Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut

If thanks to nothing else, then thanks to the Jor-Ela character (the fantastic Marlon Brando), this version is definitely better. But there are even more changes - there was an amazing scene with Lois and a revolver, or finding out that General Zod's prison was destroyed by saving the planet from the first film. On the other hand we also got misplaced scenes like “Superman returns the roof of the White House," which no one could have taken seriously. (07/19/2018)

Well, at least the existence of the Donner cut helps calm the wild theories about how the evil studio took away the young auteur's uncompromising vision in favor of simple-minded family entertainment. Both versions are exactly the same, frankly. Knowing both cuts, however, we can at least study the clash of two completely different directorial approaches – Donner's dynamic, postmodern, New Hollywood approach and Lester's thoroughly old-fashioned one, referring in its three-camera method to the Hollywood of the 1950s and early 1960s. The absence of the terrible sequences from Paris or from Niagara Falls, which Lester is behind, will be the biggest take-away value of this cut. Otherwise, the second volume remains a lazily written dud that languishes mainly due to bad bad guys and the resulting dysfunctional spectacle. When we were watching Superman face natural disasters and human casualties in the first volume, we were aware of his abilities and powers on familiar elements. As he struggles in slow-motion with three personified archetypes of evil (the lust for power, the lust for violence, the lust for suffering), he runs up against the limits of the technology of the time. Superman II wasn't a good film in either version, but knowing both cuts, it at least offers an interesting insight into the clash between a young and classic directorial vision. And you can at least say goodbye here through some previously unreleased scenes with the nonetheless awfully cute duo of Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder. (02/24/2021)

The last temptation of Kal-El. The Richard Donner Cut is a significant upgrade over Richard Lester’s unintentional parody. The ratio of comical and tragic is even more balanced than in the first Superman. The serious is clearly differentiated from the exaggerated. Matters of an almost existential nature (the lack of freedom endured by a saviour condemned to be responsible for the fate of humanity) are addressed in the romantic storyline. Levity is provided by the difficulties of the visitors from space, who nevertheless inspire more respect than Luthor and gradually manage to subjugate the ideological (media, government) and repressive (police, military) apparatuses. Though the president still voluntarily subordinates himself to Superman, the film no longer has shades of obtrusive patriotism (even though all of the symbols of the United States – the Washington Monument, the Statue of Liberty and a Coca-Cola advertisement – have to be restored to their original condition in at the end) – the fate of the torn protagonist is more important than the homeland. The epilogue is not devoted to collective ideals, as it involves the hero’s satisfaction. Much more than its predecessor, the reasonably long director’s cut of Superman II is an example of economical storytelling. The main storyline is in some way enriched by each of the characters, whose motivations are clear (with the exception of Eve Tessmacher, who no longer has any reason to help Luthor after the first film), the parallels are apt (Luthor is to the general as Lois is to Superman), and the film stays in each setting until it is fully exhausted (the dialogue scenes thus come across as slightly theatrical). Donner’s Superman II isn’t as rich in hidden meaning as the first one, but there is at least some psychoanalytical value in the fact that the father represents an obstacle for the son in starting a full-fledged romantic relationship. 85% (06/17/2013)

A hair on Lex Luthor’s bald head better than the "official" version. I fully understand Donner's desire to clear his name after more than a quarter century. Why he did it through a very different, but in many ways equally bad, film is beyond me. (02/10/2013)