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