MovieChat Forums > Superman III (1983) Discussion > Why so much hate for this entry? It's th...

Why so much hate for this entry? It's the best of the Reeve pictures....

posted 11 years ago by Patrick_Bateman_777
31 replies | jump to latest

...at least IMHO.

All 4 of the Reeve pictures feature terrible special effects, corny humor and questionable casting decisions. None of the 4 stand up today--at all.

This one had the guts to go all-in with the schlock and cheese and it paid off; the "bad Superman" sequence is the funniest sequence (albeit possibly unintentionally) in all 4 Reeve films.

The final showdown in the scariest of all 4 pictures as well and people still talk about being scared by it when they watched it when they were a kid.

Also--Richard Pryor! Richard Pryor FTW! Robert Vaughn is also badass in anything he does. I love Stamp's Zod but Robert Vaughn clearly has more fun.

Sorry but this will always be my favorite of the 4--hands down.

Stop hating on this film please. You can't tell me that 1 and 2 are great films and this one sucks. 1 and 2 don't hold up AT ALL in 2013. Whatever faults this film has you will find in 1 and 2. The rating is a travesty. This film is much funnier than most supposed comedies in the 80's were.

My rating: 7/10.

[–] Verdugo85 9 years ago

Well, I dont hate this one, it is what it is. The movie had dark moments (Evil Superman and the Robot lady)

However Robert Vaughn character is a Lex Luthor ripoff and Richard Pryor, while he was funny in this movie, the movie (having alot of comedy) felt more about him than Superman.

[–] csweetleaf2 (3669) a year ago

I think it's the campy vibe of this film which was the reason why this film wasn't as well received as the first two efforts, I wish we didn't have to see so much of Richard Pryor in this film because I wanted to see more of Superman/Clark Kent, the Superman vs Clark Kent fight, the school reunion and all of the scenes with Clark/Kent were very good, I also wish we would've gotten to see more of Brad.

Robert Vaughan was adaquate as the main villain but I could not stand the blonde henchlady.

[–] bozo_500 (13104) 10 months ago

There was a great lengthy piece/letter in a recent issue of UK scifi magazine Infinity explaining why SIII is underrated.. I should really post it in here maybe I will if I can figure it out, but it went through all the reasons why it was so great and how ultimately American audiences didn't really 'get it' as it was predominantly a British film, filmed in Britain by British director/crew and cast (bar the regulars & Pryor of course) with British humour etc (more so than SII which ultimately had the same British director Richard Lester), and how it was a massive box office (and critical) hit in UK but didn't do so well in US as I & II .. It made me think back to when it came out here in the UK and everyone was going abit nuts over it and it was all over the media, rave reviews etc

[–] jacotodd47 (1832) 10 months ago

Indeed. We saw it here in America as teenagers. With no doubt, none of us liked it as much as SUperman 1 and 2. S3 was a big step down from those two.

Yeah, directed by Richard Lester who I believe did a couple of Beatle movies.

It didn't seem to go over well here. In fact, it was looked at as kind of ridiculous. We're we wrong? I don't know. It doesn't seem too many people think Superman 3 was any good - not then, nor today, around 40 years later.

I can remember, my group of friends, the only thing we liked was when the girl turned into a computer. That was very cool for the time.

[–] moviechatterer (15583) 10 months ago

" when the girl turned into a computer."
that was horrifying!

I think what we should have learned from S3 was that all that could be done with superhero movies has been done in 1 & 2 and there was no need to make any more . ever . of any superhero.

[–] jacotodd47 (1832) 10 months ago

Hahha - well we were about 14-15 at the time, so we thought it was great.

Hhhmm, interesting take about superhero movies being eliminated after S1 and 2.

Not sure I agree. One didn't care for any of Zack Snyder's work. However, I did like what Christopher Nolan did with Batman. That's about it.

[–] EleazarHisSon (750) 10 months ago

IMDb users from Britain gave it an average 5.4/10 while Americans gave it an average of 4.8/10. It must have been different back then compared to what it looks like in retrospect because now it doesn't seem like Brits love the movie particularly much.

[–] Biggs111Mr (247) 10 months ago

I thought it was awesome but not as much as the first 2 movies nope. Superman into a mean sleazy dude was so so original & having him beat up on Clark Kent because Clark couldn't let him be is still great stuff even today!

[–] Devilman (448) 10 months ago

The film was a big downgrade from parts 1 and 2. Especially with the villains they were so silly and not Superman material unlike Lex Luther or Brainiac who's was covered by the license owned by the Salkinds and actually was planned as villain. I guess when they got Pryor they completely changed the film.

Also there was so much comedy in it it was more of a Pryor movie than a Superman film.

[–] avortac4 (3742) 6 months ago

People always talk about 'trolling', then they think it has something to do with the mythical creature that just HAPPENS to be called 'a Troll'. Of course, this is just a coincidence, and trolling is originally a form of fishing (not sure if a big net is used or not).

The metaphor is that a troller throws a big net into the water, then slowly drives up and down the river/lake/whatever until a lot of fish has been caught in it.

The fish are 'angry comments', the troller is 'provocateur', and the net is 'comment so absurd, it will trigger the biggest amount of people, thus, giving maximum amount of fish'.

Now, if this title is not the PERFECT example, an EPITOME of, or at least manifestation of, the clearest example of what TROLLING means in practice, I don't know what is. If there was a competition, if awards were given of the most idiotic ways of trolling, this line would surely be a winner:

"It's the best of the Reeve pictures...."

Calling a movie a 'picture' is not only archaic, but downright insulting, as there are millions of picture frames that a movie consists of. Calling a respected actor's filmography just 'Reeve pictures' could not be more insulting as well.

But the audacity to actually call _THIS_ the best of ANYTHING, other than garbage, just isn't logical enough for any rational human being to take seriously. This is DEFINITELY trolling, and I am not falling for it.

Obviously Christopher Reeve has made all kinds of movies, this comment does not even acknowledge that he's done anything other than Superman movies, and even 'Somewhere in Time' and 'Death Trap' are better than this stupid Pryor-movie (can't even be SAID to be a 'Reeve picture' even if you have no malice).

To not acknowledge Superman II as the best Superman movie, has also got to be a sin SO enormous, no one should ever take ANYTHING this Patrick.. BATE(!)man (see, how he's even using fishing terminology, BATING you to react and be triggered!) writes seriously whatsoever.