Superman III (1983) User Reviews

A lot less humor needed

[ODDBear · 6/10 · 16 October 2006]

If you're a fan of Superman you'll find plenty to enjoy in this third installment in the series. I do, but it must be admitted that this film is much inferior to the first two.

This has Richard Lester written all over it. Superman II was Richard Donner's creation and Lester simply took over and wisely kept the tone of the film but with some added humor. This time around the humor steers the film as it's mostly a Richard Pryor vehicle. It doesn't come as much of a surprise that the film fares best when focusing on the Man of Steel, whether he's romancing an old flame in Smallville or in high flying action.

This is also the film where Superman goes bad and fights his alter ego to the death. Those scenes are the best in the film. Some set pieces are pretty good and special effects are decent. However, the finale has to be deemed utterly ridiculous when Superman battles a "sophisticated" computer!

Reeve is amazing as Superman/Clark Kent. Effortlessly switching to playing a meaner version of himself, he's simply perfect. Richard Pryor is always the same, so if you're a fan of his work you'll love him here. Everyone else is decent except those three villains; they're a little too much, especially Vaughn.

A lot less humor and more seriousness would have made the film very good.

Like Office Space With a Super Hero

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 17 September 2006]

After making two fairly decent Superman movies, things took a slightly different turn with Superman III. Gene Hackman was nowhere to be found, Lois Lane has such a small part that she's essentially not even in the continuity anymore (Clark apparently forgets all about his love of Lois when he re-meets Lana Lang). And things became really funny, or were at least supposed to be. If you consider "campy" to be funny.

Superman faces off against himself, after being exposed to a new form of kryptonite that has tobacco tar mixed in. Can the world trust a Superman who destroys oil tankers and sleeps with random women on top of the Statue of Liberty? The best part of the "Evil Superman" sequence is when we see Superman drunk, if for no other reason than the thought of Superman getting drunk (or even having the ability to become intoxicated) is a most unusual thought. Good thing Superman doesn't drive a car.

I really enjoyed the entrance of Lana Lang into the film. Lana, in my opinion, was always the more appropriate match for Superman and there is no exception in this movie. She shares a history with him, is more caring than Lois and less dominant. I'm curious where the Lois/Lana thing will go in Part 4, if it goes anywhere. (I am not suggesting dominant women are bad, by the way. But the fact of the matter is anyone dating Superman is going to have to be comfortable with being second fiddle.) What sold me on this movie (and almost scored it a 7 instead of a 6) is the tie-in with "Office Space". In Office Space, Superman III is referenced for a computer program that takes fractions of a cent and puts them in a bank account. The scene in this film was great, and really made me appreciate the way Mike Judge used it many years later.

With nicotine and tar being the secret ingredients in the new kryptonite, was there some message being sent? Richard Pryor was great. He was funny and made the entire film more of a comedy with kitsch than the serious films we had seen before. Many people really didn't like the campiness, I guess, but I thought it was enjoyable for the most part (though they did go over the top just a bit). In my mind, Superman was the light story and Batman the dark story, so I'd rather see a silly Superman than a silly Batman.

The new villain to replace Lex Luthor was okay, but why bother making a new villain if he's going to be the exact same character? I would hope after fifty years of comic books, there would have been at least one other super villain they could have chosen (although the new "Superman Returns" focuses on Luthor again, so I guess creativity is minimal in the Superman world).

If you've seen parts one and two, you may as well see this. But do keep in mind that the world of Superman turns a little "bizarro" for the next two hours of film time...

More comic-book than the first two.

[vip_ebriega · 5/10 · 14 February 2007]

My Take: It never reaches the heights of its predecessors with its sillier story and ridiculous villains.

Many consider this a weak entry in the Superman film series. Well, I thought it was at first. But when I watched it in numerous reruns, I began to like this. Christopher Reeve excellently reprises his role, alongside comedy favorite Richard Pryor, as a computer-whiz, who is hired by his boss to help fulfill his plans for world domination. Pryor may not do it right sometimes, but he's admittedly hilarious in spots. But painfully ridiculous in some.

Among the things that make it a bit unsatisfying for critics is the lack of the characters from the originals. Lois lane had to go on vacation, so Lana Lang (played well by Annette O'Toole)is Superman's/Clark Kent's love interest. Robert Vaughn plays a sinister mastermind, an okay replacement for the famous villain Lex Luther. What some viewers don't understand is that director Richard Lester wants it to be more of a comic book adventure rather than what scriptwriter Mario Puzo did in the first two.

Rating: **1/2 out of 5.

Horrible

[BandSAboutMovies · 2/10 · 4 September 2022]

I always wonder, what was the exact moment where people went from thinking The Great Train Robbery was some kind of black magic and the train was going to kill everyone in the theater to watching a movie and saying, "That was boring."

For ten-year-old Sam, it may have been this movie.

Just four years earlier, I laid on my stomach in the back of my parent's station wagon and pretended I was flying the whole way home from Superman.

So what happened?

This movie sucks is what happened.

Sure, it's written again by husband and wife team David and Leslie Newman and Richard Lester, who took over from a movie nearly already shot by Richard Donner in Superman II, directed. But I have no idea why this movie is about what it's about. I was a hardcore Superman reader as a kid and I kept thinking, "Will Brainiac be in this? The Parasite? The Atomic Skull? Would Dudley Moore play Mister Mxyzptlk?"

How about Richard Pryor?

Gene Hackman and Margot Kidder were said to have been angry with the way the Salkinds treated Donner, with Hackman retaliating by refusing to reprise the role of Lex Luthor. This is a rumor and Hackman has denied it, but he definitely refused to return for the Lester shot scenes in the second film. And when Kidder gave interviews about how the Salkinds treated Donner, she was written out of this movie for the most part - the cover story was that the Lois and Clark relationship had been "played out" in the first two film - and was replaced with Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole).

The other big bad is the rich Ross "Bubba" Webster (Robert Vaughn). He keeps trying to take over the world's supply of needed elements, like coffee and oil. Superman keeps getting the best of him and he finds that August "Gus" Gorman (Pryor) is good with stealing money through complicated computer systems - Office Space was inspired by his big plan - and uses him to destroy Superman.

Huh?

Superman ends up getting seduced by Lorelei Ambrosia (Pamela Stephenson) who somehow gets him to destroy an oil tanker and then Ross' sister Vera Webster (Annie Ross) ends up being a cyborg and oh yeah, Superman ends up splitting into two halves after a nervous breakdown with one side being a dark Superman and a good Clark Kent. They fight in a junkyard and Superman comes back, only for a supercomputer to learn how to make kryptonite and man, I hate this movie.

I absolutely hate this movie.

You know when Marvel fans complain about so much comedy and She-Hulk twerking and the Snyder cut? Let them have this movie. Ten-year-old Sam was beyond mad, the kind of mad that doesn't go away. Ever. In my lifetime. I mean, a rumor that Tony Danza was going to take over shows that this movie could have been even worse.

This is a movie where evil Superman rights the Leaning Tower of Pisa and blows out the Olympic flame.

Oh no, Superman. How will we recover?

Then again, Brad Wilson, the rival of Superman for the affections of Lana, is Gavin O'Herlihy and just three years later, Charles Bronson would shoot him with a rocket launcher.

The first of two extremely weak sequels

[KnightLander · 4/10 · 18 March 2006]

I'll be frank: SUPERMAN III is NOT a good film. Having heard both from people who loved the movie and hated the movie, I watched it with an open mind, but in the end it was clear to me that this movie is weak. Very weak.

Half of the movie revolves around Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor!), a dim-witted computer programmer who becomes involved in crime when he begins working for millionaire Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn). The other half of the film revolves around Superman (Christopher Reeve), as he is reunited with high school sweetheart Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole) and becomes evil when exposed to synthetic kryptonite.

One can't help but wonder what David and Leslie Newman, who co-wrote the previous two SUPERMAN films, were thinking when they wrote this film. It opens with a cringe-worthy slapstick sequence, and gets worse from there. Any and all scenes involving Richard Pryor are completely out of place in this film, making it seem more like an unfunny comedy than a superhero film. Director Richard Lester tries his best to make the movie work, but ultimately, it doesn't, thanks in part to the absence of Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor and the near-absence of Margot Kidder as Lois Lane (Kidder has a total of about three minutes on-screen). Christopher Reeve, however, is excellent as always, and Annette O'Toole is a good fit for the part of Lana Lang; interestingly, she portrayed Clark's mother, Martha Kent, on the hit Superman TV series SMALLVILLE.

SUPERMAN III is mediocre at best, a failed attempt to continue an excellent series. While it couldn't hold my attention for the 125 minute runtime, I can think of worse movies to watch late at night with a bowl of popcorn and a Coke. Superman fans may want to check it out; all others, steer clear.

A classic example of "so bad it's great".

[thecolclough · 3/10 · 14 November 2008]

If you're a connoisseur of bad film-making, then this is a must-have for your collection.

To be fair, it has a few good bits - most of them being Reeve's scenes - but it spends a lot of time being plain silly, and throwing together a yarn which looks far-fetched even by comic-book-movie standards. The daftness of the plot and shallowness of many of the characters, combined with a significant number of poorly-executed effects shots, produces an end result so awful that you can spend two very enjoyable hours just laughing at how bad it is.

Superman: the Movie begins on an epic note, and maintains a degree of gravitas throughout - but this second sequel starts off with a ridiculous piece of slapstick mayhem, and never really tries to be serious at all. Many films try to get their audience emotionally invested in what's happening during the finale, whereas this one, if anything, saves the daftest for last.

Superman III also suffers from the fact that many of the main characters from the first two films are either absent, or reduced to minor parts, and most of the story focuses on people who weren't there in the previous instalments, which makes this feel less like a continuation of the existing story, and more like a completely separate entity which just happens to feature the same actor as Superman.

I gave it 1 star for its few decent bits of acting and characterisation (yes, there are one or two), 1 for some half-decent set designs, and 1 for being amusing. It loses the other 7 for throwing away most of what it inherited from its two predecessors, and reducing the series to a cheap, cheesy comedy.

This film can be enjoyed if you don't expect too much of it - it's best watched with your brain completely disengaged.

The Strange Case of...

[Xstal · 7/10 · 21 May 2023]

Gus Gorman has a skill that's in demand (it's not comedy), he's a natural at typing compute commands, he can influence the weather, as he's really, really clever, salami slicing, dicing, splicing with both hands. But Superman has scuppered these tactics, by stopping his and Russ's (Gus Gorman's paymaster and dastardly boss) storm antics, so they've conjured up a rock, to give their nemesis a shock, and it's turned him into something that's unfit. At a scrapyard a reflection makes a fight, against the Hydelike curse of misery and blight, from the conflict life's renewed, computed enemy pursued, that results in quite an automated fight.

They really should have stopped with the second one...

[AlsExGal · 4/10 · 4 April 2016]

...because this is a terrible sequel that nearly undoes all of the goodwill created by the first two films. Christopher Reeve returns as Superman, who, in his alter ego of Clark Kent, travels back to his hometown of Smallville to attend his high school reunion. While there, he crosses path with an evil business magnate (Robert Vaughn), his equally evil sister (Annie Ross), and Vaughn's ditzy assistant (Pamela Stephenson). They've hired a computer genius (Richard Pryor) to help develop a super computer to help in their plan for global domination. They also develop artificial kryptonite that turns Superman evil. You know he's evil because he quits shaving, has dingy clothes, and straightens the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

Margot Kidder was fighting with the producers at this point, so her role as Lois Lane is reduced to short cameos at the beginning and end of the film. Jackie Cooper returns as Daily Planet editor Perry White, and Marc McClure as junior reporter Jimmy Olsen. Annette O'Toole appears as Kent's high school crush Lana Lang, and Gavan (Son of Dan) O'Herlihy as a drunken high school bully.

Director Richard Lester tries to accentuate the comedy in this, but the script is so awful that nothing can save it. The effects are bargain basement as well, with some really shoddy miniature and matte work.

THis film has one of the zaniest rather stand-alone moments in any film ever- near the end when the Super Computer the villains build starts malfunctioning and they try to flee. The villain's sister- who up to now really has served zero purpose in the story- is sucked into a claustrophobic compartment of the computer and- in one of the most disturbing moments that I can recall in what is supposed to be a relatively family friendly film - she screams in agony as the computer strangles her with wires and staples metal all over her face. She then emerges as the most ridiculous looking robot ever, by which I mean even Robbie the Robot would laugh at this thing.

The director of this film had to have had some serious issues with his mother (or maybe his sister?).i just cannot fathom how it was felt by the writers that this was necessary or appropriate in a movie that children were going to want to see. Annie Ross is actually an accomplished jazz and standard vocalist who, i can only assume, was being blackmailed into appearing in this or really needed to pay off a loan or something.

So this was the end of WB's relationship with the Christopher Reeve franchise of Superman. Given the goofiness of it all the fourth one was taken on by The Cannon Group, which was such a goofy production company that it was worthy of a documentary all of its own, and actually HAS a documentary all of its own.

It's not all that bad folks!

[TalesfromTheCryptfan · 6/10 · 11 November 2006]

Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor) who is a fun-loving computer genius has been hired by a mad rich computer company tycoon named Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn)to help him with his plans along with Ross's sister Vera (Annie Ross) and girlfriend Loreli (Pamela Stephenson) but Superman (Christopher Reeve)interferes with their plans as they must plot to stop Superman for good. Clark Kent revisits his old boyhood town called Smallville, where he is reunited with an old flame named Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole) at a high school reunion during his visit. Gus comes up with a scheme to make a special kryptonite with tobacco tar to make Superman evil including splitting up with his personality so that way Gus and Webster can make their supercomputer that can control the world's energy, can Superman come back to normal or will the computer take over mankind?

Enjoyable sequel but not as awesome as the first two movies, Richard Lester who did his version of "Superman II" just added some unnecessary comedy relief such as the "Three Stooges"-esquire opening sequence that didn't help or that ludicrous video game footage but there was some good special effects and memorable moments like Clark Kent vs. Superman in the junkyard sequence or the part where Vera becomes a Dot Matrix from Spaceballs-like android, although Ms. Stephenson was pretty cute.

All in all it's that bad folks, just relax, enjoy and suspend your disbelief.

Only good in places

[raypdaley182 · 4/10 · 18 September 2006]

The sequence of accidents at the start is garbage. The guy hitting the metal post would fall right back, not to his right. The girl on skates could easily avoid him and not hit the cart.

What are the little flaming things that catch the penguin on fire? If they are road hazard markings, surely a reflective one would be used or a battery powered light, NOT a naked flame. The guide-dog would not run after the other dog, they are specifically trained not to.

Why don't the people in front of Clark notice the burning penguin or put it out and why doesn't Clark take his paper of the pile thats very visible.

No bank guard would fire in a crowded street and the guy in the car had plenty of time to open a window/door and get free. None of the bystanders try to break any of the windows either, which is easy.

The photo-booth would not take pictures so quickly after having money put in and most take money from the inside of the booth anyway. The guy with the bucket on his head could easily have taken it off. The 2 men who fall over are actors but the public walk over the slippery gum-balls easily.

The pie man could have stepped over the gum-balls easily also. Why is the Daily Planet in the same street as the Empire State Building? (visible from the front on the street).

The "hacking" that Gus does is impossible. He uses his employee number to hack into the company system. He's a data processor, he'd have little to limited system access. His terminal would be limited to the task he was doing and nothing else at that time. And any hack would be traced back to his employee number.

Being a data processor certainly wouldn't involve a light-pen in any way. And it's unlikely the Webscoe system would accept commands typed in plain English. There was plenty of space on the road by the chemical plant for the bus to get past if the police car had moved.

Inflammable? Doesn't that mean won't catch fire? Why didn't Superman freeze the acid when he was talking to the scientist. Now it's clearly stated that no-one knows where the half cents are going and aren't accounted for so how do they work out they are being defrauded?

And how does Gus whose only just learned to be a data processor learn so much about hacking so quickly? (like he was taught it when he was taught DP). And Gus "hacking" a weather computer would NOT effect a bank ATM, or Bloomingdales Billing Department, or traffic control (they are totally independent systems). Traffic lights are very basic circuits built into the light itself.

Vulcan can only monitor weather, that's all it's designed for, it would never make weather. This is totally beyond belief, that a novice hacker could reprogram a weather monitor system to actually create weather.

And Gus would have smashed right through the window he landed on when he fell down the building. How can a satellite designed to predict and monitor weather analyze chemicals from an asteroid?

Ricky only told his friends that Superman was coming (who wouldn't believe him anyway), so how did the whole town find out Superman was coming? And more to the point how did Gus, who isn't even in Smallville find out? Superman knows Kryptonite is green, why didn't he suspect the gift from Gus right away? Why do Lana and Ricky live in such a big house? No wonder her rent costs so much.

Superman blowing out the Olympic flame is no big deal, it could easily be re-lit when he left. Oil ship steering isn't computer controlled. They might get instructions by computer but they are steered by humans as the sea is too unpredictable. No ships captain is going to take notice of orders to go to the middle of the sea and stay there. They know the lack of oil would cause chaos. Oh, and why isn't the British Reliance flying either the Union Flag or The White Ensign which she would do if she was British registered.

How did Gus design a computer? He was only ever trained in data processing, Not like he learned computer architecture there. And once again we see The Statue Of Liberty (In New York) but heavily featured as near Metropolis.

Am I the only one who thought the tanker should explode when Superman is welding the side closed? And how DO the Websters balloons stay inflated when they have no heat source inflating them?

The instructions Websters sister gives are useless unless the people she's giving them to designed the computer. And she would have no idea how to operate the computer seeing as she's never seen it before and Gus designed it to his specifications. The screens attacking Superman are from the Atari 2600 Superman game, the sound effects are from Pac-man.

Superman in a bubble with no air is no big deal, he can fly in space in a vacuum. Oh, and the string of a yo-yo would not support the weight of a fully grown man. Why didn't Gus just throw the power switch that Lorilei used to activate the computer at the cave entrance?

The end for this is weak and the whole film hasn't lasted well under the passing of time.

A very underreted solid decent third Superman sequel and that not a bad one

[ivo-cobra8 · 8/10 · 7 October 2016]

Superman III (1983) is very extremely underrated bashed hated film and I am going to defend this film today! It is one of my personal favorite Superman movies of all time. Yes you read the title I love Superman III it is my childhood movie, I grew up watching this film and it was the first film I saw as a kid. Since I saw half of the second film Richard Lester version. Christopher Reeve will always be Clark Kent Superman for me no one else can replace him I don't care what anyone says.

I kept wining to my parents that I want to see Superman movie and in the video store a lady video store owner gave me Superman III on VHS when I was a kid and it was the only movie she had. Superman III is MILES way better than crappy lame Zack Snyder's Man of Steel and Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice I hate those movies. I find this film enjoyable, well-done, and extremely underrated. The effects & technology are extremely dated (especially the computers), but this is still a decent, well-done film.

Plot: Synthetic kryptonite laced with tobacco tar splits Superman in two: good Clark Kent and bad Man of Steel.

Thing's I love in this movie, why I gave the most highest rating in this film and why I am defending it:

Christopher Reeve is and always will be the only SUPERMAN! No one could play Clark Kent/Superman like Christopher Reeve, If anyone could be Superman, It is Christopher Reeve!

The opening sequence with the "fools of Metropolis" was amusing, in a slap-stick way; this intentionally reminded me of some of the old slap-stick routines from years before (Laurel & Hardy; Three Stooges; etc.). And, sure, a lot of Superman III was comedic, but a lot of this was just in line with the Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor) character.

Superman/Clark going back to Smallville for his high school reunion & running into Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole), etc. Very cool sequence, and I liked seeing Superman return to his "roots". Also, based on the reunion you get an idea of the character's ages - i.e., the reunion said "Class of 1965" & since the film came out in 1983 (and supposedly was set in "real time), then Clark & his class-mates were all around 36 years old at that point.

This film focus more on Lana Lang, Clark's first love, Lois was Clark's eternal Love but Lana was his first love. Annette O'Toole was perfectly as Lana Lang after long 18 years Annette was cast as Martha Kent in Smallville.

In Superman: The Movie Lana Lang was played by actress Diane Sherry and she only had a cameo scene and than she disappeared from the rest of the film. Here we find out more about Clark and Lana's love! I saw Clark and Lois in the first two films but now we see more Clark and Lana's love story.

Superman save's Ricky (Paul Kaethler) Lana's son in the corn filed from the tractor that scene was really serious, the kid could have been seriously crushed, it that could have happened in real life.

This film was filmed and released in year of 1983 the year that I was born. This was my first Superman movie and it is my childhood film, I love it to death and I will always cherished.

The whole sequence where Superman was exposed to the "Red Kryptonite" (though they didn't call it that in the episode) and became dark/somewhat evil. They did a great job of transforming Superman/Clark to look dirty/unshaven/burned out (even his costume was darker!), and not only disinterested in helping others - but also being somewhat malicious as well. I especially liked the battle that Superman had with his good & bad selves in the junkyard; I'm guessing this battle may have been metaphorical. It was also interesting on another level, because we saw what would happen if Superman had been evil instead of good. That scene was also used in Smallville Season 2 Episode 4: Red Clark was exposed to Red kryptonite and he evil.

Richard Pryor as the scam artist Gus Gorman was good and hilarious the same time - obviously, because of his inclusion many fans probably dismissed the film as a comedy; however, his presence brought a light-heartiness to the film that was reminiscent of the comedic Ned Beatty character from Superman I & II.

Christopher Reeve was perfect as Clark Kent/Superman he acted brilliant his character, he is the only Superman and superhero for me.

This is Richard Lester original version film and he didn't had to re shot scenes from Richard Donner.

The rest of the actors did a solid job and I really didn't had any problems with them.

Robert Vaughn was a great villain I am glad the franchise had a new villain in all films Lex Luthor was five time the villain in all Superman franchise movies.

Ross Webster was a great villain and the scene where Vera (Annie Ross) becomes a robot and she becomes evil really scares me.

Brad Wilson played by Gavan O'Herlihy: Lana's former boyfriend, the character from the first film also returns in the first film he was played by Brad Flock.

Superman III is a 1983 British superhero film directed by Richard Lester, based on the DC Comics character Superman. It is the third film in the Superman film series and the last Superman film to be produced by Alexander Salkind and Ilya Salkind.

I love this film to death and it is my second favorite and the last good Superman film.

Richard Pryor and Richard Lester and two Supermans... What else could a man want?

[jwpeel-1 · 7/10 · 31 July 2004]

I love this movie, for those of you think it's really bad because it's too ridiculous, you must not read too many of the comics. The very first comics I never read were Superman comics, and that was when I hadn't even got into kindergarten, and let me tell you, they could be pretty silly but never boring.

The same could be said for this movie. First of all, I love Richard Pryor and he has a field day in this movie. Secondly, I love Robert Vaughn, and he plays a really juicy villain in this one. And then there's this great fight scene between two Supermen... but I don't want to give away everything from those of you haven't seen the film yet.

There is everything you should expect in this kind of movie. My only complaint was not enough Lois Lane (Margo Kidder) and maybe I'm nitpicking, but continuity with the other two films seems to be ignored completely. According to this entry in the series, Clark graduated from Smallville high in 1962. The problem with that is that in the first film, is clear that when Clark is in high school, it's the late 1940s by the vintage cars and trucks in the scenes. But hey, if we can believe that a man can come from another planet, fly, see through walls, burn through things with his eyes and lift trains into the air then why bitch about little things like continuity?

Not only do I have this baby on video from cable TV, but I also taped the network version just for the outtakes and edited out every single commercial. (The beautifully choreographed opening credits with the blind man, some mechanical penguins on fire and more is even longer and better in the TV version.)

So hate this one if you must, but I will take it over the second film any the day of the week. (That is, the Richard Lester version. I LOVED the Richard Donner cut which recently made it to DVD.)

I give it a 7 out of 10.

This movie is about Richard Pryor, not Superman.

[theshadow908 · 4/10 · 2 July 2006]

In Superman III, a computer genius named Gus Gorman teams up with the evil president of a big company to take Superman down using the latest computer technology. Superman ends up being exposed to synthetic kryptonite, and instead of getting hurt, he turns evil. Now the good in him must fight away the bad and destroy the evil supercomputer once and for all. Due to its lazy plot and acting, this just isn't the same as Superman's first 2 adventures.

The first two Superman movies had a certain style to them that made them epic. Now, with a new director, that style is completely lost. Everything that made the first movie so good is taken away. Lex Luthor is gone, and Lois Lane's role has been shrunk down to supporting cameo. The new love interest in this film is Lana Lang, Clark's childhood sweetheart. Whereas the first movie was a great mix of action, drama, and humour, this movie is mostly humour, and a little action, because this movie is mainly meant to show off Richard Pryor's comedy skills. The plot in general is a little weak, and the villain in this is no Lex Luthor.

The acting is especially weak. Christopher Reeve doesn't do such a great job as the man of steel in this entry. It seems he's getting bored. Of course, Richard Pryor completely ruins the mood of the movie with his over the top acting.

Overall, this movie is a joke, not really meant to be anything otherwise, and I suggest people just ignore parts III and IV and skip right on to Superman Returns.

4/10

not so Super-man

[mcfly-31 · 4 July 2002]

It'll keep you watching, you can say that. Either on the bad levels or the good ones (if you should find some), since most fans are so divided on this third entry. It falls somewhere under fair for me, as the effects continue to be awesome, but the story this time is tremendously lacking. Part two had three villians equally as strong as Superman, plus the romance going with Lois Lane. This one has a Lex Luthor clone (Hackman's Lex is left off-screen in jail) who also would like to rule the world, a dweeby computer genius (Pryor, as the much debated addition to the cast) and a romance you know will go nowhere with one of Reeve's lost loves. We already saw that he couldn't give things up for Lois, so why bother brining on a new girl? Though O' Toole is gorgeous, a lot more than Kidder, who is featured at the beginning of the film looking aged, then at the end with a bad tan. Rumor has it she outpriced herself which resulted in the character being shipped off to Bermuda. With her out of the picture, Reeve attends a high school reunion where he bumps into O'Toole. Meantime, Vaughn and Pryor are poised for world dominance, though Pryor is realizing the ramifications and is reluctant. But he still goes through it, concocting a kryptonite like impairment for Superman, which results in some of the film's best scenes. Reeve develops a naughty alter ego, and we get to see Superbad-man get drunk, straighten the Tower of Pisa, even get horny, among other things. There's a terrific showdown between Reeve and...well, Reeve in a junkyard where bad Supes confronts his inner goodness, Clark Kent. After this, though, the film sags to it's conclusion, as Reeve goes up against more rockets and missiles, a la part one. Despite missing the tension of part two, the film is interesting in a disjointed kind of way. The flying effects are once again top-notch, and strangely enough, are better than in the next film which came out four years later! And most have mentioned the dopey opening sequence that belonged more in a silent comedy than here, but it wasn't a horrendous mistake. I must note as a kid that when Vaughn's sister is turned into that psycho-robot it FREAKED me out! Biggest annoyance is the kid who plays Ricky, his voice is badly dubbed and incredibly nerve-racking. Also could've done without O'Herlihy's drunken antagonist. Most of the music is lifted from part two, but since I liked Ken Thorne's work, I didn't mind. I could even say (Supe fans will kill me) I would rather watch this one than the first movie. So even though the story isn't really there like in the previous films, the movie overall still FLIES (hehe).

Superman and Pryor not the Greatest duo

[Colby6921 · 2/10 · 8 August 2006]

Superman The Movie was the blockbuster of its time, an allstar cast, and a fresh new line of Special Effects, and awesome Storwriters. It is the best in the series, and has stood the test of time. Superman II was also very good, it lives up to the first one, and the new Richard Donner cut coming in November should be even better than the one we're all accustomed to! After the first seqel though, is where things began to change...

At the end of the 2nd movie, "COMING SOON SUPERMAN III!" was the first sentence in the credits. Lets get our hopes up for the next one the First two were great! Audiences soon found that was not the case for the 1983 film starring Christopher Reeve and...Richard Pryor?!

WHAT WAS WRONG?

After I, and II Gene Hackman and Margot Kidder were openly angry at the Producers Ilya and Alexander Salkind for firing Richard Donner off the 2nd movie, he had filmed the 1st film, and most of the 2nd when this happened. So Hackman refused to show up in III. And Margot talked about the Salkinds or something publicly about the Salkinds firing Donner.

So...They kept her pretty low profile in Superman III, saying she took a Vacation to Bermuda. This kinda killed off Clark Kent's original love life for the movie. The Salkinds also made some other choices that killed the movie. They decided to go with a campier movie this time. Completely diminishing the seriousness of Superman I and II. Richard Pryor wasn't too bad for the style of movie, but...he doesn't really seem like the best computer genius.

Now to the point, Superman III suffered deeply from the aspects above. Being the only movie to fail to have Lex Luthor, and Lois Lane. It was a poor sequel to the 1st two. And I rate it a 3/10. The special effects as far as Superman flying, and using heat vision were at their best here, but still this wasn't enough to save the movie. The script was also way too Campy. Poor Job here Salkinds. So this movie failed to get good reviews, and lost popularity. The new November DVD Should be great though! The Best part of Superman III was the battle between Clark and Evil Superman. Christopher Reeve was a great actor, and showed a whole new role for himself in that small part of the movie where he is evil. But this was indeed a good performance by Reeve. (But without Lois Lane he had to start over again with the Lana in Smallvill, and Pryor also made too much of a competetor of all the attention)

Not very "Super"

[rparham · 5/10 · 22 June 2006]

After two successful films, the Superman franchise was unable to sustain momentum with Superman III. Superman III continues the series slide that was slightly evident in the otherwise solid Superman II from a mix of drama, action and sly self-referential humor to more slapstick oriented, silly entries. Superman III almost wants to just be a comedy, and the film's dramatic elements are fairly lacking.

As Superman III opens, Clark Kent (Christopher Reeve) is headed for a high school reunion in Smallville where he crosses paths with an old crush of his, Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole, who years later would essay the role of Martha Kent in the series Smallville), who is divorced and living in Smallville with her son Ricky (Paul Kaethler). Clark rediscovers his attraction to her and they begin what seems to be the road to a relationship. At the same time, Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor), an unemployed man who discovers he has a knack for computer programming, gets a job with Webscoe Industries and performs some hacking to inflate his paycheck. The company's head, Ross Webster (Robert Vaughan), discovers Gus' "creative accounting" but instead of firing him, decides to use his abilities to attempt to take control of the world's energy supplies. When Superman thwarts' Ross' plans, he has Gus use satellites to analyze the location of Krypton and determine the elements that make up Kryptonite, Superman's weakness, and plans to synthesize a version of it.

Gus is unable to replicate all the elements and substitutes tar was the missing item, which produces Kryptonite that doesn't kill Superman, but instead alters his personality, causing him to be come evil and selfish. With Superman no longer helping people, Ross' plans go forward and Gus makes a request: he has designed a supercomputer that he wants Ross to build for him that will allow him to control all the computers in the world.

With the presence of Richard Pryor, it is unsurprising that Superman III has a more strictly comedy directed bent, but frankly, turning the Superman series into a much more campy variety of film just doesn't work. After the first two films were able to be somewhat tongue in cheek without losing their dramatic strength, Superman III doesn't even really try to match those films. Almost everything in Superman III is played for laughs, and not even good laughs. A majority of the humor falls flat, and the whole experience proves relatively lame.

A significant loss is the virtual removal of Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) from the film. She makes a brief appearance at the very beginning of the film and the very end, but is missing from the rest. She had a disagreement with the producers over the firing of Superman director Richard Donner on Superman II and so they all but removed her from Superman III. In her place they introduced Lana Lang, and Annette O'Toole is capable in the role, but the Clark/Lana relationship doesn't have the chemistry of the Clark/Lois relationship in Superman and Superman II.

Superman III also suffers from lackluster villains. Ross Webster is a rather bland adversary, with Robert Vaughan attempting to channel Gene Hackman but coming up a bit short. His performance isn't terrible, but it's not great either. Gus Gorman isn't a villain, per se, more of a misguided soul, so the film somewhat vacillates between making him a bad guy and thus sucks any possible menace from him. That plus he is portrayed by Richard Pryor, who is a capable comedian, but has absolutely no ability to play a villain. He's just too nice a guy.

About the only places Superman III still hits are with the still solid performance of Christopher Reeve as Superman, who manages to mostly escape unscathed, and the film's visual effects are still up to par. Otherwise, Superman III under whelms on almost every level. Not so Super, indeed.

Forget kryptonite, you can kill Superman with a bad movie!

[IrishWriter34 · 2/10 · 23 May 2002]

Not long ago, I wrote my ideas as to what SUPERMANs III and IV should have been for Superman Cinema's fan-fic section. My version of SUPERMAN III picked up where the last film left off, with the relationship between Lois and Clark/Superman dead and gone. In it, Lana Lang returns to rekindle her relationship with Clark while a pair of insane government scientists mass-produce Bizarros for use as a disposable army. Spurned on the basis that such an army would violate human rights, the scientists use the Bizarros to wreak havoc upon Washington and end up in direct conflict with Superman.

Why am I telling you this? Because what I came up with was way better than the actual SUPERMAN III. It's no secret that the Salkinds originally intended the SUPERMAN films to be camp comedies, a plan that Richard Donner and Tom Mankiewicz undid when they made SUPERMAN as a dramatic film. Even though both men had been fired from SUPERMAN II after filming 80% of the picture and replaced by Richard Lester and the Newmans (who rewrote and reshot much of the final film, and are the "masterminds" behind III), enough of Donner and Mankiewicz's influence was stamped into the film to keep it from being totally screwed up. With SUPERMAN III, Donner and Mankiewicz's influence is completely absent, and we finally see what the Salkinds intended the SUPERMAN series to be all along. And what we get is a campy, dumb, and unfunny insult to the mythos. Not even the superb FX work, a good rescue scene at a chemical plant, and Robert Paynter's comic book-panel photography can make this film feel like genuine Superman.

It's not the idea of having Richard Pryor in a Superman film that makes this film bad, or using Lana Lang. It's not even the idea of using new villains. What makes this film bad is the sheer carelessness and idiocy of it all. For a film that revolves around computers as a menace, the villain should have been Brainiac, the genocidal AI of the comic books. Instead we get Robert Vaughn and Annie Ross as greedy tycoons who sucker a computer wiz into helping them corner the commodities market. Not very exciting. Instead of giving Pryor a meaty, serious role that would have tested him as an actor and have fit into the tone of the Superman mythos, we get Pryor as Gus Gorman doing standard Pryor shtick and not being funny at all. Instead of Lana Lang having some zest and excitement to her, we get a very bland and dull character played by a very boring Annette O'Toole. It also doesn't help that Pamela Stephenson's Lorelai character is beyond annoying, that Lois Lane barely appears in this movie at all (the Salkinds were punishing Margot Kidder for openly sticking up for Donner), that none of the plot threads are remotely satisfying, that Superman is now a bit player in his own movie, that Ken Thorne's abysmal and boring score continues to reduce John Williams' powerful fanfares to shrill and campy disgraces, that Richard Lester's disdain for Superman shows in his indifferent direction, and that the acting is all-around awful. Even when Superman ISN'T evil (and the "Superman goes evil and fights himself" scene is the lowest point in the film), Christopher Reeve comes off as smarmy and insincere (probably because he realizes the film sucks). And let's not forget the horrible slapstick gags, which are totally out of place here. And why does Metropolis have such a strongly British feel to it in the opening sequence? Shouldn't it be more American? Shades of SUPERMAN II's Idaho residents with British accents....

I can't say that this is as low as the SUPERMAN films can sink; the upcoming Jon Peters-produced SUPERMAN movie promises to be even worse. But of the Christopher Reeve cycle, this is by far the worst of the four. To those who assert that this film is truer to the comic books than the first two, I beg to differ. The first two films are kin to the best Superman comic stories. III is kin to the absolute worst.

Quite simple arithmetic: Movie 4, Pryor 8, 8+4: 12 divided by 2: final rate 6!!!

[elo-equipamentos · 6/10 · 26 May 2019]

It was really a smart idea to bring Richard Pryor to co-starring this third awful Superman sequel, his unmatched presence supported on every lines spoke by him saves the picture of an entire flop, on early scenes a sort of the slapstick comedy give an slight idea what's coming next, meanwhile they had a right choice to rid off Lois Lane due no longer has beauty ( if had) on previous ones, introducing the younger Annette O'Toole as romantic pair, in other hand the laconic Robert Vaughn didn't was able to overcame Gene Hackman as Luthor, otherwise was happen with the dubious Lorelei on second most interesting character until now, a suppose dumb blonde actually was quite clever indeed, misleading Webster and the audience, whereas Pryor spreading his rough lines as "don't takes me to the jail, there are so many crooks, thieves and rapists", oh my god fantastic, when he shows to Webster his plans to build a powerful computer he puts on table so many rough drafts, to laugh so hard, several scenes he delivers all he can on his own words ( just supposedly ), whatever Superman does in mostly scenes weren't enough to faces Pryor in a few of them, one more picture saves by a supporting role!!!

Resume:

First watch: 1986 / How many: 3 / Source: TV-DVD-Blu-Ray / Rating: 6

As bad as a movie can get

[Maciste_Brother · 1/10 · 30 March 2004]

This Superman movie, along with the following sequel, is one of the sorriest excuses for a movie ever conceived by producers. The whole thing just reeks. It's as bad as a movie can get. And the folks responsible for this sloppy, junky, stupid movie clearly had no respect for moviegoers. It's a total embarrassment for everyone involved.

It seems that they tried to go in the BATMAN TV series route (notice how the super computer in SUPERMAN III looks like the Batcave in the TV series) but at least the TV show, as cheesy as it was, was fun to watch. This is just painful from beginning to end.

Avoid at all cost!!!!

Superman vs St. Louis Assassin -part 3

[StLouisAssassin · 7/10 · 10 July 2006]

this film is not at all as bad as some people would have you to believe it is.

Once again the acting is superb (the acting was great in all 4 of these movies-even when the scripts aren't) I have a good time with this film every time I see it.

It is the only Superman movie that doesn't open with John Williams awesome soundtrack. It's also the only one of the 4 movies where Superman fails to go to the fortress of solitude. It is also the only one without Lex Luther. ......so yes it was a departure from the first 2 films. this movie had far more comic relief in it. Richard Pryor done an outstanding job in this movie.

yes I will admit that parts 1 and 2 are much better films than part 3.

this is a good movie and curses to those who slam it. this is a fun movie.

by far one of the worst movies ive ever seen

[ruxxell · 1/10 · 31 October 1999]

I just rented superman 1 2 and 3 and watched them in succession. 1 and 2 rule of course.... but this piece of " needs to be banished from video stores everywhere. not only is ot completely far-fetched with the whole "uber computer" who has more powers than the terminator and my pentium III combined, but the plot is WEAK, and the acting is HORRIBLE. check out the scenes where "evil superman" tries to act tough. oooh.. tough man he is. whatever. dont rent this.. its a 1.5 hour trip into a bad place. even worse than "batman and robin"

"I hope you don't expect me to save you..."

[burbs82 · 10/10 · 28 November 2006]

Despite the overwhelming hatred for Superman III, I gotta say that I think it's an excellent film. One of the two best of the whole Superman saga, actually. The other, of course, is the original film. But Superman III is so much fun, and a great example of how it's possible for Superman to have enemies OTHER than Lex Luthor. The guy's been the main villain in, how many is it, FOUR of the now FIVE Superman films? I liked Gene Hackman's Luthor (far superior to Kevin Spacey's), but you gotta take a break at some point. No, Superman III is a refreshing change of pace, not only in that respect, but in several ways.

Most noticeable, and much to the chagrin of many people, is the slightly more comedic tone of the film, centered mainly around Richard Pryor's character, August 'Gus' Gorman. I thought Prior was great. He plays an over-the-top character in a movie series about an over-the-top character. I hear people complain all the time that they hate the comedy that Prior brought to the film because Superman is supposed to be, and these are actual quotes, "gritty" and "realistic". NO, he's not. Superman is not gritty, and he's not realistic. Never was, never will be. Richard Donner's original doesn't even come CLOSE to playing it straight. Just look at how he portrays Clark Kent. In the comic books and 1950's television series, the "mild-mannered" Clark Kent is treated with respect and professionalism. He basically co-exists amongst his peers at the Daily Planet. In "Superman: The Movie", Richard Donner has taken the character straight out of the old comics and TV series, with all the same mannerisms and morals, and placed him in a very modern 1978. This is a set-up for much of the films adequate amount of comedy relief. "Superman: The Movie" is not a comedy. Neither is "Superman III", but they both have comic relief. The Clark Kent character is slightly more serious in this one, thus, you have Gus. A funny little man, with an interesting power. A savant-like intellect that gives him complete control over any computer system.

I especially like how Clark Kent, Superman's alterego, is fleshed out more as he returns home to Smallville. This is a great follow-up to Richard Donner's brief exploration to Superman's early years in Smallville. The inclusion of Lana Lang as Clark's high school crush was great, even better in that they chose the lovely Annette O'Toole to portray the character. I LOVE Margot Kidder, but I think Lana is a very important character in Superman's backstory.

All the delving into Clark Kent's character and background leads us to one of the greatest scenes in motion picture history... Clark Kent vs. Evil Superman. I could sit here and expound on the scene's metaphoric implications all day long, but simply put, I found it jaw-dropping. Christopher Reeve was always perfect as Superman, but his best work is here in this scene. Evil Superman is a very physical representation of everything Clark/Superman has ever repressed, and obviously we're talking about a lot of repression here. It's great stuff. I still wanna cheer every time the victorious Clark Kent opens his shirt to reveal his famous insignia, which, by the way, is differentiated by Evil Superman's in that it's excessively bright, where as his was really dark and dingy looking. Having been a Superman fan since I was a kid way back in the day, that's one of those scenes I'll remember 'till the day I die. I remember it from my childhood, but it's actually more relateable for me now as an adult.

Superman III is one of the greats. If you haven't seen it yet, I only ask that you watch it with an open mind and not look for grit or realism where it has no place being. Instead, just believe a man can fly... again.

If you expect a comic book movie you might be disappointed but it is a nice comedy instead

[metzelmax · 7/10 · 1 April 2020]

Recent comic book movies have gotten way to serious. People forget that a guy who flies around in his underwear is inherently a silly concept and should not be attempted to go dark and gritty.

This movie is often hated because it doesn't take anything serious. Which is obvious from the start that is one prolonged slap stick gag.

But that's why it is my favorite Superman movie. It remembers that you can have fun in movies rather then mope around all day.

Superman III - Not your average Superman Movie!!

[ultrapro_samuelgrimes · 5/10 · 2 July 2005]

I saw this movie when I was very young and when I was older wanted to see it again but could not find it in any of the shops ( I don't think they sell it in Australia anymore ) So I ordered it from amazon.co.uk and got it for my birthday and watched it straight away. This movie when compared to the other Superman movies is a complete and utter load of crap. *WARNING:CONTAINS SPOILERS* For example the first 2 entries in the franchise opened big with wonderful intergalactic credits. However in this installment the credits are absolute rubbish. Instead of taking place in space accompanied by the Superman Theme as they should do they are instead put over some crappy slapstick sequence which has absolutely no place in a Superman Movie and is a disgrace to the name of Superman. On a high note however this movie has great special effects, A superb cast and some good scenes. Superman III has the best scene in the Superman Trilogy ( and yes before people remind me that there are 4 Superman movies I know this but I say trilogy because I think the 4th Movie is a disgrace to the name of movies and dhould be wiped off the face of the earth. which I'm sure it will once everyones forgotten about it in a few years.) Anyway back to the topic Superman III contains the best scene in all 3 oh alright 4 of the Superman Movies-The fight between Good Superman and Evil Superman. Best scene in the series and is the highpoint of this film. Also the Chemical Fire scenes are very enjoyable. However the climax I thought was absolutely crap and to campy and far fetched. So there you have it. I think Superman III is an average movie that although not nearly as good as number I and II is still a reasonably good movie and has great acting, good special effects and beats Superman IV : The Quest For Crap any day.