info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero - 34.-20.
4 views
Skip to first unread message
TMC
Jan 9, 2013, 4:40:51 AM1/9/13
to
http://www.toonzone.net/forums/entertainment-board/300509-depth-ranking-every-marvel-dc-movie-superhero.html#.UO04qNvpf4Y
http://www.toonzone.net/forums/entertainment-board/300509-depth-ranking-every-marvel-dc-movie-superhero.html#post4075380
Decent, overall positive tier (continued)
34. Superman/Clark Kent (Brandon Routh, Superman Returns, 2006)
Another entry that I had all over the map at certain points.
There were some characters on this list, like Jean Grey for example,
who are part of both good and bad movies, and I had a hard time
debating the excellent high points in the good movies and the horrible
low points in the bad ones.
Brandon Routh’s Superman is similar in that I am having a hard time
finding a settling spot for him as I have to consider some attributes
that reach very high peaks, and attributes that reach some low
valleys. Only difference is, the attributes of Routh’s Superman reach
these extremes within the span of one single movie.
The highs: I mean, my god, look at him, he’s Christopher Reeve’s
Superman reincarnated. He fills out the suit extremely well and looks
natural. He has a commanding presence and you really feel like you’re
watching Superman when you see him. But perhaps just as importantly,
he also (albeit all too briefly) does a fantastic job as Reeve’s
bumbling, charming Clark Kent. He doesn’t get much to work with, but I
think Routh kills it. I totally understand why people wanted him to
return for Man of Steel, even though it would have been confusing to
have the same actor play the same character in different continuities.
Some of the action scenes are great, especially the one with the
plane, and give you an exhilarating sense of watching Superman in
action.
The lows: He is the deadbeat dad of a bastard child. The movie itself
and its plot aren’t very good. His chemistry with Lois is low, even
though I think that’s largely Bosworth’s fault. He is the deadbeat dad
of a bastard child. He doesn’t get all that much depth or character
development, and it seems like he’s used more of a Christ analogy than
an actual character, and doesn’t even seem to have all that much
dialogue. The movie is more or less devoid of any sense of fun or
adventure. How in the hell did people not think anything of it when
Superman and Clark Kent both return from a 5-year hiatus on the exact
same day? He is the deadbeat dad of a bastard child.
OK sorry to keep harping on that child point. I know that he wasn’t
aware that he impregnated Lois, but still, he obviously didn’t use
protection or anything so one would think he might check up on her or
at least wait before departing on his oh-so-important space mission.
Also, I’m going to bring up a point that Kevin Smith made in his stand
up routine where he talked about the movie, in the fact that Superman
apparently erased Lois’s memories of having sex with him, so when she
realizes that her son has Superman’s powers she is going to think that
Superman raped her at some point. Also, Bosworth was 22 when the movie
was made, and he apparently had sex with her five years ago…yeah.
All in all, I think Routh himself did a great job and there were
moments that elicited exuberance. So much so that I can’t help think
back on the character as overall positive. However, I cannot ignore
all of the negative points, especially the fact that the paragon of
Truth, Justice, and the American way is a deadbeat dad of a bastard
child, so I have him here as a member of the “Neutral but Mostly
Positive” tier and can’t quite move him up into the “Good” tier.
33. Rogue/Marie D'Ancanto (Sookie Stackhouse, X:Men, 2000; X2, 2003; X-
Men: The Last Stand, 2006)
As much as I love the confident, sexy southern belle Rogue from the X-
Men comics and cartoon and would have loved to have seen that
character in cinema, I thought the X-Men movies’ portrayal of her as
the scared and unsure younger protagonist was quite good as well. It
probably has a basis, as this portrayal can likely be surmised that
this is what Rogue was probably like as a younger girl.
The character is definitely likable, as we see and understand the
problems and struggles she has as a person who can’t physically touch
others. We definitely empathize with her, and her romantic
relationship with Bobby and daughter-like relationship with Wolverine
are quite well established. She doesn’t get involved with too many
action scenes, but we do see her powers used effectively at certain
points.
Like so many other characters on this list, however, she is brought
down by her appearance in X3. I didn’t really have a problem with her
accepting the mutant cure – it seemed like the natural choice based on
what we learned about her in the previous two films (although,
bizarrely, she rejects the cure in the deleted scenes and in the
novelization). Instead, I find it a bit baffling that despite all the
character development and importance she had in the first two movies,
that she is cast aside as a minor character in the third and doesn’t
get involved in the action and is only in a few scenes, having her
role more or less replaced by Shadowcat. It would have been pretty
effective storytelling to have her powers put to good use during the
final showdown after two films of buildup. As weird as that is, it’s
not like her limited scenes in X3 were bad or anything, and she was
pretty good in the first two movies.
Rogue is the end of the “Neutral but Mostly Positive” tier. Now we
have the “Good” tier. These characters I would all legitimately
consider “good.” I’ll still have criticisms for quite a few, but some
of the descriptions will have nothing but positive elements in them,
and the only reason they’re lower than other entries is because the
positive elements of the characters ahead of them were stronger.
The “Good” Tier
32. Nite Owl II/Daniel Dreiberg (Patrick Wilson, Watchmen, 2009)
Everything about this character, his role in the film, and Wilson’s
portrayal is good. I wouldn’t change anything about it. (Well, maybe
the “Hallelujah” sex scene was a bit much. Also his chemistry with
Ackerman isn’t all that fantastic, but I put 100% of the blame on
Ackerman for that one)
Still, no one came out of Watchmen and listed Nite Owl as their reason
for enjoying it. People want to talk about all the awesome eccentric
characters and all the awesome stuff that happened, they don’t care
about the out of shape guy and how he overcame erectile dysfunction.
Which is a bit of a shame – he has a very important role in making the
film better. In order for extreme, unusual characters to be effective,
we need to see them interacting with a straight man, someone who is
more or less a regular guy. Dan fulfills that role. If the movie was
just filled entirely with characters like Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan
interacting with each other, two extremes against each other, their
characters wouldn’t stand out as much and we wouldn’t have as much of
an appreciation. In order for Rorschach to be effective, we can’t just
see him interacting with a detached machine weirdo, we need to see him
interacting with a regular dude who would react the way a normal
person would to a crazy old friend breaking into his house and
silently eating cold beans. Silk Spectre also is supposed to play that
role to some degree, but Ackerman’s acting isn’t that great as I
previously mentioned. Wilson, however, does a very fine acting job,
and is very affable and we like the guy.
His character journey is pretty basic – he pines to return to being a
superhero, and pines for Laurie, and eventually gets both. Good for
him.
As I said earlier, his role in the film is important, he’s likable and
I wouldn’t really change anything about how the character was
portrayed, but in a list of greatest movie superheroes, the likeable
but mostly forgettable straight man can’t rise up too high.
31. Iceman/Bobby Drake (Shawn Ashmore,, X:Men, 2000; X2, 2003; X-Men:
The Last Stand, 2006)
I was pretty surprised at how much justice this character was done
throughout the three X-Men movies. They could have easily cast him
aside or ignored him, but he was a relatively important supporting
character in the films who is portrayed quite well.
Bobby was a pretty minor character in the first film, but got a chance
to shine in the second. He’s the only X-Men member with whom we get to
see his family, and it’s relatively effective. He reveals that he’s a
mutant to his parents in a pretty obvious analogy of a “coming out”
scene, giving his character plenty of depth. His casual scene where he
freezes the soda for Wolverine in the kitchen is a great small
character moment for the two of them. His powers are put into use and
effective and look pretty cool.
I do have one issue with him, from the third film of course. We don’t
really get a chance to see what’s going on in his mind regarding his
feelings for Kitty, and it’s pretty unclear. It seems that his
devotion to Rogue is sincere, so we aren’t sure if he’s having second
thoughts and likes Kitty romantically or if he just thinks of Kitty as
a friend and she’s misinterpreting it. For example, in the scene where
he freezes the fountain for her and they frolic for a bit, is he just
doing that strictly platonically to cheer her up or is he stifling
romantic interest? If it’s the former, that’s pretty dumb on his part,
as it could pretty obviously be misinterpreted as romantic interest.
If it’s the latter, we don’t see a look on his face indicating
anything like that, and he’s an idiot for doing it in a place Rogue
can see, and they could have pulled it off much more effectively.
We’re never really given his side of the story, a telling close up
where we see a conflicted look on his face could have done wonders.
There’s a deleted scene where he kisses Kitty that was cut, so we’re
sort of left in the dark.
Other than that, he’s a character that comes out pretty clean in the
third film. He gets an arc where he proves himself to the older
members and proves effective in battle, and his long building rivalry
with Pyro comes to a satisfying head as we see him overcome his foe by
unleashing his full body ice form in a pretty cool moment.
30. Hawkeye/Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner, Thor, 2011; The Avengers,
2012)
Like Nite Owl, I don’t think I would change anything about this
character, how he’s portrayed, and his role in the film, and
everything about it is good.
Still, he’s too minor and doesn’t have enough development to be any
higher. In the group of six Avengers, he’s the bottom of the totem
pole in terms of screen time and development, and it’s not close. He
spends the majority of the movie brainwashed and out of commission,
and doesn’t get much of a chance to interact with anyone other than
Black Widow, so we don’t really get a sense of what makes him tick,
and he doesn’t have a personal story arc or much character development
or growth. Which is totally fine and justified from a film perspective
and isn’t a flaw of the film at all, it just means his character
ranking is a bit stunted.
Still, what we do see is quite good. He does get a short humanizing
moment when he’s talking to Black Widow, even if it’s more about her
feelings. And his skills are displayed in cool and clever ways in the
final battle, and he gets some moments to shine.
29. Beast/Hank McCoy (Nicholas Hoult, X-Men First Class, 2011)
A good portrayal that gets a chance to shine in a good movie. A young
Hank McCoy is mostly a character that we haven’t really seen, he
starts out young in the 60’s comics but for the most part he’s
portrayed as older and wiser than his comrades. Hoult does a good job
showing us Hank’s struggles with his appearance, and he sells his
pathos about it quite well. His chemistry with Mystique is also pretty
good, so we feel bad for him when she goes to sleep with Erik. His
intelligence is displayed, and he’s given a lot of development and
justice.
A few issues. Most prominent of which...when he finally turns into his
furry blue form, it looks really bad and cheesy. I'm not really sure
how this happened, as the Kelsey Grammar Beast looks quite natural and
visually impressive, but for some reason this one looks quite cheesy
and unimpressive. This was arguably the most important moment for the
character, the one that was slowly being culminated throughout the
entire movie, and when we finally realize it onscreen, the character
looks like a hastily put together muppet. It looks really bad and
cheesy, and detracts from the character to a a large degree. The
responses to Hank's change in appearance, in and of themselves, were
great - especially Magneto's line about "You've never looked better."
This line would have had a great deal more resonance if the effects
made it so that he he actually did look effective and not pretty
stupid, however, so that takes the character himself down to a pretty
large degree.
One other small issue with the character: I know he was eager to
change his feet to be normal, but shouldn’t he have had at least
enough self control to wait to take this unproven serum which might
affect his powers AFTER the team has dealt with Shaw threatening to
start World War 3? He takes it the night beforehand!
28. The Silver Surfer/Norrin Radd (Doug Jones, voiced by Laurence
Fishburne, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, 2007)
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer isn’t a good movie (it’s not
terrible), but that has little to do with the Silver Surfer himself,
who is handled quite well for the most part.
His personality, origin, and powers are spot on. This is the Silver
Surfer of the comics brought to the big screen, and it’s pretty cool.
When we see him rampaging and doing his thing on Earth, it’s
relatively impressive and looks pretty awesome. We also get to see his
personal side as he explains his origin, and it’s effective, and his
arc as he learns to respect the humans is relatively well done (on his
end, at least, the parts that rely on Jessica Alba’s acting ability
not so much) . Fisburne’s voice works here, and Doug Jones proves once
again that he’s a master of motion capture. Jones’ lanky frame was
perfect in bringing the Surfer to life.
The movie overall is kind of dumb, not really the Surfer’s fault,
although he is involved in a pretty dumb moment at the end. After Doom
is defeated and the Surfer’s powers restored, the Surfer defeats
Galactus by flying straight into him and doing…something. I’m not sure
how, exactly flying straight into Galactus caused Galactus to be
destroyed, or put into a cosmic rift or whatever it was. First off, he
gets his powers FROM Galactus, so this really doesn’t make too much
sense, Galactus is much more powerful than him. And if he had a move
like that in his arsenal that could destroy or incapacitate Galactus,
why didn’t he try that ages ago? Why did he let all those other alien
worlds be destroyed first if he had a technique that would destroy or
hinder Galactus the whole time? The film already had its big action
scene where they took down Doom, it might have been better to end the
threat of Galactus by having the Surfer convince him to spare Earth,
like in the comics.
So despite that dumb moment, the Silver Surfer is a cool comic book
character and there aren’t many complaints to be had in the way he was
pretty faithfully portrayed on screen.
27. Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson, Iron Man, 2008; Iron Man 2, 2010;
Thor, 2011; Captain America: The First Avenger, 2011; The Avengers,
2012)
I wasn’t sure whether to include this character or not, unsure of
whether to classify him as a hero himself or if he was more in the
Commissioner Gordon-esque “supporting character who works with the
heroes” role. Ultimately, however, the fact that Nick Fury in the
comics had a bunch of his own series and is usually ranked in “Top
Comic Book Hero” lists, so I’ll include him here (but not Coulson or
Robin Sparkles).
Appearing in five films total, this character is in the most total
movies out of any character on the list. Obviously, however, he only
has a brief cameo in three of them, serving as the bridge between
these movies and making it clear they’re in the same universe.
Therefore most of the analysis has to come from Iron Man 2 and the
Avengers, where he played large roles.
Because of the fact that the Ultimate universe version of Nick Fury
was directly inspired by Samuel L. Jackson, fans were thrilled when
Jackson himself signed on for the role, and we were happy when he
popped up at the end of Iron Man.
That being said, in Iron Man 2, I was a little cold about him in his
extended role. He kind of acts like a disapproving jerk to Tony the
whole time, and I couldn’t help be reminded a bit of Mace Windu. His
subplot of evaluating whether Tony would work in a team setting seemed
a little out of place and too much of a call-forward to the Avengers
movie, distracting the audience from what was happening in this one. I
also didn’t like how his favoritism of Black Widow and the fact that
he considers her a superior hero to Iron Man helped set up her Mary
Sue-ness in the film. It wasn’t horrible or anything, and Jackson does
a good job acting, he just left me a little cold for those reasons.
The Avengers, however, is his real chance to shine, and he does it
well. As the person in command of the group, Jackson comes off like
the badass we know Jackson can be, and the character is done a good
deal of justice. I especially like the moment where it was revealed
that Coulson wasn’t actually carrying his Captain America cards when
he was killed, and Fury took them out of his locker and covered them
in blood to help motivate the team. A nice little character moment for
him that shows the audience Fury isn’t above somewhat tasteless
machination to help get the job done.
If he was only in Iron Man 2 and the Avengers and didn’t have the
three cameos on top of that, the character would probably be lower.
But it was really cool and somewhat revolutionary seeing the character
used to bridge the gap between all the movies and really helped give
the movies a distinct feeling and amped up the hype for the Avengers
movie (which then delivered). So really, Nick Fury was the reason the
Avengers could happen, not only as a character within the universe of
the film; but as a film element, the reason for the movie to happen.
And you have the awesome element of a character inspired by Samuel L.
Jackson, who then is played by Samuel L. Jackson, and well. That being
said, there are only two movies where he actually makes meaningful
appearances and can actually be considered a character (rather than a
cameo), and in one of those two, he isn’t horrible but detracts from
the film overall, so he can’t rank higher than this.
26. The Punisher/Frank Castle (Thomas Jane, The Punisher, 2004)
This film works quite well as a throwback to the 70s and 80s action
revenge movies. It starts off a little slow and uneven – a few plot
holes and things that make no sense. The action is pretty good,
especially the scene with the Russian, and it ends up being a pretty
good film in the end. Very few of the flaws of the film come from the
character himself or Jane’s portrayal, which were very good.
First of all, it was a little strange that they decided to change it
so that, instead of just his wife and son being killed, it’s his
entire extended family. Over 20 relatives who have gathered at a
family reunion. That seemed a little bit like overkill – surely having
his wife and son die would be enough motivation? Why do Aunt Martha
and Cousin Jimmy have to bite it as well? I guess having his parents
killed on top of that could be okay, but why did we need to add to
that the death of several extras that were never introduced to us who
were related to him in some way that we don’t even know about. He
emotionally reacts when seeing his wife and kid die, he doesn’t even
get too broken up about the random relatives, so I’m not really sure
what the point was of upping the ante to this degree, the scene seemed
a bit ridiculous.
I did like the character and Jane’s portrayal quite a bit. We get some
decent establishing time with his wife and son beforehand, and Jane is
likable, and gets some badass scenes. There are some weird moments and
plot holes, though. Some of them are solved with the director’s cut
(most notably being why he outs himself to the media when people think
he’s dead if he’s about to engage in a revenge mission – in the
director’s cut its part of his plot to find out who betrayed him, in
the theatrical movie it just seems baffling) but like I said with
Daredevil I’m judging based on what was shown in theaters. That being
said I don’t think the character would have moved up much because of
the director’s cut, unlike Daredevil who probably would have raised up
a decent amount.
Thomas Jane does a good job showing that there’s a little bit of the
Punisher’s trademark deranged-ness and extremity in his actions.
Script wise, there isn’t quite as much of a trace of the extremes that
make the Punisher the Punisher in this one. A lot of the comic
Punisher’s appeal is the fact that you can see that he’s unhinged and
extreme – other heroes are wary of him, and a good deal of them think
that the Punisher should be locked up. The reader is supposed to be
somewhat conflicted and on the line (in a good way) about whether the
Punisher’s war on crime is worthy of praise or if it’s far too brutal
and extreme and is going too far. There’s real grey in his actions,
and that’s part of his appeal.
Plot and script wise, Thomas Jane’s Punisher is less of that and more
of a protagonist in a standard 70s or 80s revenge flick. Every single
character he kills in this movie, he is 100% justified in doing so.
Almost every single person he kills for the most part is a mobster
that works for the guy who killed his family, and most all of them
were actively seeking him out to kill Castle first. There is no
extreme renegade tone, no real grey in his actions – the audience is
not conflicted about him, we’re on his side beyond any shadow of a
doubt (especially as he also has several moments of altruism). He
definitely uses some quite brutal methods, but everyone he uses them
on completely deserves it and then some – it’s not like in the comics
where he uses brutal methods against people who commit somewhat lesser
crimes like drug dealers and money launderers (that aren’t trying to
kill him first, and had no part in killing his family) who probably
deserve to be sentenced to prison instead, leaving you a bit
conflicted about him. The only things that comes close is his initial
torture of Eddie Jemison’s character (as the character, despite being
a weasel, is obviously pretty helpless, and eventually comes to help
him later) and his killing of the former partner who betrayed him, but
he’s justified in both those actions when they happen.
That isn’t a flaw of the film at all, I’m just making an observation.
It makes perfect sense – this is an origin story, a revenge and
survival tale. He doesn’t come into accepting the role of the Punisher
and figure out what he wants to go out and do in the world until the
very end.
Thomas Jane’s portrayal is what really sells it, though, and we can
see plenty of traces of what makes the Punisher the Punisher in his
words and actions. The way he seems to get pleasure out of some of the
torture and methods he used were sold quite well. I especially liked
how he killed Saint’s son by making him hold up an 8-pound trigger
bomb with an outstretched hand when he was stuck.
A lot of the reviews for the film said that the film and the character
himself were too grim, dark, and humorless. Umm, his ENTIRE family was
just killed, I think I can cut him a break for not making wisecracks
the entire time. Besides, the film does have some humor, as there are
two comic relief neighbors, and the fight with the Russian has several
humorous tongue-in-cheek moments in it.
So despite some weird plot holes (why can’t Howard Saint track him
down if Castle has publically revealed himself on TV and isn’t hiding
at all?) and the film overall is pretty good but not fantastic, Jane
did a good job onscreen and made me feel like I was watching the
Punisher in the flesh.
http://www.toonzone.net/forums/entertainment-board/300509-depth-ranking-every-marvel-dc-movie-superhero.html#post4075381
25. The Thing/Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis, Fantastic Four, 2005;
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, 2007)
Ah, the Thing. Another character who’s ranking I had to grapple with
because attributes of the character achieved both high valleys and low
peaks. Let me break those down for you.
The Highs: Michael Chiklis’s performance as The Thing
The Lows: Everything surrounding it
Okay, that’s not entirely fair. As I said in their respective entries,
I thought Johnny was okay and Silver Surfer was pretty good.
Since this is a superhero character ranking and not a superhero movie
ranking, you would think my breaking it down like that would mean that
he should be higher. Still, I can’t help but penalize a character for
embarrassing themselves by being actively involved in the wackiness
and stupidity of the films and their plots.
That being said, Chiklis does a great job. He campaigned hard for the
role, and also campaigned for the character to be portrayed through
the use of suits and prosthetics as opposed to CGI. It works out quite
well – we get used to the character and accept him very quickly, and
it looks pretty good.
Chiklis does a good job in the second movie, but it’s the first one
(although that film was overall weaker) that he really shines.
In fact, the performance was so good, that if the movie had chosen a
different villain (I’m not even going to entertain the notion of “If
the movie had portrayed Dr. Doom with justice” – that’s just asking
too much from these people) I might have actually considered it an
“overall, pretty good” film, largely based on the strength of this
portrayal. (in fact, the people I saw it with who weren’t comic fans
and weren’t familiar with Doom in the comics and therefore unaware of
how much he was bastardized all thought that it was a pretty good
movie, mostly due to Thing.)
Chiklis takes us through the emotions he feels at his transformation
in a very natural and sympathetic way - we really like the guy and
feel for him. The other three got nothing but positive abilities in
the accident, but he got disfigured into a monster, and Chiklis sells
that rage and pathos, and the tragedy of the character.
The scenes where Ben isn’t interacting with the other members of the
Four and he’s contemplating his changes are great, and we feel like
they were copy/pasted from another much better film into this one.
And then we cut from those great scenes into “OMG I can’t believe I’m
somehow naked in public AGAIN, tee hee!” and “Rawr, I’m an evil
businessman with electrical powers who has nothing to do with Victor
von Doom” and feel sad.
His debate over whether to keep his inhuman form and whether to change
back is also given a satisfying ending within the first film. Although
we see all of his struggles, and his exhilaration at being changed
back into human form by Doom, we are given the ability to appreciate
the sacrifice Ben makes at being transformed back into The Thing at
the end of the first movie in order to come in and save his friend.
This however, is not accomplished without a massive plot hole. In
order to change Ben back to human form, it is established that Doom
uses Reed’s invention to reverse the effect of the galactic wave by
giving it enough electricity to power it from within his newly
acquired electrical powers. It has been established that Reed could
not power it himself because he did not have enough of an electrical
source. However, when Ben decides to change himself back into the
Thing to rescue Reed, we are not given any description of how he was
able to accomplish that. He just does it, despite the fact that in
order to accomplish this feat he would have to be privy to an extreme
electrical source (which he was not, at the time) and would also have
to be able to operate the complex scientific machinery, which he would
presumably not be able to do as he was inside it at the time. Ben is
changed back into The Thing without any explanation at all for how it
could be possible. Still, despite this plot hole, this moment is given
appropriate weight, and we feel the burden of this decision had been
earned.
As Gruffudd, Alba, and McMahon are quite subpar, Ben’s interactions
with Johnny are probably the strongest interaction in the films from a
character perspective. There are a few genuinely funny moments between
the two of them, and the interaction between the two is definitely a
highlight of both of the films. A pretty good capturing of the playful
relationship between the two in the comics.
In the second film he isn’t done quite as much justice and doesn’t
have as much to do, but Chiklis’s portrayal is still good. One one
note, I took a little bit of issue with the whole wacky “swapping
powers around because of the Surfer’s board” comedy routine nonsense.
To start it off, Johnny touches Ben and they swap powers, so now
Johnny is a rock monster and Ben looks normal and can control fire.
This is played completely comedic. Now, even though Ben went through a
process of accepting his altered state in the first movie, Ben should
at least show SOME regret or genuine emotion at the fact that he can
finally see and feel himself as a human with human flesh for the first
time in at least a year. Instead it’s “Derp derp, hey look Johnny
you’re the rock monster now LOL hey check it out I can control fire
this is kinda cool” and then leads to a series of wacky hijinks (which
of course ends up with Sue being naked.) That’s pretty weak.
Still, this is an overall good to very good portrayal of a classic
comics character, despite the fact that it’s an island in a sea of
suck and the character can’t be completely exonerated for appearing in
most of the ridiculous moments required by the plot. He’s the second
highest rated character who only appears in films that are overall
negative without actually appearing in one overall positively rated
movie.
And the first, is the first member of the “Great” tier. This is where
stuff starts to get really good.
The Great Tier
First, a note about this tier. I had a very hard time balancing out
the positive attributes of the five remaining supporting characters
(who in some cases are perfect, but don’t get nearly as much screen
time and don’t have to carry the film) and the major characters
(characters who are in the top three in terms of screen time and
importance for their movies, who may actually have more flaws than the
supporting characters, but shoulder the burden of carrying the film).
Eventually, I came to the realization that the positive attributes of
the lowest-rank top 25 “major” character probably overall relayed more
positives than the highest ranked supporting one. Therefore, the next
five characters to be listed are basically a list of the “top five
best supporting characters,” and after number 20 it’s all major
characters from that point forward.
The Great Tier
i. Supporting Characters
24. Beast/Hank McCoy (Frasier Crane, X-Men: The Last Stand, 2006)
I’ve written a lot about X3 and the problems therein in previous
entries. X3’s Beast is not one of them, and is in fact the highlight
of the film, by far.
When the casting of Kelsey Grammer was announced, a lot of fans were
excited, thinking that his demeanor perfectly matched the Hank McCoy
of the comics and TV show. And when the character appeared onscreen,
we could tell our excitement was justified. Grammer nails the role,
creating a Beast that is perfectly erudite, sophistical, and
whimsical. He nails the Beast of the comics and cartoon to a T. He
even gets a “Oh my stars and garters,” in there, which is a bit cheesy
but I was happy they put it in.
It’s also worth noting how visually impressive they were able to make
him. He’s a big furry blue guy, but he looks natural and doesn’t look
silly, which makes it all the more perplexing why First Class couldn’t
recreate it to any degree and made him look quite bad.
Beast’s best moment was when he visited the lab where they kept Leech,
and we see his hand turn into a human hand as he nears Leech’s
proximity. Grammer’s face tells you everything you need to know about
his regret and thoughts, how it would be great to be human again, but
he knows for the greater good that it can’t happen after everything
he’s done as a mutant rights activist.
I mentioned in my Storm review that the lack of chemistry or any
definable relationship between Storm and Logan was a major flaw that
played a big role in causing the movie to fall flat. It’s a good thing
that for most of the later acts that Beast is also along for the ride
with these two. His chemistry with Wolverine is great. These are two
men who have a very specific thing in common – their powers are both
animalistic in nature, and cause both of them to have a feral side
that they sometimes exhibit and sometimes try to suppress. Hence the
exchange “Wolverine. I hear you’re quite an animal” followed by “Look
who’s talkin’.” But other than that, their personalities couldn’t be
more different. Logan is the blue collar middle class working man who
speaks in a pedantic and straight forward manner, likes to relax by
having a beer at a dive bar. By contrast, Beast behaves like a proper,
sophisticated aristocrat with refined tastes, who speaks formally and
relaxes by reading literary classics. The dynamic between the two and
how they interact reflects this, as they tease each other and joke
while at the same time developing a strong mutual respect.
I have a lot of problems with this movie, which I’ve written about at
length, but I can’t think of any issues specifically related to Beast.
He’s higher than the Thing even though we don’t get as much of him
because, unlike the Thing, Beast doesn’t embarrass himself by
appearing in ridiculous moments (although there is a deleted scene
where he awkwardly recites Shakespeare before they go off into battle
– if that had made the final film this ranking probably would have
been lower). Also, if you aren’t a comics fan X3 is a poorly paced and
flawed movie but not one that is embarrassing to watch at times like
the Fantastic Four movies are.
So I don’t really have any specific complaints, this character being
done so much justice was the best thing about the film, and the only
reason he’s not higher is that he doesn’t really have much of an arc
or character development, and the positives I experienced from
watching a well-pulled off Hank McCoy in a supporting role in an
otherwise bad movie weren’t as high as the positives of the characters
in front of him.
(spoilers for The Dark Knight Rises will follow...I felt obliged to
mention that as this is the most recent film on the list)
23. Catwoman/Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway, The Dark Knight Rises, 2012)
A bit of a housekeeping note first: In the comics Catwoman has both
been a hero (albeit maybe an anti-hero) and a villain and has filled
both roles at various points. The Hathaway and (shudder) Halle Berry
versions portray her as a hero so I’ve ranked those two, while the
1966 Batman and Batman Returns versions had her in the role of
villain, so those two are excluded.
I remember that people were slightly apprehensive when they heard that
Hathaway was cast as Selina Kyle in the third movie. A lot of people
weren’t sure that she was right for the part, if she was a good fit
for the Nolan universe, and why/how the character would even have a
role in the movie. The first shots we got of her in costume from the
set seemed a bit underwhelming as well.
The Dark Knight Rises turned out to be a flawed film that was more or
less disappointing overall. Not a bad film by any means, but certainly
flawed and a let down from the highs of Dark Knight. Hathaway’s Selina
Kyle, however, was most certainly not a reason for that at all, and
was called by many as the highlight of the film.
Her introduction tells you everything you need to know. The hobbled
Bruce catches her thieving while posing as a maid, and then we see her
drop the shy maid façade and smile with a well-delivered and insincere
“Oops!” She then proceeds to incapacitate Bruce and make off with what
she’s stolen. We see what we need to know about her, we see her
chemistry with Bruce, her abilities and personality. And throughout
the rest of the film, those are on display wonderfully. Our initial
fears were put to rest as the movie continued. Hathaway’s performance
was great, displaying all the confidence, ability and sexiness we
associate with the character. She makes a great foil to Batman, and
provides good comic relief and levity to the film without becoming a
joke as a character herself.
Some people complain that her being the one to finish off Bane was
cheap – but what would you have preferred? Bane HAD to die...and
having Batman kill him would raise a whole bag of worms that the movie
didn’t have time to get into. Would you have preferred to Bane to fall
off a cliff or some other death of his own doing, like a cheesy Disney
villain?
Also, I know there were a lot of complaints about her role the ending,
and I do understand them. Bruce runs away to live a normal suburban
life in Italy – with Selina Kyle? The woman who is also a criminal,
who he’s fought with and is hard to predict? Is this really the type
of girl to settle down to a normal life in the Italian suburbs and
have kids with and whatnot? My brain raised this issue in my head and
I understood how it could be kind of dumb, might not work out, and be
somewhat nonsensical.
But, damnit, I loved the hell out of it. People complained that about
the fact that we saw Bruce (and Selina) in the café after the shot of
Alfred, how it ruined the scene and we should have ended it with
Alfred smiling without being shown what he saw. But I wouldn’t have
changed it for anything. – if we didn’t see it, we wouldn’t have known
for sure that the woman he was with was Selina. I won’t get too much
into detail about the ending since most of that will be saved for the
Bale Batman entry, but I will say that after decades of seeing
versions of the Bruce/Selina romance develop and ultimately not lead
anywhere because of various circumstances, we finally got a version
where the two of them got to ride off into the sunset together, and I
found that incredibly cathartic and rewarding and loved the hell out
of the fact that I got to see it.
I do have some complaints and concerns about this movie (although by
no means is it a bad movie, just a disappointing one given previously
set high standards) but Catwoman was portrayed fantastically and was
not one of them.
22. The Comedian/Edward Blake (Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Watchmen, 2009)
Another housekeeping note: I included the Comedian on this list and
not Ozymandius because I think Ozymandius (regardless of what you
think about his motives and whether his actions were justified)
despite initially being a superhero, plays the role of the “villain”
in the book and movie, so I classify him as a villain and would have
put him in my super villain rankings had I made them after Watchmen
came out. The Comedian, despite being a scum of the earth human being
who does villainous things, is always still considered to be a
“superhero” throughout his life – he does fight crime, and is on the
same side as the protagonists and doesn’t fight against them. Oh,
sure, you could argue whether anyone in the book/film is a hero, but
within the context of the film taken as a superhero movie, Adrian is
the villain, and Blake (despite probably being the most reprehensible
human being in the entire piece) is not.
In any case, nothing but praise for this character and portrayal. I
could sit here and wax poetic about the Comedian as a character, his
“Life is a joke” view on life, and his importance to the film…but if I
analyze him too much as a character, all I’m really doing is analyzing
his character from the comic book, because really, it’s the exact
same. Essays have been written about the philosophies and characters
of the Watchmen comic, so I’m not going to get too much into that
here. What I’m here to analyze is how the 2009 film adapted the
character from the comics onto the silver screen.
And the answer is…pretty much perfectly. To start with, Morgan himself
was a fantastic choice – he is the spitting image of the comics
character, and his sneer demeanor perfectly encapsulates the selfish,
nihilistic ******* who has a detached view of the world.
The Vietnam scene was a great capture of all of this. He shoots an
innocent woman who is pregnant with his child, and then turns to Dr.
Manhattan and chastises HIM for not stopping it…never mind the fact
that Blake was the one who pulled the trigger. Morgan sells this
completely.
The Comedian, in the film, comes off as a quite memorable and great
character despite a low amount of screentime. There isn’t enough time
to do him as much justice as in the comic series, of course, but what
we do see matches up perfectly with what we already know about the
character.
So, really, I enjoyed the hell out of this character and wouldn’t
change a thing about the way he was portrayed in the movie. However, a
character who was in only four or five scenes total and isn’t involved
in the active storyline can’t be ranked too high. In addition, people
who walked away from Watchmen probably thought that The Comedian was a
highlight of the film, but not one of the two main highlights of the
film. (Those two main highlights of Watchmen are the two most
important characters, and I’m sure you know who they are, and they
will obviously appear later). So he’s lower than the next two entries
on the list, who were both by and large considered the highlights of
their respective films, even in supporting roles.
21. Nightcrawler/Kurt Wagner (Alan Cumming, X-Men 2: X-Men United,
2003)
X2 is one of the best comic book superhero movies, and Nightcrawler
and his teleporting effects are generally considered the highlight of
the film.
We see this character in action right off the bat as the hypnotized
Nightcrawler invades the White House and uses his teleporting power to
take down several secret servicemen in order to get to the President –
and it’s one of the best action scenes in the history of superhero
movies. I would venture to say it’s probably the best action scene in
the history of superhero movies that occurs early on in the film and
not towards the end. The ways that he uses his teleporting power in
creative ways to remain untouched as he goes through them and takes
the men down is exhilarating.
The teleporting effects were so great and such a hit with the audience
that two subsequent films made sure to replicating them despite the
Nightcrawler character not being present. Using Wraith in X-Men
Origins Wolverine made sense as Wraith was involved in Wolverine’s
past, but having the character of Azazel (Nightcrawler’s father) in
First Class was completely and blatantly shoe-horned in because they
wanted to show off the teleporting abilities again. Azazel is an extra-
dimensional being with lots of powers far beyond teleporting who was
considered Satan himself for a long time, so having him be some
Russian henchman for Shaw was a very blatant way of the producers
telling the audience “Hey, you guys liked the teleporting, right? Here
it is again!” Blatant as it was, we were totally fine with it.
Which is a testament to how well Nightcrawler’s abilities are used at
the beginning of this movie. They are used to some degree later on a
smaller scale, but not nearly as much. It would have been pretty cool
to see Nightcrawler used them in a more all-out manner in the final
battle to take people down.
But enough about his powers, what about Nightcrawler as a character?
Well, he isn’t given all that much to do throughout most of the film
besides provide them with the location of the base and a couple uses
of his teleporting to save people and then get Storm into Dark
Cerebro. The X-Men find him and then take him along for the ride,
pretty much. There’s a pretty funny ongoing joke about how he keeps
trying to explain his name and moniker but keeps getting cut off. But
he still gets plenty of screen time and slow moments, and we’re able
to see that the character himself is excellently adapted.
His defining trait is his faith, as a devout Catholic, symbolized
visually by the markings he has put on his skin for every sin he has
committed. His speech about how he pities humans because of their
ignorance and how faith is needed to survive is definitely his best
non-action scene, giving us really good insight into the depth of the
character and why he acts the way he does. It’s especially impressive
since he’s interacting with Storm in those scenes and not an actual
character. He also gets a little bit of a character arc, as he
adamantly refuses to teleport anywhere if he can’t see where he’s
going at first, but then after Storm echoes “faith” to him, he does
what’s needed.
All in all it’s really a huge shame that Cumming couldn’t stand the
makeup and they weren’t able to get him back for X3. X3 didn’t even
explain his absence, they put the explanation for his absence in a tie-
in video game. It was bizarre that they never mentioned it in the
film, as the reason given in the video game (after going on a few
missions he realized that a life of violence wasn’t for him) actually
makes a lot of sense, and I think the fans deserved to know why their
favorite character from the last film is missing.
Overall, Nightcrawler is the highlight of a great film, as a character
with awesome powers who was also done quite well from a character/
personality standpoint. He’s the runner up in the contest of “best
superhero in a supporting role” for this list. And number one is…
20. The Hulk/Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo, The Avengers, 2012)
Pretty much everything about this portrayal is great, and is the
source for a lot of the fun in the movie, and everyone considers it a
highlight of the film.
First off, visually, he’s quite impressive. The decision to make the
Hulk actually look like Ruffalo was a great decision by Whedon, and
helps sell it a lot.
I’m sure you remember all the awesome scenes the Hulk had. The fight
with Thor, going around and beating up all the space aliens with glee,
the scene where Loki is talking about how great he is and then the
Hulk just grabs him and throws him around like a ragdoll in a superb
comedic moment that had the audience laughing and cheering so much
that no one even heard him say “puny God” afterwards. My favorite
moment, though, is when he teams up with Thor to beat up a bunch of
aliens, the two of them stand together for a moment to admire their
work – and then Hulk turns and punches Thor to the other side of the
room. Just a small humorous moment to let him know there’s still a bit
of resentment from their fight earlier.
In addition, Ruffalo does a great job playing Bruce Banner in civilian
form. He’s a Banner who has, to some degree, accepted his lot in life
and is a bit more relaxed and less brooding. You can’t help get the
sense that he’s having a lot of fun interacting with everybody, we
don’t see him ruminating about his condition. He’s hanging out on a
spaceship having fun. His relationship to the other characters is
pulled off quite well also – he and Tony are both scientists, so we
see them bond and become buddies, and he gets some jabs in towards the
others. The other characters besides Tony are cautious around him
because they know what he’s capable of, and he actually has some fun
with it, taking advantage of the fact that he’s a quiet scientist but
all these powerful beings are constantly walking on eggshells around
him.
Throughout the film, Banner brushes off the others’ concerns of a
“Hulk out,” saying he’s in control. In the end, his reasoning for this
(“I’m always angry”) is well earned and very clever and a great
interpretation of the character.
So people rightfully called him the highlight of the film. A lot of
people also said that it’s the best overall portrayal of the character
so far, that Whedon is finally the one to get the Hulk “right.” And
some even said “Wow, I can’t believe he finally pulled off the Hulk,
and it was an even tougher, it was in an ensemble film!”
I can understand why people called it the best portrayal, but NOT the
point of “I can’t believe the Hulk was finally done right in an
ensemble film, which makes it even tougher.” No, no, no. The fact that
he’s in an ensemble film makes pulling off a satisfying Hulk much,
much easier.
In this film, Hulk is the “fun uncle.” He’s like a guy who comes by
occasionally with presents to visit his nephew/niece, and the kid
loves him because whenever the fun uncle comes by it always means
presents and fun and never any discipline or other elements of
parenting. Whether or not the “fun uncle” can support children of his
own is up in the air – it’s certainly possible, but his role as the
fun guy who comes around every once in awhile in his nephew/niece’s
life is not necessarily indicative of it.
Similarly, the Hulk in this movie gets to do fun Hulk things and we
don’t have to worry about too much character development, and he
doesn’t have the burden of carrying the entire film. Whedon can pick
and choose his spots when to use Hulk to make it the most satisfying.
The Avengers had the built-in advantage of “Oh boy, I can’t wait for
the Hulk to show up and smash stuff!” – if the entire film is based on
Hulk and the film is filled with the Hulk showing up and smashing
stuff from the early points of the film onward, it’s much, much more
difficult to pull off a moment as satisfying and hilarious as the Loki
smash. Now that isn’t to say that Ruffalo’s Hulk couldn’t be involved
in a great solo film, it’s just not necessarily indicative of it. (and
based on the fact that Norton is higher, I’m sure you can tell that I
think Marvel Studios is perfectly capable of making a great Hulk
film).
Now that being said, this is not in ANY way a flaw in the film and I
basically wouldn’t change anything about the way the character in the
film (except some elements of the Widow chase scene, it had some
unfortunate undertones). The Hulk is used almost perfectly, and gets a
fantastic response from the audience. But I do feel that there may be
a reaction of “Hey, this character made everyone in the theater stand
up and cheer, the characters you’ve put ahead of him never did
that!” (Norton in particular) and believe me, I struggled with that as
well. But at some point there needs to be a distinction between great
supporting characters, who are much easier to get right and don’t have
to do as much, and great main characters, who have the burden of
carrying the film.
Ultimately, after analyzing it a lot, I made this the distinction and
cut off mark, and Ruffalo’s Hulk gets the honor of “best superhero in
a supporting role in a Marvel/DC movie.” Nothing but major characters
from this point forward.
http://www.toonzone.net/forums/entertainment-board/300509-depth-ranking-every-marvel-dc-movie-superhero.html#post4075380
Decent, overall positive tier (continued)
34. Superman/Clark Kent (Brandon Routh, Superman Returns, 2006)
Another entry that I had all over the map at certain points.
There were some characters on this list, like Jean Grey for example,
who are part of both good and bad movies, and I had a hard time
debating the excellent high points in the good movies and the horrible
low points in the bad ones.
Brandon Routh’s Superman is similar in that I am having a hard time
finding a settling spot for him as I have to consider some attributes
that reach very high peaks, and attributes that reach some low
valleys. Only difference is, the attributes of Routh’s Superman reach
these extremes within the span of one single movie.
The highs: I mean, my god, look at him, he’s Christopher Reeve’s
Superman reincarnated. He fills out the suit extremely well and looks
natural. He has a commanding presence and you really feel like you’re
watching Superman when you see him. But perhaps just as importantly,
he also (albeit all too briefly) does a fantastic job as Reeve’s
bumbling, charming Clark Kent. He doesn’t get much to work with, but I
think Routh kills it. I totally understand why people wanted him to
return for Man of Steel, even though it would have been confusing to
have the same actor play the same character in different continuities.
Some of the action scenes are great, especially the one with the
plane, and give you an exhilarating sense of watching Superman in
action.
The lows: He is the deadbeat dad of a bastard child. The movie itself
and its plot aren’t very good. His chemistry with Lois is low, even
though I think that’s largely Bosworth’s fault. He is the deadbeat dad
of a bastard child. He doesn’t get all that much depth or character
development, and it seems like he’s used more of a Christ analogy than
an actual character, and doesn’t even seem to have all that much
dialogue. The movie is more or less devoid of any sense of fun or
adventure. How in the hell did people not think anything of it when
Superman and Clark Kent both return from a 5-year hiatus on the exact
same day? He is the deadbeat dad of a bastard child.
OK sorry to keep harping on that child point. I know that he wasn’t
aware that he impregnated Lois, but still, he obviously didn’t use
protection or anything so one would think he might check up on her or
at least wait before departing on his oh-so-important space mission.
Also, I’m going to bring up a point that Kevin Smith made in his stand
up routine where he talked about the movie, in the fact that Superman
apparently erased Lois’s memories of having sex with him, so when she
realizes that her son has Superman’s powers she is going to think that
Superman raped her at some point. Also, Bosworth was 22 when the movie
was made, and he apparently had sex with her five years ago…yeah.
All in all, I think Routh himself did a great job and there were
moments that elicited exuberance. So much so that I can’t help think
back on the character as overall positive. However, I cannot ignore
all of the negative points, especially the fact that the paragon of
Truth, Justice, and the American way is a deadbeat dad of a bastard
child, so I have him here as a member of the “Neutral but Mostly
Positive” tier and can’t quite move him up into the “Good” tier.
33. Rogue/Marie D'Ancanto (Sookie Stackhouse, X:Men, 2000; X2, 2003; X-
Men: The Last Stand, 2006)
As much as I love the confident, sexy southern belle Rogue from the X-
Men comics and cartoon and would have loved to have seen that
character in cinema, I thought the X-Men movies’ portrayal of her as
the scared and unsure younger protagonist was quite good as well. It
probably has a basis, as this portrayal can likely be surmised that
this is what Rogue was probably like as a younger girl.
The character is definitely likable, as we see and understand the
problems and struggles she has as a person who can’t physically touch
others. We definitely empathize with her, and her romantic
relationship with Bobby and daughter-like relationship with Wolverine
are quite well established. She doesn’t get involved with too many
action scenes, but we do see her powers used effectively at certain
points.
Like so many other characters on this list, however, she is brought
down by her appearance in X3. I didn’t really have a problem with her
accepting the mutant cure – it seemed like the natural choice based on
what we learned about her in the previous two films (although,
bizarrely, she rejects the cure in the deleted scenes and in the
novelization). Instead, I find it a bit baffling that despite all the
character development and importance she had in the first two movies,
that she is cast aside as a minor character in the third and doesn’t
get involved in the action and is only in a few scenes, having her
role more or less replaced by Shadowcat. It would have been pretty
effective storytelling to have her powers put to good use during the
final showdown after two films of buildup. As weird as that is, it’s
not like her limited scenes in X3 were bad or anything, and she was
pretty good in the first two movies.
Rogue is the end of the “Neutral but Mostly Positive” tier. Now we
have the “Good” tier. These characters I would all legitimately
consider “good.” I’ll still have criticisms for quite a few, but some
of the descriptions will have nothing but positive elements in them,
and the only reason they’re lower than other entries is because the
positive elements of the characters ahead of them were stronger.
The “Good” Tier
32. Nite Owl II/Daniel Dreiberg (Patrick Wilson, Watchmen, 2009)
Everything about this character, his role in the film, and Wilson’s
portrayal is good. I wouldn’t change anything about it. (Well, maybe
the “Hallelujah” sex scene was a bit much. Also his chemistry with
Ackerman isn’t all that fantastic, but I put 100% of the blame on
Ackerman for that one)
Still, no one came out of Watchmen and listed Nite Owl as their reason
for enjoying it. People want to talk about all the awesome eccentric
characters and all the awesome stuff that happened, they don’t care
about the out of shape guy and how he overcame erectile dysfunction.
Which is a bit of a shame – he has a very important role in making the
film better. In order for extreme, unusual characters to be effective,
we need to see them interacting with a straight man, someone who is
more or less a regular guy. Dan fulfills that role. If the movie was
just filled entirely with characters like Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan
interacting with each other, two extremes against each other, their
characters wouldn’t stand out as much and we wouldn’t have as much of
an appreciation. In order for Rorschach to be effective, we can’t just
see him interacting with a detached machine weirdo, we need to see him
interacting with a regular dude who would react the way a normal
person would to a crazy old friend breaking into his house and
silently eating cold beans. Silk Spectre also is supposed to play that
role to some degree, but Ackerman’s acting isn’t that great as I
previously mentioned. Wilson, however, does a very fine acting job,
and is very affable and we like the guy.
His character journey is pretty basic – he pines to return to being a
superhero, and pines for Laurie, and eventually gets both. Good for
him.
As I said earlier, his role in the film is important, he’s likable and
I wouldn’t really change anything about how the character was
portrayed, but in a list of greatest movie superheroes, the likeable
but mostly forgettable straight man can’t rise up too high.
31. Iceman/Bobby Drake (Shawn Ashmore,, X:Men, 2000; X2, 2003; X-Men:
The Last Stand, 2006)
I was pretty surprised at how much justice this character was done
throughout the three X-Men movies. They could have easily cast him
aside or ignored him, but he was a relatively important supporting
character in the films who is portrayed quite well.
Bobby was a pretty minor character in the first film, but got a chance
to shine in the second. He’s the only X-Men member with whom we get to
see his family, and it’s relatively effective. He reveals that he’s a
mutant to his parents in a pretty obvious analogy of a “coming out”
scene, giving his character plenty of depth. His casual scene where he
freezes the soda for Wolverine in the kitchen is a great small
character moment for the two of them. His powers are put into use and
effective and look pretty cool.
I do have one issue with him, from the third film of course. We don’t
really get a chance to see what’s going on in his mind regarding his
feelings for Kitty, and it’s pretty unclear. It seems that his
devotion to Rogue is sincere, so we aren’t sure if he’s having second
thoughts and likes Kitty romantically or if he just thinks of Kitty as
a friend and she’s misinterpreting it. For example, in the scene where
he freezes the fountain for her and they frolic for a bit, is he just
doing that strictly platonically to cheer her up or is he stifling
romantic interest? If it’s the former, that’s pretty dumb on his part,
as it could pretty obviously be misinterpreted as romantic interest.
If it’s the latter, we don’t see a look on his face indicating
anything like that, and he’s an idiot for doing it in a place Rogue
can see, and they could have pulled it off much more effectively.
We’re never really given his side of the story, a telling close up
where we see a conflicted look on his face could have done wonders.
There’s a deleted scene where he kisses Kitty that was cut, so we’re
sort of left in the dark.
Other than that, he’s a character that comes out pretty clean in the
third film. He gets an arc where he proves himself to the older
members and proves effective in battle, and his long building rivalry
with Pyro comes to a satisfying head as we see him overcome his foe by
unleashing his full body ice form in a pretty cool moment.
30. Hawkeye/Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner, Thor, 2011; The Avengers,
2012)
Like Nite Owl, I don’t think I would change anything about this
character, how he’s portrayed, and his role in the film, and
everything about it is good.
Still, he’s too minor and doesn’t have enough development to be any
higher. In the group of six Avengers, he’s the bottom of the totem
pole in terms of screen time and development, and it’s not close. He
spends the majority of the movie brainwashed and out of commission,
and doesn’t get much of a chance to interact with anyone other than
Black Widow, so we don’t really get a sense of what makes him tick,
and he doesn’t have a personal story arc or much character development
or growth. Which is totally fine and justified from a film perspective
and isn’t a flaw of the film at all, it just means his character
ranking is a bit stunted.
Still, what we do see is quite good. He does get a short humanizing
moment when he’s talking to Black Widow, even if it’s more about her
feelings. And his skills are displayed in cool and clever ways in the
final battle, and he gets some moments to shine.
29. Beast/Hank McCoy (Nicholas Hoult, X-Men First Class, 2011)
A good portrayal that gets a chance to shine in a good movie. A young
Hank McCoy is mostly a character that we haven’t really seen, he
starts out young in the 60’s comics but for the most part he’s
portrayed as older and wiser than his comrades. Hoult does a good job
showing us Hank’s struggles with his appearance, and he sells his
pathos about it quite well. His chemistry with Mystique is also pretty
good, so we feel bad for him when she goes to sleep with Erik. His
intelligence is displayed, and he’s given a lot of development and
justice.
A few issues. Most prominent of which...when he finally turns into his
furry blue form, it looks really bad and cheesy. I'm not really sure
how this happened, as the Kelsey Grammar Beast looks quite natural and
visually impressive, but for some reason this one looks quite cheesy
and unimpressive. This was arguably the most important moment for the
character, the one that was slowly being culminated throughout the
entire movie, and when we finally realize it onscreen, the character
looks like a hastily put together muppet. It looks really bad and
cheesy, and detracts from the character to a a large degree. The
responses to Hank's change in appearance, in and of themselves, were
great - especially Magneto's line about "You've never looked better."
This line would have had a great deal more resonance if the effects
made it so that he he actually did look effective and not pretty
stupid, however, so that takes the character himself down to a pretty
large degree.
One other small issue with the character: I know he was eager to
change his feet to be normal, but shouldn’t he have had at least
enough self control to wait to take this unproven serum which might
affect his powers AFTER the team has dealt with Shaw threatening to
start World War 3? He takes it the night beforehand!
28. The Silver Surfer/Norrin Radd (Doug Jones, voiced by Laurence
Fishburne, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, 2007)
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer isn’t a good movie (it’s not
terrible), but that has little to do with the Silver Surfer himself,
who is handled quite well for the most part.
His personality, origin, and powers are spot on. This is the Silver
Surfer of the comics brought to the big screen, and it’s pretty cool.
When we see him rampaging and doing his thing on Earth, it’s
relatively impressive and looks pretty awesome. We also get to see his
personal side as he explains his origin, and it’s effective, and his
arc as he learns to respect the humans is relatively well done (on his
end, at least, the parts that rely on Jessica Alba’s acting ability
not so much) . Fisburne’s voice works here, and Doug Jones proves once
again that he’s a master of motion capture. Jones’ lanky frame was
perfect in bringing the Surfer to life.
The movie overall is kind of dumb, not really the Surfer’s fault,
although he is involved in a pretty dumb moment at the end. After Doom
is defeated and the Surfer’s powers restored, the Surfer defeats
Galactus by flying straight into him and doing…something. I’m not sure
how, exactly flying straight into Galactus caused Galactus to be
destroyed, or put into a cosmic rift or whatever it was. First off, he
gets his powers FROM Galactus, so this really doesn’t make too much
sense, Galactus is much more powerful than him. And if he had a move
like that in his arsenal that could destroy or incapacitate Galactus,
why didn’t he try that ages ago? Why did he let all those other alien
worlds be destroyed first if he had a technique that would destroy or
hinder Galactus the whole time? The film already had its big action
scene where they took down Doom, it might have been better to end the
threat of Galactus by having the Surfer convince him to spare Earth,
like in the comics.
So despite that dumb moment, the Silver Surfer is a cool comic book
character and there aren’t many complaints to be had in the way he was
pretty faithfully portrayed on screen.
27. Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson, Iron Man, 2008; Iron Man 2, 2010;
Thor, 2011; Captain America: The First Avenger, 2011; The Avengers,
2012)
I wasn’t sure whether to include this character or not, unsure of
whether to classify him as a hero himself or if he was more in the
Commissioner Gordon-esque “supporting character who works with the
heroes” role. Ultimately, however, the fact that Nick Fury in the
comics had a bunch of his own series and is usually ranked in “Top
Comic Book Hero” lists, so I’ll include him here (but not Coulson or
Robin Sparkles).
Appearing in five films total, this character is in the most total
movies out of any character on the list. Obviously, however, he only
has a brief cameo in three of them, serving as the bridge between
these movies and making it clear they’re in the same universe.
Therefore most of the analysis has to come from Iron Man 2 and the
Avengers, where he played large roles.
Because of the fact that the Ultimate universe version of Nick Fury
was directly inspired by Samuel L. Jackson, fans were thrilled when
Jackson himself signed on for the role, and we were happy when he
popped up at the end of Iron Man.
That being said, in Iron Man 2, I was a little cold about him in his
extended role. He kind of acts like a disapproving jerk to Tony the
whole time, and I couldn’t help be reminded a bit of Mace Windu. His
subplot of evaluating whether Tony would work in a team setting seemed
a little out of place and too much of a call-forward to the Avengers
movie, distracting the audience from what was happening in this one. I
also didn’t like how his favoritism of Black Widow and the fact that
he considers her a superior hero to Iron Man helped set up her Mary
Sue-ness in the film. It wasn’t horrible or anything, and Jackson does
a good job acting, he just left me a little cold for those reasons.
The Avengers, however, is his real chance to shine, and he does it
well. As the person in command of the group, Jackson comes off like
the badass we know Jackson can be, and the character is done a good
deal of justice. I especially like the moment where it was revealed
that Coulson wasn’t actually carrying his Captain America cards when
he was killed, and Fury took them out of his locker and covered them
in blood to help motivate the team. A nice little character moment for
him that shows the audience Fury isn’t above somewhat tasteless
machination to help get the job done.
If he was only in Iron Man 2 and the Avengers and didn’t have the
three cameos on top of that, the character would probably be lower.
But it was really cool and somewhat revolutionary seeing the character
used to bridge the gap between all the movies and really helped give
the movies a distinct feeling and amped up the hype for the Avengers
movie (which then delivered). So really, Nick Fury was the reason the
Avengers could happen, not only as a character within the universe of
the film; but as a film element, the reason for the movie to happen.
And you have the awesome element of a character inspired by Samuel L.
Jackson, who then is played by Samuel L. Jackson, and well. That being
said, there are only two movies where he actually makes meaningful
appearances and can actually be considered a character (rather than a
cameo), and in one of those two, he isn’t horrible but detracts from
the film overall, so he can’t rank higher than this.
26. The Punisher/Frank Castle (Thomas Jane, The Punisher, 2004)
This film works quite well as a throwback to the 70s and 80s action
revenge movies. It starts off a little slow and uneven – a few plot
holes and things that make no sense. The action is pretty good,
especially the scene with the Russian, and it ends up being a pretty
good film in the end. Very few of the flaws of the film come from the
character himself or Jane’s portrayal, which were very good.
First of all, it was a little strange that they decided to change it
so that, instead of just his wife and son being killed, it’s his
entire extended family. Over 20 relatives who have gathered at a
family reunion. That seemed a little bit like overkill – surely having
his wife and son die would be enough motivation? Why do Aunt Martha
and Cousin Jimmy have to bite it as well? I guess having his parents
killed on top of that could be okay, but why did we need to add to
that the death of several extras that were never introduced to us who
were related to him in some way that we don’t even know about. He
emotionally reacts when seeing his wife and kid die, he doesn’t even
get too broken up about the random relatives, so I’m not really sure
what the point was of upping the ante to this degree, the scene seemed
a bit ridiculous.
I did like the character and Jane’s portrayal quite a bit. We get some
decent establishing time with his wife and son beforehand, and Jane is
likable, and gets some badass scenes. There are some weird moments and
plot holes, though. Some of them are solved with the director’s cut
(most notably being why he outs himself to the media when people think
he’s dead if he’s about to engage in a revenge mission – in the
director’s cut its part of his plot to find out who betrayed him, in
the theatrical movie it just seems baffling) but like I said with
Daredevil I’m judging based on what was shown in theaters. That being
said I don’t think the character would have moved up much because of
the director’s cut, unlike Daredevil who probably would have raised up
a decent amount.
Thomas Jane does a good job showing that there’s a little bit of the
Punisher’s trademark deranged-ness and extremity in his actions.
Script wise, there isn’t quite as much of a trace of the extremes that
make the Punisher the Punisher in this one. A lot of the comic
Punisher’s appeal is the fact that you can see that he’s unhinged and
extreme – other heroes are wary of him, and a good deal of them think
that the Punisher should be locked up. The reader is supposed to be
somewhat conflicted and on the line (in a good way) about whether the
Punisher’s war on crime is worthy of praise or if it’s far too brutal
and extreme and is going too far. There’s real grey in his actions,
and that’s part of his appeal.
Plot and script wise, Thomas Jane’s Punisher is less of that and more
of a protagonist in a standard 70s or 80s revenge flick. Every single
character he kills in this movie, he is 100% justified in doing so.
Almost every single person he kills for the most part is a mobster
that works for the guy who killed his family, and most all of them
were actively seeking him out to kill Castle first. There is no
extreme renegade tone, no real grey in his actions – the audience is
not conflicted about him, we’re on his side beyond any shadow of a
doubt (especially as he also has several moments of altruism). He
definitely uses some quite brutal methods, but everyone he uses them
on completely deserves it and then some – it’s not like in the comics
where he uses brutal methods against people who commit somewhat lesser
crimes like drug dealers and money launderers (that aren’t trying to
kill him first, and had no part in killing his family) who probably
deserve to be sentenced to prison instead, leaving you a bit
conflicted about him. The only things that comes close is his initial
torture of Eddie Jemison’s character (as the character, despite being
a weasel, is obviously pretty helpless, and eventually comes to help
him later) and his killing of the former partner who betrayed him, but
he’s justified in both those actions when they happen.
That isn’t a flaw of the film at all, I’m just making an observation.
It makes perfect sense – this is an origin story, a revenge and
survival tale. He doesn’t come into accepting the role of the Punisher
and figure out what he wants to go out and do in the world until the
very end.
Thomas Jane’s portrayal is what really sells it, though, and we can
see plenty of traces of what makes the Punisher the Punisher in his
words and actions. The way he seems to get pleasure out of some of the
torture and methods he used were sold quite well. I especially liked
how he killed Saint’s son by making him hold up an 8-pound trigger
bomb with an outstretched hand when he was stuck.
A lot of the reviews for the film said that the film and the character
himself were too grim, dark, and humorless. Umm, his ENTIRE family was
just killed, I think I can cut him a break for not making wisecracks
the entire time. Besides, the film does have some humor, as there are
two comic relief neighbors, and the fight with the Russian has several
humorous tongue-in-cheek moments in it.
So despite some weird plot holes (why can’t Howard Saint track him
down if Castle has publically revealed himself on TV and isn’t hiding
at all?) and the film overall is pretty good but not fantastic, Jane
did a good job onscreen and made me feel like I was watching the
Punisher in the flesh.
http://www.toonzone.net/forums/entertainment-board/300509-depth-ranking-every-marvel-dc-movie-superhero.html#post4075381
25. The Thing/Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis, Fantastic Four, 2005;
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, 2007)
Ah, the Thing. Another character who’s ranking I had to grapple with
because attributes of the character achieved both high valleys and low
peaks. Let me break those down for you.
The Highs: Michael Chiklis’s performance as The Thing
The Lows: Everything surrounding it
Okay, that’s not entirely fair. As I said in their respective entries,
I thought Johnny was okay and Silver Surfer was pretty good.
Since this is a superhero character ranking and not a superhero movie
ranking, you would think my breaking it down like that would mean that
he should be higher. Still, I can’t help but penalize a character for
embarrassing themselves by being actively involved in the wackiness
and stupidity of the films and their plots.
That being said, Chiklis does a great job. He campaigned hard for the
role, and also campaigned for the character to be portrayed through
the use of suits and prosthetics as opposed to CGI. It works out quite
well – we get used to the character and accept him very quickly, and
it looks pretty good.
Chiklis does a good job in the second movie, but it’s the first one
(although that film was overall weaker) that he really shines.
In fact, the performance was so good, that if the movie had chosen a
different villain (I’m not even going to entertain the notion of “If
the movie had portrayed Dr. Doom with justice” – that’s just asking
too much from these people) I might have actually considered it an
“overall, pretty good” film, largely based on the strength of this
portrayal. (in fact, the people I saw it with who weren’t comic fans
and weren’t familiar with Doom in the comics and therefore unaware of
how much he was bastardized all thought that it was a pretty good
movie, mostly due to Thing.)
Chiklis takes us through the emotions he feels at his transformation
in a very natural and sympathetic way - we really like the guy and
feel for him. The other three got nothing but positive abilities in
the accident, but he got disfigured into a monster, and Chiklis sells
that rage and pathos, and the tragedy of the character.
The scenes where Ben isn’t interacting with the other members of the
Four and he’s contemplating his changes are great, and we feel like
they were copy/pasted from another much better film into this one.
And then we cut from those great scenes into “OMG I can’t believe I’m
somehow naked in public AGAIN, tee hee!” and “Rawr, I’m an evil
businessman with electrical powers who has nothing to do with Victor
von Doom” and feel sad.
His debate over whether to keep his inhuman form and whether to change
back is also given a satisfying ending within the first film. Although
we see all of his struggles, and his exhilaration at being changed
back into human form by Doom, we are given the ability to appreciate
the sacrifice Ben makes at being transformed back into The Thing at
the end of the first movie in order to come in and save his friend.
This however, is not accomplished without a massive plot hole. In
order to change Ben back to human form, it is established that Doom
uses Reed’s invention to reverse the effect of the galactic wave by
giving it enough electricity to power it from within his newly
acquired electrical powers. It has been established that Reed could
not power it himself because he did not have enough of an electrical
source. However, when Ben decides to change himself back into the
Thing to rescue Reed, we are not given any description of how he was
able to accomplish that. He just does it, despite the fact that in
order to accomplish this feat he would have to be privy to an extreme
electrical source (which he was not, at the time) and would also have
to be able to operate the complex scientific machinery, which he would
presumably not be able to do as he was inside it at the time. Ben is
changed back into The Thing without any explanation at all for how it
could be possible. Still, despite this plot hole, this moment is given
appropriate weight, and we feel the burden of this decision had been
earned.
As Gruffudd, Alba, and McMahon are quite subpar, Ben’s interactions
with Johnny are probably the strongest interaction in the films from a
character perspective. There are a few genuinely funny moments between
the two of them, and the interaction between the two is definitely a
highlight of both of the films. A pretty good capturing of the playful
relationship between the two in the comics.
In the second film he isn’t done quite as much justice and doesn’t
have as much to do, but Chiklis’s portrayal is still good. One one
note, I took a little bit of issue with the whole wacky “swapping
powers around because of the Surfer’s board” comedy routine nonsense.
To start it off, Johnny touches Ben and they swap powers, so now
Johnny is a rock monster and Ben looks normal and can control fire.
This is played completely comedic. Now, even though Ben went through a
process of accepting his altered state in the first movie, Ben should
at least show SOME regret or genuine emotion at the fact that he can
finally see and feel himself as a human with human flesh for the first
time in at least a year. Instead it’s “Derp derp, hey look Johnny
you’re the rock monster now LOL hey check it out I can control fire
this is kinda cool” and then leads to a series of wacky hijinks (which
of course ends up with Sue being naked.) That’s pretty weak.
Still, this is an overall good to very good portrayal of a classic
comics character, despite the fact that it’s an island in a sea of
suck and the character can’t be completely exonerated for appearing in
most of the ridiculous moments required by the plot. He’s the second
highest rated character who only appears in films that are overall
negative without actually appearing in one overall positively rated
movie.
And the first, is the first member of the “Great” tier. This is where
stuff starts to get really good.
The Great Tier
First, a note about this tier. I had a very hard time balancing out
the positive attributes of the five remaining supporting characters
(who in some cases are perfect, but don’t get nearly as much screen
time and don’t have to carry the film) and the major characters
(characters who are in the top three in terms of screen time and
importance for their movies, who may actually have more flaws than the
supporting characters, but shoulder the burden of carrying the film).
Eventually, I came to the realization that the positive attributes of
the lowest-rank top 25 “major” character probably overall relayed more
positives than the highest ranked supporting one. Therefore, the next
five characters to be listed are basically a list of the “top five
best supporting characters,” and after number 20 it’s all major
characters from that point forward.
The Great Tier
i. Supporting Characters
24. Beast/Hank McCoy (Frasier Crane, X-Men: The Last Stand, 2006)
I’ve written a lot about X3 and the problems therein in previous
entries. X3’s Beast is not one of them, and is in fact the highlight
of the film, by far.
When the casting of Kelsey Grammer was announced, a lot of fans were
excited, thinking that his demeanor perfectly matched the Hank McCoy
of the comics and TV show. And when the character appeared onscreen,
we could tell our excitement was justified. Grammer nails the role,
creating a Beast that is perfectly erudite, sophistical, and
whimsical. He nails the Beast of the comics and cartoon to a T. He
even gets a “Oh my stars and garters,” in there, which is a bit cheesy
but I was happy they put it in.
It’s also worth noting how visually impressive they were able to make
him. He’s a big furry blue guy, but he looks natural and doesn’t look
silly, which makes it all the more perplexing why First Class couldn’t
recreate it to any degree and made him look quite bad.
Beast’s best moment was when he visited the lab where they kept Leech,
and we see his hand turn into a human hand as he nears Leech’s
proximity. Grammer’s face tells you everything you need to know about
his regret and thoughts, how it would be great to be human again, but
he knows for the greater good that it can’t happen after everything
he’s done as a mutant rights activist.
I mentioned in my Storm review that the lack of chemistry or any
definable relationship between Storm and Logan was a major flaw that
played a big role in causing the movie to fall flat. It’s a good thing
that for most of the later acts that Beast is also along for the ride
with these two. His chemistry with Wolverine is great. These are two
men who have a very specific thing in common – their powers are both
animalistic in nature, and cause both of them to have a feral side
that they sometimes exhibit and sometimes try to suppress. Hence the
exchange “Wolverine. I hear you’re quite an animal” followed by “Look
who’s talkin’.” But other than that, their personalities couldn’t be
more different. Logan is the blue collar middle class working man who
speaks in a pedantic and straight forward manner, likes to relax by
having a beer at a dive bar. By contrast, Beast behaves like a proper,
sophisticated aristocrat with refined tastes, who speaks formally and
relaxes by reading literary classics. The dynamic between the two and
how they interact reflects this, as they tease each other and joke
while at the same time developing a strong mutual respect.
I have a lot of problems with this movie, which I’ve written about at
length, but I can’t think of any issues specifically related to Beast.
He’s higher than the Thing even though we don’t get as much of him
because, unlike the Thing, Beast doesn’t embarrass himself by
appearing in ridiculous moments (although there is a deleted scene
where he awkwardly recites Shakespeare before they go off into battle
– if that had made the final film this ranking probably would have
been lower). Also, if you aren’t a comics fan X3 is a poorly paced and
flawed movie but not one that is embarrassing to watch at times like
the Fantastic Four movies are.
So I don’t really have any specific complaints, this character being
done so much justice was the best thing about the film, and the only
reason he’s not higher is that he doesn’t really have much of an arc
or character development, and the positives I experienced from
watching a well-pulled off Hank McCoy in a supporting role in an
otherwise bad movie weren’t as high as the positives of the characters
in front of him.
(spoilers for The Dark Knight Rises will follow...I felt obliged to
mention that as this is the most recent film on the list)
23. Catwoman/Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway, The Dark Knight Rises, 2012)
A bit of a housekeeping note first: In the comics Catwoman has both
been a hero (albeit maybe an anti-hero) and a villain and has filled
both roles at various points. The Hathaway and (shudder) Halle Berry
versions portray her as a hero so I’ve ranked those two, while the
1966 Batman and Batman Returns versions had her in the role of
villain, so those two are excluded.
I remember that people were slightly apprehensive when they heard that
Hathaway was cast as Selina Kyle in the third movie. A lot of people
weren’t sure that she was right for the part, if she was a good fit
for the Nolan universe, and why/how the character would even have a
role in the movie. The first shots we got of her in costume from the
set seemed a bit underwhelming as well.
The Dark Knight Rises turned out to be a flawed film that was more or
less disappointing overall. Not a bad film by any means, but certainly
flawed and a let down from the highs of Dark Knight. Hathaway’s Selina
Kyle, however, was most certainly not a reason for that at all, and
was called by many as the highlight of the film.
Her introduction tells you everything you need to know. The hobbled
Bruce catches her thieving while posing as a maid, and then we see her
drop the shy maid façade and smile with a well-delivered and insincere
“Oops!” She then proceeds to incapacitate Bruce and make off with what
she’s stolen. We see what we need to know about her, we see her
chemistry with Bruce, her abilities and personality. And throughout
the rest of the film, those are on display wonderfully. Our initial
fears were put to rest as the movie continued. Hathaway’s performance
was great, displaying all the confidence, ability and sexiness we
associate with the character. She makes a great foil to Batman, and
provides good comic relief and levity to the film without becoming a
joke as a character herself.
Some people complain that her being the one to finish off Bane was
cheap – but what would you have preferred? Bane HAD to die...and
having Batman kill him would raise a whole bag of worms that the movie
didn’t have time to get into. Would you have preferred to Bane to fall
off a cliff or some other death of his own doing, like a cheesy Disney
villain?
Also, I know there were a lot of complaints about her role the ending,
and I do understand them. Bruce runs away to live a normal suburban
life in Italy – with Selina Kyle? The woman who is also a criminal,
who he’s fought with and is hard to predict? Is this really the type
of girl to settle down to a normal life in the Italian suburbs and
have kids with and whatnot? My brain raised this issue in my head and
I understood how it could be kind of dumb, might not work out, and be
somewhat nonsensical.
But, damnit, I loved the hell out of it. People complained that about
the fact that we saw Bruce (and Selina) in the café after the shot of
Alfred, how it ruined the scene and we should have ended it with
Alfred smiling without being shown what he saw. But I wouldn’t have
changed it for anything. – if we didn’t see it, we wouldn’t have known
for sure that the woman he was with was Selina. I won’t get too much
into detail about the ending since most of that will be saved for the
Bale Batman entry, but I will say that after decades of seeing
versions of the Bruce/Selina romance develop and ultimately not lead
anywhere because of various circumstances, we finally got a version
where the two of them got to ride off into the sunset together, and I
found that incredibly cathartic and rewarding and loved the hell out
of the fact that I got to see it.
I do have some complaints and concerns about this movie (although by
no means is it a bad movie, just a disappointing one given previously
set high standards) but Catwoman was portrayed fantastically and was
not one of them.
22. The Comedian/Edward Blake (Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Watchmen, 2009)
Another housekeeping note: I included the Comedian on this list and
not Ozymandius because I think Ozymandius (regardless of what you
think about his motives and whether his actions were justified)
despite initially being a superhero, plays the role of the “villain”
in the book and movie, so I classify him as a villain and would have
put him in my super villain rankings had I made them after Watchmen
came out. The Comedian, despite being a scum of the earth human being
who does villainous things, is always still considered to be a
“superhero” throughout his life – he does fight crime, and is on the
same side as the protagonists and doesn’t fight against them. Oh,
sure, you could argue whether anyone in the book/film is a hero, but
within the context of the film taken as a superhero movie, Adrian is
the villain, and Blake (despite probably being the most reprehensible
human being in the entire piece) is not.
In any case, nothing but praise for this character and portrayal. I
could sit here and wax poetic about the Comedian as a character, his
“Life is a joke” view on life, and his importance to the film…but if I
analyze him too much as a character, all I’m really doing is analyzing
his character from the comic book, because really, it’s the exact
same. Essays have been written about the philosophies and characters
of the Watchmen comic, so I’m not going to get too much into that
here. What I’m here to analyze is how the 2009 film adapted the
character from the comics onto the silver screen.
And the answer is…pretty much perfectly. To start with, Morgan himself
was a fantastic choice – he is the spitting image of the comics
character, and his sneer demeanor perfectly encapsulates the selfish,
nihilistic ******* who has a detached view of the world.
The Vietnam scene was a great capture of all of this. He shoots an
innocent woman who is pregnant with his child, and then turns to Dr.
Manhattan and chastises HIM for not stopping it…never mind the fact
that Blake was the one who pulled the trigger. Morgan sells this
completely.
The Comedian, in the film, comes off as a quite memorable and great
character despite a low amount of screentime. There isn’t enough time
to do him as much justice as in the comic series, of course, but what
we do see matches up perfectly with what we already know about the
character.
So, really, I enjoyed the hell out of this character and wouldn’t
change a thing about the way he was portrayed in the movie. However, a
character who was in only four or five scenes total and isn’t involved
in the active storyline can’t be ranked too high. In addition, people
who walked away from Watchmen probably thought that The Comedian was a
highlight of the film, but not one of the two main highlights of the
film. (Those two main highlights of Watchmen are the two most
important characters, and I’m sure you know who they are, and they
will obviously appear later). So he’s lower than the next two entries
on the list, who were both by and large considered the highlights of
their respective films, even in supporting roles.
21. Nightcrawler/Kurt Wagner (Alan Cumming, X-Men 2: X-Men United,
2003)
X2 is one of the best comic book superhero movies, and Nightcrawler
and his teleporting effects are generally considered the highlight of
the film.
We see this character in action right off the bat as the hypnotized
Nightcrawler invades the White House and uses his teleporting power to
take down several secret servicemen in order to get to the President –
and it’s one of the best action scenes in the history of superhero
movies. I would venture to say it’s probably the best action scene in
the history of superhero movies that occurs early on in the film and
not towards the end. The ways that he uses his teleporting power in
creative ways to remain untouched as he goes through them and takes
the men down is exhilarating.
The teleporting effects were so great and such a hit with the audience
that two subsequent films made sure to replicating them despite the
Nightcrawler character not being present. Using Wraith in X-Men
Origins Wolverine made sense as Wraith was involved in Wolverine’s
past, but having the character of Azazel (Nightcrawler’s father) in
First Class was completely and blatantly shoe-horned in because they
wanted to show off the teleporting abilities again. Azazel is an extra-
dimensional being with lots of powers far beyond teleporting who was
considered Satan himself for a long time, so having him be some
Russian henchman for Shaw was a very blatant way of the producers
telling the audience “Hey, you guys liked the teleporting, right? Here
it is again!” Blatant as it was, we were totally fine with it.
Which is a testament to how well Nightcrawler’s abilities are used at
the beginning of this movie. They are used to some degree later on a
smaller scale, but not nearly as much. It would have been pretty cool
to see Nightcrawler used them in a more all-out manner in the final
battle to take people down.
But enough about his powers, what about Nightcrawler as a character?
Well, he isn’t given all that much to do throughout most of the film
besides provide them with the location of the base and a couple uses
of his teleporting to save people and then get Storm into Dark
Cerebro. The X-Men find him and then take him along for the ride,
pretty much. There’s a pretty funny ongoing joke about how he keeps
trying to explain his name and moniker but keeps getting cut off. But
he still gets plenty of screen time and slow moments, and we’re able
to see that the character himself is excellently adapted.
His defining trait is his faith, as a devout Catholic, symbolized
visually by the markings he has put on his skin for every sin he has
committed. His speech about how he pities humans because of their
ignorance and how faith is needed to survive is definitely his best
non-action scene, giving us really good insight into the depth of the
character and why he acts the way he does. It’s especially impressive
since he’s interacting with Storm in those scenes and not an actual
character. He also gets a little bit of a character arc, as he
adamantly refuses to teleport anywhere if he can’t see where he’s
going at first, but then after Storm echoes “faith” to him, he does
what’s needed.
All in all it’s really a huge shame that Cumming couldn’t stand the
makeup and they weren’t able to get him back for X3. X3 didn’t even
explain his absence, they put the explanation for his absence in a tie-
in video game. It was bizarre that they never mentioned it in the
film, as the reason given in the video game (after going on a few
missions he realized that a life of violence wasn’t for him) actually
makes a lot of sense, and I think the fans deserved to know why their
favorite character from the last film is missing.
Overall, Nightcrawler is the highlight of a great film, as a character
with awesome powers who was also done quite well from a character/
personality standpoint. He’s the runner up in the contest of “best
superhero in a supporting role” for this list. And number one is…
20. The Hulk/Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo, The Avengers, 2012)
Pretty much everything about this portrayal is great, and is the
source for a lot of the fun in the movie, and everyone considers it a
highlight of the film.
First off, visually, he’s quite impressive. The decision to make the
Hulk actually look like Ruffalo was a great decision by Whedon, and
helps sell it a lot.
I’m sure you remember all the awesome scenes the Hulk had. The fight
with Thor, going around and beating up all the space aliens with glee,
the scene where Loki is talking about how great he is and then the
Hulk just grabs him and throws him around like a ragdoll in a superb
comedic moment that had the audience laughing and cheering so much
that no one even heard him say “puny God” afterwards. My favorite
moment, though, is when he teams up with Thor to beat up a bunch of
aliens, the two of them stand together for a moment to admire their
work – and then Hulk turns and punches Thor to the other side of the
room. Just a small humorous moment to let him know there’s still a bit
of resentment from their fight earlier.
In addition, Ruffalo does a great job playing Bruce Banner in civilian
form. He’s a Banner who has, to some degree, accepted his lot in life
and is a bit more relaxed and less brooding. You can’t help get the
sense that he’s having a lot of fun interacting with everybody, we
don’t see him ruminating about his condition. He’s hanging out on a
spaceship having fun. His relationship to the other characters is
pulled off quite well also – he and Tony are both scientists, so we
see them bond and become buddies, and he gets some jabs in towards the
others. The other characters besides Tony are cautious around him
because they know what he’s capable of, and he actually has some fun
with it, taking advantage of the fact that he’s a quiet scientist but
all these powerful beings are constantly walking on eggshells around
him.
Throughout the film, Banner brushes off the others’ concerns of a
“Hulk out,” saying he’s in control. In the end, his reasoning for this
(“I’m always angry”) is well earned and very clever and a great
interpretation of the character.
So people rightfully called him the highlight of the film. A lot of
people also said that it’s the best overall portrayal of the character
so far, that Whedon is finally the one to get the Hulk “right.” And
some even said “Wow, I can’t believe he finally pulled off the Hulk,
and it was an even tougher, it was in an ensemble film!”
I can understand why people called it the best portrayal, but NOT the
point of “I can’t believe the Hulk was finally done right in an
ensemble film, which makes it even tougher.” No, no, no. The fact that
he’s in an ensemble film makes pulling off a satisfying Hulk much,
much easier.
In this film, Hulk is the “fun uncle.” He’s like a guy who comes by
occasionally with presents to visit his nephew/niece, and the kid
loves him because whenever the fun uncle comes by it always means
presents and fun and never any discipline or other elements of
parenting. Whether or not the “fun uncle” can support children of his
own is up in the air – it’s certainly possible, but his role as the
fun guy who comes around every once in awhile in his nephew/niece’s
life is not necessarily indicative of it.
Similarly, the Hulk in this movie gets to do fun Hulk things and we
don’t have to worry about too much character development, and he
doesn’t have the burden of carrying the entire film. Whedon can pick
and choose his spots when to use Hulk to make it the most satisfying.
The Avengers had the built-in advantage of “Oh boy, I can’t wait for
the Hulk to show up and smash stuff!” – if the entire film is based on
Hulk and the film is filled with the Hulk showing up and smashing
stuff from the early points of the film onward, it’s much, much more
difficult to pull off a moment as satisfying and hilarious as the Loki
smash. Now that isn’t to say that Ruffalo’s Hulk couldn’t be involved
in a great solo film, it’s just not necessarily indicative of it. (and
based on the fact that Norton is higher, I’m sure you can tell that I
think Marvel Studios is perfectly capable of making a great Hulk
film).
Now that being said, this is not in ANY way a flaw in the film and I
basically wouldn’t change anything about the way the character in the
film (except some elements of the Widow chase scene, it had some
unfortunate undertones). The Hulk is used almost perfectly, and gets a
fantastic response from the audience. But I do feel that there may be
a reaction of “Hey, this character made everyone in the theater stand
up and cheer, the characters you’ve put ahead of him never did
that!” (Norton in particular) and believe me, I struggled with that as
well. But at some point there needs to be a distinction between great
supporting characters, who are much easier to get right and don’t have
to do as much, and great main characters, who have the burden of
carrying the film.
Ultimately, after analyzing it a lot, I made this the distinction and
cut off mark, and Ruffalo’s Hulk gets the honor of “best superhero in
a supporting role in a Marvel/DC movie.” Nothing but major characters
from this point forward.
Super-Menace
Jan 9, 2013, 7:17:27 AM1/9/13
to
In article
<3d029df6-e099-4122...@w8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, TMC
wasn't up to Superman to keep checking on Lois. The basic,
unconquerable flaw in the film is that Superman abandons Earth for five
years to chase a pipe dream. He simply bugs out, saying goodbye to no
one. That is not Superman. The Superman we know would have sent a
robot probe. (The Silver Age Superman simply would have used his
telescopic vision.)
They could have fixed this. They could have had Superman say, "I'm
sorry. Something went wrong. I expected to be gone for only a couple
of weeks, but the ship broke on the way home and it took me five years
to get back." The filmmakers didn't think things through. That's the
problem with this (sometimes pretty good) film. They had no idea why
Superman works.
There's also the stupid Luthor real estate scam. C'mon.
My favorite moment in the film is, I think, when Lois, her kid and her
fiance are trapped aboard the sinking yacht. Lois is unconscious, the
kid is scared, and the fiance's face says everything you need to know.
The yacht disappears beneath the surface and recedes into the darkness.
Then, all of a sudden, the \S/ appears in the window, and there is,
suddenly, hope. That is Superman. They got that part exactly right.
I wish they'd gotten more of it right.
<3d029df6-e099-4122...@w8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, TMC
<tmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The lows: He is the deadbeat dad of a bastard child. The movie itself
> and its plot aren�t very good. His chemistry with Lois is low, even
> though I think that�s largely Bosworth�s fault. He is the deadbeat dad
> of a bastard child. He doesn�t get all that much depth or character
> development, and it seems like he�s used more of a Christ analogy than
> an actual character, and doesn�t even seem to have all that much
> dialogue. The movie is more or less devoid of any sense of fun or
> adventure. How in the hell did people not think anything of it when
> Superman and Clark Kent both return from a 5-year hiatus on the exact
> same day? He is the deadbeat dad of a bastard child.
>
> OK sorry to keep harping on that child point. I know that he wasn�t
> aware that he impregnated Lois, but still, he obviously didn�t use
> protection or anything so one would think he might check up on her or
> at least wait before departing on his oh-so-important space mission.
The "deadbeat dad" thing is beyond tiresome. He didn't know, and it
> The lows: He is the deadbeat dad of a bastard child. The movie itself
> and its plot aren�t very good. His chemistry with Lois is low, even
> though I think that�s largely Bosworth�s fault. He is the deadbeat dad
> of a bastard child. He doesn�t get all that much depth or character
> development, and it seems like he�s used more of a Christ analogy than
> an actual character, and doesn�t even seem to have all that much
> dialogue. The movie is more or less devoid of any sense of fun or
> adventure. How in the hell did people not think anything of it when
> Superman and Clark Kent both return from a 5-year hiatus on the exact
> same day? He is the deadbeat dad of a bastard child.
>
> OK sorry to keep harping on that child point. I know that he wasn�t
> aware that he impregnated Lois, but still, he obviously didn�t use
> protection or anything so one would think he might check up on her or
> at least wait before departing on his oh-so-important space mission.
wasn't up to Superman to keep checking on Lois. The basic,
unconquerable flaw in the film is that Superman abandons Earth for five
years to chase a pipe dream. He simply bugs out, saying goodbye to no
one. That is not Superman. The Superman we know would have sent a
robot probe. (The Silver Age Superman simply would have used his
telescopic vision.)
They could have fixed this. They could have had Superman say, "I'm
sorry. Something went wrong. I expected to be gone for only a couple
of weeks, but the ship broke on the way home and it took me five years
to get back." The filmmakers didn't think things through. That's the
problem with this (sometimes pretty good) film. They had no idea why
Superman works.
There's also the stupid Luthor real estate scam. C'mon.
My favorite moment in the film is, I think, when Lois, her kid and her
fiance are trapped aboard the sinking yacht. Lois is unconscious, the
kid is scared, and the fiance's face says everything you need to know.
The yacht disappears beneath the surface and recedes into the darkness.
Then, all of a sudden, the \S/ appears in the window, and there is,
suddenly, hope. That is Superman. They got that part exactly right.
I wish they'd gotten more of it right.
0 new messages