Happy 30th Anniversary to the Worst Superman Movie Ever Made...

[Earth 2 Chris]

You know...the Roger Moore Bond films had gotten this goofy too, at this time. Maybe the British production and director took it in a similar direction?

Superman III was on The Hub a few weeks back, and me and the kids stopped on it while channel-surfing, despite owning it in 3 Superman box sets. The chemical plant sequence and following Smallville scenes are actually some of the best in the series, as is the epic junkyard battle between good and...well...if not evil...then surly, at least.

Another thought that occurred to me over the years, and I've heard other folks bring up since: this movie reads like a standard Bronze Age Superman tale by Cary Bates, Martin Pasko, or Elliot S! Maggin. They would often focus on some meaningless schmoe (Pryor) who is manipulated by someone of power (Vaughn). Superman gets dragged into it, and hilarity ensues. This film is actually pretty true to a workaday issue of Action or Superman at the time, in that regard.

Chris

[EMCE Hammer]

Another thought that occurred to me over the years, and I've heard other folks bring up since: this movie reads like a standard Bronze Age Superman tale by Cary Bates, Martin Pasko, or Elliot S! Maggin. They would often focus on some meaningless schmoe (Pryor) who is manipulated by someone of power (Vaughn). Superman gets dragged into it, and hilarity ensues. This film is actually pretty true to a workaday issue of Action or Superman at the time, in that regard.

Chris

Looking through those glasses it's not quite as depressing, that's a great observation.

[madmarva]

I always liked Superman III. I'd never argue that it was a great film, and It would have been better without The baggage and expectation Pryor brought to the film. I never understood why anyone wanted him for a film that didn't allow him to be edgy or use profanity. It took him out of his element.

I also thought the slapstick intro was a little out of place, but it was funny and well executed. I enjoyed the return to Smallville and the evil Superman bit provided the closest thing we've seen to a Bizzaro battle on the big screen and that part of the plot played a bit like a red Kryptonite story.

It was very silver or bronze-age Superman to me, as Chris pointed out, but a little anticlimactic after the big battle with the PZ villains in SMII.

[palitoy]

Another thought that occurred to me over the years, and I've heard other folks bring up since: this movie reads like a standard Bronze Age Superman tale by Cary Bates, Martin Pasko, or Elliot S! Maggin. They would often focus on some meaningless schmoe (Pryor) who is manipulated by someone of power (Vaughn). Superman gets dragged into it, and hilarity ensues. This film is actually pretty true to a workaday issue of Action or Superman at the time, in that regard.

yeahbut I HATE those stories.

[SentientApe]

I was confused by this topic title, considering that "The Worst Superman Movie Ever Made" is not celebrating its 30th anniversary, having only debuted One Year and Two Weeks ago.

[Spyweb007]

Superman III was goofy, but I remember the Superman Comics being pretty goofy back in the 70's too, so while it wasn't what I would have liked to see, it still seemed like a valid Superman movie at the time, and I do like the evil Superman Clark fight too.

[PNGwynne]

I will admit to liking SIV more than III, but with both I could not help thinking, "Why aren't they using Brainiac instead of a super-computer, or Bizarro instead of Nuclear-Man?"

SIII is just too (un)funny for me, even though I enjoy camp and a good character actor chewing scenery.

[Gorn Captain]

I only like Superman II, the rest are pretty lame to me.
To me, the worst moment is when Superman turns back time by flying around the planet against the clock. Jeez...

[huedell]

yeahbut I HATE those stories.

I hate that no matter how many explanations and examples are given that deflate the typical comicbook nerd's negative estimation of Superman III, the notions go relatively ignored.

The movie couldn't find it's audience plain and simple--and, because of how the chips fell, it still can't---history has spoken... a history originated by 1983-era movie critics comprised of a good percentage of Pryor-nuts and purist comic geeks w/a "non-expectation-meeting" axe to grind. Meanwhile, many open-minded young kids (and the young-at-heart) plunked their money down and walked away satisfied---significantly more than it's Superman IV follow-up.

Is Superman III a good movie? Nah. I mean, it's "good" in the context of the Reeve series. 'Cause, really, none of the Reeve movies had any real focus to them, and you can thank the Salkinds for that---Supes 4 was just a business deal between Reeve and the new producers---and it paid the price for that too.

All that said: All Reeve flicks make for good nostalgia for me. I'll put them on every so often---but I find myself going to III the most of the 4. It's a straight-shootin fun romp compared to unevenness of the other 3 where the saying "pretending to be something that they're not" seems to apply quite completely.

In conclusion---I don't stick up for S3 as being a great flick, but I sure as heck think it's underrated in the history books by clowns like the one that wrote that article (or the clowns at EW who may've suggested that the article was a good idea).

Later, frog-faces---I'm splittin'.

[palitoy]

I hate that no matter how many explanations and examples are given that deflate the typical comicbook nerd's negative estimation of Superman III, the notions go relatively ignored.

If everybody liked it, you'd hate it.

[bleit1701]

Art should be in on this thread. We were just talking about it at Mego Meet.

I remember Leonard Malton's review on Entertainment Tonight saying, "the opening sequence, while funny enough, doesn't belong in a Superman movie."
That pretty much summed it up.

[huedell]

If everybody liked it, you'd hate it.

Think that way. But that's so wrong, it's coming out of your ears. But, really, how else could I expect you to reply to my post being that
you're a prime example of the pop-mockery bandwagon jumping critic, I spoke of in my previous post's musings?
To each their own---but let's be realistic here.

hit-the-nail-on-the-head

Another of the "disillusioned".

I find Superman III nostalgically charming, as I do the other Reeve films. But to me they are little more than a step up from watching the Super Friends---it's a little issue I have with "The Internet" that causes me to focus on plus-sides of SIII, because I wonder "How COULD people be giving a pass to S1 and S2, yet thrash S3 so mercilessly---when they're all pretty equally lacking?"

So, T-bolt (& Brian)--- I figure I have a good explanation for what you perceive as a guy who hates things that everyone else loves---and that is: I pretty much think all live-action superhero movies are lacking.
Interesting thread on the first page of this section---only 3 live action movies make it into my top 10 superhero movies---and one of them isn't even DC or Marvel---and none of them are Marvel.

Now, maybe "Huedell hates everything that everyone likes" was hyperbole on Brian's part---T-Bolt, I assume actually believes this.

Apparently most of my critique posts are so scathing, I have become the "Grouchy Smurf" of the MM?

"Passionately disliking" is something I do for fun---but it's not a 24/7 attitude

[thunderbolt]

If everybody liked it, you'd hate it.

[nvmbrsdoom5]

Funnily enough, I was reading an old issue of Starlog this morning from 1981, featuring an interview with actress Sarah Douglas ("Ursa") discussing the possibility of being brought back to work on Superman III and how there was a lot of potential for that film, possible plot twists they could do to follow up on part II, etc. I could only shake my head and giggle, knowing what we now know.

[MIB41]

We got one heck of a beautiful Hot Toys figure out of it.

[/URL]