THE PUNISHER: WAR ZONE is a much, much better film than GHOST RIDER or THE FANTASTIC FOUR movies. That puts it in the midrange more or less, below movies like X-MEN and SPIDER-MAN. Story qualitywise, it's about BLADE or HULK level, but it's far more faithful than most superhero movies.
Yup, and it's on FX every week now. After rewatching it, it's not horrible. The finale is the best on-screen Punisher we've seen, I feel. That whole movie is Frank becoming the Punisher, and he doesn't truly do that until he goes after Saint and his men.
I like THE PUNISHER. The finale of THE PUNISHER is appropriate, but "best"? WAR ZONE pretty much takes the best parts of The Punisher from the finale from 04 and runs with them from the word "go". WAR ZONE's Punisher has every element that Jane's finale had, and then done.
Agreed. Frank has a real arc and changes into the Punisher in the movie, as seen by the final line of the movie being "Frank Castle is dead. Call me The Punisher." It was a much better rounded movie than this one. Sure, he spends most of the movie plotting, but that is part of Frank's arc. This movie, Frank's arc is shallow and almost non-existant.
He has an arc in the 2004 film, but it's not an impressively written one. Like the comics, he just suddenly decides to punish people, and does so. Frank does change into the Punisher, yes. And he did not in WAR ZONE.
But that's because THE PUNISHER was an origin movie, and WAR ZONE is not. I'm confused as to what you mean when you say that the 2004 film was a "more rounded movie". Which elements are you specifically referring to? In the comics, Frank Castle becomes who he is going to be when he becomes The Punisher, and he stays there, short of a few "hiccups" along the way. rarely having anything resembling an actual "character evolution" beyond his origin. But you could consider what happens with the innocent FBI agent his "arc" in WAR ZONE. They certainly delved deeper into those ideas of the character than THE PUNISHER did. He is, at least, tested, as is his mindset.
The story is very underdeveloped, I agree.
"Very" underdeveloped? How so? The story is a straightforward one, and develops as much as it needs to. It is the characters who were underdeveloped, if anything, and the 04 film, short of the origin development for Castle, had the same kinds of character development issues in large part. In fact, the argument could be made that many of the characters in WAR ZONE were, to some extent, developed more than the ones in the 04 film. Especially the main villain.
Getting a little sick of hyperbole like "Every performance was bad in this movie". That's just not the case.
I also question what the hell would be good dialogue if the majority of the dialogue in The Punisher, wasn't at least decent. And I'm serious. Because most the dialogue was either appropriate for the characters, or had some subtle little twist that made it better than the average lines. Yes, there were a few corny lines, a couple of "puns", but why wasn't most of the dialogue decent? Oh. Speeches. I keep forgetting that a few corny lines ruin the movie for most people. There goes THE DARK KNIGHT, I guess...
I do think the "true Punisher fan" stuff is a bit ridiculous, but let's face it...a true Punisher fans embraces, or at least recognizes, most of the classic elements of the character, not just one or two "serious" elements while discounting what had always distanced The Punisher and his foes from other, similar characters to begin with.
But hey, if you'd rather have stock villains with nothing interesting about them...just because they're more "serious"...
It doesn't have to be The Godfather, what it should have is a compelling story and good dialogue. And not just use violence as a crutch, for the film to limp along with.
WAR ZONE doesn't use violence as a crutch. There was violence in the action scenes, which came into being as a result of the story. What does "compelling story" mean in the context of The Punisher, if this isn't one on some level? Why isn't the idea of Castle shooting an innocent man and protecting his family "compelling"? Why isn't seeing how this man wages his war on crime short of "finding weapons in a locker" compelling?
Oh. I keep forgetting. Because it's not "The Slavers".
Those were some of the worst accents in movie history , they should
of hired ex soprano/goodfella actors
Yeah. The accents were grating. But "worst" implies that the actors did not do a good job with the accents. That's not the case at all.
And will you please explain to me how in one part of this sentence you whine about over the top New York accents, and then talk about hiring ex Soprano/Goodfell actors?
???
So many of you have confused "I don't like the way it sounds" with "bad accent" or "bad performance" that it's becoming pathetic. Clearly many of you have never been to certain parts of New York, or do not realize that there is a reason the "New York mobster" accent is called "New Yawk accent".
I guess it's ok when Tom Wilkenson does it in BATMAN BEGINS because he's making speeces while he does it.
And people, this movie wasn't "campy". Comedy itself does not make a movie campy. Camp is a movie that is self aware and a parody. You can't look at this movie realistically and make that assessment. Campy movies don't ask fairly deep questions about morality and the nature of justice and vengeance.
As for a sequel, it looks unlikely, but a sequel looked unlikely for the 2004 film, too until DVD sales began. Let's see how it does on DVD before we decide there will never be another Punisher film.