300 sucked. That is all.

I liked Hellboy2. 300 was a little too much homoerotic for my taste.

"The Dark Knight" was definitely my favorite comic book adaptation of the decade. I really thought it was far truer to the spirit of the comics than Tim Burton's take on the character, which went the campier route. It was that campy tone that made me hate the "Hellboy" and "Fantastic Four" movies.

But overall, most comic book adaptations are pretty lame. The only really good ones for me were "Dark Knight" and "Iron Man." And as for absolute worse, you forgot to mention Nicolas Cage in "Ghost Rider."

I agree with you about Spider-Man 2 being the best comic book adaptation of this past decade.

Rounding out my top five are:
2. X2: X-Men United
3. Iron Man
4. Batman Begins
5. Hellboy

The first Blade, 300 and Watchmen though, deserve honorable mentions and reside in my Top 10.

Dark Knight was a decent movie, but it doesn't hold up to repeat viewings. The plot machinations seem more ludicrous than usual considering it's adapted from a comic, and Christian Bale insisting on using the Bat-Voice in nearly every scene had the theater I saw it in guffawing.

Heath Ledger's Joker, though--that is a performance as an iconic movie villain for the ages, up there with Robert Mitchum's turn as Rev. Harry Powell in The Night of the Hunter or Jack Nicholson's performance in Kubrick's The Shining.

I seriously do not know how anyone can argue the first "Spider-Man" was the best comic book adaptation of the decade. Frankly, I was bored by much of it. And William Dafoe's Green Goblin outfit just looked stupid. "Spider-Man 2" was considerably better and "Spider-Man 3" was just a mess. (I must admite personal prejudice in that I was never interested in this franchise much. It's just not my taste.)

I loved "Iron Man," but honestly, both "The Dark Knight" and "Batman Begins" are better. I do have to wonder, though, if "The Dark Knight" will hold up in the future as a classic, or if it will be reevaluated as a good but not great movie with a classic performance by an actor taken before his time (Heath Ledger's Joker really is one of the acting jobs for the ages). Time will tell, I guess.

As for the others mentioned here:

"Watchmen": Excellent adaptation of what was long thought to be an unfilmable graphic novel. Some rough parts, but worthwile if for nothing else then to watch Jackie Earl Haley and Jeffrey Dean Morgan as Rorschach and the Comedian.

"300": Yes, it's kinda ridiculous and melodramatic ("THIS. IS. SPARTA!" can be translated as "ENUNCIATE. EVERY. SYLABLE!"), but it's great to look at and a lot of fun.

The "Hellboys": Lots of fun, especially the second one, where Gulliarmo Del Toro really lets his fantasy freak-flag fly after "Pan's Labyrinth's" success.

"X-Men 2": I agree, excellent and easily the best of the "X-Men" movies. Too bad they botched "X-Men 3" so badly.

Worst of all: "Catwoman." Ugh.

I'm sorry, but 300 was just a bloody remake of a three stooges sketch.

Maybe the only thing left for Spiderman 3 was the special effects? I like it because it just happened to be the first movie I watched in Blu-Ray on an HD monitor. The sandman effects were beyond amazing with this additional level of detail.

Sin City. Don't forget Sin City.

Jose, I really don't think you can call Burton's two Batman flicks campy (especially not "Batman Returns," which is one of the darkest, most bizarre major studio releases I've ever seen and one where Burton's inner freak gets full reign). You want campy Batman flicks, look at Joel Schumacher's flicks, especially "Batman and Robin." The fact that George Clooney apologized for that flick makes me respect him all the more.

I forgot "Sin City," which was awesome. (Can they give us the sequel already?) Too bad Frank Miller's "The Spirit" was just a mess.

For that matter, we can also call "Road to Perdition" and "A History of Violence" well-done comic book adaptations, since both started life as graphic novels.

steven pressfield's "gates of fire" would have made a much better basis for a movie about thermopylae than "the 300."

I noticed that no one mentioned "Superman Returns", which is absolutely the appropriate response to the movie. It wasn't the worst, it wasn't cringely terrible; nor was it good or original. It was riffing off (justifiably) beloved movies from decades ago, with limited originality. It belongs on neither the best or worst list, but ranks high on my most disappointing list.

Mecki,

Sin City was okay, but it had the same flaw as Tim Burton's first Batman: it was an excuse for a visual style with very little to offer in terms of characterizations and story. Other than the cool visuals, I was bored by it. Yeah, Rodriguez, we get it, it's 'cool hyper-violence'.

I think Sin City's legacy are the use of the filmmaking techniques to keep costs down and shoot it largely in front of a green screen, which led to Snyder's 300 adaptation using largely similar methods.

I'm still voting for Adam Sandler for actor of the decade. A new Olivier.

Favorites, in no particular order: Hellboy, X-Men 1 & 2 (not 3), Batman Begins.

For that matter, we can also call "Road to Perdition" and "A History of Violence" well-done comic book adaptations, since both started life as graphic novels.

In that case, maybe I'll vote for Stardust.

Spiderman was a POS - both 1 and 2 - the best was clearly X-Men 1 and 2. Part 3 is a terrible mistake, but without Brian Singer, what would you expect?

Spiderman 2 had the most awful dialogue ever. Totally off the charts terrible. The hebrew hammer was ok.

I would have to vote with The Dark Knight as the #1 comic book movie of the decade, and yet, I still wonder if it could have been even better. There are so many scenes where they leave the grizzly actions of the Joker off-screen. I always wonder would this movie have been even better Rated-R instead of PG-13?

I would agree that both SPIDERMAN & X-MEN 2 were the best super hero films of the past 10 years. I hated the first SPIDERMAN and thought everything not involving the Sandman in SPIDERMAN 3 was a mess. I liked IRON MAN a lot but honestly think the HULK reboot with Edward Norton was a better movie. That said I have a feeling IRON MAN 2 is going to hit it out of the park in a major way.

Yeah, I forgot about Road to Perdition and History of Violence. They weren't comics in the super hero genre, so they didn't come to mind right away.

Leaving the adaptation aside, Perdition as a stand alone film was excellent and almost kind of retro. A young Copolla or Sydney Pollack would have made a similar film during the '70's. Mendes is a great filmmaker who can get away with making elegant, sometimes arty movies, within a big studio system.

History of Violence, as a film, was more interesting than good. If anything, it established Viggo Mortensen as a magnetic full blown movie star, apart from his role in the LOTR films.

It's funny. Who could have guessed that left of center bloggers and myriad commenters on their respective blogs were all (me included) closeted movie and comic book/sci-fi geeks?

Great stuff.

Among non-superhero comics, Ghost World and American Splendor deserve a mention (and probably Persepolis, but I didn't see it). And I'm looking forward to The Death Ray.

with bush's re-election in 2004: it has to be sin city (2005)

all are punish'd, all are punsih'd...

League of Extraordinary Gentleman is the worst comic book adaptation. It isn't close.

What do I say? When I was your age I had outgrown comics.

Best (in no particular order):
Spider-Man 1 & 2
Dark Knight
Batman Begins
X2
Iron Man

Worst:
Catwoman
300
Ghost Rider
...and one that I haven't seen mentioned but utterly ruined one of my favorite comics of the 90's - Constantine.

i had no idea steve was a comic nerd.... i'm 60 and a lifelong reader of comics and i remember a time [post stan and pre frank] where any adult admitting to still reading superhero stuff was viewed with disdane and/or pity....still can't quite get my head around the idea that tons of media outlets now do "top graphic novels of the year" lists and nobody blinks....

Wasn't KILL BILL an adaptation of a comic book called "The Bride"? Loved both volumes of that film, even if it wasn't!

"It's funny. Who could have guessed that left of center bloggers and myriad commenters on their respective blogs were all (me included) closeted movie and comic book/sci-fi geeks?" - Jim

Actually it's quite logical that leftie/centrist bloggers have a strong geek streak. In order to be one, you have to have an active imagination, a large dash of creativity, and above all a sense of humor. None of which those on the opposite side of the aisle even remotely possess from all the years I've been observing them.

And since we're talking sci-fi, may I just say that Firefly and its spin-off movie Serenity are the best gorram fare in the whole goldang 'Verse?

Thank you.

Sin City and Dark Knight were the best. Steve is right, the Fantastic 4 movies were absolutely terrible and offered nothing in terms of visuals or story.

I'm with matt w. Forget the spandex and special FX, American Splendor and Ghost World were the comic book adaptations for grownups.

Robert Downey, Jr was amusing as Iron Man, but that just makes it a non-offensive disposable summer film. The Spidey's are tolerable on TV (and Alfred Molina was a hoot chewing the scenery).

The Batman's never live up to the comic books.

I could go on about the futility of adapting comics for the screen, but who cares;>

Not going to do a list, but...
Dark Knight and Batman Begins both deserve high marks for their immersive take on the classic superhero, making it possible to believe that Batman could arise from the circumstances of this world. While the Burton Batmans realized the world of the Comics better, The Nolan Batmans take the tension and realistic grit and detail of the modern crime/suspense film and somehow alchemically transmutes the comic from that world.

Iron Man isn't about a rich man getting what he wants, it's about that man learning that the inventions and and the good intentions that have earned him his fortune have been turned against them, and all that he holds dear. The film is essentially about his redemption of those things and himself, as he destroys the weapons that have fallen into the wrong hands, including at last his prototype power source and mechanical suit. It's also a pretty fun story to boot with a hero whose flaws and intelligence elevate him above any sense of a holier than thou patriot.

300 is a movie with some nice scenes and sequences (one of my favorites is when the King's wife gets her revenge on a traitorous politician), but it's a bit too stylized, and a bit too impressed with its own bloodletting. I probably would have liked it better ten years ago.

The Spiderman Movies... The first is a good Superhero, kind of like Burton's original Batman in its realization of the comic book universe. The Second is one of the best of all time. The third? The third tried too hard to be the second and first all at once, trying to impress people. It wasn't the worst movie in the world, but its reach far exceeded its grasp.

The X-men Movies... The first set the tone, grounding the soap opera aspects of the long and broad mythology of the comic book series in a realistic atmosphere of world events and personal motivations. The second set a higher dramatic bar, and cleaned up a great deal of what was problematic about the first. But the third and the Origins movie? What I've seen of the third movie trades the dramatic and narrative tension of the first and second for a needlessly conclusive, high body count effects blow-out. Again, it seems, somebody just wanted to replicate the success of the sequel, only more so. But they fail to realize that its set up and meaningful story progression that gives events like that weight. They're not inherently dramatic.

Daredevil, Electra, Ghost Rider Daredevil is actually a good movie, in my opinion, and its better in the Director's cut. While the Wire-Fu kind of yanks me out a bit, I think the characters are well drawn, the visuals (especially the blindsight) are excellent, and the story's got weight to it. Electra? Well, it's not totally bad, but it's a pedestrian effort. And Ghost Rider? The problem is, the show seems like Anime Filler. You have an assortment of bad guys in the story whose main function seems to be to get taken out by the good guy, and not much else moves on their account.

And that's basically it for me.

Anyone who votes for a different worst film than Elektra clearly hasn't watched Elektra from beginning to end (has anyone?).

Two other utterly terrible ones not yet mentioned: Ang Lee's Hulk and Wolverine.

im still trying figure out why i spent $9 bucks to see 300.

I liked both Batman films and Spiderman 2. Watchmen was also up near the top. Another I liked was Wolverine, though I wasn't overly thrilled with Schreiber's Sabretooth.

Worst was Catwoman and Daredevil.

300 sucked out loud, but it was made right by Meet the Spartans.

I really liked and continue to like V for Vendetta.

Next up, Steve asks: Which is better, a Mac or a Windows PC?

I liked both Batman films and Spiderman 2. Watchmen was also up near the top. Another I liked was Wolverine, though I wasn't overly thrilled with Schreiber's Sabretooth.

Worst was Catwoman and Daredevil.

It's not an adaptation, but for my money the best superhero movie of the decade, hands-down, has to be the Incredibles.

Why can't we vote for Incredibles? Oh, because of teh 'adaptation' caveat. Sigh. Otherwise Brad Bird's deconstruction/reconstruction (NO CAPES!) of the whole superhero genre would top the list.

If we're talking adaptations of existing comic book icons, the best of the decade would have to work in this order:

1) Dark Knight - its not about the color pallet, Matt. It's about the plot: the choices and consequences of those choices of the primary characters, and how a force of chaos like the Joker comes along and shreds those plans. What other movie made people seriously review game theory (well, other than Beautiful Mind)? Also the best performance by Tiny Lister in a long distinguished career.
2) Spider-Man 2 - better villain than the first, playing off the character conflicts that Parker had dealing with his dual identities (the "superhero with problems" theme he plays out), and one of the best-staged film fights ever on that elevated train.
3) X-Men - everyone thinks X2 was better, but the first one, introducing the character conflicts of being different (esp. the anguish of Rogue's inability to simply touch another human) was more pleasing and enjoyable. Maybe I got a thing for origin stories.
4) Iron Man - probably the only one that felt angst-free. Yes, Stark comes to regret his weapon-making ways, but it seems secondary to the idea of jumping into the hottest car, uh mecha, ever and taking it for a test drive.
5)

Movies not to make the list:
1) Hulk - the Norton version. A better take on the Big Green Giant than Ang Lee's tortuous film, but still had weak character motivations and was basically all set-up to have two monsters fight each other.
2) Hellboy 2 - major plot holes and character quibbles kept this from being a more enjoyable flick
3) Superman Returns - all this setup for superhero angst, getting a darker character turn for Luthor out of Spacey, and what do we get? Kryptonite Island. Also, having Supes and Lois bear a son? With a supposed romantic rival with Perry White Jr. that clearly can't match the Superman/Lois dynamic? Whoever wrote the plot should hang their heads in shame for wasting the reboot effort.

Yeah, but the Strikeforce: Morituri movie was awesome.

I can't believe no one has mentioned "Constantine."
I'll watch that every time it's on, and with Tilda Swinton as as fucking Gabriel! Cmon. Easily in the top ten.

I have to step in and defend the Fantastic Four. The characters were consistent, the plot didn't seem to drag at any point, and everything fit together. It wasn't trying to be anything other than a fun summer movie, and it succeeded without ever being tone deaf or completely stupid. That to me is an under appreciated accomplishment.

I'll agree on "Spiderman 2" being the best comic adaptation. It definitely "got" what Stan Lee has been on about all these years.

The worst "comic book movie" isn't adapted from a comic book movie, but it might as well have been, and from a bad one at that. "Avatar." Outside of $300 million on special effects that are so special you keep paying attention to them (which contrary to popular opinion is not a good sign - SFX should be so good you think of them as "reality" - which happens in SM2 and doesn't happen here). The first 90 minutes are such a snooze I literally nearly fell asleep 30 minutes in (people compare this to the good "Star Wars" movie - the first one - but that one started at 90mph in 3rd gear and accelerated from there). The characters are ho-hum (Cameron long ago gave up "character" for "caricature"), and the plot is ripped off from "Dances With Wolves" the way the first "Terminator" was ripped off from Harlan Ellison's Outer Limites episodes, "Soldier" and "Demon With A Glass Hand" (there's a reason why the final credit in all Terminator movies is "The producers wish to recognize the work of Harlan Ellison," and this is it - proven in court to Cameron's financial dismay).

At least it's not as boring as "Titanic."

PaulW's take on The Dark Knight is excellent. Others on the thread have described it as a crime drama (like Heat, one of Nolan's inspirations) disguised as a superhero movie.

Robert Downey Jr. is perfectly cast in Iron Man, and you knew it from when the news broke (when Heath Ledger was cast as the Joker, you thought -- good actor, but...? When I saw the pictures and heard the voice, I knew he was going to win the Oscar). Tobey Maguire was an excellent choice for Peter Parker, as well.

Ben Affleck as Daredevil? Eh...I thought he was all right. I don't know if I'd pay to see him play Daredevil in a sequel. But I would definitely pay to see him direct a Daredevil sequel.

I respectfully submit that "Watchmen" was a huge disappointment. I allowed myself to succumb to the hype, but left the theatre re-convinced that the only way to do a decent adaptation would have been as a miniseries on pay-TV, though a LotR-style trilogy released in quick succession might have cut it as well.

It comes in as the middle-quality Alan Moore adaptation of the decade, with "V for Vendetta" as the best (2/3 of a great movie, but it goes off the rails by turning it into a love story in the final third) and "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" as the worst. (shudder)

My favorite comic adaptation of the decade would be "The Dark Knight", mainly for the way in which it convinced me fairly early on that all bets were off in terms of how far the filmmakers were willing to go. Plus, I saw it in IMAX, and the native-IMAX sequences (particularly the Hong Kong flyover) were simply stunning.

most disappointing comic book adaptation of the decade has to be "From Hell" - the comic was one of the true masterpieces of the genre. Here's a quintessential British story (Queen Victoria et al), and who is chosen to direct? The American creators of Menace to Society & Dead Presidents, who had a complete lack of understanding of the source material.

Why didn't they choose a British director & British leads? Why the marring modification of the plot - Abberline's noble suicide instead of his being bought off with "the house that jack built"?

A miss on almost every count.

The Dark Knight was excellent, no doubt about it.

Among the worst was each and every Alan Moore adaption. No matter if it was LoeG or V for Vendetta or From Hell or Watchmen. Hollywood doesn't understand Moore any more than I understand Hegel - and I really tried.

Someone should make a law that forbids Moore-adaptions. Congress, take over!

I won't rank them, but the best of the decade were the two Batman Movies, Iron Man, the first 2 Spider-Man movies, and V for Vendetta, which seems to have been overlooked by most of you.

Never saw Catwoman, but the Fantastic 4 movies and the newest Superman movie were absolutely terrible.

Damn, I forgot all about "V For Vendetta," which was another excellent one. Between that and "Watchmen," I think Alan Moore can ease up a little bit on Hollywood, because those were two adaptations of his work that turned out all right.
But if he's still pissed off because of "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," it's perfectly okay, because THAT was an abomination. ("From Hell" was okay thanks to Johnny Depp and some others, but it didn't really have much to do with the graphic novel.)

I bought the "Dark Knight" books when they first came out, in the 1980s, and have loved them for years (including Miller's Batman:Year One). I think Christian Bale is a great actor, and have admired him since Empire of the Sun. And Gary Oldman is a treasure.

DARK KNIGHT was one of the few films I have had trouble watching all the way through. It was hideous. The plot was unfathomable and the dialogue and structure were muddled. Action scenes were edited so you couldn't follow what was happening. (Wait...he's suddenly in Hong Kong?....WTF?....). I thought it was a huge botch in terms of writing. And that Bat-Voice was just a mistake.

Heath Ledger was jaw-droppingly good through. Gary Oldman is always worth watching.

IRON MAN was a great deal of fun. It was a great Comic Book movie. Didn't take itself too seriously, re-imagined the origin and development beautifully, and Downey is eminently watchable. No contest.

I don't know if WATCHMEN was a good movie or not. I really enjoyed it but I liked it because it replicated the novel so lovingly. I selfishly enjoyed seeing the book come to life, but I can't tell whether it made a good movie for someone who wasn't familiar with the source material.

Batman Begins was a better movie than The Dark Knight. The Dark Knight was an absolute mess, redeemed only by having one of the few successful on-screen depictions of the Joker.

Spider Man 2 is by far the best comic book adaptation: as someone mentioned above, it nailed what Stan Lee was trying to get at with Peter Parker/Spider Man. X-Men 1 & 2 were good, but X-Men 3 ruined the franchise and retroactively brought down the quality of the first two. Iron Man is rated so highly as an adaptation because it's enjoyable to watch and because the filmmakers did not make any obvious screwups and twisting of the source material, and you can't ask for much more than that.

Watchmen was a fascinating demonstration in how you can do a faithful scene-by-scene recreation of the comic book source material and yet still miss the point. And I liked Watchmen; I just felt that in their effort to make sure every shot corresponded to each comic book panel, conveying the central plot points and themes got missed. This was a job for Ridley Scott, not Zack "300" Snyder.

I say read a goddamn book.

They are all hideously boring. I was unable to sit through more than 15 mins of Iron Man. Pathetic wish-fulfillment fantasy made to impress those who might find Avatar 'deep'. As for 300, far from being 'homoerotic' (if only) they should really have called it 'Die Fag Die'. Perhaps they're saving that for the sequel.

I find it hard to believe that anyone over the age of 10 actually watched any of this trash.

Well this turned out to be a popular post. I have to admit to not seeing a single one of the movies listed. I do, however, know that Steve is a Science Fiction fan. What were your top 5 favorite Science Fiction books of the year?

The most homophobic part of 300 isn't even what it does to the Persians -- so square a culture they'd likely win the Ward Cleaver award for Western Asia the last 25 centuries running -- but the ridiculous 20th century butch treatment they give the Spartans. They may have been the most persistent advocates of man-on-man love in all of ancient Greece, which is saying something.

"Daredevil" was better than its critics thought, but basically they tried to cram about two-three years worth of storyline into a way too limited time. Frank Miller did a totally wonderful job of reinventing the character in the published editions. The movie however hit all the notes, just in the wrong order.

I liked "300" for its visuals and I really wanted to have a hole for throwing annoying people into after seeing it.

Same problem with "Xmen-3" which took the Phoenix storyline and totally screwed it up on many, many levels.

Why do otherwise smart people watch trashy superhero movies anyway? I assume you're all over the age of fifteen.

Why do otherwise smart people watch trashy superhero movies anyway?

Because they're trashy movies about superheroes, of course. Why else?

Sin City... by a country mile.

All the others are distant seconds or lesser.

Ghost World, anyone? Or Persepolis? And as for bad, I can't bring myself to watch Whiteout.

I'm in a love-hate relationship with virtual memory because of how prices are always dropping. I absolutely hate buying SDs for my R4 / R4i at (what seems to be) a crazy bargain price only to see it become a whole lot cheaper a few weeks later.

(Submitted using Nintendo DS running R4i ZKwa)