Making the case for a Superman III renaissance…

Who would have thought that the Man of Steel’s greatest weakness wasn’t Kryptonite, but rather, slapstick comedy and behind-the-scenes drama? SUPERMAN III landed in cinemas with a campy twist that left fans either chuckling or cringing.

Clark Kent (Christopher Reeve) returns to Smallville for a high school reunion, rekindling a romance with Lana Lang (Annette O’Toole). Meanwhile, Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor), a bumbling computer genius, gets entangled in the schemes of industrial tycoon Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn). When Gorman creates synthetic Kryptonite, Superman’s darker side is unleashed, leading to an internal battle that threatens his heroic identity.

Despite its flaws, SUPERMAN III has moments that shine. Christopher Reeve delivers a compelling performance, seamlessly transitioning between Clark Kent’s mild-mannered persona and Superman’s corrupted alter ego. The junkyard fight scene, where Superman battles his darker self, is a highlight, showcasing Reeve’s range and the film’s inventive take on inner conflict. Annette O’Toole’s portrayal of Lana Lang brings a refreshing and relatable dimension to Clark Kent’s story, adding depth to the film’s narrative.

While comedic elements were successfully integrated into SUPERMAN II, which Richard Lester completed after Donner’s departure, SUPERMAN III takes this approach to an extreme. The first two films balanced heroism with humanity, setting a high bar. By contrast, Lester’s comedic approach in SUPERMAN III feels like a step backward, alienating fans who cherished the more serious, mythic qualities of the earlier entries. Compared to other superhero films of the era, such as Tim Burton’s BATMAN or the original SUPERMAN, SUPERMAN III struggles to find its footing, often feeling more like a spoof than a legitimate continuation of the saga.

Richard Pryor’s Gus Gorman, though entertaining, feels out of place in the superhero genre. The sidelining of Margot Kidder’s Lois Lane, reportedly due to her outspoken support of former director Richard Donner, disrupts the narrative continuity and weakens the dynamic established in the earlier films. The plot, filled with over-the-top schemes and comedic antics, lacks the gravitas expected from a Superman story, resulting in a disjointed tone that oscillates between parody and action.

However, viewing the “evil” version of Superman in SUPERMAN III as a reimagined Bizarro and the supercomputer as a reinterpretation of Brainiac offers an intriguing perspective that could indeed lend the film a different appreciation. The “evil” Superman, manifested after exposure to synthetic Kryptonite, shares several characteristics with Bizarro, a classic Superman antagonist who is typically depicted as a distorted mirror image of the Man of Steel. Both characters represent a subversion of Superman’s core values and abilities, creating internal and external conflicts. In “Superman III,” the battle between the good and evil sides of Superman can be seen as a metaphorical take on the conflict between Superman and Bizarro. This evil Superman indulges in petty acts of vandalism and selfishness, which echoes the often misguided but powerful actions of Bizarro in the comics.

Similarly, the supercomputer designed by Gus Gorman, which becomes sentient and turns against its creators, can be interpreted as an innovative reinterpretation of Brainiac, another classic villain from Superman’s rogues’ gallery. Brainiac is often portrayed as a hyper-intelligent, extraterrestrial android with a penchant for collecting worlds and knowledge, posing a significant intellectual and physical threat to Superman. In SUPERMAN III, while the supercomputer lacks the intergalactic background, it embodies the themes of artificial intelligence and technological domination central to Brainiac’s character.

Appreciating SUPERMAN III as a post-modern reinterpretation of these classic characters could potentially reframe the film’s narrative and thematic choices. This perspective allows for a more nuanced understanding of the movie’s blend of comedy and action, as well as its exploration of identity and corruption. By seeing the film through this lens, viewers might appreciate the creative liberties taken with traditional Superman lore, recognizing the film as an experimental and avant-garde take on the superhero genre.

SUPERMAN III might best be remembered as a bold, if flawed, experiment in the Superman franchise. It’s a film where the Man of Steel contends not just with villainous plots, but with the whims of Hollywood and the caprice of studio executives. Whether you view it as a nostalgic guilty pleasure or a creative misfire, it’s undeniable that this movie left a lasting impact on the legacy of Superman. This impact was significant enough that when it came time to finally bring the character back to the big screen in 2013, it was done so in an archly serious and dark tone, an overcorrection to this film’s lightness that embarrassed the hardcore graphic novel fans now in control of the franchise. Even Superman isn’t immune to becoming a comedic Kryptonite punchline. But with the distance of time, and an understanding of just how badly that sombre overcorrection treated the character, reappraising SUPERMAN III as a post-modern take on classic Superman characters like Bizarro and Brainiac might just open up new avenues for audience enjoyment and critical appreciation.

Five years ago, back in 2019, I was a guest on The Movie Bunker Podcast’s Episode 42 – talking about how life, the universe and everything is better for having “Superman III” in it.

The Movie Bunker Podcast is a podcast dedicated to reviewing the most critically panned movies. Is there a diamond in the rough? It’s unlikely, but they keep on digging, commandeering guests to divulge their movie guilty pleasure.