Comic Book Movies

[Avaitor]

Well to be serious again, these are RT's top 50 comic book movies.

Do you agree with #1? Because the more I think about it, it really is as close to perfect as there is for comic book movies.

[Dr. Insomniac]

Oldboy at #31. I call shenanigans.

And Avengers? Eh, I'm starting to agree with chdr in that it's basically superhero porn for neckbeards and preteen boys to jack off to.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Chdr- who thinks Problem Solverz is a great work of art.  But in my opinion, it's too early to call it the best superhero film ever. While it may well be, let it sit a while and let the hype die down. Then we can decide if Whedon > Cameron. 

I'm glad to see the original Superman rank so high, it really is a great movie.

[Avaitor]

Wow, Persepolis is pretty low for a movie with 97%. That's another great one.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

This is one of those lists with a bunch of choices that straight up don't make sense. For instance, what the hell is Superman Returns doing in the top 30? I thought people hated that movie. Also, why is Batman Returns ahead of Batman 1989? I even like Returns, but I know for a fact that a lot of people don't, and even though I like it most people in general would agree that the 1989 film was far better and should probably be placed higher on the list, at that. Also, its WAY too soon to be ranking films like Spider-Man 3 or The Avengers (and especially to rank the latter as the best comic book movie of all time). I mean, yeah, they would both probably belong on this list, but they only just came out this summer, so its not like anyone could be certain where they should rank until at least a year has passed and they can view the films without any major hype behind them and really judge them for what they are. Also, while I LOVE Avengers, I think people have gotten way too out of hand in saying that it surpasses The Dark Knight. Take out the novelty of having 4 major super-heroes team up for the first time ever on the big-screen, stand back, and analyze the movie. I think you'd find that while its a definitely a highly entertaining flick, it doesn't have all that much depth to it. Loki's motives come down to little more than just wanting power, which is obviously carried over from his detest of being snubbed the right to being the ruler of Asgard in favor of his brother, Thor. As for the heroes, the one who has the deepest conflict is Captain America, who must struggle to keep up with futuristic (respective to him) world that he has been cast into, and its not like this movie has a lot of time to explore that concept. Coming in 2nd is Bruce Banner, who has to find a way to control his rage and make The Hulk into something useful that can be used against the alien forces that are trying to invade Earth. Its surprisingly well done for a movie that has so many other characters to focus on, but its still not handled with the same amount of care that could be afforded by a film that really has more time to focus on fewer characters.

Now, compare all of that to The Dark Knight, where the characters are full of depth, The Joker is much more threatening of a villain respective to film (as in, he manages to put an entire city in peril without the use of a powerful invading alien army at his command), Batman has no superpowers or even teammates to help him out (unless you count Alfred and Lucius Fox) so he instead has to rely on his own skills and wits with some technology to back him up. Also, Bruce Wayne just has way more problems to deal with than any of the heroes in Avengers even had alone in their own movies, which keeps things interesting since it feels like the odds are always stacked against him.

Don't get me wrong, I really do like The Avengers. Its probably one of my top 5 favorite comic book films, but I fully admit that it is because its a damn entertaining popcorn flick. Even with all of the hype behind it, I never saw it as something on the level of The Dark Knight in terms of intricate plots and character complexity.

[Avaitor]

I don't know about you, but the more I watch TDK, the less Heath Ledger's performance wows me. It actually kind of irks me now and not in a good way. It's indeed a more complex film than Avengers, but I wouldn't call it the best either.

As for Avengers, there isn't much to it, but is it fun? I think it's just a blast and isn't as padded as TDK, despite having the same length. It is too soon to rank it so high, but the film still has a lot more going for it than against it- a great script, fun action, near-perfect representation of 70 year's worth of comic mythology, and a sensational cast.

[Foggle]

Oldboy not in the top 10, no Ichi The Killer at all, Spider-Man 2 and 3 on the list, Over The Hedge on the list, Iron Man 2 on the list...

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I don't know about you, but the more I watch TDK, the less Heath Ledger's performance wows me. It actually kind of irks me now and not in a good way. It's indeed a more complex film than Avengers, but I wouldn't call it the best either.

That's just the way you feel then. Which is fine, but the fact of the matter is that most people still love Ledger's performance, myself included. I still see no problems with it, personally. Its his own portrayal of The Joker and I find that it works very well for the film and the tone that it goes for. That, and even if his performance did have problem, I'd still say he makes a better villain than Loki in The Avengers. In fact when I was talking about the film to my uncle the other day (someone who actually grew up with comics when he was a kid), he pointed out something interesting that I hadn't caught onto before but which I do think rings some truth now that I think about it. In the 2nd half of The Avengers, Loki is really no longer all that threatening, and even becomes a bit comical. All of a sudden he doesn't seem so intimidating anymore despite having an entire army at his command, and he doesn't seem to be giving the heroes any serious trouble as they constantly have the edge over him. I mean, its still a really fun 2nd half of the movie, but when I stop to think about it, I do agree with my uncle that it feels like the odds are pretty much in the favor of the heroes. The movie tries to remedy that by having a nuclear missile thrown the heroes' way, but that plot point doesn't last long and in fact is turned around in a way that helps them in the end. I just feel like it kind of ruins the overall impact of the movie if things end up seeming a bit too easy for the heroes, but I guess that was supposed to be the point of them teaming up and working together. Still, at no point in the film did I ever feel like the heroes were even close to losing, which kind of bothers me a little bit when I think about it.

As for Avengers, there isn't much to it, but is it fun? I think it's just a blast and isn't as padded as TDK, despite having the same length. It is too soon to rank it so high, but the film still has a lot more going for it than against it- a great script, fun action, near-perfect representation of 70 year's worth of comic mythology, and a sensational cast.

I don't really see how TDK was padded. Literally every moment of the film something important was happening. On the contrary, I say that for the most part it uses its time very wisely, and not a single minute is wasted on something pointless or that doesn't either contribute to the plot or characterization for one of the cast.

I do agree that The Avengers has a lot going for it, and I don't want it to seem like I'm all out against the film now. I agree that it has great writing, acting, directing, and so forth, and that it is a ton of fun. I just feel that when you stop to analyze it, the film is kind of shallow in comparison to something like TDK, which I still feel accomplishes good depth without sacrificing any entertainment value, as I can say for certain that each time I watched that film I was constantly kept interested and wanting to see what happened next. The same goes for The Avengers, but its just that I feel that there's more to TDK that I would personally rank it as the better film.

[Foggle]

Oldboy not in the top 10, no Ichi The Killer at all, Spider-Man 2 and 3 on the list, Over The Hedge on the list, Iron Man 2 on the list...

No Cemetery Man either! Though I know I'm probably the only person on the planet who thinks that movie is a masterpiece.

[gunswordfist]

Oldboy not in the top 10, no Ichi The Killer at all, Spider-Man 2 and 3 on the list, Over The Hedge on the list, Iron Man 2 on the list...

No Cemetery Man either! Though I know I'm probably the only person on the planet who thinks that movie is a masterpiece.

It's your favorite, right?

*snickers at Avaitor saying TDK is padded*

[gunswordfist]

I also think The Avengers has nothing on Batman Begins. BB had great emphasis on what Batman is all about (at least what the movie version of Batman is all about, which is still great). When it comes to what the movie version of The Avengers is about, "Hey, let's put some high risk characters together for the greater good or some shit." There's no comparison. They spent most of the movie hating each other and fumbling around. I really like The Avengers, but Batman Begins always goes somewhere with what's happening onscreen, just like TDK. There's no waiting for the good part and even pre-Batman Bruce is entertaining to watch.

[Foggle]

It's your favorite, right?

Not quite, it's in my top 5 though.

[Dr. Insomniac]

Oldboy not in the top 10, no Ichi The Killer at all, Spider-Man 2 and 3 on the list, Over The Hedge on the list, Iron Man 2 on the list...

No Cemetery Man either! Though I know I'm probably the only person on the planet who thinks that movie is a masterpiece.

I didn't even know that was an adaptation.

[Foggle]

I didn't even know that was an adaptation.

Kinda sorta. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_Dog#Dellamorte_Dellamore

[Avaitor]

In the 2nd half of The Avengers, Loki is really no longer all that threatening, and even becomes a bit comical. All of a sudden he doesn't seem so intimidating anymore despite having an entire army at his command, and he doesn't seem to be giving the heroes any serious trouble as they constantly have the edge over him. I mean, its still a really fun 2nd half of the movie, but when I stop to think about it, I do agree with my uncle that it feels like the odds are pretty much in the favor of the heroes. The movie tries to remedy that by having a nuclear missile thrown the heroes' way, but that plot point doesn't last long and in fact is turned around in a way that helps them in the end. I just feel like it kind of ruins the overall impact of the movie if things end up seeming a bit too easy for the heroes, but I guess that was supposed to be the point of them teaming up and working together. Still, at no point in the film did I ever feel like the heroes were even close to losing, which kind of bothers me a little bit when I think about it.

Damn, I didn't even think about that. I'd like to think that Loki being inactive was just him being cocky about his superiority, since he is just a cocky person in general. Not to mention that Loki was never much of a fighter in the first place. He never really much in the climax of Thor either. But it is still a weak point now that you mention it.

I don't really see how TDK was padded. Literally every moment of the film something important was happening. On the contrary, I say that for the most part it uses its time very wisely, and not a single minute is wasted on something pointless or that doesn't either contribute to the plot or characterization for one of the cast.

Well, for one thing, the money trading part in the beginning didn't really need to happen, with the wimpish Asian guy. You could've just kept in the scene where the Joker walks into the crime boss's meeting and got a hit ordered on him, kept some of the scenes with Bruce but left out his trip to Hong Kong, and cut straight to the Joker faking his death.

I thought there was more, but now that I think back on the movie, I'm not so sure what else I'd cut out.