Aug. 13-19: Out at the Movies

By Michael Deeley
Print This Item

“Some motherfuckers’ always trying to ice skate uphill.”
-Wesley Snipes, “Blade”




With three major motion pictures based on comic books released this year alone, and many more on the way, it seems like a good time to talk about comic book movies. Watching a movie based on your favorite comic book is a mixed experience. On one hand, you get to see your favorite stories and characters brought to life. On the other, the studios take so many liberties with the comic that the end result only superficially resembles the “real thing”. After many bombs and a few hits, we readers should brace ourselves for the worst. I go into a movie only expecting something that doesn’t suck. That way, I’m disappointed only half the time.

You may not believe this, but very few feature-length movies based on comics were made before 1989. The 1940s saw many characters adapted into movie serials, including Superman, Batman, Captain Marvel, and the Blackhawks. Dozens and dozens of TV series and cartoons have been made with comic book characters. But to the best of my knowledge, only 7 full-length movies were based on comic books: The four “Superman” movies, “Batman: The Movie”, (based on the 1960s TV series), “Swamp Thing”, and “Howard the Duck”. It isn’t until the success of “Batman” in 1989 and “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” in 1990 that Hollywood took a strong interest in turning comic books into movies. I’d wager that the success of “TMNT” had a strong influence on the studios’ decision. If a self-published, b&w comic less than 5 years old could be turned into a movie that grosses over $100 million, maybe any comic book could make a great movie.

And so, the 1990s saw a veritable feeding frenzy of studios to sign up comic book creators to turn their characters into movies, for better and for worse. “The Crow”, “The Mask”, and “Men in Black”, three books that didn’t have widespread appeal among comics readers, became million dollar hits. They even helped further the careers of Jim Carey, Cameron Diaz, and Will Smith. “Judge Dredd” and “Spawn” opened to tepid reviews. And the Batman and Ninja Turtle movie franchises ran themselves into the ground. The decade ended with a beginning. “Blade” was the first of many hit movies for Marvel Comics. The momentum continued with “X-Men” and “Spider-Man” opening to great reviews and financial success. Meanwhile, b&w comics “Ghost World” and “The Road to Perdition” were adapted into Oscar-winning pictures.

This year saw an unprecedented 5 comic book movies: “Daredevil”, “X2: X-Men United”, “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”, “American Splendor”, and “The Hulk”. Currently, more Marvel characters are being turned into movies. Big screen versions of Iron Man, Ghost Rider, and even the Man-Thing are in pre-production. Sequels in the “Blade”, “X-Men”, and “Spider-Man” series are also underway. Warner Bros. are producing films featuring DC comics’ John Constantine and Catwoman. Rumors of a new Superman movie continue to spread. And production has begun on “Way of the Rat”, based on the CrossGen comic of the same name.

So what does the new interest by Hollywood in comic books mean for the industry? Will it help introduce more people to comic books? Will it showcase the variety of American comics that has often been overlooked? Will new publishers and creators put more thought into how their books can be adapted into movies, TV, etc? Could movies help give comics the legitimacy they’ve often lacked among the general public? Or is it all a passing fad?

I’m willing to believe the last. Fans of the movie will follow the movies, not the comic book. And when has a big budget Hollywood movie ever increased its subject’s artistic integrity? But if publishers beginning thinking about how to make their characters more appealing to studios, it means publishers are thinking about the characters’ mass appeal. That’s an important step in bring comics back to the status of a mass media it once held in the Silver Age. By creating/altering characters to be more accessible to non-readers, not to mention providing a unique entertainment experience that can’t be found anywhere else, comic books will once again post monthly sales in the millions.

In the meantime, comic books provide more grist for the Hollywood movie mills. Here’s a selection of five recent comic-based films. I picked out movies I either never saw, or hadn’t seen in years. The point of this week’s experiment is to see how often Hollywood puts out a decent film based on a comic book. Let’s see how each flick ranks as a movie and a comic book adaptation.

By the way; to give you an idea of how I ranked these movies, here’s what each bullet level means:

: Perfect. “Clerks”
: Entertaining. “Jay and Bob Strike Back”
: Nothing Special. “The Animated Clerks”
: Not Very Good. “Dogma”
: Very Bad. “Mallrats”
0BULLETS: Someone must die. Kevin Smith in person.

The Punisher (1989)

Frank Castle was a cop whose family was killed by gang leader Gianni Franco. Faking his death, Castle waged a one-man war on organized crime and killed over 125 men in five years. The mobs are now so weak they’re being targeted by a female Yakuza leader. She kidnaps the children of the mob leaders to ensure their “cooperation”. Feeling responsible for the kidnappings, Castle reluctantly joins with Gianni Franco to rescue his son.

This is a terrible, terrible movie. The videotape serves a better purpose as a paperweight than a source of entertainment. “The Punisher” is an almost unrelenting series of violence and darkness. As bad as it is, it’s even worse to see how it could have been so much better! We have all the stock characters for a B-grade action flick. Louis Gosset Jr. plays the cop who won’t give up on Castle. We’ve got the standard wiseguys and tough mobsters. We even have an old-fashioned dragon lady, crazy and sexy. In any other film, you’d have a great time watching these actors play these over-the-top parts. But this film has two problems they cannot overcome.

First, the story: There isn’t one. The plot’s more like a series of barely-connected events than a cohesive narrative. There’s no focus, no theme, no real reason for anything on the screen to be happening. It’s just a lot of ugly violence. The movie doesn’t even have the least bit of style or “coolness factor” that makes other action movies fun to watch. Director Mark Goldblatt and writer Boas Yankin utterly failed to give the movie any sense of style or coherence. In fact, I think they went out of their way to make the movie as unwatchable as possible. Amazingly, Goldblatt and Yankin continue to work in movies. Glodblatt works as an editor. He’s been an accessory to such cultural crimes as “Starship Troopers”, “Pearl Harbor”, and the unforgivable “Showgirls”. His newest “film” is “Bad Boys 2”. Boaz Yankin went on to “write” “From Dusk till Dawn 2”, and went behind the camera for the newly released “Uptown Girls”, also criticized for lacking a clear focus. If you see either of these men, shoot them. Then tell the police the movies they’ve made. You should get a suspended sentence.

Dolph Lundgren is the second, and biggest, reason “The Punisher” is awful to watch. Lundgren sleepwalks through the role, half-mumbling his lines. He has no charisma, no intensity, no emotion, and no fighting skills! The character of the Punisher, as I understand him, is that he is completely focused on his war against crime. And this focus, this single-mindedness is his strength. Frank Castle kills criminals. That’s it. From that you can create any number of stories. But unless you have someone who can convey the Punisher’s intensity, the story won’t hold together. Stallone could play that intensity. Nicolas Cage could play that intensity, as well as gain some sympathy playing Castle as a broken man. Lundgren lacks any talent for giving the character any passion or personality. I was shocked to find out he’s still working!

If you’re like me, you’re drawn to bad movies by their very badness. Hearing everyone trash a film only makes you want to see it for yourself. They have the same attraction as a train wreck. I’m warning you: DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!! I’m not kidding! This film is dark, oppressive, and hopeless. It has the 6’+ Lundgren killing a skinny blonde woman. 10 minutes later, he begs a 12-yo boy to shoot him in the head! You think I’m kidding? You would think a human being would know better than to put something like that on screen. What kind of a monster puts that into a story and thinks, “Yeah, that works.” This is a crime against cinema! This movie should never have been made! I’m having a better time trashing this flick than I did watching it.

For utterly failing to entertain me while I was watching it, for providing me with more amusement describing its outright badness, I award this movie no bullets, and may God have mercy on Dolph Lundgren’s soul. And damn Goldblatt for making me quote “Billy Madison”.

---

Batman Returns (1992)

The sequel to the 1989 record-breaking blockbuster sees Michael Keaton defend Gotham city from two new villains. The deformed Penguin, (Danny DeVito), comes to Gotham with plans to kill the city’s first born children. Millionaire Max Schreck, (Christopher Walken), convinces the Penguin to run for mayor and control the city together. Meanwhile, mousey Selina Kyle, (Michelle Pfifer), survives a murder attempt by Schreck and becomes the saucy Catwoman. Can Batman save Gotham from a beast? Can Bruce Wayne save Selina from a life of crime? Obviously, yes and no.

This was the first time I saw the movie in years, and while it’s still entertaining, I never realized just how bizarre and disturbing it really is. Penguin’s circus gang is the stuff of childhood nightmares. It’s the kind of gang a criminal Rob Zombie would have. DeVito plays the part with slightly less restraint than Burgess Meredith did on television. Pfifer is sultry, sexy, and strong; she exhibits the sexual power implied by the character. Michael Keaton is still the best actor I’ve ever seen play Batman. (Pity I’ll never see Alec Baldwin in the role.) As Batman, he’s cold and confident, but as Bruce Wayne, he’s lonely, confused, and haunted. Overall, the film has a dark humor like “The Addams Family” combined with a compelling grotesqueness. “Batman Returns” is the dark twin of the 1960’s TV show; it’s campy and disturbing. I think it’s also called “goth”.

Tim Burton successfully captured the dark mood of the character, and infused it into every scene. Keaton’s portrayal of the Dark Knight is much more human than what I’ve seen in the comics. But I still have a big problem with the movie Batman killing criminals. I don’t care if it is more realistic to have a vigilante kill dangerous criminals. That’s not what Batman does. Ever. Still, the first two “Batman” movies are well worth watching. This one gets: .

---

Spawn (1997)

Al Simmons is a government assassin killed by his boss, who’s in league with the forces of hell. The devil offers Simmons the chance to return to Earth and his beloved if he agrees to lead the devil’s army of Hellspawn. Simmons returns to Earth 5 years after his death. His charred and deformed body can grow a powerful costume with endless uses. Simmons seeks revenge against his killer, not knowing he is a pawn in the devil’s plans for Armageddon.

I saw the “Director’s Cut” of the movie of video, which was supposed to have R-rated material. Aside from a few choice words, there’s nothing very violent or sexual here. The movie does have two things going for it: the special effects are fun to watch, and it is pretty faithful to the comic book. Of course, the comic wasn’t so great to begin with. Martin Sheen puts in the best performance as the movie’s villain. It’s the low point of his career, and he still gives it his best. What a pro. John Leguizamo is instantly annoying as The Clown, (like that needed to be said.) Everyone else just goes through the motions, especially Michael Jai White as Spawn. Frankly, this movie is best enjoyed if you have low standards and there’s nothing else on TV. My biggest problem is with the fights involving Violator. Here is a monstrous villain known for tearing out people’s hearts. And all he does in the movie is toss guys around! He doesn’t even break their skin! Now that would be worth an R-rating.

For being mildly amusing, having some cool heavy metal music, and because watching it doesn’t hurt, I give “Spawn”: .

---

Blade (1998)

Aw yeah! Wesley Snipes is a half-human/half-vampire who hunts and kills vampires. Deacon Frost is preparing to summon a legendary vampire god to conquer all vampires and the world. Much fighting and blood shedding follows.

I’d forgotten how cool this movie really was! A year before “The Matrix”, “Blade” gave us martial arts action, the truth about the real world, and long black coats. This film is oozing with style. On top of that, we get a great tough guy hero, a love interest who can protect herself, and a very twisted villain. This is, without a doubt, a great action movie, and one of the best comic-based movies of all time!

Watching it again, I picked up an odd subtext. There’s tension between Deacon Frost and the vampire lords because he was “turned” and they were born vampires. The prejudice against Frost and his kind fuels his desire for power. That got me thinking about racial prejudice and how it relates to the movie. Note: All but one of the vampire lords is white. The majority of vampires you see in the movie are white. Blade is a heavily armed black man killing mostly white people who secretly control society. Blade is also called a “half-breed” and an “Uncle Tom”. We later learn it was the white Deacon Frost who attacked Blade’s mother while she was pregnant. This attack gave Blade his vampiric abilities. So Blade could be seen as a symbol of mulatto, mixed race, people who can “pass” for white. The next time you watch the movie replace the word “vampire” with “white”, and “human” with “black”. The story takes on a whole other meaning. Does anyone know what race film writer David S. Goyer is?

No, I wasn’t smoking pot; I just think everything is a metaphor. Either way, it still gets:

---

The Crow: Salvation (2000)

The straight-to-video second sequel to “The Crow”, based on James O’Barr’s comic book. Once again, an innocent man returns from the dead to avenge his murdered girlfriend. Alex Corvis is sentenced to die in the electric chair for brutally stabbing his girlfriend to death. He claims the real murderer had a scarred arm. One crow later, Corvis comes back with evil clown make-up and a list of corrupt cops. While killing each one, Corvis learns of a conspiracy among these cops, their captain, and his girlfriend’s father. Kirsten Dunst plays the dead girls younger sister.

First of all, let me say this is not a very good movie. It’s a pretty standard, by-the-numbers, violent action movie about one guy bringing down bad cops. There are a lot if improbable things that are never quite explained. Like how does the police captain know about Crows? Why does the killer shove metal pins into his healthy arm? To mark his killings? And how can a light coat of clown white and mascara disguise a man? Everyone who sees Alex post-mortem doesn’t recognize him. He looks exactly the same! Clark Kent’s glasses are a better disguise.

On the other hand, it was better than “Crow: City of Angels”. It doesn’t have John Leguizamo. And in spite of all the violence, it’s not as depressing or soul-killing as “The Punisher”. Dunst does a good job, but she doesn’t have much to work with. Finally, the movie has titty; always a plus.

Ultimately, I have to say this movie successfully filled 2 hours of my time without making me feel I wasted it. Rental cost me a buck, so I didn’t’ waste my money. If you liked “The Crow”, and you have nothing better to do, skip “City of Angels” and check this out on the cheap. Mediocre movies get: .

---

So what did I learn this week? Well, I learned that it doesn’t matter if a movie is based on a comic book. If it sucks, you shouldn’t see it. Some of the elements that make comic books great, like the action, special effects, and tough heroes, can make for a great movie. Other elements, like long backstory, implausible plot points, and hackneyed dialogue, can make for a bad movie. There are readers who believe every movie based on a comic book should be seen as a show of support for the comic book medium. My friends, seeing comic-based movies only supports the studios that produce them. If you really want to support comics, buy comics that have been turned into movies. When publishers see a spike in sales following a movies release, it will encourage them to work closer with movie studios. Thus future movies are more faithful to the spirit of the comic. In the meantime, hold comic-based movies to the same standards of quality to which you hold all movies.

And they’d better be high.

---

Didn’t buy many new books this week; Here’s what I got:


Raijin Comics #34 -

Sakuragi finally plays in his first basketball game, but he’s so nervous he has tunnel vision! Saeba finds the man tryingto ruin his client’s life. Fan Gunan-Lin reclaims his role as Chinpan chief. And Keiji faces a crazy ninja with almost supernatural powers!


Exiles #30 -

Chuck Austen’s stint ends with a big Ol’ fight and the end of “bad” Alex. It was fun.


Mark of Charon #5 -

I don’t get the ending. I mean, for 4 issues, we’ve seen the terrible things Charon does; the people he’s killed. We’ve learned that he’s not really a god. He’s a human given great power by entering the Negation’s universe. We’ve seen Javi loose faith with his own religion and try everything in his power to find a way to kill Charon. And when he gets that weapon, when he gets close enough to kill Charon,

He surrenders. He gives in and accepts Charon as his lord. Why? Because the experience of joined with Charon’s mind was “humbling and exalting”? Because Javi doubted Charon could be killed? Because it felt better to surrender to a higher power than avenge the people it’s killed? I don’t buy that.

I spent 5 months reading about a guy who’s every action is determined by one goal: destroy an evil god. I don’t want to see the hero of a story spend every minute trying to achieve his goal, and just when it’s within reach, let it go. That makes Javi a pussy in my eyes. Maybe it’s me, but I now want to see Javi deeply regret his decision. Hopefully he’ll be a casualty in the coming Crossgen/Negation universe war.

---

Didn’t buy the following:


Powers #33 -

The warrior king from last issue finds a Chinese monastery where other superbeings have gathered. Here, they call him “The Walker”, since he’s known for walking away from his throne. Years later, Europeans invade the village below. The villagers plead the supermen to help. Their decision would determine their destiny.

I’m just not impressed with the series. I can see how it’s good. I’ve liked reading it most of the time. But, frankly, I could do without it. This “origin of the Powers” storyline is getting interesting though.


Paradise X: A -

The host of Paradise confront Mar-Vell, who tortures them with visions of the good they might have done. The deceased Kree declares Paradise the new Kree empire. And on Earth, Loki forms the core of a new Avengers. This had all better make sense in the TPB.


Technically, the Archie comics I wrote about last week were read during this recorded week. Beyond that, we have:

Swamp Thing Vol. 2: Love and Death; Essential Howard the Duck: HtD #16; Generation X #67-75; Looney Tunes #100; Scion Vol. 2: Blood for Blood; Justice League Adventures #1: FCBD Ed.; Tick Karma Tornado Vol. 1: TKT #1; Uncanny X-Men Annual #12; Classic X-Men #25; Millennium Edition Superman #233; and Excalibur #71.

As you can see, many of the comics I read come from graphic novels and TPBs. Next week, I’ll give my list of the books every comic collector’s library should have. They will be books of great quality and historical importance. Until next week, keep circulating the tapes.

QED

news | reviews | interviews | forums | advertise | privacy | contact | home