It occurs to me that James Cameron hasn't made a film in 12 years. Not since he embarrassingly declared himself the king of the world in response to Titanic's monstrous success, has he given us another movie. Granted, a man deserves to revel in his success for a while but this gap suggeststhat Cameron pretty much feels he made a movie that can't be topped. Its a shame for two reasons. Firstly, Titanic is far from the career defining masterpiece he seems to think but more pressingly because it maybe prevented Cameron from making his career defining masterpiece. His success seemingly took away his drive, and thus left us with no new Cameron film for a decade and some change, in which time he could have made two great films. It is a lesson in why directors need always be on their toes, and Cameron is certainly not the only example of a career derailed by an ever expanding head. One needs only to look at Quentin Tarantino, who not only makes film irregularly but seems to get worse with every release. His smugness, no doubt magnified by the 90's referential revolution he inspired, is most evident in Death Proof, which he seems to think can fly on his dialogue alone. It Can't. Its painful lack of direction and poor acting left any Bande a Part fanboy disappointed at what their messiah had evolved into. The problem was that he clearly wasn't all there, and as can happen when one believes entirely in one's own hype. In other words, his ego K.O'd his commitment and any sense of effort and thus we got a half-assed movie not worthy of his name.
A less renowned and no doubt less thought of example of this is Donnie Darko helmer Richard Kelly. Yes it may be jumping the gun a little to call him a great director, but his film, as any emo student will tell you, is a visually accomplished debut brimming with promise. The film becomes the shit amongst the younger population of most white, English speaking countries and thus the world is telling Kelly he is the next whizz kid on the cinematic block. And what is he to do but believe that he is in fact the next whizz kid on the cinematic block. Que Southland Tales, an overblown under-written mess. Directors of the world; the only way to stay at the top of you're game is to develop inferiority complexes, and fast. No matter what anyone tells you, always think you can do better otherwise you'll make your own version of Death Proof and the humble viewing public don't need that shit. They really don't.
This is an interesting one. This maybe the only time in recasting history that the new boy was cast pretty much only for his similarity to the orignal A.K.A Christopher Reeve. This may have been why Superman Returns sucked so much ass, because its director Bryan Singer was simply to much in awe of the original and thus directed a movie that belonged in the 1970's. So given that Reeve actually created his own character rather then copy someone else's, there can only be one winner.
To put a too finer point on it, The Hulk is an impossible role. Any cool thing you character does, he does it as a huge green monster inevitably done out of CGI. This is perhaps why two A-list high quality actors have both at least in part failed to bring Bruce Banner convincingly to the screen. Similarly, both films had their faults, but whereas Louis Leterrier's played safe at every opportunity, Ang Lee's did something unexpected and crazy at every turn, with decidedly mixed success. In the actor battle though, I think Norton wins it by a whisker, but Ang Lee's Hulk is the better film
The Joker has had two astoundingly entertaining peformances in his name, and although you can probably guess which one is the winner, the race is closer than you might think. Nicholson's Joker is broader and more entertaining, without the complexity or the danger of Ledger's. But in the end Ledger edges it out for the sheer electrifying nature of his performance.
Michelle's Catwoman may have been a supporting role in comparison to Halle's lead, but watching the two performances there is a clear and undeniable winner. Pfeiffer's is darker, more tongue in cheek and definately more entertaining. This contest definately proves that villains are much more interesting when you don't make them wuss out and become good guys. The more evil the better.
The mutch respected Alan Morre comic book involving notorious characters from classic literature, took a butchering in the hands of Blade director Steven Norrington, with the shoehorning in of an American character and the worn Sean Connery taking a paycheque to the extreme. Overblown and depressing.
The third Spider-man took a worrying step in the direction of soapiness, with a large part of the film devoted to a Peter Parker and Mary Jane spat. But the most unforgivable thing was the sheer wasting of Venom, given little screen-time and forced to scrren-share with piss-ant the Sandman. Uncool. Still Venom's getting his own movie now, so he wins in the end.
The first two X-men movies came worryingly close to actual quality, so this was countered by hiring Brett Ratner, lamely killing central characters and increasing the dumbass factor to Ten. No film has taken the identity of being a cash-in to heart quite like this film.
Nicolas Cage in a bad wig. This pretty much all I took from this film, which further proved that Mark Steven Johnson shouldn't be making films. Pray to god that reference means nothing to you.
Catwoman really did deserve her own movie, being clearly the most awesome female comic book character. But who'd have thought it would have gone so badly. Partly thanks to a horrible performance from Halle Berry, partly thanks to horrible OCD direction from Pitof and partly thanks to its horrible script. Its a pure disaster.
Oh this film is horrible. Nothing much more needs to be said except do not watch this film under any circumstances.
The granddaddy of terrible comic book films. Horribly family friendly, with a vapid George Clooney as Batman and a performance so bad its got to be high in the running for worst ever from Arnold Schwarzenegger as mr Freeze. You end up feeling as little sorry for Uma Thurman, whose Poison Ivy belongs in a mildly better movie. But its an 80's disoc lit fiasco, and lets hope nothing like it pollutes our eyes ever again.
Actually quite critically reviled on its release, I'd say that this one is worth a second look. Less painfully self-superior then other Alan Moore adap V for Vendetta and infinitely more stylish, This affecting Victorian set horror spin on the Jack the Ripper myth packs quite a punch. Even with Johnny Depp pre-Jack Sparrow mockney accent.
The first and perhaps to an older generation then myself the best, this movie works on pure unadulterated family entertainment value. Charming and by the end surprisingly moving, a much better movie then is often given credit for. Features one of cinema's most unnecessary cameos from Marlon Brando.
Spider-man did what Superman did for the 70's for the millennium generation. Smooth, slick and joyfully slight, the Spider-man films could define popcorn movie. The 2nd is the best, with Alfred Molina's Doc Ock striking an impressive villain, whilst Tobey Maguire does his thing with slightly less nervousness.
Another terrifically entertaining movie, mostly because of its awesome buddy act between Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith with the former particularly having an absolute ball. Some black humor amidst the comic book fun make this one linger beyond mere paperweight entertainment
Sure it may have been eclipsed by recent efforts involving the caped crusader, but Burton's Batman remains a classic. Sure the Prince soundtrack and some of the action scenes are nigh on embarrassing, but Nicholson's Joker is supremely entertaining and Burton really does put the Goth into Gotham City and the design looks a treat.
The anti-comic book movie comic book movie. Or in less convoluted phrasing, a delightfully mundane drama that takes its comic about a real guy thesis and makes it into a great movie, featuring a career defining performance from Paul Giamatti.
For the record I still maintain this film is slightly over-rated and if someone were to make a point about movies putting style over substance this would be the first movie to go to. Yet it undeniably is visually breathtaking and even features a good performance or two, most notably from Mickey Rourke and Benicio Del Toro.
A deceptively intelligent adaptation of the graphic novel of the same name, a huge return to form for David Cronenberg and a career renaissance for Lord of the Rings alum Viggo Mortensen, this tight painfully tense thriller that never lets you go from the start. Not for prudes though, with plentifully graphic sex and violence.
Syke. You though this was going to win didn't you, well if it hadn't been for the film in first place it certainly would have. But that seems like an obvious thing to say, anyways you've seen and heard it many times and you don't need me to tell you what a masterpiece this is.
I didn't even know that this was based on a Manga graphic novel, but there you go. Its a terrifyingly beautiful, haunting, original work of genius that anyone who has seen it in no way can deny. Watch this film now.
I'd equate this film with Crash. And while that movie has received the mother of all backlashes, this one got away clean. Both are heavy-handed drama's that feel more like accomplished lifetime movies, with their generalising and simplistic take on things. These flaws are ignored because of a few good performances, and Mystic River has a couple of those but its not enough to make up for its many faults. If mystic river were in high school it would be a C student who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.
Pixar movies are great, but this and the newer WALL-E are most definitely not amongst the best. Yet they get nothing but ebullient praise from all corners of the earth, presumably for their mawkish unrequited love plots and self-conscious cuteness. For the more cynical of mind, majorly uncool. Give my Toy story, the incredibles or Ratatouille any day.
Motherfucking three hour and forty minute action movie. That alone is inexcusable, but the rambling and inability to get to the point and a horribly OTT performance from Toshiro Mifune make it not as good as you expect. There are some good things, such as the use of the tragic greatest swordsman in Japan, or the James Coburn character for those who know this film only through The magnificent seven. Skimped on in the remake, that character certainly makes a mark here. 
You can tell Angelina Jolie wants an Oscar bad. She's played grieving widow/mother now for two years in a row, yet I should imagine she'll come up empty. But she has remained hollywood A-list for a long time and for the most part without making even a semi-decent film. But she has something better than that. Movie star quality. The more cynical might translate this to mean beauty and sex appeal, but she has an engaging presence on-screen and in the last couple of years has proved herself to be more then just an object of male gaze.
I hear the groans already, but Diaz is viable for this list, man. She plays herself in almost every movie, has worked with several of the best directors going and is instantly recognizable to the movie going public. She's more talented then most people give her credit for too, goddamn men and their inability accept women being good at anything. humph.
