Superman III

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.

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.

Superman III. Still an Enjoyable sequel, but didn't measure up to I or II. I'd say III is considered more of a Comedy than an Adventure film. But, Richard Pryor helped to breathe life into the comedy element with his role of computer prodigy August "Gus" Gorman. Robert Vaughn does well as Baddy Corporate Tycoon Ross Webster. While he's no Lex Luthor, he still delivered. Pamela Stephenson's portrayal of 69% Ditz-31% Serious employee Lorelie Ambrosia was both funny and annoying. That high pitched voice got to me, but was tolorable compared to the Scary, Stern and Stubborn attitude of Vera Webster, the baby sister played by Annie Ross. And while it lacks the writing power of Mario Puzo, It's still enjoyable.

You could wonder if Gus Gorman's (Pryor) creation of the all knowing superior defensive ultimate computer could have been the breaking ground for the Y2K problem and the mindless schemes it has caused, had that computer, which I dubbed the Macintosh Of Death, had been a real life creation.

You could also feal sorry for Gus being used by Webster for evil. You could also wonder if Lana Lang, Clark Kent's High School Sweetheart, would be a problem with Lois Lane, who we didn't see much of in this film. Also, I wondered how people felt when Superman almost decayed into, in a way, Bizarro after exposure to the missing ingredient Kryptonite.

There is a disturbing moment in the film when Vera is pulled into the super computer's mainframe and turned into an android slave. That made me wonder if computer technology could become disturbingly powerful enough to be able to manipulate humanity and eliminate it completely. Similar situations have been seen in The "Terminator" pictures, The 1999 film "Virus", and the book "Reaper" which became the TV Movie "Fatal Error" on TBS. Possible?

An interesting thing in Superman III, When Superman faced the onslaught of The super system's missile attack, Atari provided the simulated Video Game that Webster plays, as well as the sound effects from the Atari 2600 port of Pac-Man. Another interesting thing is how the super computer ignorantly underestimated the hot and lethal potential of the Acid which led to it's destruction.

While not measuring up to the power of I or II, All in all Superman III is in my opinion a good picture.

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...

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.