Paul Celano (chelano) Not sure what the director and writers were thinking when they made this movie. You have this interesting comic book movie that actually talked a lot about some of the older comics. That would for sure grab a certain type of viewer and the film could of had a following. Maybe even became a cult film. But half way through it went from being about comic books, to about killing people. It makes no sense. You could of made two crappy movies out of this one film. Small parts I did enjoy and that was mostly just some of the characters. Like I enjoyed Donal Logue and Danny Masterson. Logue really seemed to get his role and Masterson, although having a small part, seemed to get his also. Most of the other characters were OK or just awful. I really don't get Cary Elwes as his character. It just really didn't seem like his type of character and you can really pick it out in the film. Again, the story of the film just doesn't make too sense. Well too much sense on how they made it. The general background is easy to understand. People who love comic books fight to try to get a stash of old one of a kind comics that was left over by an old lady's dead son. But how they filmed it was just messed up. Eileen Brennan played the old lady and she was actually not that bad to watch. It shows even in a bad movie like this, the wise can still act.

boyinflares 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.

aimless-46 James Robinson started out with a pretty good idea although I was hoping for a character based more on the comic book guy from "The Simpsons". He had enough money to make a technically solid feature out of his material, and he did a fairly good job of casting (except for Cary Elwes). I won't bother to summarize the plot but will just address what went wrong. And enough is wrong to render this thing genuinely terrible.It appears that Robinson was inspired to totally change his original ending late in the game, but was not inspired enough to rewrite the first half of his screenplay (very lazy). Which means there is a HUGE disconnection between the first and the second halves of the movie. This is not a good thing because in the first half Robinson provides film language elements (signs and syntax) that point in an entirely different direction from the way the film ends up going. This 180 degree change of direction can work if the writer/director plants subtle clues in the first half that only register with the viewer at the end of the film, or when thinking about it the next day. Robinson planted no such clues and did no foreshadowing. The whole idea of film is to effectively tell a story; bottom line is that writers and directors who do this well are considered talented. Robinson should either learn his craft or find another profession.As I was watching it I gave it more credit than it deserved. I was waiting for them to reveal that the mother and the robber had just set up the store-owners to teach them a lesson. After a point I had to abandon this idea and began to wonder if it was a parody without any humor. If that's the idea then someone should explain to Robinson that to be successful a parody should be funny.There were some very good shots in this movie. Natasha Lyonne gave a particularly good performance even if it was a grown-up version of her "American Pie" character. So a lot of good work was totally wasted on something that doesn't work on any level which is very sad.

sarastro7 Being a comic collector, I looked forward to seeing this movie. For the first 45 min. or so, I really enjoyed it. But, then it turns in directions that are simply too extreme and melodramatic, too unbelievable. It also bugs me (as a comic collector, and as someone who's always wanted to work in a comic shop) that the comic shop owners who're obsessed with comics (well, with their monetary value, admittedly) are portrayed as people who can quite easily develop into psychos and murderers. I realize that Robinson (the writer-director) is saying that it's the reading part of the comics industry, and not the money part, that's the real and true value of comics, and this is certainly correct. But even this message doesn't come through with any power, because the comics fans in the shop are also misrepresented. Robinson has them talk about which characters are having sex with each other, and which female characters the fans would like to have sex with. This is not the kind of thing that people who're seriously into the actual stories talk about. Instead, it's playing up to the existing prejudices about what comic book fans are like.I feel that Robinson is spitting on people who consider comics their great passion. And this is just the kind of thing I'd expect someone like Robinson to do: Preach that one should never be a fanatic. People like that don't understand passion (Robinson should read Fantastic Four #285 to see it explained: people *live* through their passions, no matter what those passions are), nor the commitment to things greater than oneself. Robinson's prime comics work, Starman, chronicles a superhero who gives up being a hero so he can be a family man. That's exactly the wrong kind of priorities for a hero. Heroes help other people; they don't just care about their own lives. But then, British comics writers never really did understand what American superheroes are all about (giants like Alan Moore and Alan Davis frequently being exceptions, of course).My rating: 5 out of 10. With less melodrama, this rating could have been considerably higher.