X
- 1983
- PG
- Warner Bros.
- 2 h 5 m
- 1983
- PG
- Warner Bros.
- 2 h 5 m
Summary Synthetic kryptonite laced with tobacco tar splits Superman in two: good Clark Kent and evil Man of Steel.
Directed By: Richard Lester
Written By: Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, David Newman, Leslie Newman, Mario Puzo
- 1983
- PG
- Warner Bros.
- 2 h 5 m
- 1983
- PG
- Warner Bros.
- 2 h 5 m
Superman III
44
4.6
Where to Watch
Summary Synthetic kryptonite laced with tobacco tar splits Superman in two: good Clark Kent and evil Man of Steel.
Directed By: Richard Lester
Written By: Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, David Newman, Leslie Newman, Mario Puzo
Where to Watch
Top Cast
Metascore
Mixed or Average
Based on 15 Critic Reviews
44
20% Positive
3 Reviews
3 Reviews
53% Mixed
8 Reviews
8 Reviews
27% Negative
4 Reviews
4 Reviews
Metascore
Mixed or Average
Based on 15 Critic Reviews
44
20% Positive
3 Reviews
3 Reviews
53% Mixed
8 Reviews
8 Reviews
27% Negative
4 Reviews
4 Reviews
Credit goes to Richard Lester, who is much more than an action director and whose erratic brilliance occasionally transcends this material, and to Reeve, who has manfully refused to let on that he is tired of the part (as opposed to the Jedi principals, who phoned theirs in). [17 June 1983, p.D1]
Superman III is the kind of movie I feared the original "Superman" would be. It's a cinematic comic book, shallow, silly, filled with stunts and action, without much human interest.
User Score
Mixed or Average
Based on 126 User Ratings
4.6
18% Positive
23 Ratings
23 Ratings
50% Mixed
63 Ratings
63 Ratings
32% Negative
40 Ratings
40 Ratings
User Score
Mixed or Average
Based on 126 User Ratings
4.6
18% Positive
23 Ratings
23 Ratings
50% Mixed
63 Ratings
63 Ratings
32% Negative
40 Ratings
40 Ratings
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.
Report
I know, I know, I know, You watched Superman III and you think it's a pile of Kryptonite **** I actually like this. I have noticed though that this is a movie that mimics the villain Lex Luthor, instead, the actual villain is stupid, and the henchman is Smart, it's different and odd at times and None of the elements in this movie make practical sense.
As If it was from a Superhero comic book.
I think this film struggles with the idea of Ironing out elements of the film and interpreting them in a correct manner.
You will see things that just do not make sense in any context, but it's interesting though because you probably never see anything like it in any film. You'll know them when you see them, they are literally in plain sight.
Not only that, the film spends considerable time on them.
So why do I rate this so highly, well out of the three films this is definitely the worst, but it's enjoyable. It definitely feels like a comic book that a 12-year-old came up with when he was in class not doing his work, and that's ok. Look I'm even surprised I'm saying this.
The Idea of it all on paper sounds really great, however, the implementation, due to the year it was made just ended up producing something completely wrong, but it's weirdly interesting.
7/10, It's an interesting film, not great by any standards but entertaining enough to be a Superman Film to finish a Trilogy.
Quest for Peace is Next, oh boy.
Report
The creators of Superman III give us a picture puzzle of assorted plots that never meld coherently. [13 June 1983]
Considering the standards set by the first two Superman films, Superman III is a disappointment. The story's mythic qualities had worn thin by the time this film was made, so the makers had to rely on Richard Pryor as their audience grabber.
What's strange about the movie is that the best things in it aren't developed, and what Superman and the other characters do doesn't seem to have any weight. [11 July 1983, p.90]
There are two movies in Superman III, one a witless and obvious and often cruel comic strip, the other a blithe and subtle and often amusing exercise in middle-brow camp. Not only do the two halves never come together, they are in active opposition. [17 June 1983]
Every composite shot in Superman III appears to be a careless affront to the willing suspension of disbelief. The flying sequences are a letdown, the cataclysms are a cheat, and even the settings are often exposed as a chintzy hoot. [17 June 1983, p.C1]
Computer programmer Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor) is hired by financial tycoon Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn) to seize control of a weather satellite and annihilate Colombia's coffee crop. When Superman (Christopher Reeve) manages to thwart the plan, Webster commands Gorman to use the satellite to locate kryptonite, the Man of Steel's mortal weakness. But a missing unknown element in the kryptonite -- replaced by Gorman with tar -- causes an unintended side effect when presented to Superman.
Report
PROS: The cinematography is beautiful, and the special effects are above average. The score is still rousing, and Christopher Reeve is likable enough as Superman. The film is decently paced and there are one or neat touches such as when Superman turns nasty.
CONS: The storytelling is very clunky for me, while the script is awful. Margot Kidder apparently wanted little to do with this film and if true I'm afraid it does show, while Robert Vaughan is a pretty poor replacement for Gene Hackman and the less said about Pamela Stephenson the better. Also the direction is rather heartless and using Richard Pryor as the source of the laughs just didn't work.
Overall, it is disappointing and lacklustre but it is watchable unlike the fourth. Anyway that is another story. 5/10 Bethany Cox
Report
I just think Superman 3 just forgot what made superman appealing in the first place. Sure, it's a better made film than Superman 4, but I just can't handle it, it isn't that fun than Superman 4 is.
Report
Awards
Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films, USA
• 4 Nominations
Razzie Awards
• 2 Nominations
Satellite Awards
• 1 Win & 1 Nomination
