Now that IRON MAN 2 has been unleashed for the masses, the obligatory debate that comes with it can begin: What is the best superhero film of all time?
Clearly, the question that really exists is: what is YOUR favorite of all time? Top 3? Top 5? What sells it for you? The action? The character? A faithful adaptation from the comic pages?
Is BATMAN AND ROBIN your favorite superhero film? If it is, that’s okay. Let’s hear why.
For me, character and story makes any film, and that rule applies to dudes in capes and masks. So my Top 3 is as follows:
1. THE DARK KNIGHT
2. X-MEN 2
3. IRON MAN
THE DARK KNIGHT is miles and miles above the rest, as the film is a character study and a serious crime drama that just happens to have a dude in a cape. It is grounded and sobering compared to every other “super” film made. X2 gets high points for strong writing, as it balances several storylines all at once and never lets the main plot get lost or sidetracked. IRON MAN makes the Top 3 on basis of pure entertainment from start to finish, and it manages to be grounded and realistic while still being fantastic and having strong characters.
If I had to expand to a Top 5, I’d sneak in BATMAN BEGINS and probably SUPERMAN. THE INCREDIBLES also deserves a mention.
How about the worst? I give low marks to any of the BATMAN films from the 90’s, and even lower marks to DAREDEVIL and SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE. All for being stupid movies.
What say you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm going o be flogged for this, but I disagree on The Dark Knight. It's a pretty poor film if you ask me. Here's why:
ReplyDeleteI believe that people see this film as something better than it
actually is when viewed against the dull backdrop of 2008 cinema, but
even so, how can anybody forgive, let alone PRAISE, a story with so
many elementary errors and rookie mistakes? I find it funny that
classic masterpieces can stand up to decades of close scrutiny
and still retain their standing among the greatest films of all time
when flaws in today's films are immediately evident upon first viewing.
- Lack of internal
information. We don't know much about anybody's motivation.
Where was the scene that told us why Bruce Wayne desperately wanted to
put down his cape and stop being Batman? Where was the scene that told
us Bruce Wayne was desperately in love with Rachel but couldn't be with
her because he was too busy being Batman? Where were the two scenes
that told us 1) Bruce believed his only hope for no longer having to be
Batman rested in Harvey, and 2) Bruce felt all hope was lost for his
goal of no longer being Batman when Harvey vanished from the Hospital
to become a psychotic killer? Any information we receive is too little
and too late. There's the letter to Bruce from Rachel, but that comes
AFTER her death, which is too late to serve the function of telling us
there was a great romantic bond between them that necessitated Bruce
stopping his crusade as Batman so they could be together. Plus, it only
tells us HER feelings and not Bruce's. Because the scene is done the
way it is, it is impossible to tell if Batman is amping his assault
because of Rachel or Harvey or the threat of their immanent death. We
have absolutely NO idea why Bruce does anything. We are left to assume.
If that is indeed the scene that tells us Bruce is deeply in love with
Rachel, it is handled very badly to the point that it is virtually non
existent and comes far too late in the story to function properly. We
should have known long before this that Bruce Wayne was deeply in love
with Rachel and that his crusade as Batman was preventing him from
being with Rachel.
This is a common mistake in Nolan's films. He keeps his characters at a
distance from his audience so we can't possibly know what they're
thinking.
- The scene with the mayor being shot was completely unbelievable. It
was all part of a grand scheme to get the Joker to chase Dent to get
him out in the open so he can be caught. But the problem with that is
in order for the plan to succeed, they needed to know the mayor was
going to be shot at from the ground and who was going to do the
shooting in order for Gordon to jump in front of the bullet. If they
knew that much about the Joker's plan, why not just stop him? Plus,
it's one of the cops who pronounces Gordon is dead after checking him
for a pulse. This wasn't Gordon's trusted partner with a shady past.
This was an ordinary patrol officer. Since they already know much of
the force is on the take, it seems ridiculous to make the plan hinge on
trusting a random cop to be honest and play along with the plan.
Also, since Batman knew Gordon was actually alive, why did he need
to go to Gordon's house to watch his wife and son learn the cops think
Gordon is dead. That made no sense and was an obvious deceit to fool
the audience, but severed no logical purpose for the character.
Continued...
- Too many superfluous subplots. The expedition to Hong Kong to kidnap
ReplyDeletesome random guy in a way that would make James Bond roll his eyes is
one. What purpose did this guy serve in an already overlong film? He
wouldn't be missed if that scene was cut. Then there's the nerdy guy on
TV that says he knows who Batman really is, but that goes nowhere. Come
on, how hard is it to realize that it would take a billionaire to
afford his own personal, state-of-the-art, custom tank? And the ferry
boats. Don't get me started on the ferry boats.
- The ferry boats. Nobody noticed the THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF FLAMMABLE
LIQUID IN THE ENGINE ROOMS?! Come on! Not only that, it's a huge
departure from the main action to a bunch of random, unknown characters
late in the story that served no previous purpose and just ended like
that. Where did that come from? I'd rather see what the main characters
were up to at the climax of the film and not a bunch of anonymous
strangers.
- The cell phone gag was a joke and felt totally out of place in a film
where the director was attempting to create a level of realism.
- Too long for it's own good, yet simultaneously not long enough for
the amount of material crammed in. It's another common mistake that
Nolon keeps making over and over again with every film and he still
hasn't learned. His stories have too much going on and not enough time
devoted to each part.
- What happened to the Joker crashes the party scene? That just ends before it's over and leaves me wondering what the hell happened afterward.
- The climax felt completely out of place because it did not build from
the narrative. It was manufactured. Everything about the end of this
film is just wrong.
How does Batman "sacrifice himself" for Gotham in the end? The only way
for it to be tragic and a sacrifice is if you believe that Bruce
Wayne's goal was to stop being Batman. A man who is already an outcast
and despised by the police that agrees to continue to be an outcast and
despised by the police is not a sacrifice.
For me, the ending only works if Bruce wanted to stop being an outcast
only to be forced to continue to be an outcast in order to protect the
greater good.
But where are the scenes that show us Bruce Wayne's desire/need to put
down the cape and live a normal life? I don't understand why Bruce put
down the bat suit in the first place. We were never given that
information. And if he wanted to so badly, wouldn't now be the perfect
time with all the police on the lookout for him? Seems like an
unnecessary risk for him and a nice deterrent for petty criminals -
having the police on guard as well as the idea of Batman being a
murderer. But instead, Bruce keeps going as Batman even though Gordon
knows that Batman is innocent? The ending of this film makes absolutely
no sense what-so-ever.