Rating:  -
Movies like this beg many questions. One prime question that was running through my mind during my viewing of "Superman III" was "How could they screw this up so bad?" Other questions, such as "What were they thinking" and "Why didn't someone tell them this was a bad idea" also popped up sporadically. When the two previous movies were a smash and had good stories going for them (despite limited special effects) you really wonder where things went so wrong. See, it's not that the third installment in the "Superman" movie franchise is bad...it's completely horrible!
All the familiar cast members show up again -- from Superman himself, Christopher Reeve, to Jackie Cooper, Marc McClure, and even Margot Kidder, doing what can only be described as a "brief cameo" as Lois Lane. This time, Gene Hackman's brilliant Lex Luthor is substituted for a new villain (who is so forgettable, it's sad) as played by Robert Vaughn. The story itself is outright ridiculous, and I swear the script was written by an A.D.D. riddled eight-year old. Not only do we have Superman heading home for to Smallville for a class reunion, but he forgets his feelings for Lois Lane, and falls for hometown honey, Lana Lang (played by Annette O'Toole). In the midst of this, a Kryptonite substitute splits Kent in two -- one part good, one part evil -- which reduces to an admittedly amusing scene where Superman gets drunk in public and loses his temper. Eventually, he settles his differences in a Fight Club-esque manner -- which is more ridiculous than it sounds -- in order to make way for some more subplots that make absolutely no sense and go nowhere. From controlled weather changes, to a super-computer that merges itself with a woman, to a video-game being played by the villain against Superman, what happens in this movie is best forgotten. In fact, I'll be damned if I can sort any of it out. I started dipping into an insanity and boredom induced coma towards the end of it.
Put quite simply: This movie makes no sense. When it's not being outright cheesy, it just betrays the spirit of the first two movies. What a surprise, since "Superman II" director Richard Lester was behind the lens. Which still begs the question: What went wrong here? This should have been a good movie. No wonder nearly twenty years went by after "Superman IV" before we got a new movie. Movies like this do no good. I only gave "Superman III" the two-stars because, for one thing, Richard Pryor was entertaining in every scene, and for another, because it was a thrill to see Superman burst into a drunken rage. If you thought other franchises such as "Batman" and "Star Wars" went awfully sour after a while, perhaps you should avoid this little turd.
Rating: -
...And so was whoever wrote this scipt, apparently. I mean seriously, what the hell is this? The story is cheesy, ridiculous, and all over the place, and more than a few parts of this are just plain embarrassing. First of all, because Gene Hackman was unavailable (or maybe he just read the script and didn't want to attach himself to such a monstrosity), Lex Luthor is replaced by some lame imitation character (played by Robert Vaughn), who's pretty much the same as Lex, only not as good.
So anyway, this guy comes up with this crazy scheme to build this machine that somehow magically changes the weather all over the world, and meanwhile, he's also created a synthetic kryptonite to destroy Superman, but instead it only turns him evil, and eventually splits him in two. The story culminates with two disappointingly anti-climactic scenes, the first of which includes Superman doing battle with his "evil twin", which could have been really cool, but instead was just goofy, with bad choreography, and even worse dialogue (there's one part where the bad Superman says something like "Come on, chicken!"; it's hilarious, it's so bad). And then, there's an even worse scene, with Superman "battling" the weather machine, which can also duplicate the effects of kryptonite. This scene basically consists of Superman standing in front of a big box, with goofy fake-looking laserbeams coming down on him. It's seriously like something out of "Plan 9 from Outer Space".
However, this movie thankfully isn't all bad. The only thing I really enjoyed about it was the smaller subplot, in which Clark returns to Smallville for his high school reunion, and briefly reunites with ex-girlfriend Lana Lang (played wonderfully by Annette O'Toole). However, in the end, Lana moves to Metropolis, and gets a job at the Planet, but in the fourth movie, they've completely forgotten all about it. Also, Richard Pryor was entertaining as the crafty, wise-cracking computer hacker working for Crappy Replacement Lex.
But yeah, overall, this is just plain bad. Easily the worst of them all. Thankfully, the new Superman movie was WAY better than this (as well as the fourth). Other than that, they really should have stopped after two.
Rating:  -
After the success of "Superman II," the Salkinds decided to let Richard Lester do his own film (He basically was hired to "finish" the second movie; Richard Donner had finished 2/3 of the movie already). You could say that this was the kiss-of-death for the franchise.
"Superman III" is by no means the worst film ever made, but it is nowhere near a classic that the first two films had been. The main plot is a bit hokey, and Richard Pryor, although a very funny and talented actor, really has no place in a "Superman" movie. And Lester, most famous for directing The Beatles in "A Hard Days Night," seems to bring "British" sensibilities and humor to a genuinely "American" character.
However, the story with Clark Kent returning to Smallville, and most of the story dealing with Superman himself, is good. Annette O'Toole gives a fine performance as Lana Lang. And Christopher Reeve gets to stretch his acting muscles, thanks to Superman turning evil when exposed to Kryptonite laced with tar. And the scene where Superman splits in two, with good Clark Kent facing evil Superman, is genuinely entertaining.
Overall, "Superman III" is an average super-hero film, which will only appeal to fans of Superman. Reeve would return for one more film, the slightly better "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace," before the end of his tenure as the Man of Steel.
Movie/DVD Grade: C+
Rating: -
Superman III is a horrible movie. Bad on so many levels and especially for making Richard Pryor's character the center of the film. But, and this is a HUGE BUT... this film has one of the best sequnces of all four of the Christopher Reeve films. The exploration of Supes dark half is well worth the DVD price (Almost a movie version of Bizarro, almost). That is, if you're a fan of the original Big Blue. Then again you wouldn't be reading this if you weren't interested in buying the film.
Rating: -
I've watched bits and pieces of Superman III over the years since it first came on cable back in 1984. Finally I rented the disc yesterday and got a chance to judge it.
First it was great to see the film in a widescreen presentation with good sound. The picture looked great for a film made over 23 years ago (time goes by so fast these days).
As for the film itself, it's not the disaster that so many say. I can't imagine another actor at that time playing Superman other than Christopher Reeve. He was(and many say still is)the perfect embodiment of The Man of Steel. I also thought Annette O'Toole was perfectly cast as Lana Lang. It would've been interesting to see at that time if they decided to do another one to play on the rivalry between Lana and Lois for Clark/Superman's attention.
As for the minus: I have to agree that Richard Pryor's Gus Gorman and Robert Vaughn's Ross Webster weren't that really interesting villains. I know that Gene Hackman, Terrence Stamp, Sarah Douglas and Jack O'Halloran were a tough act to follow but Superman had so many other foes in is rouge gallery such as Brainiac, Toy Man and Bizzaro. It's too bad that two tremendous talents were wasted. Although Annie Ross was very fun to watch as Vaughn's sister Vera.
Also missing is the wonderful Margot Kidder. I know she and the Salkynds were at war over the firing of Richard Donner and Lois was only featured in the beginning and end of the films, but the producers had to know the chemisrty between Reeve and Kidder was extraordinary. Maybe if Lois had gone to Smallville with Clark, that would have made it much more interesting (not to take anything away from Annette as she was wonderful). Oh well.
On the whole: the film was entertaining but not as legendary and memorable as Superman and Superman II.
P.S.: I can't wait to see Superman Returns!
|
