Superman III
Superman III
PG | 17 June 1983 (USA)
Superman III Trailers

Aiming to defeat the Man of Steel, wealthy executive Ross Webster hires bumbling but brilliant Gus Gorman to develop synthetic kryptonite, which yields some unexpected psychological effects in the third installment of the 1980s Superman franchise. Between rekindling romance with his high school sweetheart and saving himself, Superman must contend with a powerful supercomputer.

Reviews
Stometer

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

... View More
SnoReptilePlenty

Memorable, crazy movie

... View More
Matialth

Good concept, poorly executed.

... View More
Portia Hilton

Blistering performances.

... View More
Neward Thelman

"The first of two extremely weak sequels"? Exactly. Actually, all of the Christopher Reeves movies are weak, in part due to his awful acting abilities.Benton seems to be one of those persons who can't tell good acting from delivering lines as if you're reading cue cards - badly. He says, " Annette O'Toole is a good fit for the part of Lana Lang...".Is he kidding? O'Toole is so fakey and bad at speaking her lines it's painful to watch.Richard Lester is ones of those old style directors who seems to demand bad acting from his ensemble. Everyone in the movie is poor to horrible - even the extras in the opening sequence.

... View More
mmallon4

I don't deny Superman III is a flawed movie but damned if I didn't have fun with it! Even during the opening scene I prior to the credits I already found myself relating to Richard Pryor's character of Gus Gorman and I thought this was supposed to be a bad movie? The monotony of a Benefits office and the employees who don't want to be there and that they probably don't like you as evident through their body language. Then Gus complains about his experience being employed by a fast food restaurant and how "they expect you to learn that stuff in one day". Let's just say I've had some similar real life experiences. Untimely I enjoyed his character and didn't mind him sharing the spotlight with Superman in terms of screen time.The opening credits do look like they were done on Windows Movie Maker (or whatever the 1980's equivalent was) but I won't lie if I didn't say the slapstick comedy in the opening credits doesn't amuse me. The slapstick is at least done a director who understands and knows how to do physical comedy but how do I justify the use of slapstick in a movie which likely didn't need it to be used to such a degree? I could say it ties in with the fact that Clark Kent is a bumbling fool, plus the series is light hearted and campy as a whole, so there are other movies in which the inclusion of widespread slapstick comedy could feel more out of place. Regardless, it gets a few laughs out of me. Not all of the comedy is successful in my eyes; the scene in which Gus explains Superman's exploits in Columbia is really head scratching-ly bizarre (just an odd way of progressing the plot) plus the green man and the red man in the pedestrian traffic light was going too far but I do enjoy the gags which use Superman's powers for comedic effect such as his altering of the Leaning Tower of Pisa and the blowing out of the Olympic Torch.The villain Ross Webster comes off as a lesser Lex Luthor. I still quite like Robert Vaughn's charismatic performance but I wish they could have taken the villain in a different direction rather than just being another evil business mogul. Also why does the villain's view of Superman flying through the canyon look like a video game? It doesn't make sense but is fun to watch. However I will say Vera actually turning into a cyborg was going too far. The action scenes however are fantastic, full of creative old school special effects; the highlight being Evil Superman vs. Clark Kent (a sequence which really shows of what a great actor Christopher Reeve was). Is it ironic in relation to today's needlessly dark and gritty superhero movies that Evil Superman's appearance is similar to Henry Cavill's Superman in Man of Steel, right down to the darkened colours? Forget Batman v Superman, this is where it's really at!Like Superman II, the element of the movie I found myself enjoying the most was the character relationships. I was surprised I liked Lana Lang almost as much as I do Lois Lane. Just look at the scene in which Clark and Lana are cleaning up the gym together and she tells him about her ambitions and how she wants to leave Smallville. At this point in the movie I thought to myself how can people dismiss this movie as much as they do? Yes it is flawed but when you have brilliant intimate moments like this then how can you not see it isn't without merit.

... View More
adonis98-743-186503

Superman III is the beginning of the end for the series since the next one completely killed the series for everyone. But is Superman 3 really that bad? No it's not sure it has a campy humor and one of the most strange opening credits i've ever seen but it's not that awful although it looks more like a Police Academy film without police officers and Superman in it. Lois Lane is mostly absent from the whole movie since we see her around 10 minutes in the beginning and the end of the film. Another big problem for me were the villains which they were pretty weak and Richard Pryor was the comic relief of the movie which it wasn't needed. I think a 4.9 is a little bit way too harsh at least a 6 would be good. Like i said Superman 3 isn't perfect but when Christopher Reeve turns into a bad Superman then this is were the greatness starts especially that Superman v.s Clark Kent fight is what really won me over. I give it a 8 out of 10 it's entertaining for what it is.

... View More
moviemattb

This has got to be one of the most painful, if not the most painful movie to sit through. First, you have the first one which I thought it was a classic. Second, you have the sequel where different directors have their own cut of the movie as Lester's cut did fine, but I much prefer Donner's cut. Now, we have the third movie that had just made this franchise go way overboard. I'm not happy with the direction for what this movie went, because like I said it is painful to watch. Here is my take on it: The movie centers mostly on Gus Gorman, who is nothing more but a bum as he looks for a job by working as a programmer on computers; while that is going on, CEO of the computer company, Ross Webster hires him to do on what he is being told but Superman foils his plan. So they try to make Kryptonite to kill Superman, but instead of that, his personalities has now change. On the other hand, Clark Kent returns to Smallville for a high school reunion with one of his best friends Lana Lang. So, that is what the movie is about. This plot for the third movie isn't as interesting as you thought it would. Heck, I didn't think it was that interesting either. This movie is not only having its camp factors like Lester's cut of "Superman II," but having put too much comedy in it. There is nothing wrong for putting comedy in a superhero movie, but all jokes that were putted in the movie are being forced; its just trying too hard to make something on what is suppose to be funny. None of the jokes ever worked. I hated the opening scene, where instead of the tradition opening credits like the other "Superman" movies, they just show the city of Metropolis for becoming a madhouse as well as having the credits for making it look like the opening text crawl from the "Star Wars" movies. Richard Pryor is not funny in this movie, and doesn't belong here to be in this movie. I've read the movie's trivia on IMDb, where Pryor read the script and thought it was terrible, but agreed to do it for paycheck. I'll forgive Pryor for his involvement, but if he wants to be in this movie then have him play a villain or something, instead of being a comedic sidekick. The villains in this movie are uninspiring, because they couldn't used any villains from the comics but just have to be created for the movie. I honestly don't care for Ken Thorne's music or some of Giorgio Moroder's music that he created for the movie, which I find them nothing to be appealing. The acting is so-so for the cast, except for Christopher Reeve, Annette O'Toole and a small appearance from Margot Kidder. Margot Kidder's look for Lois Lane is okay, but miss the way she look in the first one and the second one in Donner's cut. Her acting is still good, but wish that she had more screen time. As for Annette O'Toole, her performance as Lana Lang is well done, but I don't find her chemistry with Christopher Reeve well enough as much as I enjoy the chemistry between Reeve and Kidder. Now for Christopher Reeve, he is still giving a great performance for playing Clark Kent and Superman, and there is nothing to dislike about him. I love him when he becomes corrupted by a fake Kryptonite as he turns to the dark side; he seems to have a blast for this role for playing such a bad superhero. I do like where evil Superman fights his ego Clark Kent as its pretty much a fight between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. As Clark Kent finishes off his evil self, I love when the Superman theme comes in as he is now fully redeem, while he opens up his shirt by revealing his costume and fixed the damage that he caused. That is where I get the feel of that I'm watching a "Superman" movie, until it goes back to being painful. The child actor who plays Lana Lang's son Ricky is really annoying aside from Pryor's character. Even his acting is very wooden. The special effects are similar to Lester's cut of "Superman II" as there are parts that are good and bad. Lester's direction is terrible, and you still wish if the Salkinds have not fired Richard Donner for making "Superman II" as if this franchise would still be strong. This is not an easy movie to sit through, because at least when you have some bad movies like either "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III," "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," or "X-Men: The Last Stand;" there are at least not as painful as "Superman III." Although, I do thought the third "X-Men" movie is okay, but still not good. I'm sure you're going to disagree with me on one of those movies, but that just me being bias about something. This movie sure does feel like Pryor's movie than Superman's, because Pryor really steals the show. This movie should have more scenes with Superman, than having more scenes with Pryor in it. I don't like "Superman III," and I strongly don't recommend it. I give it a 3 out of 10.

... View More