By Scott Weinberg
After the "Superman"/"Superman II" dust settled, the money was counted, and the lawsuits were filed, the Salkinds wanted to head back to the "Superman" well, and WB clearly had no problem with the prospect. After stepping in to do the patchwork job on "Superman II," Richard Lester was rewarded with the sole helm on the second sequel. And, some say, that's where and why the wheels fell off the franchise. No disrespect intended to Mr. Lester (who, let's not forget, directed the classic Beatles flick "A Hard Day's Night"), but he seemed to bring a decidedly British sensibility to a patently American icon. The tone for "Superman III" is set very early during an extremely elaborate (yet ultimately pointless) Rube Goldberg-style opening credits sequence. And things go pretty much downhill from there.
In the early 1980s, comedian Richard Pryor was at the height of his (well-deserved) popularity; when he mentioned on a talk show that he'd love to be in a "Superman" movie, that was all the producers needed to hear. The profitable comedy stylings of Richard Pryor melded with the surefire "Superman" formula? How could it fail? Hmmm...
Oh, and then there's the plot, which is a rather stupid (and hopelessly outdated) concoction about an evil businessman who plans a billion-dollar computer heist with the help of a goofball techie savant. True, the flick does feature a nifty sequence in which Superman battles himself, but with Robert Vaughn replacing Gene Hackman as head baddie, Richard Pryor's constant mugging and whining, and Margot Kidder demoted to a bit player, there's distressingly little to love about "Superman III." I'm well aware that the movie has its fair share of supporters, but frankly I just don't get it.
"Superman III" hit screens on June 17th, 1983, and went on to barely gross $60 million. Roger Ebert deemed it "innocuous," while Leonard Maltin opted for the adjective "appalling." But the lamest was yet to come...
Story Overview
| 
IGN RSS Feeds
