Rating:  -
I just wanna say simply put that if you're a hardcore superman fan, Richard Donner's Superman II IS the sequel to watch. the ORIGINAL SUPERMAN II (Donner's Cut) blows Lester's version out of the water and I will never understand why they didn't use Richard Donner's version of superman II because after all Donner DID to the first one and filmed the 2nd one at the same time so things flow a hell of alot better.. For those hardcore fans out there seeing Richard Lester's Superman II is a waste of time and money.. Superman II: The Richard Donner is THE one to watch.. Like it says on the box... AS ORIGINALLY CONCEIVED AND INTENDED!
Rating: -
The original Superman II was not bad if you like action and stunts (that have been repeated hundreds of times since 1980). Even though this Donner Cut is less focused on stunts and gags, it is more thought provoking thanks to the continuation of the Reeves-Brando dialogue. Case in point: in the theatrical version Superman's dad is replaced by his mom in the Temple of Solitude. Even though this actress did a fine job, one cannot help but wonder where the father is, especially after seeing his projected image in numerous instances, in the first Donner movie's DVD. With this version the father is chastising the son for sacrificing his powers, like any father might feel after bestowing a powerful gift to his only son. Now some may say love is more noble than any super powers, which is true, but Lois was NOT the right woman for him. Isn't it obvious? When Clark got thrashed by the thug in the diner Lois says that she wished he were the superman that she had fallen in love with. I can just imagine Clark, all bloodied on the floor, thinking, "Soooo, you were only in love with my powers, and not my Clark Kent dorkiness? What an imbecile I am! Father was right!" In fact, the last line of that scene where Clark finds out about Zod, and he says that "he" knew, "he" told, but "I didn't listen," this Donner cut makes one realize that "he" is Superman's father. It comes together! There is more God and redemption themes in the Donner editions of Superman than any other superhero movies out there now. From a secular director like Donner? Go figure!
Another improvement to this edition is the wonderful office scenes between Lois and Clark, with Lois even jumping out a window. What a treat to see this after 25 years!
The best new dramatic scene is when Lois exposes Clark as Superman, by shooting him with blanks. This is such a better version than the original dumb one where Superman "accidentally" trips over a pink bear into a fire. Lame!
Rating:  -
In late 2006, I was excited to purchase the DVD of Richard Donner's long-lost version of "Superman II" featuring the last "new" footage of Christopher Reeve suiting up as the legendary Man of Steel. Upon viewing Donner's film (complete with the magic of John Williams' original classic score), I confess my reaction was mixed, mostly positive at seeing some cool but imperfect, alternate sequences, but also disappointed that Donner (he seems like a terrific guy) doesn't acknowledge that his replacement, Richard Lester, created some superior sequences seen in the released theatrical version. All Donner will concede is that parts of Lester's footage are used here only because it is necessary to tell the story.
Before proceeding further, let me say that the included documentary explaining how co-producer Michael Thau and his team carefully reconstructed Donner's film (including the addition of flashy, new special effects and apparently a few insert scenes with doubles) is a must-see prior to viewing. Donner's insightful narrative detailing how his version differs from Lester's will explain a lot of the flaws and obvious continuity gaffes that you're about to see. For instance, the Donner cut's disjointed feel is readily apparent in the obvious changes in Margot Kidder's hair and make-up between the two versions (filmed a few years apart). Clearly, Kidder looks much healthier in the earlier footage, so it becomes easily identifiable as Donner's work.
Kicking off Donner's film is the continuation of a planned cliffhanger from the first movie in which Superman's disposal in outer space of one of Luthor's missiles unintentionally leads to the destruction of the Phantom Zone. For the most part, this alternate opener is much more fun (and ominous) than Lester's Paris hostage sequence at the Eiffel Tower. However, the problem it creates is that "Superman II" must now occur immediately after the first film. The script clearly implies that some time has elapsed (a few years, perhaps?) since Luthor is already serving a long prison term, so this new opening segment thus creates the first of many continuity gaffes.
From there, please expect to see lots of Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor and Marlon Brando as the ghostly Jor-El. Much of Luthor's prison footage (including a hilarious gag involving bumbling Otis and his passing of a bedwetting rumor to the wrong person) is amusing, but it is also readily apparent why the footage isn't relevant to the plot. Hence, I suspect Donner and Thau threw in various small scenes (including some of Brando's) simply to pad this cut's running time.
Speaking of Brando, yes, Donner gladly fills in Lester's gaps by finally spelling out exactly how Superman gets his powers back (and at what tremendous personal cost). Brando's cold, formidable presence helps immensely here, but, really, a little Brando goes a long way. Sadly, Donner's omission of Susannah York's few scenes as Lara (from Lester's version) completely ignores her character's ultimate sacrifice in the first film, and why her sympathetic counseling of her son prior to his fateful choice to become a human works so much better (in expressing Superman's heartfelt need for his long-lost birth parents). Donner's creative vision focuses on a father-son theme only, but, by excluding Lara from the film, much of the storyline's poignancy and emotional depth is ultimately lost.
In addition to reversing the order of Lois and Clark's love scene at the Fortress of Solitude with the loss of his powers, another significant difference between Donner's cut and Lester's are the "big reveal" scenes. In Donner's version, there is a really fun sequence (very reminiscent of the classic Superman mythos) early on resulting in Lois trying to prove her suspicions by throwing herself out of Perry White's office window. The only flaw is that Lois comes off as too unbelievably impulsive to make the scene truly click. Later on, a Reeve-Kidder screen test is utilized as Lois cleverly uses a prop gun to outwit Clark into revealing his true identity. Unfortunately, Reeve's acting in this scene is really starched compared to his charismatic performance on-screen, and more noticeably, Kidder's Lois isn't particularly likeable (just like the original character in the Golden and Silver Ages of comics). Overall, I think Lester's revised scenes at Niagara Falls are far more cohesive in making Lois and Clark's impending romance humorously poignant (yet still believable).
As for the much-criticized finale, yes, I agree that it is a hugely disappointing cop-out. Donner explains that the "turning the world back around" was originally supposed to be the second film's finale before it was then transferred to the first film (and so Donner never got a chance to come up with a new ending for the second installment). Even so, the end result here is a most unsatisfying status quo because it makes this "Superman II" completely pointless since the film's events never really happened. At the very least, Donner could have made some concession (i.e. storyline progress) by having Clark choosing to trust Lois with his secret. That way, if Donner had ever made "Superman III," then Lois and Clark's relationship could have retained its newfound depth and vastly increase the next film's potential storyline options.
Ultimately, due to its numerous flaws, Donner's version of "Superman II" is really most effective if viewed simply as a fantastic collection of alternate scenes (including the special deleted scenes found in the bonus features) rather than as a coherent, polished feature film. Too bad Donner and Lester can't just put aside their old differences (i.e. their egos) and collaborate on a finalized, "perfect" cut of this movie. If only ..... now, that concept would likely surpass either of their individual interpretations.
Score: 8.5/10 (The timeless magic of seeing Christopher Reeve as the legendary Man of Steel endures.)
Rating:  -
Okay, I was sucked into the hype of the "original" directors vision. I was all set to be amazed, but instead, all I got was a essentially the same film, only much more inferior with MUCH less involvement from the actors (save for Reeve, and Douglas) and not nearly as exciting moments. The differences between the spliced scenes that were directed by Lester is SO amazingly evident, the actors are SO MUCH MORE INVOLVED with Lester than with Donner. It's almost amazing that so much of it was filmed before Warner came to their senses and fired him. Take the opening scene. C'mon here, this is SUPERMAN! Ask your self which is more exciting, having Supes fly to Paris and save Lois or having her jump out of a building and having him use his super breath to save her? Geez, can you say lame? The key to any good Superman movie is pacing and that's what Donner's cut sorely lacks. But the BIGGEST most glaring modification is the love scene. This absolutely makes no sense. The whole reason why Clark sacrifices his powers is to be with Lois as a human. But instead Donner STUPIDLY has them getting together BEFORE he loses his power. If that was the whole point, WHY give up your powers? Then after all this, the end of the movie has Supey spinning the world backwards again, just like he did in the first one. C'mon! You mean Donner couldn't come up with something more original? It's damn good thing Donner was fired. He totally ruined the sequel. This movie is just a curiosity to see what might have been. And in that respect, it is interesting, but I found myself bored out of my mind. As a curiosity, by all means, it should be seen, but it's not even CLOSE to the greatness of the Lester cut. Stick to the theatrical release and you'll be much happier.
Rating: -
If Superman can turn back time at his whim, why go through the time and effort of fighting villains at all? Time travel is such a cheat in story-telling. And here's a thought: If Superman turned back time in The Movie, thus undoing all the damage caused by the missiles, then shouldn't the rocket that destroyed the Phantom Zone in this cut of Superman II also have been undone? Time travel. End Superman: The Movie this way, and it's a bit annoying, but okay. End the sequel the same way? Really silly if you ask me.
Then again, we have the "magic kiss" of the Lester version. Either way you go, sheesh.
That said, Donner's cut is too problematic. I can see why they replaced him with Lester. Lester's cut isn't perfect either, but it is preferable to me. Rent this if you're just curious to see what you're missing, but don't buy it. If you do buy it, you'll regret it. Then you'll have to fly around the earth super fast thus reversing its rotation thus reversing time all so you can get your money back. Save yourself the hassle.
|
