Avis des utilisateurs

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.

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...

I agree with everyone who says that Super IV is an awful, wretched movie. But III... well, it's mindless fun, actually. Nothing special, just a guilty pleasure.

I know, I know, Super 1 and 2 (specially Donner version of 2) are great, wonderful films! But when I was little, I used to go to school, my mom was doing laundry, father working, back from school, it was the 80's, starts raining, couldn't get out of the house, finished homework from school, standing on our living room, playing with my action figures, reading my comics, listening to the vinyl records on our sound, and then I got bored and decided to turn on the TV and there it was, Superman III.

And I used to watch this movie on TV a lot, so I just got nostalgic feelings by it. I didn't know any better, Richard Pryor always looked nice on the film for me and I used to laugh at him a lot. Of course I was little and unfamiliarized with his other films, specially the ones with Gene Wilder, so I just kept watching Super III.

I mean, when you grow up, you tend to judge things a lot better, but for the time being, I used to have some mindless fun with this movie, and once it kept me from being bored on rainy days, I guess it did a good job on me.

So I think it's not a terrible movie after all. Undeniably flawed, yes, weaker than its predecessors, no doubt! There is nothing epic or breathtaking about this one. But it still offers some nice fun for me from time to time.

If you don't like it, OK, I can perfectly see where you're coming from. But I gotta say this... if you're on a rainy day... just give it a try.

OK, I saw the movie, and I loved it... along with Superman 12 and 4. But will somebody please tell me something? What the he-- does this have to do with the rest. You have Gene Hackman, Louis Lane, and Metropolis; Gene Hackman, Louis Lane, and Metropolis; then you have Richard Pryor, Smallville, and some badguy; and then back to Gene Hackman and Louis Lane and Metropolis. Did the producers get high or something while making the third? "Huh huh... Hey guys, let's cast Richard Pryor in here... Aww man that is soooo funny." Don't get me wrong, I loved all of them, but the difference is something I just can't hold in.

I still give it a 10!

Superman 3 is kind of like a double sided coin. One side being good and the other one being bad. Jekyll and Hyde if you will.

The plot of Superman 3 is essentially split into 2 parts.

The 1st part revolves around Superman going back to Smallville for his high school reunion where he catches up with his high school sweetheart Lana Lang. While there he is exposed to Kryptonite only this time instead of it making him weak, it instead turns him evil. All of this stuff is really good and what you would expect from a Superman movie.

On the other side of the coin however is the B plot which revolves around Richard Pyror who guest stars in this movie as Gus Gorman. A down on his luck computer clerk who gets tangled up with a greedy businessman who wants to get richer by taking over the world with computers.....you see why this part of the movie doesn't work right?

The 2nd part of this movie really isn't that good if you want me to be honest.

I mean I love Richard Pryor but he really isn't that funny in this movie. Mostly because he has nothing to work with due to the script.

Which is strange because you can tell just by the opening credits that this movies trying to be more like a comedy (if you can call it that) but none of the jokes really land and just feel really out of place.

The villains are awful to. Instead of using a Super villain from the comics like Braniac or Parasite, they instead chose to create a original villain called Ross Webster whose essentially just a watered down version of Luthor with little to no substance.

Which is insane considering how big of a rogue line up Superman has.

Literally the only other good thing in this movie is the action and speciel effects which are good for their time.

Especially the junkyard fight with the evil Superman. That scene is amazing and really demonstrates how great Christopher Reeves was as Superman.

Again all the stuff with Superman and Smallville is great. There everything you want and love from these movies.

It's the other half with Richard Pryor and the villains that's awful and unfortunately brings the movie down.

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.

...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.

This is the third of the four "Superman" movies starring Christopher Reeve, in a role which the actor was very famous for. It was directed by Richard Lester, who also directed the final cut of "Superman II", and before seeing his contributions to this franchise, I saw "A Hard Day's Night" and "Help!", two 60's comedies which Lester also directed, starring the Beatles as themselves. Having seen the first two installments in the "Superman" franchise within the past few weeks and being impressed with both of them (though slightly more with the first one than the second, unsurprisingly), I intended to watch this one next, since I have been planning on watching them all. I was expecting "Superman III" to be far inferior to its two predecessors, as it was clearly much less popular, but to me, it seemed to be only slightly inferior.

Gus Gorman is a man in Metropolis who can't seem to get a job and is informed that he is not eligible for unemployment. He then comes across a computer training ad and decides to enroll. His amazing computer skills catch the attention of Ross Webster, a wealthy businessman who intends to use Gus's skills to help him take over the world economy! Gus ends up joining the scheming businessman, his sister Vera, and assistant Lorelei Ambrosia in their evil plans! Superman/Clark Kent is unaware of this activity while he is away from the city and back in Smallville for a high school reunion. Ross forces Gorman to take control of a weather satellite and create a hurricane to destroy the coffee crop of Colombia, a country which has refused to do business with him! After Superman comes and stops this disaster, the evil businessman realizes he must kill the renowned hero in order for his schemes to work! Kryptonite is the only thing that can kill Superman, so Gus uses his computer skills to find the elements of the substance, and finds all but one. The kryptonite with one missing element replaced by tar does not kill Superman, but it does make him turn evil!

The first segment of this second sequel shows Gus, played by groundbreaking comedian Richard Pryor, in the unemployment office. This part basically shows what the humour is like throughout the film, sometimes just a little funny, but not usually even that. This part is followed by the opening credits sequence, featuring a series of pointless and usually very straight-faced sight gags. This might be the worst attempt at humour in the entire movie, which is certainly saying something! For a long time, most of "Superman III" seemed basically mediocre to me. There are times early on when it does get intense, such as Superman trying to save a chemical plant from a fire, but the high school reunion and the scenes involving Clark Kent and Lana Lang reunited in Smallville usually didn't grab me. Also, Lorelei Ambrosia, played by Pamela Stephenson, is borderline annoying. However, during the second hour, it finally became clear to me that the movie was above average in my book, as it gets more exciting at this point, starting with the evil Superman and the good Clark Kent getting into a fight!

I can understand why this third installment in the famous "Superman" film adaptation franchise is less popular than its two predecessors, due to the usually unsuccessful attempts at humour and maybe an inferior main villain, but after watching the whole film, I don't quite get what makes it a REALLY bad film to many people. It did look like I would by rating "Superman III" 5/10 for quite a while into it, but with the sequence showing Superman's fight with himself, I knew that I would not be able to rate the film any lower than 6/10, and what I saw after that didn't change my mind, even if it is a little overlong. It helps that Christopher Reeve's portrayal of the protagonist still has the same charm. Criticism for this particular installment in the franchise turned out to be very high, but it does seem to have a following, and it definitely turned out to be better than Joel Schumacher's contributions to the "Batman" movie franchise when he took over as the director for the third and fourth installments, so I won't call "Superman III" a must-see, but also won't urge people to avoid it at all costs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Everything about Superman III is a joke. A harsh cruel joke trashing everything that Superman was about for the sake of a cheap laugh. Right from the beginning you know they are going for total slapstick with a pratfall routine where telephone booths are toppled over and it just gets worse from there. I'd actually forgotten how much of this film doesn't work as intended until now, one expects romance, humour and grandeur, but only gets a frustrating mixture of failed opportunities and missed chances instead. The plot is nonsensical as if different scenes were written in isolation without any conception of how to link them together ultimately leaving it to the editors to try and jam them together in the editing room. What spoils the fun isn't the incoherent story or even the technophobia, it's simply overloaded. Too many ideas, too many gadgets, too many stars. The wiring all comes loose at the end; an anticlimax, and a rushed one at that. Now, I love Richard Pryor but making him the main focus of the film doesn't work and he struggled to even muster a chuckle out of me. I also like Robert Vaughan but his villainous Ross Webster is an inferior fill-in for Lex Luthor, not Vaughan's fault mind you, as he plays the character exactly how he was written. Christopher Reeve is desperately trying to make the material work, delivering another great performance but ultimately is left hampered by a lack of anything meaningful to do. Perhaps most unfitting of all is Ken Thorne's new score, which is peppered with circusy ditties, sound effects, and musical cues, we're a long way from John Williams... Arguably, Superman III is my least favourite of the original series, Lester was the wrong pick to carry on in place of Donner and it shows tenfold with this film.

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

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.

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.

Superman III isn't as good as Superman I or II, but there is still an epic inside waiting to get out. It's better than Superman Returns, and far better than Superman IV. So why does it get such a bad rap? The answer is Richard Pryor, a weird robot, slapstick comedy, and the absence of Gene Hackman. I wouldn't be bothered by Pryor's acting if he was actually funny! But there are still some elements that make this movie great. Like the bad Superman fighting against the good Clark Kent, Clark going back home to Smallville, Clark's relationship with Lana, Superman saving people from a fire, the best special effects in the series, and a fight against a supercomputer that can read Superman's weaknesses. Fans of the comic also don't like this movie because it doesn't really use the source material for villains. But if you look hard enough you will find that they are just different interpretations. Ross Webster is the Corporate Lex Luthor, not the underground criminal Gene Hackman portrayed, Evil Superman is a form of Bizarro, and the supercomputer is like Braniac.

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.