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


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)

reply

[deleted]

While I didn't think Richard Pryor was horrible in this film I do wish we would've gotten to see more of Brad and less of him, to me the worst character was the actress who played the ditsy henchman to Ross Webster.

reply

i actually thought he was great in the movie , he was funny but kind of serious in parts too.

reply

Pryor just wasn't a good actor. It's like he's almost semi comatose when he says his lines.

Christopher Reeve told everyone when it came out that he was nothing but problematic on set.

reply