IMDB's Comic Book Film Ranking

[CConn]

Yeah.

And I am ashamed of myself. Hence the OMFG.

 

[CConn]

Updated to include The Avengers.

It's number #2 after TDK.

 

[The Morningstar]

The fact that Transformers 2 is above Ang Hulk, Daredevil and Batman Forever fills me with a mixture of pain, sorrow and unbridled rage.

Same could be said of Wolverine being higher than the first Turtles film and Blade 2.

 

[CConn]

Yeah, you're right.

 

[Daniel Thompson]

Punisher (2004) never gets enough love. I loved the film and soundtrack.

Thomas Jane's Frank Castle/Punisher was cerebal, unforgiving and filled with silent rage and sorrow. Those eyes (and his stare) of his just radiated anguish. Jane's interpretation was fairly good and believable. I still don't understand the criticism.

I also like Punisher 1989. Sure it was just another 80s action flick, but it had good action and Dolh Lundgren played a good Frank Castle/The Punisher. Sure he did not have the skull on his shirt but he was good as the character. Of course the 04 film is better and is the best. Hell I even like Punisher WarZone for its over the topness. I just look at it as a grindhouse style B action film.

 

[Breogan]

I added a bunch more to the list. Phantom, Shadow, etc.

Very interesting list, and thanks for compiling it. With the likes of the Phantom and the Shadow up, plus Green Hornet, V, and uhm Batman, there's no reason Zorro the first caped masked action hero movie wouldn't qualify here, I believe.

Some of the more notable versions are -

1920- The original Fairbanks(which influenced Batman) silent Mark of Zorro 7.2 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0011439/
1939- Zorro's Fighting Legion the serials that influenced Lucas & Speilberg 7.3 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032164/
1940- The Tyrone Power sound remake, and apparently most popular 7.6 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032762/
1958- The Sign of Zorro (Disney's famous version edited for a movie) 7.0 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054307/
1998- The Hopkins/Banderas sequel and denouement Mask of Zorro 6.7 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120746/

Other vintage pulpy and comic goodness you might consider adding

1937 - Dick Tracy - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028785/
1938 - Dick Tracy returns http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030059/
1938 - The Spider's Web - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030779/ - 7.0
1939 - Mandrake the Magician = http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031621/ - 7.3
1940 - The Shadow - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033040/ - 7.3
1941 - Adventures of Captain Marvel - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033317/ 7.3
1942 - Spy Smasher - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035372/ 7.1
1943 - Batman - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035665/- 6.8
1943 - The Phantom - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036262/ - 7.3
1944 - Captain America - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036697/ 6.6
1947 - The Vigilante - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035665/ - 6.8
1948 - Superman - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040852/ - 7.0
1952 - Blackhawk - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044427/ - 7.2
1975 - Doc Savage - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072886/ - 5.0
1990 - Dick Tracy - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099422/ - 6.0
1991 - The Rocketeer - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102803/ - 6.2
2008 - The Spirit - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0831887/ - 4.8

 

[JeetKuneDo]

First thought is that IMDB has little credibility due to the political nature of the voting by fanboys. Anything that gets popular will result in "10s" for the loved movie followed by "1s" for any "competing movie" .

Second thought is that we continue to try and rank art and it just cannot be done. There is no "good", "bad", "better", or "worse" in art. We keep trying...but it never works and we never can agree on any award or list. Is there anyone here who would rank these movies from better to worse in conjunction with this list?

Third thought is: No Mystery Men=list fail.

Having rewatched Thomas Jane's Punisher a couple of times I have to say people judge that film far too harshly. A lot of it is really good.

Agreed! I thought the whole cast was really good in that. Rebecca Romijn was impressive in a comic book movie without the blue body paint.

 

[CConn]

First thought is that IMDB has little credibility due to the political nature of the voting by fanboys. Anything that gets popular will result in "10s" for the loved movie followed by "1s" for any "competing movie"

That's how Shawshank was voted #1.

Rampant fanboyism.

I believe they call themselves Shankers. They're worse than Trekkies.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I'm gonna say people don't give Batman: The Movie enough credit. It's probably, ironically, one of the most comic accurate comic book movies (to the 1950s).

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

"Shankers"

lmao

 

[The Joker]

I'm gonna say people don't give Batman: The Movie enough credit. It's probably, ironically, one of the most comic accurate comic book movies (to the 1950s).

Absolutely

 

[JeetKuneDo]

That's how Shawshank was voted #1.

Rampant fanboyism.

I believe they call themselves Shankers. They're worse than Trekkies.

There are of course movies that are not as effected by the fanboy element. Unfortunately that doesn't mean they all are unaffected.

 

[weezerspider]

I have to agree with Optimus on V For Vendetta. The film completely butchers the comic. The character is changed to the point his whole reason for his cause is changed, making the film's story a shell of the comic. The film turns into a generic political action thriller. And before I get accused of being a narrow-minded comic supporter, who refuses to accept changes for film adaptions: I like the Watchmen film better than the Graphic Novel.

 

[CConn]

There are of course movies that are not as effected by the fanboy element. Unfortunately that doesn't mean they all are unaffected.

No, your supposition is still incorrect.

If you actually read about how IMDB does its rating system, they take unfair outliers into consideration, and I believe even prohibit new or infrequent users from even affecting the rating all together.

IMDB's rating system isn't a simple mean of x-amount of votes, it's actually scientifically formulated to provide a somewhat accurate rating system.

 

[CConn]

I have to agree with Optimus on V For Vendetta. The film completely butchers the comic. The character is changed to the point his whole reason for his cause is changed, making the film's story a shell of the comic. The film turns into a generic political action thriller. And before I get accused of being a narrow-minded comic supporter, who refuses to accept changes for film adaptions: I like the Watchmen film better than the Graphic Novel.

But the Watchman comic was tons better.

The thing about V4V is, whether or not it butchers the comic doesn't really matter when you consider it's merits as a film. I mean, sure it may be an awful adaptation of the comic, and butcher the story as you say, but whether or not it's a well-made and well-written film is an entirely different matter of debate.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

No, your supposition is still incorrect.

If you actually read about how IMDB does its rating system, they take unfair outliers into consideration, and I believe even prohibit new or infrequent users from even affecting the rating all together.

IMDB's rating system isn't a simple mean of x-amount of votes, it's actually scientifically formulated to provide a somewhat accurate rating system.

I would be a bit more convinced this actually worked if I didn't look at the list itself.

 

[CConn]

So you're placing your own opinion above that of thousands of people?

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[weezerspider]

But the Watchman comic was tons better.

The thing about V4V is, whether or not it butchers the comic doesn't really matter when you consider it's merits as a film. I mean, sure it may be an awful adaptation of the comic, and butcher the story as you say, but whether or not it's a well-made and well-written film is an entirely different matter of debate.

I agree. I never said the film sucked. I simply said the changes made it generic. Doesn't mean its bad. I was simply agreeing with him that it was a poor ADAPTION. As its own work of art, its decent. Still not a huge fan of it though.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I too think it's fairly decent. Not as bad as From Hell, that's for sure. Still though, if you're a fan of Alan Moore it's just a shame to see his ideas chronically dragged through the mud. It's a better than average action flick, I think it's a little overrated mostly because I find it overly verbose and overacted at times. I'd give it a solid 7 out of 10, maybe as low as 6.5.

 

[CConn]

I agree. I never said the film sucked. I simply said the changes made it generic. Doesn't mean its bad. I was simply agreeing with him that it was a poor ADAPTION. As its own work of art, its decent. Still not a huge fan of it though.

Oh yes, I think we all agree it was a terrible adaptation of the source material.

As a film... I think Weaving makes it a very powerful experience. The weight his presence and delivery adds to the character really makes a mark in the viewer's mind. It's probably the best performance I've seen from him. Portman was also very strong in it, and again, along with Black Swan and Garden State, it's one of the better roles of her career.

The direction also was quite strong. James Mcteigue seemed to be able to recapture the tone and dark realism of Batman Begins, but actually proved to have a better visual eye than even Nolan did in 2005. It's a shame he hasn't made a good film since.

The script, I'll agree, did become rather mundane at certain points, and definitely could've used a greater level of complexity. Granted, if it achieved that complexity, V probably would've been a near-Oscar level caliber film, IMO.

 

[weezerspider]

Oh yes, I think we all agree it was a terrible adaptation of the source material.

As a film... I think Weaving makes it a very powerful experience. The weight his presence and delivery adds to the character really makes a mark in the viewer's mind. It's probably the best performance I've seen from him. Portman was also very strong in it, and again, along with Black Swan and Garden State, it's one of the better roles of her career.

The direction also was quite strong. James Mcteigue seemed to be able to recapture the tone and dark realism of Batman Begins, but actually proved to have a better visual eye than even Nolan did in 2005. It's a shame he hasn't made a good film since.

The script, I'll agree, did become rather mundane at certain points, and definitely could've used a greater level of complexity. Granted, if it achieved that complexity, V probably would've been a near-Oscar level caliber film, IMO.

I pretty much agree with all of that. I happen to put a lot of emphasis on story, but thats just me. There are some really great films that are great for other reasons aside from the actual story, but I simply prefer a great story with average acting/directing over an average story with great acting/directing 9 times out of 10. So when you say the script gets a bit mundane, thats where I end up not liking it as much as some people. Again, just my personal preferences.