Warner Bros | Release Date: June 17, 1983
4.5
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 62 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
11
Mixed:
32
Negative:
19
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
2
MoviebuffreviewJul 9, 2013
While Christopher Reeve continues to soar as Superman here, the rest of the movie is nothing but a failed, crash landing. Awful plot, laughable characters and villains, a ridiculous sense of humor, a plot free from logic, and lacklusterWhile Christopher Reeve continues to soar as Superman here, the rest of the movie is nothing but a failed, crash landing. Awful plot, laughable characters and villains, a ridiculous sense of humor, a plot free from logic, and lackluster action make Superman III an awful sequel, especially after the acclaimed Superman II. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
J24O1Jun 13, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The adventure continues. I personally feel the movie is underrated it's not as good as the previous two but it fall's short by some distance in terms of the first two. It lack's that epic scale of the first two and if they decided at the time to just edit out the poor action sequence at the end between Superman and the robotic computer and just rewrote the ending we could have seen a good movie or a better one at the least. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
SuperheroMoviesAug 20, 2013
Replacing its light comical material for slapstick, digressing in exciting action, and having a plot that's dry on and feasible ideas, Superman III is an unfortunate downfall for the series.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
cag11Nov 29, 2013
Its not that I hated it, but it didn't have that same thing that the first two movies had that made them good. I guess its originality. But this one had a bit less quality of acting, plus it had a terrible comic relief that made me laughIts not that I hated it, but it didn't have that same thing that the first two movies had that made them good. I guess its originality. But this one had a bit less quality of acting, plus it had a terrible comic relief that made me laugh barely. I didn't hate it, but i never liked it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
marcmyworksJan 22, 2014
There are some shinning moments in this hyped sequel, but unfortunately they are few and fleeting. Margot Kidders absence for most of the movie is probably the strangest but replacing the stoic tone for comedy is right up there as well. I wasThere are some shinning moments in this hyped sequel, but unfortunately they are few and fleeting. Margot Kidders absence for most of the movie is probably the strangest but replacing the stoic tone for comedy is right up there as well. I was happy to see them take a risk with a new villain. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
MissDraeMar 2, 2014
Umm how about no? I'm getting so sick and tired of these pointless remakes and sequels to great movies. Superman was a good movie but this sequel just threw away my appetite to ever watch another superhero movie again.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
supermann234Mar 18, 2014
this movie was average, it certainly has good points and bat points. One of the things i like about this movie is that it has much more humor than the previous two films.the storyline was not bad and the action was better.however, the introthis movie was average, it certainly has good points and bat points. One of the things i like about this movie is that it has much more humor than the previous two films.the storyline was not bad and the action was better.however, the intro was not john Williams theme and the storyline was not very interesting. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
diogomendesAug 29, 2014
(Glad to know I lower the user score from 4.0 to 3.9 :D)

For a movie that relies on dull slapstick and rehashed points from previous Superman movies, the third installment knows how to provoke a complete boredom and scenes who are supposed
(Glad to know I lower the user score from 4.0 to 3.9 :D)

For a movie that relies on dull slapstick and rehashed points from previous Superman movies, the third installment knows how to provoke a complete boredom and scenes who are supposed to be funny, but they are not. Not as bad as Superman IV (or Abomination) but it's still pretty bad.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
MovieGKMay 8, 2014
One or two good scenes... the rest.. unwatchable.. Nothing interesting going on in the plot, stupid jokes and humor, mostly bad acting. No i don't want to watch it again.. not even to laugh at its stupidity.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
SkyrimGuy935Feb 20, 2015
Christopher Reeves continues to be the definitive Superman, but even he can't help save Superman III from its unfunny attempts at humor, unlikable, underdeveloped villains, terrible plot, and the awful casting of Richard Pryor. Don't get meChristopher Reeves continues to be the definitive Superman, but even he can't help save Superman III from its unfunny attempts at humor, unlikable, underdeveloped villains, terrible plot, and the awful casting of Richard Pryor. Don't get me wrong, he's an amazing comedian, but he should have never been considered for a role this toned down and tame. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
SythusRATINGSOct 18, 2014
Synthetic kryptonite laced with tobacco tar splits Superman in two: good Clark Kent and evil Man of Steel as he battles his own morals and save the world once again.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
fatoshajdini101Oct 29, 2014
This seems to be a decent movie, I mean there's to much to laugh and it failed over the two first Superman films, but there's some best parts of the movie, an epic battle between Clark Kent and the evil Superman also a scene of an evilThis seems to be a decent movie, I mean there's to much to laugh and it failed over the two first Superman films, but there's some best parts of the movie, an epic battle between Clark Kent and the evil Superman also a scene of an evil computer battle in which Superman destroyed it that doesn't mean it's a bad movie,
so Richard Pryor had it all.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
MaxthemcgcriticNov 28, 2014
Ok I don't hate the movie a lot it's just disappointing and for a film franchise which has a good story and my be campy but serious, this is just cheesy. I like Richard Pryor but his not that funny in this, he is one of the best comedians ofOk I don't hate the movie a lot it's just disappointing and for a film franchise which has a good story and my be campy but serious, this is just cheesy. I like Richard Pryor but his not that funny in this, he is one of the best comedians of all time, but this is just a annoying performance. The series should have stop with superman 2. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
TheDude-Jul 19, 2015
Ugh this movie is so horrible the attempts at comedy are terrible, the dialogue is like it was written by a 10 year old, the special effects look like **** even back when it came out it looked ****ty, no character development, awfulUgh this movie is so horrible the attempts at comedy are terrible, the dialogue is like it was written by a 10 year old, the special effects look like **** even back when it came out it looked ****ty, no character development, awful performances there is only one scene that works in the entire film and that is when superman has a hallucination of him fighting his evil self. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
EpicLadySpongeApr 29, 2016
Superman III relies too much on its humor, leaving all the best of our alien left with nothing but unperformed acting, poor special effects, and a think-off-the-point plot.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
gameguardian21Mar 20, 2016
This is one superman movie not made of steel. It has laughable characters, dumb humor, and a stupid plot. This movie was supposed to be the conclusion to a trilogy that should have been remembered.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
MovieNightMar 6, 2016
Part of the first wave of high-concept, big-budget, special-effects-heavy films that emerged in the wake of Star Wars, 1978's Superman: The Movie, like a handful of its contemporaries, threatened to give blockbuster event movies a good name.Part of the first wave of high-concept, big-budget, special-effects-heavy films that emerged in the wake of Star Wars, 1978's Superman: The Movie, like a handful of its contemporaries, threatened to give blockbuster event movies a good name. Fresh off the success of The Omen, director Richard Donner took on the story of the Man Of Steel with the seriousness due an American myth, using newfangled effects to make the fantastic seem plausible. The film's "You'll believe a man can fly" tagline might have provided a brilliant marketing hook, but it also served as something of a mission statement, particularly in Superman's early segments. From Superman's Kryptonian origins to his coming of age in Smallville, Donner lends his story a sense of awe usually reserved for those filming westerns, baseball movies, or The Bible. The film becomes comic-booky only when its hero, having disappeared into his Fortress Of Solitude for much of Vietnam and Watergate, hits jaded Metropolis. By his own admission on this new DVD version's commentary track, Donner saw Superman as three films in one, with the gag-and-fight-heavy Metropolis segment evincing a different tone than what came before. Even if it feels removed from, and in some respects not on par with, the rest of the film, it succeeds on its own terms (one horrifying bit of spoken verse by Margot Kidder's Lois Lane aside). Effective both as Superman and as the bumbling Clark Kent, Christopher Reeve still seems ideal for the part, if for no other reason than his ability to summon up a convincing sense of intensity when charged with saving the world. He would need to rely on this skill more and more as the Superman sequels—now released on no-frills DVDs alongside the features-packed original—piled up. With one exception, they illustrate the diminishing returns that plagued most blockbuster franchises in the sequel-mad '80s. Originally entering production at the same time as the first Superman, 1981's Superman II was also to have been directed by Donner. When the budget mounted, temperamental producers Alexander and Ilya Salkind first ditched the two-at-once plan, then ditched Donner, bringing in their Three Musketeers director Richard Lester (A Hard Day's Night, Petulia) to finish the project after the original Superman turned a substantial profit. The seams show, but Lester's visual wit and trademark energy steer Reeve's struggle with Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman, returning from the original), Kryptonian outlaw General Zod (Terence Stamp), and his cohorts in all the right directions. One Metropolis fight scene alone would make it a worthy successor, but the film also allows Reeve and Kidder ample time to develop the humanity (or Kryptonity) of their characters. Not so 1983's Lester-directed Superman III, which displayed the series' first struggle with what could be called the Planet Of The Apes Paradox: How do you keep topping previous entries with conspicuously smaller budgets? Superman III's answer is to play for laughs, but outside of an opening-credits slapstick ballet that could have come from one of Lester's '60s comedies, they come few and far between. The ideas might sound good, particularly the synthetic Kryptonite that turns Superman into a boozing jerk, but they never get developed, while high-profile guest star Richard Pryor appears somewhat puzzled at his own presence in the film. But the bottom of the barrel remained unscraped. Appearing in 1987, when most assumed that the series had been put to rest, Superman IV: The Quest For Peace, with a story dreamed up in part by Reeve, plays like the unholy union of a PSA and the WWF. Stirred by a schoolboy's letter, Reeve decides to rid the world of nuclear weapons by tossing them in a giant net and throwing them at the sun. Meanwhile, Hackman's Luthor, aided by slang-talking surfer nephew Jon Cryer, creates a new super-rival: Nuclear Man, who locks horns with Reeve against a variety of rear-projection backdrops. By this point, the production values had dipped so low that director Sidney J. Furie might as well have imported footage from the old George Reeves series. Unsurprisingly, the series ended there, its first two entries illustrating what grand-scale entertainment could do, the remainder illustrating the perils of doing it to death. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
UNARMED_JORDAug 21, 2016
it has an interesting story that could have soared but falls flat due to the horrible action sequences and overall crap script this movie is nothing above average.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews