Superman

[JoeHorrorFanatic]

Before today, I never saw any of the Superman movies, and I recently decided to watch all of them before Man of Steel comes out. That includes the most infamous one where he quests for peace. Also, I'm going to review the sequels in this thread as well as the first one.
For the record, I only watched the expanded edition of the original, so I'm not sure how it differs from the theatrical release.
At the beginning of this movie, I was a little worried that I might not enjoy the film as a whole, because I honestly found the entire opening sequence on Krypton to be pretty boring. But once it took place on earth and Clark Kent was all grown up, it became more interesting. Knowing next to nothing about these movies, Jonathan's death really caught me off guard and added some emotional depth to the film.
When Superman takes up his job as a journalist for The Daily Planet, it's amusing to see him selling the act that he's a complete wimp. Some people say that the glasses are about the dumbest superhero disguise ever, but I think it works once you add the nervous demeanor and everything.
I also thought that Lex Luthor was an entertaining character, and had some of the funniest lines in the movie. He was almost like an evil bald version of Tony Stark.
Of course, this movie does have several cheesy moments in it like the reverse rotation bit. My biggest nitpick is how Clark Kent was able to just jump out of a four-story window in the middle of a busy office area without anyone noticing. Seriously, could those people have given less of a sh*t about that guy?
Despite the minor flaws and the slow opening, Superman was an awesome movie nonetheless and I'm glad I watched it. I've heard that the second one is the best, so I'm looking forward to seeing the Richard Donner cut of that.

What do you think of the Superman movies? Are you excited for Man of Steel?

[The Rodent]

One of the special things about Christopher Reeve playing Superman was that he changed his gait and acting style completely between characters. For an unknown actor to do such a thing was an absolute work of genius.

It was also key to the film's change in tone. Once Clark is all grown up and moves to Metropolis it becomes more "interesting" as you put it, it's a change in genre almost. The film goes from being a quiet dramatic film to a louder, more humorous turn of events.

Mainly through Reeve and his character, but there's much more in the way of light-hearted writing, slapstick (almost) from Reeve and tongue-in-cheek humour laced throughout the dialogue.


It'll be hard for Man Of Steel to top the original film and Superman 2 as well, but Man Of Steel is going down the more serious side by using The Nolanverse as its base.

I'm looking forward to seeing Man Of Steel, I'm a huge fan of The Supe, but I doubt I'll catch it in cinemas after all the recent news I dug up pointing to there being no 2D release in most British Cinemas.

[The Rodent]

Superman 3... went too far toward the comedy side of things. It wasn't slapstick exactly, but the sheer presence of Richard Pryor is enough to show what kind of film it would be.
Pryor strangely though was one of the best things about Superman 3.


Superman 4: The Quest For Peace however is one of only two films I've rated 0%... the story really could have worked if it didn't step all over the ethos of Superman that was established in the first two films... but the rest of Quest was just painfully awful film making.

[JoeHorrorFanatic]

Superman 3... went too far toward the comedy side of things. It wasn't slapstick exactly, but the sheer presence of Richard Pryor is enough to show what kind of film it would be.
Pryor strangely though was one of the best things about Superman 3.


Superman 4: The Quest For Peace however is one of only two films I've rated 0%... the story really could have worked if it didn't step all over the ethos of Superman that was established in the first two films... but the rest of Quest was just painfully awful film making.
I'll certainly keep that in mind. This sounds a lot like the path that the Joel Schumacher Batman movies took.

[The Rodent]

Tbh honest, Superman 4 is worse than Schumacher's attempts at a Hero film... even with the cast changes. Supes 4 has the same cast at least, but it was made by people with no idea what they were doing.
There was also in-fighting in the Cannon Films and Reeve himself wasn't sure if he wanted to do it, after all he had also turned down a cameo appearance in Supergirl too.
Reeve actually treated the script himself to make it more palatable but it was still hammered by budget cuts by Cannon Films.


Reeve: We were also hampered by budget constraints and cutbacks in all departments. Cannon Films had nearly thirty projects in the works at the time, and Superman IV received no special consideration. For example, Konner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Konner) and Rosenthal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rosenthal) wrote a scene in which Superman lands on 42nd Street (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42nd_Street_(Manhattan)) and walks down the double yellow lines to the United Nations, where he gives a speech. If that had been a scene in Superman I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_(film)), we would actually have shot it on 42nd Street. Dick Donner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Donner) would have choreographed hundreds of pedestrians and vehicles and cut to people gawking out of office windows at the sight of Superman walking down the street like the Pied Piper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pied_Piper). Instead, we had to shoot at an industrial park in England in the rain with about a hundred extras, not a car in sight, and a dozen pigeons thrown in for atmosphere. Even if the story had been brilliant, I don't think that we could ever have lived up to the audience's expectations with this approach.



Sydney J Furie really missed the mark.

[JoeHorrorFanatic]

Wow, that does sound pretty terrible. I'm still going to give it a watch, and I'll be back here with my thoughts on it.

[gandalf26]

Superman 4 is awesome, what are you guys talking aboot.

[JoeHorrorFanatic]

Superman 4 is awesome, what are you guys talking aboot.
I have heard some say they liked it. One person even named Nuclear Man as one of his top ten movie villains. I'm hoping that the movie might work as a guilty pleasure for me.

[JoeHorrorFanatic]

http://www.thewordslinger.com/media/images/CW-TRDC-wp1.jpg

I said before that Superman had some pretty cheesy moments, and one of the many that I didn't mention was the fact that Superman takes one of Lex Luthor's missiles and foils his attempts to destroy millions of innocent lives and flings it into outer space...presumably to destroy other millions of innocent lives which apparently no one cares about. However, I'd already seen a review of Superman II before watching the original, so I knew what was coming.
I love the fact that the beginning of this movie shows that there can be consequences for the man of steel's actions. At the start of the original, there was this big setup involving three sinister characters who were imprisoned and forgotten about up until now. Thanks to the rogue missile breaking their prison and setting them free to wreak havoc on the fragile planet earth. General Zod, Ursa, and Non are three of the most frightening comic book villains I've seen brought to life onscreen. In the previous installment, these people were introduced as being extremely dangerous, but the only indication of that was Jorel's word. Now we get to see them live up to that as they casually murder random innocents to establish themselves as the dominant species.
Meanwhile, another silly thing about the first movie is firmly covered up as Lois Lane figures out Superman's true identity. Once again I was amused as Clark Kent tried to make himself look as weak as possible, even though he wasn't fooling anyone at this point. And I'd like to bring up the fact that a lot of superhero movies today have clearly been influenced by this franchise. The scene in the first movie where Clark is running through the streets and pulling away his shirt to reveal the "S" underneath was redone in Spiderman, and in the second movie when Lois Lane tests Clark/Superman with a bullet, that went on to inspire an identical moment in Unbreakable. It goes to show that these were more than silly popcorn movies. Superman more or less paved the way for comic book film adaptations to come.
As a viewer, I began to feel genuinely worried about the protagonist as he gave up his powers for the one he loved, without knowledge of the terrible destruction Zod and his people were unleashing. Still, I kind of wish that there would have been a confrontation between regular old Clark Kent without any powers and Zod. That would have made for a really intense moment. Not that it took away from the battle in Metropolis, of course; despite the dated effects, I was on the edge of my seat the entire time during that scene.
Lex Luthor, aka Evil Tony Stark, provides more comedy relief as he assists the main bad guys. The funniest part of the whole movie was when he took Ursa by the hand as he was addressing her and the other two, just to have his thumb nearly broken in her grip. It's entertaining to see one jerk with no power attempt to strike a deal with three jerks with godlike power.
My biggest gripe with the movie is the way Superman wraps everything up at the end. Did they really have to pull the same trick a second time?
Overall, Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut was a great movie nonetheless. Despite its flaws, it's easy for me to see why some would name this as one of their all-time favorite superhero films.
Score - 9/10

[filmtheater1]

In it's time the original 70's and 80's superman films were iconic and did offer decent eye candy; however today they are campy popcorn flicks that were never added to my collection and I think they never will be.

I watched the entire smallville series and felt more akin to that show and it's assembly rather than a short drift through the man of steels film shorts.

I will admit I liked the most recent superman film save for(k-pax)the actor portraying lex.....get serious director!

My rating for the first films were between 80-90 out of a 100.

[moviefan1996]

The first two Superman were amazing to watch. Superman Returns was a decent film. I haven't seen Superman 3 and 4 with Christopher Reeve at all.

[JayDee]

I have never actually seen any of the Christopher Reeve Superman flicks! A bit surprising for a film fan in general perhaps, but as a self-confessed comic book geek that may come as a shock to some of you. I've just never gotten around to them, largely as I find the character to be rather dull. I've just never been all that interested in Superman and his story. I picked up a box set of the first two films for an extremely cheap price a while back but still not watched them. The only Superman film I have seen was Superman Returns which was ok but I found to be a bit of a snoozefest.

[Masterman]

Superman returns was utter crap.

[JoeHorrorFanatic]

I have never actually seen any of the Christopher Reeve Superman flicks! A bit surprising for a film fan in general perhaps, but as a self-confessed comic book geek that may come as a shock to some of you. I've just never gotten around to them, largely as I find the character to be rather dull. I've just never been all that interested in Superman and his story. I picked up a box set of the first two films for an extremely cheap price a while back but still not watched them. The only Superman film I have seen was Superman Returns which was ok but I found to be a bit of a snoozefest.
I understand you all the way. As a kid, I never had any particular interest in Superman myself. I thought the cartoons were dull, and the endless supply of powers made him difficult to relate to. However, I assure you that the first two are a lot of fun to watch, and they do make the title character interesting.
I haven't seen Superman Returns, so I can't give you my own opinion on it, but I have met several people who would agree with you.

[JoeHorrorFanatic]

Superman returns was utter crap.
I know this is unrelated to the present conversation, but I love the new pic! Bane is an underrated villain.

[drkwrld]

I want to see Man Of Steel Looks Promising! What guys think?

[teeter_g]

I can't wait for Man of Steel! It can't be any worse than Superman Returns. I kind of liked it....

[genesis_pig]

Superman Returns was more like a chick flick.

[JoeHorrorFanatic]

Okay, so I failed at watching the rest of the franchise before going to see this one, but I doubt that any angry fists will be raised.

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/man-of-steel-zod-poster.jpg

I love villain posters.
So, I went into this movie with low expectations. The negative things that many reviewers pointed out sounded like they would get on my nerves, but did they end up annoying me too much to enjoy the film or was I able to overcome them?
First of all, I think the opening scenes on Krypton are a big improvement over the original in many ways. Not only is it less boring, but you get more of an idea of how the society works, there's more onscreen technology, and you even get to see more of the wildlife on this planet. Russell Crowe is no Marlon Brando, but he does a fantastic job as Jorel, and I think he's the best modern actor to cast in this role. The scenes on Krypton are not perfect, though. There's an overabundance of shaky cam, and enough lens flares to make JJ Abrams cream his pants.
I thought that Snyder went in an interesting direction in telling the first half of the story in a nonlinear fashion, starting off with Kalel (Superman) as an adult and switching back and forth between the present day and his childhood years. The first scene where you see Kalel all grown up is another example if a poorly executed action scene, though; one moment he's on a ship going to rescue some men on another ship, and then bam - it jump cuts to him walking shirtless through fire on that other ship.
The flashback scenes were some of my favorite parts in the movie. The very first one you see shows Kalel just as he's beginning to develop his x-ray vision and super hearing abilities. As can be expected, it terrifies the poor boy. Kevin Costner does an excellent job as Clark Kent's father, too. I took my grandpa to see this movie with me, and the scenes with Costner made this a perfect Father's Day movie. And yes, good people, I'm aware that Father's Day is tomorrow.
Amy Adams was likeable enough as Lois Lane, but she didn't really have the same oomph as Margot Kidder. The relationship between her and Superman felt extremely underdeveloped. Also, you don't get to see Superman as the clumsy Clark Kent throughout most of this picture, but there is the promise of seeing more Kent in the sequel.
Now, let's get to the villains, my favorite part of any movie. Michael Shannon does a great job as General Zod. He isn't the power-hungry egomaniac this time around. He has a much more realistic motivation for what he's doing, and I like that. He never commands anyone to kneel before him, for those who are wondering, but that's because it wouldn't make sense for his character. I will admit that he's not as memorable as some other comic book movie villains, however. Even the Mandarin had more quotable lines. There are two Zod quotes that stand out to me, though.
"My soul...that is what you have taken from me!"
"I have spent years training to hone my senses. Where were you trained? ON A FARM!?"
Non's name is never mentioned, and he didn't have much screen time, but I recognized him as soon as he showed up; he was the big guy. He always wears a mask onscreen, and the fact that you never see his face makes him even more terrifying. As for Faora (formerly known as Ursa), she was cool, but nothing to write home about. There were never any shining moments for her, at least nothing comparable to crushing Lex Luthor's thumb.
As for the action scenes in the final act, there were moments when I felt overwhelmed, but for the most part they were pretty damn entertaining. Some reviewers found the action repetitive, but I never felt that. And I thought the final confrontation between Kalel and Zod was absolutely perfect. I thought it was less cheap than how the bad guys were defeated in Superman II, anyway.
Overall, was I able to overcome the imperfections enough to have a good time? Will I even buy it when it comes out? The answer, my friends, is hell yes.
7.5/10

[JoeHorrorFanatic]

In retrospect, the fact that I enjoyed Man of Steel so much may have been due to the fact that I had low expectations going in. My opinions will remain the same, though.

[Masterman]

I gave it a 5

[JoeHorrorFanatic]

I gave it a 5
I know, I saw your response in another post :)

[JoeHorrorFanatic]

Well, this is a step up from Sucker: The Vampire. Which isn't saying much, but still...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9f/Superman_III_poster.jpg/220px-Superman_III_poster.jpg

I expected this movie to be annoying as sh*t. After what I heard about the introduction to this film, I imagined it being something like Popeye with Robin Williams. Except with Superman. During the opening to this movie where Richard Pryor was looking for a job opportunity, I thought to myself, "Well, this isn't so bad." But then the main titles happened, and I was reminded of Popeye with Robin Williams. And no, that's not a compliment.
Fortunately, the intro was the only part where the film had that amount of slapstick bs. But this makes me wonder, if the entire movie wasn't going to be like that, why set it up like that in the first place? Also, it wasn't as annoying as I thought it would be; the man bumping into the pole made me laugh.
The villains of Superman 3 are some of the dumbest rogues I've ever seen on film. I can't remember the name of the leader, so I'm just going to refer to him as the flea market Lex Luthor if I speak of him again in this review. Because that is what he is - they copied and pasted Lex Luthor's character traits to this guy, but they took away all of his charm. He has a sister who was basically the Non of the group, and a blonde assistant who pretends to be less intelligent than she really is for some reason.
Richard Pryor gives an entertaining performance, but his character is just as dumb as the bad guys he's working with. He's a good man who's good with computers, but he has zero common sense. He uses his computer knowledge to help the bad guys attempt to kill Superman with little to no question. Because herp derp.
To try to stop the man of steel, Pryor concocts a homemade chunk of kryptonite using known materials that make up the substance. And when he goes to hand this kryptonite-looking stuff to Superman in the most suspicious manner possible, the Supe just takes it. Because, you know...herp derp.
But there's an ingredient missing from the man-made kryptonite, so instead of killing Superman it changes his personality. He becomes evil, and precedes to straighten the leaning tower of Pisa. That monster?
In talking about this movie, a lot of people have said that the fight scene between Clark Kent and evil Superman is the best part in the entire movie. It was my second favorite part, and I'll get to my first favorite after I give my score, because it'll involve some spoilers. But yes, the fight scene in the junk yard was really cool and it had some suspenseful moments. And yes, the rest of the movie should have been more like this.
In the end, I didn't hate Superman III as much as I thought I would, but I don't plan on re-watching it anytime soon. It's entertaining in a way where it would be a better time if I was high.
6/10

Spoiler Talk
My favorite part of this movie was the final act, despite it having some laughably stupid moments. If you're wondering what was stupid about it, tell me why Superman could breathe fine in outer space but was in danger when trapped inside of a bubble.
Anyway, I liked the fact that they sort of introduced Braniac towards the end, as this supercomputer built by the flea market Lex Luthor which takes on a mind of its own. This was the only part of the movie where I felt like there was genuine peril, and I thought it looked pretty cool when the flea market Lex Luthor's sister was converted into some kind of cyborg. During this final battle, even Richard Pryor's character almost managed to redeem himself.
In a spoiler discussion on Man of Steel, the movie reviewer Jeremy Jahns said that it would be really cool if in the sequel the government paid Lexcorp to build a machine that could destroy Superman, because they don't fully trust the man of steel. However, the machine eventually develops a mind of its own and starts to disobey its creators, becoming Braniac. That's not to say that Zack Snyder is actually going to go in that direction, and it isn't even a rumor as of yet - it's just one common man's idea. But if that was the plot of the sequel, what would you think? I believe it could turn out awesome if they did that.

[JoeHorrorFanatic]

I'm done with this franchise.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5c/Superman_iv.jpg/220px-Superman_iv.jpg

I pretty much agree with Rodent that Batman and Robin was a tad better than this. The thing about that movie is that it's intentionally silly, and it's the type of dogsh*t that you can roast the hell out of with a group of friends on a drunken Saturday night. Besides the idiotic new powers that Superman has as well as the craptacular visual effects and the massive plot holes, the main weakness that destroyed this movie for me is that it tries too hard to be serious. I was hoping for a passable guilty pleasure, but I didn't find it here. At least Superman 3 was funny, although most of the parts that made me laugh were only funny on accident.
I can't even give an in depth review for Superman 4, because I didn't finish watching it. I made it all the way up to the part where Supe erased Lois Lane's memory with a kiss, and I decided to call it a day. I know I said that I'd watch all of these, but I'm not masochistic enough to sit through this. Plus, I've got too many movies I haven't even watched yet. I'm not even going to bother with Superman Returns. I will, however, stick to my guns for the Blind Horror Reviews thread. You all know how passionate I am about that genre.

[The Rodent]

Review #26 on page 3 of my reviews thread... I reviewed the whole lot in one go...

Superman Returns is better than Supe IV... but still not a tad on Supe III...

[Gideon58]

1978's SUPERMAN pretty much ushered in a new cinematic genre...the comic book movie and did it in a stylish and entertaining fashion. Director Richard Donner mounted a delicious comic book fantasy that even though it teeters on the edge at times, never really reaches that "Oh come on!" point that most movies like this (except when Superman turns back time in order to save Lois Lane's life).

The opening scenes on Krypton are a bore, despite Marlon Brando's presence, but once the story moves to Metropolis, the movie crackles along and keeps the viewer completely engrossed until closing credits.

Just about every working actor in Hollywood was approached for the title role, but Donner struck gold when he cast the late Christopher Reeve, a virtual unknown at the time, as Clark Kent/Superman. Reeve completely commands the screen in this role and the surprise is that he is at his most charming when he is playing Clark Kent. Reeve infuses a goofy, irresistible charm to the character of Clark that makes him one of cinema's most likable characters. Your heart just melts when he asks Perry White to send half his paycheck to his mother.

Margot Kidder reignited her career with her feisty Lois Lane and Gene Hackman is nothing short of brilliant as Lex Luthor. Kudos as well to Valerie Perrine and Ned Beatty as Lex's partners-in crime.

State of the art special effects (for 1978) were icing on the cake and I remember literally screaming while watching the closing credits when the last words that appeared on the screen were "Coming soon...Superman II", a film that actually turned out to surpass this one.

[Kristyangeljackets]

When is the new edition of Superman is Coming. any news with this? not talking about Superman Vs Batman.

[The Rodent]

This thread is more for the Christopher Reeve version on Superman.


But the next Superman movie with Cavill, after BvS, will probably be in 2016 or 2017.

[Kristyangeljackets]

AAhh, long time to wait :mad:

[rambond]

Hearing Marlon Brando s voice when he first says: "my son", in the 1978 movie, is a classic movie moment because no one could have taken the role as marlon brando did, amazing stuff

[KeyserCorleone]

I grew up with Donner's Superman and revisited it a couple years ago. Great, great movie (as long as you realize the earth reversal wasn't literally what happened and was just a cheesy 70's way of Superman going back in time). Donner knows how to start a great franchise with a good story and real pizazz, and Superman is only one of his addicting movies.

[Thief]

Yeah, I also grew up watching those first two films every week or so, but I hadn't seen the first one in a long time. I revisited last year and was surprised by how well it held up. The first half is incredible, right until the time when Clark leaves the farm. The second half puts it down a notch for me, but it's still pretty good.

[Iroquois]

Hell yeah, old thread got bumped.

The first two were childhood favourites that I let slide very easily once I got more into Watching Films and watching 3 and 4 in recent years did not do them any favours. I opted to revisit all four in a row during quarantine last year and I'm sad to say that even the original tops out at a 2.5 for me - can't argue with the casting choices, of course, but I just found myself bored with it for long stretches. The same goes for the sequels where having some good casting for villains (Terence Stamp as Zod is masterful of course) is let down by what's in the films, to say nothing of the sheer goofiness in 3 and 4. Still, at least I rewatched them, which I can't imagine doing for Superman Returns.

[Captain Steel]

I grew up with Donner's Superman and revisited it a couple years ago. Great, great movie (as long as you realize the earth reversal wasn't literally what happened and was just a cheesy 70's way of Superman going back in time). Donner knows how to start a great franchise with a good story and real pizazz, and Superman is only one of his addicting movies.

Right. Turning the Earth backwards was a visual metaphor - just like when movies show pages flying off a calendar or clock hands moving forward - these things aren't supposed to be really happening, they just represent the passage of time.

[rambond]

Right. Turning the Earth backwards was a visual metaphor - just like when movies show pages flying off a calendar or clock hands moving forward - these things aren't supposed to be really happening, they just represent the passage of time.
Captain steel, how much do u like the original 1978 film?

[rambond]

Wow how rude....no answer after 1 hr......

[Captain Steel]

Wow how rude....no answer after 1 hr......

An hour may have passed for you, but I was turning the Earth backwards!

I like the original film a lot - I still think it's very well done, especially the pastoral scenes of the middle act.

Over time I've developed some issues with the plot - particularly the time travel... all Superman had to do was go back a couple more hours (what for him might have been a couple more seconds flying faster than the speed of light) and he could have prevented all the damage he had to correct. He could have gone back just far enough to stop Luther from launching the bombs, but he only went back far enough to save Lois.

[KeyserCorleone]

Wow how rude....no answer after 1 hr......


Check out Sega's customer service then come back with a review. Thank you.

[ynwtf]

An hour may have passed for you, but I was turning the Earth backwards!

I like the original film a lot - I still think it's very well done, especially the pastoral scenes of the middle act.

Over time I've developed some issues with the plot - particularly the time travel... all Superman had to do was go back a couple more hours (what for him might have been a couple more seconds flying faster than the speed of light) and he could have prevented all the damage he had to correct. He could have gone back just far enough to stop Luther from launching the bombs, but he only went back far enough to save Lois.




the really trippy thing is that now, since Supes spun the earth back, earth is now one hour out of sync with the rest of the universe. so like if an alien decided to invade the planet, it would technically be what, like an hour into our future? eh, now that I've typed this I can't really figure out where to go with it....



nevermind.

[Mesmerized]

the really trippy thing is that now, since Supes spun the earth back, earth is now one hour out of sync with the rest of the universe.

It was always my understanding that it wasn't the Earth that went back in time but rather just Superman himself.

[rambond]

An hour may have passed for you, but I was turning the Earth backwards!

I like the original film a lot - I still think it's very well done, especially the pastoral scenes of the middle act.

Over time I've developed some issues with the plot - particularly the time travel... all Superman had to do was go back a couple more hours (what for him might have been a couple more seconds flying faster than the speed of light) and he could have prevented all the damage he had to correct. He could have gone back just far enough to stop Luther from launching the bombs, but he only went back far enough to save Lois.
After having a rewatch yesterday, it bogs how easily superman lost his powers when he saw kryptonite at luther s hideout, like he can t even get the neckless out of his neck , like seriously..??

[Flicker]

I think it was a terrible mistake to make Superman circle backwards relatively to Earth's spin. It gives the impression that his momentum kinda brings the Earth backwards, like making a whirlpool around a buoy, and that the Earth spinning east-to-west is what pulls time back. It's absurd, but it's how the scene is often read (including by me as a child).

Having Superman turn around the Earth west-to-east, along its spin, until the Earth starts going backwards, would have lifted that ambiguity.

[Iroquois]

After having a rewatch yesterday, it bogs how easily superman lost his powers when he saw kryptonite at luther s hideout, like he can t even get the neckless out of his neck , like seriously..??

...it's Kryptonite. What do you expect?

[rambond]

...it's Kryptonite. What do you expect?
Yeah but i mean how the scenario is made, it could be like, for example in superman returns where he s stabbed by a kryptonite instead of making him look very weak by lex luther just putting the neckless around his neck and leaving..that s what meant but maybe im nitpicking

[Captain Steel]

It was always my understanding that it wasn't the Earth that went back in time but rather just Superman himself.

This.

Even as a child I knew enough about physics and astronomy to realize the scene wasn't meant to be taken as Supes was reversing the spin of the Earth - which would destroy most life & geography on the planet in the upheaval. Rather, he was operating under Einsteinian theoretical principles - by flying fast enough (faster than light) he was travelling back in time. To him and us it may have looked like the Earth was spinning backwards, but that was just a visual perception of time moving in reverse.

Now onto some real nitpicking... the casting of Margo Kidder. As a kid I loved her as Lois. She was a great actress, but even then I had a hard time understanding what Supes saw in her. I won't say they didn't have chemistry, but she just didn't seem like a "catch" for a young, extremely handsome guy who could do just about anything. In real life she was only 4 years older than Chris, but the age difference seemed a bit visible especially as the films proceeded.

What's a bit disturbing is how most of the cast is now dead.

[rambond]

This.

Even as a child I knew enough about physics and astronomy to realize the scene wasn't meant to be taken as Supes was reversing the spin of the Earth - which would destroy most life & geography on the planet in the upheaval. Rather, he was operating under Einsteinian theoretical principles - by flying fast enough (faster than light) he was travelling back in time. To him and us it may have looked like the Earth was spinning backwards, but that was just a visual perception of time moving in reverse.

Now onto some real nitpicking... the casting of Margo Kidder. As a kid I loved her as Lois. She was a great actress, but even then I had a hard time understanding what Supes saw in her. I won't say they didn't have chemistry, but she just didn't seem like a "catch" for a young, extremely handsome guy who could do just about anything. In real life she was only 4 years older than Chris, but the age difference seemed a bit visible especially as the films proceeded.

What's a bit disturbing is how most of the cast is now dead.
Superman 2 to me, surpasses the original film somewhat, what do u think?