Spawn

This is a tough movie to vote. I personally liked it more than not, but only because I have always been fascinated with comic book super heroes, but that's it, Other than that, and some occasionally very well done special effects, this movie pretty much sucked. The parts where Hell or whatever that ridiculous place is supposed to be are done so poorly I won't even bother loosing words about it. The acting isn't as bad as some claim (well, what exactly can you expect from Martin Sheen anyway)and Theresa Randle is gorgeous as ever. The atmosphere of the movie is very, very dark and morbid, so I would recommend this movie to comic-hero fans ONLY!

I loved the comic book back in the day, and I was with it from the early beginning. So when there was news about a feature movie based on Spawn was in the works, it was naturally thrilling news. And furthermore, with New Line Cinema involved, it could be nothing but good. Right? Well, while "Spawn" certainly has its moments, it is not without its flaws. And believe you me, the flaws in this movie were monumental.

There is a good amount of action throughout the movie, which is essentially the movie's strongest side. Well, that and the fact that it is based on a very popular comic book franchise. The storyline in the 1997 "Spawn" movie wasn't particularly thrilling, and it was essentially just to bring in new fans to the franchise. Especially since most of what was brought to life on the screen had already been covered in the comic books.

Malbolgia was rather poorly animated and why didn't his mouth move as he spoke? Furthermore, why did he sound like Dr. Claw from Inspector Gadget whenever he was speaking? It just didn't really add up to anything worthwhile.

As for fan service, then it was nice to see Angela make a cameo appearance but why didn't she intefere at the galla? Saving her for a later movie perhaps? But I still think that it would have been so much better to have her in the movie more than just a few seconds long cameo.

While we are on cameos; it was also a nice cameo by Todd McFarlane when he showed up and came face to face with his own creation - literally.

John Leguizamo was a good choice to play The Violator, because his rugged voice, wits and charms really transcended well into the character. The cast in "Spawn" was quite good, and there was some good names on the cast list.

"Spawn" does have some pretty good CGI effects. Well, except for the billowing cape which was just out of tune with everything else. Sure, I know it was supposed to be a huge cape, but it just looked so poorly animated. And when Clown was entertaining Cyan, where his eyes and tongue came out of the head, then I was actually ready to turn off the movie. That whole thing just added a very unnecessary layer of stupidity to the movie.

Certain parts of the movie did not correspond with the comic book. Especially the thing with Terry being a white guy.

The practical effects, such as Spawn's skin, was quite good. And the special effects team really brought a lot of life to the characters and the environment.

"Spawn" didn't really do justice to the comic book, but it still was an entertaining movie for what it turned out to be. Just take it as a separate entity away from the comic book and you'll be fine.

This is also the type of movie that you can watch every now and again, and I think I had now seen it four or five times since it was released back in 1997, although years pass in between every viewing.

This film is just like the comic that inspired it: Great visuals (I still really like McFarlane's superhero art style), but much like the majority of "Spawn" stories, it really doesn't go anywhere. The set looks good, the characters look good, the cape looks REALLY good, but the story? Other than telling the origin and the standard "must stop the bad guy" motive, it doesn't do as much as it should. And yes, I know it's a Hell-based movie, but the metal soundtrack just got distracting and annoying, instead of enhancing the story like it should have. John Williams or Danny Elfman it wasn't.

Need to see the film? It's a great visual ride. Just don't expect much more than that. It did make for some cool toys, though.

Everyone seems to agree that the original Spawn comic is excellent material for a pointless, violent, stupid and thoroughly amusing movie. This movie, however....It isn't all that violent (if you compare it to the comic book), but it is stupid and utterly pointless. Amusing? It could have been if they had inserted a prolonged torture scene of John Leguizamos Clown character: one of the most un-funny, irritating and tacky "comic relief" characters ever to have (dis)graced the screen. Move over Chris Tucker and Pauly Shore - we have a new candidate for overrated quasi-comedian of the decade. The special effects were kind of confusing - half of them were excellent and half of them looked like beautified Sesame Street animations (the demon "thing" of hell, for example, which had me crying with laughter). Let's hope for the next Spawn movie they take a few chances and make a grittier downbeat tale with more in common with the original comic and not like the muppet show from hell.

I remember seeing this film as a kid, and i remember it being pretty bad-ass. Joining IMDb, and seeing it at a 4.9, I was astonished. But having been over twelve years, I decided to go out and buy the Director's cut. Just to be blunt, it's nowhere near worthy of the rating it's at. But, there is quite a bit of wasted potentiality. I'll start off with the good, which really there is a lot of if you think about it. First off, if you're really into action, look no further because this film sports a nice amount of it. And the basic premise is pretty interesting, but even the director's cut clocks in at under an hour and forty minutes , so it fails to dive any deeper than it certainly could've. The cinematography is by Guillermo Navarro, who many of you probably know from his work with director Guillermo del Toro ( "Blade 2", the "Hellboy" series, "Pan's Labyrinth", etc.), and he does a bang up job. With the right direction this could have been a masterpiece by all means. Mark A.Z. Dippé knew and carried out the bare minimum of film making, and if you look into it is busy now-a-days with animated Garfield productions. What a down grade, huh? About 90% of the visuals are pretty damn good actually, and the acting as it is is all right. For these things alone, I enjoyed this movie, where as I despised "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" for its predictable generic storyline and overly done flashy effects. Michael Jai White was far from terrible and John Leguizamo was pretty terrific if not a bit cartoony at times.

The bad points really hit this film hard. The pacing, attuned to its short run time, zooms by way too quickly with annoying video game like transitions and a score that didn't fit the film too well. Every time I was expecting more to be developed, I was let down. "Oh, this is a cool plot line-wait, what, we're moving on already? oh..okay..". And lastly, amongst 90% of the great CGI and make-up, the battle in hell is painstakingly terrible. They should've gone with an elaborate set and CGI here and there, but it becomes hopeless so you have to sit threw what you would call a lackluster climax.

But for what it is, I highly recommended this movie for its dark humor and awesome action.