There is an old adage that says “death makes saints of us all.”
One needs only look at Michael Jackson to see a recent example. People were calling for a National Day of Mourning over the death of a man who, for over a decade, was primarily known as a creepy child molester.
Upon viewing “This Is It!,” may rued that they never got a chance to see M.J. In concert, knowing full well that had Jackson lived, they wouldn’t have even accepted free tickets to the show.
Even at his best, he was just guy who danced well. And for that they interrupt regular television programming to show his funeral?
And, of course, there was that brief period in the 1950s when all the kids were doing The Hitler.
After Christopher Reeve had his tragic accident and subsequent death, people looked towards his portrayal of Superman with red, blue, and yellow-colored glasses. Praising his performance and the man as though he really was the Man of Steel.
To be entirely fair, Christopher Reeve is by far the best live action Clark Kent/Superman. For all the jokes made about “how can't people tell!? He's just wearing glasses!,” Reeve managed to give enough life to both personas to turn them into totally different people.
Then again, what is his competition? Brandon Routh having to do a two-bit impersonation of Christopher Reeve? Tom Welling? Dean Cain? George Reeves?
Unfortunately, the major problem is that despite his decent performance, overall the Superman series was not that good. Well, the first two were kind of decent, though flawed in their own ways. But the second two were terrible. I mean “worst movie of all time”-worthy terrible. And just because Christopher Reeve got paralyzed, doesn't make this
or this
Any more palatable.
My original scheme was to cover both Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest For Peace in this article but after the two hours and four minutes spent watching Superman III, I decided just to focus on the third leg. Superman IV will be covered eventually and, for that matter, probably Superman Returns, but this is not just going to be a blog on bad superhero movies, though there are plenty to choose from.
For now, onto the five biggest problems of 1983’s Superman III.
1) Richard Pryor
Richard Pryor is an undisputed comedy God. Not merely a legend, but an icon. Among the world of stand-ups, only George Carlin might be held in slightly higher regard.
He was responsible for the classic Saturday Night Live “word association” sketch, and co-wrote the Mel Brooks classic Blazing Saddles.
Throughout his life, he even had a somewhat decent movie career. Not as good as Eddie Murphy's, but decent nonetheless.
However, most of his biggest cinematic successes as a star came after Superman III (like Brewster’s Millions (1985)), or featured Gene Wilder (Silver Streak (1976), See No Evil, Hear No Evil (1989).
Prior to Superman III, Pryor had small roles in films like Lady Sings The Blues, The Mack, Car Wash, and The Wiz (as The Wiz), and starred in a couple of movies like Greased Lightning, Which Way is Up, and Blue Collar, but nothing that answers why he should be the main villain in a superhero film.
And don’t think that Pryor's performance as Gus Gorman is an unexpected turn of nefarious villainy, like Heath Ledger as The Joker. Gorman is essentially a bumbling fool, a dope. Imagine Batman fighting Chris Rock or Dave Chappelle at their most broad.
Also, not only is Pryor the main villain, but the film very often seems like a vehicle for him. His name is above the title, he’s as relevant as Superman on the movie poster, and, if I had to guess, he’s probably on screen as much as Reeve, if not more.
Who is Gus Gorman?
The best way to discuss the film itself is by going through the adventures of Gus Gorman.
As soon as the film begins, we see Gorman at the Metropolis Department of Health and Human Services where he is losing unemployment benefits after 36 weeks of chronic joblessness. Inspired by a matchbook ad for a computer programming school, he goes to class and finds himself a genius at computers (read: good at coding). And by genius at computers, I mean via the lack of understanding of computers that characterized most movies of the 80s and 90s. You remember, where typing fast means you're a hacker.
Gorman gets hired by Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn), a rich Metropolis billionaire who is a pathetically unconvincing Lex Luthor stand-in.
He even has his own Miss Tessmacher
and some chick who looks like Frau Farbissina from Austin Powers.
Webster recognizes Gorman's innate talent and, because that the world is run by computers, Webster wants to use Gorman for his own nefarious deeds, like using the United States Vulcan Weather Satellite computer (located in Smallville) to destroy the coffee crop in Columbia for financial gain.
Gorman doesn't really have a reason for doing this. Webster doesn't promise him riches, Gormanburgh, or fame. Nor does Webster blackmail him into performing these acts (beyond “I'll fire you,” which really isn't much incentive). But he does it anyway. If they bothered to give Gorman understandable motives, it could have been an interesting side to the character and one, I believe, that Pryor could have sold. While Webster is doing bad for greed, Gorman is doing it to screw the system that screws him. Instead, unfortunately, he’s merely a buffoon.
Anyway, Gorman goes to Smallville to use the computer. After defeating the computer guard in an embarrassing drinking contest sequence, Gorman manages to wrangle his way into the computer that controls the satellite, and cause weather patterns to wreak havoc.
Bizarrely, simultaneously, while fucking around with the computer late at night in Kansas, it screws up the mail somewhere in America. We see a husband receive a $200,000 Bloomingdale's bill and smashed a grapefruit in his wife's face in a pathetic ripoff of Edward G. Robinson in Little Caesar.
Not nearly as funny as the child abuse scene in Superman: The Movie when the father smacks his daughter for talking about Superman saving her cat from a tree
and a traffic jam in the middle of the day somewhere, presumably, in America.
Not happy to leave well enough alone, Superman saves the coffee crops, thus defeating Webster's scheme. Gorman prances around Webster's apartment on skis and with a make-shift cape praising the awesomeness of the Man of Steel, pissing Webster off.
Webster's new goal, of course, is to destroy Superman. To do this, the plan is to make artificial kryptonite and, for some reason, that's Gorman's job. Why a computer programmer suddenly becomes a chemist is anyone's guess, but Gorman goes to work figuring out the necessary components to create Kryptonite.
Unable to figure out a missing element in the molecular breakdown of Kryptonite, Gorman, inspired by a package of Camel cigarettes, chooses tar. A not-so-subtle anti-smoking message,
Tar, by the way, not on the periodical table of the elements.
While Smallville is honoring Superman, Gorman (in a douche-chill inducing sequence cribbing from Patton and Dr. Strangelove) appears as a United States General to award Superman the fake Kryptonite.
Superman happily accepts it even though the thing looks exactly like the green crystals of doom. Since everyone knows Kryptonite is his main weakness (he admits it to the public in the first film), I don’t think anyone would hold it against him if he didn’t take the award.
The Kryptonite, while it doesn't kill Superman, does make him evil and more on that later.
Gorman goes to Webster with plans to build a super-computer that will do everything every computer can do and 1,000 things they cannot. Again, Gorman is a good coder (even if he doesn't entirely seem to know what he’s doing), but not the type of genius necessary to create such a massive, groundbreaking piece of equipment.
Blueprints
Superman battles the computer, and the computer synthetically creates perfect Kryptonite to kill him.
While watching Superman die, Gorman suddenly has a change of heart. For some reason, in a lot of Superman films, bad guys will suddenly grow a conscience when seeing Superman in pain. Despite the millions of lives their actions have ruined, seeing Kal-El writhing is what makes them grow a soul. I find it curious and unconvincing.
Anyway, Gorman tries to shut down the computer, but it comes back to life, and Superman eventually defeats it. More on the computer sequence later.
With the computer destroyed, Superman leaves Webster and his ladies to get arrested by the police, and flies away with Gorman in tow leading to this exchange.
Gorman: “What's going to happen to Websters and the other two ladies.”
Superman: “They're going to have to see the police now. Not your problem anymore.”
Then he drops him off at some sort of rock quarry and even gets him a fucking job.
Why is this in black and white?
This makes absolutely no sense.
Why isn't it his problem? Sure he didn't do as many bad things as Webster, and possibly not as many bad things as Frau Farbissina throughout her career, but he is certainly more culpable than The Second Miss Tessmacher, who also showed remorse.
And got this weird womb bullet from Frau for her troubles.
Gorman was in his right mind when he started to do villainy. While I'm not saying that Gorman should be punished as severely as someone like Webster, it is not up to Superman to decide that he should escape prosecution. He didn't let poor Otis go free...
Speaking of Otis…
One of the most interesting things about Gorman being the starring villain is that the film’s major bad guy is actually a dopey henchman. Gorman’s kind of an idiot, he bumbles and flails around, and seems like a pawn in Webster's games than rather a criminal mastermind. Gorman’s not really malevolent, but it's not like he's under mind control either. The best way to explain this element is that it’s like if the first two Superman movies focused on Otis instead of Lex Luthor. (Otisburgh, still one of the best fictional towns ever.)
Keep in mind too that this film is Superman III, meaning that its direct predecessor was Superman II. Meaning that the villain before Gus Gorman was General Zod, one of the all time great superhero movie villains and possibly one of the greatest villains in cinematic history. With the exception of Reeve, Stamp's performance as the disgraced Kryptonian leader serves as the most memorable in all five Superman films.
To sum up, and hopefully someone better versed in Superman movie lore can explain this to me, why does Richard Pryor, who hadn't really had a major hit up until that point, share top billing with Superman. Why does he gets a happy ending? And why does so much of the movie focus on him and his schemes?
2) The Opening Sequence
After we're introduced to the star of the film, Richard Pryor, we go to the streets of Metropolis for what amounts to a ridiculous, unfunny, over-5-minute-long slapstick sequence featuring Rube Goldbergian zaniness with a burning toy penguin,
a blind guy losing his dog and pushing something,
a car unrealistically filling up with water from a fire hydrant,
and all the silly horseshit even Jar Jar Binks would be ashamed of, while the opening credits scroll. A long way from the names appearing through the vastness of space.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=treSUFrKR1w
embedding disabled...
This sequence does not begin cute and eventually wear out its welcome. From the first cringe moment, you realize you're in for a half-assed attempt at comedy, and can only ask yourself when this Mel Brooks' Silent Movie knock off will be over.
Several minutes into this embarrassment, there's even a brief shoot-out and bank robbery.
Obviously, you'd expect Superman to appear here, but he doesn't. He appears slightly after the criminals get away unscathed, in order to save a man drowning in his car after he runs over a fire hydrant. Yet even after the money shot
The sequence continues. A bald man gets paint dripped on him..
And then a bucket falls on his head
And then there's a mime.
And a blind guy walks through a painting
It doesn’t end until a guy gets hit in the face with cake.
I wonder what 1983 audiences thought when they watched Superman III. Today, no matter how many superhero movies come out, there's still a level of excitement on opening day. You want to be sucked in, you want amazing visuals, you want moments that wow you. And a lot of superhero films try to produce such things.
But what about Superman III? Audiences anxious in their seats, excited to see the new adventures of the Blue Boy Scout, only to come face-to-face with a man arguing about unemployment benefits and glorified extras doing pratfalls? Obviously, the nerd contingent wasn't as strong back in 1983, but it was still there. I also cannot imagine that regular expectations would be that low, considering how highly regarded Superman II still is. Were audience sensibilities so low 27 years ago that the filmmakers athought people would like this? Did people like this never-ending Hack Sennett routine?
It must be noted that this movie was released on June 17, 1983 less than a month after the third part of another trilogy...
….so who could blame them for not trying?
3) Superman v. Superman
When not spending time with Gus Gorman, there's another character in the film: Superman. Superman's big plot is that he goes EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVILLLLLLLLLLLLLLL (for like 20 minutes) because of Gorman's synthetic Kryptonite.
How Evil? Well, he does not care about when people are in danger...
gets forward with Lana Lang (more later)...
straightens the Leaning Tower of Pisa, upsetting the racist stereotype selling souvenirs...
blows out the flame for the 1983 Olympics...
bangs a lady...
makes oil spill out of a ship at the behest of Webster.......
looks dirty....
frowns…
drinks....
frowns some more…
and uses peanuts to break glass bottles.
With the exception of destroying the boat (which he only does because of some coaxing), you'd think that a creature of unlimited power becoming pure id would do a lot worse. Like dance like an asshole.
It never gets easier the more you watch it
Eventually his conscience gets the better of him and, after a melodramatic scream,
he splits in two- one Clark, one Superman. Clark, for some reason, is fully dressed.
They share an uninspired fight for about ten minutes in a junkyard. In this battle, Clark, for some reason, thinks that tires can hold Superman,
Clark pushes Superman into a vat of acid,
Really? There isn't even a cone around what appears to be a giant pool filled with boiling acid?
Superman Wile E. Coyotes Clark with a magnet,
and Superman puts Clark on a conveyor belt to crush him.
Clark eventually busts out and brutally strangles Superman to death regaining his mojo.
This could have been an interesting idea but it’s hampered primarily by boring fight choreography and a lack of willingness of the filmmakers to delve into the deeper meanings of the concept. For starters, making Clark as invulnerable as Superman is a grievous error completely obliterating any tension from the fight. It also goes on far too long.
4) Lois v. Lana
Unlike in Superman Returns, Clark Kent is also given something to do in this film. He has a new love interest in the form of Lana Lang, former high school squeeze and future Superman mother. She has an annoying precocious child, an alcoholic abusive boyfriend, and that's pretty much it. Annette O'Toole isn't bad in the role, but there isn't really much to it.
Lois Lane probably appears for less than two minutes throughout the entire film. She goes to Bermuda at about 12 minutes in and returns at the end for a line or two. The reason for this is well known- she was pissed at the way the producers treated Superman: The Movie director Richard Donner, so the producers essentially gave her the shaft for this film. 
The film ends with Clark getting Lana a job at the Daily Planet (that guy likes working as a headhunter, doesn’t he?) and the classic Lana/Lois comics rivalry is implied, but, with Lana absent from Superman IV, nothing ever emerges from this plotline.
Also, what is it with Superman movies and annoying precocious children? Do the filmmakers feel a need to make up for Zod's Henry Fonda moment in Superman II?
This movie has one........
A child’s letter turns Superman into a dictator in Superman IV.
And Jason, Superman's son after date raping Lois, is one of the top 79 reasons why Superman Returns failed on every conceivable level.
5) Computer of Doom
The ultimate contest for Superman in Superman III is fighting a giant computer built by Gorman and Webster. The computer has ultimate defenses like a missile guidance system
Still looks more fun than Superman N64
and while you might think this cheesy sequence with the video game is to avoid showing Superman fighting the missiles and rockets, you'd be wrong.
The computer creates one of those Rover Balloons from The Prisoner to capture Superman.
The purpose of this attack, as Frau excitedly says, is to “see how long he can carry on without any air!” Well, he can probably hold it for awhile, since he does go into space often.
Then, it turns out that the computer developed a program that identifies an enemy's weakness and blasts Superman with a ray of pure Kryptonite, possibly killing him. (I know, this makes no sense.) This upsets Gorman who attempts to shut down the machine.
After Gorman unscrews a screw, the machine shuts down. Then he fights and beats Webster in what amounts to a slap fight.
Shockingly, it starts up again almost immediately, causing Gorman to exclaim “It wants to live!“ Much like Clark vs. Superman, this existential dilemma could be interesting as to what constitutes life, and should very much interest Superman. If one of Superman's codes is not to kill living things, wouldn't what to do with a “living” computer be worthy of further analysis?
It's a TARDIS
The computer also has the ability to turn Frau into a robot lady in a sequence that can only be described as highly disturbing.
Note here: When Clark leaves Frau, to the best of our knowledge, she’s still a cyborg. So Superman's leaving a killer cyborg lady that can shoot unstoppable projectiles for the police to contain? Just to hang out with Gus Gorman?
Earlier in the film, Superman saves a burning chemical plant on his way to Smallville. Inside the plant is an acid that, if heated, will eat all metals. During a lull in the fight, Superman flies to Smallville, gets the acid, and uses it to destroy the machine. To the film’s credit, the acid was a minor, forgettable point from the first, forgettable action sequence so using it to conclude the second one was kind of clever on the filmmakers' part.
There you have it. The computer's dead, cops have Webster + crew, Gorman has a job, Lois comes back, Superman re-leans the Straight Tower of Pisa (in the wrong direction) upsetting the racist stereotype, fly around earth, and end.
Conclusion
So Superman III.... 2 hours and 4 minutes where it's well over a half hour before Webster even appears. And a bit longer after that when you realize that Gorman is going to be the major bad guy. Marred with a terrible plot, poor performances, lame comedy, and so many other things that make the 1980s an embarrassing decade for film, is it any wonder that it took nearly two decades for superhero films to earn respect?
And not only is it a bad movie, but the first in the trilogy of terrible “Donner-verse” Superman films.
This is followed by 1987's Superman IV: The Quest for Peace and 2006's Superman Returns, which un-existences Superman III and IV.
Like I said above, I don’t want to concentrate exclusively on superhero movies in this blog. But I haven't entirely decided against doing Superman IV for the next one. Or maybe I'll do Death Wish III, The Love Guru, or something else. It's not as if anybody is reading this.
Email me at cinemasochismblog@gmail.com for any conceivable reason or to suggest a movie.
