'Superman IV' > 'Superman III'

This post was adapted and updated from an originally published piece on a previous personal blog I maintained in 2010.

If ever there was a story of tragedy when charting the rise and fall of a once-proud comic book movie franchise, you don't really need to look further than the first modern example. When it was first released in 1978, director Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie became an immediate core showpiece for what would become one of the most popular and enduring genres in all of cinematic history. Populating the cast with both popular and respected actors like Marlon Brando, Gene Hackman, and Glenn Ford, the true jackpot was, of course, the newcomer in the red cape: Christopher Reeve.

Superman: The Movie was a notable success critically and commercially for its time, but a long and arduous road to theaters would portend a lot of difficulty to come for the series. Producers Pierre Spengler and Alexander & Ilya Salkind would fire Donner before he could finish the first film's sequel, bringing in Richard Lester to instead take the helm for Superman II. Continued box office success saw the production of Superman III, completely under Lester's control and proving to be a lackluster outing when compared to the previous two efforts.

The Salkinds and Spengler sold the rights to a possible fourth film to the Cannon Group, known for creating a lineup of low-budget projects, and secured most of the major cast members from the first three films to make a third sequel. What followed was one of the worst-regarded superhero films in existence, and any possibility of a fifth film was quickly dashed when Christopher Reeve suffered a massively debilitating neck injury in 1994.

Even so, I enjoy Superman IV quite a bit more than its predecessor, for a number of reasons. I’ll list a few of them off:

1) Simply Describing the Plot to People Sounds Better

While not many people can feasibly say that Superman IV is a particularly good movie, it seems that most of the particulars surrounding some of its best attributes are actually kind of lost in the nebulous generalization brought about by the Internet age. For most younger observers now, Superman IV is dismissed out of hand due to its paltry 12% score on Rotten Tomatoes, with most people refusing to even watch it after seeing that it was a rather thunderous dud with both its contemporary critics, and with modern ones.

However, for those that actually do take the time to watch it, warts and all, it's easy to see where it excels, particularly and especially in relation to Superman III.

Here’s the plot of Superman IV:

Feeling a responsibility to defend the Earth from the very real threat of nuclear annihilation, Superman takes it upon himself to rid our planet of the powerful weapons. Wanting to profiteer off of fear and humanity’s innate desire to create war, Lex Luthor uses Superman’s good deed as a tool to destroy him, by creating a being that can both kill Superman and allow Luthor to make billions of dollars rearming the world’s governments.

Compare that with the plot of Superman III:

A technology tycoon manipulates a clueless man who has an innate ability to use computers into using his technological skills to try and rule the world financially. Seeing Superman as a threat, he finds a way to create an element causing him to doubt himself and his purpose, all the while an old flame has returned to Clark Kent’s life in the form of high school sweetheart Lana Lang.

Now, just off the fly, which of those movies sound better to you? The one about a goofball that uses computers played by Richard Pryor, or the one about Superman trying to save the world from nuclear weapons and Lex Luthor?

You can almost feel the weight of the world on Superman’s shoulders in this quiet moment of reflection he takes at the Daily Planet.

2) Reeve’s Performance

The first and most obvious positive that Superman IV has is its star, Christopher Reeve. Brought back into the fold as the Man of Steel once more with the promise of having an opportunity to shepherd a passion project, Reeve also had a direct hand in formulating the story for what would become Superman IV. Having been made in the waning years of the Cold War, placing the real-world acceleration of nuclear tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, predominant in the 1980's, made sense: how could Superman possibly ignore the idea of mutually assured destruction in a world he lived in?

Although the execution of this movie was cheap and embarrassing, Christopher Reeve’s performance is actually one of his best in this series, right behind the obviously-superior first two parts. There are several of his bumbling Clark Kent moments that are very well comedically timed, and the straight-faced way Superman wants to save us all from ourselves comes across as genuine in classic Reeve style. His banter with Lex Luthor and the way he conducts himself while damaged after his fight with Nuclear Man also has an emotional punctuation given the frailty and almost embarrassment that Superman feels over his defeat.

Reeve was always extraordinary in this role in every installment, particularly with his uncanny ability to play several different characters through one overarching Man of Steel. He does this in Superman III with the fight against himself and the way he created the persona of the “corrupted” Superman. In The Quest for Peace, Clark has some very quiet and personal moments where it’s almost as if you can see the weight of the world on his shoulders.

3) Gene Hackman and the Return of Lex Luthor

It’s well documented that the only reason Hackman even considered this film was as a personal favor to Christopher Reeve, but his mere presence, I feel, automatically gives this film more credibility than the previous installment. With many famous actors in bad movies, you can pretty much tell when they’re phoning a performance in. Admittedly, Hackman does this in a few places. But the moments where he is directly interacting with Superman, or extorting other maniacal world leaders for their share of nuclear profits, it’s easy to see that the Gene Hackman from 1978 decided to make a quite noticeable return in 1987.

I also argue that using Luthor once more, while it would later prove problematic for Superman Returns, was a good move since he’s obviously the superior villain to the hackneyed Luthor-lite they came up with for Superman III.

But yes, I will admit, the character of Lenny was the most redundant thing I may have ever seen in any movie ever, taking nothing away from the fact that his performer, Jon Cryer, is a terrific actor and now a great version of Lex Luthor in his own right.

4) An Overall More Serious Tone

Superman III suffered in large part to me because the entire thing seemed to have its tongue planted in its cheek. From the mere casting of Richard Pryor, to opening up with a shameless slapstick comedy scene, it’s probably the oddest and most out-of-place installment of a Superman film.

With The Quest for Peace, Christopher Reeve had a direct hand in developing the story, noticing the very points I’ve outlined, and wanted to return to the former glory of the first film. That mere intention raises the stature of this film well above III, because as a fan of the character I don’t need to see him treated like an excuse to be “wacky.” If Richard Donner had directed this film, and if it was given a proper budget and more creative clout behind it, we would still be going to movie theaters every couple of summers to watch Christopher Reeve take flight.

So, in the end, I like The Quest for Peace quite a bit more than I like Superman III. It’s not an argument I win very much, but even so, I thought I might as well spell it out while it had crossed my mind again.