Superman III Reviews

Page 2 of 187
Super Reviewer
October 25, 2007
aka The Richard Pryor Movie ft Superman
Super Reviewer
November 25, 2013
The Superman franchise changed hands again with the release of III. A move which pissed a lot of people off. Christopher Reeve was disappointed in the series' new direction, but not so much as to turn down the paycheque of another role. Margot Kidder's negative reaction gained her a back seat in the film, and Gene Hackman left the piece altogether.
Though there's plenty to be said about Christopher Reeve's acting ability, as he plays Clark Kent, Superman and a darker, uncaring version of Superman, all in the one film with vigour; this is essentially all Superman has going for it by this stage.
Richard Pryor is out of place in the DC universe, making slapstick terror and taking up nearly as much screen time as the Man of Steel himself (much to my chagrin). Robert Vaughn's Ross Webster makes for a poor Luthor substitute. Lana Lang's insertion as a love interest was completely disrespectful to the effort that had been put in with the first two films, making Superman's sacrifices and emotions all but redundant.
There's very little new material in the piece, and everything that is new, is for the worse. The end result is a cheap disappointment that should never have been made, whose only saving grace is it's titular character. which the film severely under uses in favour of boring sideline exposition and pointless, deranged silliness.
21%

-Gimly
½ April 11, 2015
All the kings army and all the kings men couldn't put this broken movie back together again.
April 8, 2015
This is the worst film i have ever seen.Christopher reeve is a joke as superman.They cast RICHARD PIROR REALLY.CASTING RICHARD PIROR IS LIKE CASTING ADAM SANDLER AS ULTRON OR THE JOKER.NEVER WATCH THIS MOVIE
½ March 8, 2015
This one is making the franchise fairly tiring and I really only liked it for Richard Prior. Still, a solid story, but pacing was off while trying to be too funny (with Prior) and it just begins to get old.
November 28, 2013
It's dumb and it's boring. A disappointing sequel to Superman II...
½ January 29, 2015
Just all around awful, even die hard Superman fans will find it tough to love. Full review later.
½ January 28, 2015
The beginning of the end. What the hell happened?
½ September 3, 2014
27%
Laughable and clumsy, this sequel deserves its reception.
August 16, 2012
Un chiste. Un chiste permanente. Y asi y todo es mejor que Superman IV (1987) y Man of steel (2013). En todo caso tiene una escena de antologia de Superman entero borracho en un bar a las 3 de la tarde, jajaja
November 23, 2014
The problem with most Superman films is that they refuse to show any kind of vulnerability in Superman. Coupled with that, it's very hard to come up with anything truly original for a Superman film, and believe it or not, that's not the worst part about this movie in particular. The story itself is a blatant joke, but the only reason it could seem like more is because the producers have added bits to the script that only serve to make the film more of a self-indulgent affair, as if Superman himself wasn't enough of a jaded relic. It should be worth noting that, perhaps after exhausting the potential of the last two Superman movies, this outing takes on a particularly camp attitude. While it's not as campy as the 60's Batman movie, it's still impossible to take this movie seriously, especially with the notoriously poor decision to cast Richard Pryor as a bumbling computer hacker. All shady colonialist undertones aside, Pyror's performance in the film is characterized by terribly outdated dialogue and utter debasement. The film's main villain is a terrible replacement for Lex Luthor, and if that wasn't enough, the vast majority of the plot makes absolutely no sense. The production values are very deceptive, as it can appear to have the look of a high-quality film, but in some scenes, the production values seem to take a dive at complete random, often resulting in scenes looking much worse than they really are. The special effects aren't even bad, but then again, they're in the same film that has at least one scene that I swear looks like stock footage. Overall, Superman III is a complete disaster in every possible way. Not even the later Superman movies could fix the mess that it made, and it's probably better that Superman IV isn't mentioned.
November 17, 2014
Die Superman Reihe zeigt erste derbe Abnutzungen! Irgendwie hat Gene Hackman keine Zeit gehabt und man musste einen neuen Bösewicht suchen. Aber es verliert sich in völlige, unlustige Slapstick Einlagen! Das mag für eine gewisse Zeit lustig sein, nervt aber mit der Zeit. Auch der ganze Plot ist so richtig Trashig! Am besten sind die Szenen auf dem Schrottplatz! der Rest aber ist eine Verarschung für die ganze Reihe!
½ March 13, 2008
Superman III: When a superhero movie becomes a really bad comedy with annoying villains and Superman becomes a dick. It was also disappointing to see Richard Pryor getting as much screen time as Christopher Reeve, especially since Pryor shouldn't have been in this movie in the first place. Still, there are a few redeeming moments that at least make half of this movie watchable.
November 9, 2014
What is there to say, but this is a terrible, terrible, terrible movie. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!
½ June 11, 2013
Let's just say even Batman & Robin is better...
½ October 14, 2014
Watching this on VHS as we speak...we all know the original movie series fell off after part II, much like Batman did in the 90's, but why can't anyone make a good Superman movie in the past 30 years? This is still waaay better than "Man of Steel"...or "Superman Returns" ugh...heck, I'm gonna come out and say it..Returns IS better than "Man of Steel", not that that says much..
September 28, 2014
It's kind of baffling, really. Nearly everyone involved with the making of "Superman 3" has been involved with the series from the beginning, and how they let this fall this far this fast will probably always remain a mystery. This inexplicably passed through a lot of people who all apparently gave their seal of approval to this mind-numbing, ill-concieved mutt of a sequel that only succeeds in tarnishing the previous two films.

The picture's tone is all over the map, in the beginning almost a comedy but taking a much darker tone when Kryptonite changes Superman's demeanor in some gloomy sequences that simply do not fit in with this film or the franchise. The screenplay is all over the map as well, trying to tell too many different stories all at one time, and the casting may be the film's ultimate blunder.

Robert Vaughn is a poor man's Gene Hackman, and his character is a pale substitute for Lex Lugar but it's Richard Pryor who is the most obvious offender here. Much like the film, he's too bland and sanitized, and he brings nothing to the proceedings. He's certainly not funny at all, or even remotely villainous and it makes you wonder what purpose he was to serve. Why hire Pryor if you're not going to let him be funny. At least Margot Kidder had the common sense to spend 98% of the movie "on assignment."

The special effects are definitely lacking this time out, and it's now clear that director Richard Donner was the driving force behind the previous film's success. Substitute Richard Lester has been gift-wrapped this golden goose only to muck it up something awful. "Superman 3" is an embarrassing letdown to the fans, who surely deserved better than this mess of a movie.
½ September 18, 2014
Despite the comedy being weak, the movie makes up for it with a sub plot featuring an Evil Superman.
½ August 26, 2014
Although silly and campy, the best part of this film was Chris Reeves triple potrayal and the battle between bad superman an good clark kent.
½ April 24, 2012
The heart from the first two was missing as this is the least of all the Superman films with this one probably being the weakest like it was given kryptonite. But like the character kept trying to get back in the film, the heart is represented by his. (B)

(Full review coming soon)
Page 2 of 187