Mrs. Rannous
Footballguy
I guess I had zoned out at some point in the movie. So exactly what action does either character take in the chosen scene that is romantic?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
timdraft #4: Movie Category Draft (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
SUPERHERO UPDATE
So I underestimated the time needed to finish. I have 13 writeups in the can and 12 to go, but as this is my primary purpose in life right now, I see no reason why I can't finish before Monday morning. See everyone then.
So I underestimated the time needed to finish. I have 13 writeups in the can and 12 to go, but as this is my primary purpose in life right now, I see no reason why I can't finish before Monday morning. See everyone then.
Last edited by a moderator:
meanjoegreen
Footballguy
This was my mom's favorite movie when I was young. I don't know exactly what you mean by Harlequin Romance, but I don't think this movie falls in the too syrupy/sappy trap. I don't care for a bunch of mushy stuff, and I think this movie is the blueprint on how to make a romantic movie without it being too sappy. The character development in it is great. She is a fiesty political fanatic, and he is a laid back handsome guy that doesn't care for politics. They are like oil and water, and their relationship is destined for failure with them seeing the world so differently. I think they both do a great job with acting, especially Steisand nails her role. The characters are likeable, and the story is very believable. This movie is a perfect example of great chemistry between two leads. I'm going to be seeing my mom in a couple weeks on Father's Day weekend, and I think I'll buy this movie for her. We can all watch it together. She has an old vhs of it, but not a dvd. I think she will like that, and my wife too.
meanjoegreen
Footballguy
Are you talking about The Notebook? My guess is the action would be the man climbing in bed with his wife, and holding her hands to die together. I can see there has been a lot of discussion surrounding the movie. I liked it.
Mrs. Rannous
Footballguy
If that's the intention, I reckon it scores about the same. It has about the same level as the movies above and below it.
Mrs. Rannous
Footballguy
I think it's mostly that I really don't find Redford interesting at all. I prefer Yentl.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Yentl is a fine movie except that it's awful and stars Barbra Steisand. Other than that, I liked it.
meanjoegreen
Footballguy
Why don't you like Streisand as an actress? As a person she is politically outspoken, but so are you. You mentioned Shirley MacLaine, and she's politically outspoken, and known as a difficult actress to work with, and as a kook. You drafted Spencer Tracy, and he was infamously difficult to work with, and an ugly drunk. He was even known to smack Hepburn during some of his binges, although she could probably hold her own.
timschochet
Footballguy
I can't put my finger on why I find Streisand especially annoying and not the others you mentioned. It's certainly not her political views. It's not that she is difficult to work with- I'm not in the business, so why would I give a #### about that? It's not that she's not a good person. She's certainly done a lot for charity and causes and there's a lot to admire about her. It's not her acting skills which are fine, or her singing voice, which I am forced to admit is among the best we've ever heard.
It's just- I dunno. Like fingernails on a chalkboard. I just can't.
meanjoegreen
Footballguy
I've never heard or read anything about Streisand being difficult to work with. It was just part of the reputation of two of the actors you recently spoke of. There are actors out there that annoy me too, just because they do. William Hurt is one. He is so monotone and stiff that I find him annoying in almost anything he is in. I didn't mind him in the Big Chill, but he played a stoner so his monotone dialogue wasn't as bothersome. Most recently Will Smith bugs me, but I'm not sure why.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mrs. Rannous
Footballguy
I've been thinking about this, and the problem may be her mannerisms. I can sort of ignore them most of the time; but when she sings, they are very intrusive.
omally
Footballguy
She suffers from stage fright, so maybe that shows as an awkwardness when she sings. I think she's a cool lady.
omally
Footballguy
I know. I laughed. I'm not ashamed to admit I will stick up for whatever I believe in, even if it's a chick flick. *I had to erase your smilie, because I couldn't post without doing it. I got a message saying I've used too many when I haven't used any at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
krista4
Footballguy
Mrs. Rannous
Footballguy
I meant in the movies, not in person. She pulls faces. Lots of singers do. But hers are just odd.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
Okay: who's ready for some Superheroes?
I could release the material now, but I bet I have typos and other stupidity in what I wrote, so I'm going to take another 12-24 hours, finish these up, and see who actually reads what I wrote. (it is not brief!)
Teaser: the 25-pointer is not the film everyone probably thinks it is, and two selectors received crazy value for their late-round takes.
Back at some point on Monday to churn these out. I may have to do one ranking per post due to size constraints.
I could release the material now, but I bet I have typos and other stupidity in what I wrote, so I'm going to take another 12-24 hours, finish these up, and see who actually reads what I wrote. (it is not brief!)
Teaser: the 25-pointer is not the film everyone probably thinks it is, and two selectors received crazy value for their late-round takes.
Back at some point on Monday to churn these out. I may have to do one ranking per post due to size constraints.
AcerFC
Footballguy
I have never seen anyone post that they are ready when they are not more then you. Just saying.
And who cares about typos
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Nick Vermeil
Footballguy
I was so ready for super hero rankings. Now, not so much.Doug B said:
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
Lolz. I sincerely apologize for my update and will not make that mistake again.
Val Rannous
Footballguy
Ignore them, some people just like to grouse. I for one am filled with anticipa...
tion.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
, Val. Well, if you can snap back to consciousness, here we go.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
SUPERHEROES
PREAMBLE
Thanks to everyone for a nice selection of flicks.
This was the category most significantly affected by the application of the “No Franchise Rule,” which was enacted to spur “deeper” picks and prevent selections of “the same movies over and over again.” However, debating the merits of different installments of various franchises in this genre, at least, is just as interesting to me as the selections that were spurred by the ultimately unnecessary Rule. Still, the drafters did a very good job in making solid picks, many of which skirted the traditional definition of “superhero” and offered solid food for thought.
I had seen 23 of the films in their entirety, and portions of the remaining two. I rewatched all 25 in full before completing these rankings. I have no numerical grading criteria because I just prefer to use a more “free form”-style of judging, particularly when there is little doubt that all 25 picks fit the category. (In fact, I did not incorporate “category fit” into my rankings at all.) Recency, box office success, and critical acclaim did not play any role at all here; instead, I ranked the films based on their writing (plot and dialogue), acting, and direction, the inspirational quality that they conveyed, and, if they represented the adaptation of a comic book character to the big screen, the faithfulness of the adaptation or the soundness of any changes to the character’s story, background, and abilities. I was not overly influenced by fight scenes or visual effects, although you will see them mentioned from time to time. The most important criterion was whether or not the selected films are good movies, not just good superhero movies.
Out of respect for those who have not seen some of these movies, but might like to, I have done my best to keep spoilers to a minimum, but I may not have been entirely successful, so be forewarned.
I’ve also supplied the “type,” or classification, of the superhero for each selection, from the following categories, with archetypal comic book examples:
-Accident-Enhanced Human (The Flash, Spider-Man)
-Alien/Robot (Superman, Wonder Woman, Thor, Red Tornado)
-Genetically Enhanced Human (Captain America)
-Mutant (X-Men)
-Non-Superpowered Martial Artist or Combatant in Peak Physical Condition (Batman, Green Arrow, Hawkeye)
-Object-Enhanced Human (Green Lantern, Ms. Marvel/Warbird)
-Supernatural (Dr. Fate, Doctor Strange)
-Technologically-Enhanced Human (Iron Man)
In case anyone cares, the films that I was most disappointed not to have the opportunity to rank were (in no particular order) Van Helsing, Wanted, Despicable Me, The Chronicles of Riddick, and Green Lantern (yeah, I liked it). Their inclusion in the place of some of the bottom-rung selections would have made my job much more difficult, though, so I guess I should be thankful.
In tribute to the late Roger Ebert, whose writing and insights I always deeply admired, and to the late Gene Siskel, one of the most likable critics ever, I used “thumbs up” and “thumbs down” to mark what I did and didn’t like about each selection.
And now, up, up, and away we go.
PREAMBLE
Thanks to everyone for a nice selection of flicks.
This was the category most significantly affected by the application of the “No Franchise Rule,” which was enacted to spur “deeper” picks and prevent selections of “the same movies over and over again.” However, debating the merits of different installments of various franchises in this genre, at least, is just as interesting to me as the selections that were spurred by the ultimately unnecessary Rule. Still, the drafters did a very good job in making solid picks, many of which skirted the traditional definition of “superhero” and offered solid food for thought.
I had seen 23 of the films in their entirety, and portions of the remaining two. I rewatched all 25 in full before completing these rankings. I have no numerical grading criteria because I just prefer to use a more “free form”-style of judging, particularly when there is little doubt that all 25 picks fit the category. (In fact, I did not incorporate “category fit” into my rankings at all.) Recency, box office success, and critical acclaim did not play any role at all here; instead, I ranked the films based on their writing (plot and dialogue), acting, and direction, the inspirational quality that they conveyed, and, if they represented the adaptation of a comic book character to the big screen, the faithfulness of the adaptation or the soundness of any changes to the character’s story, background, and abilities. I was not overly influenced by fight scenes or visual effects, although you will see them mentioned from time to time. The most important criterion was whether or not the selected films are good movies, not just good superhero movies.
Out of respect for those who have not seen some of these movies, but might like to, I have done my best to keep spoilers to a minimum, but I may not have been entirely successful, so be forewarned.
I’ve also supplied the “type,” or classification, of the superhero for each selection, from the following categories, with archetypal comic book examples:
-Accident-Enhanced Human (The Flash, Spider-Man)
-Alien/Robot (Superman, Wonder Woman, Thor, Red Tornado)
-Genetically Enhanced Human (Captain America)
-Mutant (X-Men)
-Non-Superpowered Martial Artist or Combatant in Peak Physical Condition (Batman, Green Arrow, Hawkeye)
-Object-Enhanced Human (Green Lantern, Ms. Marvel/Warbird)
-Supernatural (Dr. Fate, Doctor Strange)
-Technologically-Enhanced Human (Iron Man)
In case anyone cares, the films that I was most disappointed not to have the opportunity to rank were (in no particular order) Van Helsing, Wanted, Despicable Me, The Chronicles of Riddick, and Green Lantern (yeah, I liked it). Their inclusion in the place of some of the bottom-rung selections would have made my job much more difficult, though, so I guess I should be thankful.
In tribute to the late Roger Ebert, whose writing and insights I always deeply admired, and to the late Gene Siskel, one of the most likable critics ever, I used “thumbs up” and “thumbs down” to mark what I did and didn’t like about each selection.
And now, up, up, and away we go.
Last edited by a moderator:
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
25. Mystery Men (1999)
If just about everyone was going to try to take a stab at “superhero comedy,” a genre that I’d like to retire just about now in much the same way as my television drama-watching self would like to give “hospital show” a long and immediate vacation, you knew Ben Stiller had to be involved, right? Sure. This box office grenade captained by award-winning commercial director Kinka Usher is inspired by a Dark Horse comics series, and draws on the somewhat familiar, but not exactly well-mined, concept of lesser superheroes saving the day.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Mixed, but mostly Mutants. To the extent that it’s possible to determine, that is: which is part of the problem. The movie can’t really be bothered with such things, and that would be fine if it was actually funny.
THUMBS UP: The dialogue is snappy and in more than a few instances, quite clever. In fact, strong dialogue is such an important element of films to me that I actually enjoyed the first 20 minutes or so of this movie when I first saw it, before the plot took over and led inexorably to the ultimately unsatisfying climax. (I know, I know, that’s what she said, amirite? Hey, just trying to get in the spirit here.) The set design is better than decent and there are some very good-looking shots; Usher has a clear sense of visual style that has obviously served him very well as a director of ads; he’s won a gaggle of Clios and Cannes Lions.
THUMBS DOWN: Usher has never directed another feature film, and given the mostly terrible performances turned in by a cast that can actually act (including William H. Macy, Geoffrey Rush, Greg Kinnear, and even Stiller, who’s a decent to better-than-decent comedic performer), it can’t be much of a secret why not. The wooden screen turns here, which in most cases represent the career-worst outings of each actor, can’t coincidentally have happened all at the same time. Some of the humor is just downright stupid. The pacing is glacial and the characters mostly detestable.
FUN FACTOID: This was released on the same weekend as The Sixth Sense and The Iron Giant, the latter of which we’ll see (much) later.
BOTTOM LINE: And now, ladies and gentlemen, I present . . . THE FRANCHISE RULE!!!! Because debating whether this flick is better than The Mask in a draft featuring a superhero category is more fun than weighing the merits of, say, Thor against The Avengers, right? Right? Hello?
If just about everyone was going to try to take a stab at “superhero comedy,” a genre that I’d like to retire just about now in much the same way as my television drama-watching self would like to give “hospital show” a long and immediate vacation, you knew Ben Stiller had to be involved, right? Sure. This box office grenade captained by award-winning commercial director Kinka Usher is inspired by a Dark Horse comics series, and draws on the somewhat familiar, but not exactly well-mined, concept of lesser superheroes saving the day.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Mixed, but mostly Mutants. To the extent that it’s possible to determine, that is: which is part of the problem. The movie can’t really be bothered with such things, and that would be fine if it was actually funny.
THUMBS UP: The dialogue is snappy and in more than a few instances, quite clever. In fact, strong dialogue is such an important element of films to me that I actually enjoyed the first 20 minutes or so of this movie when I first saw it, before the plot took over and led inexorably to the ultimately unsatisfying climax. (I know, I know, that’s what she said, amirite? Hey, just trying to get in the spirit here.) The set design is better than decent and there are some very good-looking shots; Usher has a clear sense of visual style that has obviously served him very well as a director of ads; he’s won a gaggle of Clios and Cannes Lions.
THUMBS DOWN: Usher has never directed another feature film, and given the mostly terrible performances turned in by a cast that can actually act (including William H. Macy, Geoffrey Rush, Greg Kinnear, and even Stiller, who’s a decent to better-than-decent comedic performer), it can’t be much of a secret why not. The wooden screen turns here, which in most cases represent the career-worst outings of each actor, can’t coincidentally have happened all at the same time. Some of the humor is just downright stupid. The pacing is glacial and the characters mostly detestable.
FUN FACTOID: This was released on the same weekend as The Sixth Sense and The Iron Giant, the latter of which we’ll see (much) later.
BOTTOM LINE: And now, ladies and gentlemen, I present . . . THE FRANCHISE RULE!!!! Because debating whether this flick is better than The Mask in a draft featuring a superhero category is more fun than weighing the merits of, say, Thor against The Avengers, right? Right? Hello?
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
24. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)
Enhhhhh. I was hoping no one would pick this, and we almost made it through the draft without someone doing so, but no such luck. Unfortunately, while I like all but about five films drafted (and really only actively dislike two or three) on this list, this one is the most glaring exception. The Edgar Wright comedy follows the adventures of one Scott Pilgrim (surprise!), a young and quite nerdy aspiring Canadian nerd-musician. He’s also a nerd. Pilgrim has twin ambitions: first, to win a battle of the bands with his group Sex Bob-omb (actual music either primarily or exclusively supplied by Beck, depending on which story you buy), of which he is the bassist, and second, to win the affections of Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, making her first of two appearances in the category), an American delivery girl with a cryptic past and a whole lotta romantic baggage.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Honestly? Not Applicable
THUMBS UP: Much like Sky High, ranked above, this film’s concept is much, much, much funnier than its execution – but the concept is quite good. To “save the day,” whatever that means in the context of this movie, and date Ramona, Scott must fight and defeat all seven of her exes, known, of course, as the League of Evil Exes. These characters are portrayed by, among others, Chris Evans (no stranger to this genre, as both the Human Torch and Captain America), Brandon Routh (who has somewhat regrettably played Superman), and Mae Whitman (of the Parenthood TV series fame). The League of Evil Exes, Winstead (who, as in Sky High, rises far above the material here), and Anna Kendrick as Scott’s world-weary sister, are the best parts of the film. The action is fine and the film doesn’t take itself too seriously.
THUMBS DOWN: So what’s the problem? Cera. If you don’t find him funny – in fact, if you don’t find him knee-slappingly hilarious and scarily talented – the film falls flat despite the amusing concepts and the excellent acting from Winstead and Kendrick. In addition, the musical element of the movie, upon which the plot heavily depends, is highly disappointing and, flatly, just goofy. I admire the fact that many of the actors played the instruments themselves, but it’s hard to tell (even for someone like me who knows far more about music than movies) how much they’re really performing, no matter what the film’s PR team claimed, and that’s distracting. In addition, this film just goes nowhere. It has grin-inducing winks and nods to the worlds of video games, music, and superheroes, but it just doesn’t really do anything with them. If Winstead’s part was played by an actress as grating and low-rent as Cera, this would have been an absolute bomb. And last but certainly not least, the graphic novel series upon which this is based, Scott Pilgrim by Bryan Lee O’Malley, is infinitely superior to the film adaptation. I have heard of no plans for a second film installment, and that’s a very good thing.
FUN FACTOID: Somewhat obscure (but pretty good) and now-defunct Canadian band Plumtree’s song “Scott Pilgrim” inspired O’Malley’s graphic novel.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Honestly, I wish this film had been made with someone, maybe anyone in the title role but Cera. The film is quirky and offbeat and depends on a lot of foreknowledge of pop culture on the part of its audience, which is probably why it was not a huge box office success but has done well on DVD and gained a cult following – but for anyone who is familiar with the graphic novel, this is far inferior and thus does not stack up well here.
Enhhhhh. I was hoping no one would pick this, and we almost made it through the draft without someone doing so, but no such luck. Unfortunately, while I like all but about five films drafted (and really only actively dislike two or three) on this list, this one is the most glaring exception. The Edgar Wright comedy follows the adventures of one Scott Pilgrim (surprise!), a young and quite nerdy aspiring Canadian nerd-musician. He’s also a nerd. Pilgrim has twin ambitions: first, to win a battle of the bands with his group Sex Bob-omb (actual music either primarily or exclusively supplied by Beck, depending on which story you buy), of which he is the bassist, and second, to win the affections of Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, making her first of two appearances in the category), an American delivery girl with a cryptic past and a whole lotta romantic baggage.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Honestly? Not Applicable
THUMBS UP: Much like Sky High, ranked above, this film’s concept is much, much, much funnier than its execution – but the concept is quite good. To “save the day,” whatever that means in the context of this movie, and date Ramona, Scott must fight and defeat all seven of her exes, known, of course, as the League of Evil Exes. These characters are portrayed by, among others, Chris Evans (no stranger to this genre, as both the Human Torch and Captain America), Brandon Routh (who has somewhat regrettably played Superman), and Mae Whitman (of the Parenthood TV series fame). The League of Evil Exes, Winstead (who, as in Sky High, rises far above the material here), and Anna Kendrick as Scott’s world-weary sister, are the best parts of the film. The action is fine and the film doesn’t take itself too seriously.
THUMBS DOWN: So what’s the problem? Cera. If you don’t find him funny – in fact, if you don’t find him knee-slappingly hilarious and scarily talented – the film falls flat despite the amusing concepts and the excellent acting from Winstead and Kendrick. In addition, the musical element of the movie, upon which the plot heavily depends, is highly disappointing and, flatly, just goofy. I admire the fact that many of the actors played the instruments themselves, but it’s hard to tell (even for someone like me who knows far more about music than movies) how much they’re really performing, no matter what the film’s PR team claimed, and that’s distracting. In addition, this film just goes nowhere. It has grin-inducing winks and nods to the worlds of video games, music, and superheroes, but it just doesn’t really do anything with them. If Winstead’s part was played by an actress as grating and low-rent as Cera, this would have been an absolute bomb. And last but certainly not least, the graphic novel series upon which this is based, Scott Pilgrim by Bryan Lee O’Malley, is infinitely superior to the film adaptation. I have heard of no plans for a second film installment, and that’s a very good thing.
FUN FACTOID: Somewhat obscure (but pretty good) and now-defunct Canadian band Plumtree’s song “Scott Pilgrim” inspired O’Malley’s graphic novel.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Honestly, I wish this film had been made with someone, maybe anyone in the title role but Cera. The film is quirky and offbeat and depends on a lot of foreknowledge of pop culture on the part of its audience, which is probably why it was not a huge box office success but has done well on DVD and gained a cult following – but for anyone who is familiar with the graphic novel, this is far inferior and thus does not stack up well here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
23. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)
This live-action adaptation of the cartoon series is cute, charming at times, fun to watch for the most part, and ultimately fairly silly. For anyone who might not be aware of the plot, four turtles living in the sewers of New York City become talking, fighting, MOFO-ING NINJA-ING do-gooders who must fight to save their city from the grip of the cultlike armored Samurai known as The Shredder – who is available in his spare time to cross-cut and safely dispose of your old credit cards and boner pill prescription paperwork.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Mutants
THUMBS UP: Surprisingly, the movie is fairly dark, which helps it tremendously. The Turtles’ relationships with their friends April, Casey and Splinter (NYC’s wisest mutated rat) are well-done and at times touching. The jokes and action move fast enough that you can ignore shell-loads of problems. The voice acting is, for the most part, well done, with a few exceptions. The actors playing April and Casey do a good job. The fight choreography is probably above average.
THUMBS DOWN: The plot makes verrrrrrrry little sense and the dialogue ranges from witty to passable to downright atrocious. The look of the turtles is disappointing, and probably the only thing Jim Henson ever did that I didn’t really like. (I bet he didn’t have all that much input into the final design; his taste was simply better than this.) The final confrontation plays out ludicrously, even for a film featuring mutated turtles with mad martial arts skillz.
FUN FACTOID: The Foot, the group of fighters at the disposal of the Shredder, is a parodic take on Marvel’s seemingly limitless group of ninja-like warriors known as the Hand. Given that the Hand has not always been deployed to good use in Marvel comics (and has to the best of my knowledge been excluded from the Marvel Cinematic Universe), the concept of the Foot is pretty funny.
BOTTOM LINE: The movie is fun and I don’t dislike it, but the cartoon series (with which I’m admittedly not terribly familiar) was arguably better, and there’s just precious little here for adults to appreciate while the kids are entertained. The Turtles are fun, and they’re scheduled for a 2014 revamp, but in the meantime, I’ll rank them this close to the bottom with regret.
This live-action adaptation of the cartoon series is cute, charming at times, fun to watch for the most part, and ultimately fairly silly. For anyone who might not be aware of the plot, four turtles living in the sewers of New York City become talking, fighting, MOFO-ING NINJA-ING do-gooders who must fight to save their city from the grip of the cultlike armored Samurai known as The Shredder – who is available in his spare time to cross-cut and safely dispose of your old credit cards and boner pill prescription paperwork.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Mutants
THUMBS UP: Surprisingly, the movie is fairly dark, which helps it tremendously. The Turtles’ relationships with their friends April, Casey and Splinter (NYC’s wisest mutated rat) are well-done and at times touching. The jokes and action move fast enough that you can ignore shell-loads of problems. The voice acting is, for the most part, well done, with a few exceptions. The actors playing April and Casey do a good job. The fight choreography is probably above average.
THUMBS DOWN: The plot makes verrrrrrrry little sense and the dialogue ranges from witty to passable to downright atrocious. The look of the turtles is disappointing, and probably the only thing Jim Henson ever did that I didn’t really like. (I bet he didn’t have all that much input into the final design; his taste was simply better than this.) The final confrontation plays out ludicrously, even for a film featuring mutated turtles with mad martial arts skillz.
FUN FACTOID: The Foot, the group of fighters at the disposal of the Shredder, is a parodic take on Marvel’s seemingly limitless group of ninja-like warriors known as the Hand. Given that the Hand has not always been deployed to good use in Marvel comics (and has to the best of my knowledge been excluded from the Marvel Cinematic Universe), the concept of the Foot is pretty funny.
BOTTOM LINE: The movie is fun and I don’t dislike it, but the cartoon series (with which I’m admittedly not terribly familiar) was arguably better, and there’s just precious little here for adults to appreciate while the kids are entertained. The Turtles are fun, and they’re scheduled for a 2014 revamp, but in the meantime, I’ll rank them this close to the bottom with regret.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
22. The Mask (1994)
This is both the movie that propelled Jim Carrey to stardom, and served as the debut of Cameron Diaz. The story is familiar: a timid soul with a lonely life undergoes a sudden transformation, in this case thanks to a strange artifact, into a figure with special abilities. He must then decide how to use his new identity, and how to integrate his public persona with his private life.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Object-Enhanced Human
THUMBS UP: I’m not sure that anyone could have played the title role other than Carrey; this is the ultimate vehicle for him. It’s fairly well-written and at least competently directed, with many funny moments and a series of sly references to cinema interwoven throughout. The movie hints briefly at ambitions revolving around the duality of identity, but doesn’t ultimately aim to be much more than a good time. Even almost 20 years later, the makeup and effects hold up very well. Diaz is almost heartbreakingly beautiful as a sultry nightclub singer.
THUMBS DOWN: It’s just relentlessly silly and ultimately pointless. The gags are amusing, but toward the end of the film, if not well before, Carrey’s manic act wears thin. The Mask’s seemingly limitless abilities do not help; by the end of the film, it appears that the whole exercise has been to showcase Carrey acting ridiculous, and any technical constraints on his character’s new skill set would have held back his performance. The mix of violence and an apparent marketing appeal to kids is hardly unique, but here it’s off-putting. The movie is a complete departure from the source material, a Dark Horse Comics title, but I didn’t grade it down for that reason at all; I just mention it because more allegiance to the source material might have helped make a better film. Diaz is very, very pretty . . . but she’s also very wooden, so in effect this movie mostly sums up her entire non-Shrek career. And no, that isn’t her singing.
FUN FACTOID: The film contains a Rodney King reference.
BOTTOM LINE: Hm. I was hoping, upon rewatch, to like this film more than I did the first time that I saw it. For a while during the draft, it looked like this one might not be taken, and I was glad about that, because I honestly didn’t much want to rank it. But taken it was, and actually I found it to be even worse than I remembered. Since Carrey has broken free of his frenetic comedy routine with more serious fare since, and to better effect, I think this movie is even more forgettable than it otherwise would be.
This is both the movie that propelled Jim Carrey to stardom, and served as the debut of Cameron Diaz. The story is familiar: a timid soul with a lonely life undergoes a sudden transformation, in this case thanks to a strange artifact, into a figure with special abilities. He must then decide how to use his new identity, and how to integrate his public persona with his private life.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Object-Enhanced Human
THUMBS UP: I’m not sure that anyone could have played the title role other than Carrey; this is the ultimate vehicle for him. It’s fairly well-written and at least competently directed, with many funny moments and a series of sly references to cinema interwoven throughout. The movie hints briefly at ambitions revolving around the duality of identity, but doesn’t ultimately aim to be much more than a good time. Even almost 20 years later, the makeup and effects hold up very well. Diaz is almost heartbreakingly beautiful as a sultry nightclub singer.
THUMBS DOWN: It’s just relentlessly silly and ultimately pointless. The gags are amusing, but toward the end of the film, if not well before, Carrey’s manic act wears thin. The Mask’s seemingly limitless abilities do not help; by the end of the film, it appears that the whole exercise has been to showcase Carrey acting ridiculous, and any technical constraints on his character’s new skill set would have held back his performance. The mix of violence and an apparent marketing appeal to kids is hardly unique, but here it’s off-putting. The movie is a complete departure from the source material, a Dark Horse Comics title, but I didn’t grade it down for that reason at all; I just mention it because more allegiance to the source material might have helped make a better film. Diaz is very, very pretty . . . but she’s also very wooden, so in effect this movie mostly sums up her entire non-Shrek career. And no, that isn’t her singing.
FUN FACTOID: The film contains a Rodney King reference.
BOTTOM LINE: Hm. I was hoping, upon rewatch, to like this film more than I did the first time that I saw it. For a while during the draft, it looked like this one might not be taken, and I was glad about that, because I honestly didn’t much want to rank it. But taken it was, and actually I found it to be even worse than I remembered. Since Carrey has broken free of his frenetic comedy routine with more serious fare since, and to better effect, I think this movie is even more forgettable than it otherwise would be.
Last edited by a moderator:
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
21. The Rocketeer (1991)
This is Joe Johnston’s cinematic take on Dave Stevens’ indie comic book character of the same name, who was introduced in 1982 but is a throwback homage to serials of the pre- and post-World War II era. Stunt pilot Cliff Secord and his friends become embroiled in a battle over a futuristic jetpack just before the outbreak of World War II.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Object-Enhanced Human/Technologically-Enhanced Human
THUMBS UP: The subject matter is really fun, and it’s a treat to see Howard Hughes (played by Terry O’Quinn) brought to life in as a fictionalized, peripheral, but still vital character. The acting is pretty solid, and the direction is good (I like Johnston and was not, unlike many, disappointed at all with Captain America: The First Avenger, which he also helmed). The costume looks good and the adaptation is fairly faithful. As a bonus, the Nazis naturally make the perfect screen villains, as do (for a time, at least) the sinister-seeming agents of the FBI. For male viewers, Jennifer Connelly is just about impossibly good-looking here (in fact, she doesn’t look much different 22 years later), and frankly remediates a lot of the film’s abundant flaws.
THUMBS DOWN: I try, try, try, not to criticize things because they sound or look “dated,” but The Rocketeer is, and almost hopelessly so. The effects were passable to begin with, but have really suffered with age. This probably has more to do with the deliberate choices on the part of the visual effects people to give them film an “art deco” look that just doesn’t translate today. This film could REALLY use a remake, and supposedly, there may be one in the works. However, this is a highly minor and superficial criticism and has little to do with my ranking placement: the latter is due more to the fact that the plot is extremely thin and the action quite sparse. The dialogue is not bad, but there’s way, way too much of it. Billy Campbell (in the title role) and Timothy Dalton (as the antagonist) are fine but seem to be a little bit wooden, and I’ve never been sure why, as I don’t think Johnston was to blame and Connelly, O’Quinn and many others gave great performances. Also, there are a few too many liberties taken with the source material, some of which really struck me as unnecessary.
FUN FACTOID: I always love seeing the original “Hollywoodland” sign depicted in a film. Timothy Dalton was James Bond at the time of this film’s release.
THE BOTTOM LINE: This is not a bad movie and I like it, but everything ranked above it on this list is either far superior or just has a better sense of its own identity, whereas this film tries too hard to walk the line between “kid’s movie” and “superhero flick.” To many, they’re one and the same, of course, but not for fans of this genre.
This is Joe Johnston’s cinematic take on Dave Stevens’ indie comic book character of the same name, who was introduced in 1982 but is a throwback homage to serials of the pre- and post-World War II era. Stunt pilot Cliff Secord and his friends become embroiled in a battle over a futuristic jetpack just before the outbreak of World War II.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Object-Enhanced Human/Technologically-Enhanced Human
THUMBS UP: The subject matter is really fun, and it’s a treat to see Howard Hughes (played by Terry O’Quinn) brought to life in as a fictionalized, peripheral, but still vital character. The acting is pretty solid, and the direction is good (I like Johnston and was not, unlike many, disappointed at all with Captain America: The First Avenger, which he also helmed). The costume looks good and the adaptation is fairly faithful. As a bonus, the Nazis naturally make the perfect screen villains, as do (for a time, at least) the sinister-seeming agents of the FBI. For male viewers, Jennifer Connelly is just about impossibly good-looking here (in fact, she doesn’t look much different 22 years later), and frankly remediates a lot of the film’s abundant flaws.
THUMBS DOWN: I try, try, try, not to criticize things because they sound or look “dated,” but The Rocketeer is, and almost hopelessly so. The effects were passable to begin with, but have really suffered with age. This probably has more to do with the deliberate choices on the part of the visual effects people to give them film an “art deco” look that just doesn’t translate today. This film could REALLY use a remake, and supposedly, there may be one in the works. However, this is a highly minor and superficial criticism and has little to do with my ranking placement: the latter is due more to the fact that the plot is extremely thin and the action quite sparse. The dialogue is not bad, but there’s way, way too much of it. Billy Campbell (in the title role) and Timothy Dalton (as the antagonist) are fine but seem to be a little bit wooden, and I’ve never been sure why, as I don’t think Johnston was to blame and Connelly, O’Quinn and many others gave great performances. Also, there are a few too many liberties taken with the source material, some of which really struck me as unnecessary.
FUN FACTOID: I always love seeing the original “Hollywoodland” sign depicted in a film. Timothy Dalton was James Bond at the time of this film’s release.
THE BOTTOM LINE: This is not a bad movie and I like it, but everything ranked above it on this list is either far superior or just has a better sense of its own identity, whereas this film tries too hard to walk the line between “kid’s movie” and “superhero flick.” To many, they’re one and the same, of course, but not for fans of this genre.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
20. Megamind (2010)
The fourth (in reverse order of my rankings) and thankfully the last of the largely unfunny superhero parody films chosen in the draft, this DreamWorks animated effort was a box office flop, and with good reason. Told from the villain’s perspective, in what is sadly just about the most original element of the film, Megamind is one of those movies that confuses goofy, slapstick humor for good storytelling punctuated by laugh-out-loud moments to break to tension; the latter are typically much more successful in the superhero genre.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Alien/Robot
THUMBS UP: It’s an animated production, so the standard for judging the acting is different, but I liked it. Will Ferrell has never been my favorite comedian, but he does a good job here, and Tina Fey and Brad Pitt are also solid. There are some plot elements that genuinely worked, such as Minion, Megamind’s sidekick. The look of the film is good and there is a decent effort at world-building, although it (like most everything else in a typical Will Ferrell movie) gets lost in the egotastic zaniness.
THUMBS DOWN: The movie is wildly successful at being outlandishly derivative and unoriginal in the name of satire – we’re PARODIZING here, dig? Yet, remarkably, it mostly fails to be funny. Jonah Hill is lazily bad as the antagonist. Honestly, the only reason I have this one ranked above anything else below it is because it looks better and does have some amusing moments. It could easily have come in last, and I was tempted.
FUN FACTOID: None. You know, I really should have ranked this last. Ah, well.
BOTTOM LINE: I’m not sure if The Incredibles (coming up, but not soon) retired the “superhero comedy” film for good, but it certainly looks like it did, at least when this is what passes for another stab at the same piece of real estate. Also, had no one among the production staff heard any rumors about Despicable Me when this was being written? (Megamind was released only a few months time later.) Frankly, I probably would have redlighted this one as soon as Despicable Me came out and sent it back for extensive rewrites. And guess which one of the two is getting a sequel, and which isn’t? By the way, this is probably a good time to add that Despicable Me was, for me, the most surprising omission from the drafters’ collective selections.
The fourth (in reverse order of my rankings) and thankfully the last of the largely unfunny superhero parody films chosen in the draft, this DreamWorks animated effort was a box office flop, and with good reason. Told from the villain’s perspective, in what is sadly just about the most original element of the film, Megamind is one of those movies that confuses goofy, slapstick humor for good storytelling punctuated by laugh-out-loud moments to break to tension; the latter are typically much more successful in the superhero genre.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Alien/Robot
THUMBS UP: It’s an animated production, so the standard for judging the acting is different, but I liked it. Will Ferrell has never been my favorite comedian, but he does a good job here, and Tina Fey and Brad Pitt are also solid. There are some plot elements that genuinely worked, such as Minion, Megamind’s sidekick. The look of the film is good and there is a decent effort at world-building, although it (like most everything else in a typical Will Ferrell movie) gets lost in the egotastic zaniness.
THUMBS DOWN: The movie is wildly successful at being outlandishly derivative and unoriginal in the name of satire – we’re PARODIZING here, dig? Yet, remarkably, it mostly fails to be funny. Jonah Hill is lazily bad as the antagonist. Honestly, the only reason I have this one ranked above anything else below it is because it looks better and does have some amusing moments. It could easily have come in last, and I was tempted.
FUN FACTOID: None. You know, I really should have ranked this last. Ah, well.
BOTTOM LINE: I’m not sure if The Incredibles (coming up, but not soon) retired the “superhero comedy” film for good, but it certainly looks like it did, at least when this is what passes for another stab at the same piece of real estate. Also, had no one among the production staff heard any rumors about Despicable Me when this was being written? (Megamind was released only a few months time later.) Frankly, I probably would have redlighted this one as soon as Despicable Me came out and sent it back for extensive rewrites. And guess which one of the two is getting a sequel, and which isn’t? By the way, this is probably a good time to add that Despicable Me was, for me, the most surprising omission from the drafters’ collective selections.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
19. Batman (1989)
Tim Burton’s of the Caped Crusader was never a great film nor anything close to it, but unfortunately for it and the mess that its direct sequels morphed into, its standing has been almost entirely blown away by the Nolan/Bale Batman trilogy. The film’s value now is almost entirely in its legacy, which is not inconsiderable, given that it spawned the DC animated universe and had an indelible influence on the marketing and promotion of superhero movies. However, as a standalone film, it’s a disappointing, misguided mishmash.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Non-Superpowered Martial Artist or Combatant in Peak Physical Condition
THUMBS UP: The acting is mostly top-notch. Michael Keaton may have been a bit of an unlikely choice for the title role, and he has been forever eclipsed by Christian Bale as a cinematic Batman, but his laid-back persona works to a large extent. However, I find him more convincing as Batman than as Bruce Wayne, and that’s a problem. Kim Basinger was very good in this – it’s arguably one of her best film performances. The supporting cast, primarily Michael Gough as Alfred, Jack Palance as Carl Grissom, and Pat Hingle as Commissioner Gordon, was very good. Oh, and always good to see Billy Dee as well. Nicholson, however, is treated below. The plot is pretty fast-moving and the direction is tight (and I am no fan of Tim Burton’s, but this is probably his best film). The cinematography is excellent, and the Danny Elfman score, with the exception of one scene, really helps the film along. And he real star of the movie, as one might reasonably expect from a Burton film, is the set design, all set on the backlot of Pinewood Studios: it’s remarkable.
THUMBS DOWN: Where to begin? First of all, this is not really an origin story, which is odd, and misses all sorts of opportunities for connections with the audience as a result. I mean, sure, we see Thomas and Martha tragically gunned down, but the rest of the Batman mythos is just sort of deemed to be established. It’s like Burton and the two screenwriters (plus the rumored phalanx of script doctors) just wanted to skip right over this part and get to the plot. And the plot really isn’t much. It gives an origin story for the Joker, and sets up a nice little duality between Batman and his archnemesis, but at 2:06 of running time, very little actually happens. The fight scenes are an enormous disappointment; only the throwaway confrontation between Batman and the ninja-type guy in the alley really impresses. And then there’s Nicholson, who is just horribly over-the-top and steals the film . . . but not in a good way. The Dark Knight, as we’ll see, suffered from some of the same issues at the hands of the same villain, but here, it’s egregious. Nicholson’s performance is chock full of Burtonian excess and is just, at the end of the day, loud, sickening, and awful. Special shoutout to the museum scene, by the way, which is utterly repulsive from start to finish. And to top it all off, the Joker doesn’t even receive a particularly satisfying comeuppance. Oof. Did I mention the two outrageous writing choices: altering the perpetrator of the Waynes’ murder and showing Vicki Vale into the Batcave? Oh, and for a film with such a huge budget and ambition, the minimal or no time spent on world-building is pathetic.
FUN FACTOID: Just about everyone was unsure about Michael Keaton’s casting, which is amusing considering how he was easily the most effective element of the film. I can only imagine what a disaster this movie would have been if someone else had been chosen for the part.
THE BOTTOM LINE: It’s good for the genre that Batman came along, but the film itself is honestly below average to terrible. I’ve been a Batman fan since I was about 5 or 6 years old and if I never see this film again, it’s fine by me – and that’s quite a feat. Luckily, Batman Returns was almost infinitely better, and I credit that film, not this one, with spurring a superhero revival at the box office.
Tim Burton’s of the Caped Crusader was never a great film nor anything close to it, but unfortunately for it and the mess that its direct sequels morphed into, its standing has been almost entirely blown away by the Nolan/Bale Batman trilogy. The film’s value now is almost entirely in its legacy, which is not inconsiderable, given that it spawned the DC animated universe and had an indelible influence on the marketing and promotion of superhero movies. However, as a standalone film, it’s a disappointing, misguided mishmash.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Non-Superpowered Martial Artist or Combatant in Peak Physical Condition
THUMBS UP: The acting is mostly top-notch. Michael Keaton may have been a bit of an unlikely choice for the title role, and he has been forever eclipsed by Christian Bale as a cinematic Batman, but his laid-back persona works to a large extent. However, I find him more convincing as Batman than as Bruce Wayne, and that’s a problem. Kim Basinger was very good in this – it’s arguably one of her best film performances. The supporting cast, primarily Michael Gough as Alfred, Jack Palance as Carl Grissom, and Pat Hingle as Commissioner Gordon, was very good. Oh, and always good to see Billy Dee as well. Nicholson, however, is treated below. The plot is pretty fast-moving and the direction is tight (and I am no fan of Tim Burton’s, but this is probably his best film). The cinematography is excellent, and the Danny Elfman score, with the exception of one scene, really helps the film along. And he real star of the movie, as one might reasonably expect from a Burton film, is the set design, all set on the backlot of Pinewood Studios: it’s remarkable.
THUMBS DOWN: Where to begin? First of all, this is not really an origin story, which is odd, and misses all sorts of opportunities for connections with the audience as a result. I mean, sure, we see Thomas and Martha tragically gunned down, but the rest of the Batman mythos is just sort of deemed to be established. It’s like Burton and the two screenwriters (plus the rumored phalanx of script doctors) just wanted to skip right over this part and get to the plot. And the plot really isn’t much. It gives an origin story for the Joker, and sets up a nice little duality between Batman and his archnemesis, but at 2:06 of running time, very little actually happens. The fight scenes are an enormous disappointment; only the throwaway confrontation between Batman and the ninja-type guy in the alley really impresses. And then there’s Nicholson, who is just horribly over-the-top and steals the film . . . but not in a good way. The Dark Knight, as we’ll see, suffered from some of the same issues at the hands of the same villain, but here, it’s egregious. Nicholson’s performance is chock full of Burtonian excess and is just, at the end of the day, loud, sickening, and awful. Special shoutout to the museum scene, by the way, which is utterly repulsive from start to finish. And to top it all off, the Joker doesn’t even receive a particularly satisfying comeuppance. Oof. Did I mention the two outrageous writing choices: altering the perpetrator of the Waynes’ murder and showing Vicki Vale into the Batcave? Oh, and for a film with such a huge budget and ambition, the minimal or no time spent on world-building is pathetic.
FUN FACTOID: Just about everyone was unsure about Michael Keaton’s casting, which is amusing considering how he was easily the most effective element of the film. I can only imagine what a disaster this movie would have been if someone else had been chosen for the part.
THE BOTTOM LINE: It’s good for the genre that Batman came along, but the film itself is honestly below average to terrible. I’ve been a Batman fan since I was about 5 or 6 years old and if I never see this film again, it’s fine by me – and that’s quite a feat. Luckily, Batman Returns was almost infinitely better, and I credit that film, not this one, with spurring a superhero revival at the box office.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
18. Sky High (2005)
An inspired choice for the category because it is often overlooked, this offering takes a mostly comedic approach to an allegorical concept that has it roots in traditional high school and adolescent fiction, and was probably influenced to some extent by the Uncanny X-Men series of comics (particularly the earliest books of that line) as well. Sky High shows us a world where having superpowers is the rule, not the exception, and as such the filmmakers had a chance to subvert a number of comic book tropes. At its core, this is a teen angst story about the relationship between two classmates of the opposite sex who are best friends, and who learn to navigate the complex world of “Sky High” – their high school-cum-training facility.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Mutants
THUMBS UP: The action is reasonably well-handled, the dialogue is pretty solid with some (if few) very funny standout moments, and the acting ranges from passable to very good. The creators did an excellent job of world-building; there are many amusing winks at and allusions to many well-known comic franchises, and the sense of a universe greater than just the immediate vicinity of the setting is palpable. Kurt Russell and Kelly Preston, as the protagonist’s parents, who serve both as the world’s most famous superheroes and a pair of overachieving real estate agents, do an excellent job. I really liked the performance of Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who has carved out a bit of a niche in the action-superhero genre with her roles in Scott Pilgrim v. the World (q.v.) and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, and the Die Hard franchise; she also auditioned for the S.H.I.E.L.D. agent role in The Avengers that eventually went to Cobie Smulders, and was at one time supposedly involved in the second Captain America movie before voluntarily dropping out (apparently to concentrate on independent films). In many ways, she is the best thing about “Sky High,” and the criticality of her role moves the film’s quality up several notches. Lastly, as a fan of team comic books (JLA, The Avengers, Teen Titans and X-Men) more than individual titles, I really enjoyed the well-depicted dynamic of individuals with different powers working together. Oh, one more plus: for the most part, the female characters are more competent than the males, which is a refreshing change for this genre.
THUMBS DOWN: Unfortunately, the other principals don’t match up to Winstead’s level. Michael Angarano was no doubt cast because at the start of the film, he is supposed to represent the traditional archetype of the high school outcast; the problem is that while he plays this role well, he is extremely ill-suited for the transformation of his character in the rest of the film. Similarly, Danielle Panabaker, as the ostensible female lead, did little to compel my interest. But the film’s true problem is that while it has a message – and a good one at that, with a couple of twists on traditional superhero themes – it tries to hard to be a comedy, with verrrrrrry mixed results that all-to-frequently result in “cheesy” rather than “hilarious.” In the hands of a more talented director than Mike Mitchell, and with a more focused effort from its three credited screenwriters, I think this could have been a truly great film.
FUN FACTOID: The exterior of Sky High is a building where I have spent some time – it’s the main library on the campus of California State University Northridge (“CSUN”).
THE BOTTOM LINE: I really, really, really wish this was a better movie. I think that if they had tried to cut back on the forced humor and relied more on dramatic premises with a lighthearted touch and some humorous interludes or quips, I would like it much more. The film shoots high as per its title, but never really gets that far off the ground despite being very likable. Of all my rankings in this category, this is the film whose placement I regret the most.
An inspired choice for the category because it is often overlooked, this offering takes a mostly comedic approach to an allegorical concept that has it roots in traditional high school and adolescent fiction, and was probably influenced to some extent by the Uncanny X-Men series of comics (particularly the earliest books of that line) as well. Sky High shows us a world where having superpowers is the rule, not the exception, and as such the filmmakers had a chance to subvert a number of comic book tropes. At its core, this is a teen angst story about the relationship between two classmates of the opposite sex who are best friends, and who learn to navigate the complex world of “Sky High” – their high school-cum-training facility.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Mutants
THUMBS UP: The action is reasonably well-handled, the dialogue is pretty solid with some (if few) very funny standout moments, and the acting ranges from passable to very good. The creators did an excellent job of world-building; there are many amusing winks at and allusions to many well-known comic franchises, and the sense of a universe greater than just the immediate vicinity of the setting is palpable. Kurt Russell and Kelly Preston, as the protagonist’s parents, who serve both as the world’s most famous superheroes and a pair of overachieving real estate agents, do an excellent job. I really liked the performance of Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who has carved out a bit of a niche in the action-superhero genre with her roles in Scott Pilgrim v. the World (q.v.) and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, and the Die Hard franchise; she also auditioned for the S.H.I.E.L.D. agent role in The Avengers that eventually went to Cobie Smulders, and was at one time supposedly involved in the second Captain America movie before voluntarily dropping out (apparently to concentrate on independent films). In many ways, she is the best thing about “Sky High,” and the criticality of her role moves the film’s quality up several notches. Lastly, as a fan of team comic books (JLA, The Avengers, Teen Titans and X-Men) more than individual titles, I really enjoyed the well-depicted dynamic of individuals with different powers working together. Oh, one more plus: for the most part, the female characters are more competent than the males, which is a refreshing change for this genre.
THUMBS DOWN: Unfortunately, the other principals don’t match up to Winstead’s level. Michael Angarano was no doubt cast because at the start of the film, he is supposed to represent the traditional archetype of the high school outcast; the problem is that while he plays this role well, he is extremely ill-suited for the transformation of his character in the rest of the film. Similarly, Danielle Panabaker, as the ostensible female lead, did little to compel my interest. But the film’s true problem is that while it has a message – and a good one at that, with a couple of twists on traditional superhero themes – it tries to hard to be a comedy, with verrrrrrry mixed results that all-to-frequently result in “cheesy” rather than “hilarious.” In the hands of a more talented director than Mike Mitchell, and with a more focused effort from its three credited screenwriters, I think this could have been a truly great film.
FUN FACTOID: The exterior of Sky High is a building where I have spent some time – it’s the main library on the campus of California State University Northridge (“CSUN”).
THE BOTTOM LINE: I really, really, really wish this was a better movie. I think that if they had tried to cut back on the forced humor and relied more on dramatic premises with a lighthearted touch and some humorous interludes or quips, I would like it much more. The film shoots high as per its title, but never really gets that far off the ground despite being very likable. Of all my rankings in this category, this is the film whose placement I regret the most.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
17. Blade (1998)
Born of an early-seventies Marvel series featuring the eponymous vampire hunter, this is the first of a loud trilogy of films that (in my view at least) contributed heavily to the creation of, or at least heavily influenced, Van Helsing, the Resident Evil series, and the Underworld series. I’m glad someone picked this, even though it is not a “traditional” superhero movie, and I wish I could give it a higher ranking.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Mutant/Supernatural
THUMBS UP: The action sequences and fight choreography, are top-drawer, and Snipes does a great job as the title character. The antagonists are genuinely menacing, and the film does an outstanding job of world-building. I also like the subtextual allegorical commentary about the real world, which is a common feature of just about all vampire fiction, but is handled here about as effectively and solidly as it was in the Buffyverse or the less-commonly known Forever Knight TV show. I was not a huge fan of the comic, which I discovered by accident as a kid, but the changes that the film series makes are for the better.
THUMBS DOWN: As so often happens (and here we have another factor that makes The Rule largely unnecessary), the sequels are geometrically inferior to this movie, but it becomes difficult after a while to distinguish them, thus diminishing the impact of the original offering. I was glad to get another chance to watch this one and pretend that it was free-standing. In other news of detraction, N’Bushe Wright was a little weak as the female lead, and there are several Humvee-sized plot holes more worthy of, say, the Twilight series. Memorable dialogue is at a premium. I found the family element of Blade’s story (meaning, for those who have seen the movie, the familial twist near the end) to be sad and I wish they had left it out.
BOTTOM LINE: This may have deserved a better ranking solely for becoming the first successful Marvel film adaptation, and look where that has led! However, the plot, while clever, is overwhelmed by the complex world of the source material, and that’s a true shame. They’re talking about remaking this, perhaps with Idris Elba, and if they make a few changes, that could truly be very good.
Born of an early-seventies Marvel series featuring the eponymous vampire hunter, this is the first of a loud trilogy of films that (in my view at least) contributed heavily to the creation of, or at least heavily influenced, Van Helsing, the Resident Evil series, and the Underworld series. I’m glad someone picked this, even though it is not a “traditional” superhero movie, and I wish I could give it a higher ranking.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Mutant/Supernatural
THUMBS UP: The action sequences and fight choreography, are top-drawer, and Snipes does a great job as the title character. The antagonists are genuinely menacing, and the film does an outstanding job of world-building. I also like the subtextual allegorical commentary about the real world, which is a common feature of just about all vampire fiction, but is handled here about as effectively and solidly as it was in the Buffyverse or the less-commonly known Forever Knight TV show. I was not a huge fan of the comic, which I discovered by accident as a kid, but the changes that the film series makes are for the better.
THUMBS DOWN: As so often happens (and here we have another factor that makes The Rule largely unnecessary), the sequels are geometrically inferior to this movie, but it becomes difficult after a while to distinguish them, thus diminishing the impact of the original offering. I was glad to get another chance to watch this one and pretend that it was free-standing. In other news of detraction, N’Bushe Wright was a little weak as the female lead, and there are several Humvee-sized plot holes more worthy of, say, the Twilight series. Memorable dialogue is at a premium. I found the family element of Blade’s story (meaning, for those who have seen the movie, the familial twist near the end) to be sad and I wish they had left it out.
BOTTOM LINE: This may have deserved a better ranking solely for becoming the first successful Marvel film adaptation, and look where that has led! However, the plot, while clever, is overwhelmed by the complex world of the source material, and that’s a true shame. They’re talking about remaking this, perhaps with Idris Elba, and if they make a few changes, that could truly be very good.
timschochet
Footballguy
Great writeups so far, AA! Worth the wait. As always, you're one of the very best at doing this and you're always a pleasure to read.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
16. Conan the Barbarian (1982)
This John Milius-directed, Oliver Stone-penned adaptation of a series of true pulp fiction stories from the 1930s by writer Robert E. Howard is the culmination of years of efforts to bring the character to the big screen. It is yet another example of the doors opened to big-budget “genre” films after the success of the original Star Wars (no need to call it A New Hope for these purposes, which is refreshing).
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Non-Superpowered Martial Artist or Combatant in Peak Physical Condition
THUMBS UP: The action is excellent and the story fulfilling and inspiring. The set design and style of the film are strong, and the script by Stone is a strong point. Milius and Stone really translated the vibe of the original Weird Tales stories on to the silver screen. James Earl Jones is outstanding as the antagonist, and Mako is another standout as the Wizard of the Mounds. The Spanish locations are eerie and appropriately unfamiliar. The action sequences are really enjoyable and the ending is both satisfying and suggestive of more to come. “This story shall also be told.”
THUMBS DOWN: Schwarzenegger looks absolutely perfect for the part and his physicality is undeniable, but of course his Austrian accent was still ridiculously thick and was not being played for laughs as in many of his later efforts. Somehow, though, this isn’t a fatal flaw, as it lends an indefinable aspect of camp to the proceedings and actually makes the movie more fun. Of far greater concern are dancer Sandahl Bergman as Valeria and surfer Gerry Lopez as Subotai: neither had ever really acted before, and it shows. Glaringly so. The plot has several holes and some of the fight choreography is unnecessarily lackluster, and the latter issue can’t have been because of the actors doing so many of their own stunts, because other sequences are magnificent.
FUN FACTOID: The whole production was on scene and ready to shoot in Yugoslavia when Tito died, resulting in a very expensive relocation to Spain.
THE BOTTOM LINE: I wish I could have this higher; it held up very well and, though I had not seen it in years, it was far better than I remembered. It certainly served as a nifty springboard for The Governator’s career, and continued the emergent trend of blockbuster cinema that began with Jaws.
This John Milius-directed, Oliver Stone-penned adaptation of a series of true pulp fiction stories from the 1930s by writer Robert E. Howard is the culmination of years of efforts to bring the character to the big screen. It is yet another example of the doors opened to big-budget “genre” films after the success of the original Star Wars (no need to call it A New Hope for these purposes, which is refreshing).
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Non-Superpowered Martial Artist or Combatant in Peak Physical Condition
THUMBS UP: The action is excellent and the story fulfilling and inspiring. The set design and style of the film are strong, and the script by Stone is a strong point. Milius and Stone really translated the vibe of the original Weird Tales stories on to the silver screen. James Earl Jones is outstanding as the antagonist, and Mako is another standout as the Wizard of the Mounds. The Spanish locations are eerie and appropriately unfamiliar. The action sequences are really enjoyable and the ending is both satisfying and suggestive of more to come. “This story shall also be told.”
THUMBS DOWN: Schwarzenegger looks absolutely perfect for the part and his physicality is undeniable, but of course his Austrian accent was still ridiculously thick and was not being played for laughs as in many of his later efforts. Somehow, though, this isn’t a fatal flaw, as it lends an indefinable aspect of camp to the proceedings and actually makes the movie more fun. Of far greater concern are dancer Sandahl Bergman as Valeria and surfer Gerry Lopez as Subotai: neither had ever really acted before, and it shows. Glaringly so. The plot has several holes and some of the fight choreography is unnecessarily lackluster, and the latter issue can’t have been because of the actors doing so many of their own stunts, because other sequences are magnificent.
FUN FACTOID: The whole production was on scene and ready to shoot in Yugoslavia when Tito died, resulting in a very expensive relocation to Spain.
THE BOTTOM LINE: I wish I could have this higher; it held up very well and, though I had not seen it in years, it was far better than I remembered. It certainly served as a nifty springboard for The Governator’s career, and continued the emergent trend of blockbuster cinema that began with Jaws.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
15. RoboCop (1987)
Inspired by a mixture of Blade Runner and comic characters Judge Dredd and Rom, Dutch director Paul Verhoeven’s first English-language big-budget offering was eerily prophetic and resonates very powerfully today. It’s another revenge film, but with significant twists and a great deal of welcome world-building and character development.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Alien/Robot (and, to some extent, Genetically-Enhanced Human as well as Accident-Enhanced Human)
THUMBS UP: The look of the movie is terrific and it’s very long on style. Peter Weller and Nancy Allen are both very good, and Ronny Cox and Kurtwood Smith, who were really born to play power-mad and occasionally urbane villains (for that matter, add Miguel Ferrer to that list), really shine as the antagonists. But the real strength of the pic lies in the themes explored by the plot, which have only become more relevant as the years have progressed. The administration of Detroit privatized? Why, just imagine that! Corporatist fascism as the dominating force in American life – you don’t say! The politics of this movie have always fascinated me, as the thematic palette is an interesting mélange of police state fascism and liberal ideals in the service of which the police actions are justified, particularly given the corporate evil against which they are directed. This is really more of a science fiction film than a superhero film, but it fits the category very well, and the dark themes and allegorical commentary on current events, long a staple of sci-fi but somewhat unknown to the action/superhero genre, began to cross over right here.
THUMBS DOWN: The ED-209 really could have been done better and more convincingly. The ultraviolence and over-the-top bombast are not for everyone, and the plot is a little bit lacking in punch, despite how much thematic ground is successfully covered.
FUN FACTOID: The film received eleven X ratings from the MPAA before the board members finally relented and gave it an R on its twelfth submission.
THE BOTTOM LINE: This was a clever, genre-bending choice probably dictated by the (small) vacuum created by the application of The Rule. It was a very good film when it was released and is even better now, as it has turned out to be more prophetic than many other recent movies of a similar nature that garnered even more critical acclaim. Making Murphy/RoboCop’s partner a woman, very convincingly played by Allen, was a wise choice. This is up for a remake in 2014, with Joel Kinnaman (Holder on The Killing) in the lead role.
Inspired by a mixture of Blade Runner and comic characters Judge Dredd and Rom, Dutch director Paul Verhoeven’s first English-language big-budget offering was eerily prophetic and resonates very powerfully today. It’s another revenge film, but with significant twists and a great deal of welcome world-building and character development.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Alien/Robot (and, to some extent, Genetically-Enhanced Human as well as Accident-Enhanced Human)
THUMBS UP: The look of the movie is terrific and it’s very long on style. Peter Weller and Nancy Allen are both very good, and Ronny Cox and Kurtwood Smith, who were really born to play power-mad and occasionally urbane villains (for that matter, add Miguel Ferrer to that list), really shine as the antagonists. But the real strength of the pic lies in the themes explored by the plot, which have only become more relevant as the years have progressed. The administration of Detroit privatized? Why, just imagine that! Corporatist fascism as the dominating force in American life – you don’t say! The politics of this movie have always fascinated me, as the thematic palette is an interesting mélange of police state fascism and liberal ideals in the service of which the police actions are justified, particularly given the corporate evil against which they are directed. This is really more of a science fiction film than a superhero film, but it fits the category very well, and the dark themes and allegorical commentary on current events, long a staple of sci-fi but somewhat unknown to the action/superhero genre, began to cross over right here.
THUMBS DOWN: The ED-209 really could have been done better and more convincingly. The ultraviolence and over-the-top bombast are not for everyone, and the plot is a little bit lacking in punch, despite how much thematic ground is successfully covered.
FUN FACTOID: The film received eleven X ratings from the MPAA before the board members finally relented and gave it an R on its twelfth submission.
THE BOTTOM LINE: This was a clever, genre-bending choice probably dictated by the (small) vacuum created by the application of The Rule. It was a very good film when it was released and is even better now, as it has turned out to be more prophetic than many other recent movies of a similar nature that garnered even more critical acclaim. Making Murphy/RoboCop’s partner a woman, very convincingly played by Allen, was a wise choice. This is up for a remake in 2014, with Joel Kinnaman (Holder on The Killing) in the lead role.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
Tim, I don't know about any of that, but thanks very much - that's really kind.
I appreciate it greatly.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
14. Darkman (1990)
This Sam Raimi film has an interesting history: Raimi was unable to strike a deal for the rights to make films of the Batman comics or The Shadow series, so he simply created his own one-off (or at least, I’d like to pretend that it was one-off: the sequels were atrocious) character, with predictably mixed results. In an ironic twist, the movie later spawned a couple of comic-book adaptations.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Accident-Enhanced Human
THUMBS UP: Two words: Liam Neeson. I’m a fan of almost anything this guy does, and while this is not one of his more memorable turns (possibly because the nature of the role obscured his appearance for large portions of the action), he still has a commanding presence and a tendency to elevate just about everything else around him, and he does so here. it’s hard to imagine this movie without him. The motivations of Darkman are not difficult to grasp, but the nature of the hero’s ability to disguise himself and the identity issues that raises are very thought-provoking and stayed with me long after the first time I saw this. (Refreshingly, I found that they held up on rewatch, as well.) Danny Elfman turned in the score, and for my money, it’s way better than his effort for Batman (1989). I have always wondered about the budget for this movie and how it was allocated. For example, the villains are capably played by two almost unknown actors: Colin Friels and Larry Drake (who, for any L.A. Law fans reading this, was a regular for the show’s entire run as Benny Stulwicz, the mentally disabled office assistant). Now, it turns out that Friels and Drake are both totally outstanding in their roles, and that helps make the film, BUT given that the film did not (I assume) bust its budget much to sign them up, I have to consider Raimi either very clever or very lucky, because a hamhanded performance in either part would have tubed the movie.
THUMBS DOWN: The plot is well-executed and contains more than a few surprises that have since become Raimi trademarks (most notably on display in his Spider-Man trilogy), but ultimately, it’s a revenge story that is a bit hollow and short on intriguing detail. Frances McDormand is, of course, an outstanding, Oscar-level actress, but she is utterly unconvincing here as the love interest; this is probably her career-worst performance, or close. There are plot elements that totally fall flat, and it’s too bad, because I can think of ways to fix them just offhand, so I’m sure that Hollywood professionals could. In fact, they may have: Raimi and the screenwriters reportedly clashed extensively with the studio over the film’s ultimate edit.
FUN FACTOID: Veteran actor Bruce Campbell, who has a long association with Raimi, makes a very memorable cameo appearance.
BOTTOM LINE: This was a good choice, and the movie that I bounced around the most in my rankings. I have studiously avoided looking at who picked what, as is my practice over my judging experience in all of my two drafts, but I sense the hand of one of three possible drafters here, and will look forward to seeing if I was right. Ultimately, I had to rank this in the middle because it just doesn’t compare to most of the adaptations, many of which generate so much fun for the audience in portraying a familiar comic book or graphic novel figure on the big screen. But it’s far, far better than almost everything ranked below it, and I wish I could have placed it higher.
This Sam Raimi film has an interesting history: Raimi was unable to strike a deal for the rights to make films of the Batman comics or The Shadow series, so he simply created his own one-off (or at least, I’d like to pretend that it was one-off: the sequels were atrocious) character, with predictably mixed results. In an ironic twist, the movie later spawned a couple of comic-book adaptations.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Accident-Enhanced Human
THUMBS UP: Two words: Liam Neeson. I’m a fan of almost anything this guy does, and while this is not one of his more memorable turns (possibly because the nature of the role obscured his appearance for large portions of the action), he still has a commanding presence and a tendency to elevate just about everything else around him, and he does so here. it’s hard to imagine this movie without him. The motivations of Darkman are not difficult to grasp, but the nature of the hero’s ability to disguise himself and the identity issues that raises are very thought-provoking and stayed with me long after the first time I saw this. (Refreshingly, I found that they held up on rewatch, as well.) Danny Elfman turned in the score, and for my money, it’s way better than his effort for Batman (1989). I have always wondered about the budget for this movie and how it was allocated. For example, the villains are capably played by two almost unknown actors: Colin Friels and Larry Drake (who, for any L.A. Law fans reading this, was a regular for the show’s entire run as Benny Stulwicz, the mentally disabled office assistant). Now, it turns out that Friels and Drake are both totally outstanding in their roles, and that helps make the film, BUT given that the film did not (I assume) bust its budget much to sign them up, I have to consider Raimi either very clever or very lucky, because a hamhanded performance in either part would have tubed the movie.
THUMBS DOWN: The plot is well-executed and contains more than a few surprises that have since become Raimi trademarks (most notably on display in his Spider-Man trilogy), but ultimately, it’s a revenge story that is a bit hollow and short on intriguing detail. Frances McDormand is, of course, an outstanding, Oscar-level actress, but she is utterly unconvincing here as the love interest; this is probably her career-worst performance, or close. There are plot elements that totally fall flat, and it’s too bad, because I can think of ways to fix them just offhand, so I’m sure that Hollywood professionals could. In fact, they may have: Raimi and the screenwriters reportedly clashed extensively with the studio over the film’s ultimate edit.
FUN FACTOID: Veteran actor Bruce Campbell, who has a long association with Raimi, makes a very memorable cameo appearance.
BOTTOM LINE: This was a good choice, and the movie that I bounced around the most in my rankings. I have studiously avoided looking at who picked what, as is my practice over my judging experience in all of my two drafts, but I sense the hand of one of three possible drafters here, and will look forward to seeing if I was right. Ultimately, I had to rank this in the middle because it just doesn’t compare to most of the adaptations, many of which generate so much fun for the audience in portraying a familiar comic book or graphic novel figure on the big screen. But it’s far, far better than almost everything ranked below it, and I wish I could have placed it higher.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
13. Hellboy (2004)
It’s hard to believe that Guillermo del Toro’s film is only nine years old; it doesn’t look its age in any meaningful way, but it just seems as though Hellboy has been around longer than that. Based on a series from Dark Horse Comics, this flick follows the adventures of a supernatural entity inadvertently released by the Nazis (them again!). In much the same way as Blade, Hellboy devotes himself to fighting evil phenomena that are more or less of his own kind.
TYPE OF HERO: Supernatural
THUMBS UP: This is a film that manages to integrate its humor with its action and storytelling in a highly seamless manner - - that’s one, but not the only parallel, that it shares with Joss Whedon’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel series. Ron Perlman is terrific as Hellboy, and the supporting cast of John Hurt, Rupert Evans, and Jeffrey Tambor does a tremendous job. Selma Blair starts off a bit unevenly as the female lead, but sells the part, which is neither a traditional femme fatale nor a damsel-in-distress character, very well by the end of the film. Czech actor Karel Roden, who will always be Yuri Gretkov from The Bourne Supremacy to me, does a great job as the villain with a nice historic angle. Perhaps the most compelling aspects of Hellboy are the visuals: del Toro is obviously inspired by Almodóvar, Buñuel, and probably David Lynch, and it’s on full display here.
THUMBS DOWN: Not too much; Hellboy has somewhat narrow ambitions and that’s what earns it this ranking and not something in, say, the top five, although I like it very much. There are a few plot holes and the action sequences are sometimes confusing to follow, but there’s nothing glaringly wrong with the pic. However, the John Myers character is ill-drawn and the lack of a relatable real-world basis for the movie’s premise, or any readily apparent allegory, causes the screenplay to lose punch. Those elements would have drastically improved the film.
It’s hard to believe that Guillermo del Toro’s film is only nine years old; it doesn’t look its age in any meaningful way, but it just seems as though Hellboy has been around longer than that. Based on a series from Dark Horse Comics, this flick follows the adventures of a supernatural entity inadvertently released by the Nazis (them again!). In much the same way as Blade, Hellboy devotes himself to fighting evil phenomena that are more or less of his own kind.
TYPE OF HERO: Supernatural
THUMBS UP: This is a film that manages to integrate its humor with its action and storytelling in a highly seamless manner - - that’s one, but not the only parallel, that it shares with Joss Whedon’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel series. Ron Perlman is terrific as Hellboy, and the supporting cast of John Hurt, Rupert Evans, and Jeffrey Tambor does a tremendous job. Selma Blair starts off a bit unevenly as the female lead, but sells the part, which is neither a traditional femme fatale nor a damsel-in-distress character, very well by the end of the film. Czech actor Karel Roden, who will always be Yuri Gretkov from The Bourne Supremacy to me, does a great job as the villain with a nice historic angle. Perhaps the most compelling aspects of Hellboy are the visuals: del Toro is obviously inspired by Almodóvar, Buñuel, and probably David Lynch, and it’s on full display here.
THUMBS DOWN: Not too much; Hellboy has somewhat narrow ambitions and that’s what earns it this ranking and not something in, say, the top five, although I like it very much. There are a few plot holes and the action sequences are sometimes confusing to follow, but there’s nothing glaringly wrong with the pic. However, the John Myers character is ill-drawn and the lack of a relatable real-world basis for the movie’s premise, or any readily apparent allegory, causes the screenplay to lose punch. Those elements would have drastically improved the film.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
12. The Crow (1994)
Wow, reaching the midpoint of the category at this level of quality really says something about the renaissance (or just naissance) of the genre in recent years. Based on a Caliber Comics series written by James O’Barr, this redemption story is, of course, punctuated with tragedy due to the death of star Brandon Lee during filming. In much the same way as Heath Ledger’s death seemingly lent more gravitas to The Dark Knight, this sad development makes the film even more eerie and compelling than it is already.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Supernatural
THUMBS UP: When I saw this in the theater, I had no idea what to expect from Lee, and I was simultaneously really impressed and saddened, because there would be no further such performances. Alex Proyas’ direction and visual sense are tremendous, and all the more impressive given the budgetary constraints. The rain metaphor, the use of very sparse lighting, and the understated dialogue all help set an unmistakable mood that is appropriately funereal. Ernie Hudson, Michael Wincott, and the always imposing Tony Todd stand out in a really strong overall acting effort by the cast. The plot is not overly complex, but the supernatural elements and the laser-tight focus really move things forward at a relentless pace. I like almost everything on the soundtrack.
THUMBS DOWN: Not too much, except that the movie is “talky.” There’s a lot of exposition through dialogue, which was probably unneeded since the themes are not that difficult to follow, and many members of the audience, back in 1994, had read the original series, toward which the film is very reverent. Some of the attempts at humor (actually, just about all of them) fall flat and seem out of place, and the ending seems at odds with the violence it took to achieve in some viscerally incompatible way. So much attention was paid to the style that other elements, like the plot and dialogue, occasionally suffered.
[fun factoid omitted because there's nothing fun about Lee's passing]
THE BOTTOM LINE: The movie was extraordinarily influential; I’m not sure that Blade would have been made without it, for example. It well deserves its cult following and critical acclaim, and I'm sure many judges would have (justifiably) placed it in a higher position.
Wow, reaching the midpoint of the category at this level of quality really says something about the renaissance (or just naissance) of the genre in recent years. Based on a Caliber Comics series written by James O’Barr, this redemption story is, of course, punctuated with tragedy due to the death of star Brandon Lee during filming. In much the same way as Heath Ledger’s death seemingly lent more gravitas to The Dark Knight, this sad development makes the film even more eerie and compelling than it is already.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Supernatural
THUMBS UP: When I saw this in the theater, I had no idea what to expect from Lee, and I was simultaneously really impressed and saddened, because there would be no further such performances. Alex Proyas’ direction and visual sense are tremendous, and all the more impressive given the budgetary constraints. The rain metaphor, the use of very sparse lighting, and the understated dialogue all help set an unmistakable mood that is appropriately funereal. Ernie Hudson, Michael Wincott, and the always imposing Tony Todd stand out in a really strong overall acting effort by the cast. The plot is not overly complex, but the supernatural elements and the laser-tight focus really move things forward at a relentless pace. I like almost everything on the soundtrack.
THUMBS DOWN: Not too much, except that the movie is “talky.” There’s a lot of exposition through dialogue, which was probably unneeded since the themes are not that difficult to follow, and many members of the audience, back in 1994, had read the original series, toward which the film is very reverent. Some of the attempts at humor (actually, just about all of them) fall flat and seem out of place, and the ending seems at odds with the violence it took to achieve in some viscerally incompatible way. So much attention was paid to the style that other elements, like the plot and dialogue, occasionally suffered.
[fun factoid omitted because there's nothing fun about Lee's passing]
THE BOTTOM LINE: The movie was extraordinarily influential; I’m not sure that Blade would have been made without it, for example. It well deserves its cult following and critical acclaim, and I'm sure many judges would have (justifiably) placed it in a higher position.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
11. Unbreakable (2000)
In many ways, this is M. Night Shyamalan’s best film. It’s not as ambitious as The Sixth Sense, but there are few uneven moments and it’s a really nice tribute to comic book values and ideals while featuring a nice father-son dynamic. Only the ending disappoints, but that’s a minor letdown. I wish there had been a sequel.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Mutant/Supernatural
THUMBS UP: Bruce Willis’ subtle acting carries the film and stands in marked contrast to his action hero persona from the Die Hard franchise and so many other pics. Spencer Treat Clark, who was also really good in the same year in Gladiator, does a great job as Joseph, and Sam Jackson is Sam Jackson. I liked the directing, with the dreary palette giving way to color schemes keyed into the main characters and their motivations, as well as the people planning misdeeds. The minimalist score is excellent at building tension and the inch-thick atmosphere is a character in itself. The plot is generally good and the dialogue as good as that in The Sixth Sense, or perhaps even better. I absolutely love the near-silent scene where Willis and Clark’s characters bond wordlessly over the newspaper article. The explicit homage to comics, mostly through Jackson’s character, provides a nice bit of meta.
THUMBS DOWN: I like Robin Wright, but I thought she was weak here and had little chemistry or interesting interactions with Willis. Playing a couple on the brink of separation was probably a strain, but it’s been done before with more believable results. Like Signs, the film drags for long stretches (whereas The Sixth Sense was better-paced). The ending is pretty unsatisfying, and apparently resulted from the fact that MNG conceived of the story in three parts, with this as the origin segment, but that still doesn’t explain Dunn’s actions regarding Glass at the end of the film. I also sort of wish that the supernaturally-derived ESP had been left out; it feels like it belonged to a different film. Dunn’s powers are interesting enough as they are without that aspect, which was obviously needed to drive the plot forward, but some sort of activation of his heroism could have been achieved in a different way. This would also have had the advantage of forcing a change to the ending.
FUN FACTOID: I’m not sure it was conscious or not, but Dunn’s raincoat and hood are very reminiscent of the Spectre, one of those heroes that I really wish would get a big screen treatment.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Great movie, and severely underrated and underappreciated. It’s a measure of the “golden age” of superhero movies in which we currently find ourselves that only two films ranked above it here are older: The Iron Giant and Superman.
In many ways, this is M. Night Shyamalan’s best film. It’s not as ambitious as The Sixth Sense, but there are few uneven moments and it’s a really nice tribute to comic book values and ideals while featuring a nice father-son dynamic. Only the ending disappoints, but that’s a minor letdown. I wish there had been a sequel.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Mutant/Supernatural
THUMBS UP: Bruce Willis’ subtle acting carries the film and stands in marked contrast to his action hero persona from the Die Hard franchise and so many other pics. Spencer Treat Clark, who was also really good in the same year in Gladiator, does a great job as Joseph, and Sam Jackson is Sam Jackson. I liked the directing, with the dreary palette giving way to color schemes keyed into the main characters and their motivations, as well as the people planning misdeeds. The minimalist score is excellent at building tension and the inch-thick atmosphere is a character in itself. The plot is generally good and the dialogue as good as that in The Sixth Sense, or perhaps even better. I absolutely love the near-silent scene where Willis and Clark’s characters bond wordlessly over the newspaper article. The explicit homage to comics, mostly through Jackson’s character, provides a nice bit of meta.
THUMBS DOWN: I like Robin Wright, but I thought she was weak here and had little chemistry or interesting interactions with Willis. Playing a couple on the brink of separation was probably a strain, but it’s been done before with more believable results. Like Signs, the film drags for long stretches (whereas The Sixth Sense was better-paced). The ending is pretty unsatisfying, and apparently resulted from the fact that MNG conceived of the story in three parts, with this as the origin segment, but that still doesn’t explain Dunn’s actions regarding Glass at the end of the film. I also sort of wish that the supernaturally-derived ESP had been left out; it feels like it belonged to a different film. Dunn’s powers are interesting enough as they are without that aspect, which was obviously needed to drive the plot forward, but some sort of activation of his heroism could have been achieved in a different way. This would also have had the advantage of forcing a change to the ending.
FUN FACTOID: I’m not sure it was conscious or not, but Dunn’s raincoat and hood are very reminiscent of the Spectre, one of those heroes that I really wish would get a big screen treatment.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Great movie, and severely underrated and underappreciated. It’s a measure of the “golden age” of superhero movies in which we currently find ourselves that only two films ranked above it here are older: The Iron Giant and Superman.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
10. Kick-### (2010)
And now, we have the first appearance on our list of a “superhero comedy” that is . . . actually funny! Unfortunately, it’s also highly disturbing in more than a few places, which is why I couldn’t rank it much higher. This largely faithful adaptation of Mark Millar’s limited comic series (published by a Marvel label) is very creative and original, and was directed by Matthew Vaughn, who also directed X-Men: First Class and may have bedded January Jones, so he’s not doing too bad.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Accident-Enhanced Human
THUMBS UP: The three main performances, by Aaron Johnson, Chloe Grace Moretz, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse, are really fun to watch, and it’s a credit to Vaughn’s direction that he was able to elicit such strong work from relative newcomers, who were about 18, 11, and 20 at the time of filming. Moretz, in particular, is a joy to watch. Nick Cage! We have Nick Cage! And he’s also quite good. The dialogue is . . . fresh and inventive? Well, yes it is. The direction is very tight and artsy, the effects and fight scenes are quite good, and the set design is good. Differences from the source material are quite minor with the exception of the ending of the film, but that’s not a big deal.
THUMBS DOWN: Anyone who has actually seen this will know what I mean when I say that there are elements to this that are not for the faint of heart, and while seeing such young performers (particularly Moretz) in this sort of material is always going to be edgy and uncomfortable, this misses that mark by several subway stops and crosses the line into outright disturbia in many key sequences. But just because the Church Lady wouldn’t like this, that doesn’t mean it isn’t good. It is; it’s just not for everyone. But then, neither is the comic. A sequel is on the way in about two months.
FUN FACTOID: The uproar over Moretz's character's use of a rather taboo term is really funny to me.
BOTTOM LINE: To call this film “genre-redefining” is not a stretch. It will always have its critics because of the language, graphic violence, and the youthful nature of its leads (again, Moretz in particular), but this is a truly good film and a nice pick.
And now, we have the first appearance on our list of a “superhero comedy” that is . . . actually funny! Unfortunately, it’s also highly disturbing in more than a few places, which is why I couldn’t rank it much higher. This largely faithful adaptation of Mark Millar’s limited comic series (published by a Marvel label) is very creative and original, and was directed by Matthew Vaughn, who also directed X-Men: First Class and may have bedded January Jones, so he’s not doing too bad.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Accident-Enhanced Human
THUMBS UP: The three main performances, by Aaron Johnson, Chloe Grace Moretz, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse, are really fun to watch, and it’s a credit to Vaughn’s direction that he was able to elicit such strong work from relative newcomers, who were about 18, 11, and 20 at the time of filming. Moretz, in particular, is a joy to watch. Nick Cage! We have Nick Cage! And he’s also quite good. The dialogue is . . . fresh and inventive? Well, yes it is. The direction is very tight and artsy, the effects and fight scenes are quite good, and the set design is good. Differences from the source material are quite minor with the exception of the ending of the film, but that’s not a big deal.
THUMBS DOWN: Anyone who has actually seen this will know what I mean when I say that there are elements to this that are not for the faint of heart, and while seeing such young performers (particularly Moretz) in this sort of material is always going to be edgy and uncomfortable, this misses that mark by several subway stops and crosses the line into outright disturbia in many key sequences. But just because the Church Lady wouldn’t like this, that doesn’t mean it isn’t good. It is; it’s just not for everyone. But then, neither is the comic. A sequel is on the way in about two months.
FUN FACTOID: The uproar over Moretz's character's use of a rather taboo term is really funny to me.
BOTTOM LINE: To call this film “genre-redefining” is not a stretch. It will always have its critics because of the language, graphic violence, and the youthful nature of its leads (again, Moretz in particular), but this is a truly good film and a nice pick.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
9. Watchmen (2009)
Zack Snyder certainly doesn’t shy away from big projects, and tackling the film adaptation of what is widely considered to be not only the best graphic novel ever, but also a legitimate work of 20th century literature, was some challenge. For the most part, he pulled it off, and Watchmen is not only a good (if not perfect) film version of its source material, it’s a very good movie overall. Set in an alternate history 1985 where superheroes helped the United States win the Vietnam War but have since been outlawed in the midst of a far more sinister and tense Cold War than we actually experienced (thank goodness), the film plays on atomic anxiety and faithfully sets forth a ridiculously complex host of themes explored in the novel.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Accident-Enhanced Human (1) and Non-Superpowered Martial Artist or Combatant in Peak Physical Condition (everyone else, to varying degrees)
THUMBS UP: Watchmen had been on the drawing board for a long time (since the late 80s, when the rights to it and graphic novel V for Vendetta, both written by Alan Moore, were acquired together), but was released just about a year after Iron Man and The Dark Knight elevated the superhero film genre to new heights. However, it more than holds it own against those flicks. The world-building challenge that Snyder faced was immense: as any reader of the source material knows, he had to cut entire sections, themes, and character sets out in order to make a workable film – that still clocked in at 2:42. (The DVD features help to restore a significant amount of this material.) There are some script problems, but for the most part it’s a smooth-flowing story despite the novel’s non-linear time sequencing. The action sequences are great and the set design is close to perfect. The costuming of Rorschach, the Silk Spectre, and Nite Owl and the look of Dr. Manhattan are flawless, and other touches, like Ozymandias’ various trappings and bases of operations, and the awesome Owlship Archimedes, are just awesome to see on the silver screen. I liked just about everyone’s acting, even that of Akerman, who did not impress me in, e.g., 27 Dresses (and don’t ask me why I’ve seen it). And of course, for all the guys out there, there’s a nice fanservice scene featuring Ms. Akerman, even if the choice of “Hallelujah” by Leonard Cohen for the scene was a bit over the top. The complex, atypical ending is well-handled and Jackie Earle Haley is a revelation. The scene on Mars still gives me chills: just fantastic.
THUMBS DOWN: It’s hard to support my arguments here without getting too mired in plot details, but suffice it to say that I was disappointed that some elements of the novel were not included, even if it might have meant topping the three-hour running time mark. Also, some of the pacing seems off at time, perhaps due to editing decisions that were beyond Snyder’s control; I have not listened to the DVD commentary or read up on this issue enough to opine on the topic. I liked Matthew Goode as Ozymandias but thought the part could have been cast just a bit more effectively.
FUN FACTOID: The title is an allusion to a rhetorical quote by Roman poet Juvenal, quis custodiet ipsos custodes, typically rendered in English as “who watches the watchmen?” However, much like Star Trek (well, with one regrettable exception) and Star Wars, the title is never spoken or referred to in any explicit way by the characters in the film.
BOTTOM LINE: This is a very, very good adaptation, and maybe the best one possible, of a graphic novel that is so rich in detail, drenched in themes, and high in impact that it might have been better suited to a trilogy of films or a high-budget TV miniseries. I love this flick and wish I could have ranked it higher. At this point in the rankings, this entry and everything above it are separated by razor-thin margins.
Zack Snyder certainly doesn’t shy away from big projects, and tackling the film adaptation of what is widely considered to be not only the best graphic novel ever, but also a legitimate work of 20th century literature, was some challenge. For the most part, he pulled it off, and Watchmen is not only a good (if not perfect) film version of its source material, it’s a very good movie overall. Set in an alternate history 1985 where superheroes helped the United States win the Vietnam War but have since been outlawed in the midst of a far more sinister and tense Cold War than we actually experienced (thank goodness), the film plays on atomic anxiety and faithfully sets forth a ridiculously complex host of themes explored in the novel.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Accident-Enhanced Human (1) and Non-Superpowered Martial Artist or Combatant in Peak Physical Condition (everyone else, to varying degrees)
THUMBS UP: Watchmen had been on the drawing board for a long time (since the late 80s, when the rights to it and graphic novel V for Vendetta, both written by Alan Moore, were acquired together), but was released just about a year after Iron Man and The Dark Knight elevated the superhero film genre to new heights. However, it more than holds it own against those flicks. The world-building challenge that Snyder faced was immense: as any reader of the source material knows, he had to cut entire sections, themes, and character sets out in order to make a workable film – that still clocked in at 2:42. (The DVD features help to restore a significant amount of this material.) There are some script problems, but for the most part it’s a smooth-flowing story despite the novel’s non-linear time sequencing. The action sequences are great and the set design is close to perfect. The costuming of Rorschach, the Silk Spectre, and Nite Owl and the look of Dr. Manhattan are flawless, and other touches, like Ozymandias’ various trappings and bases of operations, and the awesome Owlship Archimedes, are just awesome to see on the silver screen. I liked just about everyone’s acting, even that of Akerman, who did not impress me in, e.g., 27 Dresses (and don’t ask me why I’ve seen it). And of course, for all the guys out there, there’s a nice fanservice scene featuring Ms. Akerman, even if the choice of “Hallelujah” by Leonard Cohen for the scene was a bit over the top. The complex, atypical ending is well-handled and Jackie Earle Haley is a revelation. The scene on Mars still gives me chills: just fantastic.
THUMBS DOWN: It’s hard to support my arguments here without getting too mired in plot details, but suffice it to say that I was disappointed that some elements of the novel were not included, even if it might have meant topping the three-hour running time mark. Also, some of the pacing seems off at time, perhaps due to editing decisions that were beyond Snyder’s control; I have not listened to the DVD commentary or read up on this issue enough to opine on the topic. I liked Matthew Goode as Ozymandias but thought the part could have been cast just a bit more effectively.
FUN FACTOID: The title is an allusion to a rhetorical quote by Roman poet Juvenal, quis custodiet ipsos custodes, typically rendered in English as “who watches the watchmen?” However, much like Star Trek (well, with one regrettable exception) and Star Wars, the title is never spoken or referred to in any explicit way by the characters in the film.
BOTTOM LINE: This is a very, very good adaptation, and maybe the best one possible, of a graphic novel that is so rich in detail, drenched in themes, and high in impact that it might have been better suited to a trilogy of films or a high-budget TV miniseries. I love this flick and wish I could have ranked it higher. At this point in the rankings, this entry and everything above it are separated by razor-thin margins.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
8. The Iron Giant (1999)
This animated production starring the voices of Jennifer Aniston, Harry Connick Jr. and Vin Diesel was a very nice, imaginative pick for the category. In brief, it tells a Cold War-era story of an alien robot who falls from space and is in effect rescued by a young boy, who later battles to save the robot from not only government forces who see it as a threat, but also its own programming.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Alien/Robot
THUMBS UP:
This is a really touching story, and it’s arguably one of the best non-Disney animated films around. The retro feel of the movie is done extremely well, and the paranoia of the late fifties is captured perfectly. The anti-violence theme mixes nicely with an unexpected aversion of the “military is evil” trope, and the voice acting is pretty skillful. The character actors playing the non-principal parts are in particular terrific. The musical score (by the Czech Philharmonic Orchestra, which at the time of the movie’s setting, would have been “behind enemy lines”) is fantastic. Some have issues with the ending, but I’ve always thought it was very appropriate to the overall tone and message of the movie. The kid-meets-alien plot is handled quite well, and the many parallels to E.T. are not at all distracting.
THUMBS DOWN:
I have only minor quibbles: the dialogue is at times clunky, and I think the direction could have been tighter in some places – but, again, I have nothing but praise for the plot and the acting. Ultimately, not much actually happens, but this is a picture with a big heart that doesn’t seek to overwhelm or dazzle, so the thematic focus makes up for any lack of action. The film could have been funnier, but it also could have had 40 Iron Giants instead of one, for example, so that’s not much of a criticism.
FUN FACTOID: I’ve always wondered how many American kids, now or in 1975, were and are named “Hogarth.” Maybe it’s a Maine thing?
BOTTOM LINE:
Wonderful selection. This is animated cinema at its finest, and the marketing failure by Warner in distributing this one, leading to its box office failure, is criminal (but the frustrations drove creator Brad Bird to make The Incredibles, so it’s not all bad). I could have ranked this even higher, but felt that the material in front of it was slightly –and only very slightly – superior.
This animated production starring the voices of Jennifer Aniston, Harry Connick Jr. and Vin Diesel was a very nice, imaginative pick for the category. In brief, it tells a Cold War-era story of an alien robot who falls from space and is in effect rescued by a young boy, who later battles to save the robot from not only government forces who see it as a threat, but also its own programming.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Alien/Robot
THUMBS UP:
This is a really touching story, and it’s arguably one of the best non-Disney animated films around. The retro feel of the movie is done extremely well, and the paranoia of the late fifties is captured perfectly. The anti-violence theme mixes nicely with an unexpected aversion of the “military is evil” trope, and the voice acting is pretty skillful. The character actors playing the non-principal parts are in particular terrific. The musical score (by the Czech Philharmonic Orchestra, which at the time of the movie’s setting, would have been “behind enemy lines”) is fantastic. Some have issues with the ending, but I’ve always thought it was very appropriate to the overall tone and message of the movie. The kid-meets-alien plot is handled quite well, and the many parallels to E.T. are not at all distracting.
THUMBS DOWN:
I have only minor quibbles: the dialogue is at times clunky, and I think the direction could have been tighter in some places – but, again, I have nothing but praise for the plot and the acting. Ultimately, not much actually happens, but this is a picture with a big heart that doesn’t seek to overwhelm or dazzle, so the thematic focus makes up for any lack of action. The film could have been funnier, but it also could have had 40 Iron Giants instead of one, for example, so that’s not much of a criticism.
FUN FACTOID: I’ve always wondered how many American kids, now or in 1975, were and are named “Hogarth.” Maybe it’s a Maine thing?
BOTTOM LINE:
Wonderful selection. This is animated cinema at its finest, and the marketing failure by Warner in distributing this one, leading to its box office failure, is criminal (but the frustrations drove creator Brad Bird to make The Incredibles, so it’s not all bad). I could have ranked this even higher, but felt that the material in front of it was slightly –and only very slightly – superior.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
7. The Incredibles (2004)
This is both the ultimate superhero animation film, and such a good superhero comedy that I really, really, really wish others would stop trying to imitate it; we’ve already seem several of those ridiculously inferior efforts well below. Written and directed by Brad Bird, who was also the creative force behind the almost-as-good, but far less successful The Iron Giant, The Incredibles features the adventures of a temporarily retired superhero family.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Mutants
THUMBS UP: The film is hysterical. Instead of lame attempts at goofy humor, we have really sharp satire here not just of superhero films, but also the spy genre and suburban sitcoms. The voice acting is very good all around, with Jason Lee a particular standout as the film’s antagonist, but leads Craig T. Nelson, Hilly Hunter and Samuel L. Jackson were certainly on their game too, and the direction is very tight. The dialogue is good and the plot makes a lot of sense, borrowing heavily from The Fantastic Four comics and Watchmen (although Bird has denied the latter, I find that hard to believe). The animation is simply . . . unbelievable. The movie’s score is delightfully retro and features cues that sound like they come from 60s and 70s-era James Bond flicks instead of other superhero movies.
THUMBS DOWN: For some reason, political conservatives have adopted this one as some sort of anthemic “values picture,” and I had to remember actively to drive that away on several occasions while watching the movie again for this judging. I don’t think any political message was really intended. On another note, the film is a little bit dark and the involvement of Violet, Dash and Jack-Jack in some of the violence is at odds with the overall tone and message of the film, which doesn’t bother me intrinsically but strikes a slightly discordant note that lingers after viewing.
FUN FACTOID: Out of all the movies on this list that have received sequel treatment or are themselves sequels, the fact that there has been no The Incredibles 2 in nine years is somewhat amazing, particularly given how the movie ends. I get the feeling that Bird doesn’t want to disturb what he did.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Just terrific stuff. It did justice to Watchmen better than its own film adaptation did, and not only that, it’s a remarkable achievement in animation to boot. If I had a points ranking system, it would be pretty clear that this didn’t miss my top five, or even my top two, by much at all. Just a terrific movie.
This is both the ultimate superhero animation film, and such a good superhero comedy that I really, really, really wish others would stop trying to imitate it; we’ve already seem several of those ridiculously inferior efforts well below. Written and directed by Brad Bird, who was also the creative force behind the almost-as-good, but far less successful The Iron Giant, The Incredibles features the adventures of a temporarily retired superhero family.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Mutants
THUMBS UP: The film is hysterical. Instead of lame attempts at goofy humor, we have really sharp satire here not just of superhero films, but also the spy genre and suburban sitcoms. The voice acting is very good all around, with Jason Lee a particular standout as the film’s antagonist, but leads Craig T. Nelson, Hilly Hunter and Samuel L. Jackson were certainly on their game too, and the direction is very tight. The dialogue is good and the plot makes a lot of sense, borrowing heavily from The Fantastic Four comics and Watchmen (although Bird has denied the latter, I find that hard to believe). The animation is simply . . . unbelievable. The movie’s score is delightfully retro and features cues that sound like they come from 60s and 70s-era James Bond flicks instead of other superhero movies.
THUMBS DOWN: For some reason, political conservatives have adopted this one as some sort of anthemic “values picture,” and I had to remember actively to drive that away on several occasions while watching the movie again for this judging. I don’t think any political message was really intended. On another note, the film is a little bit dark and the involvement of Violet, Dash and Jack-Jack in some of the violence is at odds with the overall tone and message of the film, which doesn’t bother me intrinsically but strikes a slightly discordant note that lingers after viewing.
FUN FACTOID: Out of all the movies on this list that have received sequel treatment or are themselves sequels, the fact that there has been no The Incredibles 2 in nine years is somewhat amazing, particularly given how the movie ends. I get the feeling that Bird doesn’t want to disturb what he did.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Just terrific stuff. It did justice to Watchmen better than its own film adaptation did, and not only that, it’s a remarkable achievement in animation to boot. If I had a points ranking system, it would be pretty clear that this didn’t miss my top five, or even my top two, by much at all. Just a terrific movie.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
6. X2 (2003)
My comic-book reading always focused more on the team books, and nine years before there The Avengers, the second installment of Bryan Singer’s X-Men trilogy made a pretty substantial impact. Far more intricate and involved than its predecessor, and very good at keeping its eye on all of the balls in the air with the multiple backstories and high-powered actors fighting for screentime, X2 has a great plot, outstanding action sequences, and is amazingly faithful to the source material.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Mutants
THUMBS UP: The X-Men comics always focused on “mutants” as an allegory for mankind’s peculiar drive to attack whatever is different, and the scope of that commentary ranged from domestic adolescent problems to globe-spanning (and sometimes beyond) threats. Unlike Superman or The Avengers, but like Batman, the X-Men (particularly Wolverine) always had a dark side, and like Spider-Man, were often more feared than appreciated by the non-metahumans they fought to protect. X2 captures all of this perfectly, and manages to fit in a subjacent commentary on government secrecy and military-style paranoia as well. While this is very much Jackman’s film, just about every character (with the possible exception of James Marsden’s boringly-written Cyclops) has a lot to do, and the performances (aside from a bit of a phone-in by Halle Berry, who was strangely better in the original) are strong. Patrick Stewart is rock-solid, and Ian McKellen isn’t known for disappointing with his acting ability, but Brian Cox (taking a break between the first two Bourne films) also makes a great villain, Rebecca Romijn shows that she can actually act, Anna Paquin is better than she was the first time around, and Famke Janssen is very, very good as Jean Grey. My favorite X-Man was always Nightcrawler, and his unforgivable omission from the first Singer film is remedied here with plenty of gusto from Alan Cumming, doing a nice German accent. The opening attack on the Oval Office is an action standout, and the drawn-out closing battle, with all of the shifting allegiances and differing agendas, is fantastic. There’s abundant humor, most notably in a great scene where Iceman (Shawn Ashmore) “comes out” as a mutant to his parents. The film looks and feels just about perfect, and everyone’s powers are handled with great appreciation for the source comics.
THUMBS DOWN: Not much. The movie’s focus on Wolverine is a reflection of his status as the comic series’ “breakout character,” and regrettably comes at the expense of the development of some of the other X-Men, but that’s a forgivable sin. Similarly, the strange conflation of Rogue and Kitty Pryde (later made even weirder when Ellen Page shows up in the third film in the latter role) into Anna Paquin’s character could have been better handled, and Paquin’s screen time really takes a dive here; it was a little hard to show Rogue’s abilities on screen without her having stolen Ms. Marvel’s powers, I guess. I wanted more of the mansion, but was very grateful for the scenes that were set there (and the assault on it was chilling). Similarly, I wish Colossus was one of the supporting players and not just shoehorned in as a bit player.
FUN FACTOID: The awesome fight between Wolverine and Lady Deathstrike supposedly took three weeks to film. No wonder it looks so good.
BOTTOM LINE: I strongly considered taking this one as the fifth overall pick in the category but decided to go with the more influential Superman instead; I cannot believe that this lasted until the 13th overall Superhero pick. It’s a very rewarding film experience enhanced with multiple references and easter eggs for fans of the comic series, and holds up tremendously on repeat viewings. I could have easily ranked this as high as #2.
My comic-book reading always focused more on the team books, and nine years before there The Avengers, the second installment of Bryan Singer’s X-Men trilogy made a pretty substantial impact. Far more intricate and involved than its predecessor, and very good at keeping its eye on all of the balls in the air with the multiple backstories and high-powered actors fighting for screentime, X2 has a great plot, outstanding action sequences, and is amazingly faithful to the source material.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Mutants
THUMBS UP: The X-Men comics always focused on “mutants” as an allegory for mankind’s peculiar drive to attack whatever is different, and the scope of that commentary ranged from domestic adolescent problems to globe-spanning (and sometimes beyond) threats. Unlike Superman or The Avengers, but like Batman, the X-Men (particularly Wolverine) always had a dark side, and like Spider-Man, were often more feared than appreciated by the non-metahumans they fought to protect. X2 captures all of this perfectly, and manages to fit in a subjacent commentary on government secrecy and military-style paranoia as well. While this is very much Jackman’s film, just about every character (with the possible exception of James Marsden’s boringly-written Cyclops) has a lot to do, and the performances (aside from a bit of a phone-in by Halle Berry, who was strangely better in the original) are strong. Patrick Stewart is rock-solid, and Ian McKellen isn’t known for disappointing with his acting ability, but Brian Cox (taking a break between the first two Bourne films) also makes a great villain, Rebecca Romijn shows that she can actually act, Anna Paquin is better than she was the first time around, and Famke Janssen is very, very good as Jean Grey. My favorite X-Man was always Nightcrawler, and his unforgivable omission from the first Singer film is remedied here with plenty of gusto from Alan Cumming, doing a nice German accent. The opening attack on the Oval Office is an action standout, and the drawn-out closing battle, with all of the shifting allegiances and differing agendas, is fantastic. There’s abundant humor, most notably in a great scene where Iceman (Shawn Ashmore) “comes out” as a mutant to his parents. The film looks and feels just about perfect, and everyone’s powers are handled with great appreciation for the source comics.
THUMBS DOWN: Not much. The movie’s focus on Wolverine is a reflection of his status as the comic series’ “breakout character,” and regrettably comes at the expense of the development of some of the other X-Men, but that’s a forgivable sin. Similarly, the strange conflation of Rogue and Kitty Pryde (later made even weirder when Ellen Page shows up in the third film in the latter role) into Anna Paquin’s character could have been better handled, and Paquin’s screen time really takes a dive here; it was a little hard to show Rogue’s abilities on screen without her having stolen Ms. Marvel’s powers, I guess. I wanted more of the mansion, but was very grateful for the scenes that were set there (and the assault on it was chilling). Similarly, I wish Colossus was one of the supporting players and not just shoehorned in as a bit player.
FUN FACTOID: The awesome fight between Wolverine and Lady Deathstrike supposedly took three weeks to film. No wonder it looks so good.
BOTTOM LINE: I strongly considered taking this one as the fifth overall pick in the category but decided to go with the more influential Superman instead; I cannot believe that this lasted until the 13th overall Superhero pick. It’s a very rewarding film experience enhanced with multiple references and easter eggs for fans of the comic series, and holds up tremendously on repeat viewings. I could have easily ranked this as high as #2.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
. . . and now, the Top Five.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
5. Superman (1978)
Superman is arguably the most difficult hero to translate to the big screen – and indeed one of the most difficult to write about, period, accounting for some of the trouble that DC has had with its series of Superman comic titles over the years – because of his relative indestructibility. (Marvel’s analogue to this is Thor, but in Thor’s own books, he could stay in Asgard and face problems on his level, but Superman, of course, took place on his adopted planet of Earth.) Nonetheless, creative writers have been finding ways to integrate Superman into not only his own adventures, but collaborations with Batman and the rest of the Justice League, for years. (Two of my favorite-ever Superman stories in the comics occurred when his powers were divided among two personas, so one had, for example, to deal with super-strength without the advantage of invulnerability; these are the sorts of inventive ideas that were needed to keep the character fresh.) In order for Superman to be brought to the big screen as the first true big-budget superhero movie in the late seventies, the studio enlisted the services of director Richard Donner and turned to none other than “The Godfather” author Mario Puzo to write the script, which was later revised extensively by Tom Mankiewicz. Their collaboration was an enormous success, bringing superheroes to the big screen at roughly the same time as Jaws, the Star Wars and Star Trek franchises, and other movies were helping to create the concept of the box office blockbuster.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Alien/Robot
THUMBS UP: The casting of the late Christopher Reeve simply makes the film. He simply takes over the Superman persona in a way that has made it very, very difficult for anyone to follow with any success (the Smallville TV series notwithstanding). Simultaneously totally convincing as Kal-El, and hilariously nerdy and inept as Clark Kent, Reeve is one of the most likable big screen superhero actors ever. The rest of the cast is outstanding: Marlon Brando was paid a king’s ransom for about ten minutes of screen time but was worth every penny; Margot Kidder is a very good Lois Lane; Gene Hackman is delightful as Lex Luthor; Glen Ford lends gravitas to his brief scenes as Pa Kent; and Jackie Cooper, Marc McClure, Ned Beatty, Valerie Perrine, Terrence Stamp and Sarah Douglas (both to return in the almost-as-good sequel) were all top-notch as well. This was, in effect, the late 70s version of an all-star cast every bit as good as that assembled by Time Warner 25 years later for the Nolan/Bale Bat-rilogy. The story is very good, the threats convincing, and the visual effects, most notably the flying, still hold up today. John Williams’ score is soaring and anthemic. The dialogue crackles and contains some good stuff for adults that sailed harmlessly over the heads of most kids at the time. And then there are the opening Krypton scenes, which manage to be alien and cool before this sort of vibe was regularly achieved.
THUMBS DOWN: The movie has a very light-hearted tone, which probably accounted for the darker tone of the sequel, and at time Hackman, Beatty and Perrine’s villainy verges on the corny. Because the movie has so much to get to, less time is spent on Clark’s formative years than I might have liked, but they’re treated.
FUN FACTOID: Both Warren Beatty and Robert Redford turned the title role down, and the producers embarked on a huge search before finally settling on the almost-unknown Reeve.
BOTTOM LINE: Just about every other film on this list owes something to Superman; there are conscious and probably unintended homages to it in pretty much every superhero film that has followed. It opened the door, but with all else that has followed, it’s easy to forget how good this movie really is. This was my selection, and *I* forgot how good it was until I rewatched it in preparation for these rankings. Anyone wanting to debate is placement should speak up, because I’d be curious to hear the rationale for ranking it differently.
Superman is arguably the most difficult hero to translate to the big screen – and indeed one of the most difficult to write about, period, accounting for some of the trouble that DC has had with its series of Superman comic titles over the years – because of his relative indestructibility. (Marvel’s analogue to this is Thor, but in Thor’s own books, he could stay in Asgard and face problems on his level, but Superman, of course, took place on his adopted planet of Earth.) Nonetheless, creative writers have been finding ways to integrate Superman into not only his own adventures, but collaborations with Batman and the rest of the Justice League, for years. (Two of my favorite-ever Superman stories in the comics occurred when his powers were divided among two personas, so one had, for example, to deal with super-strength without the advantage of invulnerability; these are the sorts of inventive ideas that were needed to keep the character fresh.) In order for Superman to be brought to the big screen as the first true big-budget superhero movie in the late seventies, the studio enlisted the services of director Richard Donner and turned to none other than “The Godfather” author Mario Puzo to write the script, which was later revised extensively by Tom Mankiewicz. Their collaboration was an enormous success, bringing superheroes to the big screen at roughly the same time as Jaws, the Star Wars and Star Trek franchises, and other movies were helping to create the concept of the box office blockbuster.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Alien/Robot
THUMBS UP: The casting of the late Christopher Reeve simply makes the film. He simply takes over the Superman persona in a way that has made it very, very difficult for anyone to follow with any success (the Smallville TV series notwithstanding). Simultaneously totally convincing as Kal-El, and hilariously nerdy and inept as Clark Kent, Reeve is one of the most likable big screen superhero actors ever. The rest of the cast is outstanding: Marlon Brando was paid a king’s ransom for about ten minutes of screen time but was worth every penny; Margot Kidder is a very good Lois Lane; Gene Hackman is delightful as Lex Luthor; Glen Ford lends gravitas to his brief scenes as Pa Kent; and Jackie Cooper, Marc McClure, Ned Beatty, Valerie Perrine, Terrence Stamp and Sarah Douglas (both to return in the almost-as-good sequel) were all top-notch as well. This was, in effect, the late 70s version of an all-star cast every bit as good as that assembled by Time Warner 25 years later for the Nolan/Bale Bat-rilogy. The story is very good, the threats convincing, and the visual effects, most notably the flying, still hold up today. John Williams’ score is soaring and anthemic. The dialogue crackles and contains some good stuff for adults that sailed harmlessly over the heads of most kids at the time. And then there are the opening Krypton scenes, which manage to be alien and cool before this sort of vibe was regularly achieved.
THUMBS DOWN: The movie has a very light-hearted tone, which probably accounted for the darker tone of the sequel, and at time Hackman, Beatty and Perrine’s villainy verges on the corny. Because the movie has so much to get to, less time is spent on Clark’s formative years than I might have liked, but they’re treated.
FUN FACTOID: Both Warren Beatty and Robert Redford turned the title role down, and the producers embarked on a huge search before finally settling on the almost-unknown Reeve.
BOTTOM LINE: Just about every other film on this list owes something to Superman; there are conscious and probably unintended homages to it in pretty much every superhero film that has followed. It opened the door, but with all else that has followed, it’s easy to forget how good this movie really is. This was my selection, and *I* forgot how good it was until I rewatched it in preparation for these rankings. Anyone wanting to debate is placement should speak up, because I’d be curious to hear the rationale for ranking it differently.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
4. Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Sam Raimi’s second installment of his Spider-Man trilogy is by far the best of the three, and my approach to the three generally parallels my view of the X-Men trilogy very closely. The original is well-intentioned but ultimately flawed and not particularly exciting, the second film fixes all of the problems of the first, and the third creates considerable new problems of its own. Still, I have never understood why this trilogy called for (or rather, didn’t stop) a new remake of Spider-Man A MERE FIVE YEARS after this set of movies. It’s utterly bizarre.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Accident-Enhanced Human
THUMBS UP: The acting was the weak point of the first entry, and that is largely fixed here, with better performances from Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst and an upgrade from a strangely subdued and just simply off-key Willem Dafoe to an energetic, balls-out Alfred Molina as Dr. Octopus. The train battle is one of the best visual effects among any film selected for the category. Raimi’s direction and the cinematography are peerless. And the plot! The plot of this one is what makes it shine; even a casual reader of the Amazing Spider-Man largely knows what’s coming, but the source material is honored very strictly and the energy of the film is top-notch. Like Batman Begins, this film does an excellent job (aided by what has to be Maguire’s career-best acting performance) of portraying the toll that being a superhero takes on the hero’s true, secret identity. The dialogue is good and the plot is free of significant flaws and errors (save one, covered below).
THUMBS DOWN: The “loss of powers” sequence is unfortunate and unnecessary. A group of people sees Peter’s face . . . but nothing happens as a result. And this was, in an oddity that I can’t quite figure out, the movie that changed me from thinking that Kirsten Dunst was a child acting prodigy who would turn into a really terrific young actress (like, for example, Natalie Portman or, to a lesser extent, Anna Paquin) to becoming largely negative about her performances. THIS was the same young lady who played Claudia in Interview with a Vampire? Something has to have happened behind the scenes here; perhaps Raimi’s direction didn’t work for her after one film already in the can, or chemistry was lacking with Maguire, or something. But for whatever reason, KD has never been the same since. I simply don’t get it.
FUN FACTOID: In a wise move, screenwriter Michael Chabon cut down the early drafts considerably; some of the first treatments would have included as many as five villains. *Good *call.
THE BOTTOM LINE: This is one of the most fun movies on the list – far more fun to watch than TDR or even VfV, for example, in the sense that you can just turn your mind off and enjoy the special effects, and there is definitely a place for that sort of film in this genre. (In fact, I’m sure people who don’t like superhero movies criticize them for all being like that, which is a tired critical cliché.) However, this also means that the movie is far less thought-provoking than many of the other entries here, and as such, leaves less of a lasting impact. Maybe that “called for” the abrupt remake, but since they didn’t get the 2012 entry right at all, I’m at a loss. In any event, this is a really fun, visually stunning piece with some great effects and terrific attention to detail and reverence for the source material.
Sam Raimi’s second installment of his Spider-Man trilogy is by far the best of the three, and my approach to the three generally parallels my view of the X-Men trilogy very closely. The original is well-intentioned but ultimately flawed and not particularly exciting, the second film fixes all of the problems of the first, and the third creates considerable new problems of its own. Still, I have never understood why this trilogy called for (or rather, didn’t stop) a new remake of Spider-Man A MERE FIVE YEARS after this set of movies. It’s utterly bizarre.
TYPE OF SUPERHERO: Accident-Enhanced Human
THUMBS UP: The acting was the weak point of the first entry, and that is largely fixed here, with better performances from Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst and an upgrade from a strangely subdued and just simply off-key Willem Dafoe to an energetic, balls-out Alfred Molina as Dr. Octopus. The train battle is one of the best visual effects among any film selected for the category. Raimi’s direction and the cinematography are peerless. And the plot! The plot of this one is what makes it shine; even a casual reader of the Amazing Spider-Man largely knows what’s coming, but the source material is honored very strictly and the energy of the film is top-notch. Like Batman Begins, this film does an excellent job (aided by what has to be Maguire’s career-best acting performance) of portraying the toll that being a superhero takes on the hero’s true, secret identity. The dialogue is good and the plot is free of significant flaws and errors (save one, covered below).
THUMBS DOWN: The “loss of powers” sequence is unfortunate and unnecessary. A group of people sees Peter’s face . . . but nothing happens as a result. And this was, in an oddity that I can’t quite figure out, the movie that changed me from thinking that Kirsten Dunst was a child acting prodigy who would turn into a really terrific young actress (like, for example, Natalie Portman or, to a lesser extent, Anna Paquin) to becoming largely negative about her performances. THIS was the same young lady who played Claudia in Interview with a Vampire? Something has to have happened behind the scenes here; perhaps Raimi’s direction didn’t work for her after one film already in the can, or chemistry was lacking with Maguire, or something. But for whatever reason, KD has never been the same since. I simply don’t get it.
FUN FACTOID: In a wise move, screenwriter Michael Chabon cut down the early drafts considerably; some of the first treatments would have included as many as five villains. *Good *call.
THE BOTTOM LINE: This is one of the most fun movies on the list – far more fun to watch than TDR or even VfV, for example, in the sense that you can just turn your mind off and enjoy the special effects, and there is definitely a place for that sort of film in this genre. (In fact, I’m sure people who don’t like superhero movies criticize them for all being like that, which is a tired critical cliché.) However, this also means that the movie is far less thought-provoking than many of the other entries here, and as such, leaves less of a lasting impact. Maybe that “called for” the abrupt remake, but since they didn’t get the 2012 entry right at all, I’m at a loss. In any event, this is a really fun, visually stunning piece with some great effects and terrific attention to detail and reverence for the source material.
Similar threads
