MovieChat Forums > Superman III (1983) Discussion > The only truly bad thing about this movi...

The only truly bad thing about this movie is Richard Pryor

posted 8 years ago by echoesinrain
21 replies | jump to latest

His performance is dreadful, the character just as bad and in general he sticks out like a sore thumb because I thought all the scenes without him were still very much what makes an at least decent and always entertaining Superman film. Whenever Richard Pryor is on screen is when it suddenly stops being a Superman movie and becomes a Richard Pryor vanity project...very jarring in tone and quality.

I watched the movie for the first time in years last night expecting to be cringing, fast forwarding and desperate for it to end. I was so surprised at just how much I enjoyed it, at how entertained I was! The only times I wasn't was when Gus Gorman was the focus of the screen. Pryor just didn't fit in with the rest of the film at all, in tone or in acting talent.

And Richard Vaugh, while he did kind of seem to be doing a poor man's Gene Hackman impression, was still entertaining and charasmatic enough that it really didn't matter how much of a lame Lex Luther rip off his villain was. The actresses who played his sister and girlfriend did well with what they were given to work with, I thought.

The plot with Clarke going home to Smallville and reaquanting with Lana was much better than I remembered. Clarke eating dog food was the only scene I could have done without. Even Ricky was less irritating than I recalled, although still too whiny for my tastes.

I didn't even particularly miss Lois and thought it was quite daring for the movie makers to ditch the Planet and Metropolis and tell a different story. It didn't always work but at least they tried something new and not just a rehash of what had come before.

Most importantly, there are some genuinely good scenes. The infamous junkyard fight, Vera getting "possessed" by the super computer, the fire at the beginning...I think for those scenes alone the movie deserves a slightly higher rating than what it's got.

Is the film overall what I'd call a good film? Not so much. It's very flawed. But it does have heart, originality and mostly strong performances. But then there's Richard Pryor, and it really did not work. Remove Gus Gorman or at least get a proper actor to play him and I think the movie would have been received just fine.

Thoughts? (apart from the fact that my post is too long, sorry about that)

[–] GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 8 years ago

I saw this at age 17 and I didn't like it at all. The worst offense is that Richard Pryor's character creates Krpytonite with earthly materials. Krpytonite is supposed to come from Krypton. It is literally a piece of earth from Krypton. It is so stupid they had this in the movie.

Green Goblin is great! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1L4ZuaVvaw

[–] Anticitizen 8 years ago

No, he tried to create Kryptonite from earthly materials and failed, because a certain percentage of the real stuff was an unknown element. So he substituted tar, randomly, getting the idea from his cigarette packette. That's why the kryptonite didn't kill .

[–] 5535 8 years ago

I agree OP. Pryor really ruined the movie, but there were other very dumb moments where he wasn't present, that hurt the movie too.

With this said, it's kind of one of those movies that if you've had two or three drinks, or smoked a little weed, it's a hell of a lot of fun to watch!

I love the ski slope on the building LOL

Not having Lois in the movie might have been odd, but Lois was always kind of annoying, so this didn't bother me much.

Reeve was still great as always in the role!

Even as a bad movie, I'd take Superman III over Man Of Steel any day!

[–] TMC-4 (19447) 5 years ago

Richard Pryor's participation was purely a cynical publicity move. At the time, Pryor was at his peak and was the biggest comedian (not just black comedian, comedian period) in Hollywood. He had recently starred in Stir Crazy and The Toy (ironically, directed by Richard Donner), which were huge hits. The story goes that Pryor was on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, raving about how much he loved Superman II (or maybe Superman: The Movie, I don't know for sure). The Salkinds saw that and the light-bulb went in their heads, about making the third Superman movie a covert Richard Pryor vehicle. I guess the modern equivalent would be like say, giving Kevin Hart a very predominate role as a original character (i.e. not one from the comics) in an MCU movie just because he was a huge fanboy.

[–] moviechatterer (13451) 8 months ago

I wouldnt say The Toy was a huge hit .

[–] Scar38 8 years ago

I'm watching it now and I came to this message board just to say exactly who I thought spoiled this movie. And you beat me to it. I can't help thinking that Mr Pryor over acted terribly in fact he always acted the same in every movie I've ever seen him in. A bit like Martin Lawrence who is a horrendous actor.

[–] DMB_Lover 8 years ago

"I thought all the scenes without him were still very much what makes an at least decent and always entertaining Superman film"

Yeah because flying all the way to a lake and freezing the top sheet of water rather than just using superbreath to cool all the overheating liquids, that was just like what made the earthquake scene with Lois' car sinking great, or the subway scenes with Otis.

And the scientist guy, just standing there watching the needles going all the way up into the red.

"I have to look after those. That's concentrated Beltric acid. If it heats up over 180 degrees, we've got a crisis...As long as it remains stable, it's just ordinary acid. But if it begins to heat up, it'll turn volatile. You'll get a great cloud of smoke that'll eat through anything."

Oh so that's why you're just standing around calling it "looking after those"

[–] DonWNY2 8 years ago

Extremely lazy production:

1) Richard Pryor is talented and very popular.

2) Get Richard Pryor for our movie.

3) .... That's it, nothing else. Job done.

[–] michaelward15 8 years ago

It's better than I used to think it was, but it's got other problems.

Another big one is how they skimped on the budget. The part were he saves the coffee crop in South America looks like something you'd see on an 80's TV show not a movie. The junk yard fight is the only professionally done action sequence. And most of the comedy is out of place and just doesn't fit in the movie and not just the bits with Pryor. The opening credits scene is horrible.

But Pryor is the biggest problem. He's playing the same character from The Toy and Brewster's Millions and while it worked in those movies, it is out of place here.

The movie still has it's strengths though, and I don't dislike it anymore.

[–] mcdemuth 8 years ago

But Pryor is the biggest problem. He's playing the same character from The Toy and Brewster's Millions and while it worked in those movies, it is out of place here.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with most of the commenters in this thread...

I think Richard Pryor is a great actor, and his Gus Gorman character was just fine. I can't believe that everyone is bashing Richard Pryor/Gus Gorman...

If anyone should be targeted for making this a bad movie, that should be the poor "Lex Luthor" clone, and his hench girls... Just a stupid idea, and stupid characters.

The worst thing about this movie, was the marketing... This was NOT really Superman III, and it should have been. What we got was... "Gus Gorman Meets Superman"

That scene where Gus talks about how Superman stopped the tornado in Columbia, was an insult to the audience. NOBODY wants to be told, of Superman's exploits in "Flashback" form from a witness. What we wanted was to see was Superman stopping the tornado from his point of view, live, and hearing the Superman Theme playing in the background!

Gus Gorman was just fine. But half of this movie, was about Gus Gorman's "Life" without Superman, and that was too much, for a movie that was supposed to be all about "Superman"...

[–] BramOh 8 years ago

Indeed, the blame for this film lies squarely at the feet of Ilya Salkind, Robert Simmonds and Pierre Spengler; the producers. Pryor and Reeve did fine with the limited material they were given (no story, no budget, no logic).

Ooh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm my own grandpa!

[–] aaronyovanovits 8 years ago

The cartoonish slapstick comedy and overall tone is what ruined the movie with Pryor being emblematic of that. The opening credits number filled with lame Keystone Cops style humor certainly was horrible and embarrassing. The Salkinds and Lester clearly were inferior to Donner by an exponentional margin.

[–] AugustGorman 8 years ago

I respectfully disagree :)

What is that thing you're using?.... It's technical.

[–] Duc_de_Richleau 8 years ago

The truly bad thing in this movie was Lana's son, Ricky... I wanted to punch that little bastard!

[–] deejaystrider 8 years ago

What? This film is fine and suits the era perfectly, everyone loved it back then and Richard Pryor was just fine, you all sound like cranky old men/fanboys...just enjoy it for what it is and seriously shut the *beep* up!! You all sound like the Nolan hate mob...Diq heads!

I've had my 15 minutes,now what!

[–] norman-dostal 7 years ago

dude, youre going full tard. The movie is heavily flawed and inferior to the previous two.
Its beter than Man of Steel, of course, but that aint saying much!

[–] SkySoar 7 years ago

To add to this thread: Pryor by himself wasn't the problem. He could have been great if given a proper script. However, the idea of him appearing in a Superman movie already showed the signs of a film headed down the wrong track.

Like I said before, the real problem is the script.
The special effects were at their prime. Pryor could have been good. Chris Reeve was at his physical peak. The idea of going back to Smallville wasn't a bad idea. An evil Superman could have really explored the idea of duality thematically.

I just don't understand the Salkinds. Heck, I don't understand most of how Hollywood perceived comic books back then. Warner Bros still has issues to this day crafting a good comic book film. Their successes are based on circumstance, never on understanding the material. I don't understand how the Salkinds would have preferred this campy tone to the epic saga presented in Superman 78 and a to respectful degree, II. It defies human logic. Even Mario Puzo, writer of the Godfather wrote a terrible script for Superman I. Just doesn't make sense. The stories are right there. Yet, producers had this condescending attitude toward the entire medium.

These types of producers ultimately undid the 90s Batman franchise as well.

Just get beyond the colorful images and take the comic book seriously. It isn't hard.

[–] norman-dostal 7 years ago

Youre 100% right

[–] TMC-4 (19447) 5 years ago

I think that at the time, there wasn't any real precedent or template set for how superhero movies should be like. Before Superman: The Movie, arguably the best known media adaptation of a comic book superhero was the admittedly campy Batman TV series with Adam West. Also, comic books still had the nasty stigma of being a medium strictly for children and not intelligent, mature adults.