Comics adaptations
I've seen most of the big theatrical film adaptations of superheroes, out of a combination of curiousity, fondness for the characters, and the spectacle. Generally I've been disappointed. The first Batman was dumb, a triumph of style over substance. The second I saw on video, and left no impression on me beyond it having been a great moment in PVC catsuits.
X-Men had plot holes so large as to be offensive, but Wolverine's movement and fighting were perfect. That his blades had no sockets, but ripped through his flesh and hurt every time, was an interesting innovation. And there hasn't been a better depiction of superhero team fighting.
Spiderman had its moments. Peter getting off on the adulation of the crowd -- I'm genuinely impressed with how much emotion Maguire expressed through a mask. In one way it improved on the Lee/Ditko origin, by giving a reason for Uncle Ben to be in the same place at the same time as the thief Peter allowed to escape -- that he just happened to burgle the Parkers' home always seemed contrived. I was disappointed by his webs being a superpower rather than an invention: the latter kept his being a knurd central to his being Spider-Man. Unfortunately, the villain was awful. Most of the fight scenes ignored his spider-sense and became two guys swapping round-house punches like it was a bad western. Ultimately, my greatest enjoyment was the short CGI sequence at the end of Spidey webslinging through Manhattan.
And now there's Daredevil.
I really like Daredevil. I read Miller's Born Again story as it came out -- a high point in mainstream superhero comics. I've read the collections of the early Miller Daredevil (volumes 1, 2, 3). I was disappointed in his retelling of the origin, though -- Lee and Kirby moved me more in 12 pages than Miller and Romita did in 5 issues. And I'm greatly enjoying Brian Michael Bendis' current work on the series.
But the Daredevil movie.
Ben Affleck in a leather-fetish suit.
I just can't do it.
The costumes are pretty much the worst feature of any superhero movie. Let's face it, no matter how cool a costume looks in the pages of a comic, it's bound to look pretty hokey when worn by an actual human being. X-Men was about the only one to do anything even close to reasonable with the costumes.
As for the movies themselves: I found the Batman series to be silly and top-heavy on the visual effects, but then, there's a lot of tradition behind Batman being that way. Both the TV show and the Silver Age comics were like that, and I don't consider it a wholly bad thing. My reaction to X-Men was just "eh". Could've been better, could've been a whole lot worse.
Spider-Man, though, I got a real kick out of. I didn't bother to analyze the plot or look for deviations from the comics canon. Just sat back and watched the action, which it delivered in an excellent way. In truth, I hadn't felt so excited sitting in a movie theater since watching the original "Star Wars" twenty-five years earlier.
And Kirsten Dunst in that wet shirt was worth the admission price all by herself.
Haven't seen "Daredevil" yet, but I've got low expectations. The Frank Miller issues on which the movie is based were some of the first comics that my brother and I bought, and I still consider them one of the best storylines that Marvel has ever done. I remember riding my bike down to the local drugstore at the end of every month to see if the new Daredevil was in. That kind of emotional and nostalgic baggage is hard to live up to. I think I'll just read the comics again, and rent the movie at some later date.
Posted by Jimcat on February 18 2003 07:33