Favorite Films of 2008

[fstorm1]

I've had an on again off again affair with comics as well. I can remember where, when, and which comic I bought as a youngster that turned me on to them (still have it). At the height of their popularity, in the early to mid nineties, I was making 2 trips per week to Belich's Nostalgia World on Lincoln in Milwaukee, spending $50 per trip. But I became disenchanted with them about the same time everyone else did, when the market was over saturated with X-Men knockoffs, etc. Over the past 10+ years, I've had streaks of buying and reading alot, then nothing for months. Comic books were to be my career, and although I had some minor success in the art field, my passion comes and goes (a former classmate of mine now enjoys a healthy popularity as a writer in the business, although I've never thought of his work as anything spectacular...probably 'cause we never got along).

 

As much as I love comics and films based on them, the ones which always resonated the best with me were the ones that felt real. Like these characters could exist in my world. This has as much to do with writing as it does the character. To that end, Richard Donner's Superman, and more recently, Nolan's Batman(s) are 3 of my all time favorite films. Those, to me, had everything clicking. And despite the fact that one is about a guy from another planet, I, just like the film's tag line read,"Will believe a man can fly". And I did. Just like I believe that a millionaire with a serious grudge can put on a goofy suit and beat up bad guys.

 

I like the Spiderman films. I love the Hellboy films, and Iron Man. The Incredibles and Iron Giant are two of my all time favorite animated films (used to have Iron Giant in my sig here at BF). I thoroughly enjoyed the first 2 X-Men films. I don't need everything to click to like the film. But my point about TDK is that it's more than those other films. It has a different weight, a different feel. Call it reality. Maybe it's so dark and depressing, or the losses in the films feel more painful. I don't know. I was not shocked how good they were. I respected the folks that wrote and nurtured them in paper form. I wholeheartedly agree there's great writing in comics, absolutely. Maybe it's just that we've gotten to the point where our expectations are for the Michael Bay's and Paul W.S. Anderson's to ruin their "adaptations"...and ruin our (often) childhood loves.

 

I wish they'd allow comic writers to work more in films. Del Toro and Mignola have mixed together so beautifully. I'd love to see Matt Wagner get a shot at bringing Grendel (in Hunter Rose form) to the big screen. The Batman/Grendel crossovers were great (particularily Devil's Riddle/Devil's Masque). That would be a fun movie. No lasers, no flying, no super strength. Just two guys, both a little messed in the head, goin' at it. Argh, sorry. A little off track with my babble.

 

And for the record, RoCo, I didn't like Sin City either. Like Frank Miller, though.

[RU Rah Rah]

Did anyone see the documentary Gonzo? There was all this hype b/c it was Alex Gibney, but I thought it was really pretty dreadful. Lots of star power (Jimmy Carter talking about Thompson! Johnny Depp reading his work!) but it seemed jumbled to me.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Let's not forget comic book films like Road to Perdition, A History of Violence and Ghost World. Not to mention the dozens of other films that are highly influenced by comics like The Iron Giant, The Warriors or The Incredibles. Even the movie Stardust was originally a comic that was made into a book that was made into a movie.

 

I just get tired of people being surprised that comics aren't empty childish drivel. Some of the best authors on the planet are comfortably working in comics, because as a medium it affords an author to do a lot of things they can't do in a standard book.

I don't know if you're referring to my posts on the subject, but I'm pretty sure nowhere did I refer or even imply that I thought comic movies were "mindless drivel". I think you're looking for something that isn't there, quite frankly.

 

Reading some of this thread, I feel like I'm being told I can't appreciate comic movies the way readers of the graphic novels and comics (of which I read plenty) do.

 

I'm sorry I liked The Dark Knight, and to me, it didn't feel like watching a Super Hero movie.

[Katuluu]

Well I did say childish, not mindless. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

I was more following up Ben and wasn't meant as a direct criticism. Though I will admit plenty of it is my own built in knee jerk reaction from having to defend my reading comics for over 20 years. Old habits die hard so don't take it too personally, it wasn't meant to be. But I think you might be missing that both of those quotes imply that a comic book film or a super hero film simply can't be a serious crime drama, though that might not have been your intention in the statement.

 

they took a super hero, a comic book, and turned it into a gritty, powerful, and completely engrossing crime thriller.

 

This statement just makes me scratch my head. Batman is a detective comic, has been since it was created. And it has been a consistently gritty comic for over twenty years now. Did the Schumacher films and the TV show really convince people Batman was only a campy joke?

 

Reading some of this thread, I feel like I'm being told I can't appreciate comic movies the way readers of the graphic novels and comics (of which I read plenty) do.

 

I certainly don't think that. But I do think it sounds like people are justifying their liking a "comic book movie" by claiming it doesn't feel like a "comic book movie". The phrase "comic book movie" just seems to imply a vague, and possibly negative, connotation. American Splendor is a pretty accurate adaptation of the comic, does that feel like a comic book movie to people? Does Ghost World?

 

Or if I put it this way, if I heard someone say, "I can't believe they turned a Jane Austen novel into a gritty, powerful, and completely engrossing crime thriller?!" I would understand that, as Jane Austen novels are simply none of those things. So when I hear someone say the same about a comic book movie, immediately I think "Do people really think that comic books can't be gritty, powerful, and completely engrossing crime thrillers?" It would be a shame if people did.

 

So I guess my question is, what exactly makes a comic book movie feel like a comic book movie?

[DuWayne Steurer]

Alright, I get what you're saying, and I see how my comments could be construed as "standard", regarding comic movies.

 

To put it another way, I'm thinking more along the line of "standard" comics, the DC and Marvel news-rack stuff that we pick up on a monthly basis. Most of which are based on people and characters with supernatural or extraordinary powers and abilities that we mere mortals can't comprehend. The first Batman series of movies definately went along those lines, and while not strictly supernatural (Mr. Freeze? Please......), it was so far out in left field (especially by the end) that it was much more Fun House than Crime Drama. There was nothing engrossing or intelligent about it, there was no "problem solving" and you never felt like there was true danger to the characters, because they were built to such extremes that it was tough for a person to feel any attachment to them.

 

With the new Batman series, while the characters are still somewhat over the top, they've been much more "humanized", and therefore a person can maybe empathize with them a little bit.

 

That's not to say that I feel that characters with extraordinary abilities can't be compelling, deep, intelligent and thought provoking. I've been at times, even recently, an avid comic and graphic novel reader. I have 2 shelves dedicated to Alien(s) graphic novels and comics. It's just my opinion of course, but I feel that most movies made on *standard* comic fare in the past relied more on action sequences and big explosions to tell the story rather than let the story tell the story.

 

It seems to me that in the past decade or so (Daredevil and Elektra notwithstanding) that most movie makers have figured out that comic book movie watchers DO want to see the full spectrum of these charcters, rather than just how good they put up in an action sequence. And in my humble opinion, The Dark Knight did it better than most.

 

That's all I was trying to get across.

 

I don't know, maybe my standards were just set too low by the original 4 Batman films.

[Katuluu]

It's just my opinion of course, but I feel that most movies made on *standard* comic fare in the past relied more on action sequences and big explosions to tell the story rather than let the story tell the story.

I think this is a pretty fair critique of the films. And I still think they can fall back on this on occassion. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I get the impression from most people that the reason they think those films were so shallow was because the source material was. That the movie didn't dumb down the comic, but the comic dumbed down the movie if you will. I'm just wondering if people have that general impression of comics? Because if they do then comics really have to work on changing public perception.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I think this is a pretty fair critique of the films. And I still think they can fall back on this on occassion. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I get the impression from most people that the reason they think those films were so shallow was because the source material was. That the movie didn't dumb down the comic, but the comic dumbed down the movie if you will. I'm just wondering if people have that general impression of comics? Because if they do then comics really have to work on changing public perception.

I think the films were shallow because movie makers were catering to the general movie going public. It's exactly the same thing that happens to book to movie conversions. Whenever I'm at work or with friends and discussing movies, and movies that were made based on books, I ALWAYS say "the book was better" and I'm staggered by the amount of people who say "Why should I spend the time to read a book when I can just watch a movie and get the full experience in two hours?"

 

I guess what it comes down to is taste. I hate to make a sweeping statement about what people in general like, but I guess it's no surprise that movies like Transformers, The Mummy, or Die Hard are usually the box office beasts. Not to say those movies aren't enjoyable, and you can't blame the Michael Bay's and Peter Jackson's of the world for making movies that they know will sell tickets. That's what they're in it for, after all.

[fstorm1]

consistently gritty comic for over twenty years now. Did the Schumacher films and the TV show really convince people Batman was only a campy joke?

Kat, I get the feeling that alot of your comments/criticisms are directed at me. I want to and tried to make it perfectly clear that I understand comics, and that I wholeheartedly agree that there are and have been a large number of great writers in that field. But let me make a couple points:

-if I were a betting man, and I'm not (gotta have money to gamble), I'd bet a plum nickel that the vast majority of moviegoers have no, have zero idea that Batman is a detective;

-you mention that if the public's perception of comics is poor, then they have alot of work to do to change that. They've been trying to do that for years. I'm guessing you know that as well as any;

-there are many, many comics with "deep", or difficult themes. But how many of them have actually had their themes carried over (successfully) into movie? The X-Men regularly has and always will be a comic about segregation, racism, and coexisting. But in the films, that aspect isn't given nearly enough attention. Instead, it's action scene after action scene. Because that's what the filmgoing public wants, particularily those that want superheroes, but not the "baggage". Sam Raimi put a lot into the difficulty in being a hero, especially a young one, into his three films. But really, how many people who very much enjoyed those movies remember the "angst" portions? Was there a mention of Tony Starks' alcohol problem in Iron Man? That is (or was) a huge theme in his life. Ang Lee tried to make a movie about a "comic book" character with huge pychological problems (among other themes), and the movie going public liked it so much...they remade nearly the same movie, only with more action and more unrealistic CGI (for the record, I prefer the Lee version to the Ed Norton version).

 

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are films based on the idea that humans are flawed, ignorant, and basically evil. That if human beings are not already evil, at some point, they'll show they are. "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villian". That's a big theme in the Batman titles (IMO).

 

And in how many of those films I mentioned, or just about any other "comic book" superhero based movie, is the death or potential death of a character really believable? Was Cyclops' or Prof. X's deaths believable? Did they ellicit a feel of sorrow or dread? How about Green Goblin? I like these types of films', but really, the only two with any real sense of dread or despair are Superman and the Nolan's Batmans. They carry a different weight.

 

I agree with pretty much everything RoCo said. I don't need anything to justify why I like a movie either. But being a fan of comics and movies, I can appreciate a movie which is truer to it's comic than just "mindless drivel". It bums me out to no end that it really took until Batman Begins for there to be a "mainstream superhero" to get a solid, smart movie that makes one think rather than just say "Oh, cool!" (except Superman).

 

I did a quick search of "comic book adaptations", and here's a bunch that I found: Iron Man, Spiderman x3, Hulk x2, Hellboy x2, MIB x2, Fantastic Four x2, X-Men x3, Superman x5, and Batman x6. Now these are just mainly "mainstream" characters, so it doesn't include the likes of 300, The Crow, Sin City or even Swamp Thing. Now, how many of the one's I listed were really as good as TDK? Or even Begins? I see 4 of the 26 as being more than just "smash and bang": Superman, Ang Lee's Hulk, and Nolan's Batman's. The others listed, IMO, are some pretty good films (most of them anyway), but they're good for what reason? Action, and FX. The other four are great because they have more to offer than the others. Deeper. Realistic. Sadness. Elation. They're, IMO, not written so much as "super human" films, but more as "human" films.

 

I probably (probably?) rambled a bit there. My point is, the depth of TDK and Begins is much, much deeper than your "standard" comic book adaptation.

[homer]

Did anyone see the documentary Gonzo? There was all this hype b/c it was Alex Gibney, but I thought it was really pretty dreadful. Lots of star power (Jimmy Carter talking about Thompson! Johnny Depp reading his work!) but it seemed jumbled to me.

 

Yep, I saw it. It was pretty good but I didn't consider it groundbreaking or anything. Decent rental.I agree it lacked focus.

[FVBrewerFan]

I just get tired of people being surprised that comics aren't empty childish drivel. Some of the best authors on the planet are comfortably working in comics, because as a medium it affords an author to do a lot of things they can't do in a standard book.

I won't speak for other posters, but I think I understand what he means. The most succinct way I can put it is Dark Knight seemed more like non-fiction than fiction. It was produced in a way that led us to believe the story line.

[UeckerAddict]

I honestly think that Let the Right One In may be the best vampire film I've seen since Werner Herzog took on Nosferatu. It is difficult to come up with a new spin on such a played out premise, but this film really did. I saw about 35-40 films from this year (including the Oscar nominees) and i think The Wrestler, The dark Knight, In Bruges, Let the Right One In, Slumdog Millionaire, and Man On Wire were probably my top picks (in no particular order).