Film

Superman III

Name: Superman III
Genre: Comedy, Science Fiction, Action, Adventure
Released: 1983
Cast: Christopher Reeve, Richard Pryor, Annette O'Toole, Robert Vaughn, Annie Ross

Superman III is a genuinely weird enterprise: a 1983 blockbuster that trades alien invasion drama for Richard Pryor slapstick, a supercomputer menace, and an extended sequence of Superman himself going rotten. It's funny when it means to be, occasionally inadvertently. The film swings wildly in tone, never quite landing on what it wants to be, but there's real charm in its willingness to be strange.

TMDb rating

2.8

Should you watch it?

Watch it if you like slapstick sci-fi where a comic lead's scheming gets sillier as it goes, and a hero's wit matters more than his punches.

Skip it if you came for the crisp heroics of the earlier films, since much of it leans on broad, sometimes clumsy slapstick and a meandering middle.

What it asks of you: Light, episodic rhythm built from sketch-like set pieces, a little over two hours, and patience for silliness that carries the stakes more than suspense does.

Not sure? Find tonight's pick in a minute.

If you liked this

Superman II1980

The cleaner, more focused predecessor. Terence Stamp's Zod is a genuinely frightening antagonist, the romance with Lois carries weight, and the action sequences are crisp. This is Superman cinema at its most assured.

But If you're coming to Superman III first, the tonal shift backward might feel restrictive. Less fun, more dutiful.

Superman1978

Richard Donner's original is the gold standard: operatic, earnest, and absolutely committed to making you believe a man can fly. Christopher Reeve is perfect, the world-building immaculate, and it still holds.

But At 143 minutes, it's a commitment. The pacing is stately. If you want zippy, look elsewhere.

Back to the Future1985

Another mid-80s blockbuster that perfectly balances spectacle, comedy, and heart. Michael J. Fox is irresistible, the plot mechanics are airtight, and it moves like it's on rails.

But It's the obvious choice. If you've somehow missed it, that's the only reason to watch it now rather than years ago.

Not sure tonight? Get a pick in a minute, starting from Superman III

The wildcard

Something you would not have found on your own.

Time Bandits1981

Both films are mid-80s spectacles that swing wildly between tones, refuse to stay in one genre, and are weird enough to baffle critics while delighting viewers who surrender to their logic. Both say 'why not?' instead of 'why'.

Terry Gilliam's mad-cap heist through history. Dwarves, Sean Connery, Napoleon on roller skates, and a logic that runs on dream-rules rather than plot. It's the film that shows what happens when someone says 'yes, and?' to every weird idea.

But The plot barely exists. Some sequences feel like non-sequiturs. If narrative coherence matters to you, you will be frustrated.

Flash Gordon1980

A camp sci-fi adventure that owns its absurdity completely. Sam J. Jones, Ming the Merciless, that Queen soundtrack—it's gloriously, unapologetically ridiculous and made with genuine affection.

But If you need serious science fiction, the winking tone will exhaust you. Also, it's genuinely corny.

Ghostbusters1984

A perfect comedy-action hybrid. The script is airtight, the cast plays off each other like they've been together for years, and it never stops being fun. The tonal balance Superman III fumbles, this nails.

But It's the comfortable pick. Everyone's already seen it, and rewatching might feel like obligation rather than discovery.

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen1988

Terry Gilliam's visually delirious tall tale, starring John Neville as an impossible character living in an impossible world. It's weird, beautiful, and commits entirely to its own logic, no matter how insane.

But It's genuinely difficult to follow. The plot dissolves into pure spectacle and whimsy. Some find that liberating; others find it exhausting.

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen poster

Superman Returns2006

Brandon Routh as Superman, trying to prove he can be the Man of Steel. It's handsomely made, respectful to the source material, and Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor is a pleasure.

But It's slow, reverent to a fault, and frankly a bit boring. Routh never quite finds the charisma Reeve had.

Krull1983

A 1983 fantasy-sci-fi hybrid with a great cast (Tom Burlinson, Alec Guinness, Liam Neeson pre-fame) and a genuinely impressive visual imagination. It's earnest, weird, and underrated.

But The script is choppy. It's never quite as good as it should be, and you'll sense the budget constraints.

Scanners1981

David Cronenberg's body-horror thriller about telepathic mutants. It's visceral, genuinely unsettling, and technically inventive. That exploding head scene is cinema history.

But It's bleak and grotesque in a way nothing on this list is. If you want fun, this is the opposite direction.

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert1994

Pryor doesn't appear, but his comedic DNA runs through it—that ability to make you laugh and feel something at the same time. Also, a film where the comedy is the thing, not a sidekick to action.

Richard Pryor's heir, Terence Stamp, in a completely different role: devastating, nuanced, funny. A road movie about three drag performers crossing Australia. It's genuinely moving without ever losing its humor.

But The subject matter (gender, sexuality) puts some off. The pacing is leisurely. It's not a spectacle film; it's intimate and small.

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert poster

Liquid Sky1982

Both are 1982-83 films that ignore what blockbuster cinema is supposed to do, that trust visual weirdness over plot clarity, and that were sidelined by critics while developing fervent cult audiences who understood what they were attempting.

A Soviet-American sci-fi cult film about an invisible alien ship hovering over Manhattan that feeds on heroin and orgasm. Shot on the cheapest budget imaginable, with a synth score that's hypnotic. Genuinely singular.

But It's shot on video, deliberately disorienting, and the plot is deliberately cryptic. It's formally experimental in ways that will seem like mistakes to some viewers. Patience required.