Honestly don't think it's _that_ much of a step down from the first two. They weren't that great to begin with.

Since I didn't like the slapstick tone of the theatrical version of “Superman II,” it should be clear that I like this sequel even less. Christopher Reeve is still a decent Superman, and I did enjoy a few scenes between Clark and Lana in Smallville. But the whole subplot involving computer expert Gus, played by Richard Pryor, and villain Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn) is just boring and stupid. The plot also drifts further and further into ridiculousness as the film progresses, which is only made worse by the terrible score. The series had definitely already squandered any goodwill that the promising first film had built up by the third installment. But based on the reputation of the following films, I fear that the absolute low point had not yet been reached.

Not as terrible as everyone is saying. The slapstick comedy was too much and I didn't like Richard Pryor but there were a lot of good Superman moments and I loved Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole's gorgeous). Plus that Clark Kent vs. Superman sequence was fun. Christopher Reeve made the evil Superman look good.

'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.

Who would’ve thought that Superman’s biggest weakness wouldn’t be Kryptonite, but slapstick comedy? “Superman III” takes on a comedic tone that not only divided fans but also pushed them away. While the first two movies combined epic heroism and adventure, this third film feels more like an exaggerated parody of what was once a major icon in superhero cinema. Clark Kent (once again played by Christopher Reeve) returns to Smallville for a high school reunion, where he reconnects with Lana Lang (Annette O’Toole). Meanwhile, Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor), a bumbling computer genius, gets roped into a scheme by tycoon Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn) to create synthetic Kryptonite. This leads to the release of Superman’s darker side, sparking an internal conflict that threatens his very identity. Though Reeve shines once again, showcasing the duality between awkward Clark and the corrupted Superman, it’s hard to ignore that he seems like he’s in a different movie from the rest of the cast. The junkyard fight between “bad” Superman and “good” Superman is one of the few moments that genuinely explores a deeper side of the character. Annette O’Toole also brings some freshness to the film as Lana Lang, but she’s held back by a plot that’s often absurd and shallow. The main issue with “Superman III” is its uneven tone. Richard Pryor is a talented comedian, but his character, Gus Gorman, feels completely out of place in a superhero film. His scenes, while funny in a different setting, undermine any dramatic tension the movie tries to build. Instead of being an innovative addition, Pryor ends up highlighting what doesn’t work here: a failed attempt to force humor into a film that should have been grand. Another big misstep is the absence of Margot Kidder as Lois Lane, one of the emotional cornerstones of the first two films. Her sudden replacement by Lana Lang, while well-intentioned, leaves a void that the film can’t quite fill. The chemistry between Reeve and Kidder was part of the heart of the story, and without it, the emotional connection feels shallow and disjointed. Some fans might view “bad” Superman as a sort of Bizarro version of the character, but that angle isn’t enough to save the film. The moral conflict within Superman, which could have been fascinating, is handled too simplistically, lacking the depth needed to truly engage the audience. What could’ve been an interesting metaphor about identity and self-sabotage ends up as a string of poorly connected scenes without real substance or impact. Even the sets, which in the previous films gave Metropolis a grand, imposing feel, seem lifeless and generic here. The film’s visual aesthetic is another weak point, failing to deliver the grandeur a Superman movie deserves. Instead, audiences are met with effects and settings that feel more suited to a low-budget TV show than a blockbuster superhero sequel. “Superman III” is a film that doesn’t know what it wants to be: a slapstick comedy or an epic superhero movie. This imbalance, along with a weak plot and misplaced characters, causes the film to lose its way amid poor choices. While Christopher Reeve remains a standout, delivering a solid performance, it’s not enough to save the movie from its mediocrity. In the end, it’s a big disappointment for a franchise that started off strong. It’s not a complete disaster, but it’s far from what Superman fans deserved, leaving a significant stain on the Man of Steel’s cinematic legacy.