The big issue with this “Donner cut” is that it’s not the epic redemption a lot of people were hoping for. In fact, it kind of shows that as talented as Richard Donner is, he’s also partly responsible for some of the flaws in “Superman II.” Sure, there are some obvious improvements: it’s a relief to no longer see those ridiculous cellophane Superman logos (what the fuck was that, anyway?), and bringing back the scenes with Marlon Brando adds an emotional weight that was missing from the original version. The chemistry between Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder also shines a bit more in some of the restored moments, reminding us why they were the emotional heart of the first film.

But it’s not all smooth sailing. The inclusion of screen tests, patched into the movie, makes it feel a bit amateurish. There’s an inconsistency in the pacing that makes it feel like we’re watching pieces of a puzzle that don’t quite fit together. And worst of all? The ending! It’s almost a déjà vu of the first “Superman” with that cheap “turn back time” trick. Honestly, it feels like a slap in the face for anyone expecting a more creative or, at the very least, different conclusion from what we’d already seen.

Another weak point is the comedic tone that’s still present. Even though this is the “Donner cut,” the movie still stumbles with the comedic moments, especially in the scenes with Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) and his sidekick Eve Teschmacher (Valerie Perrine). Hackman is a brilliant actor, but the over-the-top, almost slapstick portrayal of Luthor feels way out of place compared to the rest of the movie. It leaves you with the sense that they couldn’t quite decide if they wanted to make a serious superhero drama or an action-comedy.

In the end, this version of “Superman II” isn’t the grand redemption that fans had been waiting for. It’s more like a curiosity, something to watch and think, “Oh, so this is what Donner was trying to do... sort of.” But the truth is, even with the good intentions of restoring the original vision, the movie still feels a bit disjointed and lacks the cohesion that made the first “Superman” work so well.

If you’re a longtime Superman fan and curious to see what could’ve been, it’s worth checking out. But if you’re expecting a fully polished and cohesive film, you might be better off sticking with the original Richard Lester version, which, despite its flaws, at least delivers a more consistent and complete movie. In short, the “Donner cut” is interesting as a piece of Hollywood history, but it’s far from the masterpiece some might have hoped for.