5 Responsed To This Post
Subsribes to this topic Comment RSS or TrackBack URL
mygif_alt
MARKUS H. MCLAUGHLIN Says, in 1-27-2010 at 20:27:11 from     

Like the Remastered Original “Star Trek” Series that is being

aired now, Superman II-The DONNER Cut will bring a great

vision up to date for the 21st Century! Own this and the

first Superman film on HD-DVD! 😀
Rating: 5 / 5

mygif
shoes10017 Says, in 1-27-2010 at 22:42:22 from     

this product is poorly package when I received it the disc was shaking back and forth. Had to ask for a refund
Rating: 1 / 5

mygif_alt
SAW Says, in 1-28-2010 at 01:39:37 from     

Richard Donner is a good director. He did a fantastic job with the first Superman film. However, what we see here of his work on Superman II, the parts that are not in the version of Superman II that we already know, these scenes aren’t just bad. They are TERRIBLE. Some of the scenes are so incredibly bad – Lois’ first test of Clark to see if he is Superman – throwing herself off the 56th floor of the Daily Planet? That’s ridiculous. At least in the other version, when she throws herself in the river, there is a chance she could swim and safe herself. But she cannot save herself from a fall out of a skyscraper. And the way that she figures it out? With a black marker? That so stupid.

Then, when she finally proves it by calmly shooting the man in the chest with the gun she just so happen to bring with her on this Niagara trip – I just got mad. Why would she, if there was a slight possibility that he might merely be human and she would have killed him… to say that the character of Lois would have risked another person’s life just to prove a point makes her unlikeable. They really missed the boat with this.

Richard Lester’s version digs into the development of the relationship of Clark and Lois so well. That does not exist in the Richard Donner version. There are so many terrible edits, that the movie seems so very incomplete. The ending itself is perhaps the biggest disappointment of all. Why would he use the EXACT same device used in the first film? Even if it were just for the purpose of having a different ending from the Lester version, it is a tremendous disappointment.

If you love Superman II, skip this version all together. It will only upset you.
Rating: 1 / 5

mygif
Steve Says, in 1-28-2010 at 03:29:26 from     

I can see why the theatrical version was chosen over this version. Avoid this version at all costs.
Rating: 1 / 5

mygif_alt
Ingenioso Hidalgo Says, in 1-28-2010 at 04:12:43 from     

The so-called Donner cut is an interesting version of the second film.

It fixes some of the major problems with the Lester cut:

1. The three villains’ crime seems to be the killing of a guard and

breaking of a red stick;

2. They were arrested, judged and sentenced within what couldn’t have

been more than ten minutes;

3. The sentencing is restaged without Jor-El when from the first movie

we know that he described the villains and was the deciding vote in

the judgement against them;

4. The Max Fleischer-like cartoon that represented the distintegration

of the phantom zone plate that incarcerated the three super villains

and left shards of crystal in space;

5. Would Clark Kent really be smarmy and ask Lois about the sleeping

arrangements on their “honeymoon” assignment?

6. The literal Freudian slip that has Clark accidentally put his hand

in the fire. Lois thinks maybe it happened because he wanted it to

happen. Given that he can think at superhuman speed he must have

really really wanted it to happen. So his “I don’t know why I did

that” seems self-deluded.

7. The levitation/tractor beam superpower eminating from the fingertips

of General Zod;

8. The magical red beam that allowed the three to change Mt Rushmore in

mid-flight as they flew across the scene on the TV screen (if it had

been heat vision they would have had to hover and carve the mountain);

9. The special effects used to change Lon Chaney, Jr. into the Wolfman

were far better than used on the deconstruction of Kal-El and the

transformation of Clark Kent from simply a secret identity to an

earthly man. Apparently the super suit was also transformed into

seventies fashion.

10. The sudden unexplained regaining of Superman’s powers (as big a

cop out as the turning back of time). Whatever he did to get his

super powers back also got him his super suit returned.

11. The amnesia kiss! Where did that come from?

But while resolving some problems, this cut continues ones from the

original movie and creates new ones. Donner’s vision of the Superman

mythos is flawed:

1. Both movies suffer from mysoginist tendencies. As good as Marlon

Brando’s scenes are, Susannah York should have been used more.

2. There’s a difference between comic relief and camp. Donner seemed

to prefer the latter. The comic book Lex Luthor is a genius as

well as an ego maniac but he’s a serious villain–physically and

mentally. Power and revenge are all-consuming for him. Gene

Hackman’s Luthor is lazy, out of shape and always talking about how

smart he is but seldom acts that way. He seems perfectly happy just

putting down people of less than average intelligence. How did he

expect to control the super villains? Should he have gotten some

green kryptonite?

3. We are to believe that Kal-El has supercontrol of his orgasms so as

not to kill Lois.

4. After consummating his relationship with Lois, the scene with Kal-El

(sans glasses in a white shirt and black trousers) pleading his case

to Jor-El has some mighty bad acting by Christopher Reeve.

5. If he’s done it before, why doesn’t he simply turn back time as soon

as he gets his powers back. It seems three super villains on a

killing spree is much more important than whether Lois remembers his

identity or not.

Michael Thau has done a remarkable job and provided us with a glimpse of

the direction the Donner film was heading. But given the problems with

this new cut, I wish Donner would have been given the opportunity to

finish the film. Reshoots, alternate cuts, etc. would have made it a much

better film despite the camp. The resolution to Lois’s knowledge of

Superman’s secret identity would have been most certainly different,

particularly because a repentant son would not go against the rule–it

is strictly prohibited to interfere with human history–given to him by

his self-sacrificing Dad, a second time.

IMO…Superman Returns is a much better film than the Donner/Lester

films. And despite, the lukewarm reception that Brandon Routh has

received, he seems much more believable as Superman/Clark Kent than

anyone since Kirk Alyn. The thing is that Superman Returns would have

been very different if Clark and Lois had never been intimate in the

second film.

Rating: 4 / 5

Leave A Reply

 Username (*required)

 Email Address (*private)

 Website (*optional)

Inform me when someone post new message here

Please Note: Comments Moderation maybe active so there is no need to resubmit your comment