Superman III (Deluxe Edition) | 
 enlarge | Directors: Richard Lester, Iain Johnstone (iii)
Actors: Al Matthews, Annette O'toole, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, Jackie Cooper, Alexander Salkind
Studio: Warner Home Video
Category: DVD
List Price: $19.98
Buy New: $4.56
You Save: $15.42 (77%)
New (52) Used (21) Collectible (1) from $4.53
Rating:  19 reviews
Sales Rank: 29649
Format: Ac-3, Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, Dvd-video, Subtitled, Widescreen, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Subtitled), French (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled)
Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Region: 1
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Number Of Discs: 1
Running Time: 125 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.1 x 5.4 x 0.6
MPN: 012569868526
UPC: 012569868526
EAN: 0012569868526
ASIN: B000IJ79X4
Theatrical Release Date: June 17, 1983
Release Date: November 28, 2006
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: SEALED with SECURITY LABEL, NICE DVD! FREE UPGRADE to 1st Class Mail! We ship the same day. 100% satisfaction guaranteed! Official studio release, directly from distributor to you! We are an established brick and mortar store who puts our customers first. We cut prices, not corners!
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
No Description Available
No Track Information Available
Media Type: DVD
Artist: REEVE/PRYOR/O'TOOLE/COOPER/KID
Title: SUPERMAN 3
Street Release Date: 11/28/2006
Domestic
Genre: ACTION / ADVENTURE
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 14 more reviews...
The Beginning Of The End May 6, 2008
Ryan D. Peterson (Orem, UT USA)
**Warning - May Contain a Few Spoilers**
While there are a few moments that help out this movie, on the whole, it's not enough. It's intriguing to see Superman turn evil through his exposure to tainted Kryptonite (reminiscent of Red Kryptonite). And the battle in the junkyard between good and bad Superman (reminiscent of Superman vs. Bizarro) is, again, intriguing. But neither really reaches its full potential to thrill and enthrall the audience.
In the end, what really hurts this movie is a lack of "super" scope. This can largely be brought down to the fact that they didn't bring Lex Luthor into this story. Ross Webster just isn't charismatic enough to keep the audience watching. What we have here is a greedy business man who is trying to control the worlds oil. Bad, yes. Superman worthy? We never get a full sense that it is.
Now, if Lex Luthor had been doing the same thing, there would automatically be a sense that the world is in danger and Superman needs to jump in and save it. Doubtless, this would only be the first step in a master plan for something truly evil to come. True, Lex's plan in the first movie revolved around real estate, but the methods were brutal, with the entire western coastline and its inhabitants in jeopardy. Webster's plan, however, boils down to "We'll tell everyone's computers to stop oil production. They'll never be able to stop that. Bwa Ha Ha Ha Haaaa!"
Then there is the heightened attempt at humor in this film. Director Richard Lester decided to make this one a funnier outing, since it is based on a comic book. A little humor now and then is okay and even refreshing when dealing with a truly epic story like Superman deserves. However it is a bit too much here at times. For instance, the beginning of the movie is an entire vaudeville routine causing chaos throughout the city of Metropolis with sight gags and running gags and any other kind of gag you can think of. It just feels out of place.
In the end, this one is definitely better than the fourth movie, but it pales in comparison to the first two.
Superman III: It's a Bird!, No, It's a Plane!, No, It's a .... Mediocre Movie! April 8, 2008
Hound Dog (Boise, ID, USA)
I recently took another look at the big screen debacle entitled "Superman III," which initiated the beloved movie franchise's rocketing descent into oblivion 25 years ago. As expected, time hasn't been kind to the third "Superman" film.
If you were to look over this film's credits, the potential seemingly was all there: Christopher Reeve as Superman; competent director Richard Lester (who also directed "Superman II"); two of the original film's screenwriters; a great special FX crew; plus the added bonus of comedian Richard Pryor, who was still semi-hot at the time. Therefore, how could this much talent transform a likely sure-fire hit into such a colossal goose egg?
Primarily, I suspect it comes down to a lackluster script that was not even close to the same league as the first two films. The basic storyline on paper may have been okay at best, but as a motion picture, the franchise's classy tongue-in-cheek humor and timeless reverence to the Man of Steel pretty much evaporate in favor of incorporating Richard Pryor's bumbling computer geek character (Gus Gorman) into the story. The result of providing Mr. Pryor sufficient screen time to justify his hefty salary reduced other pivotal supporting players, like Jackie Cooper (as Perry White) and even Margot Kidder (as Lois Lane) to mere book-end cameo appearances. As at least one other reviewer points out, forcibly melding a Richard Pryor comedy with "Superman" simply doesn't work.
Also, the campy screenplay suffers from too few thrills, with the exception of the Superman vs. Clark Kent auto graveyard battle, which was superb. Christopher Reeve appeared game during the various stunt sequences, but the special FX, while they seem initially great, deteriorate badly by the time Superman enters the Grand Canyon for his final showdown with the villains. Obviously, the special FX budget (not to mention, composer John Williams' masterful score) were among the cost-cutting decisions made by the producers.
As for the other scenes, there is little worth remembering about them (who really wants to watch Superman being infected by tar-flavored kryponite?). The romantic sub-plot featuring Annette O'Toole (as Lana Lang) and Clark Kent was nicely handled, but, logically, shouldn't Lois Lane have been the one (instead of Lana) present during the evil Superman plot twist? Once again, the script's ineffective sense of continuity comes into play here.
As for the main villains, Robert Vaughn (as Ross Webster) is an awfully weak substitute to follow up Gene Hackman (as Lex Luthor) as Superman's new nemesis. I definitely agree with a fellow reviewer that Webster and his female entourage are really little more than a cheap knock-off of Lex Luthor, Otis, & Ms. Teschmacher. If Richard Pryor had instead played Webster (while eliminating Gus Gorman entirely), that could have been an intriguing proposition. Personally, though, I really would have preferred an edgy actor like Christopher Walken (much like he was in "A View to a Kill," and "Batman Returns,"), who could have created a creepy antagonist truly worthy of tangling with the legendary Man of Steel.
Speaking of which, the "Ultimate Computer" could have been (and probably should have been) transformed into a realistic variation of the classic Superman villian, Brainiac. The premise of an almighty evil computer that just wants to survive is a monstrous concept that would hold up extremely well today. Unfortunately, as depicted in this film, the "Ultimate Computer" looks so incredibly phony that it becomes a major detriment to the franchise's reputation for providing top notch special FX.
Among the special edition DVD's bonus features, there are the following: 1. the making of "Superman III" documentary (which is worth viewing, particularly for Christopher Reeve's interview); 2. cast filmographies; and 3. the obligatory trailer. Here's an interesting bit of trivia: the young actor at the Metropolis photo booth seen briefly during the opening sequence in Metropolis also had earlier played toddler Kal-El during the original film's initial Smallville sequence.
In summation, the two big reasons why this film fails, I believe, come down to an uninspired script offering little excitement and not enough laughs, as well as far too much reliance on Richard Pryor and Robert Vaughn as the miscast villains. If director Richard Donner, screenwriters Mario Puzo and Tom Mankiewicz, and composer John Williams had all been present for "Superman III," they probably would have made a world of difference. Unfortunately, another vintage performance by the much-missed Christopher Reeve alone couldn't save this film from the ravages of mediocre filmmaking.
Final Grade: a weak 3/5. Christopher Reeve's iconic presence as Superman is the film's only enduring asset.
Side Note: I do, however, heartily recommend William Kotzwinkle's long out-of-print novelization of this movie. His cynical wit packs in plenty of chuckles despite the script's weak material. You can probably find a cheap copy easily enough on Amazon.com.
NOT AS BAD AS IT'S KNOWN TO BE BUT, NOT QUITE GOOD EITHER 2 3/4 STARS! March 31, 2008
MR. KNOW IT ALL ;-b (TRI STATE AREA)
8 out of 9 found this review helpful
Superman III starts out like an old slap stick comedy act. After throwing caution to the wind in Superman II, I guess they figured they could get away with anything!?? The film has a reputation for being really awful, but it's mildly entertaining and actually has moments of brilliants. I loved the evil Superman segments and I was happy to see a different villian. All but Reeves from the original cast phone in their performances and the FX budget looks like it was cut. This could have been a really good installment, but it seems like a quick cash in to me. Compared to part IV..........!
 Falls flat on its face. February 11, 2008
oldzapatos (Los Angeles, CA United States)
3 out of 4 found this review helpful
Maybe Richard Lester's take on "the man of steel" was to harken back to the TV show and 1950s-era lighthearted antics. But his tendency for camp and prepubescent humor is at odds with the true nature of the comedy that has always made the legend of Superman work.
At the heart of Supe-III is the loss of Lois Lane, and in her place an exceedingly dull and sleazy story about Superman deciding between a squeaky-clean fake-o small town soccer mom and a trashy Penthouse centerfold villain. The sexual undertones almost leap off the screen and plummet the series to an irretrievable fleshiness aimed at the preteen audience members who had been fed a steady diet of Catherine Bach in suntan pantyhose and white open-toed heels. And lest you be confused -- Christopher Reeve and every one else in this film comes across in the 1983 "making of" feature as totally smug and depressingly "cheerful". They had this one coming.
Without going into the details of the story any further (Superman's lame antics, or totally outdated trendiness, Richard pryon, Robert Vaughan...), let me just say that "Supergirl" is a much, much better film. In that one, they get the "camp" relatively right and it is filled with fantasy worlds, Kryptonian ethics...all that good Superman stuff. But I really say this only to prove how godawful this third outing is. But isn't Superman a strange series... because Lester is the guy who saved Superman II from Richard Donner's totally different corruption of the material. Strange.
 Why is the third try NEVER the charm for superhero movies? December 11, 2007
Taylor X (Las Vegas, NV (USA))
28 out of 32 found this review helpful
Superman III is directed by Richard Lester. The film stars Richard Pryor and Christopher Reeve, and co-stars Annette O'Toole, Annie Ross, Margot Kidder, Pamela Stephenson. Marc McClure, and Jackie Cooper.
Clark Kent/Superman has left Metropolis to do a story for the Daily Planet, covering his high school reunion in Smallville, the town in which he grew up. Meanwhile, a new employee at a computer programming firm has been forcibly recruited by his equally-corrupt boss in an effort to become even richer, and do away with those who are a threat to his business. As Kent/Superman hooks up with an old flame from his high school days, these new villains begin concocting a scheme that involves creating synthetic Kryptonite, controlling a weather satellite, and building a supercomputer that could do anything its creators asked of it - including the destruction of the Man of Steel.
The first Superman film was a very good one. The second one was an even superior product? The third?
Why is it for superhero movies, the third time around is NEVER the charm?
This is a horrid movie that makes Christopher Reeve play second fiddle to Richard Pryor, and puts its emphasis on comedy. Essentially, the film takes away everything that made the first two so great.
Christopher Reeve, once again, plays the Superman role very well. His acting is one of the few redeeming qualities I can salvage from what is otherwise filth. He plays the role well from start to finish, and is surprisingly good in the evil Superman scenes as well.
Richard Pryor is one of the greatest comedians who ever lived. It seems like he always manages to come up with some way to make you laugh, regardless of what you see him in. Superman III is no exception. The problem? He doesn't belong in a Superman movie. It's only made worse by the fact that Pryor, not Reeve, is the star here! His presence turns a once-great franchise into a parody of itself. He has great scenes here.... But they belonged in a different movie altogether!
The supporting cast is basically the same characters we've seen for the last two films. In those films, they pretty much got the shaft and never really got any development. There's even less emphasis here! Even Margot Kidder gets the shaft! She, who was excellent as Lois Lane in the first two films, gets VERY LITTLE screen time here. This isn't helped by the fact that Superman's new flame is uninteresting, and never gets the proper development. Everyone here, like Reeve himself, is left out in the cold behind Pryor.
I was disgusted by the fact that the production crew fired Richard Donner on Superman II. Richard Lester was able to get by fine on that film, because he was able to use Donner's footage to help him make his own. Here Lester is on his own with no pre-created Donner footage, and he pays the price for it. From the opening credits, it's clear this is going to be a very different Superman movie - and not in a good way.
Character emphasis is done VERY poorly in this film. Richard Pryor is the star here. Uh, am I mistaken, or was this supposed to be a film about Superman? And why does Lois Lane get cast aside like last week's garbage? One of the major plot points is supposed to be that Clark Kent has met a new love interest, but since we see Pryor when we should be seeing her, I didn't feel anything for either Kent or his newfound old flame. Several of the Pryor scenes could easily have been aborted to make more room for the love story. Who knows, maybe then there might actually have been some chemistry between the twosome. Instead the love story comes off as an afterthought. If you're going to bring multiple new characters into the series, be sure to give them all the proper emphasis!
The overall tone of the film has undergone a great change as well. This certainly is not for the better. The first two films were dramatic - you felt for Kent/Superman when tragedies impacted his life. The films were intensive on drama, but managed to throw it just enough comic relief to prevent them from being too serious. This entire film feels more like a two-hour-plus Richard Pryor comedy special than a Superman movie. Pryor is great at what he does, but this is NOT a series he belongs in! When Lex Luthor tried to destroy the American coast, I felt a sense of peril. When the Kryptonians came to Earth, I felt terror, and sympathy for the suffering Earthlings. I didn't feel anything like that the third time around. It was a struggle just to get through the movie!
As for the villains themselves (the ones other than Pryor, whom he works with,) they are as uninteresting as Clark Kent's newfound love interest. These guys are more or less a reworking of Lex Luthor and his incompetent cronies. Lorelei is a blatant rip-off of Teschmacher from the first two movies, and it makes you wonder why they didn't just reprise the character. Hell, they might as well have brought back Lex Luthor again! It would have been overkill, but at least those guys knew how to be decent villains and comical at the same time. These characters have no redeeming qualities.
Another plot point I have to argue is the whole "Evil Superman" thing. As if the movie wasn't already bad enough, the filmmakers dig out one of the oldest cliches in the book and throw it in the movie. Come on! Didn't this movie have enough problems as it was?
Ken Thorne, who scored Superman II, returns to score the third installment. However, his music here largely represents the change in tone of the franchise. Often upbeat and whimsical, and rarely dramatic, it suits the mood of the movie, and the decline of the film series. He rarely reprises the old Williams motifs, like he did in the second film, and that does him more harm than good. Giorgio Moroder penned some pop songs for the movie, performed here by various artists. They're actually pretty good, but like Pryor, they don't feel like they belong in a Superman movie.
Superman III is not a Superman movie, it's a desecration. How the filmmakers go from making an incredible film with Superman dueling members of his own species to dealing with a wacky computer programmer is beyond me. In the world of superhero sequels, the third try is never the charm. Whatever way you look at it, this is horrid, painful viewing. Watch it if you're curious,, not if you're looking for a worthwhile Superman film.
Thumbs down
|
|
|
