Superman III

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.

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.

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!