Two vastly underrated comic strip/book movies

[dontpanicbobby]

Dick Tracy (1990) and Batman and Robin (1997) perfect casting in both but they get no credit for that.

Discuss...

 

[NightAngel79]

Dick Tracy (1990) and Batman and Robin (1997) perfect casting in both but they get no credit for that.

Discuss...

Batman and Robin? Are you high?

 

[dontpanicbobby]

Try to see past the nipples. I never noticed them.

George Clooney was the best Bruce Wayne yet.

 

[NightAngel79]

Try to see past the nipples. I never noticed them.

George Clooney was the best Bruce Wayne yet.

I love Clooney (from my home town) but not even he could save that frikkin trainwreck.

 

[Dannydet]

Really? Clooney was ok, but I thought Keaton was better

 

[NightAngel79]

Really? Clooney was ok, but I thought Keaton was better

Keaton defined the role, and brought Batman to the limelight.

 

[tube517]

I remember the initial shock at Keaton getting the role.


However, he was the best one of the 80s/90s movies.

 

[shalemail]

I have always found Clooney to be somewhat wooden. I mean he's the same dude (plays the character the same) in almost everything he's ever done. This includes his brief run in the cowl. He even admitted that he was not into the character and only did it for his career. Most who have worn the cowl do so with reverence and a certain weight.

His performances (save for a few) are interchangeable.

Had you asked me 2 years ago who my favorite Batman was I'd have said Keaton. Now ... Affleck, no comparison. The warehouse scene in BVS is perhaps the most enjoyable Batman live action event ever shot on film.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[NightAngel79]

I did like Affleck WAY more than I thought I would.

 

[Milo Willamson]

League of Extraordinary Gentelman does come to mind, but to be honest, its been ages since I have seen it on Starz...

 

[NightAngel79]

League of Extraordinary Gentelman does come to mind, but to be honest, its been ages since I have seen it on Starz...

I enjoyed that as well, though it is considered a complete disaster of a movie. Connery famously hated it and quit/retired after making it.

 

[dontpanicbobby]

Another comic book movie that was okay was "Watchmen". I still don't understand why they couldn't do the Squid?

 

[Hadron]

It's common when adapting to the screen to make adjustments, since what works in a comic doesn't always work in a different medium (costume changes are a common example). The "squid" was the wackiest part of the comic(*), and personally I thought that framing Jon was simpler and easier for the audience to accept. Though those few pages in the book did have the merit of making the cost real for the reader, as we saw a whole array of the supporting and incidental characters amongst the victims, which I don't recall in the film (though it's been a while since I saw it. But then we're shown less of their lives in the film anyway).

The commonest criticism of the film was that it tried to stick too close to the comic, using it as a storyboard rather than adapting to the different strengths and weaknesses of the medium. Personally that bothered me less than the over-use of slow mo, often for things that I thought would have been more appropriate and effective if played realistically, and a number of brief but tone-deaf changes (e.g. Dan witnessing Rorschach's death). A personal bug bear for me was increasing the violence of the mugging scene: in the comic Dan and Laurie beat up their assailants efficiently, but there's no suggestion that they use lethal force. That wasn't just an unnecessary excess on Snyder's part, it was out of character: it's what Rorschach or the Comedian would have done, but not them.

Overall it's not a bad attempt, an includes some good performances. But there was room for improvement.

(*) Moore calls it a comic rather than a "graphic novel", so I'm using that.

 

[Milo Willamson]

It's common when adapting to the screen to make adjustments, since what works in a comic doesn't always work in a different medium (costume changes are a common example). The "squid" was the wackiest part of the comic(*), and personally I thought that framing Jon was simpler and easier for the audience to accept. Though those few pages in the book did have the merit of making the cost real for the reader, as we saw a whole array of the supporting and incidental characters amongst the victims, which I don't recall in the film (though it's been a while since I saw it. But then we're shown less of their lives in the film anyway).

The commonest criticism of the film was that it tried to stick too close to the comic, using it as a storyboard rather than adapting to the different strengths and weaknesses of the medium. Personally that bothered me less than the over-use of slow mo, often for things that I thought would have been more appropriate and effective if played realistically, and a number of brief but tone-deaf changes (e.g. Dan witnessing Rorschach's death). A personal bug bear for me was increasing the violence of the mugging scene: in the comic Dan and Laurie beat up their assailants efficiently, but there's no suggestion that they use lethal force. That wasn't just an unnecessary excess on Snyder's part, it was out of character: it's what Rorschach or the Comedian would have done, but not them.

Overall it's not a bad attempt, an includes some good performances. But there was room for improvement.

(*) Moore calls it a comic rather than a "graphic novel", so I'm using that.

I agree with you Hardon with both saw the movie, and the novelization too. I can see why "Squid" was the most wackiest part of Moore's comicbook, I am re reading it on and off, I like to read at least a few comics every few days, keep my mind sharp too.

 

[Milo Willamson]

I enjoyed that as well, though it is considered a complete disaster of a movie. Connery famously hated it and quit/retired after making it.

Yeah.. I can see why Connery left the movies.