Franchises: The First Superman Film Series. Superman Returns (2006)

In 2005, Batman was finally redeemed from nearly a decade's worth of mockery due to Batman & Robin and made awesome again with the release of Batman Begins. This, along with the enormous successes of Spider-Man 1 and 2 before it, signaled that superhero movies were back in a big way and that they were also now being viewed with a lot more respect rather than being written off as simply kids' stuff. And, therefore, since the Caped Crusader had returned to movie screens, it wasn't all that surprising when the Man of Steel did the same the following year. I know that Warner Bros. had been trying to do another Superman movie for a long time and that they were already well into production when Batman Begins was released but I'm pretty sure that the big critical and commercial success of that film really inspired them to hype up this flick. Speaking from a personal standpoint, I hadn't yet seen the original Superman at this time and I also wasn't very interested in the character either, so the announcement of Superman Returns didn't have much of an impact on me (I was impressed by how they were able to find someone who looked a lot like Christopher Reeve, though). I only started to become really interested in Superman the very summer that Superman Returns was released when I saw the documentary  Look Up In The Sky! The Amazing Story of Superman on A&E as well as when I finally got my first  substantial look of the original Christopher Reeve movie. That said, though, I still didn't see Superman Returns in the theater...

...and from everything that I heard and read at the time, I hadn't missed much. The impression that I got from both critics and general audiences was that the film was a huge letdown and did not live up to the hype that came with it. The biggest criticisms I heard was that the film wasn't very exciting, that it was overlong and plodding, which, looking back on them, remind me a lot of the reception that Ang Lee's Hulk got back in 2003 (for the record, I really like that film) and even at the time, I was thinking to myself, "Wow, it looks like this was just another over-hyped, bloated comic book movie." I got my first look at the movie after Christmas that year when I was at Wal-Mart and they had it playing on those TVs they sometimes have set up. I actually got there early enough to see the opening titles and even though I didn't pay much attention to it, they looked promising enough from what I saw and the movie was also using the John Williams theme, which was cool. But, I still didn't think much about it afterward until the following summer when I had really become interested in the Superman character and was now a big fan of the original movie. That was when I finally saw Superman Returns when I bought it on DVD along with both versions of Superman II and Superman III and when I finally did see it, I understood why it wasn't that popular of a movie. While my opinion on it has softened since then, I wasn't all that impressed with the movie after that first viewing. I thought to myself, "Well, everybody's right: it's way too long and there's not enough excitement." Honestly, while I won't say that I ever hated it, I didn't go all that easy on it after that first viewing either. Part of that could be due to some personal issues I was going through at the time but another part of it is simply due to the fact that, despite the good intentions that went into it, Superman Returns is a very flawed and, in some aspects, not very well thought out film. I don't think it's horrible and there is some good stuff here in my opinion but, on the whole, I can totally understand why it wasn't that big of a hit with the general public in 2006.

Five years ago, astronomers discovered what they believed were the remains of Krypton and, upon hearing this, Superman disappeared to embark upon a journey through the universe to see for himself. However, he has now returned to Earth after not having found anything and resumes his job at the Daily Planet as Clark Kent, discovering that not only has Lois Lane won her long desired Pulitzer Prize for an article entitled, "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman," but that she also now has both a fiancé and a child. Circumstances soon arise that force Clark to become Superman and reveal to the entire world and Lois, who is involved in the incident at hand, that he's back. At the same time, the evil Lex Luthor, who was released from prison due to Superman's failure to appear at his trial, has used the fortune he received from a deceased widow that he married to begin his criminal activities again. He steals a handful of crystals from the Fortress of Solitude and intends to use their unique properties to grow a new continent off the East Coast, destroying North America in the process, killing billions of people, and giving him full control of the only land available for any survivors. It's not too long before Luthor puts his plan into action and Superman must risk his own life, due to the continent's Kryptonite-laden crust, to save not only Lois and her small family but countless other lives as well. 

To date, Superman Returns is the only film by Bryan Singer that I've ever seen, which is sad, I know, since this is hardly his best film from what I hear. While I'm pretty sure that I will see The Usual Suspects some time down the road since I've heard it's a really good flick, I have no interest whatsoever in his X-Men movies, or any other X-Men movie, for that matter, since I've never been a fan of those characters in any capacity. In any case, I can understand why they eventually went with Singer to bring Superman back to the big screen. After going through so many screenplays and a varied lot of writers and directors like Kevin Smith, Tim Burton (personally, I'm glad that he didn't direct it; in my opinion, his dark, quirky style may have worked for Batman but I don't think it would have meshed well with Superman), McG, and J.J. Abrams, Singer's success with the first two X-Men movies made him a no-brainer for the gig. And in addition, Singer has stated many times how much he loves the first Superman and, as a show of respect, actually asked for Richard Donner's opinion on his story pitch for Superman Returns. So, it seemed like Warner Bros. was on the right track by hiring him. Unfortunately, though, I think Singer's love for the original film ended up being this movie's biggest hindrance. Now, if you've read my review of the first Superman, you'd know how much I truly love that film and, therefore, I completely respect and encourage Singer's admiration of it. But, I think he got so caught up in continuing that movie's storyline and making a movie as similar to it as possible that he ended up making one that has a major feeling of, "Been there, done that." As we'll get into, I think that's the biggest problem with Superman Returns: it may have been a new Superman movie but it was so stuck in the past that it didn't offer anything that fresh or exciting.

For a concrete example of my above criticism, let's briefly look over how the story of the movie flows as well as some of the details. When Superman returns to Earth after failing to find the remains of Krypton, he not only crashes near his widowed mother's farm but the ship he does so in looks like a much larger version of the pod he landed on Earth in as a baby in the first movie (are Kryptonian spaceships just incapable of landing without crashing?). When he first becomes Superman, we see him running through the streets of Metropolis and open his shirt to reveal the 'S', just as we did in the original movie. In addition, his first act as Superman is to prevent a disaster that would have killed Lois Lane (the only difference here is that it's an airplane instead of a helicopter and there many more people in jeopardy as well) and after doing so, he informs everyone that, despite this little incident, flying is still the safest way to travel. Lois also faints at the end of both sequences. After he makes his return known, Perry White calls everyone together to tell them that he wants it all in print, just like he did after Superman first revealed himself to the world in the first movie. When he and Lois meet each other for the first time after the rescue, they have a small interview that leads to him flying her around the city. Lex Luthor's plan here is simply a more amped up, catastrophic version of his real estate scheme from the first movie (this time, instead of simply destroying the West Coast, he plans on destroying the whole of North America) and, also like before, he steals some Kryptonite from a museum in order to ensure that Superman won't interfere (again, the use of the Kryptonite here is a beefed up version of how Luthor used it before). Speaking of Luthor here, he even has a new female cohort who is visibly disgusted by his psychotic nature and ultimately betrays him at the end, ensuring that he won't be able to attempt this scheme again. Do you get my point yet? Homage is okay but when you borrow so many elements from a past film and actually build your movie around them, you're going to give your audience a feeling of deja vu and trust me, that novelty quickly wears off and can negatively affect the viewing experience.

Let's be frank about Brandon Routh: the reason that he was cast is because he looks a lot like Christopher Reeve. I'm not saying that he's a bad actor, and I also don't think that he was particularly bad in this movie, but his similarity to Reeve had to have been their incentive for putting him in the suit. While I can't fault them for that since this movie is supposed to be in continuity with the first two (I'll get into the many problems with that later, though), that's about as far as it goes. Again, Routh isn't terrible but at the same time, he's not memorable either since he's only meant to be a stand-in for Reeve. Plus, he just doesn't have the charisma and charm that Reeve did and I feel bad for saying that because he does seem to be trying and you also have to think about what a burden it must have been for him to step into that costume and play Superman in the same continuity  as arguably the most beloved actor to ever take on the role (compare it to when George Lazenby temporarily replaced Sean Connery as James Bond and I think you'll get the idea). But, that said, I have to be honest: try as he might, Routh is no Christopher Reeve. He looks good in the suit, I'll give him that, but the way he plays Superman as well as Clark Kent in private is very one-note. His voice never changes when he plays those two sides of the character and his emotions don't seem to either. The only time I saw any real change in him as Superman was during the last third of the movie when he was struggling to thwart Luthor's plan due to the Kryptonite and when he visits his son at the end. Other than that, I think he looks good as Superman but that's pretty much it. And as for when he plays Clark Kent at the Daily Planet... (sigh) again, all I can see is him trying to duplicate what Reeve did when playing that side of the character. He had all the mannerisms: the clumsiness, the slouching, the constant adjusting of the glasses, the slight stutter etc., but he came across as a copycat and not actually as the character. And for that matter, he doesn't change his voice that much from when he's being Clark and when he's being Superman. That was one of the reasons why you could buy people not recognizing Reeve's Clark as being Superman: the nervous, slightly high-pitched voice as well as the clumsiness. All Routh does is tone his Superman voice down just a couple of notches and add a slight stutter and feeling of nervousness. That actually makes me wonder why nobody realizes that he's Superman since it's so obviously a put-on and also makes me not buy the moment when Lois and her fiancé Richard briefly wonder if that is the case but then dismiss it. In conclusion, Routh is not horrible at all and feels sincere but at the same time, he's trying to be a stand-in for Christopher Reeve and that's an impossible task. No one will ever be able to replace Reeve or match what he did as the character and they shouldn't have even tried.

As for the costume that Routh wears as Superman... eh, it's okay. It's a decent updating of the classic costume that Reeve wore and I understand that probably wouldn't work in this day and age but I still prefer it. This costume's colors are a little too dark, especially the cape and boots with their rather dull, brown-like color (I've seen other pictures and while they were  apparently red, they still look brown in the actual movie to me) and leathery texture instead of the bright red, robe-like cape and royal guard-like boots that Reeve wore. This is just me but I think that Superman's suit should have really bright colors and Batman is the one whose suit should be very dark. In fact, doesn't this suit kind of look like the one that Evil Superman wore in Superman III? I just hit upon that when I watched that movie again in order to do these reviews but if you look at them side by side, they do look very similar. And finally, the 'S' has always looked funky to me. The texture of it when you see it in close-up like up above  makes me think of what the 'S' on a Superman Halloween costume would look like; it has that assembly line look and feel to it. In actuality, the reason the 'S' looks that way is because it's made up of a bunch of little 'S's' (until I saw that close picture up above, I was never able to make that out) but still, it doesn't look all that genuine to me. By this point, you probably think I hate the Superman suit in this movie and while I really don't, I still do have a lot of personal issues with it (but then again, I'm a weird guy so there's that too).



Yeah, just keep pretending like there's something meaningful between
you two.

What ever personal issues you may have with Brandon Routh, at least he was trying to bring to life a performance, which is more than I can say for Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. My God, I don't think they could have picked a worse actor for that role if they tried. Bosworth gives one of the most flat, emotionless performances possible. There's none of the spunk or fire that Margot Kidder had or even the cynicism and sarcastic sense of humor that Dana Delany brought to Lois in the 90's animated series. I know Lois is supposed to be more than a little bitter because Superman left her life without so much as a goodbye and that she's not too happy about his sudden return, particularly since she's moved on with her life, but that doesn't mean she has to be an empty, soulless  shell of the woman she once was. And that's another thing: I don't buy at all that this is supposed to be the same Lois that Margot Kidder played. Not only does her lack of personality hinder that for me but it's also just the way she looks. She doesn't look at all like Kidder for one thing and for another, Bosworth was twenty-two when she was cast whereas Kidder was almost thirty when she first played the role. If this is supposed to be in continuity with the first two movies, then shouldn't they have hired a woman in her mid-30's to play Lois? I guess they figured that someone like that wouldn't work when paired up with the twenty-six-year old Brandon Routh (they probably should have tried to find someone around that same age to play Superman as well; although, to be fair, Routh was about the same age that Christopher Reeve was when he did the first movie) but hey, it couldn't have been any worse than the chemistry that Bosworth has with Routh, which is none. I don't buy that these two are in love at all. No interaction between the two of them makes me believe that: Lois scolds Superman for leaving her when they meet up again for the first time after he saves her, the two of them take another flight above Metropolis, they almost kiss when they get back but decide not to, and then, Lois suddenly has feelings for him again that really come out when he's seriously injured and possibly dying. I get that you would be concerned for an old love if something like that happened but still, I don't buy at all that that little flight would make Lois have feelings for him again. While I can't say at this point whether I think she's better or worse than Amy Adams in Man of Steel, Kate Bosworth is a contender for the worst Lois Lane imaginable in my opinion.

The character that I was much more interested in than Lois Lane was James Marsden as her fiancé, Richard White. Even though they didn't give Marsden much to do, I do like the way the character was written. They could have easily have turned him into a jealous asshole who tries every way possible to keep Superman from coming back into Lois' life but they didn't. While there is one scene where he presses Lois about just how far things ever went between her and Superman and about how she truly felt about him, he never flies off the handle and yells stuff like, "You're lying!" or, "I better not catch you trying to see him behind my back!" Instead, they make him a likable and respectful guy who truly cares about both Lois and his "son" and puts himself in serious danger when he realizes that they're in trouble. Moreover, when Superman arrives, saves them all from drowning, and tells Richard that he'll help them take off in their seaplane, Richard gives him a sincere, "Thank you." Plus, when Lois tells Richard that they have to go back and help Superman since he's in danger, Richard quickly agrees to do so when he could have easily and selfishly refused, and when Superman is in critical condition in the hospital after getting rid of Lex Luthor's Kryptonite-filled mini continent, Richard drives Lois there so she can see him, telling her that they'll let her do so despite the crowd because of who she is. I always like it when filmmakers decide not to take the route that would have been the most obvious for them to go down. We already have one villain; we didn't need another.

Speaking of which, does Lex Luthor have to be the villain in every single Superman movie? I know he's Superman's most well-known adversary and all but, for God's sake, this is the fourth damn movie in a series of five that's featured him (and for that matter, the character of Ross Webster in Superman III was basically nothing more than a stand-in for Luthor and a lame one at that). It'd be like if after the first Batman, they kept bringing back Jack Nicholson's Joker: you'd get tired of it after a while.  Supes does have other enemies that are about as popular as Luthor, like Brainiac and Bizarro. Give them a chance to shine in a big budget movie! Okay, with that little rant out of the way, let's talk about Kevin Spacey's take on the role that was previously played by Gene Hackman. Now, the first time I saw Superman Returns, I absolutely hated him. I thought he was horribly miscast and brought nothing to the character, making his scenes a chore to get through. Looking back on that first viewing, I think the troubled times I was going through made me unable to really enjoy anything worthwhile about the movie because of how unhappy I was with my life at that time. Upon subsequent viewings, I gradually warmed up to Spacey to the point where I now feel that he's the best part of the cast. Instead of just copying what Hackman did, Spacey decided to make Luthor much more noticeably psychotic. He's still witty, funny, and energetic but there's also an underlying feeling of psychosis within him this time around when he so nonchalantly talks about how he's going to kill billions of innocent people and flies off the handle in a rage a few times. It's like he's amped up those moments of true evil that we saw Hackman display amongst all of his wit and humor in the first movie. In addition, we can also now see just how much Luthor truly despises Superman. In the first film, the reason he gave for wanting to destroy the Man of Steel was because he saw it as the ultimate challenge for someone as brilliant as him. In Superman II, he at first seemed to want revenge on Superman for foiling his ultimate plan, which was his incentive for escaping prison and going to the Fortress of Solitude, but once General Zod came into the picture, he decided to let someone with the same powers as Superman take care of him while he reaped the rewards he would possibly get for helping Zod. Here, Luthor is nothing but bitter about the five years he spent in prison because of Superman and when he learns of his return, he ensures that he won't foil his plan again by making it so that Kryptonite grows within his continent's crust. And when Superman does become weakened when he sets foot on the landmass, Luthor takes great sadistic pleasure out of beating the ever-living crap out of him and ultimately stabbing him with a shard of Kryptonite, causing him to fall over the edge into the ocean, where he will undoubtedly drown. Therefore, you can just imagine the rage that must have filled every fiber of his being when Superman actually did manage to ruin this plan. If they had done another movie, Luthor would have probably nixed any other plans and gone straight to killing Superman in the most painful way imaginable. So, even though I may not have cared for him the first time, I now feel that Spacey, being the great actor that he is, was a really good choice for Luthor and he did it very well.

Unfortunately, one of the many unnecessary callbacks to the first two movies is the presence of Parker Posey as Kitty Kowalski, a female cohort of Luthor's who is nothing more than a stand-in for Mrs. Teschmacher. There are many, many similarities between the two: like Mrs. Teschmacher, Kitty continues to work for Luthor even though she's obviously sickened by his cruelty (I've read that she was supposedly a nurse at the prison where Luthor was held but I don't remember them mentioning that at all); she has an infatuation with Superman; and she ultimately betrays Luthor in the end (in Kitty's case, the latter shows more of what a good person she is than her predecessor in that she ensures that Luthor won't be able to kill any more people, whereas Mrs. Teschmacher simply helped Superman because he promised to save her mother first). While the character isn't annoying or anything (at least, to me) and Posey does play her adequately, I ultimately can't see her as anything other than Bryan Singer's attempt to make his film as much like Richard Donner's as possible.

Replacing Jackie Cooper as Perry White is Frank Langella who, like Kevin Spacey, I initially did not care for when I first watched the film. While I won't say I grew to like him as much as I did Spacey's Luthor, I will say that I do appreciate him a bit more now than I did at first. He's not as entertaining or energetic as Cooper was but I do think he captures the character's desire and constant drive for the Daily Planet to have the best stories very well. He does have some really good lines as well, like when he tells Lois, "Three things sell newspapers: tragedy, sex, and Superman. People are sick of tragedy and we all know that you can't write worth a damn about sex," and, "Lois, Pulitzer Prizes are like Academy Awards: no one remembers what you got one for, just that you got one" (I think Robin Williams would have attested to that). And that bit near the end when they're not sure whether Superman is going to pull through or not after being taken to the hospital and, just to be safe, Perry has prepared two newspaper headlines, one saying SUPERMAN IS DEAD and the other saying SUPERMAN LIVES (the title of the aborted Tim Burton Superman project for those who don't know), is just brilliant. It's another example of why you just can't help but love Perry for the irascible old guy that he is. My initial misgivings aside, I do think Langella did a good job as the character.

Even though he has nothing to do, I think Sam Huntington did fit the role of Jimmy Olsen. While I couldn't see Marc McClure's Jimmy getting so mad when Clark accidentally bumps his camera when we first see him, I feel that Huntington was appropriately energetic as the character. He may not be the "golly, gee-whiz" type that McClure was and I also don't remember Jimmy in the other movies liking Clark Kent this much (I know they were friends but my God, Huntington's Jimmy is basically drooling all over him when he shows back up at the Daily Planet) but I do think what he does in the little bit of screentime that he had works. Another returning character is Superman's adopted mother, Martha Kent (Eva Marie Saint), who, despite having only a few scenes, is just as warm, loving, and encouraging of a character as she was in the original film. In addition, while it may simply be footage of him from the first movie, we do have the "return" of Marlon Brando as Jor-El. I have to admit that, as much as I feel the use of his dialogue here gets a bit excessive and is a part of one of the film's problems, I'd be lying if I said that I didn't like hearing Brando saying those awesome, almost poetic lines from the original movie again, including some that were only present in the special edition of that film. And for fans of the George Reeves TV show, we have cameos by Jack Larson as a bartender and Noel Neill as the elderly widow whom Lex Luthor married in order to receive her fortune.

One last character that I'm going to mention is significant not because of his performance but because he's the heart of one of the many continuity issues that Superman Returns has with Superman II, the film it's meant to be a direct sequel to, and that character is Jason White (Tristan Lake Leabu), the young son of Lois Lane whose father, big shock, is revealed to be Superman. I have nothing against the kid himself. Despite his age and the fact that he had nothing that substantial to do, I don't think he did a bad job. He was cute, he wasn't annoying, and I do like some of his scenes, like near the end where he and Lois visit Superman in the hospital and Jason says that he hopes Supes gets better, saying, "I like him," and especially the part afterward where Superman visits his son at his home while he's sleeping and he says to him the same words that Jor-El said to him before sending him away in the spacepod. In fact, this kid is the one thing that would have made me curious to see a sequel to this because I would have wondered how both he and Richard would react to the news that he's Superman's son and how the relationship with his true father would have developed. But, that said, the problem comes with trying to piece together the events that led to him being born. You'd think it wouldn't be a problem since the answer is obviously when Superman and Lois slept together in Superman II. Fair enough, but there's a hiccup there: which version of Superman II does this movie follow? You'd think it'd be the theatrical version but, if you remember, Superman and Lois got together in that version only after Supes drained himself of his superpowers; ergo, Jason should just be a normal kid and not have any superpowers. I realize that since we're talking about comic book movies, you could make up some reason as to why he would have powers, bringing up how Superman was eventually able to reclaim his in that movie and so on, but for the sake of this argument, let's keep it simple, shall we? Anyway, since that can't be the case, you would think, "Well, maybe this follows the Richard Donner version." It would make more sense given how in that version, Superman and Lois did indeed get together before he became a normal man, and also because the Richard Donner version was being planned and put together at around the same time this film was being produced and we know how much Bryan Singer respects Donner's original film. So, problem solved, right? Nope. Remember how the Donner cut ends? Superman turns the world back, negating the events of the entire film, including when he revealed his true identity to Lois and their relationship developed from there. I know that was the intended ending of the sequel from the get-go and it was instead chosen to be the ending of the first film but they did use it in the actual version of the sequel that was assembled, once again adding to the idea that it's mainly an approximation of what Donner's version of Superman II would have been had he not been fired. Now, I'm not blaming Singer, since he couldn't have known this while writing the screenplay and by the time he became aware of it, it was obviously too late to do anything about it, but it makes it a real hassle to figure out where Superman Returns fits in. In hindsight, I don't think they should have gone with this idea at all. They should have scrapped it and it would have saved fans a lot of headaches. Now, I'm probably going to get schooled by someone who knows a lot more about this stuff than I do and maybe I am incorrect somewhere in here but, looking at both versions of Superman II, Jason being Superman's son in this movie doesn't make any sense to me.

While we're on the subject, let's talk about some other reasons why this movie doesn't match up with being a sequel to Superman II. One comes from the very core of the story, that Superman has been gone for five years and nobody knows where he went or why he left. This actually makes me hope that this is a sequel to the Richard Donner version because if it does indeed follow the theatrical one, then there's a glaring bit of a continuity problem as far as Superman himself is concerned. Remember what he said to the president at the very end of that version? "Sorry I've been away so long. I won't let you down again." Those were his exact words and therefore, if we're led to believe that the Superman we're seeing here is the same one, then I think we can use the old adage of there being a first time for everything and that Superman told an outright lie. That sucks because it does some damage to the characterization that Christopher Reeve strove to bring to life in those films. His Superman was one whose words you believed without question because he came across as such a great, honest man. This craps all over it and what's more, it comes across like Supes didn't learn a damn thing from when he gave up his powers in Superman II and quickly realized that his responsibility to the people of Earth is more important than his personal happiness. That's why I would hope that this movie follows the Richard Donner version. True, it would still come across like he didn't learn anything, particularly since we're now talking about those awesome scenes he had with the spirit of his father, but at the very least, it wouldn't have felt like he lied. And besides, if he was going to be gone for some time, wouldn't he have at least held a press conference or something? Granted, I still don't like the idea of him just abandoning the Earth for five years but I might have been able to accept it more if he had actually told everyone that there was something he had to do and he wasn't sure how long he would be away. At least then, Lois wouldn't have been so angry with him.

Here's another thing: did Bryan Singer forget when the first two movies were made? The time period that those movies actually take place in isn't specified, granted, but given some of the clothes, hairstyles, and other such stuff , it's obvious that they are taking place around the time they were produced (that pimp in the first movie who compliments Supes on his outfit when he makes his first appearance should say it all). Now, with that in mind, if this is meant to take place after Superman II, ignoring the events of III and IV completely, and Superman has been gone for five years since that movie, then why is it now suddenly 2006? I know that modern day audiences aren't so eager to accept a movie that takes place at any time other than present day but it'd be really weird and jarring to watch the first two movies that take place in the late 70's, early 80's and then go to straight to this movie that's clearly set in 2006. Is Metropolis just that advanced of a city and so far ahead of everybody else that they got cellphones, modern computers, and so on by 1985? If their engineers had been working for the country at large, God knows where we'd be at by this point when it comes to technology!

I know it seems like I'm being overly harsh on Bryan Singer and I don't mean to be but these issues really stick out to me every time I watch the film and it all leads to my ultimate opinion on this film's very conception: this shouldn't have been as a sequel to Superman II. When they finally got the opportunity to make another Superman movie, they should have just rebooted the series completely and not tried to fix the downward spiral that it followed after the second movie. Not only did this story cause major continuity problems but it also led to the rather sacrilegious notion of them hiring an actor who looked like and was meant to be nothing more than a physical replacement for Christopher Reeve. To me, once Reeve had his tragic accident and was paralyzed for the rest of his life, they shouldn't have tried to make any more movies within this continuity. This should have just been the start of a brand new series, with Brandon Routh or whoever else they could have chosen giving his own interpretation of the character because nobody else will ever be able to play Superman the way Reeve did. They could have even kept this exact same story, minus  all the ties to the first two movies, or just come up with another that begins with Superman's character  already established, much like what Tim Burton did with Batman. We all know the origin of Superman. We don't need to see it again (something that Zack Snyder should have understood but that's neither here nor there). I'm not saying that it would have done better at the box-office or gone over better with audiences and critics if this was the case but I do think it wouldn't be as unpopular of a movie as it is. But, unfortunately, this movie now stands as the final entry in the series that begin with that first magnificent film in 1978 and while it's certainly a better way to go out than Superman IV, I still think a respectable reboot could have been done instead.

I do mean it when I say that they could have used this same story for a reboot but they would have had to re-work it and iron some things out because, even if you take out the continuity errors with Superman II, the story of Superman Returns is still very flawed and the biggest flaw I can think of is how Bryan Singer carries out the concept that he intended to explore with it. Since Superman had been out of the mainstream public consciousness for almost two decades, Singer decided that it would be interesting to write a story where Superman has to find his place in a world that's moved on and has basically forgotten him. That is a good idea for a superhero movie but the thing is, Singer doesn't run with it as much as he could have because it seems as though the world hasn't moved on from Superman or forgotten him at all. He's welcomed back with open arms by the world at large the minute he saves the plane at the beginning of the movie. He doesn't have to find his place in the modern world; he just immediately settles back into his position as Earth's defender and everybody, with the exception of Lois, just says, "Yay, he's back!" Kind of makes Lois' Pulitzer Prize-winning article Why the World Doesn't Need Superman a little redundant, don't you think? If they wanted to show Superman trying to find his place again in a world that he hasn't been part of for a long time, they should have had everybody at first be surprised of his return and then get angry about him having left them for five years with no explanation. That way, he would have to earn back the trust of the people of Earth and as a result, the ending where he nearly kills himself to save the world from Luthor's man-made continents would have had much more of an impact. They could have then followed that up with the people realizing, "My God, he put his life on the line to save us, he's probably going to die now as a result, and we've been nothing but assholes to him ever since he came back." Not only would that have explored the core idea of this movie in a more satisfying way but it would be more logical for people in the modern day to react that way. Everybody just welcoming Superman back after he had basically abandoned them for half a decade feels very old fashioned and trite, not at all how a modern, post-9/11 populace would react. As I've said before, I totally understand Singer's admiration for the original movie but the thing is, the mid-2000's was a completely different time from the late 70's and a movie made in that style simply didn't work then and it doesn't work now either.

Clark: I need to surreptitiously tell her why I left without saying goodbye
Lois: Where the hell is a damn taxi when you need one?!

The most challenging personal dilemma that Superman has in this movie is getting himself back into Lois' life because she's the one who's moved on, not the entire world. Truth be told, this concept doesn't really work for me either because the  emotion they're trying to make you feel is sympathy for Superman because Lois, the love of his life, has a whole new life and wants nothing to do with him. But really, why should you feel sorry for someone who left a woman that truly loved him without any explanation, was gone for five years while she didn't know where he was or whether he was alive or dead, and then comes back and has a hard time accepting that she hasn't been sitting around, waiting for him? Superman or not, that's a really thoughtless thing to do to the person you supposedly love more than anyone else and even after they meet up again, he still doesn't give her that concrete of a reason as to why he didn't tell her he was leaving. I know he stammered one out as Clark but that wouldn't mean anything to her since she doesn't know that he's Superman (not to mention that she wasn't even really listening to him) and when they take that little flight over Metropolis, all he does is tell her that he can hear people all over the world crying for a savior (that is a good dramatic idea, though) and he says, "I'm sorry I left you, Lois." I was half-expecting her to say, "Sorry's not going to cut it," because it doesn't. As much as I don't like Kate Bosworth's performance, I can't blame Lois for being so upset with Superman and his following her to her home like a stalker and eavesdropping on a conversation between her and Richard with his super-hearing doesn't help me sympathize with him either. It's this kind of stuff that makes Superman Returns a rather frustrating movie instead of an out and out horrible one because I can see a lot of good ideas in here but they're not executed well.

The story issues aside, another reason why this isn't a film that I go back to that often is because it's simply not a very enjoyable viewing experience. For one thing, it's 154 minutes long and while there are some good action scenes, they're very few and far between, with most of the movie being made up of dialogue scenes where the characters talk about the dilemmas that are going on in the film. True, the original Superman was a very long movie that didn't have wall-to-wall action either but I can get into that film much more easily because it's an engrossing story and the actors brought their roles to life in very likable, entertaining ways. Here, the main characters are so bland and do so much talking about how much their present situations suck, especially with Superman's constant moping about how Lois wants nothing to do with him, that it's hard for me to get invested. And the third act where Luthor begins creating his man-made continent goes on for what feels like an eternity. In the first movie, the movie began a brisk pace towards the finale when Luthor fired those two missiles he hijacked; here, the movie drags on for another hour when he puts his plan into action. I'm no filmmaker but I'm sure that extending the last part of your movie for that long when you should be getting your audience pumped and excited for the climax is not how you do things. And as I hinted at up above, the tone of the movie doesn't help either. Bryan Singer may have had good intentions for coming up with this story but it's completely devoid of the sense of wonder and fun that I feel that Superman should have and is indeed what the original movies did. You can be serious with Superman, yes, but the sad, melancholy tone of this film does not make it an enjoyable watch at all and adds even more to the fatigue that I feel every time that third act begins. I wasn't really enjoying myself before then, so why should I start now? I'm sure that some will undoubtedly disagree with me because they enjoy the story and tone of this movie but it doesn't do it for me.

Now, I will start talking more about some things that I actually like since by now you're probably wondering why I didn't put this as another installment of Movies That Suck. My reason for that is because Bryan Singer is no slouch in the visual department and as a result, this movie is well made on a technical level. Its very look is well done. They used plenty of warm colors, with a lot of orange and a little bit of red, and the film is very pleasing to the eye as a result... for the most part. Once Luthor's plan goes into motion, the film stock becomes very gray and drab looking and while I understand the reason for that since this is supposed to be the darkest hour with all of havoc the continent is wreaking on the atmosphere and whatnot, it's just one more thing that causes me to yawn and sink down in my seat during that last section of the movie. That said, though, I'm so glad they didn't go the Man of Steel route and bleach bypass the movie so much that there's no joy to be found in it in any capacity. If nothing else, at least this movie looks like a Superman movie.

The film's production design is top notch as well. It had a budget of over $200 million and it shows. The sets and locations all look fantastic. The little section that we get at the old Kent farm looks really good and I admire the fact that they had that place built and grew all the crops that you see as well. I can't fault Singer for trying his hardest to make this movie work in every single aspect. Metropolis looks great and you'd swear that it was a real city and
both the interior and exteriors of the Daily Planet are impeccable. The classic globe atop the building is great and the inside looks like a real business office. The sets for the mansion and yacht that Luthor inherits from the old widow look good, particularly the latter with its enormous living area down below that has a spiral staircase, a pool table, a piano, and plenty of books, and what else can I say about the Fortress of Solitude and the continent that Luthor creates that hasn't already been said? They're amazing. The

fortress looks much more vast and imposing than it did in the original films, as well as perhaps a little more... cold. While the design is great, I'm not exactly sure why Superman would want to spend a lot of time there, despite the presence of his father's spirit (the movie itself probably answers my own question since there's only one instance where he goes there). And while Luthor's continent is another very impressive set, it does make Luthor look truly insane when he thinks that people will pay through the nose to live on such a barren, unpleasant-looking landmass that appears to have the worst weather conditions that one could hope to deal with. Yeah, people will definitely be fighting each other to try to live there. In all seriousness, though, this movie's production is amazing and, as every big budget movie should look, every dollar is up on the screen.

You have to really squint to see his heat vision

The effects in the movie are also well done. There's a lot of CGI and some of it is a bit dated (the completely computer-generated Superman that you see in close-up at the end of the movie is hardly convincing) but the majority of it does its job well. Actually, I think the best effects here are stuff like when you see the skyline of Metropolis (I'm sure there's a combination of CG and miniatures there) or the visuals of the Earth with Superman hovering above it in outer space. That is just breathtaking. I also like the image of Superman rising up into the sky in order to energize himself with the sun's rays after he's been saved and Lois has removed the shard of Kryptonite from his side. Again, that is awesome and would actually make for a great painting! Another thing that I appreciate is that they were quite subtle when creating the effects for Superman's powers. Of course, with the advent of computers, Superman can fly with more power than was ever possible before but they also decided to use some good old-fashioned harness and wire-work for when he's floating or flies off very gently. As it did with Christopher Reeve, it gives him a feeling of grace when he very gently flies off instead of just shooting around like a rocket all the time. And instead of making his eye-lasers over the top and flashy, they're very understated and surprisingly easy to miss as well, even when the camera is on a close-up of his face. The same goes for his super-breath and his X-Ray vision. I really like the effect of the latter power, in that it simply looks as if what ever he's looking at turns transparent when he uses it. The moment where he uses it on Lois to make sure she has no internal injuries after saving her from Luthor's sinking yacht looks very cool to me. The effects that you see when Luthor's continent is rising from the sea, when that criminal fires a mounted mini-gun at Superman, and when Supes carries the continent up into space are clearly CGI but it is pretty good CGI and serves its purpose. And finally, I really like the opening credits sequence. Not only does it have a nice recreation of the original film's actual credits but the camera zooming around the universe combined with the credits coming at the screen is very energetic and exciting. (I've heard some say that it looks the opening to 3rd Rock from the Sun but I just think that's being really petty and nitpicky myself.) It's just a shame that a huge chunk of the actual movie doesn't have that amount of stuff happening.

Even though there isn't a lot of action in the movie, the action scenes that are present are well done. The most impressive by far is the first one, where Superman saves the airplane that Lois is aboard when the shuttle that's attached to its back malfunctions and threatens to travel off into space with it. Even people who absolutely despise this movie seem to agree that this sequence is great. It's very well filmed and choreographed, showing us the chaos that happens inside the plane when the crisis first begins and then showing Superman doing what he does best by detaching the shuttle from the plane and then slowing the plane's descent. We also get a feeling that this isn't as easy for Superman as you would think, particularly when we see one of the plane's wings break and Supes has to quickly shoot downwards to catch back up to the plane, where he gets on its nose and slows it to where he's able to set it down gently in the middle of a baseball field. Really, really good stuff and it's a shame that the movie doesn't give us more action like that. The next action scene takes place quite a while after that and is technically a two-parter. First, we have that moment where this criminal gets his hands on a mounted mini-gun and is about to fire on some cops when Superman swoops in at the last minute and shields them from the bullets. The effect with the slow-motion bullets is a bit lame and it's hard not to think of The Matrix (that bullet-time gimmick had gotten stale long before this film) but that does lead up to the somewhat iconic moment where the guy pulls out a gun and fires it right at Superman's eye, which it bounces off of. That's quite cool and I like the smirk that Supes gives the guy after that happens. And then, we have the moment where Kitty is acting like she's in an out of control car in order to distract Superman while Luthor steals the Kryptonite from the museum. However, Kitty discovers that Luthor cut the car's brake line to ensure that it would go as well as it could and she's actually saved by Superman when he grabs her car, lifts it up into the air, and sets her down safely after she caused a lot of chaos throughout Metropolis. Standard stuff but in a movie as slow as this, you really have to count your blessings. And at the beginning of the movie's last act, we get a sequence where the earth tremors caused by Luthor's rapidly growing continent cause some mayhem in Metropolis, with an explosion blowing through a sewer that Superman has to extinguish with his super-breath and the moment when he has to stop the Daily Planet's globe from crushing a lot of people. This is the last major action sequence in the film. While there are some other instances of Superman doing stuff afterward, this is the last action setpiece that's of any major length.

The last act of the movie would have been much more satisfying if everything were building to an exciting climax where Superman has to race to stop Luthor's plan but it doesn't work out that way. As I've said, this last section of the movie drags like nobody's business and what we get instead are some sporadic scenes of Superman doing stuff scattered throughout it. First, not too long after we get a nicely done moment aboard Luthor's yacht where one of his henchmen attacks
Lois and Jason reveals himself to be Superman's son, he saves the two of them, along with Richard, from drowning in the sinking yacht and helps them take off. Nothing noteworthy there. Then we have the scene where Superman lands on Luthor's continent and, having been weakened by the Kryptonite, is beaten within an inch of his life by Luthor and his thugs. It's actually a pretty brutal scene and it is humbling to see Superman screaming in
pain as they beat him to a pulp, shove his head in a puddle, and then Luthor delivers the coup de grace by stabbing him with a shard of Kryptonite and breaking it off in him before he falls off the side of the landmass into the water. (I have to nitpick, though, I don't like it when you can hear Superman in a muffled voice, "I'm still Superman!" Given how humble Christopher Reeve played him, that doesn't feel like something he would say.) That's when Lois and Richard fly in and save him, with Lois removing the shard from his side. Superman, knowing that he must stop Luthor even though it could potentially mean his death, flies up into the sky to energize himself with the sun's rays and then swoops down with all his might and uses his heat vision to burn his way into the continent. Not too long afterward, Luthor and his gang feel the continent starting to shake and Luthor, realizing what it has to be, tells everyone to head for the chopper. This is another nice enough sequence, with lots of falling debris and Luthor's two henchmen getting crushed by a falling pillar, and it leads up to another great image of Superman using every bit of his strength to push the continent up into outer space (the version of the Superman theme that you hear makes this even more awesome). After doing so, he falls back to Earth due to his weakened state and lands with an audible thud. The problem though is that, despite how good this and all these scenes are, the snail's pace of this final act robs them of much of the power they could have had because by this point, you're more than likely bored and wish that the movie would just end, as I felt the first time I watched it. And plus, I still think they should have had it be a gradual struggle for Superman to triumph instead of just having him get injured, energize himself back up, and then succeed.

The music score from this film is one that I do enjoy. Granted, a lot of it is just John Ottman redoing John Williams' original themes (which sound really, really good, I might add) but Ottman did manage to come up with some music of his own that I do like. Some of them are very quiet, whimsical themes, like the stuff that you hear during Superman and Lois' flight above Metropolis (which includes a nice reworking of the love theme from the other movies) and when Superman is leaving Lois' house after visiting Jason at the end of the movie, and others are very big, orchestral pieces like when Superman is lifting the continent up into the sky as well as that great piece that's full of vocalizing voices when he's flying above the city at the end after leaving Lois' house, but all of them are very good and help to give something of a soul, even if the actual movie is rather lacking in that regard. 

At the end of the day, Superman Returns is a very mixed bag. On the good side, the film is well shot, the acting is good for the most part, there are some great visuals, the production values are high, the action scenes look good and are executed very well, and the music isn't too bad. Unfortunately, the film is way too damn long and slow, with the final hour dragging horribly, it doesn't synch up well with the first two films in many ways and flies in the face of what occurred in those films in others, and, ultimately, I think it proved that after Christopher Reeve was no longer able to physically play Superman, they shouldn't have continued with this continuity. Brandon Routh wasn't a horrible stand-in for Reeve but the very idea that he was hired simply because he looked so much like him is a smidge distasteful for me, particularly when you realize that Reeve had died by the time this movie was put into production. They should have just rebooted it here, as they eventually did do with Man of Steel, kept everything else including the story (with some retouching, mind you) and the cast and I think they would have been fine. But, history is history, and we'll have to accept Superman Returns as a rather lackluster ending to a series that began with an awesome movie that starred a really great actor who absolutely embodied the legendary character that he played.

Movies That Suck/Franchises: The First Superman Film Series. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

For better or worse, this is the first Superman movie that I ever caught a glimpse of; beforehand, my only exposure to the Man of Steel had been those cartoons from the 1940's. This was the first time I had ever seen the character brought to life in live-action and while I don't have very sharp  memories of it because I was so young, I do remember enjoying what I did see. Of course, when you're a really young kid, everything is awesome to you. It was not too long after that when I began making regular visits to my local video rental store and beginning my habit of walking around and looking at the various VHS covers while my dad paid for whatever I was renting that week. A few years later when I was a bit older, I remember that I saw the covers for the VHS's of the Superman movies for the first time and, after having that first impression of, "That's Superman," when I got my first glimpse of Christopher Reeve, I began looking on the back of them to see if I could tell which was the one I saw when I was little. I knew that it was Superman IV when I looked on the back of that cover and saw the images of Superman standing in that revolving doorway with explosions occurring around him. After that, many years went by and I kind of forgot about it until I started getting into the Superman films when I was 19. As I always am when I first get into something, I was determined to see all of them but, at the same time, I was well aware of Superman IV's less than stellar reputation. While I had heard that Superman III wasn't all that good either, it was the fourth film that got the most flack, so much so that on Christopher Reeve's episode of Biography, they bypassed III and went straight to IV, talking about how badly it bombed and so on. I really couldn't believe it, to be honest. Granted, I hadn't seen the movie since I was barely out of kindergarten but I was thinking, "Could it really be that awful?" Having had that experience when you realize that something you loved as a child is actually terrible many times over by that point, I should have known better. But, I still decided to seek all of these movies out and see for myself which I thought were good and which were bad.

As fate would have it, by the summer of 2007, I had all of the Superman films in my position except for Superman IV. I don't know how that movie eluded me for so long (it was probably afraid about what would happen when I finally did see it) but, by the end of the year, I finally tracked it down and watched it for the first time in almost two decades. My first reaction upon seeing it was, "Actually, this isn't very good." And my opinion on it soured even more so with every viewing (which, trust me, hasn't been many) until finally, I watched it again for this review. When I first decided to do these Superman reviews, I wasn't exactly sure if this would be an entry of Movies That Suck or not but after seeing it again, I can safely that this movie is, indeed, a steaming pile of garbage. Superman III may not be a classic either but I can say that it's infinitely better than this. Almost nothing in this movie works. Not even Christopher Reeve could save this one and his performance is even lacking in spots. The cheapness really hurts it as well, the story is muddled beyond comprehension, and the film, overall, is just dull. Before we get started I really hope that you'll forgive me if I get some things wrong because, ultimately, the biggest problem with Superman IV: The Quest for Peace is that it's instantly forgettable.

After learning that the Daily Planet has been taken over a tycoon who plans to make it as sleazy as the tabloids he owns, Clark Kent learns that tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union are increasing to the point where nuclear war may be imminent. After being conflicted about what to do when a schoolboy sends Superman a letter asking him to do something about it, he decides to rid the world of all nuclear weapons and immediately does so. In the midst of all this, Lex Luthor manages to escape from prison with the help of his nephew Lenny and devises a plant to create a being as powerful as Superman using a strand of the hero's hair that they stole from a museum in Metropolis. Luthor attaches the genetic matrix that he creates out of the hair to an American nuclear missile and when Superman throws said missile into the sun, he unknowingly aids in the creation of an evil being known as Nuclear Man. With the same powers as the Man of Steel as well as Luthor's contempt for human life, this creature could mean the end of Superman, leaving Luthor free to take control of the arms race.

Remember when I said that one problem with Superman III is that its story is a little cluttered? Well, Superman IV has that problem in spades. There are way too many subplots going on in this film, some of which are either not resolved in a satisfactory way or not at all (in fact, the very first one, Clark's reluctance to sell the now abandoned Kent farm to someone who would probably tear it down, is never touched on again). Superman having to deal with the threat of nuclear war that was prevalent around that time as well as a being that embodies that threat would have made for a good movie in and of itself but the screenwriters also had to shove in a bunch of other story threads like the Daily Planet being taken over and turned into a sleazy tabloid, Clark dealing with a woman who attempts to turn his attention away from Lois (again, it's a shame that Lana Lang isn't present to do so), a young kid asking for Superman's help in solving a national crisis, which makes him question what exactly his role is on Earth, and so on and so forth. Any one of those plots could have made for a good story but because they're all shoved in here, the final film feels disorganized and confused, like it's not sure what the story is it wants to tell. It's a shame too because it does feel like there were some good intentions behind making this film but they proved useless in the long run.

Sidney J. Furie

Although Superman III did make a profit, it was nowhere near as successful as the first two films. That, coupled with the overall negative critical reaction to the film as well as the out and out bomb that was 1984's Supergirl, prompted the Salkinds to make the decision that the films had run out of steam and in 1986, they sold the rights to Cannon Films. Almost immediately after they obtained the rights, Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus, the two heads of Cannon, got a new film underway and not only managed to get Christopher Reeve and all of the core cast members of the other films back but were also able to hire a veteran director who had been making movies since the late 50's: Sidney J. Furie. Some of his credits include Wonderful Life, The Ipcress File, The Entity, and Iron Eagle, among many others. After Superman IV, Furie has gone on to direct Iron Eagle II, The Taking of Beverly Hills, Ladybugs, and continues to make movies to this day. In another words, with such an experienced director at the helm, you'd expect Superman IV to at least be decent. However, Cannon Films' enormous slate of films being produced at the time didn't allow for much in the way of a budget ($17 million which, when compared to Superman III's $30 million, is quite low for this type of film) and Furie was forced to cut corners left and right. The result, which we'll get into, is a very cheap and dire film that no director, not even Richard Donner or Richard Lester (both of whom were offered the director's chair for this one, I might add), could have saved.

After Superman III, which he didn't like due to how comedic it was, Christopher Reeve announced that his days as Superman were behind him. He almost turned down Golan & Globus when they came to him about reprising the role for a fourth film but they made Reeve an offer that would have been foolish for him to pass up: not only did they promise him that Superman IV would not be a farce like III (which they didn't entirely deliver on, I might add) but they also would allow him input on the story and produce any other project that he wanted to do. There was even a rumor of him actually directing Superman V if that film ever came to fruition. Reeve accepted the offer and did the film Street Smart, where he acted alongside Morgan Freeman, before moving on to Superman IV. However, once Reeve started doing the film, it became apparent to him that it would not live up to expectations due to its low budget and so, he simply decided to power on through and do the best that he could despite knowing that the film would be terrible.

As much as she hated the film, Janet Moslin of the New York Times did note in her review that, "Christopher Reeve is still giving this character his all." (That's the only review that they could put on the back of the DVD and even then, it was only one of the few positive sections of an otherwise negative write-up.) I would agree with that... for the most part. Throughout a good chunk of the movie, Reeve does give the character the same honesty and goodness that he had instilled in him in the previous films. He still looks really good in the suit, projects a feeling of strength and purity, and is still lovably clumsy as Clark Kent. That said, though, there are moments in this film where you can detect disinterest on Reeve's part, where you can see that he's just going through the motions and that his heart isn't really in it. In fact, I would say that throughout the film, even in the sections where he is indeed giving it his all, there's an undercurrent of his knowing that this isn't working. It's hard to explain outright but if you see the film, I think you'll understand what I mean. Besides the low quality of the film, I think another reason why Reeve feels indifferent in parts is simply because he had already done everything he could do with the character. He had done Superman's introduction, his eventual desire for personal happiness which he simply can't reach as Earth's protector, and Clark reconnecting with his childhood as well as the emergence of Superman's dark side. What else could Reeve do with him? I think it's safe to say that he had reached the same point that George Reeves had after playing Superman on television for so many years. In fact, I would even go farther and say that not only is Reeve retreading the same well-worn ground but he's actually forced to regress a little bit, seeing as how Clark's clumsiness is back in full swing after it was pared down in the previous film. While it is nice to see Reeve as the character again, it's still painfully clear that the ship had sailed by this point.

Besides the performance, there are other things about Superman in this film that have always felt off to me. One that always bugs me is the suit. While the design is indeed the same as the suit in the previous film, the colors, especially the blue, look very faded. It's not the same deep blue from the other films that I always loved, and as for its color during the blue screen shots, forget it: the suit looks so turquoise there that it might as well just be green. Another thing about Superman that definitely gives you pause is when he starts displaying powers that he never used before, be it in the comics or in the films. Apparently Superman has telekinetic powers that come in the form of light blue eye-beams, which he uses to repair the Great Wall of China after Nuclear Man damages it. Moreover, he uses this ability again to lower some people whom Nuclear Man has sent flying up into the air safely to the ground. This power is so inexplicable that it makes you wonder why he's never used it before. Granted, General Zod did have a similar power but Superman himself never used it in either version of that film, which is odd since they were supposed to have the same powers. However, let's not get into that debate. And finally, during the painfully unfunny sequence where he keeps switching back and forth between the two identities, all unbeknownst to Lois and Lacy, there's a moment where Superman apparently uses these powers to make the doorbell ring to distract Lois so he can come back in as Clark. Supes can do a lot of amazing things but still, these powers feel out of place even for him. (But then again, Superman has often made his normal clothes as Clark disappear to reveal the super-suit in these films, so I guess it's all relative.)

If you want an example of somebody who's really going through the motions, though, you need look no further than Gene Hackman's return as Lex Luthor in this film. Hackman freely admits that he only did this movie for the money as well as because the Salkinds weren't involved. All I can say about him is that his performance here is a huge comedown from his entertaining portrayal in the first film and even in Superman II, where he was nothing more than a comedic foil for General Zod. He has none of the energy or wit that he originally instilled in the character and simply puts on a front which you can easily see right through to realize that he's bored with the whole thing. It also doesn't help that Hackman has noticeably aged in the ten years since he first played Luthor for Richard Donner and his appearance as well as his voice don't help him much either. And like Christopher Reeve, Hackman has nothing new to do with Luthor. He's still the same arrogant egomaniac who considers himself the greatest criminal mind of the 20th century and is still obsessed with destroying Superman and taking over. The only difference here is that he lacks the little hints of psychopathy that Hackman was able to sprinkle throughout his first performance which, combined with the actor's lack of enthusiasm, makes for a very bland and uninteresting villain. Hackman may have been a key ingredient of the first film's success but his indifference towards the role by this point made getting him back for this movie superfluous to say the least. And plus, the hairpieces he wears throughout this movie suck big time!

Margot Kidder appears as Lois Lane for the fourth and final time, having a much larger presence here than in Superman III... but that's not saying much since she's not given a lot to do. Like everyone else, she can't really do anything with the character of Lois that she hasn't already done except what was implied at the end of the last film: that she would become rather jealous of Clark having another woman in his life. While that is played with a little bit here with the character of Lacy, it ultimately goes nowhere and Lois' actions make it unclear whether she's jealous of Lacy or wants to help her impress Clark. And, again, it really makes you wish that they had brought back Lana Lang to indeed fulfill what was hinted at towards the end of Superman III but, alas, that never happened. In any case, even though she can't do much new with Lois here, Kidder is still pretty good at doing what Lois always did: being head over heels for Superman, acting as a supporter for Clark when it comes to things that he's naive about, and, as usual, having a feisty personality and being quite good-looking. Indeed, Kidder still looked pretty good at this point, although, that said, you can begin to see age slightly creeping up on her. (I don't get why she's a brunette in this film either.) Unfortunately, as good as Kidder is, even she can't keep her performance from having the feeling of, "Been there, done that," and she's not involved in the actual story of the film at all. Moreover, there's a plothole about Lois here that is never explained, like how, after Clark reveals himself to be Superman to her, she tells him that she remembered  when he had revealed his true identity to her before, even after he had given her that amnesia kiss. We'll just ignore all the plotholes that in and of itself creates (like why she acted so horrified when he jumped off the building with her if she did indeed know the truth) and move on to how, even after Superman wipes her memory again here, she still seems to know who he is since she goes to Clark and pours her heart out to him about her feelings for Superman when it's rumored that he's been killed. I know she and Clark are close friends and all but why would she do that with him? And why so earnestly, for that matter? It makes no sense and is just one of the many problems with this movie.

I do like that they give Jackie Cooper a little more depth and respectability to add to his final appearance as Perry White. Throughout these films, we've seen Perry characterized as a hot-headed but loveable editor who's always on the hunt for a good story for his paper. Here, we learn that, despite that eagerness for stories, he does have integrity and is appalled when the rich owner of a number of sleazy tabloids buys the Daily Planet with the intention of turning it into one as well. It's a nice build on that line in the first film when he tells Lois that the story she's going for is a bunch of, "tabloid garbage," and that the Planet has an honorable tradition. Despite his position, Perry can do nothing to stop the paper from being purchased and turned into what he hates. It sickens him to the point that he refuses to work for this kind of paper and, to that end, manages to secure enough funds from the bank at the end of the film to buy back the Planet and turn it back into the respectable newspaper that it was. I really like this angle and it shows us what we've known all along: that despite his bluster and short fuse, Perry is a great, stand-up guy whom you'd be happy to work for despite how demanding he is. And while we're on the subject, Marc McClure does come back one last time as Jimmy Olsen but he does nothing substantial and, therefore, is not even really worth mentioning.

It's the only thing she's good for in this movie.

While there are plenty of new characters introduced here, they have very little to do and are also completely underdeveloped and forgettable. Lacy Warfield (Mariel Hemingway), the daughter of the tycoon who buys the Daily Planet and is put into the position of editor, is a poor substitute for both Lana Lang and Lois Lane, seeing as how she's given just as much attention as the latter, if not a little bit more. She starts out as unscrupulous and greedy as her father and right after meeting Clark, develops a crush on him and tries to seduce him (Clark, of course, isn't affected at all). Not only does Hemingway bring little, if anything, to the table with her acting but her performance is quite uneven. What starts out as an attempt to seduce Clark sporadically turns into genuine affection for him and she also develops scruples, even though absolutely nothing has happened to make her realize that Clark was right about the paper's responsibility to tell the truth. There's absolutely no arc with this character. She simply develops a heart because the plot needs her to. And after Superman saves her from Nuclear Man at the end of the film, she's never seen again. No goodbye, no, "I'm glad you've seen the error of your ways," nothing. Perry just buys the Planet back from her father and that's it, making you wonder what the whole point of her character was in the first place. (I don't think the movie would be affected at all if you took her out.) And her father, David Warfield (Sam Wanamaker), is even more shallow of a character. He's nothing more than a greedy asshole who only cares about making money and doesn't care if he has to publish a newspaper that's not only sleazy but prints lies and creates panic among the populace in order to do so. What an uninspired, nothing character that we've seen a million times before. Even his "comeuppance," if you can call it that, at the end of the film when Perry buys back the Daily Planet, is nothing to write home about. It doesn't feel like he's been punished at all for what he's done and it's likely that he'll continue to create sleazy tabloids without any regard for the effects of their content. Yeah, that'll show him.

Jeremy (Damian McLawhorn), the schoolboy who sends a letter to Superman asking him to do something about the impending crisis of possible nuclear war, is another character that has so little screentime that, like Jimmy Olsen, he's almost not even worth mentioning. His role simply amounts to writing the letter, apparently getting snubbed by Superman (though, the new tabloid-like Daily Planet really played that angle up and made it out to be worse than it really was), and then sporadically appears near the UN building which he walks to with Superman. And after Superman's big speech, he's never seen again. Well, his story accomplished a lot! In addition to the return of Lex Luthor, we also have a stand-in for Otis: Jon Cryer as Luthor's nephew, Lenny, who breaks him out of jail at the beginning of the film. The first time I saw this movie, I was bracing myself because I was sure that Lenny was going to be one of those insufferable comic relief characters that you just want to smack the living crap out of, particularly after I heard the voice that Cryer was using for this performance. However, Lenny does and says so little here that I can't say that I hate him. When he speaks, he does say some really bad lines like, "The Dude of Steel! Boy, are you gonna get it!" or, when Nuclear Man first appears at Luthor's hideout, "Yeah, you're just an experiment, freako!" (which was really stupid on his part) but that's very rare and therefore, I'm not raging about how annoying Lenny was. He's no Otis, though, that's for sure. I know there are some who don't like Otis but at least he was memorable and did some amusing stuff, unlike Lenny. And before we move on, I have to briefly mention Robert Beatty as the President, who appears in one part of the movie when he appears on TV to announce the crisis that's brewing. While there's nothing special about the performance, I have to wonder how old this guy was when he got elected because as it is, he looks very old and gaunt, like he's about to keel over right there. Does the DC universe have no age limit when it comes to the President of the United States? Or maybe I'm just ignorant. (Oddly enough, Beatty actually played President Reagan in the docu-drama, Breakthrough at Reykjavik, the same year and he was quite good from what I hear.)

Yeah, this guy came from Christopher Reeve's DNA.

Okay, let's get to Nuclear Man. First off, I have to comment that this was originally meant to be played by Christopher Reeve as well, which makes sense seeing as how Nuclear Man was spawned from Superman's DNA. If they had gone that route, then you could have thought of it as the series' interpretation of Bizarro. But, Cannon nixed that idea not only because the effects necessary to pull it off would have been too expensive for the financially strapped film but also because they felt that had already been done in Superman III and they didn't want to retread that idea (never mind the fact that they retreaded a lot of other stuff from the previous films, which I'll get to). So, instead of Christopher Reeve playing two characters, which I'm sure would have been great given his performance in the previous film, we get Mark Pillow, some blonde guy who had never appeared in a movie before and has not appeared in one once since. I'm not sure how they found him or why they thought he would be a good choice for this (they must not have had too much faith in him because they had Gene Hackman dub over his voice) but, in any case, they hired him and I'm sure he did what he could. The thing, though, is that Nuclear Man is not the most compelling villain. First, he looks ridiculous in that outfit and with that blonde mullet. Second, he has no personality to him at all except Lex Luthor's desire to destroy Superman (I don't remember getting any explanation as to why he thinks that way other than it's because Luthor created him). He also develops a sudden crush on Lacy that comes out of nowhere and makes no sense at all (it is explained in one of the many scenes that were never even filmed). Third, he doesn't do anything particularly memorable or bad-ass. His battle with Superman is severely underwhelming and all he does is cause some damage in various parts of the world that Superman fixes and he finally manages to get in a cheap shot by scratching Superman and giving him radiation sickness (which he cures himself of very easily). Fourth, his powers are nothing special. He seems to have the same abilities as Superman, including his inexplicable telekinetic abilities, but I think he also can fire energy blasts from his hands. (I think. This film is such a boring mess that it's hard to remember exact details.) And as I said, his long fingernails (which, no offense meant, look rather queer) can give Superman radiation poisoning through a simple scratch. Big whoop. And finally, he's powered by the sun and, as a result, his Achilles heel is, of all things, shade! If he steps out of direct sunlight, he loses his power and becomes catatonic. So if your area's weather mainly consists of clear sunny days, then you're in big trouble. Otherwise, you can just tip him over and you'd be good. Nuclear Man is purely and simply an uninspired, lame villain for an uninspired, lame comic book movie and nothing more.

When people talk about how much Superman IV sucks, they typically go straight for its cheapness and how laughable the effects look. While that certainly is a major problem and, believe me, we'll get into that presently, there are many other flaws present as well. Besides the aforementioned myriad of subplots and how uninspired the acting is, the topics in the film are presented and discussed in such a simple and nonsensical way that it makes you wonder if the script was written by a third grader. Let's start with the film's main focus: the threat of nuclear war. Now, I'm well aware that the threat of the U.S. and the Soviet Union blowing each other up was very prevalent around that time and, therefore, it was a given that there would eventually be a Superman movie dealing with it. Rocky, Rambo, Godzilla, and Patrick Swayze had already taken on the subject of the Cold War, so why not the Man of Steel? Too bad the film's politics are completely screwed up. Now, I will freely admit that I'm a complete moron when it comes to this topic. I flunked politics and American government all throughout school (both high school and college) simply because I don't get it and I'm also just not interested in it. Therefore, I'm hardly the type of person who can criticize a movie for not being too smart about it. But even I just shake my head at the scene in the UN when Superman announces that he's going to rid the world of all nuclear weapons and not only do none of the representatives from the various countries attempt to debate with him on this but he gets a standing ovation. Okay, as ignorant as I am about this subject, I'm sure that it's much more complicated than that. I don't think all the countries of the world would just fire their nuclear missiles up into space so Superman could dispose of them. Heck, if they were all that willing to get rid of them, wouldn't they have already done that? And furthermore, if everyone agrees with Superman that nuclear weapons are evil and the cause of all wars, then why in the hell would they have ever developed them to begin with? In addition, once Superman disposes of all the nuclear weapons, everyone acts as if world peace has finally been attained. Even Lex Luthor, when he meets with a group of arms dealers with his plan to create Nuclear Man, acts as if everything is all hunky-dory in the world now and he promises them that he can get it back to the way it was before. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there other types of warfare besides nuclear? Moreover, now that the US and Russia don't have to worry about annihilating the planet, wouldn't they proceed to engage in conventional warfare, with typical weapons and so forth? Do you see the problem yet? These screenwriters (and I'm hoping that this tripe wasn't in Christopher Reeve's original story either) did not do their homework and felt that nuclear weapons were the cause of all the world's international tensions when it's much more complex than that. Going with that logic, you have to wonder why Superman tells Luthor at the end of the film that the world is once again on the brink, "...with good fighting evil." How could that be? Since all of the nuclear weapons are gone, shouldn't there still be world peace? Durr! And I realize that Superman's speech at the end of the film is taken from a speech that President Eisenhower gave but his summation that there will be peace one day when everyone wants it so badly is really dumb as well. You mean people didn't want it back then? And I guess, following that logic, that all of the stuff with Iraq and Afghanistan happened simply because we still didn't want peace hard enough.

Now let's talk about the lead-up to Superman's decision to get rid off all the nuclear weapons. Being conflicted about what to do, Supes goes to the Fortress of Solitude where he confers with the spirits of the Kryptonian Elders and, when he tells them that, even though he's forbidden to interfere with human history (like that's stopped him before), he must save the Earth since it's on the verge of being destroyed like Krypton, one elder says that he can flee to another world where war has long since been abandoned and the other says, "If you teach the Earth to put its fate in any one man, even yourself, you're teaching them to be betrayed." Well, if that's their attitude, then what was the point of sending him to Earth in the first place? Wasn't that Jor-El's reason for doing so, to save humanity by leading them to be a great, peaceful people? I know Jor-El isn't present here but why would he have allowed the fortress to be built with these spirits or holograms, whatever you want to call them, that would tell Superman to abandon the Earth and go somewhere else where war isn't an issue? Wouldn't that negate everything that he himself taught his son while he was traveling to Earth as well as when he came of age to fulfill his purpose? I agree with the one statement that he shouldn't teach them to rely on just one person to fix everything since that could lead to trouble and goes against Jor-El's telling him to allow his leadership to inspire others (not that matters, given what he does afterward) but I still don't like the idea of them telling him, "Forget about the Earth and go somewhere else." While it is good writing, storytelling, and food for thought to force Superman to think about what exactly the right thing to do is, when it's done poorly, it's abysmal. (Plus, that one elder repeating, "Betrayed!" over and over again in that melodramatic voice is hard to take seriously.)

I love the look on Supes' face and how he's like, "Yeah, this is really
happening."

As bad as the politics and such are in this movie, the science is just... aah! This stuff is what makes you question the age of the writers. First off, what does Superman do with all of the world's nuclear weapons? He throws them into the sun! Yeah, that was smart. You wanted to save the Earth from blowing itself up and yet, you risked blowing up the sun with all of the world's nuclear weapons. Not only could that have vaporized the Earth but that could have easily wiped out the entire Solar System as well! Speaking of the sun, when Luthor is describing to the arms dealers his plan to create Nuclear Man, he describes the sun as being nothing more than a large nuclear reactor. Like the politics angle, I'm certain there's a lot more to it than that and plus, that makes the idea of all the world's nuclear weapons being thrown into it feel even more disastrous. Let's also not forget the part at the end when Superman moves the whole damn moon to create an eclipse to de-power Nuclear Man! Ignoring the fact that it would be impossible to do that, even for him, can you imagine all the chaos with tidal waves and such that he had to have caused by doing that? And afterward, he drops the weakened Nuclear Man into a nuclear reactor, which not only kills him but increases the reactor's energy output. Wouldn't that have actually made Nuclear Man even more powerful? It's the same thought that I have in Godzilla movies whenever they talk about using nuclear weapons against him. Do they not know that that would probably make him stronger? But in this case, it seems like it did the opposite and actually killed Nuclear Man. I could argue how flawed that logic is until the cows come home but what's the point of doing so with a movie that thinks normal people can breathe in outer space? You could forgive the movie for getting facts about politics and nuclear weapons since those issues are quite complicated. But then, you have the scene where Nuclear Man takes Lacy up into space and not only can she breathe just fine but her body doesn't explode from the change in pressure! I am not letting that one by. When I first saw this movie, I almost lost it. That is elementary school science right there! How do you get that wrong?! Were they even trying?! I know it's a comic book movie but that is the definition of retarded. So, from the complex issues of international tensions and nuclear weapons to the simplest science that the man on the street would know, Superman IV is an idiotic movie on all counts.

One cardinal sin of bad movies that Superman IV commits many times over is reminding you of better movies that you could be watching at the moment. This film rehashes many aspects and scenes of the previous films, particularly the first two and not only is it lazy writing but it makes me wish that I was watching those movies instead. First, we get the green crystal that Superman later uses to cure himself of Nuclear Man's infliction of radiation sickness, which is identical to the way Clark got his powers back in the theatrical version of Superman II. However, you have to wonder what this crystal is since, although it resembles it (and he also found it in the husk of the space-pod he arrived in),  it's obviously not the one that built the Fortress of Solitude, and why he's never used it before.  Speaking of Superman II, his mother Lara is once again the parent who gives him advice and tells him to think hard about what he's going to do before he does it. You don't see a manifestation of Lara here but you do hear her (it is Susannah York's voice, incidentally), although I'm not sure if it's meant to be a recording or her actual spirit. The most blatant callback to one of the previous films is the recreation of the flying scene from the first film that occurs when Lois comes to take Clark to a press conference and instead, he inexplicably leaps off the building with her and reveals that he's Superman. Remember how magical and romantic that sequence was in the original? Yeah, that's not how this feels at all. Not only are the effects bad but the scene is so similar that it feels more appropriate to call it an out and out rip-off. And, like I said, the wonderful feeling the scene in the first film gave you is not here at all. It just feels soulless and empty, like the act of plagiarism it is. And yes, after they get back, Superman once again wipes Lois' memory again with that kiss from Superman II. I'm worried if he keeps doing that, the woman's not going to have many brain cells left. We also have Lex Luthor putting on a disguise in order to put his ultimate plan in motion, just like in the first Superman. Also just like in that film, Luthor gets Superman's attention by creating a signal that only he can sense (in this case, a video signal) and lures him to his hideout by threatening to kill innocent people. And I for one can't help but think of the ending to that first film when Superman flies Luthor back to prison here. You could also say that the way Supes defeats Nuclear Man is akin to how he ultimately defeated General Zod in the second film: he discovered that simply fighting him wasn't going to work and he decided to use a more crafty approach to bring him down. While it's true that finally defeating Nuclear Man took more effort than it did with Zod, the idea is still the same. While it's okay to subtly make references to past films in a series, it's generally a bad idea to do so many to the point where it makes you wish you were watching those movies instead. Plus, doing so in a movie as poor as this makes it even worse.

When Superman IV was first put into production, Cannon intended to give it a healthy budget of $36 million, which would have been a few million dollars more than what Superman III cost. But, with so many other projects in the works as well as a slew of financial problems that they were having at the time, the budget was whittled down to a pathetic $17 million, which is not an effective budget for this kind of film at all (a similar situation had occurred two years prior with King Kong Lives over at DEG) and the result is a film that looks and feels as cheap as it was. The very look of the film itself gives away just how low budget it is. I don't know what kind of film stock cinematographer Ernest Day was forced to shoot with but it doesn't have that lush, bright feel that the previous films had; instead, it looks like a bargain bin version of those films. This is another thing that's hard to explain but you'll know what I mean if you've seen the movie. As for the production design by John Graysmark, it's fair for the most part. The brief bit at the Kent farm at the beginning, the look of Metropolis, the Superman museum, and the apartments of Lois and Clark all serve their purpose nicely. The interior of the Daily Planet looks okay but it's obvious that it's not the same set that was used in the previous films and that can be hard to get used to. The Fortress of Solitude doesn't look that bad, both in terms of the outside and the inside, but you can tell that it's a cheaper version of the amazing set that John Barry designed in the first film. The prison-yard where we first see Lex Luthor and where he's returned to at the end of the movie by Superman is nothing special, just a white, rocky pit (it's so white that could at first mistake it for snow) but that's a lot better to me than his hideout. That place just looks lame to me. Nothing about it is original. Not the design, not the layout, not the wardrobe that his female servants wear, nothing.  (And what was up with that one random woman who was wearing a Renaissance-style dress?) I don't find it as cool as his underground lair in the first film and, if you think about it, Luthor probably shouldn't have made his hideout in one of the top floors of a big building in the middle of the city anyway. By this point, everybody should know that he's escaped from prison and, therefore, it might not have been a good idea to hold up there as well as have meetings with arms dealers there.

There are two locations in particular where the film's low budget really hurts their credibility. One is the scene where Superman walks to the United Nations building with Jeremy and a bunch of other people. If you know anything about New York, then you'd realize that location looks nothing like it and it certainly doesn't look like it leads to the UN either. The filmmakers realized this and begged Cannon to allow them to actually go to New York and shoot in front of the real UN building but they refused and were forced to shoot at Milton Keynes park in England, which doesn't fit the bill. I may have never been to New York but I've seen enough of it to know what it looks like and that wasn't it. The building they walked to looks nothing like the UN either but, instead, like some auditorium, which is what it was apparently. But, as bad as that is, nothing compares to the surface of the moon where Superman and Nuclear Man continue their battle. That is pathetic. Remember that moonscape set that you briefly see in the Bond film, Diamonds Are Forever? That looks more realistic than this, and that really was meant to be just a set in the context of the film!. Not only is it clearly inside of a darkened studio but if you look closely in some shots, you can see the curtains in the background that are meant to be the blackness of space move! It also doesn't help that we already had a sequence on the moon in Superman II that looked infinitely more realistic than this. At least there, they had the money to put stars and the sun into the background. All they could manage here was a brief shot of the sun coming over the horizon.

But what everybody talks about are the effects and there's a good reason for that. As I said in my review of the other movies, I do feel that those effects are a bit dated by today's standards but were undoubtedly groundbreaking for the times and also, they weren't so dated that I couldn't still enjoy those movies overall. The effects in this movie are a completely different story. As much as I understand and sympathize with the plight of the filmmakers during the production, that doesn't negate just how bad these effects are and the impact that they have on watching the film. The action scenes, especially the battles between Superman and Nuclear Man, become tedious and awkward instead of fun and exciting and it's impossible to pay attention to the story or the gravity of what's happening because of how noticeably bad the effects are. I know I've said many times before how I enjoy a lot of bad films but the point I'm trying to make here is that when your film is a bad entry in a franchise that's usually known for being of high quality and the technical aspects are so consistently poor that they're distracting you from the movie itself, you're in big trouble. That's why Superman IV is a prime example of a movie that's so bad that it's unbearable instead of being fun. The shoddy effects get tiresome after a while and become boring, making it impossible to enjoy what should be an exciting comic book movie.

The cheapness of the film is evident right from the opening credits. Superman had those awesome blue credits that fire right at the screen and Superman II had that epic sequence with the credits flying through space interspersed with a recap of the events of the first movie, all while a great rendition of the John Williams theme plays. Here, we get an underwhelming sequence that takes place in a shot of the Earth from space, an S symbol that looks like a tomato in my opinion, and involves the credits flying into frame and then immediately going behind the planet. These lackluster credits that look like something you could create with Windows Movie Maker (I know it was the 1980's but that's what they look like), combined with a really bad version of the theme, do not get you pumped for the movie at all. Now, the question is whether I like these credits or the ones for Superman III better. I don't know. They're both pretty bad. On the one hand, you don't have any stupid slapstick going on behind the credits and you at least have some rendition of the Superman theme instead of that silly music Ken Thorne composed. So, at least this does feel like the opening sequence to a Superman movie, albeit a very poor one. On the other hand the actual credits for Superman III looked better in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, their placement was horrendous and they go by in a way that could cause you to miss the actual title but they do look more appropriate with their Star Wars-like way of crawling upwards. If those had been placed in a shot of space, they would have worked just fine to me. In conclusion, if I had my druthers, I think I'd do a hybrid where we have a shot of space as we do here but use the crawling credits and definitely get a better rendition of the theme than what's in this movie. But if I couldn't do that, I'd probably go with Superman IV but not by much, believe me.

After the opening credits, we get our first bit of Superman action where Supes saves a Russian space station that's sent spiraling out of control and a cosmonaut who was outside of the station and was knocked into space by the impact. While the model effects on the station itself are fair, our first look at Superman here as he flies towards the screen is indicative of what's to come. Not only is that shot terribly rotoscoped but it's used over and over again in this film, just with different background plates like the Metropolis skyline or a clear blue sky. It's one of the major examples of Cannon's cost-cutting methods. It's a shame that there are so many flying sequences in the film, for that matter, because they all look like crap, with terrible blue screen matting and so forth. The scene where Superman and Lois fly around the country? Crap. Supes getting rid of all the nuclear weapons by throwing them into the sun? Really bad. (This and the aforementioned scene with Lois are where his suit's colors are off.) The mid-air battles between him and Nuclear Man? Awkward when they should be exciting. The list just goes on. The only flying scene that looks good is the ending scene of Superman flying above the Earth and that's from the first film! Besides the matting problems, you can also make out the wires in many of the flying scenes as well. They're particularly noticeable in shots of Superman coming in for landing and even if you can't see them, you can still tell that he is in a flying harness like Peter Pan because of the larger red shorts that he wears over it. While this was the case in all the films, the bigger pair of shorts were concealed beforehand by various means, either through the use of camera angles, quick cutting, or just the cape. Here, there's no hiding it at all and it makes it look as if Christopher Reeve had gained weight!

I know I've stated several times already how the special effects ruin the battles between Superman and Nuclear Man but, again, these are meant to be the film's big action scenes, what it's been building up to and yet, you're more likely to find yourself groaning at how awful the effects are rather than being exhilarated by what's going on. In fact, I would go on to say that there are other, less technical reasons why these scenes don't work. One is that, the bad effects aside, there's no energy to these scenes at all. Instead of a big, epic battle like when Superman fought General Zod and his cronies, all he and Nuclear Man do is awkwardly grapple in mid-air with bad blue screen effects behind them, play tag as Supes chases Nuclear Man all over the world and repairs damage that he does, and it ends when Nuclear Man gets a cheap shot on Supes while he's fixing the damage that he's done to the Statue of Liberty (incidentally, look how messed up the perspective is on that shot of Supes carrying the statue through the city). Their second fight on the surface of the moon isn't much better. It feels sluggish and dull with all the bad wire effects used to make them fly across the moonscape at each other and the way he ultimately defeats Nuclear Man by moving the moon to cause an eclipse that will de-power him leaves a lot to be desired for and so does his dropping him into a nuclear reactor. However, I think the major reason why these scenes don't work, aside from the effects, is that there's no build-up to Nuclear Man or the damage that he can do. Due to the film's jumbled storyline, Nuclear Man is just one element in a cluttered mess instead of being the focus of the entire film. When he's created about forty minutes into the film, it doesn't have any impact because there's barely been any talk about Lex Luthor's plan to create him and so, when he and Superman start fighting, you just don't care. Yes, while he does manage to severely injure Superman, that's taken care of right away. If there had been a stretch of the movie where Superman was out of the picture and Metropolis was at the mercy of Luthor and his deadly creation, it would have been much more of an impact. In fact, if that was done, the point where Superman's cape is found and brought to the Daily Planet would have also been more powerful. But, the only real hint of any of this that we get is Luthor getting a bunch of money now that he's eliminated Superman. That doesn't cut it at all. So the lesson here is, bad special effects aside, you can't expect a villain and the damage that he does to have an impact if you don't build up what a threat he is.

All of this talking about how bad the effects are aside, there are some effects that are passable in my opinion. These mainly come in the form of animation that's used to bring Superman's powers to life, like his laser eye-beams, super-breath, and X-ray vision. They may look crude by today's standards but given what we have to put up with throughout most of the movie, they look like ILM by comparison! I also don't mind the animated bolts of electricity that you see when Superman stops the runaway subway train at the beginning of the movie or the orange ones that constantly spark off of Nuclear Man. Again, primitive, but I can't help but smile at them, mainly because they remind me of a time before 98% of special effects were all done digitally. The same goes for the actual birth of Nuclear Man. I've heard some rip on that effect but I think that's a very cool bit of animation where you see him start out as a glowing red fetus then quickly develop into a more full-grown size before finally morphing into the live action Mark Pillow. I like that effect because at least there I can say that it seemed like they were trying. There are some really good practical explosive effects that occur when Nuclear Man is trashing downtown Metropolis to force Superman to take him to Lacy, as well as during the little scuffle inside the Daily Planet building, and nothing beats some good old stop-motion animation, which you see when Superman uses those telekinetic powers to repair the Great Wall of China. That ability may be inexplicable but I always like seeing stop-motion (for the most part, anyway) and this film, despite how bad it is, is no exception. But, as much as I can say enjoy these sporadic effects, I ultimately feel that the majority of the technical work in Superman IV deserves all the jeers that it gets.

I read one review that said that, despite how bad the movie was overall, Sidney J. Furie was able to capture some of the feeling that Richard Donner tried to bring to the first film. I don't see that at all myself. I get what the guy means, that this movie isn't as overly goofy and slapsticky as the previous one was, but I don't feel even the slightest hint of that verisimilitude that Donner brought to the first film. A part of it may be because this film just looks so cheap and doesn't have the impeccable production values that Donner had to work with and another part of it could be because Donner had a better script as well and while I know that's an unfair comparison, I just can't get past it. Plus, while the film does try to be serious for the most part, there's still some over the top comedy present that I could totally see Richard Lester doing. While Luthor's escape from prison and the scene with Clark and Lacy at the gym with Clark having to deal with a dickish trainer are pretty silly and unnecessary (you could have easily cut that latter scene out), the sequence that I'm thinking of is the one where Lois and Lacy are expecting to meet both Clark and Superman at Lois' apartment for an interview with the Man of Steel and he keeps switching between both identities and using his powers to make excuses for why they never wind up in the room together. This whole thing feels like it's right out of a sitcom, and a really bad one for that matter. Not one part of it is amusing or enjoyable and it just goes on and on, far overstaying its welcome. Plus, we have some hi-larious slapstick with Clark getting "caught" on a luggage cart as well as him clumsily knocking some dishes over at one point up in the apartment. This stuff must have made Christopher Reeve groan because I heard that he enjoyed getting to make Clark less clumsy in the previous film and here, he's regressed horribly. It's simply not funny and makes an already intolerable movie all the more so.

Normally, I don't talk about deleted scenes but since there was over forty minutes of footage cut from Superman IV, I think I should mention at least a little bit of it. The deleted material that everybody talks about is the stuff involving a prototype Nuclear Man that Luthor creates before coming up with the one that appears in the final film. A reason that's often given for why this section of the film was deleted is because when the movie was shown before a test audience, they pointed out a bunch of bad special effects. As opposed to all of the great effects that are in the rest of the movie? I, however, would guess that if there's any real reason why that subplot was deleted, it was probably because they realized how stupid it was. The sight of that thing with spiky black hair and a dopey expression on his face acting like a big child makes me cringe, especially when he's first created and stumbles around Luthor's lair completely naked save for some object strapped to his waist that blocks his privates. I think if they had shot this in a more serious manner, had the first Nuclear Man be evil but not quite as aggressive as the final one, and filmed the scene in the script where he becomes attracted to Lacy, which would have explained the second Nuclear Man's inexplicable desire for her later on, it would have worked a lot better. Speaking of the second Nuclear Man, they took out some stuff that made him seem much more dangerous than he is in the final cut, including a sequence where he flies to Smallville and causes a tornado. Not only does the tornado destroy a farmhouse but it also sucks up a little girl whom Superman has to save. That shows a more lethal side to Nuclear Man than him simply blowing some holes in the Great Wall of China and starting a little lava flow in a volcano in Italy that threatens a small group of people. Speaking of which, they also deleted a scene near the end of the movie where Nuclear Man nearly causes World War III and Superman has to use Lacy to distract and stop him. Again, it's a sign that Nuclear Man isn't one to be messed with and that he's so unstable that his idea of "fun" is causing mass death and destruction. If they had been able to finish the special effects in these scenes (as good as this effects team could have possibly done, anyway), I think it would have added a little more meat to the film and would have given a sense that the sequence where he was causing damage across the globe was only a taste of how truly destructive he is. They also cut out a little more of Superman suffering from the radiation sickness that Nuclear Man inflicts upon him and, again, this would have shown just how dangerous a villain he is and how careful Superman needs to be when he confronts him again after healing himself. One final scene I definitely think they should have left in is early in the movie when Superman tells Jeremy why he can't do what he asked him to in his letter. If they had left that in, I think the Daily Planet's lying about how Superman told the kid to, "drop dead," would have had more of a punch, would have shown what a sleazy and disrespectful newspaper Warfield has made the Planet into, and, ultimately, it would have been more incentive for Superman to do what he eventually does and not make Jeremy feel so useless. Plus, the scene where he flies with Superman over the world and they notice how all the countries seem to merge into one could have been left in and, again, would have made the story a bit more effective. All in all, while I don't think these scenes would have made Superman IV a great movie, I think leaving some in and tweaking others would have made it a lot better than it was and, at the very least, the good intentions that went into the movie would not have gone completely to waste.

The opening credits would like you to think that John Williams did the score for this movie but, in fact, most of the composing was done by a friend and collaborator of his named Alexander Courage. Williams apparently did create three new themes for the characters of Lacy, Jeremy, and Nuclear Man but he must have been really distracted because they're absolutely unmemorable and I cannot even begin to tell you what they sounded like (to be fair, though, it seems as though the cutting down of the film pretty much destroyed Jeremy's theme). Courage also composed some new music of his own for the Russians and whenever nuclear missiles are discussed but, again, I don't remember at all. I can tell you that his rendition of the Superman theme sucks. Ken Thorne's version may not have been as good as the original by Williams but it still sounded heroic and appropriate. This sounds, like everything else in the movie, very cheap, like a high school band is playing it. The other cues from the previous scores that return here, like the love theme for Superman and Lois, sound okay but this version of the theme is pathetic. It's kind of appropriate, actually,  because this entire movie is a nickel and dime version of the greatness of the original films in the same way that this version of the theme is to John Williams' great composition.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace is a prime example of what you get when you try to do a big spectacle film on a budget that's unfit for it. The story is cluttered and muddled, the actors seem to be going through the motions and don't come across as interested in the proceedings, the effects are absolute balls, and, worst of all, the film is a boring experience that's completely forgettable. This movie tanked so badly that it killed Superman's film career for nearly two decades and it really hurt Christopher Reeve's career as well. I think that's the biggest tragedy here, that this awful movie is the last time that we got to see Reeve as Superman. What a way for him to go out after he so perfectly played the character before and made him not only heroic but down-to-Earth and human as well. I'm sure that there are people out there who enjoy this film (although they're likely few and far between) and that's cool but for me, this is an embarrassing and pathetic movie that acts as a sad cap on Christopher Reeve's tenure of playing the Man of Steel, a tenure that began with him doing it so well that he became the live-action image of the character for millions and, no doubt, still is to this day.