Good film. Much darker than I expected. The former Mrs. Stamos was a bit miscast and they did try and dress her down some.
Thomas Jane did a good job I thought. As is always the case, the initial uproar over his casting and the first preview placed some doubts in the back of my mind.
Glad I saw it, plan to add it to my DVD collection.
Does he wear the shirt with the skull on it? If not, then it’s Max Payne.
I saw The Punisher last night. I like that the film was entertaining enough that I will actually get the DVD (hopefully a special edition release). I can see myself seeing this movie more than once. My beef, however, is with Travolta and the two neighbor comic relief characters. I don’t know, I’d find it a bit inappropriate to make a joke around Jane’s Frank Castle of any kind, plus their physical appearances which comes off like that’s supposed to be part of the comedy, too. Mystique’s (I don’t feel like calling her Romijn-Stamos or even Romijn) character was another one I liked. Thomas Jane surprised me. I give him my thumbs up because I actually didn’t expect a lot from him despite being a fan of the character himself. Travolta’s acting wasn’t top notch in the beginning or the middle, I thought. Towards the end when he mistakenly “takes care” of two people close to him was when I thought he gave the goods. Overall, entertaining and dark–something Ebert actually bashed but probably has never picked up a Punisher comic ever.
The trend with Marvel adaptations right now seems to be lifting entire sub-plots and characters from Garth Ennis. That’s what’s happening with CONSTANTINE (Hellblazer), which is in large part an adapation of Ennis’s DANGEROUS HABITS story line, and all the stuff in THE PUNISHER with Mr Bumpo, Spacker Dave and The Russian is taken from WELCOME BACK, FRANK, which was Ennis’s first story in his current Punisher run at Marvel.
The problem is that Ennis has a penchant for trying to weave a peculiar brand of brutal, and very broad, dark slapstick comedy into his stories. It’s evident in much of his work, particularly PREACHER and a lot of his PUNISHER stuff so far. I don’t particularly care for it, but you can generally get away with it in the comic medium. The problem is, it doesn’t really work in movies. I’m not in a rush to blow $9 on this movie, but from what I’ve read it’s the Ennis-borrowed elements that seem to work least well and contribute to a very muddled tone.
It’s for this reason also that I’m not particularly looking forward to CONSTANTINE and, if it ever gets made, the PREACHER movie.
He probably has, as he is known for being a bit of a geek. In any case, he shouldn’t have to. Movies like this are supposed to function in their own right, for people who have never met these characters before.
He probably has, as he is known for being a bit of a geek. In any case, he shouldn’t have to. Movies like this are supposed to function in their own right, for people who have never met these characters before.[/quote]
Ideally, sure. But if they end up only appealing to the comic readers, that’s a lot better than being horrible for anyone. Casual movie goers have just casually lost $5.25, and the people who actually care about these characters already go home happy.
He probably has, as he is known for being a bit of a geek. In any case, he shouldn’t have to. Movies like this are supposed to function in their own right, for people who have never met these characters before.[/quote]
Ideally, sure. But if they end up only appealing to the comic readers, that’s a lot better than being horrible for anyone. Casual movie goers have just casually lost $5.25, and the people who actually care about these characters already go home happy.[/quote]
The problem is that the comic-book fans, particularly with a B-list title like this, make up only a tiny fraction of the audience, or at least the size of audience needed to make the film anything other than a total flop.
He probably has, as he is known for being a bit of a geek. In any case, he shouldn’t have to. Movies like this are supposed to function in their own right, for people who have never met these characters before.[/quote]
Ideally, sure. But if they end up only appealing to the comic readers, that’s a lot better than being horrible for anyone. Casual movie goers have just casually lost $5.25, and the people who actually care about these characters already go home happy.[/quote]
The problem is that the comic-book fans, particularly with a B-list title like this, make up only a tiny fraction of the audience, or at least the size of audience needed to make the film anything other than a total flop.[/quote]
Comics fans aren’t really a big enough audience to make comic books a succesfull medium.
I’m so very upset I didn’t think of this quip first.
I was surprised by the nudity.
I just saw this out of a combination and boredom and curiosity.
It’s definitely knocking on the door of my all-time top 10 worst films that I’ve seen at the cinema.
There are so many things wrong with this film, I don’t even know where to start. Logic, characterization, pacing, action, dialog, plot, set-up, resolution… it’s all one big train-wreck.
I love revenge movies and so far this year have enjoyed WALKING TALL, KILL BILL and MAN ON FIRE, but this is just an amateurish wannabe. Brutal and mean-spirited in the worst kind of way, and just plain stupid from beginning to end.
The Dolph Lundgren version was better. It really was.
One comment about Travolta, whose performance in this film is worth about 10 cents: has this guy made a single decent movie since PULP FICTION? If he makes a couple more movies as bad as this and BASIC, he’ll have exhausted the last remains of the goodwill he gained from PULP FICTION, and cause me to start cursing that movie for resurrecting his career.
There was a trailer for GODSEND before the movie, and afterwards it caused me to reflect on the notion that Travolta’s career is like the spooky cloned child from that movie: It really WAS meant to die when it did, back in the 80s, and having been brought back to life by a freak event, there’s now something soulless and horribly wrong about it.
Get Shorty.
[quote=“Andrew_Mayer”]
Get Shorty.[/quote]
And in the minus column:
THE PUNISHER
BASIC
DOMESTIC DISTURBANCE
SWORDFISH
LUCKY NUMBERS
BATTLEFIELD EARTH
THE GENERAL’S DAUGHTER
MAD CITY
FACE/OFF (Deal with it, it was shit)
MICHAEL
PHENOMENON
BROKEN ARROW
WHITE MAN’S BURDEN
Aww, White Man’s Burden sucked? I never got around to seeing it, but there was some serious B movie potential with a plot like that.
Yeah, that was his first post-PULP movie. I think he must have filmed it before PULP FICTION was released and became a hit, because he was still starring in straight-to-video shit right up until then.
Get Shorty.[/quote]
And in the minus column:
[/quote]
Hey, he asked for one (1) single good post Pulp Fiction movie.
That’s what he got.
Travolta seems to have a nose for shit.
He wasn’t even going to do Get Shorty except that Tarnatino told him it was a good script, and he should do it.
My head says yes but my heart says no. If only because Joe Bob Briggs was in it.
Oops. I must be blind, because I swear I didn’t see Swordfish on that list. My mistake.
I wasn’t aware that anybody did.
I wasn’t aware that anybody did.[/quote]
Swordfish = The Average Movie