Superman II (1981) movie review - Sneak Previews with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 тра 2019
- This is the original review of Superman II by Siskel & Ebert on "Sneak Previews" in 1981. All of the segments pertaining to the movie have been included.
- Розваги
Siskel: "I can't wait for Superman 3..."
Ebert: "It's interesting to think how easily this whole thing could have gone wrong..."
The Salkinds: Challenge accepted.
Supermn III is exactly the sort of movie they had intended to make in the first place. If you watch the original version of "II" you can distinctly tell which scenes were directed by Richard Donner and which were directed by Richard Lester. "III" was intended to feature Brainiac with as the villan before they fired Richard Donner and Tom Mankowitcz from the franchise.
I didn't know this originally, but Richard Donner was supposed to do Superman 2 but was replaced by Lester, who had reshot some of Donner's footage. Also, Hackman did not come back for reshoots. I wonder if Siskel and Ebert ever found out about this.
Superman 3 is good enough. 4 is when it ended
@@sha11235 Ebert at least found out about it, I’m sure.
Haha. I was just going to comment about that. Boy, it did go wrong and fast. Superman 3 was a total disaster. Should have never been made at all because it destroyed the sterling legacy of this great franchise with Reeves. If they'd have stopped at 2, it would have been a perfect classic. Still is, but the following movies were a joke.
It's great to see Christopher Reeve get praised like this. He was phenomenal.
skoolbus amen, bruh RIP to a legend
He certainly was.
Christopher Reeve, hands down, is my favorite Superman to date. These movies will always be special to me. I was 5 when my father took me to the Theater to see this movie in 1981. I cried when I found out that Christopher had passed💔. I miss him a lot. One day, I hope to see him in my afterlife.
Great sequel to a really good original movie. Both Superman movies were great. Just loved it.
Reeve specifically based his Kent on Cary Grant; I'm glad Siskel picked up on it.
The moment Sieskel said he's looking forward to Superman III in two years. I think you should reconsider Sieskel.
@@3000_Year_Old_Man But GB 2 was great.
Well Siskel would've been right about III IF... Richard Pryor was not included in it.
@Jason Thompson The third was great!
Superman III was okay. I'm just glad Gene was long spared from seeing the live abortion known as Man of Steel.
How was he to know?
The woman who played Ursa was excellent at being contemptible, evil, scary and sexy all at once.
Her name is Sarah Douglas, and yes she was.
A disappointing blow job
At 4:22, Siskel states that Christopher Reeve reminds him of Cary Grant in some of these scenes. Years later, Reeve confessed in an interview that he "stole shamelessly" from Cary Grant in creating his Clark Kent character; so Siskel was more astute than he realized in his observation...
Well, Gene didn't know that at the time.
Gosh, Margot Kidder, Christopher Reeve, Gene Siskel, Roger Ebert...... all gone. Sucks.
Man,you ain't never lied.
Nobody lives forever.
@@acrovader Thanks for that insightful comment. But they didn't exactly die of natural causes.
All gone way too soon, for sure.
You are right indeed.
Very sad because i grew up loving them all.
One of the great sequels. The Lois and Superman romance really gives the film high drama - and the moral choice that Superman has to make - between choosing true love or being Superman.
Christopher Reeve deserved the praise for his performance in this film. I love the fact that he modelled Clark Kent's geekiness on Cary Grant(stealing from the best is always wise).
She would have gone off him being an average Joe
I remember watching this segment years ago on my local PBS channel.
Lots to say about this one. First, this was a blast to see on the big screen in 1981. Yes, this was the theatrical Richard Lester comic-tinged version that I saw at the time and that Siskel and Ebert are reviewing, and there was nothing wrong with it. This version was not what the fired original director Richard Donner wanted, but now we can see his alternate or preferred original director's cut and it, too, is very fine, in its very different and more serious way. Both versions should be seen. Also, there are some very good videos on UA-cam explaining the complicated history of this film's production and differing versions, and those should be watched to understand how both versions came to exist.
When I first saw this, it was on ABC so there was added footage I didn't know about, which I missed when I caught this on cable years later.
The Dick Lester version is still superior and just hangs together better as a coherent film...the Donner version is a bit too brief at 15 min less than the original, and includes a "screen test" scene btw Clark & Lois that doesn't quite gel with the rest of it.
I didn't know about this until years later, but I still did love this sequel. Seeing Donner's version, it's pretty much a wash. Both versions work.
Their last comment about the industry...man, Gene really was on to something.
Actually, the beginning of the fall they made a special about the summer of 81 and how blockbusters and kid films were knocking off adult oriented movies. Hopefully that show will be downloaded.
Siskel got one right! I'm so proud of him.
When I was 11 years old, Superman II was my favorite movie. When I see it now, knowing its history, its seams show- it has problems. I love seeing this because it reminds me of what I loved about the movie at age 11. Eric Stran, thank you so much for posting these invaluable time capsules. I don't know where you got 'em, but they are really neat to watch.
When Superman II first came out, I remember there being a near-consensus that it was actually better than the first one. I think a lot of that was down to Terence Stamp's performance as Zod, a genuinely scary and charismatic villain. The first movie didn't have that--Hackman's Lex Luthor was great fun but more tongue-in-cheek.
These days, it seems as if the consensus has flipped and this is regarded as a more flawed movie than the first Superman. That might be because of all the stories about behind-the-scenes production trouble and the differing visions of Richard Donner and Richard Lester. You can see traces of that on screen.
Ebert even flipped back the other way. In his Lethal Weapon review, he said, "Richard Donner has directed a lot of classy pictures. My favorites are "Inside Moves," "Ladyhawke" and the original "Superman," which is still the best. This time he tops himself."
Gotta love how the people walking on the Niagara Falls boardwalk were indifferent over Lois being in the water.
I could never decide whether I liked the first Superman or Superman II better. Both great movies. I agree with Siskel that the acting gets overlooked. Reeve was great as Superman/Kent, Kidder was great as Lois, Hackman was great as Lex Luthor, Ned Beatty as Otis, Jackie Cooper as Perry White, Marc McClure as Jimmy Olsen...all great! It is the casting that made those movies work so well.
Ned Beatty didn't really do much in the sequel.
Don't forget Don Corleone as Jor-El!!
Don't forget Miss Tesmacher as well she was great really funny and gorgeous and sexy too👍🏻
While not as strong as the first one (and weakened by Donner's departure), Superman II is still a great sequel that successfully deepens the original's characters and themes. The focus on human drama and romance makes it stand out from today's CGI noise and quip-fests.
Actually better than the first. Faster and funnier.
And, much like Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back, the films were also helped along by incredible classic scores that were hard to forget. The original Superman score really elevated the movies to something more than just popcorn fun.
@@steveconn It went the opposite direction of SW and ESB, where the first Star Wars was the faster and funnier one.
"I can't wait for Superman 3"
*ABANDON HOPE ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE*
For real. I think it was Ebert during the Superman III review where he says it was exactly what he was worried the first movie would be. A shame too because the third and fourth films could have been just as amazing as the first two.
Such a shame! Instead of Brainiac or Bizarro, we got Richard Pryor and Robert Vaughn.
Scrapyard fight is fun
I ALWAYS have LOVED "Super-Man 2!!" The first one was Awesome, and this second one built upon the greatness of the first. STILL my FAVORITE "Super-Man" film, this second one. I have seen a good plenty of Outstanding Superhero Movies in my time; D.C., Marvel, and others. However "Super-Man 2" is STILL a Winner that stands the test of time. Great Review by Siskel and Ebert!❤😊
I went to the New York premiere Superman 3. They gave us all red glossy printed credits. I'll never forget the feeling in the air at the endless unfunny comedy. Everybody knew it was a turd right away.
'They need machines to fly!" Well so did you before you came within range of the Earth's sun...
She said "made" not "need".
Thanks for uploading all these, Eric. Just terrific :)
the best Superman movie (yeh I know everyone says its Superman The Movie but cmon Superman II is much better)
Its good, but no where near as good as Superman the Movie
I think because here it isn't an origin story and you have those three Kryptonian villians.
I totally enjoy superman 2 as much as the original, it was continuation, it's much more love story than action which I love, Reeve's performance is the reason it was successful. 👍👍⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Reeve and Kidder are one of the great screen couples of all time. Incredible chemistry between them.
I wonder what Siskel and Ebert would have thought about the Donner Cut of Superman II?
The best of the superman sequels!
It's fantastiiiiiiiic!!!! - Lex Luthor in the Fortress of Solitude.
4:42 - "The U.S. Army goes all out to stop them." By dispatching one chopper.
My fav Superman movie Ever
Uploader, nice touch including the WTTV animated logo that was "borrowed" from the memorable Superman opening credits!
Really picking Reeve for Superman was one of the best castings in cinema history. I agree with Gene about the infantilisation of the movie scene. It started right there around that time.
That all happened when Jaws came out in the summer of 1975 and started the summer blockbuster. Then in 1977, Star Wars later cemented that.
@@patrickshields5251 oh yea for sure. And I realised that years later when I was an adult. Because having grown up during and after the wave of all these movies, I grew up at the time where big action blockbusters were the norm, even the majority. But I didn't realise that fantasy flicks were rare back in the day and what dominated the screens were adult movies from everywhere on the planet. There's even a teacher that told me that when he was a teenager, there wasn't much of these movies and he and his friends were to the theater to watch art movies and films by Godard and so forth. What he was telling me was so alien to what I knew. I wish I had lived it, I wish young people would have the chance to see movies that are not just made for children aka popcorn flicks. Although the TV shows nowadays that you can find on Netflix are of good quality.
@@johnnyskinwalker4095 Shortly after this review, they did a special episode covering the topic called "I Was A Teenage Movie: Hollywood in 1981". It's now on UA-cam.
On the positive side, at least Gene Hackman and Terence Stamp are still alive.
Yes, Hackman is retired though. So is Ned Beatty, who played Otis.
Wait til Cannon get their hands on this franchise...
The 5 best sequels of all time
5. tHE dARK kNIGHT rISES
4. sPIDERMAN 2
Superman II
The Empire Strikes Back
The Godfather Part 2
The Bride of Frankenstein.
@@ricardocantoral7672 Was gonna post the same thing lol
Terminator 2, aliens
Star trek 2 The Wrath of Khan.
Blade 2
These two were absolutely wonderful at reviewing films
THERE was a time where I fantasized about doing what they did and having my own show.
Siskel can be a bit pompous at times but I love watching these
This is a great movie!!!! Loved it as a kid!!!!
I would have waited for that Superman 3 comment.
It’s amazing how time can change the view of a film. Because when this movie came out, a lot of critics and audiences did think it was even better than the original. Certainly on par with the original. But over the years as it got dissected and all of the drama between the producers, and Richard Donner got exposed, People have actually routinely trashed this movie. I still think it’s on par with the original.
And I think the Richard Donner cut while it had some nice footage probably never should have been put out. Too much footage that wasn’t shot and it was messy.
No, people largely still love II. I myself still prefer the original, and recently I discovered extra reason why. II is cheaper than the original. The Movie had beef, including full orchestra. This movie was cheapened, including the orchestration and animation. The intro is not as artful and mature and much more comic-book. And 2 things that bothered me a long time: the East Houston father dropped on the ground bounces on a mattress under that dirt (and his ridiculous English-accented son), and the still photo of the White House (frozen water fountains!). Indicative of too much cheapness. I like this movie, but it is not the robust quality of the origin story.
@@theOlLineRebel
The first movie tells the origin story flawlessly in my opinion. It’s the benchmark for how all origin comic book movies were to be made going forward. The second movie has more action and an extremely well told love story with a lot of heart and emotion attached to it. I think you can make a case for either movie being the best.
Terrence Stamp was the best villain
I’ve always had a problem with this film as it was a weird hodgepodge of original director, Richard Donner, and his replacement, Richard Lester. Donner did it great but Lester seemed to crap all over the story and characters. He notoriously had said he never cared for Superman even when he took the job.
The original 1978 film is a classic and really captured the greatness of the character. Donner paid great tribute to the history of the character and understood what made the comic so good. Things really went downhill after with both “Superman III” and especially “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace” which is laughable.
Well said. Exactly. Donner wasn't only a good director, but he was also a fan. He had respect for the material. I've said it before, because Donner had like 70 or 75% of the movie made, something like that. I get it, the producers wanted to replace Donner. And i know they didn't wanted to use Brando's footage so they need it to do reshots anyway. But appart from that, i think if Lester would've tried to stay as faithful as possible to that script that Donner was working on, if he would've follow that closely and just focus on doing the footage missing, what they needed to finish the film, maybe people wouldn't be so hard on him. And i get that he needed to film more than half of the picture in order to get credit. But to me that's no excuse. He made a lot of changes. Rewrote, and reshot scenes and added a lot of humor. And the problem was that the humor it felt out of place. Especially in the third act. Superman fighting 3 Kryptonians and everyone is going on with their lives like nothing is happening. I'd look up if i see Superman. You have people on a fast food restaurant. "You forgot your change..." "sound what sound ?" While he's talking on the phone. "My hair!" "Your hair ? What about mine?" The ice cream thing. Another guy on the phone. I can't remember if it was the same "Yeah, yeah, hahaha, yeah" all of that while the Kryptonians are using their super breath to create chaos. Was that supposed to be funny ?
Christian Garcia Agree completely. That whole scene that you mention with the hair comment and the guy in the phone booth is ridiculous. I’ll always remember a man yelling out in the theater as the credits were over when he said, “Donner did it better.” He was absolutely right. Everything you mention is spot on.
At least he didn't have complete disrespect for the character like Zack.
One of the reasons Superman 3 sucked was because it didn't have villains with SUPER POWERS.
right. and why Richard Pryor? I just think that was an obvious cash grab
They really should have went with Brainiac like they originally planned.
I thought this Superman film was nearly as good as the first Superman movie, I give "Superman II" an 8/10
If they only knew how bad superman III was going to be. But the first two were great.🦸🏻
Donner cut is the best version.
And it easily did go downhill with three and four, although I still enjoy them.
I miss the latest movies being promoted on cereal boxes, making an origami Captain Kirks chair or getting Jaws 3D specs or a Back to the Future comic
Too bad that Superman 3 was so bad.
".. juvenilization of the American movie.." 1981 , it's worse now
Sickle seems obsessed with the romance in these movies. Same exact comments in the original Movie.
It went wrong with Superman 3.
Horribly wrong.
We agree to disagree.
Had some good moments. The Clark vs. evil Superman battle was awesome.
the script, period
@@jimjones4838 Movies are always about the script.
Most people have forgotten but this film, among others, was criticized at the time of its release as being overly violent. Siskel and Ebert even had a special episode discussing the rise of violence in Hollywood movies. If I recall correctly, the clip they showed on that episode was the scene on the moon with the three super villains, near the beginning of the film.
So what we have learned here is that grabbing a branch will automatically steer you into a gentle cove.
If you’re going to get logical, you’re in for a long movie.
The branch kept her afloat, allowing her to swim to the shoreline.
Saw this in a movie theater in Brazil when it came out. The Portuguese subtitles were interesting.
General Zod: _É o pau, é a pedra, é o fim do caminho_
Oh, if people knew the drama behind the Slikens behind these movies, with them firing the 1st Superman director.
Yes, they screwed the cast of "The Three Musketeers" as well.
@@gallery7596 And after Supergirl, Santa Claus and Christopher Columbus, their careers were over.
Typical Gene Siskel. If a good action or fantasy film has even the slightest hint of a romance, he'll always say that he prefers that side of the story. In his review of The Terminator he asserted that Cameron should've made the love story between Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese the central focus! lol
Ive noticed that. I mean in the unedited version of T1, there's an entire sex scene between Reese and Sarah. And you could sense the sexual tension for most of the time they're together. But then again Gene called the Terminator an "alien" as if he was asleep for the first hour.
Always seemed a bit of a stretch that she wouldn't be turned off by a guy infatuated with an old Polaroid and irradiated jizz
A bit of a stretch that Sarah isn't turned off by a guy that's infatuated with an old Polaroid and has irradiated ramjam
Siskel and Ebert in their prime.
Actually I think their criticism got more detailed and incisive as the years went on. Their peak probably came 10 or 15 years after this.
You're looking forward to Superman 3? Uh-oh...
Directors cut of this movie is really GOOD!
I question for you, Is Superman 2 release 1980 or 1981 I'm so confused?
I love the fact that film is mentioned in Family Guy.
Is that all they loved it for the romance? 🤨🤔😂 Im sure all Siskel and Ebert wanted to see was nookie 🤣🤣😭 but the other stuff the action and fight scenes were amazing Gene Siskel saying they weren't special annoyed me 😡 they were incredible especially seeing other people have Supes powers fighting him that was awesome! One thing i didn't really pick up on at the time seeing the film as i guess was too young to understand was that bit where Lois was trying to prove that Clark was Superman by jumping into Niagara Falls surely he didn't actually prove he wasn't because if Supes really did have feelings for Lois he would have been there to save her anyway much like the first one he wasn't there to save her and regretted it and didn't want to repeat that so he should have changed into Supes somewhere to save her only now as an adult have i realized that flaw but thats one minor thing don't know if anyone else has thought about or realized this?
My local theater only 3 mi from my house is closed. Next closest is now 20 mi away :(
Seems to be the case worldwide. My old local theatre closed recently as well. Got to travel 12 miles now to get to one.
Update; it has reopened
@@oobrocks That is good to hear. Although, I have to be honest - I fear for a lot of cinemas future - what with online streaming.
Agreed
Mad Magazine did a funny parody of this.
The best joke was the joke about Zod mentioning the President looked like an over the hill movie actor, and the President responded, "We had to make one part in this film historically accurate."
Reeves > Cavil. The real Superman.
*Reeve
@@jamesanderson6373 *Whatever
Once again Siskel & Ebert gush over the love story over the action. They did the same thing for the first movie.
0:35 ok... non-carbonated grape drink... in a vending machine... and the vending machine actually dispenses a cup??? Whaaaa?????? Did these magical machines actually exist????
Clearly they were common enough to make it into this intro but I have never seen one in my life
Indeed they did. Even later in the 90s. The 80s are sorely missed by those who lived them.
Oh yes, I remember those from the 1970s. And things went wrong: no cup, or no ice, or no flavoring just soda water. Some machines stole your money or kept your change.
@@r5t6y7u8 I don’t think I ever saw one in my life. They used to have coffee machines like that, I saw one of these a few times. The machine would dispense a cup and then pour coffee into it… I haven’t see any of those since the 90s and the one I saw was ancient
Is this movie release in 1980 or 1981 I'm so confused
It was released in Europe in late 1980, then it got released in the US in mid 1981
I agree with Siskel that the movie's action scenes are "not all that special." I was 13 when I saw it in June 1981, and even then I absolutely cringed at some of its effects. The Phantom Zone breaking apart after being hit by the shockwave has got to be some of the worst animation for a high budgeted film like this, as is the flamethrower effect at General Zod. In both cases you can tell that the animation was actually done on twos. Almost every production element put into the film looks and sounds cheaper compared to the first one. It was after seeing this film that I realized what a difference the choice of director makes.
Hello, I don't know if you'll even see this response to your year old comment but I agree. I was 11 in 1981, and when I saw Superman II in the theatre, I was jarred the same way by the shockwave and the flamethrower. On the other hand, my 11 year old self was moved (almost) to tears watching Clark get beat up.
@@kennedytaylor4783 I agree that Clark getting beat up was emotional. Reeve's acting in that scene, especially when he's lying on the floor talking to Lois and realizing what a huge mistake he's made, is very moving. Despite my vitriol directed at the technical aspects of the movie, I think that SUPERMAN II is a very good movie. After seeing SUPERMAN in 1978, it instantly became my favorite movie at the time and I expected its sequel to be no less than the greatest movie ever made. So, I couldn't help but be let down in some ways. I still ended up seeing it multiple times in the theater and will watch the Blu-ray every couple of years.
I completely disagree with that. We are talking about 1980 and 1981 visual effects here. That was absolutely cutting edge stuff for its time. It’s hard to even see what the original Star Wars movies look like because George Lucas got rid of all of that for special editions . But It didn’t look vastly superior to anything you saw in the superman movies.
Peak S & E right here
Great sequel 😊
siskel is always a sucker for a love story
The Richard Donner cut is the best Superman.
Except the ending. It's too bad Tom Welling was too much of a pussy to wear the suit.
Naah...the Dick Lester version is superior, the comedy works better and is a more coherent film...the Donner version is a bit too brief at 15 min less than the original, and includes a "screen test" scene btw Clark & Lois that doesn't quite gel with the rest of it.
@@eargasm1072 The Donner cut appropriately reduces the comedy and keeps up the visual grandeur of the previous film.
Agreed. Sure wish Donner had been given a chance to complete his duo films. Lester's take is far too goofy too often. And, a lot of this movie looks and feels cheap. There was no financial reason for this, as the first one was a massive success. They knew the formula worked and had a wonderful director who helped pull it all off. Getting rid of Donner was just stupid.
@@eargasm1072 Lester was awful. Everything was a goof to him. Bleech.
I always thought they needed a prettier Lois
Best Superman movie honestly better than Wonder Woman and Aquaman in my opinion. The other DC movie i Love is Swamp thing 1982 directed by Wes Craven
Too bad they didn't know about the change of directors and there was a lot of other footage Donner shot.
Looks like Lester was very careful to only release his own footage as promotional clips.
Margot Kidder was hideous. That’s the big gripe I have with the Superman movies.
1:34 Raiders of the Lost Ark begs the differ.
Not sure why this states 1981, as it was 1980. Could be the long runs they had back then. But it WAS a huge hit.
@@theOlLineRebel Superman II wasn’t released in the United States until the summer of 1981, as did Raiders.
And now we know about how Superman 2 had difficulties with the original director, Richard Donner.
Superman 3 was going to expand the DCU and include Supergirl, instead there were two movies really bad.
I thought Superman 2 was universally regarded as the best one?
In what universe?
Superman II is a masterpiece. The greatest superhero motion picture ever made.
Ranking:
1. Superman II
2. Batman 1989
3. Superman 1978
4. Batman Returns
5. Wonder Woman 2017
6. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 1990
Notice how there are no Marvel films? Perhaps if Disney made something that was pure art, and not expensive factory made, video game action trash.
There’s nothing to recommend Batman 1989 besides a cool Gotham City and some good Nicholson one-liners. The plot is garbage. And Returns was even worse. Nolan’s Bat films blow them away.
@@jedijones Nolan's Bat films are mundane and painfully desperate to stay relevant with the times, especially the latter two of the trilogy. The 1989 Batman was badly constructed but at least it exhibited a good deal of imagination and it can easily be seen as a satire of a morally bankrupt, urban society.
@@ricardocantoral7672More like a Fox News caricature of urban life, and a bunch of direct to video action movie tropes doing a Batman cosplay.
Without the art direction, soundtrack, and acting, there's nothing special about it.
It's made for a time before Batman fans had standards.
It's really terrible & stupid the salkans fired donner & that led to hackman not returning or the writer tom mancewitz. Lester made it too slap stick & it's such a shame they didnt leave the brando stuff in bc it loses the almost biblical relationship between father & son. " the son becomes the father & the father becomes the son " the mother replacing the brando scenes always confused as a kid. Zod & co were even more evil in donners version. At the time I liked the movie but after seeing the Donner cut I thought wow what could have been. Also margot kidder in the first one looked so much better her hair makeup & wardrobe were on point while here they didnt make her up well. When u watch this u can see the difference in the donner scenes that were left in.
I like Kidder’s performance in part 2 better than in the first. She seems more spunky and witty. I think she looked attractive in the first three Superman films but had bad hair, makeup and outfits in part 4. She looks nice in the TV interviews promoting part 4 but bad in the movie.
This just makes me sad because of what donner would have made if those greedy producers hadn’t fired him and made such a horrible Superman 3 film ..we could have had the greatest superhero trilogy of all time
To me what damage Superman 2 after rewatching it I kind of felt most of the action scenes came off more in a cartoony fashion and near the End Having superman kiss Lois to make him forget just seemed a bit of a cheat out as Superman 2 had been parody loads of times but I feel the richard donner cut of Superman 2 fixed what he intended and showed People the Superman 2 he had in mind
I don’t disagree
@@SkankHunt3000 They're showing the original movie in theaters again this weekend and next week, and the Donner Cut in a smaller number of theaters.
Good luck watching Superman III 😂
Too bad Superman III and Superman IV were so bad.
the kids couldn't give 2 shits about the love story... superman is essentially for kids
Back in the day when they would produce a good movie and come back and make it better. Aliens is better than Alien, Empire Strikes Back is better than Star Wars, Superman 2 is better than Superman, Wrath of Khan is better than Star Trek, Bogus Journey is better then Excellent Adventure, Terminator 2 is better then Terminator. It was always rare that they kept it up but today later franchise entries are always worse. Sometime you get a great later instalment like Prey but usually they suck
Lethal Weapon 2 is arguably better than the first, also. But your list is spot on.
"Look out for the rocks!" always tickles me as if Lois has control over where the rapids were taking her. 😅
Also, she believes Clark & Superman are one in the same & though Clark is still visible as she's drifting downstream & he eventually saves her, she never wonders why Superman never appeared. Ridiculous, but still one of my favorite superhero movies!
She says she now believes she was wrong that he was Superman.
@@jedijones I know. My point was, the Clark disappearing act is "solved," but if Lois thinks they're both one in the same, she doesn't question why she never sees the two of them in the same place at the same time.
Superman (in uniform) never showed up to save her. He's suspiciously M.I.A, so Lois should've still had questions is what I'm saying.
Hard to believe what passed for glamorous in the late 70s and early 80s...Margot Kidder, Karen Allen, Debra Winger et al...some of today's leading actresses are true cover girl beauties. I think we had more of an everywoman idea of cinema beauty back then.
MrCrystalcranium I though Margot Kidder was pretty when I was kid. Now she looks like rough work; at best a model from old Virginia Slims magazine ad.
Margot was sexy (people should also check her out in "Gailey, Gailey") but I must admit in the Fortress of Solitudes scene Reeve is prettier than she is.
Kidder, Allen and Winger were girl-next-door types. The hot glamour women at that time were Farrah Fawcett, Raquel Welch, Jacquelyn Smith etc
Today the GND are Kristen Bell, Emma Stone and Reese Witherspoon. The glamours are Scarlett Johanson, Megan Fox and Olivia Wilde.
Gene was such a chick
2 better than 1? Uh .. nope ... wrong. The first was leagues better. These guys wrong again. 😂
This movie hasn't aged well. I saw it on my birthday a few years ago in a movie theater with a friend who hadn't seen it before; my childhood memories evaporated into a cloud of embarrassment as the movie progressed. Pretty awful movie.
amaxamon you know, I have to agree. I absolutely loved it as a kid, more than the first one. So did my parents and grandparents. So did the critics. However, it has aged badly and the original stands out as clearly superior in nearly every respect. The one element I think is memorable and powerful was Superman relinquishing his power and going back to the ruins of the FOS begging the now darkened specter of his father for a second chance. The green crystal glowing in the ashes has fantastic symbology; hope springs eternal.