Dolph Lundgren was a great Punisher

"What the **** do you call 125 murders in 5 years?"

"Work in progress."


Dolph had some great lines in that flick.
 
"How long can a man survive after you've torn his heart out!?!?"

"A long...time."
 
EVIL JAPANESE TRAMP: "Who sent you?"

DOLPH LUNDGREN: "Batman."
 
dolph had the right everything...except oral delivery. they shoulda kept him silent. i don't think tom jane is any greater though...litening to him speak is similiar to hearing a chalk board scratched.
 
Dolph was a great 80's Punisher, only. He had the right frame, physique and somberness for Punisher of that time....'cept no skull shirt. The movie still blows though!
 
A lot of people want to knock this movie....but considering Marvel's early track record, this is one of the better ones.

I haven't seen it in forever but I think I'm gonna buy a copy. I've seen far worse action movies.

It was lame that they only showed the skull on his knife though. WTF?

Like this film would have made less cash if he'd had the skull on his shirt.
 
The director was quoted saying the skull on the shirt was " too comicbooky " if that makes any sense. Considering he was making a film based on a comic book character. Regardless i enjoy watching Dolph and this film. If the skull had been present on the shirt it would have made the film even better, But its a good action flick.
 
Hell yeah!!!!!!!!1 Lundgren was way better than Jane.
 
The director was quoted saying the skull on the shirt was " too comicbooky " if that makes any sense.

Classic case of a man who needs a good kick in the ass.

Being "too comicbooky" was the last thing the dude needed to worry about.

Funny thing....he hasn't directed squat in a long time....but he's listed as an editor on X3.

Was X3 too comicbooky for him? I wonder.
 
I just cant get past the fact that he would make a comment such as this when he is working on a film that is based on a comic book character. Sure he didnt have to make it 100% faithfull which it is far from. But do you really have to give your reasoning for leaving the trademark symbol that identifies the character like Superman's S as Too Comicbooky? God that annoys me.
 
I just cant get past the fact that he would make a comment such as this when he is working on a film that is based on a comic book character. Sure he didnt have to make it 100% faithfull which it is far from. But do you really have to give your reasoning for leaving the trademark symbol that identifies the character like Superman's S as Too Comicbooky? God that annoys me.

I can understand it. When he made Punisher comics were still very much in "haha" land and there was no internet so the fans couldn't *****.

I *guess* he was trying to make a serious action film and thought the skull would be too hokey. Whatever. His budget was the hokey part.

Blade, X-Men, and then Spidey 1 changed all of that.

I wonder what movie he'd have made if he'd gotten the green light right after X-Men hit it big.
 
Good point. I do think that the film could have had better potential to be faithfull to the comics and turn out to be a better film, If it had been greenlit after the success of X-Men. But i will enjoy it for what it is regardless, an 80's action flick that was good.
 
I can understand it. When he made Punisher comics were still very much in "haha" land and there was no internet so the fans couldn't *****.

I *guess* he was trying to make a serious action film and thought the skull would be too hokey. Whatever. His budget was the hokey part.

Blade, X-Men, and then Spidey 1 changed all of that.

I wonder what movie he'd have made if he'd gotten the green light right after X-Men hit it big.

he did a great job. i actually took the film seriously. and the whole skull on the shirt was hokey. i still don't get the *****ing of the skull needing to be on the shirt. either way the film was great and better then janes punisher.


and spiderman 1 sucked. the cheesiness of that film just reaked.
 
A lot of people want to knock this movie....but considering Marvel's early track record, this is one of the better ones.

I haven't seen it in forever but I think I'm gonna buy a copy. I've seen far worse action movies.

It was lame that they only showed the skull on his knife though. WTF?

Like this film would have made less cash if he'd had the skull on his shirt.

would it have made more?
 
in the original script for it he actually did wear the skull shirt in the final scenes, when they invade yakuza hq...it's even in the comic adaptation, explained as him painting it on for intimidation purposes...I dont see any difference between that and stuff like Arnold covering himself in mud at the end of Predator or whatever :o
 
This is another case of false logic applied. The point is this:

-Would adding a skull shirt have any effect on a casual viewer's enjoyment (or lack thereof) of the movie? NO

-Would adding a skull shirt have any effect on a comic fan's enjoyment (or lack thereof) of the movie? Hell yes!

'nuff said.
 
Steven Goldblatt is considered one of the best action movie editors of all-time by many, including James Cameron.

I wasn't knocking his mad editing skillz or anything. Just found it funny that a guy who said the skull was too comic-booky was recently an editor on a very comic-booky movie.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"