Rating: 
Summary: Hated It--But Only at First
Review: When seeing this movie for the first time during its initial release my first thought was, "What are they thinking?!" I HATED the film. It was simply too different from the previous outings.Then something happened that I can't fully explain. For some reason I watched the movie a second time...and a third...and a fourth...the off-beat humor and storyline seemed to get better with each repeated viewing. This movie is now one of my favorites in the Superman series. Richard Pryor is a comic delight, and Christopher Reeves is superb as always. A scene in which a deranged Superman straightens out the Leaning Tower of Pisa (much to the chagrin of the Pisa souvenir stand operator) never fails to bring a smile to my face. If you take the Superman legend seriously, avoid this movie. If, on the other hand, you have fond memories of the 60s version of "Batman," give Superman III a try. You might be pleasantly surprised. This being said, I will not be purchasing the DVD. Warner's has chosen to release only a 2:35 anamorphic transfer of the film. This will no doubt look superb on a large-screen digital set, but such transfers look pathetic on standard NTSC. The DVD player must perform its own "letterboxing" for such a transfer if you don't have the proper set, and this degrades the image even more. Warner, how about releasing a full-frame version for those of us who can't afford a state-of-the-art setup, and have no desire to sit three feet from the screen?
Rating: 
Summary: Cheesy slapstick and absent Lois ruined Superman III
Review: After the Salkinds (the Superman film's producers) fired Richard Donner (who directed Superman: The Movie and much of Superman II), several people involved in the first two films (including Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder) made the world know how angry they were at the producers for Donner's mistreatment. When Superman III came along they couldn't really fire Reeve (the star) so they wrote Kidder out of the story to punish her for mouthing off. Without the Lois Lane/Superman love story, the film had no heart in it at all. Then, director Richard Lester did with Superman III what he really wanted to do with Superman II all along, and that was make a slapstick comedy. This undermined the whole Superman theme and made a joke out of the franchise. The only element in Superman II that didn't work was the slapstick that Lester added to the mix.
Rating:
Summary: Still one of the most entertaining "Superman" sequels!
Review: Well, to me, "Superman III" is a little bit on the comic side because of Richard Pryor being in it, but that does not make "Superman III" a bad movie. In fact, "Superman III" is among one of the most entertaining sequels in the whole series compared to the first two, but nothing can beat the first film! Yet, I regret the filmmakers not casting Gene Hackman in this one, but that's all right because Hackman probably needed a break from all of this anyway. It is also exciting to see Christopher Reeve facing off against himself in this film. It's Superman vs. Alter Ego, Clark Kent!! Of course, we did not see more of Margot Kidder in this one because of Annette O'Toole stealing the spotlight, but still, that does not make "Superman III" a bad film. This one still has all the action and adds much humor thanks to Richard Pryor. This is a pretty good addition to the "Superman" collection, renting it or owning it, it doesn't matter.
Rating:
Summary: Superman 3 is a lot of fun.
Review: Critics of Superman 3 don't seem to get that this film is ment to be a comedy.It is a lot of fun and the special effects are very good.It has some great action scenes in it and Pamela Stephenson never looked so good.
Rating:
Summary: forget the so called "critics", 3rd times a charm!
Review: you know, i don't care what everybody else says, if you haven't seen this one yet, you should. people say that the acting is bad. infact, the acting is just as good as this one than the first 2 (and that really is saying quite a bit). they also like to say the special effects are disappointing. well, sorry, but the sfx in this one are also just as good as in the first 2. and about lois lane only being in this one for 2 short scenes, so what! i mean, no offense to margot kidder, but does anyone actually watch the "Superman" movies because of her? Personally, i think this movie is better than the other 3 in the series partly because she's not in this one most of the time. i think any guy can agree with me when i say that i'd rather see anette o'toole playing the role of clark kent's love interest than margot any day. people also talk about this one's comedic moments as though it were a bad thing. again, who cares. personally, i don't think i could take another straight forward dramatic superman movie. don't get me wrong when i say that, i thougt parts 1 and 2 were both good movies but let's face the facts, it really was time for a series make over. generally speaking, i'd have to say that all things considered, "Superman 3" is by far the best in the series and should not be missed. if you want to skip part 4, though, feel free...it really does suck. for more info on that fiasco, read my review "super dud". p.s. the music in part 3, as with the first 2, is excellent (the songs aren't that bad either). fans of classic video games will also find the "pac man" sound effects to be a nice surprise.
Rating:
Summary: Time and Space are Shattered by This Movie's Craptitude
Review: If evil were to make a movie, I'm pretty sure it'd be something like Superman III. A poor story, a poor script, an obviously over-(ahem)medicated Margot Kidder (in her few scenes), ZERO chemistry between actors, poor filming, EVEN for 1983, and poor special effects, EVEN FOR 1983!!! Did this movie have ANYTHING going for it? One thing, and one thing alone: the Superman vs. Clark sequence is extremely entertaining from a fantasy perspective. However, whereas Richard Donner (the FIRST movie) kept one foot in reality and one in fantasy, director Richard Lester decides to take us on an acid trip into mediocrity with what, in my opinion, is the SECOND-WORST movie of all time! Besides this one, short sequence, nothing else is salvageable from this movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Not as Bad as They Say
Review: Yes, you are all correct, this film pales in comparison to the utter classics which are Superman and Superman II. Still Superman III is definately worth watching. The look and feel of the movie are still very Superman-like (as opposed to Superman IV where the effects are beyond cheesy and cheap-- it looked like they used cardboard cut-outs to make Supes fly in IV). Admittedly, Richard Pryor is painful to watch in this film, however there are some really neat scenes which make this film exciting and worth watching, most notably the scene where Superman battles Clark Kent. Its a weird premise, but a thrill to watch. It's a very exciting and well-executed fight which alone makes the film worth it. Also Supes confrontation with the super-computer/cyborg at the finale is the stuff of little kid's nightmares (that's how it was for me when I first watched this as a young child). Also we get to see more of Smallville and Lana Lang. All in all, this is not up to par with the first two films, but is not nearly and horrible as the fourth and has enough redeeming features to make it worth your while, as long as you filter out Richard Pryor's unwanted presence in this film.
Rating:
Summary: Clark Kent vs. Superman
Review: I agree with most of the people that "Superman 3" isn't the best of the sequels to the original groundbreaking movie, but I didn't think it was as bad as most of the other reviewers are making out that it is. In this sequel, Superman (Christopher Reeve) is up against some enemies who are trying to make productions of certain things such as Colombia's coffee crop disappear entirely so they can get rich. Among these enemies is a computer genius (Richard Pryor) and a greedy madman (Robert Vaughn). After Superman stops their plans of completely shutting off production of certain things, the maniacs make a plan to destroy Superman. Overall, "Superman 3" isn't as good as some of the other Superman movies, especially not the original. It doesn't have the awe or wonder that the original had or a great plot like "Superman 2." However, it does have its good moments such as a showdown between Clark Kent and Superman, and when the enemies are trying to destroy Superman by using a video game that shoots missiles at him and makes Atari 2600 Pac-Man sounds. And it also has decent acting and good special effects. Of course, because Richard Pryor is one of the main stars of the movie, "Superman 3" does have its funny moments such as when he and Superman go for a flight. If you wouldn't mind seeing a Superman movie with a touch of comedy to it, then you might like "Superman 3." However, if you expect it to have the excitement, wonder, or great plot of its two predecessors, it will probably leave you disappointed after you watch it.
Rating:
Summary: Superman: The Comedy???
Review: "Superman III" is exactly the kind of movie that many feared the first "Superman" would be; silly and empty hearted with an overemphasis on comedy, action, loud noise and special effects. This third Superman film sort of set the standard for the Schumaker Batman sequels. The film isn't as bad as "Batman and Robin" but it still has some problems, and is ultimatly a disappointment following the success of the first two "Superman" epics. The first problem is the tone of the film. In the first two films, there was underlying humor throughout the action and fantasy. "Superman III" is almost all comedy and the first sign of that is Richard Pryor as the film's villian. Pryor is a brilliant comedian but lacks the prescence of a film villian. He is simply the wrong choice especially considering that he follows the likes of General Zod and Lex Luthor. Another problem is how this sequel abandons everything that was established in the first two films. The strange romance between Clark and Lois is dropped, Lex Luthor is no where to be seen, and there is no continuation to the Superman saga. This installment is basically an "action sequel" like the James Bonds or Batmans with nothing new to explore for the Superman character or mythology. It's almost as if the producers replaced everything that made Superman work, with a trendy 80's computer villian storyline. However, the film is not a total loss. "Superman III" still magages to entertain and be quite fun. Clark starts a sweet romance with his high school love; Lana Lang. There is also a very entertaining development as Superman is corrupted by Kryptonite and becomes sort of a jerk and a drunk. The result of this is a confrontation between the jerky Superman and Clark Kent??? Yes, it's strange but it is also quite exciting and one of the best scenes in the series. "Superman III" is not a total loss. Overall, it's an entertaining film but it dosen't come close to the magic of the first two. But, maybe it wasn't supposed to. Those first two films were tough acts to follow.
Rating: 
Summary: "Well, You Know What They Say About Sequels!"
Review: Well, you know what they say about sequels! What I don't understand is how could such a bad sequel as "Superman III" follow "Superman II," the best sequel ever?! Christopher Reeve is Superman--and is super as Clark Kent, too--and another good thing about this movie is Annette O'Toole, who looks really good as Clark's Smallville sweetheart Lana Lang, and makes you wonder why Superman ever wasted any time with Lois Lane. But Richard Pryor is silly and not believable as a computer whiz in this movie, and Robert Vaughan as a villain has obviously fallen far from his "Man From U.N.C.L.E." days. The story isn't even worth discussing, but the one other impresive feature of this movie is watching Superman fly, which looks even more believable than in the first two Superman movies. And that's all I can say that's good about this movie.
| 
