IMDb RATING
5.5/10
2.5K
YOUR RATING
A guy dies after collecting comic books for decades. His mom inherits them and she ain't selling. Owners of 2 comic book stores want the collection. Their scheming gets ever more desperate.A guy dies after collecting comic books for decades. His mom inherits them and she ain't selling. Owners of 2 comic book stores want the collection. Their scheming gets ever more desperate.A guy dies after collecting comic books for decades. His mom inherits them and she ain't selling. Owners of 2 comic book stores want the collection. Their scheming gets ever more desperate.
Donal Lardner Ward
- Normal Customer
- (as Donnal Ward)
Jamielyn Lippman
- 30 Year old woman
- (as Jamielyn Kane)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
As a comic book reader and fan, I had been meaning to see this film for sometime. I wouldn't have minded waiting a bit longer, because, to be brutally honest, it is rather boring. The basic premise is two rival comic store owners fighting to purchase a large and valuable collection from an elderly woman whose son has just died. While the two comic stores are rivals, they are both in the business for entirely different reasons - one is an actual fan, one is only in it for the money. This highlights two sides to actual comic collecting as well.
The cast are an odd mix, but like any good comic book, that is expected. Not that this is a comic, but it seems to play out as one. Donal Logue plays Raymond, the unpleasant know-it-all owner of one store, he is a genuine fan of comics (I suppose you could compare him to Comic Book Guy from "the Simpsons"). Michael Rappaport is terrific as the money-hungry Norman, owner of the second store. Natasha Lyonne is fantastic (isn't she always) in his bitchy wife, Judy. DJ Qualls impresses me for the first time ever as fan-boy (and narrator) Archie, and apart from Rappaport and Lyonne, is probably the best actor in this film. I'm in no way saying that the others are bad actors, just this film isn't their best. Cary Elwes seems a bit out of place as Carter, and the lovely Monet Mazur is very underused as his girlfriend Kiki (but then again, aren't most girlfriends in comics?) Danny Masterton is as annoying as ever as Conan, while Eileen Brennan adds a touch of class to the film.
Overall, I was expecting more. There aren't that many films around which focus on comics so "Comic Book Villains" does a good enough job. THe cast are great over all, and there are bits of comic trivia scattered throughout the film, and its fun trying to pick up all the names of characters and events from various comic book series. But at times, the film can be a bit boring. For fans of comics, I suggest you watch it, but for others, view with caution.
The cast are an odd mix, but like any good comic book, that is expected. Not that this is a comic, but it seems to play out as one. Donal Logue plays Raymond, the unpleasant know-it-all owner of one store, he is a genuine fan of comics (I suppose you could compare him to Comic Book Guy from "the Simpsons"). Michael Rappaport is terrific as the money-hungry Norman, owner of the second store. Natasha Lyonne is fantastic (isn't she always) in his bitchy wife, Judy. DJ Qualls impresses me for the first time ever as fan-boy (and narrator) Archie, and apart from Rappaport and Lyonne, is probably the best actor in this film. I'm in no way saying that the others are bad actors, just this film isn't their best. Cary Elwes seems a bit out of place as Carter, and the lovely Monet Mazur is very underused as his girlfriend Kiki (but then again, aren't most girlfriends in comics?) Danny Masterton is as annoying as ever as Conan, while Eileen Brennan adds a touch of class to the film.
Overall, I was expecting more. There aren't that many films around which focus on comics so "Comic Book Villains" does a good enough job. THe cast are great over all, and there are bits of comic trivia scattered throughout the film, and its fun trying to pick up all the names of characters and events from various comic book series. But at times, the film can be a bit boring. For fans of comics, I suggest you watch it, but for others, view with caution.
I admit that I rented this movie simply because I love comic books (and have been wanting to see it ever since I first learned it was being made); however, the movie really surprised me. It was a very entertaining tragicomedy, namely thanks to its premise of trying to get a 45-year-old comic book collection from an unrelenting mother.
Donal Logue put forth an excellent performance as the bankrupt and shabby local comic store owner, and Cary Elwes actually made a believable thug. Despite cliché hijinks from the Natasha Lyonne-Michael Rappaport team-up and unnecessary narration, the story makes good with incorporating capitalistic competition, laid-back criminals, and comic trivia. In short, anyone can really enjoy this movie, but it is a must-see for what Stan Lee calls "true believers."
Donal Logue put forth an excellent performance as the bankrupt and shabby local comic store owner, and Cary Elwes actually made a believable thug. Despite cliché hijinks from the Natasha Lyonne-Michael Rappaport team-up and unnecessary narration, the story makes good with incorporating capitalistic competition, laid-back criminals, and comic trivia. In short, anyone can really enjoy this movie, but it is a must-see for what Stan Lee calls "true believers."
Comic Book Villains
The semi-sociopath who reigns over the other similar souls in his comic book emporium has been worked enough to be a cliché. There is even such a chubby unkempt looser lovingly portrayed as part of the Simpsons repertoire. Other than displaying a life that many of us can look at condescendingly, can this be a lead character for a movie?
Opening in a vein of light hearted reminiscence of small town Americana, the drama builds with the discovery of the death of a "collector." This man had lived with his mom his entire fifty some years with only one love, collecting comics. Our Simpsonesque character is now in a contest with another store owner to see who can finagle the mother of the deceased into selling this bonanza.
A standard criticism of many films is that the characters devolve into cartoon figures. This film does quite the opposite. It starts with clichés and whimsy and slowly peels away this facade to expose a throbbing violent human conflict. When goaded by their true passion, love of comics and the wealth to transcend their limited horizons, greed rears it's transforming head. What is more amazing, the fim still manages to keep a sense of wit, but now with a mordant ironic tinge that is intrinsic to the human condition when raw passion transcends reason.
This is inspired filmmaking. Not a scene, not a line, not an expression was included that did not ring true. This movie was not well received by the voters of my internet site, so what you have just read it a minority report.
The semi-sociopath who reigns over the other similar souls in his comic book emporium has been worked enough to be a cliché. There is even such a chubby unkempt looser lovingly portrayed as part of the Simpsons repertoire. Other than displaying a life that many of us can look at condescendingly, can this be a lead character for a movie?
Opening in a vein of light hearted reminiscence of small town Americana, the drama builds with the discovery of the death of a "collector." This man had lived with his mom his entire fifty some years with only one love, collecting comics. Our Simpsonesque character is now in a contest with another store owner to see who can finagle the mother of the deceased into selling this bonanza.
A standard criticism of many films is that the characters devolve into cartoon figures. This film does quite the opposite. It starts with clichés and whimsy and slowly peels away this facade to expose a throbbing violent human conflict. When goaded by their true passion, love of comics and the wealth to transcend their limited horizons, greed rears it's transforming head. What is more amazing, the fim still manages to keep a sense of wit, but now with a mordant ironic tinge that is intrinsic to the human condition when raw passion transcends reason.
This is inspired filmmaking. Not a scene, not a line, not an expression was included that did not ring true. This movie was not well received by the voters of my internet site, so what you have just read it a minority report.
5=G=
"Comic Book Villains" tells of an old lady who's sitting on her late son's valuable comic book collection and two competing comic book store owners who want it at any cost. Among its many deficits this shabby film has a handful of second rate actors, an amateurish screen play, obvious low budgetness, awful music, and a generally lame execution. Cinematic junk food. (C-)
Here's a great cast, with a good concept for a plot, how can it go wrong?
It can, if there's no writing! OK, that's not fair, if there's CONSISTENT writing. Like so many SNL skits, the first half is well developed, then, well, they have to end it somehow.
I had the same problem with this movie that I had with Monster's Ball. Now how could I mention those two movies together? One is the great academy award winning darling, one is a straight to video farce.
But both suffer from the fatal flaw: failing to convince me of the characters' motivations, and changes. In Comic Book Villains, we get a basic greed motive, but I didn't care what happened to any of the characters except Archie. That may have been intentional, so we wouldn't feel horrified by their bad behavior, but that just goes to show how de-sensitized we are to violence. It's a plot device to end a movie, not a logical or understandable part of the plot.
I guess if you feel you have to see all movies with references to comic books, go for it. But otherwise, use your 90minutes for something else.
It can, if there's no writing! OK, that's not fair, if there's CONSISTENT writing. Like so many SNL skits, the first half is well developed, then, well, they have to end it somehow.
I had the same problem with this movie that I had with Monster's Ball. Now how could I mention those two movies together? One is the great academy award winning darling, one is a straight to video farce.
But both suffer from the fatal flaw: failing to convince me of the characters' motivations, and changes. In Comic Book Villains, we get a basic greed motive, but I didn't care what happened to any of the characters except Archie. That may have been intentional, so we wouldn't feel horrified by their bad behavior, but that just goes to show how de-sensitized we are to violence. It's a plot device to end a movie, not a logical or understandable part of the plot.
I guess if you feel you have to see all movies with references to comic books, go for it. But otherwise, use your 90minutes for something else.
Did you know
- TriviaWonder Woman was first introduced December 1941 in All Star Comics #8 then made her first featured appearance in Sensation Comics #1 January 1942.
- GoofsIn the closing scene Archie is standing with the Sagrada Familia (Cathedral) behind him. Then he turns to a girl to light her cigarette and the Sagrada Familia is still behind him, even though he is now facing in a different direction.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Troldspejlet: Episode #28.13 (2003)
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content