Critics’ reviews

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 22: 0 positive, 0 mixed, 8 negative.

Back to our review of Superman IV: The Quest for Peace

22
Positive
0
Mixed
0
Negative
8

The consensus is firmly negative: all eight reviews find Superman IV: The Quest for Peace a weak sequel, with cheap-looking effects, sluggish storytelling and little of the earlier films’ humour. Praise is sparse and centres on the performers, particularly Christopher Reeve and Hackman’s occasional laughs. Even sympathetic notices find those contributions overwhelmed by weak plotting and poor production values. The anti-nuclear message offers little compensation, coming across as either buried or heavy-handed.

The differences concern what remains worth defending, rather than whether the film succeeds. The Hollywood Reporter finds some spectacular action amid the flatness, while most critics treat the effects as a central failing. The Los Angeles Times credits the cast with retaining a playful grip on their roles; Variety finds most of them going through the motions. The spread is narrow, with even the less hostile reviews offering scant encouragement.

The Hollywood Reporter
23 July 1987 · Paul Mungo
30*

The critic notes some spectacular action sequences but finds the film turgid, flat, and unmemorable overall, with the villains providing the only relief. The excess of effects looks stale, and it skimps on ingredients while following the standard formula.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · BC
30*

The critic finds the film as dreary as a summit conference in Belgium, with a story that lacks momentum and half-hearted special effects. A weedy romantic subplot involving quick costume changes is singled out as tiresome.

Read the full review →
Variety
1 January 1987 · ** · Variety Staff
30*

The film sorely lacks the flair and agreeable humor of earlier entries in the series, with Hackman getting a few laughs but everyone else going through the motions with less fun. It features Superman addressing nuclear disarmament and battling an evil clone on the moon.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
27 July 1987 · Michael Wilmington
20*

The critic finds the film a ragingly dull thud with cheap-looking effects and a skimped extravaganza that submerges its idealistic anti-war core. The cast retains a playful grip on their roles, but the movie lacks the magic of its predecessors.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
10 December 2008 · Nathan Rabin
20*

The review details how budget cuts and poor production turned a promising sequel into a cheap, incoherent mess with bad effects, destroying the franchise's dignity. It singles out the deteriorated flying effects and the desperate anti-nuclear message as complaints.

Read the full review →
Empire
30 March 2007 · William Thomas
10*

The critic deems it a dreadful fourth installment that ruins the Superman series, singling out the low budget effects, ridiculous plot elements like Nuclear Man, and poor production values for criticism.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
5 July 2009 · Stephen Carty
25*

The critic calls the film a surprisingly poor outing that marks the death of the Superman series, attributing its failures to severe budget cuts that resulted in cheap effects, reused shots, and a small-scale production compared to earlier entries. Some positive notes on Christopher Reeve's performance and a few scenes are overshadowed by weak plotting, illogical elements, and underwhelming new cast members.

Read the full review →
Collider
8 June 2011
10*

The film is an undeniable low point, sickening and worse than Superman III, with a reduced budget, poor continuity, and everyone going through the motions. Reeve's well-meaning anti-nuclear message feels heavy-handed and phony, while Lenny Luthor is among the most annoying characters ever.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate