Superman IV: The Quest for Peace

Kastore wrote on IMDB:

How can this have happened? The first two Superman films are classics. Even the third one has its good points. But this – this fourth and final entry into the series was horrible. There are so many things wrong with this picture. For starters, the effects. At least now we know that Superman has another weakness besides Kryptonite and lead: a lack of budget. Thanks to the efforts of Golan-Globus, who were too concerned at the time with funneling money to another mega-cheese bomb, "Masters of the Universe", my beloved Superman can't fly anymore. He's got to be suspended by wires now (most painfully visible when he first lands on the moon) as well as require a moving yellow bubble around him as he travels through space. Gone also is the ability to keep his body aerodynamically straight during flight; Supe just lets his legs hang down at an angle behind him as he soars. The low budget seeps through this movie like a sieve, from a single set used to represent different locations like Ellis Island, the Statue of Liberty, and an Italian village, to the total elimination of chunks of script and plot towards the end. We don't get to see Supe's gradual decline from the effects of radiation sickness nor his recovery via the last Krypton crystal. And why exactly is Nuclear Man after Lacy Warfield at the end? We may never know, unless the powers that be decide to release the 'missing' 45 minutes of footage in one final attempt to justify this catastrophe.   [ show more ]

And then there's the cast. I understand Christopher Reeve was all of 35 when this was made, but do you think he could have done some crunches in preparation for this film? It's awfully disturbing to see a belly below the red "S". Margot Kidder looks tired and weary throughout, as though she can't even believe she's Lois Lane again. Gene Hackman's only defense for his being stuck in the middle of this is to give a marginally redeeming over-the-top performance. Mariel Hemingway – as much as I regard her as a very underappreciated actress, I just can't help but ask what she is doing in a Superman movie – and in a love interest with Clark Kent, at that. As for Mark "what's an actor" Pillow, I again have to refer to the coinciding "Masters" and can only picture G-G struggling to decide between their prospects who to cast as He-Man and Nuclear Man. I guess we should be grateful they didn't decide on Dolph Lundgren to play Superman's nemesis. No, wait – that would have actually made this film better! And Jon Cryer. ..why? Ducky doesn't belong in a preview for a movie shown immediately before a Superman film. His very presence here is the final nail in the coffin for this dog. "I'm breakdancing!"

But the thing that really upsets me about "Superman IV: The Death of a Franchise" is what they did to the character of Clark Kent. In the other films, he was an awkward yet charmingly simple man. Here he's an absolute dork. Part of the reason the original "Superman" worked so well is because you believed that a guy like Clark Kent could be a superhero. But not this time. He is portrayed as a schmuck who doesn't know how to deal with the advances of an attractive and influential woman. The whole double-date sequence is utterly ridiculous. And it hurt me to see our hero floundering in an 80s-ravaged gymnasium. The height of this travesty is reached when Clark Kent poses in unison with a flashing neon sign in the workout room. Poor Chris. It's a shame he didn't go out with a bang as the boy in blue. 2/10 [ show less ]

obiwan-27 (obiwan@ghosts.org) wrote on IMDB:

That's what they SHOULD have called this piece of drek which somehow managed to get produced The first two Superman films were great, especially Superman II. The third one was bad, but in a funny kind of way. Who cannot laugh at Richard Pryor typing "override all security" on the computer monitor and succeeding? But this fourth installment makes Superman 3 look like "The Godfather."

Nuclear Man? Humans flying in outer space without dying?? Superman pushing the moon around to "block the sun"??? John Cryer breakdancing?!?! WHY??????

This movie ruined the credibility of the first two Superman films. It never should have been made. I'd give it a 0 out of 10, but unfortunately IMDB won't let me do that, so I give it a 1 instead.

KMM wrote on IMDB:

This movie never should have been released. This movie is at the opposite end of the spectrum as far as favorites go for me. The 1978 original is one of my all time favorite films, while sitting through this one at the movies was like getting a root canal without the novocain. Special effects were horrible as well as character development and plot line. How could any studio head or those involved with the final print of this film feel comfortable with the finished project?

Talk about a film that rode on the popularity of its predecessors and failed to live up to any expectations that fans of the earlier films had. This movie certainly was the nail in the coffin as far as the Christopher Reeve Superman films go. And for what it's worth I fall in the category that feels Superman 3 was better than this mess. A waste of celluloid.