MovieChat Forums > Superman III (1983) Discussion > What when wrong with Superman III

What when wrong with Superman III


After two excellent movies (especially Superman II) this one jumps the shark. Even it was made with same director from Superman II (half direct - the other one was Richard Donner)
When I saw this one as a kid (after watching I & II) this one began oddly with too many physical comedy jokes (which had little or none connection with with superman). I felt confused and I was not sure at the beginning if this was a Superman Movie. It looked like more like a badly made reboot but with the same characters (except Lex Luthor) which has been replaced by a uncharismatic business man and well.....Richard Pryor (strange, I even didn´t find very funny in this one, it seems out of place). The story of the computer programmer seemed like an idea for a different movie and it was just adapted as a plot (or sub plot). Is like if you adapt a bank robbery story on a James bond movie but with little connection. The film lost all the epic style from the previous films and tried to make it like a sit-come for two hours and a half.
The only interesting part was the evil superman and when he splits into two; superman and clark kent. It seems that superman was pissed with clark kent´s nerdy attitude, he even says that he was waiting a long time for this. This could have been the whole movie and I could have been happy with only this part, but sadly they continued with the super computer plot. This one also makes you think for a moment if really superman has a split personality.
The Lana Lang´s plot was also ok, I think she and Clark had more chemistry, at the end he even gave her a diamond ring, it seems like a good love interest.
Too bad in Superman IV they erased Lana´s character as she has never existed (mysteries of the Supeman movies). Well I will write about Superman IV other day, which is worse than this,
Finally, at the end the supercomputer assimilates Vera and she becomes Braniac (which actually is never mentioned with this name), it reminds me the Borg collective from star trek next generation. This could have been a better ending but is too short, we never get to understand why the supercomputer rebels, actually it was a very bad part of the movie which could have had much more potential.
Sorry for a so long post but this one is one of a few films was a complete let down during my childhood.

reply

First, Creative Consultant Tom Mankiewicz, and Richard Donner deserve most of the credit for the success of S I & S II. Mankiewicz rewrote several drafts that Mario Puzo had written for I & II. A lot of those drafts by Puzo featured some of the same slapstick comedy that was demonstrated in S III. Mankiewicz got rid of it by rewriting new drafts. As you may know, when Donner left so did Mankiewicz. It's been said that Mankiewicz would direct S III & Donner was to produce. Clearly, had them two been involved in S III, it would have been a much better film.

reply

That was the main thing that annoyed me, too many on going gags that had nothing to do with Superman. Chriatopher Reeve was the only thing that kept me watching (as well as the novelty of the future Martha Kent playing Lana).

reply

I agree. I can't believe there's people on here who think this is as good or even better than the previous 2 movies.

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

reply

Everything really, there's so much about the script that's not about Superman or his universe.

reply

Everything really, there's so much about the script that's not about Superman or his universe.

reply

What went wrong with your title?

reply

The villains were pretty weak. The film was too long in places and could've been cut down to stop it being slow.

That said, it's okay. Evil Superman is fantastic.

May The Schwartz Be With You

reply