DC Universe

It has that something...

The first screen adaptation of Batman is made after just several years of comic-book releasing which caused some interaction between them. Although it was based on comic, it brought in some new details that comic took over later on. The most important thing the comic took from this show is Bat-cave. Also, after this show, comic changed the appearance of Alfred to fit his appearance here.

Originally, it was shown as fifteen episodes and then, twenty years later, it came to theaters as one four hours long movie. The story is extremely simple and naive, characters are two-dimensional and, from today's angle, it looks totally silly. And yet, it has that something, that comic-book charm appealing to kids hidden in all of us. While I was watching it, I felt the same way as many years/decades ago when I was a 10-year-old boy, reading comics on summer vacation. In my opinion, an adaptation of the comic-book should have exactly that kind of influence on the audience, so in spite of all shortcomings, I'm giving it strong seven.

You can find the version of 3 hours and 35 minutes on YouTube.

Spoiler warning!

The movie was made during WWII and Batman works directly for the police, trying to reveal a Japanese agent that has the mission to enable the Japanese takeover of the USA from inside. Back then, all media was poisoned with war propaganda, so fact that this movie is full of racist remarks can be forgiven or at least ignored.

Every conflict between Batman and the villains is almost identical. Batman finds villain's layer, invades by surprise and fighting begins. There are almost no weapons, no one even uses legs to kick, not to mention something more sophisticated. It's mostly just fist fighting, like in Wild West saloons. Batman and Robin fight against two or three times more opponents and they get fairly beaten when something unexpected happens and saves their asses in last moment, so at the end, they end up victorious. Villains all wear hats and, during the fights, those hats never fall off their heads.

Because of the low budget, there is no Bat-mobile and almost no gadgets.

7/10

Continuation of "Batman" from 1943

This is also a series of fifteen episodes that were played in theaters once a week. The whole cast is changed and, in my opinion, the original was better. I especially didn't like Robin. Same as its predecessor, this show is also low-budget and extremely naive, but unlike the old one that had a comic-book charm, this one lacks that magic. Additionally, it's very hard to find, so I recommend you to skip it unless you are a hardcore fan of Batman.

5/10

Skip it, even if you are hardcore DC fan

First Superman movie is complete crap. There are just two positive sides to it. Acting is relatively good and there is a bunch of experienced faces for B production movie. Bunch of them you can see in A production movies which is rare. Second good thing is the message that it sends against racism, guns and oil exploitation. Other than that this movie is a total failure. Fact that it's made almost 70 years ago isn't a valid excuse for any of its flaws. The screenplay is one of the very worst I have ever seen, not only full of holes but extremely stupid as well. Costumes, effects and complete production are terrible. Light years below average even for B production of the 50's. This is probably the lowest budgeted thing I ever saw. If you think I am exaggerating, feel free to watch Batman from 1943. Eight years older and still much better in every possible way. I do not recommend this even to hardcore DC fans. Complete waste of time.

3/10

The most comic-bookish movie I have ever seen

Warning: Spoilers

When I sat to watch this movie I did not have any information about it and I expected nothing at all. But I received a lot. This might not be a movie of excellent quality, but it surely is the most comic- bookish movie I have ever seen. It's not so much a movie as it is comic-book brought to life on a big screen. Comic fans who take comics too seriously probably hate this adaptation, but for the rest of us, who simply love fun comics provide, this is probably the best Batman movie ever. It is modernized and parodied version of old Batman series from the '40s. The dark component is kicked out and what is left is a hilarious and entertaining action full of wacky lines.

Joker, Penguin, Riddler, and Cat-woman join together to blackmail the whole world. Clash of their super-villain egos, while they are trying to cooperate, is hilarious. Their looks, speech, and behavior are totally comic-bookish, and Lee Meriwether is incredibly sexy in Cat-woman costume. All four, together with Batman and Robin and whole storyline, exaggerate to the point of going too far, but manage to balance at the very edge of good taste and successfully avoid to tumble into the abyss of complete nonsense. Add to that sharks filled with dynamite, countless gadgets, all labeled with big banners "bat-this" and "bat-that", banalized chases, and bombs that take forever to explode, and you'll get the unforgettable comic-book comedy that leaves no one indifferent. This is one of those movies you can either love or hate. There's nothing in between. Oh, yes, I must not forget "ouch", "splash", "boom" and similar strip clouds that pop up in all sizes and colors all around the screen during action scenes.

I haven't seen all Batman movies just yet, but I did see at least one from every series, so I can say with some certainty that this one is my favorite Batman.

9/10

• Could be any one of them, but which one?
• Pretty fishy what happened to me on that ladder. Where there's a fish, there could be Penguin.
• Wait! It happened at the sea. See? C for Cat-woman.
• Yet, that exploding shark was pulling my leg. The Joker?
• It all adds up to a sinister riddle. Riddle-er... Riddler?

Legendary

If we ignore the fact that the opening and ending credits are suspiciously similar to those in the "Star Wars" and a dumb idea that you could turn back time by spinning the planet in opposite direction, this is one super movie. The first real superhero movie and the foundation of the genre that has enormous expansion these days. But even after a great number of superhero movies that followed and huge technology advancement, in my opinion, this movie still has no match. The moment when Superman shows up in costume for the first time, revealing the famous S on his chest, is one of the most recognizable and famous scenes in the history of cinematography.

9/10

Good sequel, but not great

There are a few awesome scenes, but the overall story is plain dumb. Still, the comic-book atmosphere is stronger than in the original, special effects are excellent for its time and it is highly entertaining. Christopher Reeve once again shows why he is the best Superman of all. Although this movie is not even close to the first one, for its time and genre it's still very much above average.

7,5/10

And once again there's no need for me to write review, cause someone already nailed it:

"This reminded me of the 1950s science-fiction/horror films with its primitive dialog, hokey action scenes and laughable makeup for the monsters. Oh, man, does this look bad as time goes on and we have been treated to 25 years of great special-effects since this was made.

What makes this more attractive to watch than those '50s films, however, are great swamp photography, Adrienne Barbeau's body and a story that moves fast. Barbeau, as she was prone to do, appears to be in this only to show off her massive chest. However, it's pretty harmless fun, very tame compared to the horror movies of the past generation regarding gore and profanity. It's also pretty tame for a Wes Craven directed film.

In the end, it's a good Class B film, usually fun to watch for a number of reasons." - ccthemovieman-1

6/10

Is this a parody...

DC movies mostly have depth, layers, dark and tense atmosphere, while Marvel is lighter, based mostly on huge amounts of action with a certain dose of humor. This movie looks more like a lousy attempt of Marvel than DC. "Superman III" seems like a parody on its two prequels. It has too much humor and mostly lousy one for a decent superhero movie, so it reminds of mediocre B production 80's comedies. Reeve and Pryor are great, but it's not enough to cover for the lousy story. The plot is too cluttered and banal for a superhero movie and not funny enough for a comedy. If it was under 90 minutes it could be entertaining, but with over two hours length it becomes tiresome and boring, and it lost my attention somewhere around the middle. The only really awesome thing in this movie is Evil Superman vs. Clark Kent fight scene. I just want to add one interesting fact. During the whole movie I was trying to remember where did I saw Lana Lang actress before and at the end it occurred to me. It is the same actress that plays Martha Kent, Clark's mother in TV show "Smallville".

6/10

Better than her cousin

4.3 on IMDb almost turned me away from this movie, but now, when I did see it, I'm completely confused by rating so bad. OK, the story is full of holes and illogicalities. If I was taking notes during the movie I could write a novel made of all nonsense I noticed. I mean, Kara brings her world to the edge of destruction and goes to Earth to try to make things right, but when she arrives, instead of trying to recover energy source in panic, she enjoys nature and her newfound abilities, flying around like a butterfly and acting like a child. The witch who gains possession of power source instantly knows what it is and how to use it. She knows about Phantom Zone and how to send Supergirl in it... But to cut a long story short, because there's a bunch of similar crap, this kind of plot holes and nonsense is typical for this kind of movies. If we ignore that flaw, this movie is really beautiful and entertaining, and most of all, it's really well done. It is much better than Superman 2 & 3, and as I hear, infinitely better than Superman 4. Technically speaking, it is better even than original Superman movie, but being 16 years younger that comparison would not be fair, because of accumulated experience in making superhero movies and technology advances. Personally, I do not like Helen Slater too much, but for 19 years old girl in her first serious role, she did a great job playing Supergirl. An interesting fact is that 30 years later she appears in Supergirl TV series in the role of Supergirl's adopted mother. Faye Dunaway nailed the role of the evil sorceress, which is expected as that kind of role fits her the best. Special effects are fantastic for its time and pretty much believable even for today's viewer. And what is most important, this is definitely the most fun DC movie up to date. I enjoyed all 138 minutes of director's cut and I would love to have it in my collection.

8,5/10

This is embarrassing

"Superman 1 was such a classic movie, and 2 was almost as great. Superman 3 is not a great Superman movie, but as a piece of '80s American comedy/spoof it succeeds and has some very memorable scenes (notably Chris Reeve as the evil Superman). But Part 4 is just an awful film overall with few redeeming qualities. Reeve's admirable storyline works well, and the double date scene with Superman & Clark is very entertaining (similar to the style of Superman III). But it's when Superman IV tries to get serious and exciting in its action sequences that it fails miserably and becomes a cheesy, ridiculous farce that only succeeds in showing how pointless it was to make the film on such a small budget." - Theo J Hyman

4/10

Ultimate Batman movie

Maybe this movie, compared to the best achievements in the history of cinematography, does not deserve the highest rating, but within the genre, it is absolutely perfect. In my opinion, this is exactly what one comic adaptation should be. Even more, it is not a movie inspired by comic, it is comic brought to life on a big screen. One of the first feature-length films by great Tim Burton, the man who succeeded to, in his own recognizable manner, catch aesthetics and spirit of comics and transfuse them into ultimate Batman movie. The cast could not be better. I doubt that Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger, Michael Gough and Jack Palance can ever be overcome by anyone else in later Batman movies, and I intend to verify that these days. We must not forget Prince who made music for this legendary movie. Overall observed, the story itself is the only weaker spot in this movie, but within the genre, it is exactly as it should be. Enough plot to keep it interesting, but not too serious approach to story cause it would kill a comic-book spirit. A dose of frivolity and humor is required for a movie to have the atmosphere of comics. And of course, completely deserved Best Art Direction-Set Decoration Academy Award. The movie I grew up with and to which I will always be happy to return.

10/10

To me this looked more like Scary Movie type of parody to Swamp Thing than it's sequel. Somewhat fun, but lousy. The only pretty thing in this movie was Heather Locklear and the only quality thing was Creedence Clearwater Revival music.

4,5/10

At the beginning of second season new Flash started to bore me. I don't want to give up on it just yet, but I decided to pause for a while by going back to show of my childhood, The Flash from 1990. When I was in elementary school I thought this was awesome. Now... Show is outdated in every aspect, but although story is much simpler than in new one and effects more primitive, old Flash has that nostalgic charm of 80's B production and comic-book atmosphere. Although new one is objectively better, old Flash I love much more.

7/10

Plots are completely different. Beside few names and fact that Flash is speedster who fights crime, they have almost nothing in common. The Way Barry becomes Flash is completely different and "same" characters have completely different characteristics and mutual relationships. While in new Flash Iris is black journalist and his adopted sister in whom he is secretly in love, in old one she is white artist and girl who leaves him. New Flash is based on his father being convicted for his mother murder and Flash trying to find a way to free him and punish real murderer, but in old Flash both of his parents are alive and well and he has cop brother who dies. From base to details this two shows are completely different. I have no idea which version is adapted from the comics, if any, but in my opinion, plot of new Flash is too complicated and in combination with modern technology, effects and production it totally lacks soul of comic-book.

****

As I watch more episodes I like this more and more and I have less and less will to ever finish new version. I just realized that same actor plays Flash in old and Flashes father in new show. Beside John Wesley Shipp, at least four other actors appear in both shows. Amanda Pays, who plays leading female role in old Flash, role divided to Wells and Caitlin in new version, 25 years later reappears in same role. Alex Desert, whose role in old version is closest thing to Cisco from new one, also reprises his role in few episodes of new Flash, same as Vito D'Ambrosio as Mayor Bellows and Luke Skywalker as Trickster. In old version Barry became Flash after he was hit by lightning, so he's the only meta-human there, while villains are mad, genius and backed up with some serious technology, but still just humans. Bunch of meta-humans makes new Flash nothing special and new show seems like better produced version of Power Rangers, full of monsters and empty action. Stupid and boring. Old show is more down to earth, more realistic, with more convincing situations and relationships and decent dose of healthy humor. It has much better atmosphere and I have to improve its rating once again.

8/10

I finished first and only season and I'm sorry that there's no more. But it may be good thing, cause they would probably spoil it in time. I collected impressions and, although it is very far from being one of the best shows of all time (maybe strong seven), in my opinion this is perfect example of how comic-book adaptation should look like. Shoulder to shoulder with Batman from previous year, within the genre I rate it perfect ten.

8,5/10

Sequels are often unwatchable and almost never keep up with original or succeed to be great films independently from prequels. But Tim Burton obviously doesn't know how to fail. I had high expectations from movie that gathers Burton, Michael Keaton, Michelle Pfeiffer, Danny DeVito, Christopher Walken, Vincent Schiavelli... and movie absolutely justified them all. Classic that stands shoulder to shoulder with original.

9/10

When it comes to picture and sound, third part of Batman series stands shoulder to shoulder with first two, but at the same time it is too frivolous. Story is all right, it is interesting and holds attention. Characters are two-dimensional, which is flaw, but not too big considering that it's superhero comic adaptation. But this is Batman, so there should be a bit more depth. Weakest spot of this movie, in my opinion, is cast. I really have nothing against Kilmer, but he is bad choice for this role, especially Bruce Wayne part of it. Riddler is supposed to be comic relief, I presume, but he has too much space in this flick and takes over position of main villain, and for that he is too ridiculous. Carrey simply should not be in Batman movie. His overacting and mop and mow is simply too much. It's terribly irritating and it spoiled overal impression of the movie. That kind of clowning is acceptable in Mask and similar comedies, but Batman is not and should not be a comedy. At the other hand, Jones, who should be main villain and whose character has dark depth, here it's not shown serious enough and he stays in shadow of the Riddler. Highlights are Chris O'Donnell, whose character is well written and performed, and Nicole Kidman, who's always welcome spice in any movie. I'm not disappointed, but it could have been done much much better.

7/10

This movie has comic-book charm and, although it is not good, it's not as bad as ratings show. But as Batman adaptation it is complete disaster. It may seem like parody, but that wouldn't save it cause it's not funny at all. Although it is somewhat entertaining and watchable, this movie is the worst Batman of 90's and possibly the worst ever. I have nothing against Clooney, but he is really wrong choice to play Batman. I can not decide if he's worse as Bruce or as Batman. But, however unbelievable it may sound, Clooney as Batman is not the worst choice in this movie, because Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze is incomparably worse. In stupid outfit, he badly plays character that is written even worse. He is not especially good actor anyway, but this is horrible even for him. This is abomination you have to see to believe. Robin and Batgirl are lousy, more part of the scenery than part of the story. Only Uma Thurman is somewhat decent, although far below her usual level. She overacts all the time, and although it is probably on purpose it simply ends up stupid. I'm not sorry that I saw this movie, but I definitely do not recommend it.

5/10

Steel has 2 on IMDb, 12% on RT and all reviews I came across are terribly bad. If I believed everything I read on net I would miss hour and a half of good entertainment. Movie sure isn't Oscar material, but to call it the worst movie of 1997 or the worst DC movie ever is very unfair. It has average story, typical for vigilante vs villain comic-book adaptation. References and one-liners are bit cheesy but in place for this kind of movie. Special effects are far from great, but decent enough for 90's. Actors and their performances, as everything else in this movie are totally ok, on level with better TV movies. The only real flaw of this movie is fact that O'Neal is bad actor, or more precisely, not actor at all. But at the other hand, he's not worse than Schwarzenegger, or Hulk Hogan, or Van Damme, and I don't see it's stopped them for making dozens of pretty successful movies. And however bad Shaquille might be, he has the cutest sidekick ever. Sparky stole the movie. I can not praise this movie cause it's really nothing special, bit it's not especially bad either. And it's surely is extremely entertaining.

6/10

My DC adaptations marathon came to Smallville, one of few shows I ever saw completely and even fewer I wanna see again. I just finished rewatching of the first season that shows high-school days of Clark Kent. Tom Welling is great playing young Clark who gradually discovers his abilities and tries to juggle between normal teen life and hiding the fact he's an alien. In first season he discovers his inhuman strength and speed, then he gradually discovers extent of his invulnerability and at the end he finds out about his X-Ray vision. The rest of his powers will come in seasons to follow. Here we meet Lex Luthor, Clark's best friend, who changes into villain in front of our eyes, partially because of his egomaniac father and partially because of distrustful treatment from everyone around him, caused by his wealth and infamous family name. There's also beautiful Kristin Kreuk, playing Lana Lang, Clark's unrealized love, and many more talented young actors. But the most impressive of all is John Glover, playing Lionel Luthor, Lex's father and main villain. Story combines typical teenage show with superhero elements, which slowly grow from season to season until they completely take over the show and change it beyond recognition. But for now special effects are at minimum and show is more teen romance drama than story about Superman. It may not be the best, but it's certainly my favorite DC show so far.

7,5/10

Review for this movie puts me in dilemma. If I try to be objective I would be hypocritical to praise the movie that bored me to tears. At the other hand, I can not be subjective either because I'm well aware of all qualities this movie has to offer. Although not so original, story is strong, directing good and Best Cinematography Oscar more than deserved. Visually it has no flaws and some scenes are simply divine. Some say this is life achievement of Tom Hanks, but to me he is the weakest spot. He's completely unconvincing and maybe that's the reason that movie with so deep and moving story didn't left any emotional impact on me. Really big names are acting in this flick, still not one of them, except Paul Newman, left positive impression. Beside several really mighty scenes, movie was pretty much boring. I really wanted to like it, but it simply didn't happen. It's probably most fair to say that this is very good movie but not my cup of tea.

7/10

Years after Batman left Gotham, trio Birds of Prey takes over his role. They are Huntress - daughter of Batman and Catwoman, Oracle - former Batgirl put in wheelchair by Joker and Dinah - girl with telepathic abilities whose true identity and full potential are to be revealed later. There are also Alfred - Batman's old battler, Jesse - young inspector in love with Huntress, Harley Queen who tries to step in her old boyfriend's shoes and bunch of meta-humans. Show keeps Batman atmosphere while trying to distinguish itself from Batman story. It's not particularly original, but it's fun and holds attention. Acting is quite good and leading girls are beauties. Unfortunately, show is cancelled after first season, but it doesn't end with cliffhanger so I recommend it to DC fans who look for good entertainment.

7/10

I was looking forward to watching this movie precisely because of bad critics and ratings. Pretty often I find myself enjoying movies that are bashed by majority. Especially when it comes to superhero movies, because, although I love superheroes, I find the way they make movies about them incredibly stupid. The biggest blockbusters of this genre were lame to me, so I honestly expected to enjoy the movie that is hated by the people who love movies I hate. It's hard to describe my disappointment. If I start analyzing everything wrong with this movie it would last longer than movie itself, so it's much more efficient if I simply make a list of things that are not bad and you can assume everything else is bad. Here's the list:

1. Movie is not boring.

End of the list.

4,5/10

I'm fascinated by the list of it's awards and nominations:

Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association - Worst Film
Golden Schmoes Awards - Worst Movie of the Year
Razzie Awards:

• Worst Picture
• Halle Berry for Worst Actress
• Pitof for Worst Director
• Worst Screenplay
• Lambert Wilson nominated for Worst Supporting Actor
• Sharon Stone nominated for Worst Supporting Actress
• nominated for Worst Screen Couple

The Stinkers Bad Movie Awards:

• Worst Sense of Direction (Stop them before they direct again!)
• Halle Berry for Worst Actress
• Sharon Stone for Worst Supporting Actress
• Least "Special" Special Effects
• Worst Picture
• nominated for Worst Screenplay
• nominated for Most Intrusive Musical Score

Powerful

Besides "Road to Perdition", this is, I think, the only non-superhero movie based on DC comics and convincingly the best Cronenberg's film I've ever seen. I do not know how to present a brief summary of this movie without spoilers, so I'll skip the story itself. At first glance, this is a thriller with superbly directed action scenes, explicit violence, and wild sex. But if you look more closely, you'll notice that camera doesn't linger on thriller aspects. It focuses more on emotional expressions of characters, making this movie more a family drama than a thriller. Great choice of actors and excellent characterization. Even characters that appear briefly have depth and you will experience them as real people, as if you personally met them. Viggo Mortensen, Ed Harris, William Hurt, Ashton Holmes, and Peter MacNeill are all perfect in their roles, but Maria Bello literally brought hers to life. She was nominated for Golden Globe and, in my opinion, she deserved at least nomination for Oscar as well. Even if in time I completely forget about this movie, I surely won't forget her as Edie Stall.

8,5/10

Demystification of superhero

Although my average rating of all the Marvel and DC movies I have ever seen is the same (6.7/10), I have always been more inclined to the DC universe. This film only reinforced my position. I cannot say that this is the best superhero movie so far for the simple reason that it's hard for me to put it into that genre at all. While Marvel flicks are mostly shallow action movies sprinkled with humor, and DC films keep the two-dimensional atmosphere of comics, here we have a completely new approach, the complexity, and depth of a serious drama.

Batman Begins, as the name suggests, brings the detailed origins and genesis of this superhero and gives background to everything we've been watching about him so far. All that we took for granted in previous versions, because it was vaguely hinted or not explained at all, here it is elaborated to the tiniest detail, thoroughly and rationally. The drama of Bruce's loss of parents, his growing up, inner struggles, how he acquired the skills he possesses, what kind of devices allow him to move and fight and how he got them, everything is clearly and thoroughly explained, which completely demystifies Batman. That's why I think that Nolan's Batman is too realistic to be considered a superhero movie. I wonder how much this action thriller with drama elements is even faithful to comic-book it's based on...

From a technical point of view, this movie is excellent. Camera and directing are great and in combination with scenography and music they create very serious and dark atmosphere. The cast is top-notch. Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, and Rutger Hauer are names that guarantee flawless performance. Still, although I love Katie Holmes, and I consider Christian Bale one of the best actors of today, in my opinion, two of them do not fit into the atmosphere of this film at all. Katie leaves the impression as if you put a single actress in color technique into a black and white movie. I cannot pin any flaws to her, it's just that her appearance and charisma simply stick out from the rest of the movie. On the other hand, Bale as Batman is just fine, but as Bruce Wayne I think he's pretty much a failure.

The story itself is excellent, not completely linear, yet not too tangled, with a good characterization and sequence of events without holes and illogicality. My only complaint is predictability. I suppose that the discovery of the main villain, who is working on the destruction of the Gotham from the shadows, should have been a surprise, but it was clear who it was from the very beginning. Still, the absence of a surprise factor, in this case, does not have too much effect on the overall strength of the film.

P.S. I'm only sorry that Katie saved Joffrey back in 2005. Because if she killed the little bastard back then, he wouldn't grow up to terrorize Westeros six years later. :D

8,5/10

Heaven and Hell are in eternal battle for souls, but angels and demons are prevented from staying on Earth. "Half-breeds" are living among humans, and by them Heaven and Hell affect people, but they are also prohibited from direct influence. They can only direct people to good and evil and provoke situations in which the real human nature of nature will show itself. If they violate the rules and thus disturb the balance of good and evil, John Constantine, a man with a gift to see the world of angels and demons, is there to stop them and "send them home." Keanu Reeves is satisfying as Constantine, but in my opinion he is lousy actor who reduces quality of any movie he's in. I do not like Rachel Weisz in the main female role neither, and there is no chemistry between them. Tilda Swinton is also lousy and the only actor who really leaves positive impression in this flick is Peter Stormare in the role of Lu(cifer). Story is interesting, directing and special effects are good and movie holds attention. It's worth watching, but don't expect too much.

7/10

"People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people."

Placed in futuristic Britain, this movie tells a story about dictatorship and the man who became symbol of it's downfall. People from many, not to say majority, countries in today's world can easily identify with the characters. Great adaptation of DC comic and always gladly seen Natalie Portman.

8/10