• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Worst Comic Book Movies Ever

Started by TonyStarkFan,

191 posts in this topic

Gary Strange

Gary Strange

Posted
Posted

Let's see...in no order..

 

Batman 89'

Batman Returns

Batman Forever

Batman & Robin

Superman III & IV

Superman Returns

The Spirit

Punisher (Dolph Lundren)

Punisher War Zone

Elektra

Ghost Rider

Green Lantern

X-Men 3

Fantastic Four

Fantastic Four 2

Catwoman

All direct to video Marvel/DC movies

Spider-Man

Spider-Man 3

Iron Man 2

Wolverine : Origins

 

I got to disagree with you on the first two Keaton Batman movies. Stylistically, they were pretty good. I prefer Tim Burton's Gotham City to the Nolan version. And the first Batman makes more sense to me than the Dark Knight did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MR SigS

MR SigS

Posted
Posted
Ghost Rider I hate Nicholas Cage so really is there anything else to state about it. At least it had Sam Elliot in it.

Yeah, I hated the scene when he was about to be interviwed and the make-up lady didn't do a thing, stating "He's good". C'mon people!! He's starting to look like Morton Downey Jr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hamlet

Hamlet

Posted
Posted

That reminds me of an old joke-

 

Two men are sitting drinking at a bar at the top of the Empire State Building, when the first man turns to the other and says "You know, last week I discovered that if you jump from the top of this building, the winds around the building are so intense that by the time you fall to the 10th floor, they carry you around the building and back into a window". The bartender just shakes his head in disapproval while wiping the bar.

 

The second guy says, "What, are you nuts? There's no way that could happen. "No, its true," the first man says. "Let me prove it to you." He gets up from the bar, jumps over the balcony, and plummets toward the street below. As he nears the 10th floor, the high winds whip him around the building and back into the 10th floor window and he takes the elevator back up to the bar.

 

He meets the second man, who looks quite astonished. "You know, I saw that with my own eyes, but that must have been a one time fluke." "No, I'll prove it again," says the first man as he jumps again. Just as he is hurtling toward the street, the 10th floor wind gently carries him around the building and into the window. Once upstairs he urges his fellow drinker to try it.

 

"Well, why not." the second guy says, "It works. I'll try it." He jumps over the balcony, plunges downward passes the 11th, 10th 9th, 8th, floors. . . . . and hits the sidewalk with a SPLAT.

 

Back upstairs the bartender turns to the other drinker and says, "You're a mean drunk, Superman".

 

 

 

batmanrobin.jpgsuperman3-1.jpg

 

PERIOD :sick:

 

Overall I do agree that Superman 3 is a terrible movie, but the parts when Superman gets evil and drunk....oh man, I laugh so hard I am in tears! By far the best part of the movie.

 

Just the image of Superman shooting whiskey, then flicking peanuts to break bottles and using his heat to burn the mirror....classic! Then to top it off, he STUMBLES out of the bar, yelling at the crowd what they are looking at. Not to mention at that exact moment little Jimmy arrives is heartbroken to see his hero hammered out of his mind.

 

I have seen that part a thousand times...and it never gets old! Must just be my warped sense of humor :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sd2416

sd2416

Posted
Posted
You're the first I've seen bring up one of my main complaints about the first X-Men, that Wolverine just gets beat up all the time. He's supposed to be a bad .

 

I really don't disagree with anything you said, it was a good assessment. Still, I was just happy to finally see X-Men in a movie, and I was thoroughly entertained by it.

 

One last thing, they needed to pick a bigger, buffer and hairier guy to play Wolverine.

Logan is supposed to be 5'2

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larryw7

Larryw7

Posted
Posted

Did anyone mention Supergirl? Jerry Goldsmith's score is majestic, and Helen Slater is adorable. But it has a horrible -script and terribly campy performances from Faye Dunaway and Brenda Vaccaro(Peter Cook is actually pretty funny as Dunaway's spurned boyfriend).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
s-man

s-man

Posted
Posted
helen_slater.jpg

 

:cloud9:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bane

bane

Posted
Posted
I got to disagree with you on the first two Keaton Batman movies. Stylistically, they were pretty good. I prefer Tim Burton's Gotham City to the Nolan version. And the first Batman makes more sense to me than the Dark Knight did.

 

The films can't be compared, Batman (1989) is more a fantasy film with no place in time. People walking around wearing trilby hats and 40s suits with 80s technology. Nolans Batman exists (I like to think) in "our" time, real time if you will.

 

Both films are great in what they represent, the 89 Batman is what got me into collecting Batman and what made me interested in the character. For me Nolan excelled in delivery an all around Batman film.

 

89 Batman failed to deliver an interesting Bruce Wayne character, Jack Nicholsons performance as the Joker was fantastic but there was too much emphasis on his character. The film was called "Batman" not "Joker". Batman Returns suffered the same, Burton seemed to be more interested in the supporting characters instead of "Batman". Nolan gets this right, makes Bruce Wayne/Batman the focus of the film, maybe not so much in DK.

 

The film lacked pace in alot of places. I could cut out about 30 minutes of footage from the movie to make it more interesting, most of which would be the scenes with Vicki Vale, these didn't interest me when I was 9, doesn't interest me now I'm 30.

 

Batman (1989) will always be a great movie with alot of magic, but Nolan beats it everytime IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Comicopolis

Comicopolis

Posted
Posted
I got to disagree with you on the first two Keaton Batman movies. Stylistically, they were pretty good. I prefer Tim Burton's Gotham City to the Nolan version. And the first Batman makes more sense to me than the Dark Knight did.

 

The films can't be compared, Batman (1989) is more a fantasy film with no place in time. People walking around wearing trilby hats and 40s suits with 80s technology. Nolans Batman exists (I like to think) in "our" time, real time if you will.

 

Both films are great in what they represent, the 89 Batman is what got me into collecting Batman and what made me interested in the character. For me Nolan excelled in delivery an all around Batman film.

 

89 Batman failed to deliver an interesting Bruce Wayne character, Jack Nicholsons performance as the Joker was fantastic but there was too much emphasis on his character. The film was called "Batman" not "Joker". Batman Returns suffered the same, Burton seemed to be more interested in the supporting characters instead of "Batman". Nolan gets this right, makes Bruce Wayne/Batman the focus of the film, maybe not so much in DK.

 

The film lacked pace in alot of places. I could cut out about 30 minutes of footage from the movie to make it more interesting, most of which would be the scenes with Vicki Vale, these didn't interest me when I was 9, doesn't interest me now I'm 30.

 

Batman (1989) will always be a great movie with alot of magic, but Nolan beats it everytime IMO.

 

I concur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
I got to disagree with you on the first two Keaton Batman movies. Stylistically, they were pretty good. I prefer Tim Burton's Gotham City to the Nolan version. And the first Batman makes more sense to me than the Dark Knight did.

 

The films can't be compared, Batman (1989) is more a fantasy film with no place in time. People walking around wearing trilby hats and 40s suits with 80s technology. Nolans Batman exists (I like to think) in "our" time, real time if you will.

 

Both films are great in what they represent, the 89 Batman is what got me into collecting Batman and what made me interested in the character. For me Nolan excelled in delivery an all around Batman film.

 

89 Batman failed to deliver an interesting Bruce Wayne character, Jack Nicholsons performance as the Joker was fantastic but there was too much emphasis on his character. The film was called "Batman" not "Joker". Batman Returns suffered the same, Burton seemed to be more interested in the supporting characters instead of "Batman". Nolan gets this right, makes Bruce Wayne/Batman the focus of the film, maybe not so much in DK.

 

The film lacked pace in alot of places. I could cut out about 30 minutes of footage from the movie to make it more interesting, most of which would be the scenes with Vicki Vale, these didn't interest me when I was 9, doesn't interest me now I'm 30.

 

Batman (1989) will always be a great movie with alot of magic, but Nolan beats it everytime IMO.

 

The two movies (Burton and Nolan) are completely different and I enjoy them both for entirely different reasons.

 

Burton's stylesque movies are a pleasure to watch over and over again for me but that probably resonates to the fact that I first watched them as a 19 year old.

 

Nolan's movies are nearly perfect in execution but take a lot more out of you to actively enjoy them rather than passively enjoying the Burton flicks.

 

I'm torn if I have to choose between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larryw7

Larryw7

Posted
Posted

To me, Burton's Batman was all style with little substance. Keaton was great, but he had little to do. Nicholson's Joker started out strong but eventually became just another nutty Jack Nicholson performance. I was disappointed when I saw it for the first time in '89, but I did learn to enjoy it, flaws and all. The fact that the whole country was Bat crazy at the time helped. It was a fun year to be a comic collector.

 

Nolan's movies have better characterization and good scripts; they also really seem to be inspired by the O'Neill/Adams era, which I love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Straw-Man

Straw-Man

Posted
Posted
I nominate the new Green Lantern movie. Just awful!

 

Really? I thought it was the best DC movie since Batman Begins. I enjoyed it immensely.

 

Me too.

 

The first Hulk movie (Ang Lee version) was my least favorite comic movie of all time. I liked Doc Savage, Daredevil, The Shadow, The Phantom, and any number other not so great movies much more than that Hulk tripe.

 

hulk 1 is miserably bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing