Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Candida It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

MovieBuffMarine I remember way back in fifth grade, my classmate saying he won't see Superman III because it has Richard Pryor in it and thought it will just be a comedy. Well the movie came and went. While this sequel was not as good as the previous two, Richard Pryor in my opinion, did NOT ruin it and had little to do with how it turned out.It is true that Pryor as Gus Gorman brought some comic relief for this movie, but it did not "ruin" it. All Mr. Pryor had was the script that he was provided and was limited to that. Mr. Pryor even thought the screenplay was terrible!Robert Vaughn played new villain, Ross Webster and it's hard to find a role of Vaughn to hate. But again, he was just as limited to the script.Superman getting effected by the synthetic Kryptonite was a good touch. It brought the needed conflict to a Superman story. This may have been the few qualities of this sequel as Superman always faces conflict.Unfortunately, Reeve reprising the iconic role and bringing in seasoned actors were not enough to boost the story. While again, in my opinion, this was totally watchable, you can see it didn't follow the last two films in quality.It seemed like the writers did a sleepy job of this sequel. Not only were the fans disappointed, but the players. This would be the end of the line for the producers (the Salkinds) for this iteration of Superman with no opportunity to redeem themselves. While this iteration of Superman continued for one more film, unfortunately everything went from mediocre to worse. While not the final film in the Christopher Reeve iteration, Superman III signaled the end of this era and without the quality that made it a hit five years earlier.

leplatypus Maybe at its release, the movie didn't seem good: indeed, the story is so ridiculous and repetitive from the 1st movie than we can be disappointed (thus Donner was right when he wanted rewrites from this same team!)… However, today, it has become really good: first of all, I don't know any funny guy in the new generation and this late Richard Pryor at last makes me laugh! He is maybe a clone of Eddie Murphy but their wit and tongue were cool and not dirty! Next, the movie happens at the start of the computer era: now it's funny to discover the look of the elders and the naive way they were considered (change climate, drive boats, living organism). Here, the capacities are so unbelievable and geek (the computer game against Supe) that it ends funny! Next, if I missed badly Lois, at least Christopher proved one more time how he was talented and I really like the different attitudes he shows… His return to Smallville and the introduction of Lana is interesting to the myth. At last, it's a American movie that feels good: the violence is very light and all the family can watch the movie; you see American people working, meeting together to have fun so it's very different of today productions when we wonder when people earns their life and it was a world free of digital relationships! In addition, all along the movie, there is moments when the movie goes totally nuts (the beginning, the electronic jam) and thus, this simple, cheaper candid America was really enjoyable to come back today!

StuOz Superman is back.In my younger days I hated this film, in fact it made me angry as it seemed so bad compared to Sup 1 & 2, but in the last ten years I have started to warm to it...perhaps because it is so much better than TV's Smallville and Lois And Clark?There are some fine action scenes with Superman, I love the retro hardware in the cave (looks like it came from the batcave in 1960s Batman) and Robert Vaughn makes a fine bad guy.However, Superman 3 is not perfect, and you might find yourself clicking the DVD picture search when the film goes back to Smallville.But all things considered...not bad.

RobTheConqueror I wrote an almost essay long review on Superman II gushing about how great it was and how much it (along with the first movie) helped set the benchmark for what comic book movies should be like. The following two Superman movies on the other hand helped set the benchmark for what comic book movies *shouldn't* be like, and that's really all I feel like saying about Superman III in general (I'm not sure I have the strength to re-visit Superman IV: The Quest For Peace)It takes everything that was wonderful about the first two and strips them away, creating a brainless comedy that is almost a page by page adaption of a typical Superman comic book, which, as this movie proved, is NOT how you make a good comic book movie.All the emotion of the first two films? Gone, replaced by the "comedy" of Richard Pryor, who drags the movie down with his awful character and performance, ultimately being totally worthless to the plot.The compelling antagonists? Also gone, replaced by a typical evil businessman villain that seems like a cheap replacement for Lex Luthor due to the absence of Gene Hackman because of his loyalty to Richard Donner.Margot Kidder as Lois Lane is disappointingly absent, reduced to a cameoHell, even the small sense of plausibility is gone, replaced by a plot that drowns in silliness.The one thing the movie still has going in its favour is Christopher Reeve, who continues to play his iconic portrayal of Superman to perfection, and this time gets to stretch his acting muscles by also playing a brainwashed, evil Superman, which he pulls off superbly.Roger Ebert said "Superman III is the movie I feared the original Superman would be" and with that line he nailed more than I have in this entire review why the original film worked and this didn't.