Genre Films: Comic Book Adaptations

(There will be spoilers, but not major ones, just fyi.)
The masterpiece I was hoping for. At first as the movie went on, I thought it was going to not trump Batman Begins, but my god was I wrong. Just like the Joker's constantly changing background story about his scars, the movie seems to constantly continue to present twists and turns that are brilliant beyond words.

The cast: Christian Bale is brilliant as always with his charming, yet conflicted nature storming him with personal vendettas that only the greatest heroes could ever trump. Bale is the most talented actor working in Hollywood right alongside Daniel Day-Lewis, even if that man is a monster of a god among actors. The supporting cast (Morgan Freeman, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Michael Caine) are all fantastic and help keep the foundation of the story amazing. Sadly, despite him being one of my favorite actors, Michael Caine suffers from not having enough involvement. Don't get me wrong, he's still spectacular, but I didn't get to see all the charm he brought in the first film as much. That's probably the movie's weakest point. Still, everything scene Caine is in stands as a highlight of the whole movie. Next comes Freeman who I especially love and his performance is full of depth that the first movie did not show. Really great stuff. Then there's Maggie. Wow. So much better than Katie Holmes even though I still admire her performance in the first one. It was brilliant as well.

Then there's Gary Oldman. If the man wasn't a legend already, he cements himself in the records as a brilliant actor in the role he seemed born to play, as Gordon. The man cannot be praised enough, juggling his constant duties as a police officer who is around people who hate the Batman, and cooperating with him at the same time.

Two of the biggest performances most people were most anxious to see were Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart. Heath Ledger, how can I put this, deserves every Oscar of the last ten years. Okay so obviously he doesn't, but it is definitely true he needs the nomination at the least. I obviously can't speak for him winning it right now because all the movies of the year have not been released but still, it's the best performance of the year so far. The chaotic, psychotic nature of the Joker is so masterfully done that Jack Nicholson's performance of the Joker is put to shame, no matter how much I like it as well. Nicholson got nominated for the Joker in '89 so Ledger better get it as well, or I'll be mad as hell and won't take it anymore.

The biggest surprise though was Eckhart. He did not have the best performance, however he came in a pretty close second and blew me away. He should not have been as overshadowed as he has been from Ledger's performance because it has the power and emotion that any great performance has. Brilliant stuff. The performances are what make this movie truly spectacular and a shining example of what an actor should bring to the screen.

Nolan is a top director and his script shows it. He now has three masterpieces on his hands (the other two being Batman Begins and The Prestige) so anything he does from now on has to be watched closely because it will probably be great. But seriously though, this is a prime example of a harrowing tragedy, with everything around Batman falling down around him, the Joker one step ahead of him. Never have I been on such a roller coaster of an experience with a story in a theater with suspense that I have not seen since the days of Hitchcock.

The cinematography is gorgeous, the score genius (seriously), and just about everything you could think of. The Dark Knight shows that comic book movies are no longer just light summer fluff, no. TDK has set a standard that if future comic book adaptations don't even come near to this movie, they will fail because they don't feel like art, which this movie is. I can only imagine where they will go from here (if Nolan and Bale do not come back, I will be furious), but there are plenty of avenues to explore that could make the next Batman film just as bloody brilliant as this one. If you don't think this is as close to perfect as you can get, you obviously do not appreciate movies. God bless you Heath Ledger.

2nd Viewing Response - Not only is it just as good, but scenes that seemed a little weak were made stronger by knowing where the movie was going. Morgan Freeman's performance wasn't as good as I remembered though. It was great of course, but not AMAZING. And I have to give Bale more credit than I did because nothing was going to top his performance in the first one, his origin story.

One of the few sequels that does it right.

Superman is an iconic legend for sure, but can he really stand up as a central figure in a movie? He's the man of steel, nothing hurts him (besides Kryptonite but that gets old quick), so how can you possibly make a movie about him interesting? Well I guess under the amazing direction of Richard Donner and the talents of new comer Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, and the legend himself, Marlon Brando. Everything about Superman works: his background story, Hackman's silly yet menacing version of Lex Luthor, and the now cliched but good back in 1978 plot of Superman's greatest weakness Kryptonite. It all comes together to create one of the better superhero movies out there, especially when there's crap like Daredevil and The Fantastic Four.

Clark Kent (Christopher Reeve) is an "alien" from the planet Krypton who crashed land on Earth after his parents sent him there as their planet was being destroyed. Martha Kent and her husband find him in a field and take him in as their own child, finding as he grew older that there was something super extraordinary about their new son. After the death of his dad (Glenn Ford), Clark heads off in search of the truth and eventually learns of his past and his birth parents and sets out to stop evil around the world.

Meanwhile, Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) and his bumbling partner (Ned Beatty) are planning on attacking California with missiles to claim the coast state as his own and make a fortune. But Superman will not take this of course and after learning of his exploits from his job at the Daily Planet under the disguise of Clark Kent, he sets out to stop Lex and save Lois Lane (Margot Kidder).

The plot is simplistic but still incredible, and helps establish the character of Superman as something more than just a "Man of Steel". The cast are all incredible and although I would have preferred Lex Luthor to be more serious and menacing than he was in the movie (much like what is happening with the Joker in The Dark Knight), it was still a joy to see him have fun with his role.

The special effects were pretty good for the time too, but they just can't stand up to today's standards. But it's not a scapegoat though, because 2001 still look mighty impressive and it came out in 1968. It did set forth a movement to constantly try to make special effects that would be more realistic, leading to what we have today, so it can be praised for that. Besides, some of the special effects used in Superman II look worse than this one surprisingly, so it stands up there.

There might be a few lapses of common sense that could drive some people crazy, but most comic book movies have this so it's nothing that derails the experience.

The new Superman movie that came out two years ago does not surpass what the original established, even with it's special effects, so you realize it's something more than that that makes Superman so appealing. It might not be for everyone, but considering they made Superman a viable character on screen, it should be applauded and adored for even more years to come when the formula just can't seem to be replicated today.

It's sad this film is hated by so many people. Why is it, that people are obsessed with action so much that they can't stand when a character that usually smashes things, talks a lot? Well I guess it would be a problem if it was dribble and completely pointless, but guess what, it's not! The fact that the Hulk character has a strong personality to him makes him all the more likable and in turn makes the movie more enjoyable. Plus, there's plenty of action in the movie. I thought everyone by now has come to realize the Michael Bay movies of action, action, and more action is not the way to go about movies, but I guess moviegoers still have a ways to go.

The cast was actually all perfectly placed, except for maybe one person. And sadly, this is the man behind the Hulk himself. Eric Bana tries hard, I can tell, but he just isn't exactly the right man suited for the angst and anger the Hulk should have. Edward Norton, who is now cast in the new Hulk movie, is a much better choice. Still, Bana gives a decent performance and doesn't totally throw the movie off track.

Everything about this movie screams great superhero flick, but it's not flawless. The comic book panels Lee uses throughout do add style, but come at the cost of getting pretty damn annoying sometimes. Also, it's a tad bit too long for its own good. But even with all its flaws, this is a great representation of the Hulk and it would have been nice to see Ang Lee make his own sequel. Definitely recommended to anyone who's willing to use their brain during the movie.

Well I watched the first Hellboy again recently since I had forgotten most of it, and still found I liked it. So I came in excited for Hellboy 2, hoping that maybe, just maybe, it could possibly be a little better. Sadly, that's not the case. That's not to say it's not entertaining in its own right, I always appreciate some good mindless fun, but del Toro pushed it a bit too much this time.

One of the main problems has to be the story. First off, I don't give a damn about it. Nothing throughout the entire movie made me feel anything towards caring what happened next. And besides that, it feels like he took Lord of the Rings material and stuck his name on it and called it Hellboy. If you really sit there and pay attention (I know it can be hard to do), everything starts to seem derivative and extremely bland. The whole movie almost feels like a big, fat paycheck waiting for del Toro so he can do more genius productions like Pan's Labyrinth. Maybe knowing he was going to do The Hobbit after this influenced some of his decisions and ideas, I don't know.

Good news: John Hurt is a joy to watch like always. And Ron Perlman maintains the same over-the-top persona that made Hellboy himself so damn entertaining.
Bad news: Selma Blair still can't act. And that's fact.

So the story sucks and some of the cast cannot act, what is there then to look forward to? What del Toro does best of course, pretty visuals and some kick ass action. Okay, so he does more than that most of the time, but man is the movie visually stimulating. He's a man that has a knack for these things and the beautiful imagery helps enhance the remarkable choreography of the fights.

It's not that I do not like Hellboy, as I enjoyed the first movie, but the almost blatant rip-off of LotR and annoying romance sub-plots (there was some humor to be had though so it wasn't all bad), make this a disappointing follow up to the original. I'm up for a re-watch sometime in the future and maybe I'll enjoy it some more, but for now it seems too much like a quick cash in.

Oh to hell with it, I enjoyed the crap out of this, shoddy direction be damned. Sure, it's no X-2, but what is?

If I wanted to watch a great action flick, I would watch Die Hard. If I wanted a metaphysical crazy thing like The Matrix, well, I would watch that. If I wanted to watch...well you get the point. The definition of pointless fun.

Horrible movie, but what would you expect from the guy who made Bad Company, Phone Booth, and the magnificent masterpiece The Number 23. Bat nipples, man. That much crack should not be used during the filming of movies.