out redemption on rocky. ( He shouldn't have lost in the first place like you said.) I'm still dumb founded about lois lane. And Jimmy Olsen trapped by fire at the chemical plant is great. Thanks for taking to time to talk about a movie that's been out for a long time.

[DochaDocha]

They're my introduction to Superman. I'm sure to a lot of people it's still the standard by which the concept of Superman will always be compared.

As for the movies themselves, the special effects didn't age well (I think something like The Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston have more timeless special effects, for instance; ditto The Wizard of Oz), and the modern moviegoer probably would care for the tone of the movies. It'll always have its place in history, but I don't think it's a movie that should be emulated. I do think it's kind of funny to think that the movie came out when Superman wasn't weighed down so much by unfair or unrealistic expectations. I feel like back then, you could just tell a Superman movie and not worry about what Superman is or isn't, what Superman does and does not do.