What is YOUR Top 10 Comic Movies of the Decade?

[Bass]

It was a tough call for me, but I had to go with TDK. It was probably one of the best comic book movies ever made, and pretty close to perfection.


My close number 2 is Hellboy 2, but I can freely say that that was influenced by my love of Red and all things fae.

HELLBOY 2 was very mediocre, but I agree - it really did have a charm. Red and Perlman's depiction of him are just perfect. And the elf fae people all looked fantastic. And Strauss was wicked too! There was a lot of nice touches, it just didn't come together properly, sadly.

 

[McCheese]

Actually X-men did incredibly well, much better than anyone expect it to. In fact as I recall FOX barely advertised it. And after it's success all the studios started jumping on the superhero bandwagon. Spider-man got it's budget and step through the door because of X-Men's success.

The way I heard it comic book movies were dead before Blade proved they could still turn a profit. And it was only because of Blade's success that X-Men got greenlit.

 

[Bass]

I'm just going to quickly go through everything in chronological order. If it's not on the list it's because I didn't watch it, or I didn't watch all of it. Probably because it was just a big load of crap.

X-MEN - Stupid and dull, despite its fine casting, the film lacked any sort of villain or storyline, claiming it was being 'saved for the sequel'.

UNBREAKABLE - A surprisingly gripping movie with lots of subtle elements that create a palpable mood of tension.

BLADE II - Nothing particularly memorable but not awful or anything.

SPIDER-MAN - Almost a great film, but unfortunately the Green Goblin (not Norman Osborne) was lacking, it was too long, and the ideas within it just aren't sustainable for over two hours.

DAREDEVIL - A light, fun movie that unfortunately skipped over a few key scenes far too quickly and had a lackluster ending, but had terrific villains and good arc for the hero, but it was ultimately scuppered for acting like it was much darker than it was,

X2: X-MEN UNITED - The sequel refuses to pay anything off as it drones on about Wolverine's origin, and instead of having anything remotely interesting happen, it just sets up new characters and villains for the 'final part of the trilogy'.

HULK - An almost brilliant film, with every single creative decision done right, and with a fantastic CGI Hulk, that completely falls apart due to an incredibly boring opening half-hour and an equal idiotic final half-hour, which is all the more upsetting as a simple MEN IN BLACK type of re-edit would fix the film entirely.

THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMAN - A stupid, nonsense popcorn blockbuster with no charm, substance, or thought, despite having Dorian Gray who was pretty cool.

HELLBOY - A wonderfully light, simpler take on the comic book version that's very entertaining, but the film fails due to it having the bad "alternate ending" to BLADE.

SPIDER-MAN 2 - In a desperate attempt to make it more sustainable, an idiotic number of sub-plots are brought into the movie and never have any purpose or meaning as Sam Raimi pretzels in random elements of the comics around a paper-thin plot, despite having a kick-ass villain in Alfred Molina's Doc Ock.

THE INCREDIBLES - As is the case with Pixar, this film is a complete gem; not only does it have wonderfully realised characters and a fun world to put them in, it actually has a substance behind the spectacle, showcasing the mid-life crisis of a man who begins to resent the life his family has created for him, as well as the burden of potential and the celebrity of mediocrity.

BATMAN BEGINS - Much like HULK, there isn't a single creative decision wrong with this movie in any area, yet, bizarrely, the result is a rather tedious, boring movie that, while somewhat entertaining and intriguing, spends all its time dancing around the fact that its about Batman rather than just embracing it, and ultimately coming off as a worse version of BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM.

FANTASTIC FOUR - Put to shame by THE INCREDIBLES, a more appropriate name would be "Mundane Four" since the climax of this movie involves the super-genius Reed Richards defeating a neutered Doctor Doom with GCSE-level chemistry.

V FOR VENDETTA - Completely missing the point, the movie embraces bullet-time spectacle over the actual substance of the comic, neutering any elements of the dystopia and the characters, turning it into popcorn action and a totally bizarre ending where all the anarchists wear the same exact costume.

X-MEN: THE LAST STAND - While chaotic and rabid, and singularly stupid in missing key plot points that would've developed a better ending, the movie is genuinely surprising as things actually happen: major characters suddenly die or otherwise removed from the story, while at the same time, balancing all the major characters so it becomes an ensemble cast, making it the only X-Men film I enjoyed.

SUPERMAN RETURNS - The movie has some excellent Superman moments in which he rescues people and it definitely has some charm in using the Williams score and Spacey as Luthor, but making him a stalking father of an illegitimate asthmatic child doesn't gel with the whole "Jesus" angle the film stupidly tries to give him as he struggles against a big kryptonite rock that miraculously works only when the writers want it to.

300 - A fantastically operatic action movie, it plays itself so far over the top that it becomes rousing, creating a rush of adrenaline few action movies ever achieve.

SPIDER-MAN 3 - Combining the worst elements of the previous two films; a lack of sustainable story, too many sub-plots that go nowhere, and idiotic villains, this film goes on for three hours with the main superhero crying like a baby throughout, while all three of the villains turn out to be non-events.

IRON MAN - An extremely entertaining film with incredible charm and charisma, it is the best television pilot ever made - it lacks the completeness to really be a 'movie', focusing too much on creating a franchise rather than being a complete artifact in and of itself.

THE INCREDIBLE HULK - Replacing Ang Lee's choice for a more emotional film, this goes for the equally valid high-octane action, but unfortunately, while everything Ang Lee's film failed in this one got right, it messed up everything Ang Lee's film got right, removing a lot of the emotional investment in Hulk and the CGI quality resulting is a film that is perfectly entertaining - except when the Hulk is on-screen, resulting in a mirror-image.

HANCOCK - An unequivocal success and a fantastic new superhero, extremely engaging and fun, right up until you discover Hancock's origin at which point the film immediately collapses under its own weight and the whole experience turns to ash.

HELLBOY II: THE GOLDEN ARMY - Possessing a number of wonderful little touches, the film has absolutely no teeth and goes off in a completely bizarre direction as it gives Hellboy and Liz a child, spends time with Hellboy drunk-talking with Abe Sapien, and once again, has a rather poor ending.

THE DARK KNIGHT - Sublime from start to finish, the movie twists and turns with masterful pace and skill, continually surprising you and utilising every single element from the previous film into a fantastic climax.

WATCHMEN - A badly told wonder, the movie is bloated, incoherent, and far, far too loud in every respect to such a level that entire plot points are lost in the cacophony, yet the story and atmosphere are strong enough to actually make it mesmerizing in a wonderful way.

So... if I had to rank

10. DAREDEVIL
9. HELLBOY
8. BATMAN BEGINS
7. SUPERMAN RETURNS
6. UNBREAKABLE
5. 300
4. HULK
3. IRON MAN
2. THE INCREDIBLES
1. THE DARK KNIGHT

To be honest, #4-10 would probably change on my mood or whichever one I just saw, X3 would probably jump on if I had seen it recently. Anyhow, there is a big difference for me between #4 and #3. The top three are wonderful.

If I included movies from outside the 2000s, the list would be...

10. 300
9. HULK
8. IRON MAN
7. BATMAN (1989)
6. MYSTERY MEN
5. THE ROCKETEER
4. SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE
3. BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM
2. THE INCREDIBLES
1. THE DARK KNIGHT

DICK TRACY should've been on my list because he has pretty much the best rogues gallery ever but it was played so campy it just didn't work right, as opposed to the 1966 BATMAN which did camp wonderfully.

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

The way I heard it comic book movies were dead before Blade proved they could still turn a profit. And it was only because of Blade's success that X-Men got greenlit.

Thus The Dark Knight can be directly attributed to Wesley Snipes.

 

[McCheese]

Thus The Dark Knight can be directly attributed to Wesley Snipes.

Indeed.

 

[Victor Von Doom]

10. A History of Violence -- One of the best comic films of the decade if not ever. Each character is fully fleshed out, there's no violence for the sake of violence, and the ending has to be one the most realistic and stoic endings on film.

9. Superman Returns -- Say what you will about the film.....to me it was great to see Superman back onscreen. And as much as I love the movie, I wish Singer had gone in a different direction and at least had Superman hit somebody. Still...there's always hope for Birthright story on screen. SOMEBODY IN HOLLYWOOD PLEASE GET AHOLD OF THAT STORY AND ACT!

8. Hulk (Ang Lee) -- Everything that Bass said. And there is nothing anyone will be able to say that will convince me that the second Hulk had better CGI. If only there was a way to combine the best of both films into one. Still....Ang Lee's Hulk wins the battle each time.

7. Sin City -- Such a beautiful blend of comics and cinema. It's hard to find any fault in the film.

6. 300 -- What beauty was presented in Sin City....was perfected in 300.

5. Road To Perdition -- Aside from Big, this is hands down my favorite Tom Hanks film. And its so beautifully shot. Right down to Paul Newman's final onscreen moment on film. I need to get my hands on the comic again and read it.

4. Iron Man -- Probably one of the best, no-strings attached, fun you can have at superhero movie. There's no deep plot that you need to follow....no twist in the story that you should've seen coming...just you and a billionaire with dashing wit and a billion dollar mechanical suit saving the day. To be honest, aside from Jackie Earl Haley as Rorschach have you ever seen a more perfectly cast character than RDJ and Tony Stark?

3. Dark Knight -- Close to being the best comic book movie ever made. Nolan's Batman series has prided themselves on being actual movies! When was the last time Hollywood ever took a film with a man in a costume and cape seriously?

2. Incredibles -- Everything a superhero movie should be. Fun, action-packed and touching. THE perfect superhero film.

1. Watchmen -- Perhaps it's my love of the book that clouds my judgement.....but Snyder's Watchmen is my fav. I could seriously watch that film almost everyday. And not even have to watch it all the way thru....I could just watch certain scenes and be done with it. It's like reading the book. Some days you don't want to read the entire story. Some days you just want to read the chapter of Manhattan on Mars recounting his life. Its not like Watchmen is perfect.....far from it. But no other movie haunts me the way it does.

 

[Langsta]

1. Batman Begins - This is my favorite comic book movie, not just of the decade, but of all time. The cast is absolutely perfect with the exception of Katie Holmes. Christian Bale, Liam Neeson, and Gary Oldman have the best performances in this film. I think Liam Neeson's was my favorite. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are perfect in their roles. The story is great and although some people criticize it for spending too much time on Batman's origin, I think the pacing was just right and I think it was very much needed. Yes, there were a lot of villains to juggle around, but when it comes down to it it's just Batman vs. Ra's al Ghul. That's the main story as Bruce Wayne becomes Batman, which is what this movie is really about. I like to think of Carmine Falcone, The Scarecrow, Joe Chill, and the corrupt ****s that run Gotham City as mere side-villains.

2. The Dark Knight - I'm willing to say that TDK is on par with or even better than BB. As for which one I enjoyed more? Batman Begins. The Dark Knight is one of the best sequels ever, but even if it's terribly long, it still feels less epic and more....I dunno, "compressed" than Batman Begins, and doesn't really focus very much on Batman. It also feels less like a comic book movie and more like a...."non-comic book movie." For better or for worse. I know this is about our favorite comic book movies so it sounds like I'm nitpicking right now, but really, you guys already know what's good about this movie.

3. Iron Man - Pretty badass flick. Decent cast; RDJ is superb as Tony Stark. The suit looks great; they still need to work the mechanics and stuff out and make the special effects a little more seamless.

4. Hellboy - Perfect cast, good story, good special effects, I can watch this movie a hundred times consecutively and not get sick of it, let's move on....

5. Hellboy II: The Golden Army - Nearly the same situation here, but it's not as good as its predecessor.

6. The Incredibles - It's sad that this is the best Fantastic Four movie ever made when it isn't even a Fantastic Four movie.

7. Spider-Man 2 - Emotional at some parts, funny at other parts, action-packed as well. Alfred Molina's Doc Ock is the best villain in the series thus far.

8. Spider-Man - This was great for its time. You have to remember, no one had any idea how Spider-Man's suit would look and function in real life, and Sam Raimi pulled it off. It just sucks that he couldn't do the same with the Green Goblin.

9. Wonder Woman - This is what a live-action Wonder Woman movie should be. It's DC's best animated feature to date.

10. X2: X-Men United - Funny, action-packed, with great villains like Magneto, Stryker, and Deathstrike. Mags is such a badass in this movie that when you see him again in the next movie it almost seems like they're trying to replicate the magic from this film. The two best scenes are Wolverine going beserk in the mansion and Magneto killing the security guards Hannibal Lecter-style (well....not exactly).

 

[Planet-man]

Forgot about Incredibles on my Top-5 list up there.... that's about neck-and-neck with X2 for the number three spot.

 

[ProjectX2]

The Incredibles and probably Unbreakable would definitely fit into my list but I restricted it to movies based on comics.

I really liked Road to Perdition but didn't care for A History of Violence.

 

[Gothamite]

BATMAN BEGINS - Much like HULK, there isn't a single creative decision wrong with this movie in any area, yet, bizarrely, the result is a rather tedious, boring movie that, while somewhat entertaining and intriguing, spends all its time dancing around the fact that its about Batman rather than just embracing it, and ultimately coming off as a worse version of BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM.

I wholly disagree with this statement. Not only do I consider Begins to be better than MoTP, I also think it 'embraces' that it's about Batman far, far more than any of the other Batman movies (including the one everyone has listed as their number one).

And I haven't met a single person, ever, who thinks the movie is tedious.

 

[Ultimate Houde]

I wholly disagree with this statement. Not only do I consider Begins to be better than MoTP, I also think it 'embraces' that it's about Batman far, far more than any of the other Batman movies (including the one everyone has listed as their number one).

And I haven't met a single person, ever, who thinks the movie is tedious.

I did.

 

[Victor Von Doom]

I wholly disagree with this statement. Not only do I consider Begins to be better than MoTP, I also think it 'embraces' that it's about Batman far, far more than any of the other Batman movies (including the one everyone has listed as their number one).

I don't think it's fair to compare the 2 because despite their similar subject matter, they are 2 VERY different films.

I think why Begins embraces Batman so much is the fact that all the other films have more about the rogues and who is playing them.

Nicholson as the Joker....DeVito and Michelle as Penguin and Catwoman....Carrey and Jones as Riddler and Two-Face....and so on. So when Begins only features Liam Neeson as an virtually unknown villain (to general movie audiences) and incoporating Batman's origins, then it's obvious as to why it's gonna feel more about Batman.

But as soon as his origins were done, they went right back to the having the villain as the star in TDK.

And I haven't met a single person, ever, who thinks the movie is tedious.

It has it's moments.

 

[Gothamite]

I don't think it's fair to compare the 2 because despite their similar subject matter, they are 2 VERY different films.

Exactly. Phantasm only dealt with the origin as a sub-plot to the love-story. It was less to do with the hows and whys, in fact it gave no indication whatsoever as to why Bruce Wayne would even need to be a vigilante and not a policeman.

I think why Begins embraces Batman so much is the fact that all the other films have more about the rogues and who is playing them.

It's more than that, though. It's the only Batman film that really believes what he is doing is right. While this is another debate in itself, it serves the movie well, as it shows the character as being more of a hero. The other films just question his sanity and his morality, which can be meaty and engrossing like in TDK, but it has been done to death in Batman stories since 1986. Not to mention the films which don't approach the subject matter from a psychological standpoint at all and just go for all-out farce (the 1966 movie and Batman & Robin).

But as soon as his origins were done, they went right back to the having the villain as the star in TDK.

I know, which is partially why I rank TDK lower. The villain wasn't the star, though. Gordon and Dent were the stars. The Joker was just the draw. In fact, the city itself was the main character ('who' gets the first shot of the movie?) and I think the movie was incorrectly titled. It should have been called "Gotham City."

It has it's moments.

Not nearly as many as The Dark Knight, which is severely lacking in plain-old fun in my opinion.

 

[Planet-man]

I agree with all of that except it being improperly titled....

 

[Bass]

I wholly disagree with this statement. Not only do I consider Begins to be better than MoTP, I also think it 'embraces' that it's about Batman far, far more than any of the other Batman movies (including the one everyone has listed as their number one).

And I haven't met a single person, ever, who thinks the movie is tedious.

I thought it was just myself and my brother, but I found more. I should say I don't think BATMAN BEGINS is a bad movie or anything, and I enjoy it more know than I did when it came out. There's even something I think BB gets better than TDK and that's Gotham. Gotham looks like Gotham in BB, but in TDK, it looks like Americity, which is a little unfortunate.

Exactly. Phantasm only dealt with the origin as a sub-plot to the love-story. It was less to do with the hows and whys, in fact it gave no indication whatsoever as to why Bruce Wayne would even need to be a vigilante and not a policeman.

The reason I said I felt the movie was tedious and dancing around the fact it's Batman is that it spends a lot of time on who and why, as if it has to legitimise itself even though everyone is there to watch a man dressed up as a bat. It would be like an Indiana Jones movie that spent the first hour dealing with Indiana Jones trying to work out how he's going to pay for his trip to the Gobi desert. The plot structure of the Batman origin is this: "Parents are killed. He trains. He fights crime as Batman." That's it. The least interesting part is the middle part, which has been done over and over again, and the movie spends a bizarrely long time on the 'training' part. In a way, BB is a montage played out in real time. All that time he spends training... it just feels like treading water. In that sense it's dancing around the issue of Batman rather than just going, "Man in Batsuit fights crime. Ka-pow." Which is what TDK did.

But, that said, I can completely understand and even agree with the decision to explore the motivations of Batman as opposed to just have him be there. I can understand wanting to give Batman a more substantial origin, or a more profound one. And I think BB is actually pretty fine. It's just, MASK OF THE PHANTASM, I think it does it much better, because it cut out the 'boring bits' as it were.

It's more than that, though. It's the only Batman film that really believes what he is doing is right. While this is another debate in itself, it serves the movie well, as it shows the character as being more of a hero. The other films just question his sanity and his morality, which can be meaty and engrossing like in TDK, but it has been done to death in Batman stories since 1986. Not to mention the films which don't approach the subject matter from a psychological standpoint at all and just go for all-out farce (the 1966 movie and Batman & Robin).

And everyone has done the "Batman trains to be Batman" story to death too. Batman's origin isn't as deep as people want it to be. It's not even as deep as Spider-Man's. BB didn't really change that.

I know, which is partially why I rank TDK lower. The villain wasn't the star, though. Gordon and Dent were the stars. The Joker was just the draw. In fact, the city itself was the main character ('who' gets the first shot of the movie?) and I think the movie was incorrectly titled. It should have been called "Gotham City."

That's just silly. The first shot of INDIANA JONES AND THE RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is a mountain. Should it be called MOUNTAIN? THE DARK KNIGHT is about Batman. Batman is the protagonist. He makes all the decisions, it's all about him. There's other characters that support him brilliantly, but it's about him. The city, or rather, its inhabitants, do have a sub-plot in the movie (which pays off in the ferries) but the city isn't the main character.

Not nearly as many as The Dark Knight, which is severely lacking in plain-old fun in my opinion.

What? Joker wasn't fun?

 

[Gothamite]

And everyone has done the "Batman trains to be Batman" story to death too.

No they haven't. There has been one Batman origin story in the comics in the last twenty years that is worth a damn and maybe three others that are really obscure. They've never done Batman's origin in detail, in animation.

Where are these great Batman origin stories you keep talking about?

That's just silly. The first shot of INDIANA JONES AND THE RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is a mountain. Should it be called MOUNTAIN? THE DARK KNIGHT is about Batman. Batman is the protagonist. He makes all the decisions, it's all about him. There's other characters that support him brilliantly, but it's about him. The city, or rather, its inhabitants, do have a sub-plot in the movie (which pays off in the ferries) but the city isn't the main character.

The whole plot of the movie revolves around the city and how it operates and what it does to people, not to mention the fact that there are sweeping, epic shots of the city every few minutes. Harvey Dent is just as much a protagonist as Batman and so is Jim Gordon. They call just as many shots as Bruce does and they have just as much (if not more) screen time.

What? Joker wasn't fun?

For every pencil trick scene, there was long, boring attempts at tension like the people (who couldn't act) in the boat talking for fifteen minutes blowing the other boat up.

 

[Planet-man]

I disagree violently with pretty much everything you've said here, but I don't see much point in trying to argue all of it yet again, so I'll point this out:

That's just silly. The first shot of INDIANA JONES AND THE RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is a mountain. Should it be called MOUNTAIN?

There's a difference between "shot" and "frame", and Indiana Jones is absolutely in the first shot of the film.

~~

Anyway I don't think Gothamite was using that as any sort of "proof" that the movie was mainly about how Gotham City works, but as a side-note(notice the parentheses?), and a damn good one. The first shot of a film is often used for that exact purpose. In a film like The Dark Knight, I certainly doubt it was by accident.

But either way, the proof is in the rest of the film.

 

[Bass]

No they haven't. There has been one Batman origin story in the comics in the last twenty years that is worth a damn and maybe three others that are really obscure. They've never done Batman's origin in detail, in animation.

Where are these great Batman origin stories you keep talking about?

When was "great" a requirement? I'm saying the origin story has been done over and over. They did in in MASK OF THE PHANTASM, they did it in YEAR ONE, they did it when he first appeared, they did it in the Burton and Schumacher movies... almost every damn Batman story goes on about the "how Batman had to deal with being an orphan" shtick. You said they've done the morality tales to death, and I was simply saying the origin has been done to death too. It didn't say there were lots of great versions of it.

The whole plot of the movie revolves around the city and how it operates and what it does to people, not to mention the fact that there are sweeping, epic shots of the city every few minutes. Harvey Dent is just as much a protagonist as Batman and so is Jim Gordon. They call just as many shots as Bruce does and they have just as much (if not more) screen time.

No it doesn't. The city and its inhabitants are a sub-plot, and while they are the protagonist of their sub-plot, the movie is primarily about Batman's desire to clean Gotham up, and it tests his willpower to continue fighting even though he wants to give up, and the stakes increase. The movie is essentially about Batman's retirement. He is the central, major, protagonist by a yard-arm. The city is the setting, scope, and scale of the story, but the story revolves around Batman's decisions. You're also over-generalising when you talk about who has what shots and how much screen time.

What do you consider a protagonist to be?

For every pencil trick scene, there was long, boring attempts at tension like the people (who couldn't act) in the boat talking for fifteen minutes blowing the other boat up.

Weird you say that, because those are the scenes where it was "about the city". Not only that, but those scenes were not only very well done, but an amazing thing to do: a movie starring Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Gary Oldman, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Christian Bale, and a key climactic moment is given to unknown actors and it worked.

Also, during this "boring tension" scene, you have Batman fighting Joker's goons and the police simultaneously, and then a drag-out brawl with the Joker, and Harvey Dent in the shadows killing cops and kidnapping Gordon's family. If the sequence lasted fifteen minutes it's because of all this happening. Compare this to the climax of BATMAN BEGINS where you've got the duel on the train, Gordon in the tumbler, and Rachel with the Scarecrow, and it not only lacks the spectacle of TDK, but it also lacks the substance, as beyond the destruction of Gotham, we have a repetition of the "I am your father" scene in the Wayne mansion. In TDK, not only is there the spectacle, but you have two declines of morality, one in Dent, one in the spirit of Gotham, and you have Batman meeting Joker for the first time since Rachel's death and ultimately refusing to kill him.

 

[Bass]

I disagree violently with pretty much everything you've said here, but I don't see much point in trying to argue all of it yet again, so I'll point this out:

There's a difference between "shot" and "frame", and Indiana Jones is absolutely in the first shot of the film.

~~

Anyway I don't think Gothamite was using that as any sort of "proof" that the movie was mainly about how Gotham City works, but as a side-note(notice the parentheses?), and a damn good one. The first shot of a film is often used for that exact purpose. In a film like The Dark Knight, I certainly doubt it was by accident.

But either way, the proof is in the rest of the film.

Okay, fair enough, I was splitting hairs. Here's another try: The first shot of INDIANA JONES AND THE RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is Indiana Jones looking for a golden idol in Peruvia. Why isn't it INDIANA JONES AND THE GOLDEN IDOL OF PERUVIA? CASINO ROYALE's opening shot involves a man in Prague. Even if we want to include the 'sequence' so it involves Bond, why isn't it called JAMES BOND IN PRAGUE?

Because the opening shots set the tone and atmosphere, and while some say "this is what this is about", some open with prologues. The bank scene in THE DARK KNIGHT is a prologue. It has that long pan of the city because this is where the movie is set. The city in TDK is primarily setting, not character.

And even if it was about the first "shot" of the movie, why doesn't the blue smoke with the Batman symbol count as a shot of the movie? That's the first shot, isn't it? It's not the production company logos. It's unique to the movie, and the sound creeps in over the top. It's the first shot made for the movie. And it's a big bat symbol, so it must be about Batman, right?

It is rare that you get an opening shot, like the one in SHAUN OF THE DEAD, which encapsulates everything about the movie. The vast majority of times, the opening scene or sequence sets up the time, space, and atmosphere of the movie, and very little more. The idea that Gotham City is the central character of the movie and that the movie is somehow about the inner-workings of the city is just inaccurate. The city has a sub-plot, and the city's soul is at stake, but the movie's entire story is about Batman's decisions under dilemma, and his soul.

A movie's profundity (if it has any) is displayed at its climax, through the climactic actions and decisions of its characters.

 

[Captain Canuck]

OCASINO ROYALE's opening shot involves a man in Prague. Even if we want to include the 'sequence' so it involves Bond, why isn't it called JAMES BOND IN PRAGUE?

Because the opening shots set the tone and atmosphere, and while some say "this is what this is about", some open with prologues.

well, that and the titles of James Bond movies are never that straight forward.