Superman III

Name: Superman III
Genre: Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Comedy
Released: June 17, 1983
Duration: 125 min
Rating: 44
Cast: Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, Richard Pryor

1983

METASCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 15 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 116 Ratings

See All

4.6

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4.6	Your Score
4.6	User Score Mixed or average reviews based on 116 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

Superman III

Now Playing: Superman III

Movie Details & Credits

Warner Bros | Release Date: June 17, 1983 | PG

Starring: Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, Richard Pryor

Summary: Synthetic kryptonite laced with tobacco tar splits Superman in two: good Clark Kent and evil Man of Steel.

Director: Richard Lester

Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Comedy

Rating: PG

Runtime: 125 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

Bill Cosford

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]

Jack Kroll

This is a cute, clever "Superman," without the epic audacity of Richard Donner's Supe I, one of the most underrated of movies, despite the $300 million it grossed. [20 June 1983, p.83]

Roger Ebert

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. Read full review

Bob Thomas

The creators of Superman III give us a picture puzzle of assorted plots that never meld coherently. [13 June 1983]

Keith Phipps

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. Read full review

Staff [Not Credited]

Superman III emerges as a surprisingly soft-cored disappointment. Putting its emphasis on broad comedy at the expense of ingenious plotting and technical wizardry, it has virtually none of the mythic or cosmic sensibility that marked its predecessors.

Gary Arnold

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]

SEE ALL 15 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

SythusRATINGS

Oct 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 1 users found this helpful01

UNARMED_JORD

Aug 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

kyle20ellis

Mar 28, 2022

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 veryPROS: 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… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

MovieNight

Mar 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. Fresh off the success of The Omen, directorPart 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

gzayas91

Jun 21, 2017

While I'm not a fan of Superman 1 and 2, at least they tried to be entertaining, this a lame sequel that has ever made. Is not the worst, is just lame.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Moviebuffreview

Jul 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 lackluster action make Superman III an awful sequel, especiallyWhile 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 2 users found this helpful11

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, awful performances there is only one scene that works in theUgh 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

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

SEE ALL 28 REVIEWS