Superhero movies have become their own genre, and usually a very profitable one for movie-makers. There have certainly been a lot of dogs produced in this genre over the years (Hulk 2003, Electra, Superman Returns, etc...) but there have also been some fabulous efforts whose quality has transcended the pulp origins of the subject matter. There is a ton of great word of mouth about the new Batman movie (The Dark Knight), I loved the recent Iron Man film, and the newest Hulk received mostly positive reviews. There are films about Hellboy 2, Wolverine (from the X-Men), Thor, The Avengers, Captain America and many more in various stages of production preparing to keep the genre center stage.
Which film in this genre stands out for you as the best ever made? What was it that you really liked about it?
The Superhero Genre
-
cinemalover
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:57 am
- Location: Seattle, Washington
Unfortunately I haven't seen any you mentioned except I did get a kick out of the X-Men. If another Wolverine is being made, is Hugh Jackman continuing in the role? If so, I will definitely go see it. However, I can say that I thought the original (or first) Superman (Chris Reeve) was amazing. I was even able to overcome marble mouth as the Dad, but I thoroughly enjoyed that one. The following were not nearly the same calibre.
Anne
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
-
cinemalover
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:57 am
- Location: Seattle, Washington
Hi Anne,
Hugh Jackman will indeed don the long claws of Wolverine in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, currently in post-production and slated for a May 1, 2009 release.
I also enjoyed Christopher Reeve as Superman, but I think I liked number two even better than the first, but that's just me.
Hugh Jackman will indeed don the long claws of Wolverine in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, currently in post-production and slated for a May 1, 2009 release.
I also enjoyed Christopher Reeve as Superman, but I think I liked number two even better than the first, but that's just me.
Chris
The only bad movie is no movie at all.
The only bad movie is no movie at all.
-
cinemalover
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:57 am
- Location: Seattle, Washington
-
jdb1
It sounds pretty good, but I simply can't take Christian Bale.cinemalover wrote:Have any of our members seen The Dark Knight yet? I'm curious to know if it can possibly live up to its hype?
I find it outrageous for an adult actor (or any adult, really) to still have a lisp, and Bale's is particularly distracting, since he sort of curls up the right corner of his upper lip whenever he says the letter "s." I can't get too excited over a tall, muscular "superhero" who talks with a lisp.
For that matter, I couldn't stand Michael Keaton, as the first of the recent cinematic Caped Crusaders, with his exaggerated Chicago-talk: "I'm Beeyet-meeyen." Nothing wrong with it in ordinary commerce, but a superhero should talk like one, not like a delivery boy, or an otherwise delayed adolescent, don't you think?
I think I'll pass on this one 'til it comes to TV, where I can switch it off if it gets too unpleasant to listen to.
-
cinemalover
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:57 am
- Location: Seattle, Washington
I'm most interested in Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker. Everyone I've talked to that's seen it say it is an incredible performance. I wonder if he's getting some sympathy and added attention since his unfortunate demise, or if he's really that good. He'll always be compared to Jack Nicholson's over the top interpretation of the Joker, which is a tough act to follow.
Chris
The only bad movie is no movie at all.
The only bad movie is no movie at all.
Well, I finally saw "The Dark Knight" yesterday.
It is a very well-made movie, and I'm glad I saw it. However, I still prefer the 1989 version.
"Dark Knight" would have been a real winner for me, had it been about Superhero X instead of Batman. I don't consider myself the biggest Batman fan in the world, and I prefer Marvel to DC by far, but to me "The Dark Knight" changes a lot about the character.
first, this Batman is practically an "organization man." He works very closely with Commissioner Gordon, and has his own technical department headed by Morgan Freeman. He also has regular mentoring sessions with Alfred. (Then there are a lot of guys who dress up like Batman to fight crime.) All in all, this Batman seemed the head of a team rather than the lone obsessive that I remembered from the 1989 movie. (and perhaps this is truer to most versions of Batman than the 1989 one. It didn't especially work for me.)
Second, "The Dark Knight" is set in a Gotham that is pretty clearly Chicago. This is no expressionist city of the mind as in the two Tim Burton films. I found this posed some problems to me, like "how does the Joker get around so damn fast?" How could the Joker not have fingerprints or DNA on file anywhere? When the Joker is arrested, why did nobody take the make-up off his face? If the city were stylized, I wouldn't have so many spoiler questions running through my head.
third, this Batman was heavily dependent on technology, perhaps too much so, especially since it was designed for him by somebody else. I guess I really like the lone-wolf Batman.
Finally, the movie's ending irked me a bit. Suddenly there is a "Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" type situation (a secret has to kept for the greater good), and Batman becomes a hated fugitive from justice. I look at this, and I think thye've turned Batman into Spiderman. Batman is not Spiderman and never has been. What were they thinking?
Of course, these complaints are based on my ideas about Batman, and I've never been that big a Batman fan. The film is well-made. Ledger did a good job as the Joker. Gary Oldman did a great job as Commissioner Gordon, a character I've never cared about before. Bale was only okay. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman were terrific.
It is a very well-made movie, and I'm glad I saw it. However, I still prefer the 1989 version.
"Dark Knight" would have been a real winner for me, had it been about Superhero X instead of Batman. I don't consider myself the biggest Batman fan in the world, and I prefer Marvel to DC by far, but to me "The Dark Knight" changes a lot about the character.
first, this Batman is practically an "organization man." He works very closely with Commissioner Gordon, and has his own technical department headed by Morgan Freeman. He also has regular mentoring sessions with Alfred. (Then there are a lot of guys who dress up like Batman to fight crime.) All in all, this Batman seemed the head of a team rather than the lone obsessive that I remembered from the 1989 movie. (and perhaps this is truer to most versions of Batman than the 1989 one. It didn't especially work for me.)
Second, "The Dark Knight" is set in a Gotham that is pretty clearly Chicago. This is no expressionist city of the mind as in the two Tim Burton films. I found this posed some problems to me, like "how does the Joker get around so damn fast?" How could the Joker not have fingerprints or DNA on file anywhere? When the Joker is arrested, why did nobody take the make-up off his face? If the city were stylized, I wouldn't have so many spoiler questions running through my head.
third, this Batman was heavily dependent on technology, perhaps too much so, especially since it was designed for him by somebody else. I guess I really like the lone-wolf Batman.
Finally, the movie's ending irked me a bit. Suddenly there is a "Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" type situation (a secret has to kept for the greater good), and Batman becomes a hated fugitive from justice. I look at this, and I think thye've turned Batman into Spiderman. Batman is not Spiderman and never has been. What were they thinking?
Of course, these complaints are based on my ideas about Batman, and I've never been that big a Batman fan. The film is well-made. Ledger did a good job as the Joker. Gary Oldman did a great job as Commissioner Gordon, a character I've never cared about before. Bale was only okay. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman were terrific.
-
klondike
I'm baffled!jdb1 wrote:
I find it outrageous for an adult actor (or any adult, really) to still have a lisp, and Bale's is particularly distracting, since he sort of curls up the right corner of his upper lip whenever he says the letter "s." I can't get too excited over a tall, muscular "superhero" who talks with a lisp.
I don't recall hearing Bale lisp in 3:10 to Yuma, or Reign of Fire, or The Prestige, or Batman Begins; and he definitely wasn't lisping in this Summer's kick-butt The Dark Knight.
In which movie was he lisping?
-
jdb1
In every single one, Klonny. There are all kinds of lisps - it can be as outrageous as Ernie Kovacs' character Percy Dovetonsils, or as apparently subtle as Bale's. I can hear it -- I guess I'm lisp-sensitive.
Funny -- Stan Laurel's lisp -- called a bi-lateral lisp, or the "Juicy 'S'" doesn't bother me at all. (Pinky Lee had it. Star Trek actor Brent Spiner has it too, but he seems to have some control over it, and sometimes it's there, and sometimes not.) I think it's the visual element that really turns me off with Bale. When he curls his lip up, I know what's coming, and I get the heebies-jeebies. I guess it's just the wavelength my ears are tuned to. I associate that kind of lisping with children, and I don't see how I can take a lisper like that seriously as a super-hero.
Funny -- Stan Laurel's lisp -- called a bi-lateral lisp, or the "Juicy 'S'" doesn't bother me at all. (Pinky Lee had it. Star Trek actor Brent Spiner has it too, but he seems to have some control over it, and sometimes it's there, and sometimes not.) I think it's the visual element that really turns me off with Bale. When he curls his lip up, I know what's coming, and I get the heebies-jeebies. I guess it's just the wavelength my ears are tuned to. I associate that kind of lisping with children, and I don't see how I can take a lisper like that seriously as a super-hero.
I often have trouble taking superheroes seriously when it seems that they are taking themselves a bit too seriously. For some reason, I often can't get past the costumes... everyone has their different hangups when it comes to movies, I expect. Anyway, that's why I prefer Spiderman to the newest incarnation of Batman. Spiderman is always a bit tongue-in-cheek.
However, I think The Dark Knight sounds promising for one reason: The Joker. To me he is without doubt the most disturbing superhero villain ever, so it is always interesting to see him on screen.
However, I think The Dark Knight sounds promising for one reason: The Joker. To me he is without doubt the most disturbing superhero villain ever, so it is always interesting to see him on screen.
-
klondike
Well, then, how about superheroes who don't use costumes - such as were featured in the incomparable League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (often reduced to "LXG" in American promotions)?Synnove wrote:I often have trouble taking superheroes seriously when it seems that they are taking themselves a bit too seriously. For some reason, I often can't get past the costumes...
If you've not yet partaken of this one, I cannot recommend it strongly enough; I found it to be easily the best adventure film of 2004, and arguably Sean Connery's best performance since the early 90's!
Ugh. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was a great comic series but the film seriously lost the plot about halfway through and became pretty painful. It should have been so much better than it was. The author Alan Moore is a genius and I've loved his work ever since I read things like DR & Quinch and The Ballad of Halo Jones in 2000 AD. His masterpiece is Watchmen, which is due as a film next year and I'm waiting for that with bated breath. That will contain many of what are referred to as 'costumed vigilantes', absolutely not superheroes. There is one real 'super' person in the film, Dr Manhattan, but he's neither hero or villain: the act of becoming 'super' simply made him 'other. There's so much in Watchmen that would be refreshing to anyone who is intrigued by the concept of superheroes but doesn't like what's been done with them.
I haven't seen The Dark Knight yet but I plan to soon: it's hitting our local second run cinema in the next week or so. I expected to hear a lot of good things about it after Heath Ledger's death but didn't expect them to last. They have.
I did see Iron Man though and though I enjoyed it I wasn't as blown away as many were. I think it's notable that Marvel know what they're doing when it comes to comic books and now that they have their own studio they're doing the same in the film medium too. Robert Downey Jr played himself very well indeed and Jeff Bridges was awesome. I was disappointed at how easily the bad guy could suddenly do so much but the rest was excellent.
My favourite film of the year so far is Hellboy II: The Golden Army, which to me fulfilled everything the first one should have done but didn't. I so wanted to love Hellboy, but didn't. I really enjoyed the comic books, director Guillermo del Toro is the biggest fan there is and Ron Perlman was born to play the part. I also seriously love the fact that Del Toro made Blade II with Perlman purely and simply as an audition for Hellboy. I keep trying but I'm still disappointed with the film, after four viewings. I enjoyed it but wanted so much from it that somehow wasn't there. Yet everything missing from Hellboy was there in Hellboy II in spades.
And as to superhero films in general, I'm waiting for the fad to die out and be replaced by pulp hero films. They're overdue for a real resurgence!
I haven't seen The Dark Knight yet but I plan to soon: it's hitting our local second run cinema in the next week or so. I expected to hear a lot of good things about it after Heath Ledger's death but didn't expect them to last. They have.
I did see Iron Man though and though I enjoyed it I wasn't as blown away as many were. I think it's notable that Marvel know what they're doing when it comes to comic books and now that they have their own studio they're doing the same in the film medium too. Robert Downey Jr played himself very well indeed and Jeff Bridges was awesome. I was disappointed at how easily the bad guy could suddenly do so much but the rest was excellent.
My favourite film of the year so far is Hellboy II: The Golden Army, which to me fulfilled everything the first one should have done but didn't. I so wanted to love Hellboy, but didn't. I really enjoyed the comic books, director Guillermo del Toro is the biggest fan there is and Ron Perlman was born to play the part. I also seriously love the fact that Del Toro made Blade II with Perlman purely and simply as an audition for Hellboy. I keep trying but I'm still disappointed with the film, after four viewings. I enjoyed it but wanted so much from it that somehow wasn't there. Yet everything missing from Hellboy was there in Hellboy II in spades.
And as to superhero films in general, I'm waiting for the fad to die out and be replaced by pulp hero films. They're overdue for a real resurgence!