Jump to content
Tim Bradstreet

The Punisher: WarZone

Recommended Posts

I took the time to read through this entire thread today and, with some fear and trepidation, have decided to throw in my very superficial two cents. I have every expectation of being blowtorched to a crisp but, as long as it's figurative and not literal, who cares. Flame away.

 

I look at the Punishe flicks from a different point of view because I have never read a Punisher comic in my life. Sorry about that. Just the way it is. I vaguely remember the Lundgren version - that he looked hot and didn't act very well and lived in a sewer for some reason. Don't remember much else from that flick.

 

I liked the Thomas Jane version of The Punisher for several reasons. I already liked him as an actor. I thought he did a great job portraying someone who is basically PTSD. I saw this film as the baseline for the sequels to come - explaining what he did for a living, explaining what happened to his family, explaining how he avenged their deaths, etc. Since Castle had lived and worked in various places, I just figured each subsequent film would be in a different location where he knew there were bad guys to eradicate.

 

 

But the following quote bothered me.

 

In the comic book the punisher after avenging his family sort of becomes this vigilante on the street going after criminals and he always sort of walks the line between good and bad. In the sequels is there anything like that being talked about where he's almost the villain.

 

Thomas Jane: Abso-fucken-lutley!, that's the whole thing of why I decided to become this guy ....and part of the reason why it took me so long to get me to do it, this is not a heroic person, he may have done these heroic things to avenge his family but he walks that line between good and bad and what's right and wrong and he crosses it sometimes you know? He does take it too far sometimes and in the second one [film] I think he should get apocalyptic, he should have the FBI after him, the cops after him and the mob after him and he's totally isolated himself, and he s just a fucken machine. I'd love to take it that far, trying to have that humanistic connection and then that not working out for him and then in the 3rd one I'd like to see him go completely insane.

 

That's The Punisher & that's Frank Castle. Insane, out of it, fuckin' people up and not caring. He loses it and doesn't know what's right, what's wrong. He is a machine.

 

-JO

 

If you want to watch a flick about a killing machine, rent The Terminator.

 

The thing I find most compelling about Castle is the tiny shred of humanity buried under the grief and rage. If you lose that, there is no reason to care about this character. And I WANT to care about him. Maybe a testosterone-driven blood bath works on a comic book page, but it doesn't translate into a wide release, wide appeal, movie. It always comes down to money. And a studio is not going to drop a chunk of change on a niche flick if they have any financial sense. That's life.

 

It makes me sick to my stomach that Thomas Jane will not be continuing to develop the character of Frank Castle, but I'll probably watch P2 when it comes out on video just out of curiosity.

 

Well, I could babble on, but I'll leave it there. Those are my main thoughts after reading through the thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are strong with the force Kwiat Skye. The dark side of Disaster Zone has not seduced you the way it has seduced some of our brethren here. I find it valid to wanna check the film out on dvd, fair enough. Just rent please, do not purchase. And Noeland, I am looking forward to see puree this dead horse.

 

-TL

 

You know I'm going to buy an extra ticket to make up for you not going, right? And I will tell everyone you saw it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, why the hell does everyone think that I'm blood hungry. I don't want pointless violence. Shit. I'm saying I want The Punisher to be more brutal when he kills. Sure, I understand where everyone comes from wanting the guy to suffer. But shit he was so easily stumped and then believed his friend who he'd never seen with his wife unless he told him to go with her, and all that bs. Then, yeah, he finds out what Castle did, but what the hell? He barely has time to except the fact that he was behind it before he's dead. I'm saying, you want someone to suffer, then do it in such a way that they'll be scared of you and shit their pants. I don't want pointless violence, I don't want pointless movies. I want conflict, suspense, darkness, drama, gritty, raw, in your face. Not a Frank Castle you think is goin' to take a girl to a movie and then go whack about 30 mobsters and be home in time for dinner. Got me? ;)

 

JO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AdminGuyX

OK, finally had a chance to sift through this thread again, and I've changed my mind. I think the horse is actually already past puree, it's fucking liquid. It's Salsa, with a hint of lime.

 

And not everyone thinks your blood hungry James. Not that I'd have a problem with it if I did think that. I know exactly what you're getting at, and I agree. I want to see Frank Castle as driven, intense, and yeah, bloody, willing to kill the evil bastards of our world with no hesitation at all. I want some body count, but I also want there to be a perfect justification for the body count, and I want it to matter to the story that he has to wade through evil doers, and criminals.

 

I don't know if the next incarnation of Frank Castle will be good or bad, all I'm saying is I'm reserving judgment until I see a trailer, or God forbid, decide to see the movie itself! Gasp and Horror. How dare I even consider it. We haven't seen a lick of concept art, a storyboard, or Ray in costume. We have bad scripts, and that doesn't always mean the finished film will suck, especially when it's being reworked right now, as I type this, someone somewhere is probably trying to improve the script.

 

Just too early for me to condemn it as dogshit just yet. But TL, don't misunderstand that. That doesn't mean I'm saying I think it'll be Saving Private Ryan either.

 

I don't see it as any kind of move against Tom Jane's Punisher to be curious about the new guy, and the new film. Like I said before, Tim Bradstreet is involved, my ass is in the seat on opening night. Just like the first film, though I had many reservations about it, I supported it anyway. And even now, though I don't love the film they made, I support it.

 

I do have a problem with insulting other members of the board for being interested in the sequel. It's a fine line we're dancing on, I know, but if other folks want to see it, so what. If we can get over the fire hydrant, we can live and let live here! :) hahahaha.

 

TL, I'm curious what it is that makes you think I'm non-violent. Honestly, where did that even come from? If you actually knew me, well, you'd know me. Just ask anyone I've punched in the throat, thrown through a plate glass window, thrown down a flight of stairs, or . . . shot at. I'm just not going to be including any of my real life misadventures or moments of violence and anger when I'm posting about a movie, music, comic books, or my favorite artists, directors, etc. because these things bring me joy and happiness.

 

And also, it's not how I relate to it or make my point. And that's important to understanding why I brought it up to begin with.

 

Reading this thread again, I see that you're just using these stories to relate to the topic at hand, and I missed that before. It read like you were just bragging about what a tough guy you are, and I was just a little marveled (heh, that's funny to me) at your ability to tell a story about how you'd fuck somebody up in any given thread.

 

Like if we were talking about fluffy bunnies and fields of flowers, you could probably come into that thread and talk about how you gave your girlfriend a bunny once, and if she ever cheated on you, you'd light the bunny on fire, and throw it at her car. I know, not a great example, but hey . . . :) was it a funny visual? I think so.

 

Anyway, to get back to the fire hydrant.

 

The hydrant thing, to me, represents what I felt was mishandled with the character. Mind you, as I've said before, I can separate the film from the comic with no problem. I wasn't watching the sober, driven, intense bad ass from the comic books. I was watching a film about a man destroyed. A family man who was the reason his family was killed, and was not meant to live himself. He was a drunk, guilt ridden, angry and confused, dealing with an open, fresh wound, but he was becoming focused. He was becoming the Punisher.

 

But, the hijinks. The tricks. The way he went after Saint did not work for me. I was bored to tears man. Especially because, as James noted, Castle was always just going to shoot everyone anyway. That wasn't a secret. The film made no bones about it, and never bothered to have any twists or turns before or after the violence. He could have shown up at the Saint building and opened fire at any time in the film, but he decided to play a bunch of tricks on Saint before opening fire.

 

There was no mystery for the audience in Castle's plan, or in the way he went about putting it into action. Saint never questioned a thing, and I had a problem with that. Big time. Because I felt the character would have questioned what was going on at some point before he killed his best friend and wife. It was just too force fed, too easy, and worse yet, it had to be accepted that he would just believe all of it, react with psychotic rage and kill his wife and best friend, for the rest of the film to work. That bugged the hell out of me. What if he already knew his best friend was gay? That would have shot the whole plan to shit, huh? What if Saint didn't accept that his wife was cheating, or what if he just didn't care?

 

None of those things were considered, and Castle didn't seem to have any backup plan in case his hijinks didn't work.

 

But more over, visually speaking (and visuals matter) The moment that I saw Tom Jane taking a fire hydrant out of a duffel bag on screen, my heart sank, I shook my head, and I knew the film wasn't going to be what I wanted it to be, ever.

 

And by the way, I LOVE the song from the diner. I equally hate the scene it was played in.

 

But for me, that's gonna be the last word for today. I have had enough Salsa. :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, finally had a chance to sift through this thread again, and I've changed my mind. I think the horse is actually already past puree, it's fucking liquid. It's Salsa, with a hint of lime.

 

And not everyone thinks your blood hungry James. Not that I'd have a problem with it if I did think that. I know exactly what you're getting at, and I agree. I want to see Frank Castle as driven, intense, and yeah, bloody, willing to kill the evil bastards of our world with no hesitation at all. I want some body count, but I also want there to be a perfect justification for the body count, and I want it to matter to the story that he has to wade through evil doers, and criminals.

 

I don't know if the next incarnation of Frank Castle will be good or bad, all I'm saying is I'm reserving judgment until I see a trailer, or God forbid, decide to see the movie itself! Gasp and Horror. How dare I even consider it. We haven't seen a lick of concept art, a storyboard, or Ray in costume. We have bad scripts, and that doesn't always mean the finished film will suck, especially when it's being reworked right now, as I type this, someone somewhere is probably trying to improve the script.

 

Just too early for me to condemn it as dogshit just yet. But TL, don't misunderstand that. That doesn't mean I'm saying I think it'll be Saving Private Ryan either.

 

I don't see it as any kind of move against Tom Jane's Punisher to be curious about the new guy, and the new film. Like I said before, Tim Bradstreet is involved, my ass is in the seat on opening night. Just like the first film, though I had many reservations about it, I supported it anyway. And even now, though I don't love the film they made, I support it.

 

I do have a problem with insulting other members of the board for being interested in the sequel. It's a fine line we're dancing on, I know, but if other folks want to see it, so what. If we can get over the fire hydrant, we can live and let live here! :) hahahaha.

 

TL, I'm curious what it is that makes you think I'm non-violent. Honestly, where did that even come from? If you actually knew me, well, you'd know me. Just ask anyone I've punched in the throat, thrown through a plate glass window, thrown down a flight of stairs, or . . . shot at. I'm just not going to be including any of my real life misadventures or moments of violence and anger when I'm posting about a movie, music, comic books, or my favorite artists, directors, etc. because these things bring me joy and happiness.

 

And also, it's not how I relate to it or make my point. And that's important to understanding why I brought it up to begin with.

 

Reading this thread again, I see that you're just using these stories to relate to the topic at hand, and I missed that before. It read like you were just bragging about what a tough guy you are, and I was just a little marveled (heh, that's funny to me) at your ability to tell a story about how you'd fuck somebody up in any given thread.

 

Like if we were talking about fluffy bunnies and fields of flowers, you could probably come into that thread and talk about how you gave your girlfriend a bunny once, and if she ever cheated on you, you'd light the bunny on fire, and throw it at her car. I know, not a great example, but hey . . . :) was it a funny visual? I think so.

 

Anyway, to get back to the fire hydrant.

 

The hydrant thing, to me, represents what I felt was mishandled with the character. Mind you, as I've said before, I can separate the film from the comic with no problem. I wasn't watching the sober, driven, intense bad ass from the comic books. I was watching a film about a man destroyed. A family man who was the reason his family was killed, and was not meant to live himself. He was a drunk, guilt ridden, angry and confused, dealing with an open, fresh wound, but he was becoming focused. He was becoming the Punisher.

 

But, the hijinks. The tricks. The way he went after Saint did not work for me. I was bored to tears man. Especially because, as James noted, Castle was always just going to shoot everyone anyway. That wasn't a secret. The film made no bones about it, and never bothered to have any twists or turns before or after the violence. He could have shown up at the Saint building and opened fire at any time in the film, but he decided to play a bunch of tricks on Saint before opening fire.

 

There was no mystery for the audience in Castle's plan, or in the way he went about putting it into action. Saint never questioned a thing, and I had a problem with that. Big time. Because I felt the character would have questioned what was going on at some point before he killed his best friend and wife. It was just too force fed, too easy, and worse yet, it had to be accepted that he would just believe all of it, react with psychotic rage and kill his wife and best friend, for the rest of the film to work. That bugged the hell out of me. What if he already knew his best friend was gay? That would have shot the whole plan to shit, huh? What if Saint didn't accept that his wife was cheating, or what if he just didn't care?

 

None of those things were considered, and Castle didn't seem to have any backup plan in case his hijinks didn't work.

 

But more over, visually speaking (and visuals matter) The moment that I saw Tom Jane taking a fire hydrant out of a duffel bag on screen, my heart sank, I shook my head, and I knew the film wasn't going to be what I wanted it to be, ever.

 

And by the way, I LOVE the song from the diner. I equally hate the scene it was played in.

 

But for me, that's gonna be the last word for today. I have had enough Salsa. :)

Noelandlovesguns is back with and he is blazing. This made me laugh man, and I agree 100%. Personally, I've always thought that The Punisher should be like Tony Scott's Man On Fire. Just seemed right. The NIN song in the background, the way the cuts and flashbacks are made. Just seemed that if Tony Did that to The Punisher, Frank Castle would be perfect.

 

JO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FADoss

So can I be the jackass to chime in and say...

 

1.) Why the hell was the first film in Florida? Ruined a lot of the Punisher mystique.

2.) What was up with Frank Castle being a master of disguise undercover cop?

3.) What was up with the elaborate revenge plot that was very brainy versus simply blowing the fuck out of everyone?

4.) What was up with the buddy buddy bullshit and almost (thank GOD) love story between Frank and his building companions?

 

I really got to say that it looks like they took an existing revenge script, changed the characters name to Frank Castle and added a few references to "The Punisher" and called it a Punisher movie. Much as...I beilieve Die Hard 3 was written originally as a Lethal Weapon flick.

 

Tom was a great Punisher...and I liked the movie...BUT I think it ranked near way below XMen 1 and 2, Spiderman 1 and 2 and Batman Begins (BTW...Christain Bale is the 4th guy to play Batman in RECENT memory and most likely the best...in Ray's defense).

 

The Punisher, if you ask me, has a reputation for having some REALLY crappy storylines and very BAD choices within the comics on direction. He's a VERY simple character that is VERY easy to do. People writing it have a tendency to overthink it.

 

Basically, if the next Punisher movie is jank...we may just be seeing more of the same...in some respects.

 

Let the stones come...

 

:)

 

Frederic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's a VERY simple character that is VERY easy to do. People writing it have a tendency to overthink it.

 

I have heard this once or twice before about the character, and I generally agree... though there are some intricacies about presenting the character that make the difference between a fun story and a classic (read Steven Grant's stuff, you'll see what I mean) but otherwise there's not a lot to write about Castle. Ennis put it really well on the 04 version's special features section... he pointed out that Castle is a really heroic guy (he used the "would rescue a child from a burning building without hesitation" example) who also happens to be a cold blooded killer. He's deeply wounded and though he's got a strong heart, it's almost completely buried under the need to make evil people pay in blood. The '04 version did get the "wounded hero" part right, and TJ was awesome at portraying that duality. The scene where he contemplates suicide was perfect... he doesn't live because he's tough to the core, he lives because his memories push him to not give up.

 

You can run with the punishment part alone though. People like seeing rotten bastards pay and that's why the character has such basic appeal. He sets them up and knocks them down but there are always more murderers for him to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AdminGuyX
Much as...I beilieve Die Hard 3 was written originally as a Lethal Weapon flick.

 

The original script was called "simon says" and was just a mad bomber script by Hensliegh. They talk about t in the commentray on the DVD. I've always wanted to read the script before the die hard rewrites (which hensliegh did)

 

He's a VERY simple character that is VERY easy to do.

 

I disagree with this statement, in that, if you turn him into a stoic killing machine, maybe. But personally I find the character complex, interesting, and the farthest thing from simple. He doesn't lead a simple life, and he's not one dimensional. At least, he doesn't have to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always wondered how you define one dimensional, exactly. I usually assume it means a character is poorly fleshed out and only does one or two things... which the Punisher clearly isn't (though there is that constant accusation.) Say what you will, but even in the 89 version he wasn't one dimensional... there are many seperate aspects to his personality that seem to conflict, making him a compelling hero, in both movies to date.

 

He's very thoroughly fleshed out, but none of it is hazy or complicated. That's why misinterpreting him is such a cardinal sin. That's why it's awkward when you see him in a movie breaking character... it's not like any of his traits are a puzzle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FADoss
The original script was called "simon says" and was just a mad bomber script by Hensliegh. They talk about t in the commentray on the DVD. I've always wanted to read the script before the die hard rewrites (which hensliegh did)

I disagree with this statement, in that, if you turn him into a stoic killing machine, maybe. But personally I find the character complex, interesting, and the farthest thing from simple. He doesn't lead a simple life, and he's not one dimensional. At least, he doesn't have to be.

 

If you interpret easy to do as one dimensional...

 

He's a military vet (demonstrates experience at and an ability to kill) who's life is shattered when everything that's important to him is stripped away in one horrible moment. To cope, he buries himself in vengeance/punishment. I think Frank suffers from a HUGE case of PTSD (if done right). There can be a lot of deep moments with that.

 

I can also see a great storyline relating to the justification of what he does morally. Not to open up a can of worms...and this is something I planned on using for a similar vigilante character. An interesting storyline would have Castle coming to grips with the fact that he's probably going to hell for what he's doing...but he doesn't care. He's sacrificing his soul to make the world better for others.

 

When I say it's overthought I'm referring to the fact that he doesn't need a bunch of fancy weapons or computer gadgets (Microchip). That's for Bond. He doesn't need a campy group of misfit friends. He needs a target and a rifle and we need to see the internal struggle with how fucked up he is for what's happened in his life.

 

THAT is Frank.

 

Frederic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AdminGuyX
An interesting storyline would have Castle coming to grips with the fact that he's probably going to hell for what he's doing...but he doesn't care. He's sacrificing his soul to make the world better for others.

 

I don't remember which issue it was, but he ponders the idea of going to hell (I think it was one of the magazine reprints), and says something along the lines of evil fearing the day he goes to hell.

 

I still have it someplace, I'll have to find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FADoss

MAN...I wish I were the biggest Tom Jane fan... :)

 

But seriously, for better or worse, Ray is the Punisher now. My initial preference is that I'd rather see Tom playing the role...just because he nailed it last time and it's odd to see that switch in characters (though Brosnon is the best bond in my opinion and Craig is spectacular).

 

However, I'm going to give them a chance at this new one. I think they were idiots to allow the lead actor to walk over the script. Not sure how you could believe so passionately in something that sucks...bad enough to run off Tom.

 

I loved Ray in "King Arthur". I think he can do the grittiness.

 

Guess we'll have to wait and see for the most part...

 

Frederic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't remember which issue it was, but he ponders the idea of going to hell (I think it was one of the magazine reprints), and says something along the lines of evil fearing the day he goes to hell.

 

I still have it someplace, I'll have to find it.

I always liked the Cell story line, but in that book he's older and looks like a huge mothafucka who has a face like Clint Eastwood. Pretty bad ass book.

 

JO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...