In the early 1980s, comic book adaptations were the big thing, chiefly because special effects technology had finally caught up to what was required. The 1978 film's tagline said it all, we did believe Superman could really fly, even if the quality of the footage took a noticeable dive when he did so. And thus, a battle broke out in terms of how to treat the story. In one corner, we had writers and directors who took the mythos of their subjects seriously, exploring the characters in dramatic ways. Then in the other corner, we had the writers and directors who assumed these films were exclusively for children, and therefore did not need to be treated with respect. It is a testament to the stupidity of the human creature that this debate continues to rage in Hollywood after monumental disappointments such as Superman III, Batman & Robin, or the recent pile of droppings they attempted to pass off as a third X-Men film. Put simply, whereas directors like Richard Donner or Bryan Singer will be revered for decades to come for their adaptations, Richard Lester's name is mud among Superman fans.
It all began with arguments over creative direction. Warner Brothers and the Salkind estate made bucketloads of money out of the original Superman adaptation, which took the box office by storm. Exactly how they got the idea that they would make even more money by emulating the 1960s Batman television show where possible is beyond me, but get the idea they did. Arguments ensued over how the characters should speak, how the powers of Superman should be represented, and even how the film should be financed. The end result was that Donner was ousted as director and replaced by Richard Lester, who as I have already explained, came from the opposite camp with regard to respect for the source material. Lester's penchant for physical comedy presents a noticeable conflict between various scenes in the film, although it is fortunately not up to the sheer level of annoyance exhibited in the third film. The result is somewhat like putting two films in a bowl, blending, and presenting what comes out.
Fortunately, the principal strength of the Superman films to that point had been in the storytelling and casting. Christopher Reeve was a miraculous find in the titular role, presenting a strong and forceful Superman without overwhelming his support cast. I cannot say I appreciate the Clark Kent alter ego to the same extent, but that's a minor aside. An action film's hero is only as good as his antagonist, and we get three great antagonists here. Jack O'Halloran has the toughest assignment as Non, who menaces almost all around him without speaking a singular word. O'Halloran plays the part entirely with body language and gestures, and gives one of the best performances in the film. Sarah Douglas holds up the side brilliantly as Ursa, a ridiculously cruel woman who seems either be totally unaware of the extreme pain she puts her prey through, or totally unmoved by it. Half the time, it is even money as to whether Ursa or Non make the more intimidating support villain.
But it is Terence Stamp as General Zod who walks away with the acting prize here. In a contrast to stereotypical comic book villains of the time, he plays Zod as a quiet, reflective man. Not only does it make for a great contrast to the psychopathic woman and caveman-throwback he is seen with at all times, it lets the viewer know that he has more than one dimension. In many a review of a bad film in which one character is made out to be more evil than evil, the proposition that the actor went to the director and tried to make the case that the character does not see themselves as evil has been put forth. Zod takes it a bit further. He knows he is quite evil, and makes no bones about it. He is evil because his contempt for creatures around him that he sees as weak or cowardly removes all limits to his actions. In many ways, he reflects a more clandestine evil in our present world that would probably attempt to "cure" Superman of his superpowers. Stamp is a true actor's actor, and nowhere is this clearer than in Superman II.
The problem is that Lester shows great contempt for his audience. The slapstick gags would have been fine had they been kept in context and given some limits. The real problem is that Lester does not seem to care about preserving the continuity of the film series, or even the laws of the world that Superman inhabits. Nor does he seem to care about the little micro-laws that dictate Superman's reactions to situations. Things like the amnesia kiss (a power from the comic books so rarely used that it was pretty much retired) were not so much the problem as the seeming inability to make the film without plot convenience. Many directors before and since, Peter Jackson and Brett Ratner being good recent examples, have demonstrated that they would jump out of the window before waiting for the paint that has them trapped in the corner to dry. His second personal quote in his IMDb biography is especially hypocritical in light of what he did here. Fortunately, as the likes of Bryan Singer serve to remind us of why we go to see these films in the first place, Lester's is a dying breed.
For all these reasons, I gave Richard Lester's version of Superman II a five out of ten. Richard Donner has said that all the good parts of Superman II are his, and it is these parts one should watch it for.
It all began with arguments over creative direction. Warner Brothers and the Salkind estate made bucketloads of money out of the original Superman adaptation, which took the box office by storm. Exactly how they got the idea that they would make even more money by emulating the 1960s Batman television show where possible is beyond me, but get the idea they did. Arguments ensued over how the characters should speak, how the powers of Superman should be represented, and even how the film should be financed. The end result was that Donner was ousted as director and replaced by Richard Lester, who as I have already explained, came from the opposite camp with regard to respect for the source material. Lester's penchant for physical comedy presents a noticeable conflict between various scenes in the film, although it is fortunately not up to the sheer level of annoyance exhibited in the third film. The result is somewhat like putting two films in a bowl, blending, and presenting what comes out.
Fortunately, the principal strength of the Superman films to that point had been in the storytelling and casting. Christopher Reeve was a miraculous find in the titular role, presenting a strong and forceful Superman without overwhelming his support cast. I cannot say I appreciate the Clark Kent alter ego to the same extent, but that's a minor aside. An action film's hero is only as good as his antagonist, and we get three great antagonists here. Jack O'Halloran has the toughest assignment as Non, who menaces almost all around him without speaking a singular word. O'Halloran plays the part entirely with body language and gestures, and gives one of the best performances in the film. Sarah Douglas holds up the side brilliantly as Ursa, a ridiculously cruel woman who seems either be totally unaware of the extreme pain she puts her prey through, or totally unmoved by it. Half the time, it is even money as to whether Ursa or Non make the more intimidating support villain.
But it is Terence Stamp as General Zod who walks away with the acting prize here. In a contrast to stereotypical comic book villains of the time, he plays Zod as a quiet, reflective man. Not only does it make for a great contrast to the psychopathic woman and caveman-throwback he is seen with at all times, it lets the viewer know that he has more than one dimension. In many a review of a bad film in which one character is made out to be more evil than evil, the proposition that the actor went to the director and tried to make the case that the character does not see themselves as evil has been put forth. Zod takes it a bit further. He knows he is quite evil, and makes no bones about it. He is evil because his contempt for creatures around him that he sees as weak or cowardly removes all limits to his actions. In many ways, he reflects a more clandestine evil in our present world that would probably attempt to "cure" Superman of his superpowers. Stamp is a true actor's actor, and nowhere is this clearer than in Superman II.
The problem is that Lester shows great contempt for his audience. The slapstick gags would have been fine had they been kept in context and given some limits. The real problem is that Lester does not seem to care about preserving the continuity of the film series, or even the laws of the world that Superman inhabits. Nor does he seem to care about the little micro-laws that dictate Superman's reactions to situations. Things like the amnesia kiss (a power from the comic books so rarely used that it was pretty much retired) were not so much the problem as the seeming inability to make the film without plot convenience. Many directors before and since, Peter Jackson and Brett Ratner being good recent examples, have demonstrated that they would jump out of the window before waiting for the paint that has them trapped in the corner to dry. His second personal quote in his IMDb biography is especially hypocritical in light of what he did here. Fortunately, as the likes of Bryan Singer serve to remind us of why we go to see these films in the first place, Lester's is a dying breed.
For all these reasons, I gave Richard Lester's version of Superman II a five out of ten. Richard Donner has said that all the good parts of Superman II are his, and it is these parts one should watch it for.