Over and over I hear people bash this production, often citing it as among the worst of its kind. But nobody ever bothers to give a reason WHY.
So, I must ask those of you in the know: What exactly are the biggest flaws with this film?
The biggest flaw is that he doesn't wear the skull on his chest! That's like Superman without the "S" symbol. And then he refuses to wear body armor! That's not the Punisher. It's the Dumbisher! C'mon, your kidding right? I can go on and on buddy.
shareI havn't seen the Jane one but this is not as dumb as "warzone" and Dolph aactually gives a pretty good performance as the Punisher. The villains were really likable and interesting and the yakuza bitch being very menecing. And in the Stevenson version he does not wear the skull either except for about 2 secs in the beginning. This movie also has way more depth to it.
sharethe skull is on the armor during the entire 'war zone' film. it's just worn and vague, because the director didn't want it to be present at all. which is something i don't understand, since it is his symbol. ech, if they make a new one, hopefully they'll go for a bright unmistakable skull on his armor.
crack.
The biggest flaw is that he doesn't wear the skull on his chest!That bothered me when I was eight. As an adult I see why they did it. Superhero movies were black sheep. They had to make it a real-ish action film. I do like this better than the 2004 film as a Punisher movie.
also could be the fact so many slaughtred versions of this movie the british version for example is cut by about 90 secs.
"he is like a peice of iron"
What makes the Punisher stand out from John Rambo and James Braddock?share
The answer was deceptively simple. The Punisher had a visual cue that set him apart. Unlike all the movie action heroes (who often went shirtless), Frank Castle’s signature was a black T-shirt with a skull and crossbones on it. That may sound like a minor detail, but it was the difference between making a Punisher movie and just another 80’s action movie. So of course the makers of the 1989 movie, The Punisher, decided that silly T-shirt had to go. It was too comic booky.
I think it's because of the totally pointless and un-needed shot of his unwashed male buttocks throughout the film. it didn't need to be there for any reason.
Slobberknocker!
[deleted]
This version and the stephenson one are closer to the comic books than the thomas jane one, which felt like a totally different character we were watching and Thomas Jane wasnt believable in my opinion. He looked to weedy.
share[deleted]
As for a comic to film goes WarZone was closer to the max series comics but the movie itself was a total nd utter joke its laughable and far from the best Punisher movie and like it or not Jane was the best. A s for this movie theres nothing wrong with it its the second best Punisher movie.
share think it's because of the totally pointless and un-needed shot of his unwashed male buttocks throughout the film. it didn't need to be there for any reason.
LMAO!
"he is like a peice of iron"
This is easily the best. Not great and story was lacking in places but was EASILY better than the Thomas Jane one which had no edge to it and oh man, I did not even bother giving the time of day to the War Zone one, looked and from what I hear it WAS a joke.
Dolph really brought the darkness to the character.
As for his nude scene in the sewers, it added to his character. Telling us just how mad he is in the head.
Poor shooting... Just that shot of the Frank Sinatra tape at the beginning... Anyone could have shot that with a camcorder... Also, you can clearly see the repetition in the illegal casino shooting scene... The same slot machines being destroyed twice... And to think that I thought this movie was great when it came out in 1991...
Ça plane pour moi...
C'mon a Punisher without the skull is just some dude in a black shirt knocking off thugs.
NO. SALE.
Okay let's put it this way. Although Jane and Stevenson both had skulls their respective movies sucked big time. Sure, they had a higher budget but the script for both of them was crap. Jane's had the BIGGEST plot holes while Stevenson's pushed the line from gory to cheesey. Jigsaw and his retarded brother were also, well, retarded villains.
Granted that this movies script wasn't the greatest, but out of the three it felt closer to the actual Punisher. Dolph also looks, in my opinion, like the comic book Punisher of the time.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Despite being a cheaply made B movie this Punisher flick has some interesting characters and a bit of drama. Dolph wasn't a great actor but his portrayal of the Punisher was really good. He looked and acted like a man who lived in the sewers and was on the fringe of society. He looked strung out and weary which is the way the Punisher is meant to be.
shareBecause it's a question of taste.
I enjoy this movie, for many of the same reasons I enjoy COMMANDO or RAMBO 3. Or anything CANNON/GOLAN/GLOBUS. I have gotten over the fact that it misses a few marks on the source material (the origin, the villains, etc...and that you have an Italian gangster who sounds nothing like what he sould sound like). It's a failure as an adaptation. But it's fun to watch for ME.
I hated the other two because we were promised faithful adaptations (the new versions had more source material they could have taken inspiration from)and they blew it.
2004 tried to create tension and build up, but to me, failed. Showing Frank prior to losing his family was fine, but we didn't see the transformation into the Punisher. And the Castle family massacre was ridiculous in my view. And they used made up villains for some reason.
PUNISHER WAR ZONE was based on more comic book stuff, but was a silly slapstick R-Rated comedy almost disowned by the director herself. Over the top acting, excessive gore to drown out the film's emptiness of content and depth.
Three attempts. Three failures. But this one-the Dolph one-is most fun to watch.In my opinion.
--
Personal insults have no place in smart discussions.
This version is the only one that comes close to capturing the insanity and darkness of the character. There was a bit of that in Warzone also. I would dearly love to see Stephenson have another crack at the charcter with a decent script and a director that gave a damn. In saying that, Warzone had things i liked about it. I agree with an earlier poster who said that Dolph looked exhausted and a man at the end of his teather in this. Thats how the punisher should be played. There is an excellent scene in this where Louis gossett jnr's character tries to get through to Castle. I thought it added depth that the other two films were lacking.
sharei just saw it for the second time since the 80s. i admit its not as bad as i remember finding it but i definately wouldnt wanna own it or see it again. the one thing that kills it a little is the music, it sounds cheap and cheesy so it makes the movie seem cheap and cheesy when its actually not. a terrible score can ruin so much.
but man the Skull on his chest must reeeeeeally annoy hollywood. i mean this movie doesnt have it at all, the Thomas Jane version only shows it at the very end and the Warzone movie does have it but its so light and faint its barely visible. my guess is if they ever make another, sequel or reboot...this time it'll be perfectly clear for everyone to see. :P
the one thing that kills it a little is the music, it sounds cheap and cheesy so it makes the movie seem cheap and cheesy when its actually not. a terrible score can ruin so much.At lot of otherwise good movies suffered from this, throughout cinema history. share