Movies Based on DC Comics Properties

This film is decent, but there are a number of problems with it, not the least of which is the amnesia-inducing kiss at the end.

I actually like this movie more than "Superman 2". And Annette O'Toole is hot.

Quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. Terrible writing, cheap special effects, bad continuity, illogical plot devices, unforgivable errors, and a heavy-handed, left-wing political message on top of it all.

What a wasted opportunity to carry Superman boldly and triumphantly into the twenty-first century. Instead of rebooting the film franchise a la "Batman Begins", DC Comics and Warner Bros. made the misguided decision to keep us rooted, a full generation later, in the outdated world of the Christopher Reeve movies. Because DC Comics revamped Superman (along with all their other major characters) in the mid-1980s, everyone under age thirty has been raised on a different portrayal of Superman and his world than the one presented in this movie. Yes, Christopher Reeve was a great Superman, and yes, we're all sorry that he fell off that horse, and yes, we're all sorry that he's dead now, but Superman never began nor ended with Reeve. He was not the first actor to portray Superman, nor was he the last. It was time to move on, away from the goofy Clark Kent and the cheesy Lex Luthor and all the other outmoded antiquities from the 1970s, but did they? Noooo.

It has almost nothing in common with the infamous "Death and Return of Superman" comic book storyline, but it's a good flick all the same, with plenty of action and feeling. The voice acting is great, particularly that of the actress voicing Lois Lane, who manages to convey powerful, raw emotion. I was impressed.

I'm not a fan of this particular incarnation of Batman, but for what this film is, it's fairly entertaining, although it does go on a bit long.

Even in the face of Christopher Nolan's truly awesome new Batman film franchise, Tim Burton's movie remains one of my favorite comic book films, and a great interpretation of Batman. Michael Keaton's Batman is second only to Christian Bale's, and Jack Nicholson makes a truly spectacular Joker. Love it!

It's a good movie, but it's also an over-the-top dose of Tim Burton's scarred and twisted style. Parts of it skew just too far to the dark side; you can see Burton's demented signature in everything. Like the dreadful "Batman & Robin", "Batman Returns" is guilty of excess, albeit in an entirely opposite direction (the Penguin is born a deformed monster whose parents throw him into a river; his evil scheme involves kidnapping and murdering the children of Gotham City; Catwoman takes multiple bullets from Christopher Walken's character, before electrocuting him with a taser-powered kiss). One gets the feeling that, after the overwhelming (and well-deserved) success of Burton's first Batman movie, Warner Bros. allowed him more artistic expression with the sequel. But, as I said, it's not a bad movie. It's fun, with several particularly good bits, and is certainly better than either of Joel Schumacher's efforts.

Certainly not as bad as some people make it out to be (Joel Schumacher and the Batman series reached their low points with "Batman & Robin"), "Batman Forever" retains a sufficient degree of the dark grittiness used in Tim Burton's Batman movies, and mixes in a bit more playful fun that I personally don't see as particularly campy or cheesy.

If not for the even more dreadful "Superman 4", I'd rank this abomination as the worst comic book movie of all time. Just as "Batman Returns" is over-the-top Tim Burton, "Batman & Robin" is over-the-top Joel Schumacher. After doing reasonably well with the tolerable "Batman Forever", Schumacher went completely off the deep end with this, his second Bat-flick. Far from being an accurate, worthy portrayal of the true and modern Batman, "Batman & Robin" comes off more as an extension of the campy, silly 1960s TV show, complete with ludicrously flamboyant costumes (the Bat-nipples have become infamous), horrendously cheesy situations, and groan-inducing dialog. It's beyond me why Warner Bros. ever thought this would go over well.

A disappointment. Short on action, and the characters and scenarios are pretty dull.

A solid, surprisingly faithful adaptation of the excellent graphic novel. DC has really been kicking ass with their direct-to-DVD animated movies, which is more than can be said for Marvel.

I used to think this movie was really great. But then I read the brilliant Alan Moore graphic novel upon which it's based, and now I don't think so much of the movie anymore.

A surprisingly good adaptation of the brilliant graphic novel by Alan Moore. Obviously, the film is the Cliff's Notes version of the deeper, more thought-provoking book, but it still does an excellent job. If you liked the film, you should read the book. And, in an age when Judge Dredd takes off his helmet, and Sam Raimi won't let Spider-Man keep his mask on for more than two minutes at a time, this film deserves extra kudos for never revealing V's face to the audience. (Oh, and like Demi Moore, Natalie Portman really knows how to rock that bald look.)

I've been skeptical all along that Alan Moore's seminal graphic novel could be adapted successfully to the big screen, but, what with the promise of a three-hour runtime, and the photos and trailer that have been released, I'm feeling more and more comfortable with the idea, heaven help me.