Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (2006).  Director: Richard Donner.  Starring: Christopher Reeves, Gene Hackman, Margot Kidder, Marlon Brando, Ned Beatty.

In 1981, there was Superman II.

Gone was director Richard Donner and his crew, in was director Richard Lester (best known for A Hard Day's Night, Help, The Three Musketeers, The Fourth Musketeer, etc.).

When first released, the film was a hit and audiences were pleased.  In fact, I recall a general feeling among many of my friends and the media that this was a better film than the original.  It was exciting and action filled, wasting no time to get to business (as opposed to the first film which featured both Krypton and Kansas before giving us Superman).

With time, however, opinions changed.  While the Richard Lester version of Superman II remains a reasonable diversion, I suspect most would agree that the original Superman The Movie is the better of the two films (and let's not even get into the sequels that followed this film).

But what, my friends and I wondered, of Richard Donner's version of the film?

After all, it was well known that Donner filmed Superman The Movie and Superman II simultaneously, and there were rumors that before he was let go he had completed something like 70% of that later film.  What, therefore, was Donner's and what was Lesters, and was it possible that one day we could see Donner's version?

Those who were curious in those pre-internet days heard vague whispers about an alternate opening involving Lois Lane's high stakes gambit to prove Clark and Superman were one and the same.  We also heard that Marlon Brando's scenes for the second film were all done, but unused because the actor demanded payment for this working on that second film.  We also heard that Gene Hackman refused to film any more scenes for the incoming director, so a stand in (with his face turned away from the camera) was used in Hackman's place in a couple of scenes (check out the sequence where Luthor is given a ride by the Kryptonian villains to Superman's Fortress of Solitude).  We also heard that the ending of the film, as Donner and company originally envisioned it, featured the "going back in time" trick.  Of course, Donner and company decided to use this in the first film, so we were left to wonder if they had worked out a different ending, particularly one that didn't feature the ridiculous "super-amnesia kiss".

Other questions:  Was Richard Lester responsible for all those "funny" bits and pieces which alternately made the citizens of Metropolis and the villainous Kryptonian threesome look so silly?  Given what followed with the campy and almost unwatchable Superman III that Lester (all on his own) directed, many wondered if Donner's version was a more "serious" work.

But speculation is all we could engage in for years, until it was announced in 2006 that, to further celebrate the video release of Superman Returns, and to tie in with the recently released "extended edition" of Superman the Movie, Richard Donner would complete “his” version of Superman II.

The end result, Superman II: the Richard Donner Cut, was one of my most eagerly anticipated films of that year.  Like the "extended edition" of Superman The Movie, I couldn't wait to get my hands on it.  But would it disappoint me like the "extended edition"?

Read on, my friends, read on...

From the opening minutes of the film, it was clear this was a whole other animal.  We have a quick summation of Superman The Movie, focusing on elements in that first film that are relevant to what is to come.  Marlon Brando makes his return right off the bat (Susannah York, as Lara, would fill in for Brando in the Lester version), providing the final vote in judgment of the Kryptonian villains.  They are dispatched to the Phantom Zone and "follow" Kal-El's journey to Earth after Krypton's destruction.  Then, also from Superman The Movie: Superman vs. Luthor, Superman dispatching one of the two missiles Luthor commandeered, and how the first missile, thrown into space, provides the explosion that frees the Kryptonian villains.

There is an interesting bit of synchronicity which I admire, but I have to admit Lester's opening, featuring terrorists in the Eiffel Tower, was more effective in getting us into the spirit of the film.  In Lester's version, its the nuclear bomb in the Tower's elevator (and Superman hurling it into outer space) serves as the key to freeing the Kryptonian villains.  This sequence is new and exciting, while in the Donner version we start rather slowly with recaps from the original film.

What follows is an amusing new sequence that shows how Lois Lane became convinced Superman and Clark Kent were the same person, and how she tries to prove this (The only negative to this otherwise fun scene is the fact that she's convinced awfully quickly... maybe a little too quickly considering she's then willing to bet her life on that fact!).

Much of what follows is found in both films, until the key sequence involving Lois finally getting Clark to admit he's Superman.  In the Lester version, this sequence is very, very weak sequence: Clark drops his glasses in a fire and picks them up.  Lois sees his hand is unburned and voila! he admits he's Superman.

Sadly, Richard Donner was never able to adequately film his version of the revelation, but fortunately there existed screen test footage he could use.  These few minutes of footage are nowhere near as polished as the rest of the film (and Chris Reeve looks considerably different), but if I had to choose, I would gladly go with this rougher version over Lester's.  Here, Lois comes off as clever and witty, fooling the Man of Steel into admitting his deepest secret by, of all things, shooting him!

What follows this sequence is, again, similar in both versions, up to the point where Clark takes Lois to his Fortress of Solitude and where Superman renounces his powers and the loving duo finally spend the night together.  It is here that another significant change between the Lester and Donner version can be found.  In Lester's version, Clark renounces his Kryptonian powers so that he can be with Lois and become just another person.  After Clark/Superman renounces his power, they sleep together.

In the Donner version, they sleep together and then Clark/Superman renounces his Kryptonian powers.

To me, Donner's take on this scene makes absolutely no sense.  If Clark/Superman can have a physical relationship with Lois while still retaining his superpowers, then why bother renouncing them?  It's a classic case of "having your cake and eating it too".  But in the Lester cut it is because Superman/Clark wants to have a physical relationship with Lois and realizes he can't do it as Superman (see Larry Niven's "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" for one good explanation of the impossibility of a Superman/human sexual relationship) that he chooses to abandon his powers.  And that is the sad secret of Superman...he sacrifices what he is for Lois, but ultimately has to sacrifice their love and to regain his powers once more so that he may save humanity (This version also makes more sense with regard to Lois' breakdown following all the movie's events.  Why would she be so sad about knowing Superman/Clark Kent are one and the same if they could continue to engage in their relationship?  Lois is broken up because she knows she and Superman could never be, now that he has regained his powers).

Whew.

What follows is the Kryptonian villain's rampage.  They quickly conquer the world's major powers and, following Luthor telling them that Superman is the son of Jor-El, they try to lure him out of hiding.  The depowered Superman/Clark and Lois discover the rampaging Kryptonians when they stop into a diner on their way back to civilization from the Fortress of Solitude.  It is there, after being beaten to a pulp by a local bully, that Clark realizes he must get back to the Fortress and somehow regain his powers.  In the Donner version, Clark/Superman's return to the Fortress proves very sad:  he recovers one crystal, the original crystal, and talks to his father (Marlon Brando) for one last time.  The powers in this crystal can bring Superman's powers back, but the price he pays is that all traces of Krypton will be gone.  This is the last time he can "talk" with his deceased father.  Powerful stuff, much better than what was on the Lester version.

What follows, the fight between the Kryptonians and Superman is, in the Donner version, far less campy.  As it turns out, Lester did indeed pepper the otherwise tense fight with little bits of nonsense, such as a man's toupee being blown away in the wind or a skater being blown backwards.

 The rest of the film in both versions is similar, although it is made clear that the Kryptonian villains aren't killed when they're thrown into the pits inside the Fortress.

Which brings us to the end of the film.  As mentioned before, in the both versions Lois Lane is a wreck.  She knows Superman's secret and further knows they cannot be together.  Clark kisses her, a "super" kiss that somehow gives her amnesia and makes her forget that he's Superman.  It was a really dumb solution, but for years it was the only one in town.

I was hoping that Donner's cut of the film would offer a better solution and it did.  Only problem is that it wasn't an original solution.  Yes, folks, we are once again treated to the "going back in time" sequence that was originally conceived for Superman II but fitted into the ending of Superman The Movie.  It seems that Donner and company never did figure out a different way to end the second film, so they showed us the ending as originally conceived, warts and all.

Both films then feature the "crowd pleasing" re-powered Superman taking on the bully at the diner, a sequence that makes me cringe.  Sorry folks, as satisfying as it is to see Superman out-bully the bully, the fact of the matter is that this sequence is wildly out of character with the noble being Donner and Lester presented.  I could see Superman showing up at the diner and letting the bully hit him until his hands were in such pain that he couldn't lift them, but there's simply no way that Superman would lift a finger against this man.  No way.

Since that sequence was in both films, I have to lay the blame on this out of character turn to Richard Donner and company.

And there you have it.  All that's left is the one, last question:

 Which is the better version of Superman II?

Turns out that's a more difficult question to answer than I thought.  While there are plenty of things wrong with Lester's version of the film, there are at least two big things that are right: The opening sequence is more exciting and Lester was right and Donner was wrong in the timing of the (physical) romance between Superman and Lois.

But in many respects Donner's version is better.  The way Lois discovers Clark is Superman is a far superior to the lame Lester version.  Marlon Brando is far more interesting than Susannah York (sorry, Ms. York, it's nothing personal!) and the sacrifice Clark/Superman makes to regain his powers is far more potent in this version of the film.  The villains aren't as campy and silly and the entire tone of Donner's cut is far more mythical and serious than Lester's winking "I-can't-take-this-seriously" attitude. 

So if I had to choose, Donner's cut wins it by a nose.

Regardless, of all the films I've looked at in Alternate Takes, this is the one that presents the most interesting comparison between versions.  If you're interested in what different artists do with essentially the same material, then this is the best example of alternative cuts available.