|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2019 15:58:00 GMT -5
I watched this on the DC app yesterday and remember seeing in the theater years ago. It didn't make much of an impression on me then so I decided to rewatch it yesterday. It starts off good enough but quickly goes sour. I did like the scenes of Clark visiting the Kent farm, seeing Lois, Clark, Perry, and Jimmy at the Daily Planet, even liked Mariel Hemingway as a new character.
The story seemed rushed and while I liked the idea of Nuclear Man, it wasn't executed very well. Even though it wasn't very good, seeing Christopher Reeve as Superman is just as inspiring today as it was back then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on May 6, 2019 16:58:47 GMT -5
Superman IV used to be my favourite entry in the series; I thought Nucular Man was pretty awesome as a kid. The jaded adult I've become considers it the only Reeve film which isn't over/underrated, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by String on May 6, 2019 17:51:22 GMT -5
I've never seen it. I think the aftertaste of Superman III soured me on watching it back then.
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on May 7, 2019 0:25:02 GMT -5
I don't hate Superman III as much as most, but I'm a Richard Pryor fan.
I knew IV was mostly reviled. I just saw it for the first time last month on DC Universe.
Corny but somewhat ok but I wouldn't see it again.
Nice idea just not done very well.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201 
|
Post by Confessor on May 7, 2019 5:57:55 GMT -5
Superman III was a definite step down from the first two Cristopher Reeve films, but it's still watchable. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, on the other hand, is a stinking turd of a movie. I thought so as a young teenager, when it came out, and I still think so now. The story's overly-sentimental, the script clunky, the supporting characters annoying, and the special effects budget looks like it was 50 quid and a bag of chips! There really are very few redeeming features to that film, as far as I'm concerned.
I think I actually prefer the DC Comics adaptation of Superman IV -- which includes a plot thread about a second nuclear man, which was cut from the final film -- to the film itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 9:54:37 GMT -5
I never really never cared for Superman IV and I did like Mariel Hemingway presence in this movie and I really in awe seeing Superman sending all nuclear weapons all bundled up and hurling them 93 Million Miles to the Sun. I really gotten real tired of seeing Gene (Lex Luthor) Hackman and that's why this entry is still the worst of the four films. Confessor ... he mentioned the DC Comics Adaptation and that alone would had made this film better and they failed to capitalized on that. A 2nd Nuclear Man would had made the film more challenging for Superman. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 10:42:12 GMT -5
It's hard to believe the film was released nine years after the first one yet had inferior special effects.
There are numerous plot holes. Very little makes sense. And the nuclear threat aside, Lex Luthor is akin to a clown. He strikes me as that unfunny family member at a wedding party who is tiresome rather than a threat.
There's a good plot in there. Somewhere. And it was a pleasure to see Reeve again. I thought his speech at the end was inspiring. And there was that beautiful moment where Lois Lane delivered Superman's cape to Clark Kent (she knew, right?).
It's just that as a whole, it was a mess. Nowadays I'll have it on in the background while doing my taxes and just look up now and again when the few good scenes come on. I appreciate the anti-nuclear plot and the amoral newspaper publisher sub-plot. I just wish so much had been very different.
As for a second Nuclear Man, I've never read the comic adaptation, but I have seen the deleted scenes on the Blu-ray involving Clive Mantle as Nuclear Man Prototype. I regret seeing them. They are bad scenes.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 7, 2019 11:05:56 GMT -5
By number 4, the Salkinds were on the outs with Hollywood. The performance of 3 was disappointing and everyone thought the series was stale. They sold the rights to Canon films to make the thing and they were synonymous with cheaply made and labyrinthian distribution deals. Reeves conceived the story as Superman doing a noble thing for the future of mankind. Interesting enough. Hackman was willing to come back (since the Salkinds were gone), which sounded great. Then he is stuck with John Cryer as the very unfunny comic relief (Cryer was on a bad, unfunny roll, after the John Hughes films). Canon's budgets meant cheap effects; very cheap. They didn't care because their distribution deals meant they were going to make money, no matter what. Mariel Hemingway isn't bad and is mainly there because Margot Kidder is barely in the thing. I think the intent was for them to be rivals; but, Kidder has so little time in it.
Canon cut the budget partway through filming and plainly ran out of money and the released film was not finished, under anyone's definition. Footage was cut after a bad test screening, which didn't help. Canon had multiple pictures going at the time and was losing money. They had spent a ton of money buying Thorn EMI and chains of theaters. The failure of this film pushed them into financial crisis, leading to bankruptcy and an SEC investigation into fraudulent financial statements.
What good there is in the film is a result of professionals earnestly trying to make a good film, which is undercut by Golan & Globus' cheap nature and shady dealings.
All of which led to the even greater mess that was the unrealized Spider-Man film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 11:10:51 GMT -5
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on May 7, 2019 12:35:13 GMT -5
Marv Wolfman and John Byrne were originally brought in to consult on the Superman IV script, hot on the heels of their pulling off the Superman Post-Crisis reboot. Then Chris Reeve decided he wanted to write the thing himself. I think that's where much of it went wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 14:24:46 GMT -5
I don't know why Superman just didn't "rewind the world" when he faced Zod, Ross Webster/Super Computer and Nuclear Man. Might have saved a lot of pain!
|
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on May 7, 2019 15:25:03 GMT -5
I don't know why Superman just didn't "rewind the world" when he faced Zod, Ross Webster/Super Computer and Nuclear Man. Might have saved a lot of pain! And people wonder why I dislike Superman: The Movie.... |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on May 8, 2019 9:21:42 GMT -5
I liked the third one as a kid, but haven't seen it since then. Never saw IV.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 8, 2019 16:00:35 GMT -5
I liked the third one as a kid, but haven't seen it since then. Never saw IV. For my money, this was the best scene in the film...  for two very good (and shapely reasons)! "Lois? Who's Lois? Legs......I mean let's go to a nice quiet restaurant and discuss things." |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on May 8, 2019 16:53:15 GMT -5
I liked the third one as a kid, but haven't seen it since then. Never saw IV. For my money, this was the best scene in the film... for two very good (and shapely reasons)! "Lois? Who's Lois? Legs......I mean let's go to a nice quiet restaurant and discuss things." The only thing I remember was when the computer was making all the technology go crazy and the figures on a walk/do not walk signal started fighting with each other, which I found hilarious as a child. |
|
