April 24, 2011

Worse than "Batman and Robin"?

Maybe. Cracked.com thinks that these films are worse; well, again, maybe -- but only because most of them were made-for-TV flicks with, obviously, inferior budgets.

First on their list is the TV Captain America movie. Yes, the origin is silly and the costume is as well (though careful -- the upcoming movie has him wearing a helmet, too!); however, tell me with a straight face that star Reb Brown isn't light years better as Steve Rogers than pathetic Matt Salinger.

Next on the list is the Nick Fury film starring The Hoff -- David Hasselhoff. And, as bad as this was, it's still rather debatable that it's worse than "Batman and Robin." The Hoff as Fury was a dubious choice, but he actually doesn't do that bad a job ... for TV.

Next is the first "The Punisher" film starring Dolph Lundgren. I've only seen it once, but of all the films on this list this one is definitively better than "B&R." In fact, it may be better than the two Punisher films that followed it (since they were pretty bad, also).

Next up is the -- again -- made-for-TV "Dr. Strange" flick. I saw this when it came out (when I was a teenager) and yeah, it totally sucked. But so did the "Spider-Man" made-for-TV movie (and series) and just about every such 1970s offering (like "The Hulk"). But given the huge disparity in budgets (and available F/X technology, is this really a fair comparison?

And, at last, the never-released Roger Corman-helmed "Fantastic Four" holds the #1 spot. OK, it's surely lamer than "B&R," but really? You wanna compare a budget buster to this? Give anyone the budget of 1994's FF and it ain't gonna look much better (though, hopefully, the plot would!).

Posted by Hube at April 24, 2011 11:14 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)