Entrepreneur Ross Webster teams up with a computer genius in order to realise his own evil intentions. When Superman obstructs his plans, he decides to destroy him.Entrepreneur Ross Webster teams up with a computer genius in order to realise his own evil intentions. When Superman obstructs his plans, he decides to destroy him.Entrepreneur Ross Webster teams up with a computer genius in order to realise his own evil intentions. When Superman obstructs his plans, he decides to destroy him.
- Awards
- 3 wins & 7 nominations total
5.080.4K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Summary
Reviewers say 'Superman III' is criticized for its comedic shift and Richard Pryor's miscast role, which many feel disrupts the series' tone. The absence of Lex Luthor and Lois Lane is noted as a significant drawback. Despite these issues, Christopher Reeve's performance, especially as an evil Superman, is praised. The special effects and action sequences, though less impressive than before, are still commended. Overall, the film is seen as a weaker installment but offers some entertainment and a unique take.
Featured reviews
More comic-book than the first two.
My Take: It never reaches the heights of its predecessors with its sillier story and ridiculous villains.
Many consider this a weak entry in the Superman film series. Well, I thought it was at first. But when I watched it in numerous reruns, I began to like this. Christopher Reeve excellently reprises his role, alongside comedy favorite Richard Pryor, as a computer-whiz, who is hired by his boss to help fulfill his plans for world domination. Pryor may not do it right sometimes, but he's admittedly hilarious in spots. But painfully ridiculous in some.
Among the things that make it a bit unsatisfying for critics is the lack of the characters from the originals. Lois lane had to go on vacation, so Lana Lang (played well by Annette O'Toole)is Superman's/Clark Kent's love interest. Robert Vaughn plays a sinister mastermind, an okay replacement for the famous villain Lex Luther. What some viewers don't understand is that director Richard Lester wants it to be more of a comic book adventure rather than what scriptwriter Mario Puzo did in the first two.
Rating: **1/2 out of 5.
Many consider this a weak entry in the Superman film series. Well, I thought it was at first. But when I watched it in numerous reruns, I began to like this. Christopher Reeve excellently reprises his role, alongside comedy favorite Richard Pryor, as a computer-whiz, who is hired by his boss to help fulfill his plans for world domination. Pryor may not do it right sometimes, but he's admittedly hilarious in spots. But painfully ridiculous in some.
Among the things that make it a bit unsatisfying for critics is the lack of the characters from the originals. Lois lane had to go on vacation, so Lana Lang (played well by Annette O'Toole)is Superman's/Clark Kent's love interest. Robert Vaughn plays a sinister mastermind, an okay replacement for the famous villain Lex Luther. What some viewers don't understand is that director Richard Lester wants it to be more of a comic book adventure rather than what scriptwriter Mario Puzo did in the first two.
Rating: **1/2 out of 5.
Silly, mindless fun.
I agree with everyone who says that Super IV is an awful, wretched movie. But III... well, it's mindless fun, actually. Nothing special, just a guilty pleasure.
I know, I know, Super 1 and 2 (specially Donner version of 2) are great, wonderful films! But when I was little, I used to go to school, my mom was doing laundry, father working, back from school, it was the 80's, starts raining, couldn't get out of the house, finished homework from school, standing on our living room, playing with my action figures, reading my comics, listening to the vinyl records on our sound, and then I got bored and decided to turn on the TV and there it was, Superman III.
And I used to watch this movie on TV a lot, so I just got nostalgic feelings by it. I didn't know any better, Richard Pryor always looked nice on the film for me and I used to laugh at him a lot. Of course I was little and unfamiliarized with his other films, specially the ones with Gene Wilder, so I just kept watching Super III.
I mean, when you grow up, you tend to judge things a lot better, but for the time being, I used to have some mindless fun with this movie, and once it kept me from being bored on rainy days, I guess it did a good job on me.
So I think it's not a terrible movie after all. Undeniably flawed, yes, weaker than its predecessors, no doubt! There is nothing epic or breathtaking about this one. But it still offers some nice fun for me from time to time.
If you don't like it, OK, I can perfectly see where you're coming from. But I gotta say this... if you're on a rainy day... just give it a try.
I know, I know, Super 1 and 2 (specially Donner version of 2) are great, wonderful films! But when I was little, I used to go to school, my mom was doing laundry, father working, back from school, it was the 80's, starts raining, couldn't get out of the house, finished homework from school, standing on our living room, playing with my action figures, reading my comics, listening to the vinyl records on our sound, and then I got bored and decided to turn on the TV and there it was, Superman III.
And I used to watch this movie on TV a lot, so I just got nostalgic feelings by it. I didn't know any better, Richard Pryor always looked nice on the film for me and I used to laugh at him a lot. Of course I was little and unfamiliarized with his other films, specially the ones with Gene Wilder, so I just kept watching Super III.
I mean, when you grow up, you tend to judge things a lot better, but for the time being, I used to have some mindless fun with this movie, and once it kept me from being bored on rainy days, I guess it did a good job on me.
So I think it's not a terrible movie after all. Undeniably flawed, yes, weaker than its predecessors, no doubt! There is nothing epic or breathtaking about this one. But it still offers some nice fun for me from time to time.
If you don't like it, OK, I can perfectly see where you're coming from. But I gotta say this... if you're on a rainy day... just give it a try.
What is different about the third one?
OK, I saw the movie, and I loved it... along with Superman 12 and 4. But will somebody please tell me something? What the he-- does this have to do with the rest. You have Gene Hackman, Louis Lane, and Metropolis; Gene Hackman, Louis Lane, and Metropolis; then you have Richard Pryor, Smallville, and some badguy; and then back to Gene Hackman and Louis Lane and Metropolis. Did the producers get high or something while making the third? "Huh huh... Hey guys, let's cast Richard Pryor in here... Aww man that is soooo funny." Don't get me wrong, I loved all of them, but the difference is something I just can't hold in.
I still give it a 10!
I still give it a 10!
Half of Superman 3 is good and the other half is.......
Superman 3 is kind of like a double sided coin. One side being good and the other one being bad. Jekyll and Hyde if you will.
The plot of Superman 3 is essentially split into 2 parts.
The 1st part revolves around Superman going back to Smallville for his high school reunion where he catches up with his high school sweetheart Lana Lang. While there he is exposed to Kryptonite only this time instead of it making him weak, it instead turns him evil. All of this stuff is really good and what you would expect from a Superman movie.
On the other side of the coin however is the B plot which revolves around Richard Pyror who guest stars in this movie as Gus Gorman. A down on his luck computer clerk who gets tangled up with a greedy businessman who wants to get richer by taking over the world with computers.....you see why this part of the movie doesn't work right?
The 2nd part of this movie really isn't that good if you want me to be honest.
I mean I love Richard Pryor but he really isn't that funny in this movie. Mostly because he has nothing to work with due to the script.
Which is strange because you can tell just by the opening credits that this movies trying to be more like a comedy (if you can call it that) but none of the jokes really land and just feel really out of place.
The villains are awful to. Instead of using a Super villain from the comics like Braniac or Parasite, they instead chose to create a original villain called Ross Webster whose essentially just a watered down version of Luthor with little to no substance.
Which is insane considering how big of a rogue line up Superman has.
Literally the only other good thing in this movie is the action and speciel effects which are good for their time.
Especially the junkyard fight with the evil Superman. That scene is amazing and really demonstrates how great Christopher Reeves was as Superman.
Again all the stuff with Superman and Smallville is great. There everything you want and love from these movies.
It's the other half with Richard Pryor and the villains that's awful and unfortunately brings the movie down.
The plot of Superman 3 is essentially split into 2 parts.
The 1st part revolves around Superman going back to Smallville for his high school reunion where he catches up with his high school sweetheart Lana Lang. While there he is exposed to Kryptonite only this time instead of it making him weak, it instead turns him evil. All of this stuff is really good and what you would expect from a Superman movie.
On the other side of the coin however is the B plot which revolves around Richard Pyror who guest stars in this movie as Gus Gorman. A down on his luck computer clerk who gets tangled up with a greedy businessman who wants to get richer by taking over the world with computers.....you see why this part of the movie doesn't work right?
The 2nd part of this movie really isn't that good if you want me to be honest.
I mean I love Richard Pryor but he really isn't that funny in this movie. Mostly because he has nothing to work with due to the script.
Which is strange because you can tell just by the opening credits that this movies trying to be more like a comedy (if you can call it that) but none of the jokes really land and just feel really out of place.
The villains are awful to. Instead of using a Super villain from the comics like Braniac or Parasite, they instead chose to create a original villain called Ross Webster whose essentially just a watered down version of Luthor with little to no substance.
Which is insane considering how big of a rogue line up Superman has.
Literally the only other good thing in this movie is the action and speciel effects which are good for their time.
Especially the junkyard fight with the evil Superman. That scene is amazing and really demonstrates how great Christopher Reeves was as Superman.
Again all the stuff with Superman and Smallville is great. There everything you want and love from these movies.
It's the other half with Richard Pryor and the villains that's awful and unfortunately brings the movie down.
They really should have stopped with the second one...
...because this is a terrible sequel that nearly undoes all of the goodwill created by the first two films. Christopher Reeve returns as Superman, who, in his alter ego of Clark Kent, travels back to his hometown of Smallville to attend his high school reunion. While there, he crosses path with an evil business magnate (Robert Vaughn), his equally evil sister (Annie Ross), and Vaughn's ditzy assistant (Pamela Stephenson). They've hired a computer genius (Richard Pryor) to help develop a super computer to help in their plan for global domination. They also develop artificial kryptonite that turns Superman evil. You know he's evil because he quits shaving, has dingy clothes, and straightens the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
Margot Kidder was fighting with the producers at this point, so her role as Lois Lane is reduced to short cameos at the beginning and end of the film. Jackie Cooper returns as Daily Planet editor Perry White, and Marc McClure as junior reporter Jimmy Olsen. Annette O'Toole appears as Kent's high school crush Lana Lang, and Gavan (Son of Dan) O'Herlihy as a drunken high school bully.
Director Richard Lester tries to accentuate the comedy in this, but the script is so awful that nothing can save it. The effects are bargain basement as well, with some really shoddy miniature and matte work.
THis film has one of the zaniest rather stand-alone moments in any film ever- near the end when the Super Computer the villains build starts malfunctioning and they try to flee. The villain's sister- who up to now really has served zero purpose in the story- is sucked into a claustrophobic compartment of the computer and- in one of the most disturbing moments that I can recall in what is supposed to be a relatively family friendly film - she screams in agony as the computer strangles her with wires and staples metal all over her face. She then emerges as the most ridiculous looking robot ever, by which I mean even Robbie the Robot would laugh at this thing.
The director of this film had to have had some serious issues with his mother (or maybe his sister?).i just cannot fathom how it was felt by the writers that this was necessary or appropriate in a movie that children were going to want to see. Annie Ross is actually an accomplished jazz and standard vocalist who, i can only assume, was being blackmailed into appearing in this or really needed to pay off a loan or something.
So this was the end of WB's relationship with the Christopher Reeve franchise of Superman. Given the goofiness of it all the fourth one was taken on by The Cannon Group, which was such a goofy production company that it was worthy of a documentary all of its own, and actually HAS a documentary all of its own.
Margot Kidder was fighting with the producers at this point, so her role as Lois Lane is reduced to short cameos at the beginning and end of the film. Jackie Cooper returns as Daily Planet editor Perry White, and Marc McClure as junior reporter Jimmy Olsen. Annette O'Toole appears as Kent's high school crush Lana Lang, and Gavan (Son of Dan) O'Herlihy as a drunken high school bully.
Director Richard Lester tries to accentuate the comedy in this, but the script is so awful that nothing can save it. The effects are bargain basement as well, with some really shoddy miniature and matte work.
THis film has one of the zaniest rather stand-alone moments in any film ever- near the end when the Super Computer the villains build starts malfunctioning and they try to flee. The villain's sister- who up to now really has served zero purpose in the story- is sucked into a claustrophobic compartment of the computer and- in one of the most disturbing moments that I can recall in what is supposed to be a relatively family friendly film - she screams in agony as the computer strangles her with wires and staples metal all over her face. She then emerges as the most ridiculous looking robot ever, by which I mean even Robbie the Robot would laugh at this thing.
The director of this film had to have had some serious issues with his mother (or maybe his sister?).i just cannot fathom how it was felt by the writers that this was necessary or appropriate in a movie that children were going to want to see. Annie Ross is actually an accomplished jazz and standard vocalist who, i can only assume, was being blackmailed into appearing in this or really needed to pay off a loan or something.
So this was the end of WB's relationship with the Christopher Reeve franchise of Superman. Given the goofiness of it all the fourth one was taken on by The Cannon Group, which was such a goofy production company that it was worthy of a documentary all of its own, and actually HAS a documentary all of its own.
Did you know
- TriviaAfter Margot Kidder expressed her disgust about the firing of Richard Donner to producers Alexander Salkind and Ilya Salkind, her role was cut to 12 lines and less than five minutes of screen time. In the film's 2006 DVD commentary, Ilya Salkind says there was little need for Lois Lane in this movie because her relationship with Superman ended at the end of Superman II (1980).
- GoofsScenes which are set in the United States feature printed spellings of words like defence, colour, and unauthorised which reveal the Canadian and British filming locations.
- Quotes
Ross Webster: I ask you to kill Superman, and you're telling me you couldn't even do that one, simple thing.
- Crazy creditsThere is no title sequence. The opening credits are shown over a cold opening.
- Alternate versionsBroadcast version uses separate title sequence similar to original Superman - The Movie titles, with adapted John Williams theme. Theatrical and home video versions had difficult-to-read titles over opening slapstick sequence.
- ConnectionsEdited from The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974)
- SoundtracksNo See, No Cry
Performed by Chaka Khan
Music by Giorgio Moroder
Lyrics by Keith Forsey
Produced by Giorgio Moroder
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Languages
- Also known as
- Superman vs. Superman
- Filming locations
- Calgary, Alberta, Canada(Metropolis city exteriors)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $39,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $59,950,623
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $13,352,357
- Jun 19, 1983
- Gross worldwide
- $80,250,623
- Runtime
- 2h 5m(125 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content






