Spawn

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.

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!

To be honest, this movie is a crap, but it has its charms. Spawn has a good make-up and following effects, and the music is quite good. It could be a guilty pleasure if you have time to waste.

6/10

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.

There are moments in Spawn that stand out with exceptional creativity, but what truly stands out about the movie is just how much of a mess it is.

The screenplay is a wreck, the acting is stiff and unconvincing, and the whole thing seems to fly by so fast, that we don't get a chance to experience much other than a look at some nifty visuals. In fairness, I suppose it is easy enough to argue that Spawn delivers its share of action sequences for a ninety minute movie, but perhaps it needs to back down a bit. It needs more story. In the end, Spawn feels like nothing more or less than an exercise in CGI and make-up effects.

It is pretty difficult to get involved with the story, in part because it makes no sense, but mostly because we simply do not care. The character of Al Simmons is about as cheap and plastic as the armour he suits up in during the second half of the feature. Quite frankly I don't find him all that likable. He is cold and nasty, even as a superhero. I really hate it when the good guys talk like the bad guys; when they cackle or make snarly remarks, like Dr. Westlake in the Darkman series.

Some of the special effects work, some don't. Our hero has a blood red cape which can expand to the size of Texas (don't ask me how). I liked that effect. The thing sort of has a computer generated life of its own, and its elegance clashes with the plastic of Spawn's armour. the primary villain is a clown from hell, who can turn into a ten foot armour plated beast which looks a bit like a cousin of the Queen from Aliens. That is another good effect. The climax takes us deep into the fiery pit of hell, which unfortunately does NOT so convincing. My screen saver is a more intimidating computer generated image. I was reminded a bit of the Brinstar level from Super Smash Brothers.

Like so many films do, Spawn ends on a note that just cries out for a sequel. Needless to say, there isn't one and there never will be. Spawn is entertaining in parts, but definitely not as a whole.