Rating:  -
Warner Brothers apparently doesn't know how to tell when a franchise is about to fail with the release of one terrible installment. It seemed the Superman franchise was destined for greatness from the beginning with A-list director Richard Donner leading the way for the Man of Steel's adventures on the big screen; however, after Donner's replacement during the filming of "Superman 2" by director Richard Lester things quickly went down the tubes. "Superman 2" though not completed by Richard Donner, it was still an excellent film that expanded wonderfully upon the original. Sadly, though this greatness was not destined to continue as "Superman 3" would all but kill the man of steel's further adventures on the big screen. One can only wonder why the "powers that be" at Warner Brothers would allow this terrible movie to make it to theaters let alone be completed during filming. Everyone would have been better off if this particular version of "Superman 3" would have been scrapped and replaced by something better, I mean with Superman having adventures in the comics since 1938 there really is not a shortage of material for earth's greatest hero.
"Superman 3", also known as the worst Superman film ever to be made, finds Superman (played again, to his credit, by Christopher Reeve) falling under the influence of a manufactured Kryptonite which brings out his dark side and instead of helping people he causes pain and suffering. Now, this premise sounds like it holds the promise of being a great film, which may be how Warner Brothers thought it was a good idea to let people see this movie. Instead of being a serious exploration of Superman's darker side, we are left with basically a comedy film, wrapped in Superman's classic colors. Richard Pryor, who by the way never should have been allowed near this franchise, plays one of the films crappy, worthless villains. Many of the first two films characters are not seen here or merely make cameo appearances; such as, Margot Kidder as Lois Lane and Marc McLure as Jimmy Olsen.
One great thing this movie did have in it was a very entertaining fight between Clark Kent and dark Superman, somehow they were split into two beings (I don't remember how this happened, not that it matters). This fight happens about two-thirds into the film, though how I got this far in this movie is beyond me, it is the best scene in the movie and it's interesting to see how the goodness of Clark Kent allows him to overcome the all-powerful evil Superman.
A terrible film, surprisingly though this did not fully kill this franchise but it came really close though. It was another four years before "Superman 4" was released to theaters. This is the reason that the currently in production "Superman Returns" picks up after the events of "Superman 2" and completely ignores "Superman 3" and "Superman 4".
"Superman 3" is rated PG for violence and language.
Rating:  -
Paradox rules life, reminded permanently to us in many of his novels and fables the satyric journalist,essayist and novelist G.K.Chesterton. And a paradoxal luck seems to have fallen over the second sequel for the big screen about the famous character. Directed by Richard Lester ("A hard's day night","The knack and how to get it","Help","The bed-sitting room"), Superman III is the solid proof that an intelligent and talented director can build a good film with a poor and ridiculous character, inside a cosmetic industry as is Hollywood; and what's more important, keeping his own style.Testimony of it are the opening credits of this film, conceived as a slapstick comedy scene: Lester films a chain of visual gags and comic metropolitan "catastrophes" with his mocking,subversive and reflexive humour. I remember specially that one of the car that crash against a exticting fire bomb due to the effect of a lost bullet shot for a policeman(this is, a man paid to guarantee the security of citizens)trying to catch a bank robber,and whose driver is about to drowning because the water of the bursted bomb, unable to go out of his vehicle. Parts of the plots reflects also the position of a director who likes to dynamite social myths and masks:behind the man who has been named the "humanist of the year",we find a corrupt and illiterate enterpriser(Robert Vaughn )who considers Atila as a model to follow and a great philosopher;a greedy man who don't like greedy people and who tries to monopolize coffee business ( and, immediately after, to control the petroleum industry ) interfering a powerful and sofisticated satellite with the purpose to provoke a climatic catastrophe that ruins the coffee plantations of Colombia ( the only country that refuse his blackmail ) with the " help " of a computer genius ( Richard Pryor ), one of his numerous anonymous employeers, who has been trapped trying to swindle the company with the help of a computer of the own company .It seems that Lester is interested in demonstrate, with his ironic style, the paradoxal double face of progress and science and everything that is selling us under the slogan " in benefit of humanity "(computers,cars,security systems conceived to serve man becomes a menace or produces the reversal function ) and in this way, as in its smart combination of action and humour,the film is very consistent.For other part,during the film the director turns down many stereotypes that are common in entertainment industry:for example,the stereotype of the fool pretty blonde,incarnated in the film by Pamela Stephenson , an intelligent woman who benefits from this topical to live without working and who likes to read cerebral books during her moments of solitude,leaving the reading of foolish magazines for her"performances".
Lester,also the responsible of the second part of the series, continues exploring the contradictions of the character that here divide protagonism with the character played by Richard Pryor ( one of the many trangressions of the film respect the previous two parts, but not a trangression for Lester himself:as he indicated us in the opening credits of " A funny thing happened on the way of the forum " our director prefers liars and clowns than the classic hero,cut in one piece, of epics) and also splits in two, the good and bad Superman, by the effect of synthetic kriptonite. Lester gives us a portrait more human of Superman than the more academic and solemn first part, directeded by Richard Donner, the responsible of one of the most uncivic film series of all time: exactly, I'm talking about the horrible " Lethal weapon " series. For those that defeat the first part because the best quality of visual-effects,I like to remind them than usually a bad director appeal to realism in special-effects to cover up his absence of talent; Lester probably prefers a cheap production but artistic freedom in benefit of the story and the characters, a story, in this case, narrated sometimes in a direct form because Lester don't like to bore the spectator with unnecesary information.
Rating: -
The best Superman movie was the original from 1978. From there, the films got progressively worse and more corny with each release (Superman II being enjoyable, Superman III being the one where you wonder what the producers were thinking making a third enstallment, and Superman IV being laughably cheesy and cheaply done). Still, Superman III remains somewhat enjoyable because it strayed from the norm. Unlike Superman I, II, or IV, Superman III is nearly Lois Lane-less. Instead, Clark Kent goes back home to Smallville to see if he can't spark something up again with childhood lover Lana Lang. In additon, there is no Lex Luger. The special effects were noticably done with a lesser budget than the ones from the first two movies of the franchise, but they don't completely ruin the film. There's a junkyard fight scene that is particularly engaging. And finally, although Richard Pryor was a questionable choice for this movie, he delivers some great one-liners and actually does a fine job with the role he plays.
The Best Quotation From the Entire Film: "I asked you to kill Superman, and you couldn't even do that one simple thing!"
Rating:  -
"You always wanted to fly, Kent. Here's ya chance." - Superman has a severe identity crisis as he battles his alter ego, Clark Kent, in "Superman III"
The third installment to the "Superman" series is less than stellar (it doesn't compare to the first two films). With the origin story told in "Superman: The Movie" and the romance between Superman & Lois Lane explored and understood in "Superman II", my expectations were high for "III". I expected a thematic story, along the lines of the first two films, but, instead "Superman III" has a weak plot covered in Bob Hope style shtick that only goes so far.
Superman goes up against Ross Webster, a greedy international conglomerate, that wants to control the world by using the world's computer resources. One of the company's new employees, computer genius Gus Gorman, is blackmailed by Webster (after balking at recieving his first paycheck, Gorman hacks into the computer main frame and gives himself a very big raise) and is forced to help destroy Superman by concocting a home made piece of Kryptonite, that instead of killing The Man of Steel, brings out the hellraiser in him. Superman has to get his s*it together & defeat Webster & Gorman in a super computer hideout, hidden in The Grand Canyon.
Compared to the first 2 films, this is a really lame film. But, it is watchable and better than "Superman IV". You can tell the cast is getting a bit old for their britches in this one. Margot Kidder, showing her disgust over the firing of Richard Donnor during the filming of "Superman II", has about 5 minutes of screen time in "III", having Lois Lane vacation in Bermuda. Christopher Reeve is still great as Superman, but this time out, the feeling seems to be, "been there, done that". Richard Pryor seems to be stuck in first gear only generating a few laughs out of the 2 hr. film time.
The high point for the film, for me, was the cool junkyard duel between the bad Superman and the good Clark Kent. The battle in the Grand Canyon wasn't bad either, although quite outdated (Atari graphics!?! Gimmee a break!).
As for the DVD - 2.0 Dolby Digital (ouch), and a trailer for the special features. Save your money and just buy the first two films. Rent "Superman III" on a rainy day. Avoid "Superman IV" like Mytzlplyk (or however he spells it).
Rating: -
When the movie poster first came out to promote SUPERMAN III with the illustration of Superman flying while carrying a distraught Richard Pryor, it was suspect. When the film was finally released, all suspicions were true. Director Richard Lester (A HARD DAY'S NIGHT)did such a great job on SUPERMAN II making it a straight action adventure film, but SUPERMAN III was just too campy. From the poster, we go to the opening credits. As they roll, a sequence of "Rube Goldberg", slapstick, domino-effect, accidents happen around a clueless Clark Kent walking through the streets of Metropolis. Somehow the audience knows that this is going to be a different Superman film. Richard Pryor (as Gus Gorman) is a computer whiz who is caught electronically embezzling from his conglomerate boss Robert Vaughn (Ross Webster). Instead of turning him in, Webster offers Gorman a job to help him rule the world by controlling a weather satellite (through Gorman's computer skills), and building a super computer. Superman gets in their way and they devise a plan to kill him with a bad batch of Kryptonite. Instead of killing him, the kryptonite turns Superman evil. He mostly flies around neglecting himself, the people of Metropolis (and of the world), and doing juvenile pranks (i.e. straightening out the Leaning Tower of Pisa). Richard Pryor is not bad in the film, but more of a distraction. The movie-going audience is not used to seeing him in this type of film. British comic actress Pamela Stephenson (whose talents were wasted during her one season on Saturday Night Live--was hardly used or seen in any sketches--but she was brilliantly hilarious on BBC's sketch comedy series NOT THE NINE O'CLOCK NEWS) is wasted and miscast in her role as Lorelei Ambrosia, Vaughn's/Webster's mistress. The special effects are decent for the pre-digital age. Some of the action sequences are excellent (i.e. when Superman has to fight the super computer). Also, the Smallville sequences with Clark Kent rekindling his frienship with Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole) are noteworthy. However, most of the film did not work due to the casting of Richard Pryor, other casting decisions, some cheesey sequences (some involving Pryor), and unnecessary humor! As John Lennon's appraisal of the Beatles' film HELP! (also directed by Lester) to paraphrase, "it was a movie about frogs with snakes in it!". That seems to be the case with SUPERMAN III.
|
