Overrated Comic Book Films

[Batmannerism]

That's a rather long and condescending way of addressing such a mild comment. I understand what the word 'overrated' means, I was merely adding to the conversation by saying that arbitrary applications of real science to the science fantasy genre as a criticism isn't an attitude I understand. After all, where does it end?

Anyhoo...I suppose my nomination for overrated CBM is The Winter Soldier. That film should lean much harder on the emotional hook to make it work in my eyes. Instead it goes full on with a misguided political conspiracy plot that works ok up until the Zola/Insight reveal which causes everything else to implode into nonsense. I also think the Crossbones 'origin' is ultimately pretty lame and unnecessary. It's a shame because the hand to hand combat is pretty great.

Unrelated, but Abrams' Trek films are...lets just say misguided at best. The Force Awakens may be somewhat derivative but it's leaps and bounds above his Trek films and it succeeds more than it fails for the most part.

Apologies for coming off as condescending, that was not intended - and thank you for explaining that comment further. I tend to over-explain myself for the avoidance of doubt (which is something that's important in my job).

Again, my problem with Spider Man 2 isn't so much about arbitrarily applying the laws of physics - and you are correct that even the Dark Knight would suffer if that was the case.

Rather, its about the suspension of disbelief - e.g. in a Superman film, the main character can fly and shoot laser beams from his eyes, it doesn't touch the laws of physics with a barge pole, but we manage to suspend disbelief. However, there are still limits to which disbelief can be suspended. If Superman tried to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it, well we'd scratch our heads a bit. In the same way, a miniature sun would be incredibly hot (if its a stable fusion reaction - I mean, why they didn't just go with so-called cold fusion, who knows ? ) so in that sense the idea of drowning it in a river (next to a heavily populated area) makes me scratch my head (again, just like flying really fast around the world to turn back time). Disbelief is stretched too far.

While I agree with you that Winter Soldier needed to do more with the "emotional hook" of Cap and Bucky's friendship, the political conspiracy is what elevates the film above the majority of cbms. While on some levels the whole "half of Shield is Hydra" twist is a bit much to swallow (if you think about it for a minute) the elements of intrigue fit well within the overall structure of the film - making TWS a superhero/thriller hybrid, kind of like The Dark Knight is a hybrid superhero/crime drama.

I respectfully disagree with you on Abrams Trek vs Abrams Star Wars. While they're not going to be cinematic classics they did a brilliant job of bringing new life to familiar characters who had been seriously run down by a series of mediocre films (and of course the Star Trek brand itself was run down by the dreadful Star Trek Nemesis ).


In my view, Force Awakens isn't just somewhat derivative, it's utterly derivative and lacks a compelling villain. While the effects are great, and there are some good character moments, it ultimately comes across as little more than a good-looking imitation of the original. At least in "Into Darkness" Abrams re-works the Wrath of Khan story in an interesting way - inverting the death of Spock scene was clever, although unfortunately I felt the actors didn't pull it off anywhere nearly as well as Nimoy and Shatner. He doesn't achieve any of that with Force Awakens (although it was still a far superior film to any of the prequels).

That , of course is just my opinion. Merry Christmas.

 

[Lorus]

Apologies for coming off as condescending, that was not intended - and thank you for explaining that comment further. I tend to over-explain myself for the avoidance of doubt (which is something that's important in my job).

Again, my problem with Spider Man 2 isn't so much about arbitrarily applying the laws of physics - and you are correct that even the Dark Knight would suffer if that was the case.

Rather, its about the suspension of disbelief - e.g. in a Superman film, the main character can fly and shoot laser beams from his eyes, it doesn't touch the laws of physics with a barge pole, but we manage to suspend disbelief. However, there are still limits to which disbelief can be suspended. If Superman tried to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it, well we'd scratch our heads a bit. In the same way, a miniature sun would be incredibly hot (if its a stable fusion reaction - I mean, why they didn't just go with so-called cold fusion, who knows ? ) so in that sense the idea of drowning it in a river (next to a heavily populated area) makes me scratch my head (again, just like flying really fast around the world to turn back time). Disbelief is stretched too far.

While I agree with you that Winter Soldier needed to do more with the "emotional hook" of Cap and Bucky's friendship, the political conspiracy is what elevates the film above the majority of cbms. While on some levels the whole "half of Shield is Hydra" twist is a bit much to swallow (if you think about it for a minute) the elements of intrigue fit well within the overall structure of the film - making TWS a superhero/thriller hybrid, kind of like The Dark Knight is a hybrid superhero/crime drama.

I respectfully disagree with you on Abrams Trek vs Abrams Star Wars. While they're not going to be cinematic classics they did a brilliant job of bringing new life to familiar characters who had been seriously run down by a series of mediocre films (and of course the Star Trek brand itself was run down by the dreadful Star Trek Nemesis ).


In my view, Force Awakens isn't just somewhat derivative, it's utterly derivative and lacks a compelling villain. While the effects are great, and there are some good character moments, it ultimately comes across as little more than a good-looking imitation of the original. At least in "Into Darkness" Abrams re-works the Wrath of Khan story in an interesting way - inverting the death of Spock scene was clever, although unfortunately I felt the actors didn't pull it off anywhere nearly as well as Nimoy and Shatner. He doesn't achieve any of that with Force Awakens (although it was still a far superior film to any of the prequels).

That , of course is just my opinion. Merry Christmas.

No worries and no harm done. Communicating through text can be tricky.

I may agree with you that a comic book movie that was half political thriller would be elevated above the norm, but that would be predicated on the conspiracy making sense. My problem with the plot is not so much that half of SHIELD is HYDRA (although you’re correct that that is rather silly) but more in the entire project Insight conceit. After all, Zola essentially reveals that HYDRA already conquered the world many years prior. They have manipulated historical events to their advantage through all sorts of means, including presidential assassinations if I recall correctly. They’ve successfully infiltrated some of the highest echelons of government from the senate to the world security council and furthermore, nobody even knows they exist anymore. By any reasonable metric, they have everything they want, and yet, the film turns entirely on this notion that their master plan is to use three cumbersome helicarriers to physically shoot everyone they don’t like in the most obvious manner possible. They were already killing anyone that threatened them via the Winter Soldier in an untraceable way, hell, Zola even explicitly states that trying to conquer the world through overt force was a mistake they had supposedly learned from. Insight offers nothing other than a lazy and stupid way to give Cap something to punch at the end. Political conspiracies/thrillers don’t resolve with the conspirators blatantly shouting to the world that they’re evil and blowing their cover for no reason. The film has only the barest, surface level similarities to the films it wishes to homage and ends up looking far worse for the comparison. There’s a good film in there somewhere, the ideas are used much better in Hickman’s Secret Warriors comic from which they were cribbed, but the desire to blow the finale up into a huge explosive battle tarnishes everything that comes before, to my eyes, almost irredeemably.

When it comes to Abrams’ Trek vs Wars, I’d argue that his Trek films abandoned everything Trek stood for in order to poorly imitate Star Wars. Gone are any notions of Roddenberry’s idyllic future, replaced with the most generic violent action fare with nothing on its mind other than the next explosion. While the TNG films were far from great, even they seemed to understand what Star Trek was and didn’t seem preoccupied with making Trek ‘cool’ to an audience that wasn’t interested. I’ll respectfully disagree with the notion that Abrams reversing the Kirk/Spock death was ‘clever’. There was meaning to Spock’s death in the Wrath of Khan and it therefore resonated with the themes of the film. Abram’s redux in Into Darkness by contrast means nothing. It only exists to reference the better film, it’s so meaningless that the death is reversed 20 minutes later so the film can end happily.

TFA echoes many parts of A New Hope and is poorer for it in many respects, Han’s death being one of them. However, the echoes are largely broad stroke stuff with nothing quite as blatantly lazy as directly copying the death scene in Wrath of Khan. I also think Kylo Ren is one of the best parts of the new cast, basically because he’s a massive loser fanboy. I think Abrams actually is clever in playing him as a Vader knock off at the very beginning before he peels away the layers and reveals him to be an emotionally unstable individual desperately constructing his self image in Vader’s shadow in a fruitless attempt at self respect. Not only is there a real emotional hook there, something Star Wars villains usually lack, but there is also some sly meta commentary on the franchise as a whole.

I doubt we will agree on much of this, but it’s all discussed in good fun. Hope you had a good Christmas and enjoy your new year!

 

[Batmannerism]

No worries and no harm done. Communicating through text can be tricky.

I may agree with you that a comic book movie that was half political thriller would be elevated above the norm, but that would be predicated on the conspiracy making sense. My problem with the plot is not so much that half of SHIELD is HYDRA (although you’re correct that that is rather silly) but more in the entire project Insight conceit. After all, Zola essentially reveals that HYDRA already conquered the world many years prior. They have manipulated historical events to their advantage through all sorts of means, including presidential assassinations if I recall correctly. They’ve successfully infiltrated some of the highest echelons of government from the senate to the world security council and furthermore, nobody even knows they exist anymore. By any reasonable metric, they have everything they want, and yet, the film turns entirely on this notion that their master plan is to use three cumbersome helicarriers to physically shoot everyone they don’t like in the most obvious manner possible. They were already killing anyone that threatened them via the Winter Soldier in an untraceable way, hell, Zola even explicitly states that trying to conquer the world through overt force was a mistake they had supposedly learned from. Insight offers nothing other than a lazy and stupid way to give Cap something to punch at the end. Political conspiracies/thrillers don’t resolve with the conspirators blatantly shouting to the world that they’re evil and blowing their cover for no reason. The film has only the barest, surface level similarities to the films it wishes to homage and ends up looking far worse for the comparison. There’s a good film in there somewhere, the ideas are used much better in Hickman’s Secret Warriors comic from which they were cribbed, but the desire to blow the finale up into a huge explosive battle tarnishes everything that comes before, to my eyes, almost irredeemably.

Okay, those are some very fair comments, I can see where you're coming from. I don't necessarily agree - but I see your point. To be honest, TWS was the first Captain America film or comic that made me actually sympathize with Cap - as he's one of my least favorite comic book characters. As such, I have some affection for the film. Civil War is a different story, it made me actually cheer for Cap, and at the same time sympathize with Tony's rage - I guess I'm easy to manipulate but to me CW is the best Marvel film to date, and something quite special.


I have quite a different take on things - and I did find it ridiculous that Hydra could infiltrate Shield so completely (and also, it felt like Shield had only been around for five minutes before they destroyed it, whereas if TWS had occurred after Age of Ultron it would have felt more earned - again, that just my opinion).

Anyway, as for the use of political conspiracy in TWS as a story element - I think that as it's a superhero film, such story elements are subordinate to the superheroic elements.

The superhero genre - like every other genre - has conventions and let's face it is solving the world's problems by punching them is one of those conventions. While TWS has elements of thriller/intrigue films, ultimately it's still a superhero film, and we go to these films because want to see Cap and Widow smack someone who deserves it.

Sure, it would have made sense for Hydra to stay behind the scenes and gradually make all of the loyal Shield employees redundant via downsizing/budget cuts - until only Hydra employees remained. It's kind of similar to Bruce Wayne realizing that the best way to clean up Gotham would be to put his money into job-creation , drug treatment and affordable housing schemes rather than Batmobiles and Bat-planes (I think Christopher Nolan was hinting at this a bit, a tiny bit in TDK, and a little more in TDKR).
But these are real world solutions, and dont' make for a kick-ass viewing experience (which is what most folks want to see when Cap straps on his shield).

Dr Strange successfully subverts that expectation to a degree, by using magical trickery to resolve the final problem -and manages to do it in a way that doesn't feel like a rip off.

When it comes to Abrams’ Trek vs Wars, I’d argue that his Trek films abandoned everything Trek stood for in order to poorly imitate Star Wars. Gone are any notions of Roddenberry’s idyllic future, replaced with the most generic violent action fare with nothing on its mind other than the next explosion. While the TNG films were far from great, even they seemed to understand what Star Trek was and didn’t seem preoccupied with making Trek ‘cool’ to an audience that wasn’t interested. I’ll respectfully disagree with the notion that Abrams reversing the Kirk/Spock death was ‘clever’. There was meaning to Spock’s death in the Wrath of Khan and it therefore resonated with the themes of the film. Abram’s redux in Into Darkness by contrast means nothing. It only exists to reference the better film, it’s so meaningless that the death is reversed 20 minutes later so the film can end happily.

I recently re-watched Wrath of Khan (which is my favorite Star Trek film, hands down), and you're right that the death scene in Into Darkness doesn't hold a candle to it - it's probably the best scene Nimoy and Shatner ever did together.

I still feel like inverting that was a neat idea - although Pine and Quinto didn't quite pull it off. I think it's mostly Quinto's "KHAAAAAAAANNNNN !!!!" it's just not the same intensity as Shatner's. Also, you're right that Wrath of Khan set up the themes of life and death nicely, so that when Spock's death occurs it makes complete sense and feels at home within the context of the film - it feels like the movie earned it, rather than it's an out of place shock.
And of course, you're completely right that it's not even really "death" just temporary incapacitation- whereas for all intents and purposes at the end of Wrath of Khan, Spock had gone to the hereafter.

On the subject of Roddenberry - he was effectively sidelined from creative control in Wrath of Khan, after the unwatchable mess that was Star Trek the Motion Picture. Wrath of Khan was conceptualized and designed to be a Swashbuckler "Hornblower in space" sort of thing ( I tried to read some Hornblower books but the nautical jargon made it go a bit too slow for me).
It's arguable that what made Wrath of Khan so successful was that GR had very little to do with it.

I know that GR's idyllic future was a big part of original Star Trek, and certainly had strong influences in early TNG. I understand why it appeals to so many people, because it's noble and aspirational.

The problem is.....it's bollocks. Human beings have been greedy, selfish, violent and treacherous for the entirety of our time on the planet. That's not going to change. The future (if there is human life in 500 years) will probably be a lot more like Joss Whedon's Firefly. The rich will still be rich, the poor will still be poor.

In the later seasons of TNG, and certainly in DS 9 we see that the future is not all idyllic - more civilized for sure, but those base instincts are still around. Some of the best stories in those Star Trek series revolve around the conflict between pragmatism and the supposedly evovled principles of Star Fleet...... what I liked about DS9 is that Cisco surrenders the moral high ground in the face of necessity (something Picard doesn't do and Janeway does inconsistently). What made the Klingons such great characters, for me, was their constant blather about honour, when their conduct was often mere pragmatism ( it was the show pointing out the irony that the ultimate Klingon, who's more Klingon than Klingon, was effectively raised by humans).

The best TNG film is arguably "First Contact" and that's pretty much sci-fi action (good guys against killer cyborgs ). Sure there are some elements of the idyllic future, but what makes the film enjoyable is that the characters are so human (even the Borg Queen !).

I felt that Into Darkness was a fair reflection of Starfleet morality and the tension between that morality and pragmatism I mentioned earlier. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the larger movie going audience (other than Star Trek fans) wouldn't be too interested in Roddenberry's idyllic future.

This is of course, my opinion too.

TFA echoes many parts of A New Hope and is poorer for it in many respects, Han’s death being one of them. However, the echoes are largely broad stroke stuff with nothing quite as blatantly lazy as directly copying the death scene in Wrath of Khan. I also think Kylo Ren is one of the best parts of the new cast, basically because he’s a massive loser fanboy. I think Abrams actually is clever in playing him as a Vader knock off at the very beginning before he peels away the layers and reveals him to be an emotionally unstable individual desperately constructing his self image in Vader’s shadow in a fruitless attempt at self respect. Not only is there a real emotional hook there, something Star Wars villains usually lack, but there is also some sly meta commentary on the franchise as a whole.

I doubt we will agree on much of this, but it’s all discussed in good fun. Hope you had a good Christmas and enjoy your new year!

Yeah, totally disagree on Ren, but your take on it is interesting - particularly the meta concept of Ren's characterisation, I need to go away and think about that a bit.

In the meantime, I get that Ren is trying to be Vader (so hard that he murders Han) but I don't feel like a massive loser fanboy is the kind of villain the series needs. Oh, I mean I'm going to cheer when Daisy Ridley eventually kills him - we all know that's coming, but more because he's a detestable villain than an engaging one.

Darth Vader first appears as the ultimate badass, he's on the screen for about a minute and he's strangled someone. Later he kills Luke's teacher and then out-dogfights a bunch of hapless rebel pilots. Even the destruction of the Death Star doesn't kill him.

It's not until the Empire Strikes Back that we get a hint that he's not as all-powerful as he seems. And in ROTJ we finally learn that despite his mastery of the Force he's not some invincible monster but really a severely crippled middle-aged man and for all his ostensible authority he's effectively a slave.

Because that unravels over 3 films, it really works and is probably why DV is still held up today as one of the ultimate movie villains.

For me Kylo Ren is still just a *****e bag with a lightsabre and a mask. I imagine he'll probably stab Luke Skywalker in the back in the next film but that will only make him a bigger *****e bag, and not one I want to invest any interest in. But that's just me.

Hope you had a merry Christmas too !

 

[batfreakforever]

Civil war is probably the most overrated movie of all time. It's essentially a superhero film for families.
There is nothing dramatic or suspenseful or violent in the film. There is generic superhero action as if a kid is lining up the heros for each side and smacking them together.
The drama and acting is something out of a daytime soap opera but that is typical of Marvel.
Bad acting all round.
Essentially Black panther. He is the !@#$ing worst and everyone praised him.
Nobody even died in a !@#$ing war movie.
Can't stand winter soilder and how him and Rogers are best mates again.
The look of the film bought nothing new to the Marvel films. Plain, boring and uninspiring.
It made lots of money because it's a family and kid's movie.
Something the whole family can enjoy.

 

[Consona]

after the unwatchable mess that was Star Trek the Motion Picture.

My apologies, but are you F***ING KIDDING ME? t: Star Trek the Motion Picture is easily the best ST film to this date and one of the best sci-fi films ever. It's pure sci-fi, an intellectual journey with even hints of mysticism, it's a complex piece of art, the visuals, the music, those ideas and way they are communicated. No need for some action scenes, some running around, it's just like some philosophical dialogue put on the screen. Love it.

Otherwise I like what you're saying here, really nice read.

When it comes to Abrams’ Trek vs Wars, I’d argue that his Trek films abandoned everything Trek stood for in order to poorly imitate Star Wars.

Yea, giving ST to Abrams was a huge mistake. I don't mind great action and such, but if you're making a ST film, you should try to elevate the substance part of it rather massively. Which is a reason I think ST TMP is easily the best ST film, it's pure substance over style (well maybe except that Enterprise in the dock sequence. t I was really shocked when I was watching Wrath of Khan and realizing majority of people put it way above the TMP in quality, total WTF to me.

Like your posts too, very nice discussion with Batmannerism!

 

[Consona]

Civil war is probably the most overrated movie of all time. It's essentially a superhero film for families.
There is nothing dramatic or suspenseful or violent in the film. There is generic superhero action as if a kid is lining up the heros for each side and smacking them together.
The drama and acting is something out of a daytime soap opera but that is typical of Marvel.
Bad acting all round.
Essentially Black panther. He is the !@#$ing worst and everyone praised him.
Nobody even died in a !@#$ing war movie.
Can't stand winter soilder and how him and Rogers are best mates again.
The look of the film bought nothing new to the Marvel films. Plain, boring and uninspiring.
It made lots of money because it's a family and kid's movie.
Something the whole family can enjoy.

Hehe, put this into the Cinematic Civil War:MCU vs DCCU thread. You'll get lynched and stigmatized for the rest of your existence here. t:

CA:CW is overrated, yea, but I don't thing it's as bad as you write. I think there were some dramatic moments. But yea, overall it's another safe family friendly Marvel film. Still it was much better than Doctor Strange.

 

[Samuron]

Star Trek the Motion Picture is easily the best ST film to this date and one of the best sci-fi films ever. It's pure sci-fi, an intellectual journey with even hints of mysticism, it's a complex piece of art, the visuals, the music, those ideas and way they are communicated. No need for some action scenes, some running around, it's just like some philosophical dialogue put on the screen. Love it.

You might want to put in sarcasm tags; I left them out in another thread and got burned for it.

 

[First Avenger]

Civil war is probably the most overrated movie of all time. It's essentially a superhero film for families.
There is nothing dramatic or suspenseful or violent in the film. There is generic superhero action as if a kid is lining up the heros for each side and smacking them together.
The drama and acting is something out of a daytime soap opera but that is typical of Marvel.
Bad acting all round.
Essentially Black panther. He is the !@#$ing worst and everyone praised him.
Nobody even died in a !@#$ing war movie.
Can't stand winter soilder and how him and Rogers are best mates again.
The look of the film bought nothing new to the Marvel films. Plain, boring and uninspiring.
It made lots of money because it's a family and kid's movie.
Something the whole family can enjoy.

You become funnier and funnier with time.

 

[BoredGuy]

"something the whole family can enjoy"
so clearly batfreak has no family.
and no joy.

 

[Drizzle]

Every time I read a batfreakforever post "Kiss From A Rose" starts playing in my head and I can taste blood.

 

[BoredGuy]

 

[Chesterfield]

Civil war is probably the most overrated movie of all time. It's essentially a superhero film for families.
There is nothing dramatic or suspenseful or violent in the film. There is generic superhero action as if a kid is lining up the heros for each side and smacking them together.
The drama and acting is something out of a daytime soap opera but that is typical of Marvel.
Bad acting all round.
Essentially Black panther. He is the !@#$ing worst and everyone praised him.
Nobody even died in a !@#$ing war movie.
Can't stand winter soilder and how him and Rogers are best mates again.
The look of the film bought nothing new to the Marvel films. Plain, boring and uninspiring.
It made lots of money because it's a family and kid's movie.
Something the whole family can enjoy.

...You're a nutter.

 

[Batmannerism]

My apologies, but are you F***ING KIDDING ME? t: Star Trek the Motion Picture is easily the best ST film to this date and one of the best sci-fi films ever. It's pure sci-fi, an intellectual journey with even hints of mysticism, it's a complex piece of art, the visuals, the music, those ideas and way they are communicated. No need for some action scenes, some running around, it's just like some philosophical dialogue put on the screen. Love it.

Otherwise I like what you're saying here, really nice read.

Was that sarcasm ? If so, LOL. If not, hey fair enough, respect your opinion I can see why folks who like the deeper themes in ST would have appreciated it....although I wasn't one of them.

Well, that's certainly a different way of looking at it. Personally, I saw it as a kid and thought WTF is this ? Why hasn't Kirk drop kicked someone yet ?

Then I saw it as an adult, and applied my more evolved sensibilities to the themes that it was trying to explore......and thought pretty much the same thing.

Didn't work for me. I think it was a noble attempt, but it's still entertainment - not a Carl Sagan documentary (actually hold that, because his documentaries are more entertaining than STMP). I felt like it had a bloated sense of self importance - whereas Wrath of Khan went back to what made ST great, not the exotic alien locations, not the special effects and not an exploration of deep themes..... what IMO made ST great, and made it endure for so long has always been the characters. Well, that and a sense of adventure, those two things have made ST great (but the characters come first).

My favorite ever episode of ST TOS was "Amok Time" which really explores Spock's character, but also his relationship with Kirk - and is probably one of the reasons the death scene in WOK is so moving IMO - because of the relationship built up in TOS episodes. Sad that apparently Nimoy and Shatner weren't speaking when Nimoy died.

Back to the original point of the thread - I'm starting to see a lot of negative stuff about Civil War. Interesting, as I'm not a Cap fan (only grudgingly admit how great TWS is), Iron Man fan ( the first movie's awesome, the others are rubbish) or a Marvel fan (well not since about 1991 anyway) I loved Civil War and feel like it elevated the Tony/Cap relationship (and RDJ's performance as Tony) to a new place. However, I'm very interested in the criticisms because its stuff I didn't see in the film and would be worth thinking about.

Of course, right now I have the day off , and am watching Fellowship of the Ring with my dogs...... ahhh this is how Christmas was meant to be.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Civil war is probably the most overrated movie of all time. It's essentially a superhero film for families.
There is nothing dramatic or suspenseful or violent in the film. There is generic superhero action as if a kid is lining up the heros for each side and smacking them together.
The drama and acting is something out of a daytime soap opera but that is typical of Marvel.
Bad acting all round.
Essentially Black panther. He is the !@#$ing worst and everyone praised him.
Nobody even died in a !@#$ing war movie.
Can't stand winter soilder and how him and Rogers are best mates again.
The look of the film bought nothing new to the Marvel films. Plain, boring and uninspiring.
It made lots of money because it's a family and kid's movie.
Something the whole family can enjoy.

damn son, sounds like you could use a laugh

here, watch this and feel better:

 

[Greens]

There was a video of a black guy laughing at the BvS reception, and then he did the same for Suicide Squad. I can't seem to find it...

 

[Kane52630]

Civil war is probably the most overrated movie of all time. It's essentially a superhero film for families.
There is nothing dramatic or suspenseful or violent in the film. There is generic superhero action as if a kid is lining up the heros for each side and smacking them together.
The drama and acting is something out of a daytime soap opera but that is typical of Marvel.
Bad acting all round.
Essentially Black panther. He is the !@#$ing worst and everyone praised him.
Nobody even died in a !@#$ing war movie.
Can't stand winter soilder and how him and Rogers are best mates again.
The look of the film bought nothing new to the Marvel films. Plain, boring and uninspiring.
It made lots of money because it's a family and kid's movie.
Something the whole family can enjoy.

 

[PeterBenParker]

The Dark Knight.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

There was a video of a black guy laughing at the BvS reception, and then he did the same for Suicide Squad. I can't seem to find it...

 

[The Joker]

damn son, sounds like you could use a laugh

here, watch this and feel better:

LOL that vid is hilarious.

 

[Samuron]

The Dark Knight.

I agree, although I admit I've been reluctant to say so out loud here.

 

[Ivan Drago]

You guys should say why you think TDK is overrated

 

[Batmannerism]

You guys should say why you think TDK is overrated

I love TDK, it's my favorite cbm and I don't think it's overrated. Let me say this again, I LOVE this film.

BUT, I admit that it's not perfect by any measure and has some plot points and other elements that aren't great:

- Bale's batvoice, trying to be menacing but going wrong and just sounding like he's got a terrible cold.

- I know that Nolan was going for REALISTIC vision of Batman, but NOT a real vision (because let's face it, that would be boring) as such a lot of typical superhero physics (as in the laws of physics and movement can get stretched significantly) apply.

For me, pushing the laws of physics with Batman's gliding flight is okay (although in reality he'd break some bones upon landing, without decelerating significantly first). I can also accept the fall from the Wayne penthouse, which would have probably killed them, despite the drag of his cape and the car breaking their fall.
But, but when he tosses the Joker off the building and then catches him with the grapple gun - that's just a little bit too far for me. That he could hit a moving target, heading downwards, arrest his fall, and then haul him up ? Just too far beyond physical reality IMO - at the very least Bats would be pulled over the side of the building too. If he'd shot the joker with the grapple gun before chucking him over, well that might have made sense.

- when the Joker's bomb-inside-the-goon goes off inside the MCU station he would have been incapacitated as well as the cops ( a simple shot of him diving for cover would have dealt with that).

- The bombs to which Rachel and Dent were tied were on a timer, I guess ( as that explains the Joker's "What's the time question ?" to Gordon) it was incredibly convenient that Batman showed up in time to beat up the Joker, get laughed at, race to the location, rescue Dent etc. But even more amazing that the Joker could set the timers with such amazing foresight in the first place. Given that the two captives were taken to those locations just after the Joker's capture, that's an incredibly amazing coincidence of timing.

- What happened up in Wayne's penthouse after Bats and Rachel dove out the window ? Did the Joker kill a few guests, did he enjoy another shrimp cocktail, did he do a standup routine to keep them entertained ? Who knows.
Again, a 5 second shot of him leaving, perhaps delivering a darkly humourous remark would have resolved that too.

- Dent's overnight descent into madness. It wasn't bad, but could have been better.
Okay, Nolan set up earlier that Dent had a nasty side, when he kidnaps the Joker's goon and plays Russian Roulette with him (although we know Dent has no intention of killing him). But to go from there to complete nutcase was a bit of a stretch. The revenge killings (and attempted killings) I totally get Maroni, Wurtz, (and of course we don't know what happens to Detective Ramirez, even in TDKR, ugh !) and maybe even Gordon and Batman. Given that we see his high moral character earlier in the film, I just feel like we didn't go through enough for Dent to reach the point where he would do that.

I do think Nolan laid some of the groundwork (with the early discussion between Dent and Gordon about the corrupt cops at MCU) I just think he needed to do a little more overall.


Having said all that (and there's a bunch of other stuff that bugs me about it) I still LOVE this film, and think it's the greatest - but I can totally see why some folks find it overrated.

 

[st barbara]

Maybe it is just that I don't particularly like movie characters "breaking the fourth wall" but i found "Deadpool" to be overrated.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Maybe it is just that I don't particularly like movie characters "breaking the fourth wall" but i found "Deadpool" to be overrated.

I'm not a big fan of that movie either.

 

[The Joker]

What have you got against Deadpool, Aziz?