Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: June 19, 1981
6.5
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 362 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
220
Mixed:
67
Negative:
75
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
4
JustinLSep 8, 2008
Overated, only top 100 because there's only 6 positive reviews. If there were at least 20, then it would even things out a bit.
6 of 8 users found this helpful
6
JohnFAug 7, 2008
Overrated, the only reason metacritic gave it a swell review was because there were only 7 critics to average from.
3 of 4 users found this helpful
5
ShaunCJun 30, 2008
I don't really see how this achieved a 99....and I understand what others have said about viewing the rating with respect to the 'Superhero Genre" but I still don't buy how that should give it the 2nd highest score of all I don't really see how this achieved a 99....and I understand what others have said about viewing the rating with respect to the 'Superhero Genre" but I still don't buy how that should give it the 2nd highest score of all time....It is a decent movie at best... Expand
3 of 8 users found this helpful
4
JoshB.Sep 5, 2006
This is my people dont like critics, this is a terrible movie it. it makes no logical sense, the plot is terrible and the acting is terrible. wow, there must have been a lot of blow on the table when this thing was written and twice as much This is my people dont like critics, this is a terrible movie it. it makes no logical sense, the plot is terrible and the acting is terrible. wow, there must have been a lot of blow on the table when this thing was written and twice as much when it was reviewed. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful
4
JohnDoeJul 8, 2008
Come on! this movie not that good. I feel a sleep during it. Its got "Ok" moments but thats all.
1 of 4 users found this helpful
4
ThomasWSep 4, 2009
Look, people: if you know anything about statistics, most movies should not get more then about a 7 or less than about a 3. This is NOT a great movie, and I agree that the score it receives from metacritic is skewed by too few reviews, and Look, people: if you know anything about statistics, most movies should not get more then about a 7 or less than about a 3. This is NOT a great movie, and I agree that the score it receives from metacritic is skewed by too few reviews, and it also seems to be the case that some viewers here are responding with fake responses to inflate the numbers... one word responses like "Incredible!!!!" are useless. Collapse
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
LaurenceC.Jan 18, 2008
Ok, I don't get it. I came to Metacritic to get good subjective reviews on films I may wish to see. Major flaw here, either with reviews, American critics, or general scoring method. Someone going to fix it? Or do I have to go search Ok, I don't get it. I came to Metacritic to get good subjective reviews on films I may wish to see. Major flaw here, either with reviews, American critics, or general scoring method. Someone going to fix it? Or do I have to go search specific critics who are intelligent? Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
DerekK.Aug 16, 2009
Ok for its time but doesn't age well. a bit soppy.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
BrendenS.Jul 24, 2008
Can someone tell me why the critics love this movie, and the average viewer watches it merely to mock it. Even for its time this movie was a joke. Sure it may have serious character involvement and a DECENT plot line, but in the end it looks Can someone tell me why the critics love this movie, and the average viewer watches it merely to mock it. Even for its time this movie was a joke. Sure it may have serious character involvement and a DECENT plot line, but in the end it looks cheap, feels cheap, and makes you feel like you just got cheated after you watch it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JonathanKDec 7, 2009
Is there some sort of Metacritic loophole here? I agree with the bulk of these reviews: This was a fun popcorn-chewer in its day, but it was never *that* good. I don't know if Reeves' tragic later life (and early death) may have Is there some sort of Metacritic loophole here? I agree with the bulk of these reviews: This was a fun popcorn-chewer in its day, but it was never *that* good. I don't know if Reeves' tragic later life (and early death) may have influenced these ratings, but it certainly seems that way. A year or two ago I decided to rent the first one to show my kids, owing to the (then) stellar MetaCritic rating. I remember enjoying the film when I saw it decades ago, and thought perhaps there was more to the movie than I was able to glean at the time. Not only did my kids think it was "nothing special", but it left me disappointed too. Perhaps the inflated score is an artifact of a valiant attempt by Metacritic to review older movies? If so, I hope it's temporary. Rotten Tomatoes' reviews of older movies are hopelessly skewed to the positive and thus completely unreliable. I would love to have a reliable alternative that's not hopelessly romanticized. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
KPFeb 27, 2009
Although I don't have any problem with this film, it's 99 rating makes me question the entire metacritic system, more specifically the critic realm. This film is simply is no where near a 99.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MikeK.Jun 27, 2006
Not as good as everyone wants to think it is. The special effects got worse, the story is cheesy, the costumes ridiculous and the acting is terrible.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ChristianW.Jan 3, 2007
Back in 1981 this seemed like a good film. Boy has it aged. The last five minutes are particularly lame. The script is incredibly dumb. Metacritics credibility has been tarnished here.. or is it the credibility of reviewers? Rose-tinted Back in 1981 this seemed like a good film. Boy has it aged. The last five minutes are particularly lame. The script is incredibly dumb. Metacritics credibility has been tarnished here.. or is it the credibility of reviewers? Rose-tinted nostalgia has no place in film reviews if you ask me. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
LanceE.Mar 12, 2007
I have to agree with reviewer John B's comment "How could any reasonable mathmatical formula make this the second best movie of all time?" This is a mild escape movie. Several of Zod's lines are classics & the rampant product I have to agree with reviewer John B's comment "How could any reasonable mathmatical formula make this the second best movie of all time?" This is a mild escape movie. Several of Zod's lines are classics & the rampant product placement is fun to joke about, but I can think of a LOT-- a LOT!-- of films more deserving of the second place slot. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ByronLJ.Jul 7, 2009
Sure it's enjoyable in its own way, much like you wish you had a proton pack watching Ghostbusters, you wish you had those SuperPowers like Superman. I don't remember this film being even half as good as the Meta Critic Score leads Sure it's enjoyable in its own way, much like you wish you had a proton pack watching Ghostbusters, you wish you had those SuperPowers like Superman. I don't remember this film being even half as good as the Meta Critic Score leads one to believe. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
EusebioPSep 7, 2009
Don't take me wrong, the movie is ok for a Saturday afternoon with nothing else to do... But the second place of the list!! This is madness!!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DevinBDec 3, 2006
Okay... this is not the second best movie ever. I'd seriously doubt if this movie would make the list of the top 1000 films of all time. This is mediocre, dumbly campy hogwash. Even the first Superman movie wasn't THAT good.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MarkT.Jun 14, 2007
Definitely a flaw in the polling. There should be a rule that movies with less than 10 reviews do not get to be included in the ratings list of "best" and "worst" of all time. This is just kinda silly. Look at all of the others it has jumped Definitely a flaw in the polling. There should be a rule that movies with less than 10 reviews do not get to be included in the ratings list of "best" and "worst" of all time. This is just kinda silly. Look at all of the others it has jumped over. A real head-shaker. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MouthofSauronDec 10, 2012
"Superman II" has none of the charm of its predecessor, and it is plagued by particularly bad special effects. The character of Superman is more deeply developed and the narrative is artfully paced.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
MovieGKMay 8, 2014
Worse than the first and since the first is out of time now... yeah... It couldn't have the great action of course so it focused again on the humor part. Even more this time. It almost became a kids cartoon.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews