Superman III
Warner Bros | Release Date: June 17, 1983
4.6
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 125 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
23
Mixed:
62
Negative:
40
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
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)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
6
tontoJun 18, 2021
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This was the third of the original Superman series, and definitely a step down from the of greatness its predecessors. It's certainly not a bad film, but relies too much on camp and comic relief (even some slap stick) and gives Richard Pryor too big a role although he is entertaining. In this one Richard Pryor works as a computer engineer for a corrupt company, and is caught stealing from the company in a sneaky way. Instead of firing him, his boss, the sleazy executive uses him to achieve his goals, which are often illegal or unethical. Lois is seen briefly at the beginning of the movie but says she is going on vacation to Bermuda. Clark visits Smallville and reunites with Lana Lang. At some point Superman is exposed to some sort of synthesized, bizarro Kryptonite which affects his personality in a negative way. Superman becomes selfish and mean-spirited, committing vandalism, getting drunk, banging floozies, and does the bidding of the evil businessman by doing damage to a trade ship so that he can bang the evil executive's ditsy yet sexy mistress. Eventually Superman overcomes whatever is possessing him in a climactic battle between Clark and Bad Superman. Superman ends up battling a supercomputer android that is sort of similar to Brainiac. It turns out that Brainiac was originally supposed to be the main villain in the movie. I kinda wish they had gone there and actually introduced Brainiac. What we ended up getting in this movie in terms of adversaries were close to Bizarro and Brainiac, but they weren't officially in the movie. The special effects were good for the time, though a downgrade from the previous flicks.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
5
gracjanskiDec 30, 2020
What a bad movie, especially the humour is so simple and stupid. But also the characters are one-sided and uninteresting, only the short change of Superman into a "normal human" was somehow fun. The villains, story and dialogues were boring also.
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
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
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
5
kyle20ellisMar 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 whenPROS: 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
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
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
4
MarvelJoeFeb 4, 2019
I don't know why the makers didn't follow the comics. This movie try its best to be funny but failed. The previous movies were corny but entertaining. This is just a boring movie losing the feel.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
RobwinzAug 7, 2020
Superman 3 isn't as good as the previous two Superman movies but it's not as terrible as people say it is.

The movie's got a pretty weird plot, some pretty good acting from Superman (Christopher Reeve) and Gus (Richard Pryor) but I feel likeSuperman 3 isn't as good as the previous two Superman movies but it's not as terrible as people say it is.

The movie's got a pretty weird plot, some pretty good acting from Superman (Christopher Reeve) and Gus (Richard Pryor) but I feel like the rest of the cast feels too out of character and their dialogue feels a bit too forced as well.

The action sequences are quite fun, the best one has to be Superman vs Clark Kent, I thought that one was pretty good.

Also, the green screen effects don't hold up very well throughout this movie, they've dated pretty badly.

There's some really stupid scenes throughout this movie and they don't make any sort of sense and they don't sort of link up to anything.

Overall, Superman 3 isn't as good as the first two but it's not all bad. The movie's got some really good acting from Christopher Reeve and Richard Pryor and there's even some pretty fun action sequences.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
More From This Movie

44 Critic Reviews

4.6 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 81 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
2 77 Project Hail Mary
3 75 Send Help
4 73 Hoppers
5 71 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL