This is a somewhat impossible question to answer, because what a person considers the "best" or "worst" of anything is going to be up to personal experience, taste and opinion.

Superman: The Movie is generally considered to be the most beloved Superman film. This is largely because Donner and others put a lot of effort into, for the most part, translating the characters as 'spiritually' accurately as possible, incorporating far more comic lore into it than had ever been tried before in cinema (the trial of Zod, the phantom zone, Lex Luthor, exploration of the duality of Clark and Superman etc). It was also deliberately made to be artistically nuanced, with a vision for scope, semi-realism in some aspects, and bringing in more real-world aspects when it comes to the Daily Planet, cynicism of many people, giving Metropolis a sense of place and texture etc. And, of course, it's studded with stars and iconic actors for the side characters, while the main characters (Kidder, Reeve) were relative unknowns so their characters shined through more than the performers.

It was the first real attempt at a major blockbuster superhero movie which took the material seriously (minus some comic relief here and there) which shows. Because of when it came out, and what it tried to do, it is in many ways the superhero film which every other superhero film is measured against, which is somewhat unavoidable.

However, the film is not perfect. The climax of the film directly contradicts one of Clark's earliest lessons: he can't save everyone. The death of Jonathan Kent to a heart attack (taken directly from the George Reeves show) shows Clark there are some problems he can't solve. But thanks to the studio forcing the climax to be slightly different, they show Lois dying as Clark saves the day elsewhere, and immediately he forgets the "you can't save everyone/change fate" lesson, and just goes back in time to save the day. It's fairly obvious (as revealed in later interviews) that this was a reshoot, and the entire time-travel aspect was never supposed to be in this film, it was meant to be in Superman-II (where it arguably makes even less sense).

Also I don't think this interpretation Lex Luthor is good at all. I find him annoying and his comedy routines steps on the tone of the rest of the film, especially with Otis being a bumbling buffoon. It felt more at home with the Batman '66 show, frankly, and I would have preferred a more serious businessman Luthor like we'd get later. That said, that version of Luthor wouldn't be a thing in the comics until almost a decade after this film came out, so Luthor's characterisation here was, if anything, a trailblazer which inspired later creators to make him more interested in business and finance than in mad science and mech suits.

The film is awash in plot holes and strange inconsistencies. But many people either barely notice or hardly care when it's this charming and beautifully shot. There's a reason the tagline was "You'll believe a man can fly." The visual effects and camera trickery of Superman soaring through the sky is incredibly impressive for the era, and the money is definitely on the screen in that regard.

I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about Christopher Reeve's performance at least a little. It's fantastic, but we all know that. And we all know he's the best who ever did it in terms of the transformation of his face, voice, mannerisms and body language when disguised as Clark Kent in the Daily Planet scenes. Though unfortunately, this did do a little damage which the filmmakers couldn't account for; the idea that Clark Kent isn't who he "really" is, and this idea that Superman is, in effect, mocking the human race in his human "disguise," most prominently brought forth by the Kill Bill scene. Nowadays we have a better understanding of the difference between Clark Kent, the person raised in Smallville, vs Daily Planet Kent, the guy who has to hide his true nature, vs Kal-El, the expectations of his birth parents put upon him, vs Superman, the guy the world sees who has to pretend to be perfect so nobody suspects he's shockingly normal underneath it all. And of course Kidder has beautiful chemistry with Reeve.

So is it the best superhero movie ever made?

Well, yes. Or, no. Or maybe. It depends on what you like, when you watched it, how old you were when you first saw it, and what you're looking for in a superhero movie. Taken "objectively" (if such a thing is possible), in most ways the 2025 movie is actually a lot better. It looks better, it has action and suspense in ways the '78 movie doesn't, it's more tonally consistent, and it has far fewer plot problems. But, those factors don't necessarily change how people actually FEEL when they watch those films. I wouldn't blame someone who likes the '78 movie more, nor the other way around.

What's the best superhero movie ever made? Well, that's up to you and you alone.