Haven't seen it so I think I'll rent it. Was kinda disapointed they didn't keep Thomas Jane.

Superman4

It was sweet.

This movie was a big piece if crap! All the punisher movies are crap. Not 1 good 1.

It says that this movie was a sequel, but it wasn't; its a reboot

It was decent. It was bizarre at times and Jigsaw & Looney Bin Jim were REALLY weird but I think they actually got Frank Castle right with this guy. I didn't feel like Thomas Jane was a good fit for The Punisher because he doesn't seem mean enough but he didn't make the movie unwatchable to me-- he just didn't capture the right feel. I think Ray Stevenson has the darkness, dryness and lack of emotion needed to play Frank Castle well.

The amount of violence in "Warzone" was right given that The Punisher is a very dark and morbid character and this movie needed to have the gory and almost over-the-top killings.

I personally liked Lexi's directing with the colors used and the looks of the city shots. I'm not gonna say that this was the best comic book adaptation of all time but I will say that the overall feel was much more like the way it should have been versus the really cheesy Thomas Jane version (John Travolta was HORRIBLE in that one and the whole plot to get him to kill his best friend and wife was stupid). It's worth a watch.

I saw "Warzone" close to opening day in the theaters. Now, I'm not really a fan of super-violent films but gore doesn't bother me. I did enjoy the film, though I do agree with icebergslick in saying that it's not cinematic gold, but it was enjoyable and not totally unbearable. I remember times when I was laughing and hopping up and down just from sheer awesomeness of certain kills (sorry my mind is somewhat disturbed sometimes). And I also agree with MetalHead in saying that Ray Stevenson was a better fit for the Punisher than Thomas Jane was, even though I own that movie. So, all I can really say is, if you like sheer extreme violence, give it a go.

I LOVED IT..THING IS THE PUNISHER MAY HAVE A CURSE, NOT A BAD ONE..ITS JUST THAT EVERYTIME THEY MAKE A PUNISHER MOVIE, THE ACTOR WHO PLAYS HIM WILL ALWAYS BE NEW..FIRST DOLPH LUDGREN, THEN THOMAS JANE..THEN..OK WHATS THIS GUYS NAME AGAIN?..I WOULD LOVE TO SEE JASON STATHAM PLAY PUNISHER..FOLLOW THAT ONE SERIES WHERE HE'S PULLED OUT OF PRISON TO TAKE DOWN THAT ONE GANGSTER, THAT SERIES WAS COOL, HAD ALOT OF RAMBO-ESQE KINDA STUFF..

It was a good movie. At least this time they made movie more violent like it should be.

The story was bad, but it was nice and super violent. REALLY VIOLENT. That made it ok.

And they would NEVER make a Moon Knight movie. Dont get me wrong, I do love me a kick ass Marc Spector story, but he's too much like Batman and Tony Stark, rolled into one. It wouldnt work. Unless they did, "The Death of Marc Spector" storyline, where he has to fight all of The Thunderbolts. Even that sounds ridiculous.

Rorschach,
You can laugh all you want about others that like this movie but bash "X3" and "Spider-Man 3" but it stayed close to true to the comic and to me (just MY opinion) that counts for WAY more than a good story.

I'm not gonna get into the "X3" argument because I personally thought that it was a good movie IF you could block out all the stupid junk like the fact that Jean Grey became The Blair Witch instead of The Dark Phoenix, that Juggernaut isn't a mutant and that Cyclops just mysteriously died without even showing it, among others, but "Spider-Man 3" WAS A PIECE OF GARBAGE! It wasn't true to the comics, it made up all sorts of stuff that wasn't even CLOSE to how things happened in the comics and the characters were horrible with the exception of Spidey and The Sandman. (For a more indepth ripping of the movie see my rant in the comments of "Sam Rami talks Spider-Man 4 & 5.")

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "Warzone" isn't the best movie of all time by any means, but AT LEAST it was true to the comic and that's more than I can say for the vast majority of comic book adaptations. Here's what most people don't realize: IF an adaptation isn't true to the comic then the character in the film ISN'T the character in the comics!-- He's just a character with a few similar sets of rules used to create the character but he isn't the character. Thomas Jane as the Punisher is actually a perfect example of this. Was he The Punisher? Yes, technically. But did he have the darkness of Frank Castle? No. Did he even remotely capture the feel that Frank Castle had in the comics? No. He came off like a good guy with a good heart. To me, Frank Castle is a guy who has numbed his feelings and emotions, who HAD a good heart but isn't doing the things he's doing because of that, and is living his life not for himself but for all of the innocent people in the world so that they don't have to go through what he did and to me Lexi Alexander & Ray Stevenson captured that. That's all I'm saying and that's why I thought it was decent.

Oh yeah, Rorschach, as far as your "violent piece of shit" lines go-- read the comic, that's what it was. Punisher comics were never pieces of art like you apparently feel all these movies must be. (Although I'll admit that I stopped reading them 10+ years ago so things could have changed since.) Take them for what they are. To everyone reading I say to judge comic book adaptations first by whether you enjoyed them and second by how true they were to the comic. Isn't that the point of them, after all?

Rorschach nailed it. Terrible, terrible movie. I almost couldn't finish watching it, really.

The acting and scripting weren't the worst I've seen but the directing was just . . . It reminded me of the old Joel Schumacher Batman movies, only pasted into the Punisher. The overly neon city colours, the "witty" dialogue, the cheesy scene with Jigsaw where he has the American Flag behind him, the bad costumes (primarily for Jigsaw, I thought Punisher's costume was great), and the questionable fight choreography (The poorly done fight between Frank and Jim, and Castle's apparent development of super strength in order to punch THROUGH a man's skull), were all just horrendous.

There were moments of talent in the scripting, and some of the other fight scenes were adequate.

In answer to your final statement MetalHead: I didn't enjoy it. It was a little painful at times. And while in some ways it was true to the comic, that isn't a saving grace if it isn't fun to watch.

I guess people ask to much in every comic movie. People seems to never be happy. Dark Knight was OK it wasn't that good. I guess the only thing DK became so famous was because of the death of Heath(spelling) no offense or anything. now i think the this Punisher was a good movie. I don't understand why a lot of people liked the other garbage from '04.

I agree with Rorschach and Metalhead to a degree. I am not interested in seeing a movie that was shot-for-shot similar to the comic like Watchmen was(except the squid of course) because that makes the film predictable. I mean, we always know the good guy will win in the end, but in Superman Returns, I was seriously buying into Superman dying in the end because the film was butchered to a point where anything was possible.

I thought WarZone had its strengths, but had glaring weaknesses. I liked Ray, but most everyone else seemed a bit 2D. I didn't like the recruitment scene with Jigsaw, but the gore was excellent. I am not sure how much force it takes to cave someone's skull in, but I guess I can let it slide, though it was slightly cheesy. I didn't like how Frank shot the rocket launcher at the guy when he jumped from roof to the next. It looked cheap and unrealistic. I hope there is a sequel, and if there is, I hope their budget rises and they fix some of those problems.

First off, good conversation/debate that we've got going here and across a couple different articles' comment sections.

Rorschach,
A few things: I'll give you the whole Micro bit but to me that's the equivilent (which I can live with) of Peter Parker naturally making webbing versus inventing the webslingers-- taking a liberty that makes sense for the film.

This is where we differ-- and that's fine with me as we are both entitled to our own opinions; to answer your question, yes, to me staying true to the comic is the most important aspect. You don't think that to be the case and that's fine but I'm just explaining how I judge these. Now I understand that we won't see a frame-by-frame translation from every comic-to-film adaptation, but I do feel like almost all of these comic adaptation writers are taking WAY too many liberties.

Side note: bleclercq, you mentioned "The Watchmen" regarding it being too predictable due to being almost completely accurate to the comic. In MY opinion (just mine-- I'm not forcing my views upon people, just explaining my perspective) I like that about it because we are getting to see an actual comic story on the big screen, which to me is what these films should be about.

Here's my issue with & a solution for taking liberies and I'll use "X3" and "The Dark Phoenix Saga" to illustrate this point:

I understand why they couldn't/didn't do the actual Phoenix story in the film due to time constraints and all other things relating to that, and that's fine with me. BUT, here's the thing: why do it at all? You don't HAVE TO do "The Dark Phoenix Saga" in the X-Men films. Basically, I feel that IF the writers are gonna make up a story for the film-- which I'm fine with-- then make it up from scratch, don't change a character's origin, personality, story line, powers, etc. Or at least don't show the "new" origin, just let it happen without us seeing it.

For example, let's say in "X3" you want Jean Grey to come back to life. Who is to say that she has to do so as The Phoenix? Or even how about you say that because she once was The Phoenix prior to the first movie happening that it prevented her from dying and then she becomes The Phoenix again as a result? Why not make up an entirely new storyline rather than taking a TINY bit of an existing story, using it for the premise and then changing the original concept 99%?

This particular example is just that, an example, but I'm using it to illustrate an idea. I'm not saying that doing this would or wouldn't have made the movie better, I'm saying "here's something they took way too much liberty with, let's look at another option."

Basically, I'm fine with movies having original stories that didn't happen in the comics. What I ABSOLUTELY CANNOT STAND is when the writers take liberties with the stories for no reason other than because they wanted it done completely differently. If you want it to be 99% different then don't use the original premise at all, make up your own-- that's all I'm saying.

I like all comic book movies except that gawd awful terd of a film "Ghost Rider"!!!I like em just cause . I liked this one too. alot cuz it was faithful .

it was aight. got my copy today.

PEOPLE WHO WATCH THIS MOVIE CARES.....then pretend to find it awful... BUYBUYBUY...so they'll make a sequel...BEST REVENGE MOVIE EVER ...they really care cuz they watched it