Featured Audience Ratings

• Jeff "

  
  Third entry in the Superman franchise is still a fun, entertaining picture and is far better than what most people have said about it. For me, the Superman films worked better as a trilogy of films, and a fourth film was not necessary. Anyhow, for me, this is where the franchise ends… More
  Third entry in the Superman franchise is still a fun, entertaining picture and is far better than what most people have said about it. For me, the Superman films worked better as a trilogy of films, and a fourth film was not necessary. Anyhow, for me, this is where the franchise ends due to the fact that the fourth film failed to deliver anything truly entertaining and was awful in terms of story, acting and special effects. Christopher Reeve again reprises his role as Clark Kent/ Superman. I really don't know why this film received negative reviews as the idea behind it was pretty interesting. Sure the film is at times silly, but that's all part of the fun. There are some terrific performances here such as Richard Pryor. This is a fun and entertaining action film. For what it is, it's a pleasant time waster that should appeal to fans of the first two films. I think that the filmmakers should have ended the series with this film as it would have ended the series on a high note. However they would have a painful fourth entry that simply lacked anything worth seeing. This film has everything you'd expect from a Superman film, and it still manages to be a good film despite its flaws. If you enjoyed the first two entries in the series, you're sure to enjoy this one. I really think it's a far better film than what most people have said, and you should give it a chance as it is entertaining and packed with everything that made the Superman films worth seeing in the first place.

• AJ V

  
  Wow, this is a bad movie, I didn't know a superhero movie could be so bad. It's just full of bad jokes, and the story makes no sense, and Richard Pryor is in it for no reason. I don't recommend this movie, if you're watching the series skip this one and see the… More
  Wow, this is a bad movie, I didn't know a superhero movie could be so bad. It's just full of bad jokes, and the story makes no sense, and Richard Pryor is in it for no reason. I don't recommend this movie, if you're watching the series skip this one and see the fourth.

• Drew S

  
  This is the worst shit EVER. EVER. EVER. Margot Kidder was the only one here with half a brain for showing up for about a minute of screen time and picking up a paycheck for it.

• Michael E

  
  i think of it as a live action looney tunes cartoon because of its slapstick humor sight gags and funny dialogue at least its better than the abomination known as superman and the quest for peace

• Conner R

  
  This doesn't even deserve a review, but easily the worst superhero movie EVER. I think it's terrible mainly because I didn't see it coming at all. Superman and Superman II were both amazing and then they follow with this. I think it's even worse than Batman Forever… More
  This doesn't even deserve a review, but easily the worst superhero movie EVER. I think it's terrible mainly because I didn't see it coming at all. Superman and Superman II were both amazing and then they follow with this. I think it's even worse than Batman Forever following up Burton's franchise because at least in that you don't have to see Michael Keaton sink down to the lowest of the low. The movie itself is just ridiculous. I think they were sorta trying to do something along the lines of Brainiac but they failed miserably.

• Wahida K

  
  I use to be a huge Superman Fan, there is tiny bit of Scene make me LOLS. That guy Gus on the Donkey.

• Jason O

  
  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… More
  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. NOTE: That was my Amazon review from the year 2000. Brownie points to this movie for having Atari 2600 sound effects included, and this movie's better than most give it credit for.

• Anthony L

  
  Come on guys, It was the 80's, films did this kind of thing then. It's a silly film and not as good as the first two but as far as I'm concerned its got Reeve, Pryor and Vaughn in it so it must be great and I love it!

• Thomas B

  
  stupid, stupid idea. kryptonite with tar because, "hey, i smoke it." puhleeze

• Chris G

  
  If you ever wanted to see what Richard Lester would have done to Superman II then look no further than the pure garbage that is Superman III. What's worse than the slapstick opening credit sequence that makes the Three Stooges roll over in the graves? The fact that this piece of… More
  If you ever wanted to see what Richard Lester would have done to Superman II then look no further than the pure garbage that is Superman III. What's worse than the slapstick opening credit sequence that makes the Three Stooges roll over in the graves? The fact that this piece of shit is over 2 hours! In reality this isn't even a Superman movie. It's a Richard Pryor movie with Christopher Reeve thrown in. It's not even a funny Richard Pryor movie. It's not even Moving! Robert Vaughn enlists Pryor to use a computer to take over a weather satellite and control the weather which is a plot straight out of the old G.I. Joe cartoon. There's a super computer that Superman can't stop, blah, blah, blah. What Superman III proves is that the Salkinds have no talent or soul. It's a total piece of trash and I can't imagine them making a Superman film worse than this one... (As a post script I just realized that the guy that plays Brad in this film is also the head reverse mohawked gangmember in the classic 1980's flick Death Wish 3. Jesus, can this guy's agent pick 'em or what?)

• Curtis L

  
  Who doesn't want to see a giant 80's computer kill peopl?

• Dean !

  
  A pretty good film with some funny moments.

• Tim B

  
  My sister affectionately refers to this as "the lame one" of the Superman series. I really liked it as a kid, so it has a special place in my heart.

• Lafe F

  
  Superman III is not a very good movie. The makers decided to mix the superhero action with comedy, which stank. It was bad from the beginning by having a slapstick street sequence instead of whooshing titles and music in space. They replaced Superman's love interest Lois Lane… More
  Superman III is not a very good movie. The makers decided to mix the superhero action with comedy, which stank. It was bad from the beginning by having a slapstick street sequence instead of whooshing titles and music in space. They replaced Superman's love interest Lois Lane with a goofy comedian Richard Pryor, who played the role of Gus Gorman, a super computer programmer. It has a lot of garbage scenes. Superman comes up against Max Webster (Robert Vaughn), a pale substitute for Lex Luthor. There's a weak subplot of Clark Kent and his high school sweetheart Lanna Lang (Annette O'Toole). Loveable Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) is barely in this movie! There's one interesting plot of Superman being poisoned by Kryptonite and turning evil. I loved the junkyard battle with evil Superman and Clark Kent. The plot ends up with Superman battling a Gus Gorman's super computer at the Grand Canyon. I can't totally hate this movie, because the city street scenes were filmed in my hometown.

• Jose Z

  
  the formula was already wasted, the stoy and the pllot was weak. The cast although it was almost the same as the previous two was weak, I didn't feel the same intensity on Chistropher Reeve as Superman, The Absence of Gene Hackman affect a lot and the incursion of Richard Pryor… More
  the formula was already wasted, the stoy and the pllot was weak. The cast although it was almost the same as the previous two was weak, I didn't feel the same intensity on Chistropher Reeve as Superman, The Absence of Gene Hackman affect a lot and the incursion of Richard Pryor didn't help at all

• jay n

  
  they should have stopped when they were ahead.

• danny d

  
  this is where they started going down hill

• Jason S

  
  I liked it. The smallville stuff was pretty good.

• xGary X

  
  Extremely silly sequel that relies far too much on Richard Pryors comic talent, who has far too little quality material to work with and therefore frankly annoys.

• Aaron N

  
  After two good movies, things went sour. Further fueling my overall opinion of why I don't like Superman as a superhero in general. Lame.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings