Superman IV: The Quest for Peace

* (1 out of 5)

Superman IV: The Quest For Peace

Directed by: Sidney J. Furie, 1987

Perversely bad. With major budget cuts (from $28 to $16m) and story problems, the moviemakers suddenly found themselves cutting corners in all areas. And it shows. Completely lacking in awe, fun and excitement, Superman IV most of all feels like a bad joke.

The fact that it comes across more cartoonish than the previous three is hardly intentional, as everything - from effects to dialogue - just seems oddly rushed and second-rate.

The only highlight is Gene Hackman - who returns in high spirits as Lex Luthor. Christopher Reeve co-scripted this time and he again personifies the Man of Steel. But most of his co-stars are either wasted (Mariel Hemingway) or hysterical (John Cryer).

The new villian, Nuclear Man (as played by Mark Pillow), looks like a Swedish showwrestler in a home-made Halloween suit, complete with mullet hair and horrendous over-acting mannerisms.

Director Sidney J. Furie (the man behind the otherwise taut thriller The Entity) seems unable to create any sparks and Superman IV falls completely flat, head first. Game over.

Note: Certain scenes had to be borrowed from the previous movies, most notably Superman and Lois on their romantic evening flight above the Manhattan skyline. How they even managed to make this scene look worse than in the original is really mind-boggling.

Superman Turns "Peacenik" could be another title to this film. Christopher Reeve remarked several times that this was his most "important" Superman movie. Being somewhat of a Liberal "peacenik," he was the kind you'd see out with a big "peace sign" at rallies against nuclear weapons.This movie had the kind of message that was dear to his heart.

Superman goes about trying to rid the world of nuclear weapons here, especially, of course when they get into the hands of villain "Dr. Luthor" (Gene Hackman). It was a nice message and, overall, a nice film. Unlike the other Superman films of the era, they didn't overdo the sappy romance with "Lois Lane" (Margot Kidder). They concentrated more on the story. Unfortunately, that story - even with good intentions - just wasn't all that memorable.

Ask anyone: people remember the first two Reeve Superman films a lot more than the last two. This one, and the third one with Richard Pryor, pretty much "bombed" at the box office, at least compared to the others.

It did not help that the producers of this movie were Golan-Globus films, guys that were known for their cheap and usually-sleazy exploitation films. "Superman" deserved better.

Four things I learned.

1. Superman wore a bad bad wig.

2. Superman actually had pit stains at times.

3. Never ever see a movie with which Golan Globus was associated.

4. The friend who went with me (at my insistence) would never speak to me again.

I have just watched the 89 minute cut of superman 4 and i've asked myself is this a stinker of a film or not and my answer to that is no i don't think it is.

Why you ask when most of the world thinks it is well i shall tell you.

Well it's world renowned that cannon were cheapskates and the budget was only 10 million on this film but that aside what Sidney j furie did with this film was i think a much better film than superman 3.

I liked the story the acting i think was on par with the other films and i enjoyed the action scene's especially the fight around the world with the nuclear man and it kept me entertained however there are bad points about this film as much as it kept me entertained which included Lenny who was as about as much use in this film as a chocolate tea pot and "THE NUCLEAR MAN" what purpose does he serve in this film he is that bad that Gene Hackman has to voice him so i can only imagine Marc pillow was more wooden than a park bench and also when superman and nuclear man are fighting in space it's so obvious that they are on a blacked out stage.

What really bothers me about this film is that somebody out there has the full 143 minute version and i think this is the problem with superman 4 the general public have seen a watered down version which in some places this film makes no sense where as the full version that was laughed at by critics in an advanced screening would make more sense than this version we have to put up with and lets face it the real critics are real movie fans who do not get paid for there views unlike these posh art house lovers who would dissect care bears the movie if they had the chance.

In closing i would like to say two things about this movie (1) This film is voted one of the worst films of all time because we have a watered down version that makes no sense in places.

(2)Warner brothers or cannon whoever has the rights to the full uncut version do the decent thing and give us the general public and superman lovers across the world the the right to view superman 4 the quest for peace in it's full uncut glory if not for us then let's have Christopher reeve doing what he does best in these films and entertaining us and believing that a man can really fly

Its Supes versus Nukes for the fourth, much-derided Superman adventure often slated for its repressing low-budget, inferior special effects and a whole wad of plot holes and incoherence – thanks no doubt to the extraction of a whole fifty minutes, much of the film's middle portion. Yet, among the wreckage are signs that there was a good film in here somewhere, as our hero struggles to decide whether or not to intervene in human history and the character's rather touching realisation that he is not just a visitor to Earth. A nicely-toned return to the Lois-Clark-Superman relationship also could have rooted the film back to its glorious predecessors - bar number three - but once Nuclear Man shows up and the film's story is cut in half, all promise and potential disappears from the project and the audience is left with a strictly mediocre re-tread of Superman II.