I’ve always had mixed feeling about this classic cover. The composition is excellent. Bane and his victims look great. (I’ve actually got a copy of this autographed by Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan; they were among my favorite creators when I was fervently collecting comics at college.)
But that’s got to be one of the ugliest Batmans I’ve ever seen, and I don’t think the cowl should look so much like a skull cap.
Original artwork by Alex Ross.
I am now the proud owner of … a goodly portion of all the “Grendel” comics Matt Wagner ever wrote. What you see in the top row are “Grendel Omnibus” Volumes 1, 2 and 3. (I believe I actually shared my review of Volume 1 on this site a while ago.) These would comprise a nearly inclusive history of Hunter Rose, Christine Spar, Brian Li Sung, Orion Assante and Eppy Thatcher. All that remains for me to collect is the fourth Omnibus trade-paperback, chronicling the possibly immortal Grendel Prime and his imperiled charge, Jupiter Assante.
The Omnibus editions do not include crossovers with heroes such as Batman and The Shadow, as those characters are obviously owned by other companies. Nor do they include the diverse dystopian future tales depicted by various artists in the 1990’s “Grendel Tales.” But I am in heaven with what you see below — or maybe hell, considering these books’ central motif.
To top it all off, that hefty tome beneath the comics is W. H. Auden’s “Collected Poems,” edited by Edward Mendelson, with the poet’s work between 1927 and his death in 1973. It’s 927 pages. It weighs 30 pounds, probably. And it is indexed by both the poem’s titles and their first lines. That is what you call a lifetime investment.
The comics will be excellent summer reading; as will Auden. But I’ll focus more on the Briton when fall arrives. Like his countryman, Doyle, he might be best enjoyed outdoors on a gray and increasingly brisk Autumn day.
I need to buy books more often.
[THIS REVIEW CONTAINS MINOR, GENERAL SPOILERS.]
Wow. The script for “Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice” (2016) was really bad.
I hate to begin a review with a statement so negative, but it’s true. I really think that I could have done better than this, and I know nothing about screenwriting. Hell, parts of the movie were actually MSTy-worthy. I just can’t believe that the gifted David S. Goyer had a hand in this.
Batman is flatly rendered and barely likable. Superman is capably played by Henry Cavill, but has little to say. Lex Luthor is portrayed as a cloying, verbose, flamboyant, attention-seeking manchild. He gets all the screen time in the world (and more dialogue than Superman, it seems), and he really come across as a whiny, rambling high school student playing at theologian, trying in vain to impress the girls. Luthor seems to want to ingratiate himself to every other character on screen. Strangely, this includes even those he is threatening or endeavoring to murder. He has weird vocal tics that quickly get on our nerves. “Mmm.” He makes repeated references to god, who he hates, and … this makes him hate the godlike Superman, via Freudian transference. Or something.
He consequently wants to kill Superman. He has kryptonite and demonstrably capable mercenaries at his disposal. But, for some reason, he wants to employ unreliable, convoluted plans to prompt Batman to do it. His plans to motivate Batman include harassing him with newspaper clippings and nasty notes, like a deranged stalker.
He also has a photograph of Wonder Woman that she would like to keep secret. She goes ahead and mentions it to an ostensibly drunken Bruce Wayne at a party anyway.
Oh! Luthor also knows the secret identities for both Superman and Batman, and has known for some time. We don’t find out how he knows, and he does far less to exploit this information than you would think. Couldn’t he easily (and quite legally) cause problems for both men simply by exposing them? Superman knows Batman’s identity too; I guess we can chalk that up to his x-ray vision? Batman is not in the know, and spends much of the movie trying to play catch-up, and is easily manipulated by Luthor. This is despite the fact that, in the comics, he is the world’s greatest detective.
There is bad dialogue, weird science, and bad science. There are murky, vague plot points and unsupported character motivations. Some things are just plain dumb — Metropolis and Gotham City stand within sight of each other, just across a bay. Either hero could easily intervene in the other’s city … but they apparently respect each other’s nearly adjacent turf, even though they don’t know or trust each other.
Even the premise is shaky — legions of people hate Superman because they blame him for the damage inflicted by Zod during the events of “Man of Steel” (2013). Couldn’t he just exonerate himself by simply telling the truth — that Zod attacked earth and he rose to defend it? I’m willing to bet most people would get that.
There are … dream sequences … and/or visions … and/or messages from the future? And … conversations with the dead? Or … not? You tell me.
Why does Superman need a winter jacket?
Why does he refer to his mother as “Martha?” Do any of us refer to our mothers by their first name?
I could go on, but you get the idea. I actually found my attention wandering during this movie.
All of this is a shame, because there are hints of brilliance hiding among the mediocrity. The movie is ambitious. It seems to want to say a lot about weighty themes such as power, unlimited power, its ability to corrupt, and the unintended consequences of unilateral action. There seem to be visual references to real world horrors like 9/11 and ISIS’ terrorism, which I found pretty bold. I’ve never been good with subtext. Were there allegories here that I missed, connected with U.S. foreign policy or the War on Terror?
I will say this — the film isn’t quite as bad as the critics are making it out to be. It isn’t all garbage, it’s just a below average superhero film. And it appears worse because it’s part of a genre characterized by a lot of really good films — Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies were groundbreaking, and most of the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s titles were quite good. So this ambitious misfire seems far worse in contrast. I myself would rate this movie a 5 out of 10 — even if I might be biased here by my lifelong love for these iconic characters.
I’ll tell you what — why don’t I go ahead and list this movie’s successes? There are a few things that I really liked, and this blog post is so negative it’s starting be a buzzkill.
Postscript: a note to those who might be new to comics — this movie cribs heavily from two famous comic book story arcs. The first is 1972’s “Must There Be A Superman?” and the second is 1986’s graphic novel, “The Dark Knight Returns.” I haven’t read the former, but let me assure you that the latter is incredibly good. It was written and illustrated by Frank Miller, and it was so damn good it actually transformed the medium, by changing how fans and the general public viewed comic books. It’s a masterpiece. The point I’m trying to make is this — please don’t judge the seminal comic series by its putative representation by this film.
Postscript II: has there really been a great live-action Superman movie since “Superman II” in 1980? It’s well known that the third and fourth installments in the 80’s franchise were abominable. I thought that “Superman Returns” (2006) and “Man of Steel” were both good, but they got mixed reviews from audiences and critics alike. Weird.
[THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ONE SPOILER.] So the fantastic John Bernthal is now the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s “Punisher,” debuting (however briefly) in the first episode of Netflix’ “Daredevil” Season 2. I just know that there is a great “Walking Dead” joke hiding around here somewhere; but I can’t seem to put my finger on it … (Something about … Blind Grimes? Disabled Rick? Daredevil can’t see “stuff?” Or “thangs?”) You people work that out for me.
Bernthal’s arrival is dream casting, every bit as perfect as bagging the inimitable Robert Downey, Jr. as the MCU’s Iron Man. Even though the actor speaks only a single word, it’s goddam beautiful.
That’s one of the better things about Season 2’s first outing, which, for me, fell into the category of “good, but not great.” (I’d still give it an 8 out of 10, and I feel certain the season will get better.) What we see in S2E1 is mostly setup. The episode clearly tried to introduce tension by grooming the Punisher as a frightening antagonist, with limited success. Even casual Marvel fans know that Frank Castle is a good guy, and nothing close to a Big Bad. Yes, he’s an anti-hero who fatally shoots villains, and will be a foil for Matt Murdock’s Boy Scout restraint (as he was in the comics, back in the day).
But I doubt that the Punisher can be made scary or truly tension-inducing. (Are we afraid of Wolverine?) We know that his shoot-em-up tactics won’t leave Daredevil dead. (This isn’t “Game of Thrones” or TWD.) And I’d guess that most viewers, like me, aren’t too emotionally invested in this show’s minor characters. (The only exception would be the quite interesting and three-dimensional Karen Page, still wonderfully portrayed by Deborah Ann Woll.) Hell, I think the show would be better if the painfully annoying Foggy Nelson were made an early casualty. Finally, if the show stays true to the original comics, then the Punisher has that most sympathetic of “origin stories” — a murdered nuclear family.
Both the Punisher and Bernthal have such devoted fanbases that a lot of viewers will probably root for him against Matt. (Our very own Blog Correspondent Len Ornstein, for example, was known for firmly being on “Team Shane” for TWD.) Looking back at my fervent comic-collecting days in the 1990’s, I seem to recall the Punisher having a far bigger fan following. He was a mercenary and Vietnam veteran who simply shot up whatever corner of the Marvel Comics universe to which his quarry had tried in vain to escape. Fans compared him to DC Comics’ iconic cash cow, Batman. Matt Murdock, on the other hand, had niche appeal. He was a liberal superhero if there ever was one — a Columbia-educated defense attorney who employed nonfatal force, and who fought for the “everyday man on the street.” He was like a grownup, thoughtful, socially conscious Spider-Man. If ever there was a comic book hero who would join the American Civil Liberties Union, it was Daredevil.
Moving forward, I think that Netflix will need an altogether different adversary than Castle to raise the stakes emotionally, and bring suspense to its second season. Maybe the show will accomplish that with Elektra, who we know will also appear. (And fans of the comics know that this integral character has far greater implications for our hero.)
The new season’s inaugural episode might have been slightly better if it had been tweaked elsewhere, as well. Much ominous language is devoted to characterizing the Punisher as a killer with military proficiency. We kinda don’t see that. The largest action set piece shows no precision or professionalism, just a room full of gangsters being hosed down by gunfire from an offscreen shooter. And while the sequence itself was dramatic, it seemed like something that could have been perpetrated by a (very well armed) street gang in a drive-by shooting.
We also see some of the dialogue problems that were so evident in the first season — as superb as the screenwriters are, they don’t do casual conversation among friends very well. There’s the same forced banter and an embarrassing lack of chemistry among the three lead protagonists, this time on display during an awkwardly staged after-work barroom pool game. (It’s particularly puzzling because Woll and Charlie Cox are both very good actors.) This show scripts its villains, petty crooks and adversaries with such flair — why does it seem to fail so often with friendly conversation? And why bother with these strange attempts at Scooby-Gang camaraderie in the first place? I think it’s a weird creative choice. These are serious characters leading serious lives. It seems implausible to me that they should be so frequently upbeat anyway.
Hey — if I’m nitpicking a lot here, it’s only because I love the show, and consequently hold it to a very high standard. It really is the best superhero adaptation on television. My review of last season was absolutely glowing, and I honestly think that Season 2 will be just as good. If you haven’t checked out “Daredevil” yet, you ought to.
I’ve never read a single “Deadpool” comic book, but that didn’t stop me from enjoying the movie. It’s a fun, creative and … unconventional entry into the “X-Men” film franchise that actually made me laugh out loud a few times. I’d give it an 8 out of 10.
It isn’t high art. It’s got a thin story based on a rickety plot device, nearly no exposition, and it includes some cartoonish action that I thought was just too over the top, even by comic book movie standards. (Our hero dodges bullets and survives a stab to the brain.)
It helps to bear in mind this movie’s real purpose — fan service for the infamous niche character’s evident legions of followers. “Deadpool” isn’t meant to be densely plotted, like “X2: X-Men United” (2003), or genuinely cinematic, like the Christopher Nolan “Batman” films. It’s a long awaited, R-rated feature film to please loyal fans of this profane, adult-oriented antihero, who would be out of place and necessarily bowlderized in a mainstream superhero-teamup flick. (And I kinda get that — I loved the “Wolverine” comics when I was a kid, and, trust me, his film incarnation is tame compared to its source material.)
“Deadpool” is damn funny. The movie succeeds by making us laugh. And combining a raunchy comedy with an “X-Men” film gives it a weird, cool, subversive vibe. It makes you wonder if Stan Lee would approve of this sort of thing … until you see Lee himself in a cameo at the story’s strip bar. It’s fun to know that dirty jokes indeed do exist within the “X-Men” movie universe.
The lowbrow jokes made me cringe one or twice (“baby hand.”) But you’ve got to give the movie credit for delivering its bathroom-wall humor if that’s what the original character is about. (Are the comics like this?) Ryan Reynolds is genuinely funny, and his deadpan delivery is perfect. The film might not have even worked at all with out him.
By the way, this movie actually reminded me a hell of a lot of a long-ago flick that I absolutely loved, but which I’m guessing is largely forgotten — Andrew Dice Clay’s “The Adventures of Ford Fairlane” (1990). That movie also had a foulmouthed, lone, maverick antihero who often broke the fourth wall, and that also made me laugh like hell. I know it sounds like a strange comparison, but they’re very similar films.
Finally, I’d like to think that the Wade Wilson we see here actually IS a version of the Wade Wilson that we first met in the widely lamented “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” (2009). (And how can he not be, if that movie is canon?) If “X-Men: Days of Future Past” (2014) rebooted the timeline, then the Deadpool we’re rooting for here was never recruited, corrupted and experimented upon by William Stryker. So you can have your cake and eat it, too.
I revisited “Phantoms” (1998) the other night, and I thought I’d just speak up briefly here on its behalf. For one thing, I really chatted up Dean Koontz’ 1983 source novel here at the blog not too long ago. And for another, this critically and popularly panned movie is one that I happened to like.
Ben Affleck actually wasn’t “‘the bomb’ in “Phantoms.'” (Referring to something as “the bomb” was, at one time, a high compliment in American slang.) He mostly phoned it in, and even seriously flubbed a scene or two. (Hey, I actually like the guy a lot, and I’m willing to give him a chance as the next Batman.) The headline above is actually some particularly meta humor from another character played by Affleck, in Kevin Smith’s “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” (2001). Affleck was poking fun at himself a little here, along with his fellow denizens of Smith’s “View Askewniverse.”
Roger Ebert dismissed “Phantoms” as “another one of those Gotcha! thrillers in which loathsome slimy creatures leap out of drain pipes and sewers and ingest supporting actors, while the stars pump bullets into them.” You can read his entire review right here:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/phantoms-1998
No, “Phantoms” isn’t classic sci-fi-horror. It’s sometimes pretty thin stuff on a number of levels … but primarily the levels of acting and screenwriting.
But, dammit, I still liked this movie a lot. If you’re a fan of the book (I’ve suggested it’s Koontz’ best), you’ll be happy to discover that it indeed conscientiously sticks to its wicked-cool source material. We see a small Colorado mountain town where all the inhabitants have vanished; a clutch of wayward visitors then try to escape the same grisly, mysterious fate as its residents.)
The book’s central plot device is a nicely conceived and executed idea for a monster, with some effectively creepy historical and scientific context. (I can still remember a colonial victim’s warning, which is referenced in the book, but not the movie: “It has no shape; it has every shape.”)
Despite its clunky script, the film brings us a story that is pretty intelligent — thanks to retaining so many elements of the novel. This is a thinking man’s monster movie — like somebody rewrote “Beware the Blob” (1972), but put a hell of a lot of smarts and creativity into it. We’ve got two groups of bright people who fight back against “the Ancient Enemy,” and their actions and strategies generally make sense.
Also … Liev Schreiber does creepy incredibly well, and Peter O’Toole does everything incredibly well. The former’s face and mannerisms do much to unsettle us. And the latter brings the “Lawrence of Arabia” (1962) treatment to the fifties-esque trope of the monster-fighting hero scientist.
Finally, this might be an odd thing to praise a film for, but I loved its sound effects. Because that voice (or voices) on the story’s single working telephone was exactly how I wanted the adversary here to sound.
Slam it all you want. I’ll watch this one again.
“Oh mother,
“What tree is this?
“What wounds are these?
“I am Attis on the pine.
“Christ on the cedar.
“Odin on the world ash.”
— from “Arkham Asylum: A Serious House On Serious Earth,” by Grant Morrison and illustrated by Dave McKean
People tend to think of either “The Dark Knight Returns” of “The Killing Joke” as the seminal “dark” Batman graphic novel.
I suggest that this trounces both of them.
“Deliver Us From Evil” (2014) pleasantly surprised me by being a pretty decent horror movie; I’d give it an 8 out of 10.
I expected a predictable melodrama between its two primary protagonists — the hardened, intractably “close-minded” cop and the wise young priest. This, I thought, would upstage a thin, generic, supernatural backstory.
Well … there was some of that expected character interaction, but I admit that it was done pretty well. And the old fashioned scares served up here make this an above average horror movie.
I say “old fashioned” because this seemed to channel the demonic possession classics that defined this horror movie sub-genre, for me, anyway — “The Exorcist” (1973) and “The Exorcist III” (1990). It has an expansive story that begins in a nicely surprising battle scene in Iraq, then shifts its focus to several chilling violent crimes in New York City. Then it effectively blends a horror story with a police thriller. And the story is detailed, with some thought put into the demon’s modus operandi and choice of victims, as well as the their investigation by streetwise New York City cops. A straight horror-thriller like this is a nice contrast to recent well made supernatural horror films like last year’s “The Babadook” or “It Follows,” which were ambiguous and heavily thematic, personal stories with virtually no exposition.
Eric Bana and Edgar Ramirez were both terrific; even they might have been upstaged by Joel McHale in a supporting role as Bana’s foul mouthed but loyal anti-hero partner. I was rooting for him more than the thinly drawn hero scripted for Bana. (Can any NYC cops really wield a knife like that? If so, that’s totally badass.) McHale is damn good — I’ll be looking for him in his regular role in the upcoming revival of “The X Files.” If you were an NYC cop, wouldn’t you want a partner like that? Seriously … that dude is BADASS.
Regrettably, this movie’s thought and creativity do seem to lose steam toward the end. Certain scares and images were done wonderfully. The scenes inside the asylum were great, for example, especially one shot that made me think of the Batman mythos’ Arkham Asylum. Others fell flat. Our Big Bad, when finally revealed in full, is just a generic ugly dude in drab whiteface. And a sequence involving a piano is shot with little visual flair.
The most frightening subplot of all involves a troubled girl in her bedroom; it’s cut short and rendered irrelevant in order to move the plot forward. And the finale features an exorcism that recycles mostly old tropes from the sub-genre.
Hey … this was still a good movie, though. It certainly was better than I thought it would be. I’d cheerfully recommend it.
Oh! One more thing — this is supposedly based on a true story. Scott Derrickson’s interesting screenplay derives from the 2001 book, “Beware The Night,” by retired NYC police officer Ralph Sarchie (Bana’s character). I wonder what evidence anyone has gathered to either support or debunk the story here.
