Superhero movies - the good, the bad, and the ugly

With the big Supes box set coming, Superman Returns and X3 in theatres, Ghost Rider and Spider-Man trailers everywhere, and talk of upcoming sequels to Fantastic 4 and Hulk, there is a lot of talk about what makes some of these movies good, or worth anyone's time. Even Digital Joe mentioned he liked Daredevil in his new column (I'm with you on that, though we seem to be the minority). Putting all the critics, who are often harsh with superhero movies out of your minds, what do people think of the many superhero franchises out there, since there seems to be no end in sight for superhero movies. For example, here's how I'd rate a few of them:

Good - Superman, Spider-Man (1 & 2), X-Men (all 3), Daredevil (Director's Cut), Hulk
Bad - Superman 3, Elektra
Ugly - Catwoman, Superman 4, Man-Thing

You don't have to follow that format, but there seems to be a lot of anger about how some superhero franchises have been handled, and there seems to be a consensus on message boards here and elsewhere that some adaptations are horrible, when everyone I know liked them. Just interested in others thoughts.

I "adamantly insisted" on nothing. I merely mentioned that I liked how Nolan anticipated the coming of the Joker, Commissioner Gordon, the Bat Cave, and the various loonies dressed up in disguises doing their crimes. Somehow, you've taken this innocuous comment and stretched it into something bigger it was meant to be.

Incidentally, as you know, I loved "Sin City" and had no love for "Catwoman." I don't care about a film's faithfulness or lack thereof, only what I like.

John

john,

the paragraph in your review can certainly be understood in the manner that you just described, but when the movie was released last year, you adamantly insisted that nolan's movie is a prequel to tim burton's movie.

faithfulness to the comic books isn't what the issue is. tim burton's "batman" movies played fast and loose with batman's history, but they were still great movies. "catwoman" had nothing to do with selena kyle and was a terrible movie. "sin city" was very faithful to its source but was a terrible movie.

eddie

:)Spiderman 2

:)Remo Williams

:)The greatest American Hero -believe it or not! -The first one I saw where the superhero wasn't a "natural".

It's been ages since I saw the Superman movies, but I remember they were pretty good. I've stayed away from Batman since the first one. I saw Daredevil and can't remember it. X2 was boring. [IMhO]

Eddie,

You know exactly what I meant; you're arguing over trifles again. The minor inconsistencies in "Batman Begins" derive from its being even more faithful to the comic books than to the Burton movies, but I simply meant in my review that "Begins" anticipates at its conclusion the coming of the Joker, the advancement of Gordon to Commissioner, etc. However, I appreciate your pointing out that the wording in my review probably needs clarification.

John

What a lovely opportunity for a late night rant before I leave for a brief vacation. :)


The first 45 (or so) minutes of "Batman Begins" is not, by any means, the worst stretch of cinema I have ever seen. It does, however, perfectly encapsulate a quality (or "A Certain Tendency") that I truly DESPISE in American cinema (it is not exclusively American, but is certainly more American than European) - namely, the obsession with so-called psychological realism.

Eddie has already explained it well (and it pains me to type those words). This incessant need to explain _everything_ about a character in excruciating detail; this paint-by-numbers approach to psychology that can be blamed partly on Freud, partly on Skinner - e.g. a traumatic event in character's childhood explains why he becomes scared/angry/obsessive, etc.; or Event A in childhood explains why adult character possesses Quality B. It is absurd, it is boring, it is downright offensive, yet critic ooh and ah over how it "establishes" or "deepens" the character. As David Mamet says, there is never any need to "establish character." Character is revealed through actions, and if you ever need to craft a moment specificially to "establish character" then you are a lousy writer/filmmaker.

Every dot is connected, all mystery scrubbed away with diligence, as we trudge proudly beyond freedom and dignity. We are left with mechanical men, clockwork oranges, not living, breathing characters who can grow and surprise us.

I will leave the final word on the subject to Werner Herzog:

"I have a metaphor: If you illuminate your house with strong lights to the very last corner, the house becomes uninhabitable. And it's the same thing if you try to illuminate a human being to the last crevices of his or her soul—these human beings become uninhabitable."

john,

i dunno...from your own review of "batman begins":

"In a nod to "Batman Begins" being a kind of prequel to the earlier Tim Burton films, I liked the way Nolan ends his tale with a signal of things to come in subsequent installments."

you have insisted in more than one place here at dvdtown.com that nolan's movie fits the continuity of burton's movies, but this is flat-out inaccurate. in nolan's movie, joe chill killed bruce wayne's parents. in burton's movies, jack napier (the joker) killed bruce wayne's parents. even setting aside the events in the movies themselves, nolan and writer david goyer have said that they are starting completely anew with nothing to do with any previous incarnations of batman.

eddie

"I'm surprised people are saying Begins was bad." --interplanetaryspy

I loved it, but you have to understand that Eddie and Chris are from another world.

John

people always find some lame excuse to justify a movie being slow or boring. (i remember my former colleague hock guan teh telling me that since "lotr 2" was the middle of the story that a slowdown was to be expected. hogwash--the middle of a story has to maintain momentum in order to carry the viewer into the final act. otherwise, who wants to stick around?)

origin stories do not have to be slow or boring. "harry potter 1" was so good that i went to barnes and noble to buy the books after i saw the first movie on dvd. tim burton's "batman" handled exposition very well and elegantly by not trying to dot every i and cross every t. this allowed the movie to be light on its feet. on the other hand, "batman begins" dragged and dragged and dragged so much that i almost fell asleep in the theatre.

I'd put the first "Batman" and certainly "Batman Begins" in the good category, and "Fantastic Four" in the really, really ugly. Incidentally, I thought the Director's Cut of "Daredevil" was quite a step up from the mediocre theatrical release.

John

good: batman (1989), batman returns, batman: mask of the phantasm, hulk, the incredibles

okay: spider-man, spider-man 2, x-men, x2: x-men united, x-men: the last stand, batman (1966), dick tracy, darkman, superman ii

mediocre: daredevil (theatrical and director's cut), batman begins, unbreakable (aka unbearable), blade, blade ii, v for vendetta, constantine, the crow, swamp thing, the mask, hellboy, superman, superman returns

bad: captain america, the punisher (1989), the punisher (2004), fantastic four (1994), fantastic four (2005), catwoman, elektra, superman iii, superman iv, blade: trinity, the league of extraordinary gentlemen, batman forever, batman & robin, teenage mutant ninja turtles series, the rest of the crow series, the rest of the darkman series, steel (shaquille o'neal as superman!), son of the mask



other comic-book adaptations:
good: road to perdition

okay: ghost world

mediocre: from hell

bad: sin city

Good - Superman, Superman 2, Spider-Man 2, X-Men 2, Batman (Burton), Batman (1966), the Dr. Strange TV movie, The Trial of the Incredible Hulk

Bad- Batman Begins, Batman and Robin, Punisher (the 1st one), Sin City

Ugly- X-Men 3, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Steel, Captain America, Batman Forever, Superman 4

Ugliest - Daredevil (a low water mark not just for super-hero films, but for modern culture)



I didn't count animated movies, of which there are several good ones, esp. some of the Batman ones.

I forgot to include the Bat-films. I'm surprised people are saying Begins was bad - I thought it was universally loved. Begins (Very good), Batman (very good), Batman Returns (Good), Batman Forever (bad), Batman & Robin (among the worst movies ever made). Oh, and Sin City was fantastic, but I know from another thread the objection by some to anything violent, so I won't get into that here. (see the Saw III thread) As for Daredevil, and I think Constantine as well, I think people's enjoyment seems to have a lot to do with their familiarity with the character, and I knew nothing about either one, so I enjoyed the movies. Many people who love the comics those movies are based on, hated the movies, I think primarily because of the casting of Affleck and Reeves.

"batman begins" is an overly-literal movie that leaves nothing to the imagination. therefore, it is not a particularly inspiring creation--that is, it doesn't help the viewer envision possibilities since it tells the viewer every mundane detail about batman's life. the final third was overblown and clumsily staged (especially the lame fighting on the elevated subway). i also hated the lousy editing, which reduced the impact of the cinematography.

"sin city" is bad not because it's very violent but because it's a hodge-podge smush of inaneness. the one good thing in it was mickey rourke. everyone else either slept-walked through it or didn't know how to act in the first place (see jessica alba, devon aoki, rosario dawson, nick stahl, etc.).

I certainly wouldn't say the fighting was poorly staged in the least in Begins. Plus, I expect different things from the first movie in a comic series (and this is the 1st movie), compared to the sequels. The first ones always need to give you the backstory, which generally slows down the pacing, but I think Nolan did it better than even Burton. Batman is the one superhero that I am very familiar with from the comics, and I think this was the first time the character's origin was handled well, and really, it was handled in some form in nearly every movie.

interplanetaryspy:

i did read your post, and on the basis of one movie using jack napier as the waynes' killer and the other movie using joe chill+the league of shadows as the waynes' killers alone, "batman begins" CAN NOT be a prequel in any way, shape, or form to tim burton's "batman". moreover, nolan, goyer, and warner bros. executives have said that "batman begins" is not related to burton's "batman". this is not like "superman returns", which has been explicitly stated as a sequel to "superman ii".

eddie

Eddie,

Did you actually read my post? I said that Begins was not meant to tread too much on the original franchise, and COULD, apart from some minor continuity problems, work as a prequel. I also said that the sequel WILL "re-make the Batman universe", with its own continuity. I'm not really insisting that Begins was a prequel at all, but that one could, if they forgive some continuity problems, consider it a prequel. I don't think John was really insisting anything, either.

onijay:

just out of curiosity, have you seen all of ang lee's movies? try watching these in the following order:

1) pushing hands
2) the wedding banquet
3) eat drink man woman
4) the ice storm
5) ride with the devil
6) crouching tiger, hidden dragon
7) hulk

(i'm leaving out "sense and sensibility" because that was a hired-gun project and not a self-initiated project. the same can be said about "brokeback mountain", actually.)

ang lee had a troubled relationship with his father due to various cultural factors. his dad did not want him to make movies as moviemakers were viewed as second-class citizens in chinese society up until at least the mid-1980s. lee's movies are mostly about responses to patriarchal authority (usually, the patriarchs have heavily negative or undesirable influences on their children). this culminated in "hulk", with ang lee literally playing the hulk himself (during post-production, ang lee acted out the hulk's movements with computer motion-capture photography). "hulk" was ang lee's way of duking it out with his own dad without actually beating up his dad in real life (yes, making movies as psychotherapy). the movie also features two pairs of bad fathers and troubled kids (the banners and the rosses). this is the best way to approach understanding why ang lee made the movie that he did.

eddie

john and interplanetaryspy:

let me put it this way--when nolan's sequel to "batman begins" arrives in theatres, you'll see that nolan's "batman" narrative continuum has nothing to do with burton's "batman" continuum. if you still insist that "batman begins" is a prequel to burton and schumacher's movies, then i'll have no choice but to write you off as hardheads.

eddie

I was fairly confident I was going to enjoy the Hulk, and seeing as how I bought it as a blind buy for 49 cents (a malfunction of the cash register I didn't notice till after I got home, although I was curious as to how I could get three new movies for $18, anyway) I figured there was no way I would be disppointed. I popped the movie in and watched, enjoying the neat comic book panels slidding by every now and then. And then I waited, and waited, and waited, and nothing happened. To say nothing happened is overexagerrated hyperbole (that phrase in and of itself was hyperbole, apologies), but in essence I waited to be entertained. Instead it was a bunch of stuff I didn't care about pertaining to some guy I had no clue about. Needless to say that after a whopping one hour of this nothingness I shut it off, and didn't return to it for seven whole months. This time I sat through the whole thing, and needless to say I wanted my 49 cents back. The action scenes were decent enough, but it was far too little way too late. Nick Nolte was just annoying and out of place, and I found nothing enjoyable. The comic panel technique felt underemployed so that it came out as feeling more like a gimmique than an actual technique. Not to say I would want an entire movie in that format, but there wasn't enough of it, and when there was, it felt kinda silly (that man who shot the rocket launcher at the Hulk only to have it rebound back at him and blow him out of the panel in the strange white warp thing was stranger than anything on Austin Powers when they used those time machines).

As for Begins, the script is atrocious, I couldn't help but feel what a hack job it was. The third time I watched the movie it was actually grating on my nerves to listen to the dialogue and think about the mechanics of the plot as written, the editing and cinematography for most fights was too fast paced and too tight, just move out three feet and I probably would have enjoyed it. But I still had tonnes of fun and enjoyed revisiting the Batman world that I hadn't truly experienced since I saw Batman as a young child (warped stuff to see I realise, but I loved every moment of the crazy stuff).

Best superhero movie for me is a tough one though becuase there's so many good ones. In terms of sheer novelty it would have to be Batman, but most well-rounded and innovative would be Spiderman 2 or Superman (even though I have no real interest in the man of steel, never really enjoying the DC characters, with the exception of Batman).

We're getting a little off-topic, but while there are inconsistencies, the whole idea with Nolan's movie not including previously used characters was so that they didn't start out by eliminating the world established by the other films. It could have been horrible (but it wasn't), and it could have bombed, and therefore there would have been no sequel talk. If that had been the case, while everything wouldn't have worked perfectly (and by the way, compare Batman to flashbacks in subsequent movies - it's not exactly the same), it would have fit somewhat into the chronology of the previous movies. Now the plan is to bring Joker and Two-Face into the next film, and re-make the Batman universe as a separate film franchise, but John is at least right in that, with some minor problems (and there are minor problems with continuity between the previous films), it could have fit as a prequel.

Now, back to the topic at hand, I'm curious as to why Daredevil and Hulk seem to polarize people so much. Everyone agrees Catwoman was pathetic, but people rarely seem to be on the fence about these two. Is one's prior knowledge of a character and preconceived notions about how a character should appear on screen enough to say a movie is bad? Batman has always been my favorite character, and Burton took a lot of liberties with the backstory, but I can still appreciate that the movie itself is good. I'm amazed at how few people can look at a movie and a film as separate incarnations of a character, rather than having to stay faithful to every aspect of the comic series. It's also odd because so many comic book series aren't consistent within themselves - as new spin-off books are established, and new writers are brought in, the world changes, but somehow that's OK, and changing a character for a movie isn't.

john,

unfortunately, the truth can only be attained when the facts are in order.

burton's "batman" establishes jack napier/the joker as the guy who killed bruce wayne's parents in a random mugging.

nolan's "batman begins" establishes joe chill as the guy who killed bruce wayne's parents on orders from the league of shadows.

in burton's "batman", the joker arrives after jim gordon is already the police commissioner.

in nolan's "batman begins", jim gordon is only a lieutenant when the joker shows up. this joker won't be joe chill because a) joe chill is dead and b) this joker was probably one of the escapees from arkham asylum. (by the way, arkham asylum is not even mentioned in burton's "batman".)

aside from the above points, "batman begins" is not a prequel to "batman" (1989) because in "batman begins", jim gordon creates the bat signal after he is inspired by a shadow that carmine falcone cast when shackled to a searchlight. if "batman begins" were a prequel to "batman", then gordon would already be using a bat signal at the beginning of "batman". instead, most of "batman" is about gordon and the rest of gotham city discovering that there is a man dressed as a bat in their midst--something that already happened in "batman begins"! moreover, the bat signal is introduced at the end of the movie--something that batman creates and gives to the police.

each movie was clearly inspired by decades of batman lore but explores batman's origins on its own terms. the only thing that they have in common is that they are "batman" movies.

eddie

p.s. ironically, you mentioned being bothered by "inconsistencies". you yourself noted discrepancies. you know why there are discrepancies? because the movies aren't in the same narrative continuum!!!

Eddie, the comments you now refer to were off-the-cuff remarks I made at the message board, not in my review. Nevertheless, I still stand by them. With only the few inconsistencies you've noted, which I consider inconsequential, "Batman Begins" figures neatly into the "Batman" movie scheme of things. Period. Now, go to bed and dream of better things. Like what to say about my upcoming review of "Pirates II." Or maybe it will be Tim who will be more displeased with me. I dunno.

John

- EXTERNAL LINK -

somewhere in the middle,

on 17 june--
john: "This new entry is supposed to be a continuation in the Warner Bros. movie series of Batman adventures..."

on 18 june--
john: "It even introduces the Joker at the end of the movie as a logical connection to Burton's first movie."

on 20 june--
john: "More important, it is an appropriate prequel to the other four movies that preceded it."

"So the new movie makes a nice tie-in with the movies that came before it but follow it in time."

""Batman Begins" IS meant to be a prequel, in the same way that the Episodes I-III of "Star Wars" were prequels to Episodes IV-VI."

I'm still waiting for Schumacher to apologize for everything else.

Chris,

Alas, YOU agree with me, but John doesn't.

John: "With only the few inconsistencies you've noted, which I consider inconsequential, "Batman Begins" figures neatly into the "Batman" movie scheme of things. Period."

The quoted passage is very troubling. "Aside from some discrepancies, "Batman Begins" fits perfectly into a pre-existing structure." That statement is an egregious logical fallacy.

It certainly matters what an artist says about his work when he's talking about FACTS. Nolan stating that "Batman Begins" has nothing to do with previous "Batman" adaptations is a statement of FACT. Schumacher stating that "Batman & Robin" is better than "2001" is a statement of OPINION. Opinions can be disregarded. (In the same vein, Peter Jackson telling us that he likes one version of "LOTR" over another is still a FACT because he's telling us a factual preference rather than a completely subjective evaluation.)

Eddie

P.S. By the way, Schumacher apologized for making "Batman & Robin" in the two-disc special edition's audio commentary. Your assumption of Schumacher's opinion of his own movies--in at least one case--was rather damn wrong, too.

Eddie,

John isn't even arguing with you. So give it a rest. You're right. It's not in the same continuity as the other Batman films, any more than Burton's Batman was in the same continuity as Batman (1966). If anything, "Batman Begins" is trying to wedge itself in (though not faithfully) to Frank Miller's Year One continuity from the comic books. Everyone agrees. Next point.

I don't get what you're saying about disagreeing with the directors. It's the art, not the artist (or the work, not the craftsman, if you prefer). I'm sure Joel Schumacher thinks he makes brilliant cinema; his opinion doesn't hold much sway with me. Y'know, "death of the author" and all that.

john,

as you and i both know, dictionaries are only rudimentary tools that provide definitions that are often too limiting or simply inadequate to apply to real-life uses of words. for example, most dictionaries define documentaries as "objective" examinations of issues, but there is no such thing as an objective documentary.

at any rate, you know full well that i love reading your reviews, but in the case of "batman begins", your opinion about the movie--positive or negative--is weakened by the un-true claim that the movie is a prequel to tim burton's "batman". factual errors basically invalidate subjective arguments that one may advance.

by the way, one can certainly consider schumacher's movies as unrelated to burton's (and nolan's). in "batman forever", there are several flashback sequences that are different from what was shown in burton's "batman" (and nolan's "batman begins"). even with the re-use of certain actors in certain roles, schumacher's movies are a complete departure from burton's.

eddie

p.s. if you're going to ignore what nolan says about his own movie (that it's not a prequel to any previous "batman" movie), then as i wrote in response to someone who didn't give a damn if peter jackson prefers the three-hour or four-hour cuts of the "lotr" cycle, the movie itself is worthless.

Tim, yeah, I think that any readers not familiar with us or the site should be aware that we're all good friends here, and any "picking on" is meant only in the spirit of friendly debate. It's just that we're critics; I mean, heck, what do you expect when you and I and Eddie and Chris and Jason and the rest get together? Love ain't got nuthin' to do with it.

John

John,

You should know me by now; I have no issues with not enjoying Pirates II as much as I did. I might tease you about it but I'm only kidding around with you because you're a friend to me. If anything, what the heck is with Eddie picking on you?

Tim ;)

"batman begins" CAN NOT be a prequel in any way, shape, or form to tim burton's "batman". --Eddie

Sorry, Eddie; we're beating a dead horse here and carrying on a conversation that nobody else cares about. Oh, well....

Anyway, technically speaking, a "prequel" does not have to be entirely consistent with what comes afterward. Nowhere in the definition of "prequel" does it say that a prequel must keep all of the details exact, according to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary ("a literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age") or the Merriam-Webster Third International Unabridged Dictionary ("a literary or dramatic work whose story precedes that of an earlier work"). If everything needed to be exact, none of the "Batman" movies would work together: different actors, different Bat costumes, different Batmobiles, etc.

As I said earlier, I think you're exaggerating your argument for the sake of arguing. But, again, I appreciate the criticism because it lead me to reword the offending statement to something that may be clearer all the way around and keep nitpickers at bay. ;)

John

Now if only we could get an Alien Returns that did the same thing.

Chris,

What a great quote from Herzog. Would you mind telling me where you heard or read it?

Speaking of superheroes, did you see the interview where Herzog was shot with an air rifle and remained completely unphased? Oddly enough, a couple days earlier he had rescued Joaquin Phoenix from a car wreck.

- EXTERNAL LINK -

"It was not a significant bullet. I am not afraid."

-Kurtis

SEMANTICS AND LINGUISTICS IS A BITCH.

ESPECIALLY IF ENGLISH IS YER FIRST LANGUAGE, AND THEN YOU TRY TO LEARN YER MOTHER'S NATIVE LANGUAGE, SUCH AS SPANISH.

AND THEN YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH DIALECT, SLANG, AND WHAT-NOT.

THIS IRKS ME. :p

BATMAN IS THE SHIT BY THE WAY. 8)

"Given our friendship, I wholeheartedy apologize for ruffling you."

Yet you continue to ruffle by repeating your same argument ad nauseam.

Say goodnight, Gracie.

John

John,

Given our friendship, I wholeheartedy apologize for ruffling you.

Nevertheless, I am troubled by your turn towards arguing semantics, now using the word "prequel" to mean "pre-date" when all previous discussions of "prequel" re: "Batman Begins" was about narrative cohesion. (Besides, both "Batman Begins" and "Batman" (1989) are origin stories featuring the first appearance of Batman in Gotham City. Therefore, they take place at the same time in Bruce Wayne's life--when he becomes Batman.)

----------

- EXTERNAL LINK -

20 June 2005--
John: ""Batman Begins" IS meant to be a prequel, in the same way that the Episodes I-III of "Star Wars" were prequels to Episodes IV-VI."

----------

"Star Wars: Episodes I-III" and "Star Wars: Episodes IV-VI" are in the same narrative continuum. "Batman Begins" is not in the same narrative continuum as the "Batman" movies directed by Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher.

Eddie

Eddie, YOU are an egregious logical fallacy. :)

"Batman Begins" is so titled because it goes back to Batman's roots. Thus it predates the prevous "Batman" movies, showing us how things got started. Therefore, it is a prequel in the most literal, denotative sense. Of course, you apparently have your own personal definition of "prequel," so my reasoning is lost on you.

Seriously, why are continuing this nonsensical harangue? I made a perfectly harmless remark in my review , which you perfectly understood as did everyone else who read it (and which I have since reworded to conform to your demands), and yet you are still turning it into a federal case. Do you want me to cry "uncle" in public? I won't because I think you're being egregiously wrong and egregiously wrong-headed about this. You're simply nitpicking, and you know it, but you refuse to give in or give up. Well, I admire your determination, but it is becoming annoying even to a fairly even-tempered fellow like me.

John

Kurtis,

Herzog has related that metaphor many times. I actually heard him use it when he spoke at an event in L.A. a few years ago. However, I this specific quote was apparently from an article in a magazine called "Stop Smiling", Issue 25, 2006. I plucked it off the net here:

- EXTERNAL LINK -