As of this weekend, we’re already on our second movie iteration of the ‘Fantastic Four’ (third if you count the unreleased Roger Corman cheapie), and it seems like the popular comic book team still hasn’t been done proper justice. In the midst of our current superhero renaissance, what other characters really deserve better treatment than they’ve gotten on cinema screens?
\n<\/p>\n
I’m going for the obvious answer here and will direct my ire at the makers of the last couple (and future) Superman<\/strong> movies. <\/p>\n Yes, this is a little off the proposed topic, since Superman did<\/em> get a pair of really good films back in 1978 and 1980 that set the bar for what comic book movies should be. But that was 35 years ago, and nobody has been able to get the world’s greatest hero right since then \u2013 starting, I suppose, with Christopher Reeve’s last two appearances as the Man of Tomorrow in ‘Superman III’ and ‘Superman IV’.<\/p>\n Tim Burton failed to launch a reboot in the 1990s. That movie that never got made, but continues to be talked about. (See the brand-new documentary ‘The Death of Superman Lives’.) Warner Bros. bailed on the film days before it was to go in front of the cameras, only to head back to the drawing board in deciding how to handle one of its most important characters. After a long hiatus, Superman finally returned to the big screen in 2006 with ‘Superman Returns<\/a>‘, but director Bryan Singer was so determined to tie in his movie with the earlier Richard Donner\/Richard Lester films that he forgot to make Superman interesting. Worse yet, he turned the Man of Steel into kind of a creepy voyeur. The fact that Singer’s movie lacks any real action didn’t help matters either.<\/p>\n Still, ‘Superman Returns’ did reasonably well for Warner, despite all the money that had been sunk into the franchise (including the lost dollars from the aborted Burton flick). Nevertheless, the studio felt it was time to reboot the character yet again rather than proceed with Singer’s vision. That brings us to 2013’s ‘Man of Steel<\/a>‘, which certainly made up for what ‘Superman Returns’ lacked in action, but again misses the mark by giving us a superhero who seems unattached from the world around him and uncaring about the humans he’s supposed to protect. <\/p>\n Now, it seems, Warner has decided that the only way to make a successful Superman film is to populate it with other superheroes that moviegoers might be interested in seeing, particularly Batman, who’s even getting top billing over Supes in next year’s ‘Batman v Superman’ \u2013 a movie that was originally supposed to be a ‘Man of Steel’ sequel, then turned into a Batman\/Superman team-up, and is now being marketed as the first in a series of ‘Justice League’ movies. To add insult to injury, Warner has announced its future slate of superhero titles, which includes standalone films for Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, The Flash, Shazam and Green Lantern. Heck, even DC villains are getting their own movie with ‘Suicide Squad’. <\/p>\n As for Superman? Sorry. The world (at least the one at Warner Bros.) doesn’t seem to care about you anymore.<\/p>\n My pick may be controversial, but I strongly dislike the decision that Sony has made regarding Spider-Man<\/strong>. I’m not talking about the three Sam Raimi movies nor the Marc Webb reboots. I love the three Raimi movies (even the maligned ‘Spider-Man 3<\/a>‘) and had a great time with the ‘Amazing<\/a>‘ versions that Webb put out. However, I dread what Marvel will do to the web-slinger now that it has partnered with Sony on the character’s fate. <\/p>\n Marvel Studios started off well, but lately it’s been stuck in a giant rut of making one-note comedic characters \u2013 not to mention the reliance on flat cookie-cutter villains. Seeing the Spider-Man character thrown into the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a terrible idea. Why? Because it will just be more of the same. <\/p>\n I’m looking forward to Marvel (Disney) and Sony having a huge falling out, then Sony rebooting the character for a fourth time. The upside to the reboot is that at least one family-friendly Marvel superhero series (thanks to Sony) will have some balls. Balls to make superhero dramas and not formulaic superhero comedies. Balls to actually place a superhero in real danger. Balls to kill off central characters. Balls to create truly terrifying and memorable characters. <\/p>\n With every installment of the MCU that’s exactly the same as all the others, we already know where Spidey is headed and there’s no reason to hold off on demanding that Sony either start afresh again or continue with the ‘Amazing’ series that was headed in a great direction.<\/p>\n Growing up, I was a huge ‘Ghost Rider<\/a>‘ fan. I loved the supernatural antihero character and his back story. Decades later, when I learned the comic was finally being adapted to the big screen, I was very excited. Hearing that the role of Johnny Blaze went to Nicolas Cage didn’t really bother me all that much at the time, but I was nevertheless hesitant. Then, when I actually saw the movie\u2026 damn. I walked out so disappointed, almost as if the filmmakers took a hot, steaming dump on my childhood. Cage was hilariously bad, as usual, while the story and directing were yawn-inducingly boring. Instead of embracing a dark, atmospheric tone, the filmmakers went with cartoonish visuals that made the whole experience feel cheap. The film’s only saving grace is the look of the Ghost Rider himself, which was cool to look at. I only wish they’d given him a better script. Marvel should seriously revisit the comic, hire Tom Hardy as Blaze and go full-tilt dark horror to wash away the bad taste of Nic Cage. <\/p>\n Also, as much as I actually love the weirdly awkward, campy badness of 1986’s ‘Howard the Duck<\/strong>‘, the movie is not a faithful take on the character and is objectively a terrible adaptation of the cult comic series. Howard’s creator, Steve Gerber, has always described the adventures of the anthropomorphic duck as surreal, existential and having a wry, self-aware sense of humor. Howard himself is supposed to be a hot-tempered, irascible and sardonic individual because he’s angry for feeling trapped on Earth. The humor comes from his mocking the ridiculousness of life and human behavior, a satire of sorts on current events and culture. His appearance in the post-credits of ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ was a hilarious highlight, but it only reminds me of the fact that Howard deserves a good film adaptation. <\/p>\n When you hear the name Frank Miller, chances are that your thoughts turn to his iconic runs on ‘Daredevil’, ‘The Dark Knight Returns’, or the comics that would later be adapted into ‘300’ and ‘Sin City’. If you dig back deeply enough into Miller’s back catalog, though, you’ll spot the screenplay for ‘Robocop III’ as a footnote on his r\u00e9sum\u00e9, and it’s that<\/em > Frank Miller who wrote and directed ‘The Spirit<\/a>‘. Seven years have passed since ‘The Spirit’ belly-flopped in theaters, and I bet Will Eisner is still spinning in his grave because of what Miller did to his classic masked crimefighter . Here are just a few of the lowlights: <\/p>\n I mean, there’s a scene with Sam Jackson and Scarlett Johansson dolled up as Nazis \u2013 for absolutely no reason whatsoever \u2013 that drags on for something like ten minutes straight, and The Octopus’ defining character trait is that he has a hate-on for eggs. ‘The Spirit’ is a “Begorah!” and a flame-throwing umbrella away from the 1960s ‘Batman’ TV show, even piling on a gaggle of double-digit IQ flunkies wearing identical black shirts with goofy nicknames on ’em. <\/p>\n This laughless disasterpiece is the worst kind of camp, devoid of the fun and adventure a ‘Spirit’ adaptation ought to offer, not to mention niggling little things like pacing or storytelling. As wholly and completely as I dislike the ‘Fantastic Four’ movies to date, I can’t think of a costumed hero who’s ever had it worse on the big screen than The Spirit.<\/p>\n For a time, Wolverine<\/strong> was far and away Marvel’s most-read character, increasingly a solo artist more than a team player. So why is it that when he’s ventured out of the ‘X-Men’ movies and into his two standalone flicks, the results are kinda blah? My theory is that Hugh Jackman, a wonderful actor who exceeded even fanboy expectations for the role, used his clout as producer on the ‘Wolverine’ movies to nudge the stories away from action and more into drama, giving him a chance to flex his thespian muscles and not just the meat. He’s certainly up to the challenge, but are these the movies that devotees \u2013 and the character \u2013 deserved? I say “No.” <\/p>\nLuke Hickman<\/span><\/h3>\n
M. Enois Duarte<\/span><\/h3>\n
Adam Tyner (DVDTalk<\/a>)<\/span><\/h3>\n
\n
Chris Chiarella (Sound & Vision<\/a>)<\/span><\/h3>\n