La kryptonite sintetica intrecciata con il catrame divide Superman in due: il buon Clark Kent e il cattivo l'Uomo d'Acciaio.La kryptonite sintetica intrecciata con il catrame divide Superman in due: il buon Clark Kent e il cattivo l'Uomo d'Acciaio.La kryptonite sintetica intrecciata con il catrame divide Superman in due: il buon Clark Kent e il cattivo l'Uomo d'Acciaio.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 3 vittorie e 7 candidature totali
Riepilogo
Reviewers say 'Superman III' is criticized for its comedic shift and Richard Pryor's miscast role, which many feel disrupts the series' tone. The absence of Lex Luthor and Lois Lane is noted as a significant drawback. Despite these issues, Christopher Reeve's performance, especially as an evil Superman, is praised. The special effects and action sequences, though less impressive than before, are still commended. Overall, the film is seen as a weaker installment but offers some entertainment and a unique take.
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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.
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!
I still give it a 10!
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...
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...
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.
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.
It'll keep you watching, you can say that. Either on the bad levels or the good ones (if you should find some), since most fans are so divided on this third entry. It falls somewhere under fair for me, as the effects continue to be awesome, but the story this time is tremendously lacking. Part two had three villians equally as strong as Superman, plus the romance going with Lois Lane. This one has a Lex Luthor clone (Hackman's Lex is left off-screen in jail) who also would like to rule the world, a dweeby computer genius (Pryor, as the much debated addition to the cast) and a romance you know will go nowhere with one of Reeve's lost loves. We already saw that he couldn't give things up for Lois, so why bother brining on a new girl? Though O' Toole is gorgeous, a lot more than Kidder, who is featured at the beginning of the film looking aged, then at the end with a bad tan. Rumor has it she outpriced herself which resulted in the character being shipped off to Bermuda. With her out of the picture, Reeve attends a high school reunion where he bumps into O'Toole. Meantime, Vaughn and Pryor are poised for world dominance, though Pryor is realizing the ramifications and is reluctant. But he still goes through it, concocting a kryptonite like impairment for Superman, which results in some of the film's best scenes. Reeve develops a naughty alter ego, and we get to see Superbad-man get drunk, straighten the Tower of Pisa, even get horny, among other things. There's a terrific showdown between Reeve and...well, Reeve in a junkyard where bad Supes confronts his inner goodness, Clark Kent. After this, though, the film sags to it's conclusion, as Reeve goes up against more rockets and missiles, a la part one. Despite missing the tension of part two, the film is interesting in a disjointed kind of way. The flying effects are once again top-notch, and strangely enough, are better than in the next film which came out four years later! And most have mentioned the dopey opening sequence that belonged more in a silent comedy than here, but it wasn't a horrendous mistake. I must note as a kid that when Vaughn's sister is turned into that psycho-robot it FREAKED me out! Biggest annoyance is the kid who plays Ricky, his voice is badly dubbed and incredibly nerve-racking. Also could've done without O'Herlihy's drunken antagonist. Most of the music is lifted from part two, but since I liked Ken Thorne's work, I didn't mind. I could even say (Supe fans will kill me) I would rather watch this one than the first movie. So even though the story isn't really there like in the previous films, the movie overall still FLIES (hehe).
Lo sapevi?
- QuizAfter Margot Kidder expressed her disgust about the firing of Richard Donner to producers Alexander Salkind and Ilya Salkind, her role was cut to 12 lines and less than five minutes of screen time. In the film's 2006 DVD commentary, Ilya Salkind says there was little need for Lois Lane in this movie because her relationship with Superman ended at the end of Superman II (1980).
- BlooperScenes which are set in the United States feature printed spellings of words like defence, colour, and unauthorised which reveal the Canadian and British filming locations.
- Citazioni
Ross Webster: I ask you to kill Superman, and you're telling me you couldn't even do that one, simple thing.
- Curiosità sui creditiThere is no title sequence. The opening credits are shown over a cold opening.
- Versioni alternativeBroadcast version uses separate title sequence similar to original Superman - The Movie titles, with adapted John Williams theme. Theatrical and home video versions had difficult-to-read titles over opening slapstick sequence.
- ConnessioniEdited from Il colpo della metropolitana - Un ostaggio al minuto (1974)
- Colonne sonoreRock On
Performed by Marshall Crenshaw
Music by Giorgio Moroder
Lyrics by Keith Forsey
Produced by Giorgio Moroder
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- Superman vs. Superman
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Calgary, Alberta, Canada(Metropolis city exteriors)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 39.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 59.950.623 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 13.352.357 USD
- 19 giu 1983
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 80.250.623 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 2h 5min(125 min)
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti