the leading man is my tpye

Who payed the critics

Disturbing yet enthralling

Am I Missing Something?

quite good ... a bit too much slapstick but that happens when you get the change of a director. personally I love the Clark and Lana parts and Gus redeeming himself but its strange without Hackman or Margot kidder.It's nice that this tome around reeve is fully confident compared to the predecessors.

Superman III is best watched on a Saturday night, with fizzy and sweets. It's such an entertaining flick that includes action, comedy, suspense, love and excellent stunts. Richard Pryor is great as the unlucky Gus Gorman, a man that can't quite find the right job. He soon becomes involved with the villains as his computer skills become abused for the evil plans of Mr.Webster. There are many interesting plots in Superman III, such as Superman's fall from grace and the relationship between Clark Kent and Lana Lang. Ken Thorne gives the film some style and Gorgio Moroder produces some decent synth songs that feature throughout the adventure. The special effects are well realised and the best of the series by a country mile. The junkyard fight is also a memorable sequence which ranks as my favourite moment from the Superman films. Superman III shouldn't be a 4.9; it's too good for that.

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.

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.