In the vein of everyone having an opinion, many of which don't agree, The Guardian'sfilm blog has a piece about superheroes -vs- talented actors. The spin -- the actors who are taking on the roles of comic icons are being fooled into doing so: "What seems to be happening is that the actors themselves are being duped into thinking that these are roles of Shakespearean complexity." Is that the case? The piece mentions George Clooney's less-than-loved Batman and Robin and Halle Berry's terrible stint as Catwoman. If either of them took on the roles thinking they were getting a meaty, complex story, they should probably get their heads examined.

The blog goes on to talk about the increase of suffering and torment in superhero roles, and that the ones who are truly successful don't take themselves seriously -- Spider-Man, Wolverine. Wait ... Hugh Jackman? His role isn't the darkest thing out there, but the character definitely has his share of angst. Considering the built-up aversion to dark superheroes, it's no surprise that the piece then goes on to describeBatman Begins as "a po-faced, dark (in every sense) and confusing two hours in the company of a man with the lowest voice and most clenched jaw in Gotham city." Sure, if Spidey had to fall into the depths of despair, that would be strange, but can you fault Batman for being dark? Isn't it supposed to be? It's based on an orphan who wants revenge. That's not light and happy fare, even if the television version made it that way.

What do you think? Are some superheroes failing because the actors are taking the roles too seriously? Did Eric Bana's green, fighting fiend fail because he made it too awkward and real life? Is Batman Begins not half as good as we've all said it is? Does suffering make superheroes smaller?
categories Movies, Cinematical