“Superman III” tiene un tono por lo menos extraño. Es súper frenética y contrasta con un humor más absurdo que las 2 películas anteriores. Es tan dinámica que no deja al espectador descansar, es cómo una montaña rusa que solo va hacia arriba, no hay un contraste dramático en la historia, la película siempre se mantiene en el mismo punto, haciendo que los momentos climáticos no tengan ese toque sentimental que la trama fue construyendo para el espectador. Siendo un gran ejemplo cuando Superman se vuelve malo, estructuralmente no tiene sentido, solo pasa porque el guion lo dice, no crea impotencia en el espectador poque la película no construyó orgánicamente ese momento a lo largo de la cinta, solo es un suceso más. Pero aún así siento que hay cosas interesantes en esta película, tecnológicamente esta entrega es la más superior, la escena de la fábrica es realmente buena, se nota que esta película ya no está tan limitada en ese aspecto. La relación de Clark con Lana me pareció lo mejor de la película, la parte en Smallville, que curiosamente es la única parte dónde la película baja su ritmo es la más propositiva en el arco interno de nuestro protagonista, ya que se plantea el romance entre ellos de muy buena forma. Esta película, al menos en mi percepción si me llegó a aturdir, está muy lejos del lado humano que desarrolló brillantemente la primera parte, al igual que el dilema interno que la segunda tuvo con Clark Kent en su construcción cómo individuo, esta está lejos de esa profundidad, pero si siento que aún mantiene esa vibra que nos hace amar a este personaje.

The Salkinds trash the Superman legend by turning it into a slapstick comedy!! And they do this by casting Richard Pryor, who was a great comic, but had NO credibility as a serious actor! You should have stuck with serious actors, guys!! The result: A catastrophe that wound up ruining the movie; knocking Superman off the Top of the DC lineup for good...to be replaced by Batman! You sold out a legend, Salkinds!

Its not a terrible film, its just takes a real long time for the story to get interesting.

I don’t blame the negative reviews. This is not in the same league as the first two films but I thought it was still good, and pretty underrated. It’s more a lighthearted comedic take on the franchise, maybe a little too comedic. But it was fun from start to finish. The battle between the good and bad Superman was a good idea and well done and certainly the best part of this film.

'Superman III' is just rubbish, isn't it? I wasn't hating what I was watching or anything, but I was just sat there continuously thinking: this is just bad, huh. Much of the movie feels like the titular character is sidelined, then even when he is onscreen he's... depressed? Odd choice. Christopher Reeve remains good, no issues there. Margot Kidder is involved but barely features, to be fair Annette O'Toole is solid in her bit. Richard Pryor, Robert Vaughn & Co. are OK in terms of what they give, but their characters are highly uninteresting. I just didn't care at all. That opening sequence really gives you a peek into what you're going to be watching. Of course there are signs in the prior movies that the filmmakers wanted to stray into dumbed down comedy and it might've worked as a standalone picture, but as a Superman film? Not a chance.

While the flaws in tone, visual effects, and general filmmaking in the first couple of films could be forgiven as products of their time, the same grace feels undeserved here due to the sheer breakdown in storytelling. The film is riddled with contrivances and even plot holes, with many narrative choices making little sense. The characters lack clear motivations, development, or meaningful arcs, making it difficult to engage with their journeys. Some performances only exacerbate this issue, with certain characters becoming unbearably annoying rather than compelling. The comedic tone, which leans heavily into slapstick, rarely lands and feels more distracting than effective. The film does start on a promising note, placing the protagonist in a fresh setting (his hometown), while also introducing a character with a relatable backstory who initially sparks intrigue as a potential ally or villain. Unfortunately, these elements remain underdeveloped and fizzle out by the midpoint. The protagonist undergoes a moral shift not through any meaningful internal conflict but simply because the villains wanted to harm him. His subsequent "evil" acts feel random, lacking consequence in both the plot and the film's thematic exploration. His redemption arc is similarly unearned, as he abruptly decides to fight back and confront the villains, whom he only truly encounters in the final act. Ultimately, this is a film I wouldn’t recommend, unless you're curious to see how a poorly executed sequel can derail a series or simply want to complete the four-film run for the sake of completion.

I don’t get the hate It’s still a good Superman movie

As a massive comic book fan and Superman lover, **Superman III** was a huge disappointment. With so many iconic DC villains to choose from, they instead made up their own—and not in a good way. The movie completely lacks the magic and hope of the original, replacing charm and heroics with cheap slapstick that barely works. Christopher Reeve is the only saving grace here, giving his all, but the movie’s multiple plotlines drag the pacing down and lead nowhere. Richard Pryor tries his best, but his comedic shtick feels out of place in a Superman film. Margot Kidder’s Lois Lane is basically MIA, and while Annette O’Toole makes a decent Lana Lang, it’s not enough. Superman does almost nothing heroic, and the whole thing feels so off from the source material. Evil Superman/Bizarro was a cool idea and should’ve been the focus. Lester was the wrong guy for this franchise.

Pretty awful. Really boring and really confusing. Characters are all messed up.

Everything about Superman III is a joke. A harsh cruel joke trashing everything that Superman was about for the sake of a cheap laugh. Right from the beginning you know they are going for total slapstick with a pratfall routine where telephone booths are toppled over and it just gets worse from there. I'd actually forgotten how much of this film doesn't work as intended until now, one expects romance, humour and grandeur, but only gets a frustrating mixture of failed opportunities and missed chances instead. The plot is nonsensical as if different scenes were written in isolation without any conception of how to link them together ultimately leaving it to the editors to try and jam them together in the editing room. What spoils the fun isn't the incoherent story or even the technophobia, it's simply overloaded. Too many ideas, too many gadgets, too many stars. The wiring all comes loose at the end; an anticlimax, and a rushed one at that. Now, I love Richard Pryor but making him the main focus of the film doesn't work and he struggled to even muster a chuckle out of me. I also like Robert Vaughan but his villainous Ross Webster is an inferior fill-in for Lex Luthor, not Vaughan's fault mind you, as he plays the character exactly how he was written. Christopher Reeve is desperately trying to make the material work, delivering another great performance but ultimately is left hampered by a lack of anything meaningful to do. Perhaps most unfitting of all is Ken Thorne's new score, which is peppered with circusy ditties, sound effects, and musical cues, we're a long way from John Williams... Arguably, Superman III is my least favourite of the original series, Lester was the wrong pick to carry on in place of Donner and it shows tenfold with this film.

When this film was released in 1983, my dad hated it but I loved it. It isn't as good as the first two but it sure doesn't suck either. I'm glad that Ross Webster replaced Lex Luthor. If Lex Luthor had been in all of the Superman films, that would've been bad. It was neat to see the two Supermen fight and I loved the super computer at the end. I can understand why some people dislike it though. One problem was that the villains were weak. Webster was pretty tame when compared to Luthor. In the original Superman, Luthor tried to kill millions of people to make a fortune in real estate. All Webster did was try to destroy Columbia's coffee crops and steal all of the world's oil. But even though the 3rd Superman movie had a few problems, I enjoyed it in 1983 and I still like it today. I recommend that people watch it.

After superman 2, perhaps the best superman movie ever, why kill the franchise with richard pryor? He can't act and only mugs for the camera. Slapstic sight gags ruin the whole movie.

I don't even know where to begin. The dramatic tone and story change from the 2nd film to this one is wild. It just felt way too silly. It also felt like they were trying to do too many things by adding a plot in there then a few subplots also. There were a few of the sublots that I like the idea for, but I just did not like the build up towards them. Most of the characters also just felt so irrelevant and more silly. Christopher Reeve and his superb acting really carried this. But there were even a few points where is character didn't seem to belong. The acting did not blend right and the story was a mess. Solid idea for a film, just a huge missed opportunity overall.

This is where Superman movies, the christopher reeve versions get really really bad. Sorry but this wears thin really fast.

Genuinely hard to watch, so boring. Just because Pryor joined the cast they tried to turn it into a comedy, which I thought was stupid because the others weren’t. I haven’t seen the 4th yet but I guess I’ll see.

Absolutely trash in every way...so bad it's not good.

The first two films were far from perfect, but this film makes them look like masterpieces. The acting is pitiful, the group of villains lacked personality (other than Gus), and the story was clunky. The most frustrating part of Superman III is how it completely forgot about the characters and relationships from the first two films. Ultimately, this is a subpar entry in the superhero genre and a disappointing decline from the first two installments. Additional Note: Drunk Superman is the worst.

The one thing I really like is the battle between Clarke and evil superman. The start of the movie was a little corny. It develops quite good with an unrealistic ending. I enjoyed it up to the fight. For that making it not the greatest movie but worth the watch.

Probably the most underrated superhero movie of all time. This lives up to the Saturday-morning/comic-book legacy set before it. Some argue that it might be a little too juvenile, but that is what it's meant to be--a movie for the average 10-year-old boy; and it hits that target well.

Superman III completely ruins the point of the first two. Having Richard Pryor in your movie automatically turns your movie in a joke. Nothing against Pryor, but did the studio and Richard Lester really have to go in this direction?