So BAD it’s GOOD? SUPERMAN 4: THE QUEST FOR PEACE (1987) - Movie Reaction - FIRST TIME WATCHING
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 มิ.ย. 2022
- Hello Everybody!
I actually had fun watching this even though it is insanely bad
PATREON:
/ rolypolyolliereactions
INSTAGRAM:
/ rolypolyolliereactions
LETTERBOXD:
letterboxd.com/Olllllllllllie/
Starring:
Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, Gene Hackman, Jackie Cooper, Marc McClure, Jon Cryer, Mark Pillow, and Mariel Hemingway
Written by:
Lawrence Konner, Mark Rosenthal, and Christopher Reeve
Directed by:
Sidney J. Furie - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
And finally we come to the end of an era. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, Christopher Reeve's final film as Superman. It was sad to see him go but I was also happy the movie was over. That's not to say I didn't have fun with this film! Christopher Reeve was awesome as always and I had a great time laughing at the messiness and strangeness in this film. Why did Nuclear Man have an affinity for destroying landmarks? How can humans breathe in space? Don't ask questions and enjoy!
Thanks for watching! Have a great day! :)
If you do end up watching Supergirl, please be aware there are 3 versions: the Tri-Star US edit (105 min), the international edit (124 min), and a 138 min directors cut. I’d recommend the 124 min version, best of both worlds.
During post-production, about 45 Minutes were cut from this movie. In all honesty, and I'm probably alone in this, I'd like to see an extended cut with redone effects.
Me too.
That would be pretty nice to see, yes. So you're not alone.
Warner Brothers has already rejiggered three other Superman movies; restoring Superman IV to a semblance of coherency would be a worthwhile project.
Don't make the mistake that any of the stuff they cut was watchable
You are not alone
I just realized, he tells Luthor “See you in 20”, and Superman Returns is _almost_ 20 years later! 😆
and Superman Returns is supposed to be a sequel of sorts.
@@DCFCfanatic To the first 2 films. It ignores 3 and 4
@@Joe-hh8gd And even that is behind the scenes, not official
As for Superman knowing languages… Don’t forget in the original film he literally spent years in the Fortress of Solitude learning about Earth.
I always like the more international version of Superman that we see in this movie.
Yes, the montage was 12 years.
About Jon Cryer: he was famous back then for his role in "Pretty in Pink" (Another John Hughes teen movie from the mid 80's). Probably you know him now as Alan Harper in "Two and a half men" and BTW, he played a quite good Lex Luthor in "Supergirl" TV series and the "Crisis on Infinite Earths" Arrowverse crossover.
I met Margot Kidder a couple of years back and she was just lovely. But she was very blunt and not shy about giving her opinions. When I asked her about this movie, she said it was a disaster and that she regretted signing up for it. She felt that the Lacey character was saying that she was too old for Superman and the budget cuts affected what they were able to do. I told her that I enjoyed the movie and even though the effects are ropey and worse than the 1st movie 10 years previous. I told her I really like the double dating scenes and the performances were top notch. She was surprised and pleased and I'm glad I got to chat with her about that and Superman III. She hated Superman III. I can't tell you exactly what she said about the situation with the producers during that time but in her mind she felt shafted though she had nothing but good things to say about Annette O'Toole
Thanks for sharing!
This film has not one moment of 'immersion' or 'suspension of disbelief' or 'Primary Belief' in which one can forget that they are watching images on a screen and feel like part of the story. This reaction demonstrates this. So many "Wait, what?" moments.
Canon bought the rights to the Superman films. I can't believe how dumb the studio was to give them their rights. The problem wasn't just the plot itself, but the fact that they had a very, very very low budget. God how could they give their multi-million dollar franchise away for such a low budgeted film? They reused those flying shots over and over again. I read originally in the script, Superman was supposed to rebuild the Great Wall with his super speed, but because of their low budget, they just gave him a new power and had him rebuild the wall with his vision somehow. I still love Superman IV with all its flaws and shit. To me, it has the best soundtrack of all 4 movies, except for the opening credits (WEAK!) and Christopher Reeve was great as both Clark Kent and Superman. Gene Hackman was terrific as Lex Luthor. Those were the highlights of the film honestly, and Lois, Jimmy and Perry too. I kind of liked Nuclear Man to be honest.
The Salkinds found a moron in Menahem Golan, who if you remember Golan Globus before it became Cannon. They actually made money in a low budget world. They slowly built up money. Then they blew it all on Superman 4 and Masters Of The Universe.
Of all 4 movies, this one was my favorite growing up. As a kid, I didn't think about things like continuity. All I knew is that it had a bad ass fight between Superman and a powerful bad guy, and that's all I needed.
10:16 you know, this is actually one aspect of this film that I like slightly better than the original because it doesn't completely ignore the laws of physics the way the first movie does. If she's flying with Superman it means her body is being propelled forward and has potential energy in it already. So if Superman lets go of her, she's not just going to drop straight down with no forward momentum. She'll continue to move forward while losing altitude. So I actually think this movie portrayed what that would look like slightly better since she didn't immediately stop moving and drop straight down. Also, I think the idea here is that he flings her forward a bit to purposely to give her that experience, where as in the first film, they accidentally lose grip with each other.
It's refreshing that you can still find positive things in a movie that is so bad! I remember coming across it several years later on cable and thinking "How did I not know there was a Superman IV, with Christopher Reeve, no less?" Then I watched, and finally recalled that I DID see it when it first came out -- I had just completely blocked it out of my memory. And for good reason.
Superman's "rebuild the Great Wall of China" vision says it all.
I used to record the audio from movies onto cassette tape so I could listen to them over and over again even after returning the videos back to the video store. This was one I had on tape, and believe it or not, it was a great movie to listen to. The sound without all the terrible effects was a pretty cool movie.
Your reaction had me laughing so much in the middle. Between the Green screen comments -which are spot on- the great acting in the funny situations AND the answers to some of questions you have is because you don’t remember some of the details
That’s an interesting idea. Lois is denying an attraction to Clark and is threatened when Lacey doesn’t hide her own attraction to Clark.
Gene hackman came back because of Christopher Reeve who actually convinced the whole cast to come back
The issue of the movie was not that it started as a bad movie. The issue is that the studio could not make the movie they originally set out to make. Orion who made this one was already on the verge of becoming bankrupt, and they were trying to use their lacking means to make this movie, and hoped they could still make money and help themselves recover, however things continued to get worse for Orion until they had to claim bankruptcy. And rewinding a little, due to lacking budget the movie got rewritten over and over again, as the budget and effects got slashed. What in the end came out was a lack luster, stitched together, joke of a movie that no one wanted to make, despite starting as a far better project, they were likely stuck to it by contract and forced to last it out.
12:10 this film acted as a social commentary
The reason they’re all clapping is because the various nations of the world have faith in supermans “impartiality” - his promise to get rid of ALL nukes…
The reason to this day governments WONT, is largely that they don’t have that trust or faith that their counterparts WOULD completely disarm and stop making nukes…
Another way to look at it is:
Even if they don't like it, in the moment they will pretend they do. That's politics for you. A lot of it, anyway.
But a lot of the stuff they cut was never even filmed. How do you propose they do it?
What’s fascinating to me is that Nuclear Man’s voice is literally Gene Hackmans - I didn’t realise it when I watched it originally!
Superman IV is still a lot of fun to watch. Mariel Hemingway is great as Lacey, Christopher Reeve never phones it in; he's still incredible as Superman. Having Gene back as Lex is great, and speeches by Lois and Superman were memorable.
Yes, it was a production disaster. Canon fucked this movie over from reaching it's full potential. However, despite the problems, it's still more of a true Superman motion picture, than that piece of trash Man of Steel ever will be.
I differ. I find MoS to be the greatest Superman movie ever made. The Metropolis battle alone is better than the attack on NY from Avengers. The most relatable Superman in a more sci-fi oriented story. The Krypton opening was a wow, especially if you see it in 3D. Reeve was great but his virtuous paragon has no room to grow. One reason why the follow up were weaker and weaker. There was no place left to go for that iteration.
This movie has a special place in my heart because it is the only one of the original Superman movies that I was old enough to see it in the theaters. I was 6 years old when this movie came out, and to my 6-year-old self this movie was a great movie.
And I almost forgot it: be sure to check it up the Aaron Price's youtube channel. He redid some scenes with better FX; he's on a one man crusade to get WB blessing to fix the movie. Some of them (Including Opening and credits) are really good.
Lacy's legs are worth the watch! Fun film
In this film there are at least two people directly or indirectly related to the Harry Potter saga. Lacey's father, Mr. Warfield is played by Sam Wanamaker, the father of Zoë Wanamaker, who played the role of Madame Hooch in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Also, one of the three villains financing Lex Luthor's plan is played by Jim Broadbent, who you'll remember as Professor Horace Slughorn. On the other hand, the presence of Jon Cryer is a sight for sore eyes, despite how pathetic Lenny's character is.
Lexi baby proved that he was the greatest criminal mind of our era twice. He slam dunked Superman with kryptonite and he bridled the three Supervillains into taking him seriously.
YES. this one is so bad / good / bad. I am so excited to watch it. i love that i am one of the first to respond to it.
Hard to believe but this film is the inspiration for the Death of Superman story arc. The reason why? Because Superman nearly dies in this film and his cape ends up on the torch of the Statue of Liberty, similarly to how it ended up on a flagpole on that iconic comic book cover.
The Salkinds were hitting hard times after losing big on “Supergirl”, and the unfairly maligned “Santa Claus: the Movie”. We can’t blame them for selling, but Menahem Golan was getting more ridiculous in what “classy” properties he thought he could buy for Golan/Globus.
There’s a fantastic documentary, “Electric Boogaloo”, about how Golan’s eyes were bigger than Cannon Pictures’ 80’s low-budget B-movie stomach.
I have that Docu, Electric Boogaloo. I need to see it again. it's very interesting on how many bad films were made, but yet they were still very fun to watch though.
Exactly as bad as this movie is it's fun. As a kid it was my favorite Superman. Of course as I grew up I had to realize the truth but whenever I watch these movies I even watch this one
It was my favorite too. And it still has a special place in my heart, despite its flaws. Just recently I rediscovered aspects of it as an allegory for events seemingly totally unrelated (though in my mind it all makes sense).
As a Person Who Had the Privilege of Talking to Christopher Reeve Once in Real Life 😊 And Having the Chance to Ask Chris a few Questions about His Career, The Real Message He Wanted to Express in Superman 4 was, We Don't Need Nuclear Weapon's, Please Get Rid of Them, and For Us to Fight to Get Rid of Nuclear Weapon's. R.I.P Christopher Reeve Sir 🫡 Thank You for Being an Inspiration to Me and Many Other's,and for Your Time that Day,You Are SUPERMAN 👓
Good old Cannon films
No, it was just bad. Saw it in the theater when it came out. I nearly cried I was so disappointed. You should also check out SuperGirl with Helen Slater and Faye Dunaway. It’s also not that great, but I believe it’s also done by the same producers. And OMG I forgot John Cryer from Two And A Half Men was in the fourth film.
They can't even say "This is a fictional comic book Universe with different laws of phsyics/biology so people can survive in space.", because the scene with the astronauts on the Moon in Superman 2 already established that this is not the case and that our Universe's laws do in fact apply, and humans can't survive in space without space suits. Who actually approved that nonsense in this movie?
Super Girl is also in canon and has issues. Superman Returns gets a lot of hate, but I like it.
and look up The Death of "Superman Lives": What Happened?" if you want to see a movie that was never made.
hollywoodland should also be watched if you want to see more Superman stuff.
beyond that we get in to the separate canon modern stuff.
also elements of this plot have been used in other superman things.
"wait, this woman's in space, this woman's in space... she can't breathe in space, she's not superman!"
yeah. yeaaaaaaaah. This film. lol
'They used the same green-screen shot like three times now'
Yeah, uh... about that...
Jon Cryer’s Linny Luthor is Otis for the late 80’s.
love you roly poly super dude much love from south wales uk
“I’ll introduce him to his first nightmare.” Right. Because his father’s old super-powered enemies coming to Earth and about taking over while he is de-powered doesn’t count as “…his first nightmare.”
Gotta wonder.....Superman is impervious to fire, bullets, electricity...and Lex Luthor managed to cut his hair with a pair of bolt cutters?.....
I dig your Keith Haring t-shirt.
I'm going to save you a little time and summarize: Cannon made a series of risky investments such as acquiring his own videotape company and several cinema chains to get more money. The payment of the debt was planned to be assumed with the success of several films, including their star release of 1986, "Over the Top" with Stallone. The film bombed at the B.O, as some other films in the studio, which put Cannon in monetary issues to fullfill payments on their debts.
WB put in $36 million to ensure the quality of "Superman IV," but Cannon cut half the budget to complete other films, including "Masters of the Universe." The reduction in the budget caused the FX to suffer and no additional recordings were made for flight scenes (They had to use Chromakey instead of the Zoptic system) and were left on the edition room almost 40 minutes of history with the first Nuclear Man, plus extended scenes with Jeremy, Lacy Warfield and Superman's first fight with the second Nuclear Man. Therefore many consider "Superman III" as a well-executed bad idea and "Superman IV" as a poorly executed good idea.
In addition, Chris Reeve had his own dose of personal problems before and during the film: an unexpected appendicitis prevented him from training at the same level as the other films. And during shooting, he went through a divorce and the fight for the custody of his children. The new look was done to be in line with the relaunch of the Superman comics in 1986 by John Byrne. (No "S" curl).
"Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" have some good points: a great soundtrack by William's usual orchestrator, Alexander Courgae (Williams himself created three new musical cues for the movie), the message of the film is a bittersweet one, and anchoring a 18 month celebration of the character's 50th anniversary.
I saw the documentary on superman 4 boy they had lots of problems I don't know where to start but to start off briefly I wish special effects were better
I remember when this came out and Roger Ebert said he heard this sequel had been cut to pieces and most left on the cutting room floor, fyi. It shows that it was chopped up pretty good and probably could have been better if for better editing, jmo. 👍
Imagine you're Christopher Reeve. Cannon Films begs you to make Superman IV. You agree on 2 conditions: Cannon finances Street Smart (1987, a good movie with Reeve and an awesome Morgan Freeman) and you get to write the story for Superman IV. Cannon agrees. Street Smart gets filmed first. But just before Superman IV rolls, Cannon slashes the budget from 36 million to 17 million. Hence the shitty special effects, boggled story points, and crummy studio shooting (example: the United Nations scene was supposed to be filmed on location but was scrapped.) Reeve and Sidney J. Furie vehemently protest but to no avail, and Reeve can't walk off the production because he's contractually obligated. So he grits his teeth and does his best with what he's got. And it's a tribute to him, Margot Kidder, and Hackman that their scenes come off so well. As for Jon Cryer..Well, after the 1st day's shooting, a depressed Reeve sighed to Cryer: "This is going to be so bad." Apparently, after hearing that, Cryer thought "Bad? Eh, fuck it, then. I'll do whatever in my performance!" But I'd still love to see the excised 40 minutes.
Gene Hackman provided the voice for Nuclear Man. Mark Pillow played the character in body.
I hope you will watch Superman Returns, which is a sequel to Superman II, ignoring the events of 3 and 4.
26:28 it’s not the last of Christopher Reeve in superman media however.
If you ever decide to do a series reaction, considering your enjoyment of the characters etc, I would highly recommend the “prequel” series SMALLVILLE…
As with this film series, in later seasons the quality did start to decline a bit, but many alumni from this film series return for guest appearances
This movie had so much potential. It needed a better script and money put into it. That said, I really thought this could have worked on a dramatic level. Does Superman have the right to interfere when it comes to nuclear war? They also dropped the ball on giving us Bizarro as a villain.
He wanted to have fun
Reason the format looks different because it's Golan Globus who's reputation is known for cheap effects for action movies and ninja movies and Chuck Norris movies of the 80s and were always political and alot of American propaganda.It's enjoyable and fun for the campy side of things but story wise it's very bad and because there has been so much editing that explains the plot it's hard to tell what's actually going on also how does Superman know which woman Nuclear Man was referring too? He could had meant anybody so my assumption was Superman thought he meant Lois but it doesn't look the case. Also how does Lacy breathe in space was exactly my issue infact her body would explode because there's no pressure in space and also how does she enter the earth's atmosphere? She would get burnt into a crisp. So yeah there is alot of confusion and questions in this movie as a kid watching this I use to love it Nuclear Man use to scare me specially with the roar, the nails and the red eyes but it has not aged well. Sadly the last appearance of Christopher Reeve as Superman.
I like it way better than the third one. I mean, both are quite bad, but here we have Lois, Lex and Nuclear Man.
I agree. I liked the love interest in the third movie and the Superman vs Superman scenes, but other than that, I’ll trade those for more Lois, more Lex, and a very straight forward villain
Will you react to Superman II the Richard Donner cut?
I will be watching that when I get back from vacation :)
I'll tell you exactly why the effects were so bad in this film, compared to Superman (1978) not to mention Superman II and III. It all has to do with the invention of the Zoptic lens. It was invented for Superman and only used in 9 films for front projection after that film, but it was still patented by the inventor and it was above the budget of this film. Hence they were reduced to using blue screen, which was cheaper.
I go into Zoptic and front projection in the video I still haven't finished (you can thank Amber Heard for the delay) where I break down every effects technique used in Superman.
i am the first to post, so happy. i love these for the cheese
Exactly how can the hair be cut if it holds weight ?
While Superman III (1983) was a "So Bad, It's Good" type of bad and some redeeming qualities, this movie enjoys no such reputation. It's terrible and everyone involved in making it should be ashamed of themselves (some do).
Fun Fact: The movie's original budget was $36 million. Just before filming was to begin, Cannon, which was experiencing financial problems, slashed the budget to $17 million. The filmmakers cut corners by doing things like re-using special effects.
Bonus Fact: In the original script, Superman was supposed to rebuild the Great Wall of China at super speed. When financial problems hit, they had Superman use his magical rebuilding power, which only required Director Sidney J. Furie to run the camera in reverse.
Bonus Fact: Christopher Reeve publicly regretted his involvement in the film. He stated: "Superman IV was a catastrophe from start to finish. That failure was a huge blow to my career."
Heartbreaking Fact: Stuntman John Lees suffered career-ending injuries when working on the moon scenes, leading to a subsequent lawsuits.
The budget ruined this. They spent all the money paying Reeve more than in any other film he ever acted in not leaving much for the making of the film. Had they upped the budget the film would have been much better.
You might want to check out SUPERMAN RETURNS (2006) .....It is a nod to the original Richard Donner 1978 SUPERMAN movie . Please consider it
I respect Christopher Reeves for what he was trying to do but unfortunately Cannon Films let him down.
I hope you’ll check out Supergirl too. It is part of the same continuity, taking place between 3 and 4.
It’s a terrible movie but better than Superman 4, and it has its charms. It was the first movie featuring a female superhero. Might be good to check out before the new Supergirl appears in The Flash movie.
The first season of the Supergirl TV show is pretty fun too.
Yes, please react to Supergirl from 1984 - takes place between Superman 3 & 4. 🎞
It's an even worse movie than Superman IV though. A lot worse. And has aged extremely poorly too.
@@silkwesir1444 NOTHING is worse than Superman IV. At least Supergirl has some really campy performances by Faye Dunaway and Brenda Vacarro who look like they're having some fun.
I really liked this review. It was a flawed movie yes. But it did have a moment or two and some good ideas.
Hey bro don't forget reacts Supergirl the spin off of Superman starring by Helen Slater
cutting the hair - shearing strength is not the same as tensile strength. I guess this means you can cut superman in half. :D
Definitely not a great movie but would not mind seeing a directors cut as they cut so much out of it
Was that your first Cannon film?
Superman 4.
Please watch Superman Returns! I'd love your thoughts on it.
Idk. I still have fun with this movie. There's definitely bad aspects to this film with some of the shots and with some of the plot issues, wtf moments etc, but I also felt that way about II and III as well. So I don't really see a huge gap between those movies and this movie the way a lot of other people do. So far me, the fun of Superman vs Nuclear Man is fun enough to make this a fun watch. And in that sense at least, I like it better than II. Because I thought the action in that aged terribly and wasn't very exciting to revisit. (The same could be said for III, but at least III is funny). Where as with IV, the action still holds up to at least some degree.
Then again, I'm pretty sure this was the one I watched the most when I was younger as well just because I liked the Superman vs Nuclear man match up. I remember fast forwarding through the tape whenever I'd rent it just to get to those parts. So maybe I'm just prone to this film because of that.
This film was doomed before it was filmed. I too don't blame the Salkind's for selling. Between Supergirl and Santa Claus: The Movie, they lost something like $50 million. Add to that the underperformance of Superman III. Indeed, *could* be said that the success of Superman and Superman II had more to do with Donner than the Salkinds considering their track-record without him. One cannot pull off a Super Hero film with no budget, nor entrust the film to a B-Movie factory, and not expect poor results.
It's hard to beat the bad effects of Star Trek V, but this movie sure does.
Others have _already_ mentioned that The Cannon Group produced this. Cannon is consistently a train wrecking into a dumpster fire (or punks being exploded by an old man's bazooka... literally, I mean, not the obvious Freudian metaphor. I mean...that too, yeah.)
They're the *BEST* trash "studio." They threw their tiny budgets at makeup, squibs, out-of-date effects, kablooies, and sometimes tap-dancers or boobs. Cannon films are all terrible and they're _NEVER_ boring. Their film, The Apple (1980), is the crap of Legend.
Lifeforce (1985) by Cannon...from the director of Texas Chainsaw and the writer of Alien is unlike anything else (well...Quatermass and Lovecraft, I guess).
Trigger warnings: full-frontal-nudity and Patrick Stewart.
The behind the scenes is more entertaining than the film!
reaction The CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON MOVIE thank you
I will say this though. I enjoyed this film way better than Superman Returns.
The Salkinds have always been about money. Richard Donner saved the first movie, and they fired him. I assume they got this movie financed, paid Reeves and Hackman tons of money, and used the reputation of the first 3 movies to generate initial box office. Having gone cheap on everything else in the movie, they made those profits they always wanted. It's not only the worse Superman movie ever, it may be the worst movie ever made.
The quest for a smaller budget
If you want to know what happened to this movie, study the Cannon Group, Inc.
That should answer a a lot of questions and not just about this movie.
My favorite scene was when Superman moved The Moon off it's axis and Earth was destroyed. Wait. That's a fan video. Not in the movie. th-cam.com/video/Z6kUKNyIuhU/w-d-xo.html
I saw this movie for the first time a couple of days ago and I liked it very much, Superman 3 in the other hand was not a great movie for me.
14/20
The production history of the film is so sad. It had ambitions and the idea was great but the cutting of the budget was a disaster for the film. Originally the film was around 140 mins and was cut to 89 mins. It’s an unfinished and messy piece.
Fun fact you can't cut superman's hair with bolt cutters
I can’t decide which is worse - Superman 4 or Supergirl but I like them both
Check out Supergirl tho it exists in movie form starring Helen slater she’s Christians sister
You want older superhero films? Captain America existed from 90s it’s a ok film tho and the punisher with dolph lundergon
Helen Slater & Christian Slater aren’t actually related, although they did play brother & sister in the 1985 film “The Legend of Billie Jean.”
@@DoctorWhoBookClub I thought they were, my bad
It's interesting that you single out Lenny Luthor for hatred, and rightfully so, because that's exactly what the producers thought when they cast Jon Cryer, who had become an 80s teenage icon shortly before in the 1986 John Hughes hit Pretty In Pink, in which he played Duckie. Even more interestingly, Jon Cryer has since played a pretty menacing Lex Luthor on television's CW DC universe, AKA the "Arrowverse."
th-cam.com/video/eJtK7Jf-qQ4/w-d-xo.html
I enjoyed Routh & Caville BUT they aint SUPERMAN Christopher Reeves IS Superman RIP
Most of your problems with this seem to be about camera shots. That has never been general viewer criteria for a good or bad movie.
It's mesmerizingly bad. A must-see, of course. Yeah, Superman has "undo" power in this movie. Maybe this can be made funnier with some new effects.
Isn't there another Superman movie but it is abbot his cousin? ...sorry I mean hot cousin
Anyone speak Russian to see if they were actually speaking Russian? Cause usually they just speak jibberish with other languages. Moon King for example Ethan Hawk just speaks jibberish pretending fo speak Chinese.
It was blue screen in the eighties, that's why his uniform color is off, and get use to it my man, that flying scene is one of the reasons people hate this movie so much.
The sun is not a bomb, at best it could be called a semi perpetual explosion that emits radiation.
LMAO, holy shit I just realized that stupid ass doomsday being born of Kryptonian DNA and a Luthor's blood was stolen for that Horrid ass Dawn of Justice Batman Vs Superman movie from this shit show HA HA HA HA HAHA.
Lacey was too mannish. I didn't see her very attractive. So I don't know what Clark Kent saw in her...maybe he used his X-ray vision.
The fourth movie was ok but not really that good
I was a fan, negative of this ended my following
Nuclear ☢️ man is more powerful than Superman.
Lol No its crap .. but better than Black Widow or Eternals lol
Trust me it’s so much better than Supergirl! That movie was horrible!
This movie was straight trash