Superman III Poster

Superman III (1983)

Action | SciFi 
Rayting:   4.9/10 64.6K votes
Country: UK | USA
Language: English | Italian
Release date: 17 June 1983

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

Movie Trailer

Where to Watch

  • Buy
  • Buy
  • Subs.
  • Buy

User Reviews

KnightLander 18 March 2006

I'll be frank: SUPERMAN III is NOT a good film. Having heard both from people who loved the movie and hated the movie, I watched it with an open mind, but in the end it was clear to me that this movie is weak. Very weak.

Half of the movie revolves around Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor!), a dim-witted computer programmer who becomes involved in crime when he begins working for millionaire Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn). The other half of the film revolves around Superman (Christopher Reeve), as he is reunited with high school sweetheart Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole) and becomes evil when exposed to synthetic kryptonite.

One can't help but wonder what David and Leslie Newman, who co-wrote the previous two SUPERMAN films, were thinking when they wrote this film. It opens with a cringe-worthy slapstick sequence, and gets worse from there. Any and all scenes involving Richard Pryor are completely out of place in this film, making it seem more like an unfunny comedy than a superhero film. Director Richard Lester tries his best to make the movie work, but ultimately, it doesn't, thanks in part to the absence of Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor and the near-absence of Margot Kidder as Lois Lane (Kidder has a total of about three minutes on-screen). Christopher Reeve, however, is excellent as always, and Annette O'Toole is a good fit for the part of Lana Lang; interestingly, she portrayed Clark's mother, Martha Kent, on the hit Superman TV series SMALLVILLE.

SUPERMAN III is mediocre at best, a failed attempt to continue an excellent series. While it couldn't hold my attention for the 125 minute runtime, I can think of worse movies to watch late at night with a bowl of popcorn and a Coke. Superman fans may want to check it out; all others, steer clear.

iluvkelly007 5 April 2007

Fmovies: Superman III isn't as good as Superman I or II, but there is still an epic inside waiting to get out. It's better than Superman Returns, and far better than Superman IV. So why does it get such a bad rap? The answer is Richard Pryor, a weird robot, slapstick comedy, and the absence of Gene Hackman. I wouldn't be bothered by Pryor's acting if he was actually funny! But there are still some elements that make this movie great. Like the bad Superman fighting against the good Clark Kent, Clark going back home to Smallville, Clark's relationship with Lana, Superman saving people from a fire, the best special effects in the series, and a fight against a supercomputer that can read Superman's weaknesses. Fans of the comic also don't like this movie because it doesn't really use the source material for villains. But if you look hard enough you will find that they are just different interpretations. Ross Webster is the Corporate Lex Luthor, not the underground criminal Gene Hackman portrayed, Evil Superman is a form of Bizarro, and the supercomputer is like Braniac.

TalesfromTheCryptfan 11 November 2006

Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor) who is a fun-loving computer genius has been hired by a mad rich computer company tycoon named Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn)to help him with his plans along with Ross's sister Vera (Annie Ross) and girlfriend Loreli (Pamela Stephenson) but Superman (Christopher Reeve)interferes with their plans as they must plot to stop Superman for good. Clark Kent revisits his old boyhood town called Smallville, where he is reunited with an old flame named Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole) at a high school reunion during his visit. Gus comes up with a scheme to make a special kryptonite with tobacco tar to make Superman evil including splitting up with his personality so that way Gus and Webster can make their supercomputer that can control the world's energy, can Superman come back to normal or will the computer take over mankind?

Enjoyable sequel but not as awesome as the first two movies, Richard Lester who did his version of "Superman II" just added some unnecessary comedy relief such as the "Three Stooges"-esquire opening sequence that didn't help or that ludicrous video game footage but there was some good special effects and memorable moments like Clark Kent vs. Superman in the junkyard sequence or the part where Vera becomes a Dot Matrix from Spaceballs-like android, although Ms. Stephenson was pretty cute.

All in all it's that bad folks, just relax, enjoy and suspend your disbelief.

thecolclough 14 November 2008

Superman III fmovies. If you're a connoisseur of bad film-making, then this is a must-have for your collection.

To be fair, it has a few good bits - most of them being Reeve's scenes - but it spends a lot of time being plain silly, and throwing together a yarn which looks far-fetched even by comic-book-movie standards. The daftness of the plot and shallowness of many of the characters, combined with a significant number of poorly-executed effects shots, produces an end result so awful that you can spend two very enjoyable hours just laughing at how bad it is.

Superman: the Movie begins on an epic note, and maintains a degree of gravitas throughout - but this second sequel starts off with a ridiculous piece of slapstick mayhem, and never really tries to be serious at all. Many films try to get their audience emotionally invested in what's happening during the finale, whereas this one, if anything, saves the daftest for last.

Superman III also suffers from the fact that many of the main characters from the first two films are either absent, or reduced to minor parts, and most of the story focuses on people who weren't there in the previous instalments, which makes this feel less like a continuation of the existing story, and more like a completely separate entity which just happens to feature the same actor as Superman.

I gave it 1 star for its few decent bits of acting and characterisation (yes, there are one or two), 1 for some half-decent set designs, and 1 for being amusing. It loses the other 7 for throwing away most of what it inherited from its two predecessors, and reducing the series to a cheap, cheesy comedy.

This film can be enjoyed if you don't expect too much of it - it's best watched with your brain completely disengaged.

jwpeel-1 31 July 2004

I love this movie, for those of you think it's really bad because it's too ridiculous, you must not read too many of the comics. The very first comics I never read were Superman comics, and that was when I hadn't even got into kindergarten, and let me tell you, they could be pretty silly but never boring.

The same could be said for this movie. First of all, I love Richard Pryor and he has a field day in this movie. Secondly, I love Robert Vaughn, and he plays a really juicy villain in this one. And then there's this great fight scene between two Supermen... but I don't want to give away everything from those of you haven't seen the film yet.

There is everything you should expect in this kind of movie. My only complaint was not enough Lois Lane (Margo Kidder) and maybe I'm nitpicking, but continuity with the other two films seems to be ignored completely. According to this entry in the series, Clark graduated from Smallville high in 1962. The problem with that is that in the first film, is clear that when Clark is in high school, it's the late 1940s by the vintage cars and trucks in the scenes. But hey, if we can believe that a man can come from another planet, fly, see through walls, burn through things with his eyes and lift trains into the air then why bitch about little things like continuity?

Not only do I have this baby on video from cable TV, but I also taped the network version just for the outtakes and edited out every single commercial. (The beautifully choreographed opening credits with the blind man, some mechanical penguins on fire and more is even longer and better in the TV version.)

So hate this one if you must, but I will take it over the second film any the day of the week. (That is, the Richard Lester version. I LOVED the Richard Donner cut which recently made it to DVD.)

I give it a 7 out of 10.

vip_ebriega 14 February 2007

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.

Similar Movies

5.7
Jurassic World Dominion

Jurassic World Dominion 2022

6.9
Attack

Attack 2022

2.1
The Prototype

The Prototype 2022

5.3
Moonfall

Moonfall 2022

8.7
Maanaadu

Maanaadu 2021

5.7
The Matrix Resurrections

The Matrix Resurrections 2021

5.6
Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City

Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City 2021

6.5
Venom: Let There Be Carnage

Venom: Let There Be Carnage 2021


Share Post

Direct Link

Markdown Link (reddit comments)

HTML (website / blogs)

BBCode (message boards & forums)

Watch Movies Online | Privacy Policy
Fmovies.guru provides links to other sites on the internet and doesn't host any files itself.