Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

zkonedog After the abysmal effort from Richard Lester that was Superman III, the fourth film in the franchise rebounded a bit, but still dragged in a few crucial categories.The Good:-The acting is back to the quality of the first two films. Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor is back to his nefariously hilarious ways, Christopher Reeve (Clark/Superman) is again the stoic, righteous hero he is meant to be, and Margot Kidder (Lois Lane) is back in her enthusiastic mode. -Also, the storyline is, in all actuality, probably the closest in form to the old Superman comics than any of the other films. In trying to rid the world of nuclear warfare, Superman takes the type of moral and ethical stand he is known for in his legacy. A very moving politically-charged plot along the lines of Rocky IV and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.The Bad:-The special effects in this film were terrible. The flights, although I didn't notice any stray wires, were not as majestic as the first two films, while it was often much too easy to distinguish the matte background (like in space with no stars!). Plus, instead of really cool effects, the FX crew instead goes hokey, epitomized by Superman's "visual rebuilding" of the Great Wall of China that is just plain stupid. -However, the pacing of the film is really what bogs the movie down. Many scenes were cut from the film in post-production, making the plot a bit herky-jerky and confusing. Halfway through the film, the plot is steadily progressing. Then, suddenly, Superman begins his fight with Nuclear Man, which essentially lasts the entire second half of the movie.So, despite a more inspiring plot and much better acting, Superman IV: The Quest For Peace is dragged down by cop-out special effects and directorial issues that never really allowed the film to inspire awe or hold the viewers' interest. Thus, this second straight sub-par Superman film effectively killed the Superman franchise for nearly two decades.

Eric Stevenson I just got done watching the best Superman movie and now I have to deal with the worst Superman movie. It's amazing how disillusioned I was while watching this. I'm just glad to be done with all the movies in this series. These were films that got worse with every installment until we finally tanked with the most painful of all. I was surprised at how this movie was only 90 minutes long. It felt more like hours because of how bad it was! Maybe it would have worked better if it actually was longer. Then again, I have seen deleted scenes that are incredibly stupid.Anyway, there are so many of these scenes that are entirely pointless. We get some parts in the beginning that show Clark Kent trying to sell his house. This adds up to nothing and is stupid. Then there's really big subplot where this new woman falls in love with Clark Kent. We later get scenes of him changing personas while getting an interview with Lois Lane. Again, all of this means nothing. It seems like every scene is just taken from the other movies. We see Lois find out his true identity and then he erases her memory. This is lifted directly from "Superman II" and has no meaning. We see Lex Luthor communicate directly to Superman in the same way as the first movie.The plot is that Superman is trying to get rid of the world's nuclear weapons, but Lex Luthor creates a villain named Nuclear Man. We literally see him being born as in we actually briefly see this guy as a fetus that turns into a grown man. What? There's another scene where Luthor is with this woman in a dress from the French Revolution. What does any of this mean?! The special effects are downright terrible. They literally had nine years to improve and the blue screen effects are among the worst I've ever seen.The pacing in the film is terrible. So many pointless scenes and then a bunch of dragged out action scenes. Nuclear Man kidnaps a woman and takes her into space even though she can't breathe in space. Were the people working on this even trying? This movie was so awful there wasn't another Superman film released in theaters until 19 years later with "Superman Returns". Watching the movie, you can see why the production on these films went through so much trouble. While I didn't like "Batman Vs. Superman", I'd still take it over this! *

MartinHafer "Superman IV: Quest for Peace" should have been renamed "Superman IV: Quest for a Plot" as the film's script is pure garbage...full of schmaltz, preachiness and so many things that simply are dumb and make little sense. It's also a film that clearly shows the limits of special effects, as even with 1980s technology the film should have looked so much better--especially since it's about the most effects-laden Superman film up to that time.The story is full of saccharine when the entire planet stops to take notice of some little boy who writes to Superman to request that he bring about world peace! Superman, never wanting to disappoint any child, responds by destroying the world's nuclear stockpile. However, Lex Luthor disguises one of the nuclear missiles as just a garden variety nuclear bomb when really it's infused with some Superman DNA. So, when the missile is tossed into the sun, it naturally produces an evil Krytonian who is bent on killing Superman and working for Luthor. Can our incredibly plastic hero destroy this evil menace AND balance two women...one who is beautiful and loves Clark and another who's an idiot who STILL can't understand that Clark and Superman are the same freaking guy!!While the story is saccharine and stupid and the special effects quite bad, the film team do manage to also make the acting terrible- -even by Superman standards. The standout in this department is Jon Cryer-- who really can act. But given the bilge the writers (a room full of baboons, I think), he comes off as simply annoying and hateful. The rest, by the way, aren't much better.So do I recommend this film? Yes and no. No if you want to see a decent film. Yes if you are either using it to torture someone or if you are a glutton for punishment, like me, and occasionally enjoy laughing at Hollywood stars destroying themselves. A little schadenfreude is what's needed to enjoy this picture, that's for sure.

Uriah43 Although he is imprisoned, Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) further demonstrates that there is no correction facility that can hold him as he breaks out once again and plots revenge on the man that put him there. To that end, he fiendishly combines Superman's DNA and nuclear fusion to create a superhuman being he calls "Nuclear Man" (Mark Pillow). Meanwhile, the newspaper known as the Daily Planet has been bought by a wealthy tabloid publisher named "David Warfield" (Sam Wanamaker) who promptly changes the journalistic format of the newspaper to one that specializes in cheap sensationalism. He also replaces the editor "Perry White" (Jackie Cooper) with his daughter "Lacy Warfield" (Mariel Hemingway) to solidify the new format. Interestingly enough, while "Lois Lane" (Margot Kidder) continues to harbor a deep infatuation for "Superman" (Christopher Reeve) Lacy develops a romantic interest in "Clark Kent" (also played by Christopher Reeve) instead. And this creates a unique problem in itself when Lois and Lacy agree have a double-date with both Superman and Clark Kent. Now, rather than reveal any more let me just state that I am perfectly aware that this particular film has been roundly condemned by a vast majority of critics and even had the dubious distinction of garnering two Golden Raspberry nominations: "Worst Supporting Actress" (Mariel Hemingway) and "Worst Visual Effects". Additionally, Esquire magazine ranked it at #40 of the worst 50 movies ever made. That's pretty bad. Even so, while I agree that the special effects could have used significant improvement, I disagree with the assessment concerning Mariel Hemingway's performance. For starters, I didn't think her performance was that bad and I certainly don't think it merited a Raspberry Award nomination. If anything, I thought her presence actually helped liven up the picture to a certain degree. Likewise, I also disagree with the overall evaluation of the film by Esquire magazine. Case in point, it was nominated for an International Fantasy Film Award in the category for "Best Film" and ranked #4 at the box office upon its release. So there you have it. In any case--and not that it means anything--I personally thought this movie was better than its predecessor. So, for all of the reasons just mentioned, I have rated this film accordingly. Slightly above average.