In this day and age, if you are a form of media that covers another form of media, eventually you will come up with a list. Rolling Stone has put out special, oversized volumes about what songs, albums and guitarists are the best in their eyes. Entertainment Weekly can be counted on at least one issue a year feature a list of some kind, most recently it was the “50 Best Films You’ve Never Seen” and “25 Best Cult TV Shows From the Past 25 years.” And VH1 and E! have made it a staple of their programming.

The reason why they turn to list making is simple–because it’s popular. In a world full of opinionated people, any collated list  that represents the authoritative ranking of anything will get attention. People want their tastes validated. Or, they want to see how wrong these media outlets are. These lists sell copies.  They garner high ratings. They get shared on Facebook. They get linked to. And the more controversial the better, For example, take Sight and Sound‘s yearly poll’s swapping of Citizen Kane with Vertigo and the furor that kicked up.

But sometimes, it appears that there’s more that goes into constructing these lists than just picking the best or worst of a particular medium. Some lists seem to be compiled just to garner controversy. Yes, there will be “no brainer” items on the list, but there will also be notable omissions as well. There will be items included that seems to serve no other purpose than to make people angry. And even if you agree with every item put on and left off, you have the rankings themselves to quarrel over.

A sterling example of this are two lists that have appeared on Newsarama.com, one of the oldest comic book news sites on the Internet, over the last week. One was the “10 Best Comic Book-Based Movie PERFORMANCES Of All Time” and the “10 Worst Comic Book-Based Movie PERFORMANCES of All Time.” Both lists were compiled by the “Newsarama Staff,” and both are controversial in their own right. At best, the lists were sloppily compiled with mind-numbing gaps of logic, at worst, the list were compiled deliberately to anger comic book movie fans and generate controversy.

Here is Newsarama’s 10 Best List:

1. Heath Ledger, The Joker, The Dark Knight
2. Robert Downey, Jr, Tony Stark/Iron Man, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, & The Avengers
3. Gary Oldman, Commissioner Gordon, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises
4. Hugh Jackman, Wolverine, X-Men, X2: X-Men United, X-Men: The Last Stand, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, X-Men First Class
5. J.K. Simmons, J. Jonah Jameson, Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, Spider-Man 3
6. Tom Hiddleston, Loki, Thor & The Avengers
7. Chloe Grace Moretz, Hit-Girl, Kick-Ass
8. Andrew Garfield, Peter Parker/Spider-Man, The Amazing Spider-Man
9. Anne Hathaway, Selina Kyle, The Dark Knight Rises
10. Chris Evans, Jensen, The Losers

The lists are “best comic book-based performances” not “Best SUPERHERO comic book-based performances”: Granted, Newsarama focuses mostly on the mainstream superhero genre, and adding another word to the already gangly title would have made it even ganglier, but we have to take the titles of these articles to heart. That means, this should be the definitive list of ALL performances from ALL movies based an ALL kinds of comic books. Yet, there is no Paul Giamatti from American Splendor on this list. Nor is there Thora Birch or Steve Buscemi from Ghost World or Tom Hanks, Paul Newman or anyone else from Road to Perdition. 

I could go on. But what these titles are doing is advertising one thing and selling us another. And that is a recipe that is custom made to generate the kind of “you left XXX of the list” controversy that builds up links.

The Green Hornet? The Phantom? Comic Book-Based?: You’d think a news website with 10 years of independent coverage of the world of comic books would be able to tell what films were made from comic books and which ones weren’t. Baring that, you’d think they’d be able hire writers with an active connection to the Internet and the ability to access Google from it. Newsarama apparently is able to do neither.

The Green Hornet was based on a radio program that began in January1936. The Phantom was based on a comic strip that began in newspapers a few weeks after the Hornet made his first broadcast. . While both were adapted into comic books, neither originated there nor were their comics their most remembered incarnations. Calling The Green Hornet and The Phantom “comic book-based” would be like calling Star Wars and Star Trek comic book-based. And you can find far worse actors than Seth Rogen and Billy Zane in those franchises.

This might seem to be just a matter of semantics. But I believe it is indicative of the hap-hazard way these lists were constructed. Because you don’t have to look too hard to find two more bad performances in a film that was actually based on a comic book.

To Newsarama, “all time” means “within the last 12 years”: With the exception of The Phantom, the Schumacher Batman films, and the early Superman movies, all the films on the list were made after 2000. That means out of over 70 years of comic books being made into films, only a little over a decade of films were being seriously considered.

Yes, there have been a whole lot more comic book films to chose from in the last 12 years. But, as I realized doing my History of the Comic Book Film feature, the comic book film did not begin with X-Men. What? Newsarama couldn’t find a top ten worthy bad performance in Sheena, Red Sonja, Howard the Duck or in Dolph Lundgren’s Punisher? And on the good side, what about Brandon Lee’s Crow, Jack Nicholson’s Joker or Wesley Snipes’ Blade? The fact that there wasn’t one performance from the above that made either list is a disservice to what Newsarama was trying to create. It shows tunnel vision, something that handicaps any attempt at creating a comprehensive list.

Their selection process is dubious and abitrary at best:  They pay lip service to the quality work Chris Evans has done in a number of comic book films, yet make a point of telling us that they can pick only one performance of his for the list (and the pick his least well-known role at that). Yet, Hallie Berry gets slammed for playing both Storm and Catwoman. They lump the combined casts of two films as one entry, and two actors who had played the same role almost 20 years apart as another selection.

You get the feeling they were making up the rules as they went along. Or, rather, constructing the rules of selection so that it suited them best.

Take, for instance, this “ground rule” from the introduction to the worst list.

…it would be way too easy and frankly not all that much fun to pick-on a lower class of Hollywood actor in barely feature-quality train wrecks like Roger Corman’s Fantastic Four or the 1980s Captain America. So yes, Shaquille O’Neal, you get immunity this day.

Okay, I’m no fan of Shaquille O’Neal, and I’m sure he would want his being left off a list of bad actors argued, but the reason Newsarama left him of the list just doesn’t make sense. When Shaq made Steel, he had already made two feature films (Blue Chips and Kazaam). And Steel was a $16 million dollar film made by Warner Brothers, not some film made for $200 and a bag of potato chips in someone’s basement. Could Shaq be considered a “lower class of actor”? Probably. But so could Billy Zane, king of the B-movie. Maybe if Shaq had a small part in Titanic, then Newsarama would have considered him worthy of inclusion.

This is how they defend their position:

Well, Tobey’s Peter Parker was naive and earnest enough, but he just didn’t have Parker’s inner beauty.

Yes. Really.

Putting Christopher Reeve on the list of worst actors might have been done just to anger people: I’m trying not to believe that they’d do something so wrong just to generate site hits, but Newsarama is not making it easy by how they open their defense of their opinion:

Yes, we’re going there, and in advance, we’re genuinely sorry you’re upset.

Yes, they went there, but did they go there thinking their opinion would be controversial, or knowing it would be controversial and get a lot of reaction?

Listen, whenever you have a list like this, there will be items on it that butt up against conventional wisdom. But seldom has there ever been a case where something flew in the face of overwhelming public opinion like Newsarama is is doing here.

If you are going to “go there,” then you’d better have an incredibly strong argument to back up your position. Unfortunately, Newsarama doesn’t.

…Reeve just wasn’t that accomplished a film actor.

In defense of this position we could point to his lack of much of a post-Superman resume, but the truth is now 30-plus years later with a more critical eye we simply don’t find his portrayal of Superman and Clark Kent very much like any Superman or Clark Kent we know… or like, for that matter.

His Clark wasn’t mild-mannered, he was a cartoonish buffoon. His Superman far too earnest and eager-to-please for someone with the power of a god. In short, he was a mild-mannered Superman, frankly lacking in the charisma you’d expect from an actor playing a cultural icon. A more theatrical rather than natural actor, Reeve’s Superman was a caricature of a comic book Boy Scout superhero and not a fully developed character.

Where to begin. Hmmm.

I wonder who this editorial “we” is? Perhaps it is someone who  is 12 and has only known the John Byrne interpretation of Superman. But, the character was around for 50 years before Byrne revamped him. Back when the film was made, the comic book Superman was a more staid version of the one found in the film. The mental image the editorial “we” has of Superman is so contrary to what the character’s image really is that it makes it seem that this entry came from a website that wouldn’t know a comic book if it fell in their lap, not a “respected” comic book news site.

I’m so glad they didn’t use Reeve’s lack of a post-Superman career as their only defense for their position, because is a defense that could be swatted away with one word–typecasting. Typecasting is the reason why Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher had less than stellar careers after Star Wars, and why Harrison Ford’s post-Star Wars career is so extraordinary. It is what the cast of the Harry Potter films are struggling with now, and what the cast of Twilight is working hard to avoid. Once you become so associated with such an iconic character, it’s hard for Hollywood to see you in any other role. This was the reason for Reeve’s lackluster post-Superman career, not lack of talent.

But Reeve’s performance was pitch perfect as Superman. I don’t know what the editorial “we” was thinking, but Superman doesn’t stand “Sarcasm, Bullying and Badassery”, he stands for “Truth, Justice and the American Way.” Yes, Reeve’s Superman was earnest–and honest and forthright–but that IS Superman. And Reeve played him in such a way that he never was hokey or corny.

As for Clark Kent, Reeve played Kent as a role Superman was himself playing. Superman portrayed Kent as an awkward and bumbling fool so no one would see through the flimsy disguise and put two and two together. It’s a brilliant piece of acting, and if you aren’t able to pick that up, then you have no business talking about acting performances whatsoever.

I have to laugh at the  ”30-plus years later with a more critical eye” part. Like that is supposed to win us over, that they’re looking at the performance in a serious manner as an adult, and therefore, he is right. That might have held more water if Chris Sims and David Uzumeri didn’t take a similar look back on the first Superman back in March for rival comic book news site Comics Alliance.  They ripped the film to shreds, but still called Reeve’s performance, and these are direct quotes, “amazing” and “darn near perfect.” So much for that argument.

Taking this into consideration, it’s hard to not believe the trashing of Reeve was done purely to garner controversy. If so, at least it worked. Not only am I talking about it, but also many comic book professionals, the people Newsarama make a living covering, took umbrage with the list as well.

Creators like Amazing Spider-Man writer Dan Slott:

Marvel Comics editor Steve Wacker:

And legendary comic writer Mark Waid:

That tweet set off a Twitter war between Waid and Newsarama editor Lucas Siegel,which is not the behavior you expect from an editor who should be keeping a journalistic distance from one of people he would be covering, but it is the kind of behavior you’d expect if you want add more controversy to the already controversial matter.

Another sign that this whole thing might be hit bait is that they spun of the controversy to another article on the site, an OP/ED piece by frequent Newsarama contributor Vaneta Rogers , glorifying Reeve’s performance and giving yet another page full of ads for Newsarama from the controversial list.

I hope this isn’t the case, that Newsarama is manipulating the popularity of lists to gain hits for itself. Presenting honest, well-formed and well-thought out opinions is always something that should be striven for. But putting out incendiary opinions in a clumsy and hap hazard manner isn’t. And it looks like Newsarama did the latter and is trying to pass it off as the former.

The core of The Dark Knight Rises is a fairly sloppy movie. Large chunks of dialogue are devoted to exposition. Plot points in the first half of the film clearly telegraph the “surprise” plot twists in the second half. And the plot itself, while loaded with twists and turns, is fairly simplistic.

But, even while taking all of this into consideration, The Dark Knight Rises is a great movie and fitting end to the trilogy Christopher Nolan started in 2005. This is due to Nolan’s direction, the stellar acting by the wonderful cast, the great editing by Lee Smith, and the powerful score by Hans Zimmer.

The film takes place exactly eight years after the end of The Dark Knight, and Harvey Dent’s death on that night has become a citywide holiday. Crime is at an all time low, yet all is not well in Gotham. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has retired his Batman identity, but, without a purpose to his life, he has become a virtual recluse. Commissioner Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) is wrestling with his conscious over glorifying Dent, a man who tried to kill his son, and demonizing Batman, the man who saved his son’s life.

Things take a turn for the worse for Gotham with the arrival of Bane (Tom Hardy). Bane is a dangerous and bestial mercenary who at first appears to be a soldier in a corporate war between Wayne and an evil business rival by the name of Daggett (Ben Mendelsohn). But things aren’t what they seem with Bane, and his true intentions will have dire consequences for both Gotham and Batman, consequences not even Bruce/Batman’s new allies–honest cop John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), eco-friendly business woman Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), and cat burglar Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway)–can help Batman stop from coming.

This film is more a sequel to 2005′s Batman Begins than 2008′s The Dark Knight. While the latter was one of the most successful films in movie history, only two plot points–the death of Harvey Dent and the cover up afterwards, and the death of Rachel Dawes–are mentioned yet the Joker isn’t. Of course, there would few actors able, or willing, to follow in Heath Ledger’s shoes in that particular role, and to recast the part would be sign of disrespect, but his storyline in that film has interesting parallels and contrasts to the plot of this film. It would be a stronger film is these comparisons were addressed or even acknowledged. But as it stands, the film closes the circle and makes the series a true trilogy, telling one wide-reaching story arc.

The film is almost three hours long, yet nothing is wasted. There is no fat or gristle here, just meat. Every scene serves a purpose. And while this means that, yes, there are a lot of Chekovian guns being introduced that many savvy film goers will be able to figure out how they will be used by the third act, that is not necessarily a bad thing. In a summer where there are films that barely introduce plot points and often forget to follow up on them, it’s refreshing to see so much forethought and planning put into a script. And the long running time allows moments for all the characters, and there are a lot of them, to grow and become fleshed out. Even minor characters get juicy character moments.

Editing and score are vital parts of any film, yet are often overlooked by audiences. They say the only time you notice editing was when it is bad. Not so, as I noticed Lee Smith editing and how good it was. When there is a lengthy patch of exposition-laden dialogue, he inserts a beautifully shot (by cinematographer Wally Pfister, once again in top form) scene that shows what the actor is describing. During action scenes, the narrative shifts back and forth from character to character, location to location seamlessly and at just the right time building tension along the way.

Hans Zimmer is an old pro at scoring and naturally his score here is top notch. It adds layers and dimension to the story, evoking the perfect mood at the ideal moment in a great compliment to what is going on on the screen.

Trying to single out an actor in the cast for special acclaim is like trying to pick just one player from the 1927 New York Yankees to be on your All-Star team. When a cast has 15 Oscar Nominations and five Oscar wins between them, there is little doubt that there will be a plethora of great performances to choose from. But if I had to pick one cast member to give an Oscar nod out of only one member of the cast, I’d choose Anne Hathaway.

Her Selina Kyle, the character comic book fans know as Catwoman, is a multi-layered, complex character. Hathaway’s Selina is a woman who must wear a number of different masks, a tricky thing for any actress to play. But Hathaway knocks it out of the park. I can’t say that I’ve been overwhelmed by anything I’ve seen Hathaway do in the past, but I was overwhelmed here. Hathaway plays Selina as bold and naive, strong and insecure, coquettish and earnest, usually within the span of a one scene. The other characters are kept guessing as to what persona Kyle is presenting, but the audience is always kept in the loop. Hathaway puts a more realistic stamp on the “bad girl with a heart of gold” archetype. It’s a brilliant piece of acting.

Tom Hardy’s Bane will be unfairly compared to Ledger’s Joker, so I am not going to compare the two (if I was going to compare Bane to any film villain, it would Darth Vader, if only for the breathing apparatus dialogue). Hardy plays Bane with the gusto of a Shakespearean actor playing Hamlet for the 49th time. He owns the role with confidence and bravery. In a world where every superhero movie can’t wait to remove the masks from their characters, you have to give credit to Hardy for working with half his face covered. Hardy will also be unfairly criticized for having his words swallowed by the mask. But, in truth, I didn’t find him any harder to understand than I did Gary Oldman, and all Oldman had blocking his dialogue was a mustache.

If there was one weak link in the cast, it was Mendelsohn as Daggett. It might be just me, but his performance annoyed me so much that I had to mention it here. He played the role more like a caricature than a character, chewing scenery and employing body ticks in lieu of developing any form of true characterization. Thankfully, he’s not in the movie for long, but whenever he’s on screen, I found it painful to watch.

As for the other cast members, you can expect your typical excellence. Michael Caine doesn’t have a lot of screen time this time around, but he makes the most of it. Gordon-Levitt plays what could be a boring role–the honest cop–with nuances and facets that makes John Blake interesting.

Christopher Nolan combines all of these elements in such a way that makes for a satisfying film. You willingly overlook its flaws because the trip Nolan is taking you on is so interesting. He sets an epic tone for the film while keeping it grounded in reality.

This supposedly is Nolan’s last time directing Batman, although he does leave an obvious opening to continue this story (albeit in a way that I doubt Warner Brothers would be interested it). But if this is Nolan’s last time at “Bat,” then he went out in a grand fashion. This film is a fitting end to an era.

In a multi-part series, Comic Book Film Editor William Gatevackes will be tracing the history of comic book movies from the earliest days of the film serials to today’s big blockbusters and beyond. Along with the history lesson, Bill will be covering some of the most prominent comic book films over the years and why they were so special. This time, the Bat-franchise goes back to the beginning with Batman Begins and to the Academy Awards with The Dark Knight.

After the debacle that was Batman & Robin, Warner Brothers was looking to start over at square one. Joel Schumacher thought that was an excellent idea, and said as much in a 1998 interview with Entertainment Weekly:

It’s unlikely the studio will stick with the shticky tone of Batman & Robin. But if it does, count Schumacher out. ”The only way I would do another Batfilm is if we went back to the basics,” says Schumacher. His ideal Batman movie would be based on Miller’s Batman: Year One, a prequel to The Dark Knight Returns, a no-frills account of Batman’s first year of crime fighting. ”It would be nice to take the bigger-is-better concept out of it,” he says, ”and just go pure.”

Schumacher had originally wanted to adapt Frank Miller’s legendary origin redo when he signed on for Batman Forever, but Warners’ executives, wanting a more kid accessible piece, ignored his wishes. They would ignore his wishes again. But this time, it would be with him doing a reboot based on Batman: Year One.  The studio thought that was a good idea, but were looking to Miller and director Darren Aronofsky to handle it.

While this seemed like a comic fans’ dream—Miller co-writing a script with a hot, up-and-coming director in Aronofsky—it was not meant to be. The version of Miller’s script I read had more in common with his Sin City comics than his 1987 storyline that the film was named after. This version found Bruce Wayne living on the streets, working as a mechanic at a garage in the bad part of town, directly across the street from a whorehouse. It was heavy on violence and adult themes, something that would have been perfect for the Martin Scorcese/Robert DeNiro pairing in the 1970s but ill fitting for a 2000 Warner Brothers studio looking for a PG-13 film to bring in the teens.

The studio, after briefly considering a Batman vs. Superman film, would turn to Christopher Nolan next. Nolan gained much acclaim for co-writing and directing the inventive indie drama, Memento. He was still a relatively unproven director—this film would only be his third big studio film he directed—but Warners made an excellent choice. The film Nolan made, Batman Begins, ranks up there with the best comic book films ever made.

Nolan paired with David S. Goyer, a Hollywood screenwriter with comic book writing experience, to create a film that while wasn’t  directly adapted from any one particular comic book, drew pieces from the overall Batman comic book history to create their narrative. The plot involves Christian Bale’s Bruce Wayne’s training to become Gotham City’s protector, eventually saving it from destruction by his former mentor, Ra’s Al Ghul (Liam Neeson).

The entire cast of the film is the best cast any comic book film has had or likely will have. It was chock full of Oscar winners (Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, and, eventually, Bale), Oscar nominees (Tom Wilkinson, Ken Watanabe, Neeson) and quality actors like Cillian Murphy and Gary Oldman. Oldman, who would eventually get an Oscar nod too, was especially good as the film’s moral center, James Gordon. Playing against type as a decent, honest man, Oldman gives one of his best, if somewhat underrated,performances of his illustrious career.

It seemed like it would be almost impossible for Nolan to top what he did with Batman Begins, but he did it on The Dark Knight with the help of a spectacular addition to the cast—Heath Ledger.

Heath Ledger’s untimely death of an accidental prescription drug overdose has added a mythic quality to his performance as the Joker in The Dark Knight, that his deep immersion in the character scarred his psyche in a manner that led to his overdose (the drugs found in Ledger’s system are commonly used to treat anxiety and insomnia). It feels unseemly even to bring it up, but I do so to make the point that the performance would have been mythic even if Ledger survived.  His Joker is the defining Joker. And I am saying that while having the utmost respect for the work Jack Nicholson and Mark Hamill have done with the character.

The Joker is written in the movie as a force of nature, an agent of chaos. He exists to destroy the fabric of society. He is a cipher—his history is unknown and his motives are unclear.  This is not an easy role to play. It could be the perfect opportunity make it hammy or give a portrayal that was out of place with the film as a whole. Ledger gave a scary, realistic performance that was totally believable. All the posthumous accolades that Ledger received, including becoming the first star from a comic book movie to win an Oscar, are all well deserved.

However, all the accolades that Ledger receives takes away from a great film and the solid performances of the other new additions to the cast—Aaron Eckhart as the tragic figure of Harvey Dent/Two-Face, and Maggie Gyllenhaal replacing Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes (a vast improvement, I must say).

The Dark Knight set yet another impossible task for the next sequel to try and top it. That task begins in a few weeks when The Dark Knight Rises is released.

This film promises to be the last in the series, introducing Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) and Bane (Tom Hardy) into the mix. It looks like Ra’s Al Ghul will be returning as well, either in a flashback or, well, if you knew the comics, you’ll know of another way he could come back. The plot is timely too, supposedly tying into the disenfranchised poor versus the entitled rich that was the basis for the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Where the franchise goes from here is anyone’s guess. While Nolan is staying on to produce the next phase of the Batman film life cycle, it looks like whatever comes next will be a fresh start.

Next time, we look at a time when everything Marvel touched cinematically did not turn to gold. In fact, movies were made that we never seen at all.

We continue our look back at the cinematic decade that has just passed with a look at what has become the fastest growing genre of film, the comic book adaptation.

As the 1990s came to a close, things looked grim for the comic book movie. The Batman franchise had been hammered into the ground under the campy hand of Joel Schumacher. The Superman franchise was a distant memory. A successful comic book adaptation was few and far between, usually properties that did fit the typical superhero style, like the morbid revenge fantasy, The Crow, the sci-fi/ comedy, Men in Black, and the horror/ action film Blade. However, two long in development comic properties made their debut in the next decade and would change the world of comic book movies in particular and films in general forever.

Marvel first sold the rights to X-Men and Spider-Man to film studios in the 1980s. Their time spent in development hell is the stuff of legend. A literal who’s who of Hollywood were connected to either film at one time or another. As a matter of fact, Avatar’s James Cameron was attached to both at various points of their planning. Each made it far into the development pipeline. Each had their studios declare bankruptcy and fall apart right underneath them. But it took the new millennium to actually bring them to the screen.

X-Men came first and comic fans waited for it with breathlessly. They greeted each casting announcement with joy (Patrick Stewart is perfect for Professor X!) and trepidation (Russell Crowe doesn’t want to do Wolverine? They lost that Dougray Scott guy? Who is this Hugh Jackman? An actor known mostly for his performance in stage musicals? Ugh!). The characters were not all that well known amongst the general public as Batman and Superman were, but they were enormously popular with the comic fans. The stakes were high.

A character who was well known by the general public was Spider-Man. He was one of the few characters to come close to becoming part of Americana. He had a long history of cartoons, TV shows, toys and merchandise in its history. There was many a person who never held a comic book in their life who could recite the story of how Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider. The stakes were high.

Both movies pleased the hard core fans. They weren’t slavishly faithful to the original books, but they were faithful to the spirit. They were done by creators with histories of quality film work who treated the subject matter with respect. They applied such outlandish concepts as symbolism and metaphor to the films. They were great films that could be enjoyed by all audiences.  But, most importantly, they were resounding financial successes. They showed the studios that comic book movies could be an untapped goldmine for their studios.

This cause an explosion of comic book adaptations to made each year. Before this decade, if you had four comic book films in any given year, you had a lot. Now, if there are only four, it’s a light year for comic book adaptations. They have replaced the sci-fi set pieces and explosion filled action films as the new summer blockbuster. 2009 was the first year since 2001 to not feature a comic book film as one of the Top 10 Highest Grossing Films of the year (X-Men Origins: Wolverine ranked at #11). 

The increased attention to graphic novels and comic books as source material exposed the diversity of medium as an art form. Not every film adapted had spandex-clad superheroes beating the crap out of each other. Independent comics such as Ghost World and American Splendor made their way to the screen. Thought provoking dramas like History of Violence and Road to Perdition got their start as graphic novels. Many non-comic savvy are shocked when they find out these films came from funny books.

Comic book films went from movies that actors such as Russell Crowe would refuse because they feared acting in one would hurt their careers to actors like Heath Ledger acting his heart out on the screen, giving his all to make a comic book villain live and breathe on the screen–and winning an Oscar for it.

But as the comic book film has gotten respect from those that make films, it is another story from some members of the media. Much like the way comic books are viewed as some how being substandard to the rest of printed matter, comic book films are treated as being inferior to other forms of cinema. It is a case of not seeing the trees for the forest. The broad grouping of comic book movies has caused some critics to not view each film on its merits, but instead treat the entire genre with a blanket condemnation.

I have seen a number of “Enough with the comic book movies” statements in magazines and on websites over the last few years. I am puzzled by this attitude. Do they really find The Dark Knight to be totally devoid of value? Are they really unimpressed by Sin City’s visual style? Does the fact that Road to Perdition came from a graphic novel completely invalidate its excellent acting and directing? Granted, there have been a lot of bad comic book movies in the last ten years. But there has also been a lot of bad non-comic book movies as well. If you are going to condemn comic book films by the worst they have to offer, then you’ll have to invalidate film making as a whole due to the simple fact that Meet the Spartans got made.

But if you consider the last ten years of comic book movie dominance to be a horrible phase the film industry has gone through, I hate to disappoint you. There are over 20 comic book film in various stages of development, with films planned to hit theaters well into 2012. The decade of the comic book movie is going to last for at least another two years. Deal with it.

1.Daybreakers (Lionsgate, 2,523 Theaters, 98 Minutes, Rated R): Vampires are all the rage these days, but only the ones that sparkle and pitch woo to bad actresses. Let see how a more aggressive vampire does at the box office.

This film takes place in 2019 and vampires are the dominant species on Earth. The humans that remain are food. And food is getting scarce. Now, two sets of vampires aim to preserve the human race. One because it is the right thing to do, the other, to keep the food supply coming.

This film has the possibility to be satiric and biting (no pun intended). However, the trailers seem to indicate that they are going for more of a straightforward horror.  Satire would be fun to see, but hey, what do I know?

2.Leap Year (Universal, 2,511 Theaters, 97 Minutes, Rated PG): Wow. Great cast, goofy concept.

Frankly, this kind of wacky romantic travelogue comedy seems to be beneath a two-time Oscar-nominee such as Amy Adams.

She plays and American woman who flies to Ireland to propose to her boyfriend. Of course, getting to her boyfriend isn’t that easy as she experiences setbacks along the way. She is helped in her quest by an Irish man played by Matthew Goode, who tries to help her reunite with her boyfriend in order to propose. Naturally, they fall in love along the way, causing a dilemma for her when she finally meets up with her boyfriend.

Yeah, the “trying to get to my mate, paired with a complete opposite for the trip, finds more in common with travelling companion that mate” plot has been done before. The actors are good, so maybe they’ll rise above the material, but still. Shouldn’t they be holding out for something more?

3.Youth In Revolt (The Weinstein Company/Dimension Films, 1,873 Theaters, 90 Minutes, Rated R): I just want to point something out to everyone out there. Michael Cera is 21 years old. Which means that he is going on four years past his teenage years. Remember all the jokes they used to make about the cast of Beverly Hills 90210? I’m going to start making them about Cera very soon.

Cera plays a nerdy teen who falls in love with a free spirit. The only way he could ever compete for her affections is to develop a suave alter ego named Francois. Of course, doing this causes chaos and destruction in his small town

I do admire bring a dose of weirdness to the typical sex comedy, but this might be just a little bit too obscure. It might have worked in the original novel, but seems kind of cramped in a film format. 

4. The Imaginarium Of Dr. Parnassus (Sony Pictures Classics, 400 Theaters, 122 Minutes, rated Pg-13): I usually only cover films that are in 1,000 theaters or more in this column, and this film is only expanding to 400, but it is one of my editor’s favorites. I wouldn’t dare cut the film from this week’s list. He knows where I live and knows how to get here.

Obviously, the biggest story about this film is that it is Heath Ledger’s last film role, as he died before shooting completed. It took three no-name actors—I think their names were Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell. I’m not sure because their not, like, international superstars or anything—to replace him. Luckily, the plot allowed these actors to step in and it make sense.

The film involves a carnival owner making deals with the devil for immortality and youth. The deal made gives Mr. Nick his first born daughter on the the day she turns 16. He is trying to avoid this at all cost, but the only way to avoid condemning his daughter is to win one last wager with Mr. Nick.

Terry Gilliam is an acquired taste, but even those who don’t list him as a favorite must recognize that he does handle fantastic themes very well. This film appears to be right in his ball park. 

If there are any sweeter assemblage of words in the English language than “A Film By Terry Gilliam,” I don’t know. I mean look at them there, right smack dab in the middle of the new US poster below for the director’s upcoming The Imaginarium Of Dr. Parnassus. They jazz up the otherwise lackluster composition of the piece, even helping to distract from the awkward picture of stars Heath Ledger and Lily Cole towards the top.

To be fair, from all accounts, The Imaginarium Of Dr. Parnassus sounds like a tough film to synopsize on a poster. And while this US poster is certainly not as good as the Lily Cole-centric United Kingdom poster we brought to you a few weeks ago, it certainly isn’t as cringe inducingly bad as the John Neville’s-head-as-hot-air-balloon monstrosity that Columbia put together for Gilliam’s 1989 masterpiece The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen.

Via SlashFilm.

We’ve seen pictures. We’ve seen short clips. And now, here is the first trailer for Terry Gilliam’s highly anticipated next film, The Imaginarium Of Dr. Parnassus.

It’s the international trailer, since no American studio has seen fit to pick the film up yet. (And the key word here is yet… I’ve been hearing some rumblings that a deal may be in the works.)

With this trailer, not only get a better look at the amazing world beyond the titular doctor’s magic mirror, we also get our first looks at Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell, who stepped in to complete the film in the wake of Heath Ledger’s passing in the middle of principal photography. The trailer is chockablock full of exciting images and it looks as if Gilliam has really let his imagination run riot with the use of computer generated imagery for the world inside Parnassus’s Imaginarium.

I can only hope that this gets picked up for the US soon.

Earlier this week, we here at FilmBuffOnline handicapped the Oscar race as we saw it. As we all know, the nominations have just been released. How did we do?  Well, let’s find out. And the nominees are…

Performance by an actor in a leading role-

• Richard Jenkins in The Visitor
• Frank Langella in Frost/Nixon
• Sean Penn in Milk
• Brad Pitt in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
• Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler

Number of Nominations We “Called”:  4 out of 5

The One We Didn’t:Do we get any credit for saying the academy might snub Leonardo DiCaprio? No, because Richard Jenkins should have been a no brainer. His performance was one of the most critically acclaimed of the year. This is what Jenkins had to say about the nomination:

“This nomination is such an unexpected honor and I am grateful to the Academy for the recognition. I’ve been awed by the work of my fellow nominees this year and am truly humbled to be in their company. Having been an actor for many years now, I am moved by the fact that something like this can happen at this point in my career, particularly for a film that has meant so much to me.”

 

Richard Jenkins, THE VISITOR

Performance by an actor in a supporting role-

Number of Nominations We “Called”: 4 out of 5.

The One We Didn’t: Nobody from Frost/Nixon got the call. Strangely, this was the only acting nod Revolutionary Road received. Shannon got good notices for his role, but was he the most deserving of the cast?

Performance by an actress in a leading role- 

• Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married
• Angelina Jolie in Changeling
• Melissa Leo in Frozen River
• Meryl Streep in Doubt
• Kate Winslet in The Reader

Number of Nominations We “Called”:  3.5 out of 5

The One Point Five  We Didn’t: We are taking partial credit for Kate Winslet. We predicted she would be nominated and that her role in The Reader should be lead. I think that should be good enough for a .5. Leo, like Jenkins, was an early year, yet still worthy performance that we goofed on not including. Althought ignoring Sally Hawkins was a major snub.

This is what Kate Winslet said on her nomination for The Reader:

• Amy Adams in Doubt
• Penélope Cruz in Vicky Cristina Barcelona
• Viola Davis in Doubt
• Taraji P. Henson in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
• Marisa Tomei in The Wrestler 

Number of Nominations We “Called”:  4 out of 5

The One We Didn’t: We were going to list Henson, but the Oscar’s not following the Golden Globes’ lead on putting Winslet in this category through us off. Yeah, yeah, that’s what happened.

Achievement in directing-

• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, David Fincher
• Frost/Nixon, Ron Howard
• Milk, Gus Van Sant
• The Reader, Stephen Daldry
• Slumdog Millionaire, Danny Boyle

Best motion picture of the year-

• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
  
• Frost/Nixon
  
• Milk
  
• The Reader
  
• Slumdog Millionaire

Number of Nominations We “Called”:  4 out of 5

The One We Didn’t: In what is becoming a rare occurance, the Best Picture nominations match up with the Best Director nominations. This means that The Reader gets the nod over Revolutionary Road. And, yes, The Dark Knight and Wall-E too. But the Best Animated Film was created so the “real film” don’t have to mingle with the animated riff raff. And, really. A comic book movie? For Best Picture?

Stay tuned to FilmBuffOnline, because, as we get closer to the ceremony, the staff will bring you our Oscar picks.

It’s that time of year again. This Thursday, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will announce the nominees for the 81st Annual Academy Awards.

Every year there are snubs and surprises, thrills and controversies. There is no way of knowing who will be nominated, but we here at FilmBuffOnLine, who believe the day nominations are announced should be a National holiday, are going to try and handicap the process for you.

We will try to tell you who we think are Almost Certain to get a nomination, who Definite May Be nominated, and whose nomination is a Outside Shot in the major categories (the four acting categories, Best Director, and Best Picture). We are trying to cover all bases, but don’t come to us if you lose money on your Oscar Nomination pool.

Best Actor:

Almost Certain:

Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler; Sean Penn, Milk

Definite Maybe:

Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon; Leonardo DiCaprio, Revolutionary Road; Brad Pitt, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Outside Shot:

Colin Farrell, In Bruges; Clint Eastwood, Gran Torino

It seems that this year, if Mickey Rourke didn’t win a Best Actor award, Sean Penn won it. Both men seem to be all but a lock for a nomination. Benjamin Button seems to be role that screams “nominate me,” so Pitt has a good chance. Langella won a Tony for originating the role of Nixon on Broadway, so it seem logical that he’d at least get a nod. The Academy might have something against DiCaprio, since he has been snubbed more than once in the past. That could work against him here. Farrell won the Golden Globe for this role, which gives him a chance. And the Academy might want to reward Eastwood for what could be his last acting role with a nomination.

Continue Reading

Slash Film just posted this haunting and stunning picture of the late Heath Ledger in director Terry Gilliam’s upcoming The Imaginarium Of Dr. Parnassus.

I am not going to add anything. I’ll just leave it to you to reflect on the photo.