Jithin K Mohan
More like a Superman ripoff or spoof rather than an actual Superman movie. I did enjoy the first hour though it became unbearable by the next and I loved the involvement of character Lana Lang and appreciated the dark version of Superman but for the most part, it's trying to be a comedy starring Richard Pryor which failed miserably.
MovieBuffMarine
I remember way back in fifth grade, my classmate saying he won't see Superman III because it has Richard Pryor in it and thought it will just be a comedy. Well the movie came and went. While this sequel was not as good as the previous two, Richard Pryor in my opinion, did NOT ruin it and had little to do with how it turned out.It is true that Pryor as Gus Gorman brought some comic relief for this movie, but it did not "ruin" it. All Mr. Pryor had was the script that he was provided and was limited to that. Mr. Pryor even thought the screenplay was terrible!Robert Vaughn played new villain, Ross Webster and it's hard to find a role of Vaughn to hate. But again, he was just as limited to the script.Superman getting effected by the synthetic Kryptonite was a good touch. It brought the needed conflict to a Superman story. This may have been the few qualities of this sequel as Superman always faces conflict.Unfortunately, Reeve reprising the iconic role and bringing in seasoned actors were not enough to boost the story. While again, in my opinion, this was totally watchable, you can see it didn't follow the last two films in quality.It seemed like the writers did a sleepy job of this sequel. Not only were the fans disappointed, but the players. This would be the end of the line for the producers (the Salkinds) for this iteration of Superman with no opportunity to redeem themselves. While this iteration of Superman continued for one more film, unfortunately everything went from mediocre to worse. While not the final film in the Christopher Reeve iteration, Superman III signaled the end of this era and without the quality that made it a hit five years earlier.
Ronnie Obenhaus Jr (pex413)
This movie is definitely not as bad as the 4.9 would lead you to believe. It features the music of John Williams, has Christopher Reeve returning, and the beautiful Annette O'toole. The story is unique, in 1983 computers were new and no one really knew what they were capable of. The main villain, Webster, was a better Lex Luthor than Lex Luthor was in the first two movies. And in this one they focused more on the humor, how could you not with Richard Pryor? And, it is 1983. Not a lot out there if you wanted to see a superhero movie. And I LOVE Brad. That dude played drunk REALLY well.
Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki
Richard Lestet returned for another pay cheque film, upping the slapstick, and lessening nearly everything else.The production design is good, the cinematography and acting is good, Christopher Reeve is in top form, as usual, this time in three roles: Clark Kent, Superman, and Evil Superman, and he pulls off all of them quite well. As far as the villain goes, we go from excellent General Zod and his goons in Part II to Robert Vaughn playing Robert Vaughn, and Richard Pryor, who looks either unsure of what he is doing here, or just bored to be here, as he is forced to create synthetic Kryptonite by Lex Luthor's replacement, Robert Vaughn, to try to kill Superman.The film seems unsure what it wants to be, as it veers wildly from zany slapstick, to dark scifi, and action, to horror, as Vera's transformation scene is creepy as hell, and I don't mean that in a good way. The fantasy of the first two films has been replaced with completely out of place horror elements at the climax, which makes it a downer, followed by more silly slapstick in its closing moments, to try to raise the audiences' spirits, unsuccessfully.