Best and worst live action versions of comic book super villains

[DigificWriter]

For all of the OTTness that is in B&R, there's still undercurrents of the Gothic/Gothic Neon tone and sensibility of Batman, Returns, and Forever present, largely in the villains' backstories and motivations, and in a world where Clooney and O'Donnell weren't doing everything possible to undermine the characters they were playing, I think it would've worked out decently well as a follow-up to those movies, even with an overtly more kid-friendly aesthetic.

 

[Timby]

I fucking care!

I care that one of my favorite iconic DC villains was portrayed as a twitchy asshole on a sugar high.

I care that I paid to trap myself in a theater seat and spent two hours watching that bullshit.

I care that what should have been an awesome, historic movie - the first meeting of Batman and Superman in live action - was marred by the through line of "Twitchy Luthor creates giant shell-less Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle."

I care that some idiot at WB/DC thought Eisenberg was making brilliant choices with his performance.

You don't care? Fine. Nobody's forcing you to.

So your entire argument boils down to, "It wasn't exactly what I wanted."

 

[kirk55555]

I can't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but someone once called Batman & Robin a big budget version of the Adam West Batman series, and I think if you approach it that way, that actually helps a lot. I went into it with that mentality and thought it was actually pretty fun in a ridiculous, OTT way when I watched it for the first time a couple years ago.

Yeah, I can kind of see that. Like I said, I enjoy Batman & robin in a "so bad its entertaining" way. I honestly consider it to be a much more entertaining movie then Batman Returns, which is mostly just an unpleasant train wreck. But, honestly, even compared to Batman 66 it feels like the people involved on the creative side of B&R cared less and were generally less talented then the Batman 66 crew. From a writing/creative standpoint, though. Obviously things like set design and production stuff unrelated to creative decisions were generally better, but then again they had a much higher budget and it was 30 years later.

I'll maintain that Uma Thurman chews the scenery more then pretty much any Batman 66 villain, and is both more irritating and more useless then most of the villains on that show. Arnold only gets a bit of a pass because it feels to me like he's putting a good amount of effort to play the part as well as he can with the material he's given.

 

[Admiral2]

So your entire argument boils down to, "It wasn't exactly what I wanted."

I'm not making an argument. I'm stating an opinion.

And you're understating my opinion. "Exactly" is too mild. Eisenberg's portrayal had FUCK ALL to do with what I wanted.

And I'm sorry, but I do not look at going to the movies as a philosophical or intellectual exercise. I do not sit around contemplating the boldness or uniqueness of an actor's choices. If I'm shelling out thirty bucks a head for seats and snacks and the privilege of being trapped in a dark auditorium with a whiny kid or some idiot that won't turn off his cell phone, I want to at least be comforted by the expectation that I'm going to see what I want to see. Failing that, what I actually see had better damn well be an adequate substitute.

Eisenberg's Luthor was neither. It was merely a waste of my time and hard-earned money. I don't care what it was based on, I don't care what Eisenberg was going for, it was a gah-bage portrayal of Lex Luthor, which is why I named it worst.

Agree or don't. Your call.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The Good:

Ian McKellen's Magneto is pretty spot-on, as far as I'm concerned.

I like Hackman's Luthor a lot. He's hilarious, first and foremost. Brilliantly acted. Quotable, oh so quotable. I never realized that the trio of Luthor, Teschmacher, and Otis can be seen as the evil counterpart to the Superman, Lois, and Jimmy trio, until I recently saw it pointed out in the "It's really that good" review. Obvious, in hindsight, I know, I know. Anyway, that adds another layer to it. I have little interest in comparison to the comics, which I was familiar with when I first saw the film, by the way, both in Superman and Superboy stories. That said, arguably a better and more interesting version of Luthor is the one in the animated series that looks like Telly Savalas and is voiced by Clancy Brown, but that's off-topic.

Heath Ledger's Joker is good. Julie Newmar's Catwoman, too. Burgess Meredith's Penguin is pretty definitive for me. Frank Gorshin's Riddler is always goofy fun. I enjoyed Tom Hardy's Bane and Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow, too.

I liked Doc Ock in Raimi's Spider-Man 2 for two reasons. Alfred Molina was very good, and the visual realization was astonishingly vivid, especially for the time.

Tom Hiddleston's Loki is top drawer.


The Bad:

Danny Devito's Penguin. Sorry, Danny, I really love you in other things, but not this. The disgusting elements of this character, the Tim Burton-isms to coin a term, they really turned me off so much that watching this film was at every point pretty much no fun at all. I do not care to see this film ever again.

Yup, smoke-cloud Galactus in the Silver Surfer film was a big waste of time.

I had a similar reaction to the yellow-smoke Parallax in Green Lantern. It's irrelevant how true to the comics it was; as a film villain, a bunch of yellow smoke that could either posses you or bring a tidal wave of destruction was ridiculous; what are effectively forces of nature do not good villains make in film, generally. Too bad they wasted Sinestro by presuming that they could earn a sequel, because he was one of the bright spots of that train wreck.

Also bad: Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin, because his mask hid his face for so much of the time.

I never cared for Cesar Romero's Joker. I can't really put my finger on why exactly, but the voice was always ridiculous, never threatening, and I can never unsee his mustache!

 

[Vandervecken]

I don't get the love for Hackman's Luthor. He's nothing like the comics version, doesn't use the iconic look, dresses like a clown/used car salesman and is played mostly for laughs. I felt that way in 1978 and do to this day.

Totally agree. Did you ever see Sherman Howard Luthor in Superboy?

 

[Silvercrest]

For a second I misread that as "Sherman Hemsley Luthor".

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^ surely that would be a best version of the character