Your IP has been blocked. Please perform the action below to regain access.
75.126.130.58-
Customer Reviews
Average Rating:
-
The Beginning Of The End
**Warning - May Contain a Few Spoilers**
While there are a few moments that help out this movie, on the whole, it's not enough. It's intriguing to see Superman turn evil through his exposure to tainted Kryptonite (reminiscent of Red Kryptonite). And the battle in the junkyard between good and bad Superman (reminiscent of Superman vs. Bizarro) is, again, intriguing. But neither really reaches its full potential to thrill and enthrall the audience.
In the end, what really hurts this movie is a lack of "super" scope. This can largely be brought down to the fact that they didn't bring Lex Luthor into this story. Ross Webster just isn't charismatic enough to keep the audience watching. What we have here is a greedy business man who is trying to control the worlds oil. Bad, yes. Superman worthy? We never get a full sense that it is.
Now, if Lex Luthor had been doing the same thing, there would automatically be a sense that the world is in danger and Superman needs to jump in and save it. Doubtless, this would only be the first step in a master plan for something truly evil to come. True, Lex's plan in the first movie revolved around real estate, but the methods were brutal, with the entire western coastline and its inhabitants in jeopardy. Webster's plan, however, boils down to "We'll tell everyone's computers to stop oil production. They'll never be able to stop that. Bwa Ha Ha Ha Haaaa!"
Then there is the heightened attempt at humor in this film. Director Richard Lester decided to make this one a funnier outing, since it is based on a comic book. A little humor now and then is okay and even refreshing when dealing with a truly epic story like Superman deserves. However it is a bit too much here at times. For instance, the beginning of the movie is an entire vaudeville routine causing chaos throughout the city of Metropolis with sight gags and running gags and any other kind of gag you can think of. It just feels out of place.
In the end, this one is definitely better than the fourth movie, but it pales in comparison to the first two.
Rating: -
Superman III: It's a Bird!, No, It's a Plane!, No, It's a .... Mediocre Movie!
I recently took another look at the big screen debacle entitled "Superman III," which initiated the beloved movie franchise's rocketing descent into oblivion 25 years ago. As expected, time hasn't been kind to the third "Superman" film.
If you were to look over this film's credits, the potential seemingly was all there: Christopher Reeve as Superman; competent director Richard Lester (who also directed "Superman II"); two of the original film's screenwriters; a great special FX crew; plus the added bonus of comedian Richard Pryor, who was still semi-hot at the time. Therefore, how could this much talent transform a likely sure-fire hit into such a colossal goose egg?
Primarily, I suspect it comes down to a lackluster script that was not even close to the same league as the first two films. The basic storyline on paper may have been okay at best, but as a motion picture, the franchise's classy tongue-in-cheek humor and timeless reverence to the Man of Steel pretty much evaporate in favor of incorporating Richard Pryor's bumbling computer geek character (Gus Gorman) into the story. The result of providing Mr. Pryor sufficient screen time to justify his hefty salary reduced other pivotal supporting players, like Jackie Cooper (as Perry White) and even Margot Kidder (as Lois Lane) to mere book-end cameo appearances. As at least one other reviewer points out, forcibly melding a Richard Pryor comedy with "Superman" simply doesn't work.
Also, the campy screenplay suffers from too few thrills, with the exception of the Superman vs. Clark Kent auto graveyard battle, which was superb. Christopher Reeve appeared game during the various stunt sequences, but the special FX, while they seem initially great, deteriorate badly by the time Superman enters the Grand Canyon for his final showdown with the villains. Obviously, the special FX budget (not to mention, composer John Williams' masterful score) were among the cost-cutting decisions made by the producers.
As for the other scenes, there is little worth remembering about them (who really wants to watch Superman being infected by tar-flavored kryponite?). The romantic sub-plot featuring Annette O'Toole (as Lana Lang) and Clark Kent was nicely handled, but, logically, shouldn't Lois Lane have been the one (instead of Lana) present during the evil Superman plot twist? Once again, the script's ineffective sense of continuity comes into play here.
As for the main villains, Robert Vaughn (as Ross Webster) is an awfully weak substitute to follow up Gene Hackman (as Lex Luthor) as Superman's new nemesis. I definitely agree with a fellow reviewer that Webster and his female entourage are really little more than a cheap knock-off of Lex Luthor, Otis, & Ms. Teschmacher. If Richard Pryor had instead played Webster (while eliminating Gus Gorman entirely), that could have been an intriguing proposition. Personally, though, I really would have preferred an edgy actor like Christopher Walken (much like he was in "A View to a Kill," and "Batman Returns,"), who could have created a creepy antagonist truly worthy of tangling with the legendary Man of Steel.
Speaking of which, the "Ultimate Computer" could have been (and probably should have been) transformed into a realistic variation of the classic Superman villian, Brainiac. The premise of an almighty evil computer that just wants to survive is a monstrous concept that would hold up extremely well today. Unfortunately, as depicted in this film, the "Ultimate Computer" looks so incredibly phony that it becomes a major detriment to the franchise's reputation for providing top notch special FX.
Among the special edition DVD's bonus features, there are the following: 1. the making of "Superman III" documentary (which is worth viewing, particularly for Christopher Reeve's interview); 2. cast filmographies; and 3. the obligatory trailer. Here's an interesting bit of trivia: the young actor at the Metropolis photo booth seen briefly during the opening sequence also had earlier played toddler Kal-El during the original film's initial Smallville sequence.
In summation, the two big reasons why this film fails, I believe, come down to an uninspired script offering little excitement and not enough laughs, as well as far too much reliance on Richard Pryor and Robert Vaughn as the miscast villains. If director Richard Donner, screenwriters Mario Puzo and Tom Mankiewicz, and composer John Williams had all been present for "Superman III," they probably would have made a world of difference. Unfortunately, another vintage performance by the much-missed Christopher Reeve alone couldn't save this film from the ravages of mediocre filmmaking.
Final Grade: a weak 3/5. Christopher Reeve's iconic presence as Superman is the film's only enduring asset.
Side Note: I do, however, heartily recommend William Kotzwinkle's long out-of-print novelization of this movie. His cynical wit packs in plenty of chuckles despite the script's weak material. You can probably find a cheap copy easily enough on Amazon.com.
Rating: -
NOT AS BAD AS IT'S KNOWN TO BE BUT, NOT QUITE GOOD EITHER 2 3/4 STARS!
Superman III starts out like an old slap stick comedy act. After throwing caution to the wind in Superman II, I guess they figured they could get away with anything!?? The film has a reputation for being really awful, but it's mildly entertaining and actually has moments of brilliants. I loved the evil Superman segments and I was happy to see a different villian. All but Reeves from the original cast phone in their performances and the FX budget looks like it was cut. This could have been a really good installment, but it seems like a quick cash in to me. Compared to part IV..........!
Rating: 
-
Falls flat on its face.
Maybe Richard Lester's take on "the man of steel" was to harken back to the TV show and 1950s-era lighthearted antics. But his tendency for camp and prepubescent humor is at odds with the true nature of the comedy that has always made the legend of Superman work.
At the heart of Supe-III is the loss of Lois Lane, and in her place an exceedingly dull and sleazy story about Superman deciding between a squeaky-clean fake-o small town soccer mom and a trashy Penthouse centerfold villain. The sexual undertones almost leap off the screen and plummet the series to an irretrievable fleshiness aimed at the preteen audience members who had been fed a steady diet of Catherine Bach in suntan pantyhose and white open-toed heels. And lest you be confused -- Christopher Reeve and every one else in this film comes across in the 1983 "making of" feature as totally smug and depressingly "cheerful". They had this one coming.
Without going into the details of the story any further (Superman's lame antics, or totally outdated trendiness, Richard pryon, Robert Vaughan...), let me just say that "Supergirl" is a much, much better film. In that one, they get the "camp" relatively right and it is filled with fantasy worlds, Kryptonian ethics...all that good Superman stuff. But I really say this only to prove how godawful this third outing is. But isn't Superman a strange series... because Lester is the guy who saved Superman II from Richard Donner's totally different corruption of the material. Strange.
Rating: 
-
Despite the flaws I can't help, but love Superman III
Superman III is one of those films that spark a lot of debate among fans of the series. The fans are split on this one, but it seems more people dislike it in general. I understand both sides of the argument on why some people see Superman III as a good movie and others see it as a bad movie. As a whole Superman III in my opinion doesn't live up to the previous 2 installments; I know some people will go crazy over this comment, but I actually prefer this over Richard Donner's cut of Superman II. So that would make Superman III, my 3rd favorite of the series.
I'm in the minority when I say I liked Lester's cut of Superman II more than Donner's, but of course Richard Donner was still a big reason for the success of Superman II since a lot of his footage made it's way into the final cut. This time around it's all Richard Lester and Superman III is a little uneven. Lester was more interested in the comedy aspect of Superman and while the comedy worked well in Superman II it's hit or miss in Superman III.
At times I found Superman III a little too over the top in the comedy department. Some scenes could have played a little straighter or even some light humor, but Lester makes it way too over the top and also there is too much comedy at times and that does take a way from the movie. Certain scenes have to be played that way; sometimes people forget the script. If the scenes are written a little silly playing it straight won't work well. Some scenes though really could have been played straight with a little comedy, but Lester options for the laughs and quite honestly it works well for some scenes, but falls flat in others.
Screenwriters David & Leslie Newman did a pretty good job with the script, but they also fail in a lot of areas. The one thing that has always bothered me a bit is Clark's obsession with Lois Lane. I think it's safe to say we have liked a girl and for the women reading this a guy, that was based on looks. It might be superficial but most of us are guilty of that. I understand why Clark likes Lois, but she pretty much ignores him and well isn't always that nice to him. In Superman III we are introduced to Lana Lang played by Annette O'Toole.
There really was a lot of potential with Clark and Lana. I like Lois Lane, but Lana was a lot nicer and she actually was nice to Clark and seemed to be interested in him. The plot worked really well for the first half of the movie, but than suddenly Lana pretty much goes MIA for most of the 2nd half only appearing in a couple of brief scenes that really don't add much to the plot.
I think the Lana/Clark scenes really helped flesh out the movie and really worked very well. But in the 2nd half that plot is pretty much wrapped up and wrapped up rather weakly there really isn't any closure. It seems like the makers forgot to film those scenes. We spend so much of the first half seeing something possibly develop between Clark and Lana all for nothing in the end as it never goes anywhere.
Lois Lane only appears briefly and while I did like the character and I like Margot Kidder a lot it was a nice change to have somebody else instead of her, but I would have liked to have seen more screen time giving to Lois. But Superman III doesn't lack without Kidder, Annette O'Toole does a solid job at making up for the loss of Margot Kidder.
Another problem with the script was the character of Ross Webster played by Robert Vaughn. Simply put he was the poor mans version of Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Even though Ross Webster is the main villain too little is done with his character. He has no depth and just really isn't very interesting. Vaughn plays the role well and does the best he can, but the character wasn't fleshed out nearly enough and again is just a clone of Lex Luthor. If I didn't know any better I would think the role was written for Hackman to play Luthor. Webster really is Lex Luthor with a different name.
Richard Pryor seemed a little out of place at times in the movie while he does play the character of Gus Gorman rather well there was too much focus on him at times. It's good to focus on the supporting players. Even though this movie is about Clark Kent/Superman it's still good to have the other players involved. But there are too many stretches where the main focus is on Gus, which slows the pace down at times; had there been some more Clark/Superman scenes mixed in I think the movie would have played out much better. In many ways this movie is Gus Gorman and Superman; Pryor just got too much screen time. Some of his scenes really should have been edited down and the pacing would have been a lot better.
The 2nd half of the movie while there is still some comedy it's toned down and also several scenes are played straight and it works very well. Superman III is a little too silly at times and as I stated a couple of times it works well in some areas, but falls flat in others. My biggest complaint though is Gus is helping Ross Webster and even helps him try to kill Superman. Only it doesn't kill him, but makes him evil. But at the end Gus seems outraged at what Ross is trying to do and is even shocked he is trying to kill Superman.
That just annoyed me; why the shock? Not that long ago in the film you tried to help Ross kill Superman so I don't understand why he was so surprised in the final act. Gus wasn't your typical villain and despite what he has done I still don't think he is a villain, but it still annoyed me how he was so shocked.
Christopher Reeve is Clark Kent/Superman; he plays the role to perfection in each installment. He may not be the first actor to play the role, but for people of a certain age he was our first experience of seeing Superman. Christopher Reeve does such a brilliant job as the nerdy Clark Kent, but when it comes time for him to become Superman who is the complete opposite, Reeve pulls it off perfectly. In many ways Christopher Reeve plays double roles and Superman III you can see it as 3 roles. When he becomes evil Superman he is just as believable.
Well I guess it's not fair to call him Evil Superman, he's more of an arrogant selfish jerk. And Christopher Reeve does such a great job, my favorite line is, "Well I hope you don't expect me to save you, `cause I don't do that anymore." Simply put Reeve is perfection in all the Superman movies. I highly doubt there will ever be an actor who can rival Christopher Reeve in the role of Clark Kent/Superman.
The highlight of the movie is Clark Kent Vs Superman; that was a great scene and really helps elevate the movie. For that scene alone Superman III is a must see and I'll go as far as saying that was one of the greatest moments in the Superman franchise.
Superman III is overall a very mixed bag; I personally don't think the movie is as bad as so many make it out to be, while yes it's a big drop off from the previous 2 it's still a fun movie. The point of the movie is to entertain and despite the flaws Superman III did just that in my opinion. That is why I give Superman III a 4-star rating; no this isn't a classic movie not as good as the previous 2, but when all is said and done the film entertains and I must say again that is the point of a movie to entertain the viewer.
My review may not be glowing, but Superman III really wasn't so bad; all it really needed was some editing. What's shot is shot, but editing would have greatly fixed the pacing problems. But again Superman III is a fun movie. Superman III won't go down in history as being an all time great, but I still really enjoyed the movie despite my complaints.
