Superhero Movie Guidebook: ‘Superman III’

Welcome to the Superhero Movie Guidebook! For an introduction to this series, click here. Check here for past entries and future updates most Thursdays.

If you’re a long-time reader of this series, then, well, you’re probably Andy. Hi Andy! And as Andy may recall and the rest of you can learn now, I did not like Superman II. The words “fucking hate” may have been used. But I’m in the minority opinion there; hell, Entertainment Weekly included it prominently in its rankings of the best summer blockbusters ever. But Superman III? That would be far easier to bash, with a 4.9 (of 10) rating on IMDB and a 26% score on Rotten Tomatoes.

So naturally, I really enjoyed it.

Both movies were directed by Richard Lester, who had zero interest in telling a serious Superman story. The first three Superman films were all produced by the Salkinds (who owned the Superman movie rights) and written by the Newmans, and this trio of director/producers/writers all liked a beyond-campy version of the hero. The difference is that the first Superman had Richard Donner directing and noted Bond-movies scribe Tom Mankiewicz rewriting the Newmans’ script; the combination of their efforts made Superman wonderfully charming despite some flaws. Donner and Mankiewicz had also tried to clean up Superman II, only to get replaced with Lester. The result was a movie stuck in between, sometimes taking itself seriously and other times descending into a maddening farce. It committed to neither direction and ended up being, to me, mostly the worst of both worlds.

Superman III, on the other hand, was the first entry that was entirely the child of the Salkinds-Newmans-Lester triumvirate. The result was that it was by far the biggest departure yet from the typical Superman mythos, style/tone, and stakes that we usually associate with the character. But, it was also the first movie in the series to have a singular identity and stick with it. Superman III feels entirely comfortable in its own skin — as utterly ridiculous as that skin is.

The movie was essentially a showcase for legendary comedian Richard Pryor, whom the Salkinds apparently loved. Pryor’s “character arc” in the film, if you want to generously call it that, bounces around like a hyperactive child. We first meet him as he’s getting kicked off whatever unemployment/welfare benefits Metropolis has. From there, he takes computer training, instantly becomes a genius at it, gets a computer-based job, uses his skills to rob his employer, then be coerced by that employer to do increasingly outlandish criminal activities, start to feel remorse, continue doing illegal stuff anyway, then finally act on his misgivings and (barely) help Superman, and end by receiving zero consequences for his previous crimes. It’s all nonsensical, and a series of (very) thinly-veiled excuses to have Pryor do various wacky stunts in implausible situations.

Pryor, of course, was a hilarious man, one of the true comic geniuses of any generation. But to see him at his funniest, you’ll have to look elsewhere; the material here is too weak to give him any true laugh-out-loud moments. But despite that, he still had a natural charm that shone through in the movie, despite (or maybe, partially because) of his off-the-walls character. Pryor’s now been dead for nearly a decade, so there’s something oddly comforting about just getting to see him goofing around again, even in an inferior offering.

Elsewhere, things are no less ridiculous. To begin with, the movie decides to ignore all developments in the Clark/Lois relationship from the previous two films. Margot Kidder appears as practically just a cameo, announcing early in the movie that she was off to Bermuda for vacation, then reappearing at the end to look disapprovingly at Clark’s new love interest.

Kidder was essentially written out of the movie as punishment for publicly criticizing the Salkinds’ treatment of Richard Donner. (Ilya Salkind would later deny that as the cause, though every other source seems pretty certain of it.) Similarly, Gene Hackman refused to reprise his role as Lex Luthor because of the Salkinds firing Donner during Superman II. (When the Salkinds no longer had the rights, Hackman would return for Superman IV.) So in his stead, the movie creates Ross Webster, an evil millionaire who might as well be Lex, right on down to the beautiful girlfriend who betrays him. But while I like Hackman’s Lex, there was nothing irreplaceable about it. I’m a big fan of Robert Vaughn, of The Magnificent Seven and The Man from U.N.C.L.E., who plays Webster with a non-threatening allure that fits the tone of the movie.

As for Lois’s replacement love interest, in steps Lana Lang, a former high school crush of Clark’s whom he reconnects with during a class reunion. To my own surprise, I kinda liked that plot point. Lois being written out was conceptually a bummer, but less so for me when considering how much less I liked her part in Superman II than in Superman. If Lois isn’t going to be awesome, then might as well let her spend the movie on an island vacation. And while Lana was rather bland herself, I did like that she actually respected Clark and viewed him as useful, a nice change in the series. Lana was played by a gorgeous young Annette O’Toole, who more famously would play Clark’s mother on Smallville a couple decades later, creating obvious jokes.

As for our titular hero, the great Christopher Reeve still gives it his all, though he too later complained about how much Lester went for silly bits. The bulk of his story revolved first around his halting romance with Lana, then his transformation into Dark Superman. Pryor’s character is tasked with making synthetic kryptonite, but tries to replace an unknown element with tobacco tar; the resulting creation doesn’t kill Superman, it just turns him into an asshole who sleeps with the main villain’s skanky girlfriend, becomes a drunk, and ruins the environment. “Dark” Superman isn’t actually dark at all, just amusingly douchey.

This leads to the world briefly hating Superman, until he has to fight himself for control — literally. Never a master of subtlety, Lester has Superman (representing his dark side) fight Clark (the good side) for control. Reeve does a nice job of selling the scene, and I actually enjoyed seeing his “bad” Superman side by side with his bumbling Clark; it really reiterated the underrated genius with which Reeve could always make the two personas into entirely different characters (even when Superman was good).

After Vaughn and Pryor’s characters bounce around several different stupid schemes, the movie climaxes with Superman having to fight their giant evil supercomputer. I have a silly fondness for 1980s renditions of computer-related dangers, and Superman III delivers one of the best, from the Duck Hunt-style missile targeting system to when the computer turns a character into a mecha-stylized evil computer emissary (who weirdly looks a lot like Danger from the X-Men comics).

Bottom line: Superman III is an undeniably stupid movie. Like, really stupid. But for me, it just kind of worked. It was the first tonally consistent Superman movie, even though that tone was like the equivalent making an entire movie out of the Condiment King. If you’re looking for a real Superman movie, or are someone likely to be bothered by the willful squandering of a chance to see our best Superman actor do more actual Superman things, then you’re more likely to hate this the way I hated the wasted opportunity of Superman II. But I for one got a kick out of Superman III. There was no good movie here that was blown, just an insane romp that somehow managed to be rather charming.

NEXT TIME: Supergirl (1984)