Comic Coverage

A Blast from Christmas Past: The MEGO Superheroes!

As a lad in the mid-70's, the top of my Christmas wish list was usually reserved for the the Mego Superhero Action Figures (action figures, mind you....not dolls!).

Between my friends and I, we had just about the entire line with the exception of a few oddball (or scarce) figures. Heck, we even had The Invisible Girl, owned by the paperboy down the block (back then, paperboys were rolling in the dough). Of course, nobody had much to do with her since she was essentially a Barbie doll in a Fantastic Four costume (and perhaps an uncomfortable reminder of just how doll-like all of the Mego heroes actually were).

Despite those vague misgivings, we spent plenty of summer afternoons creating action-packed scenarios for our band of Mego superheroes (and villains), each one more elaborate and outlandish than the last.

Well, imagine how pleasantly surprised I was when I stumbled across a vintage TV commercial for the Mego Superheroes on YouTube. If you've got high speed internet service, click on the screen below to relive your own Mego memories or, if you're too young, to see what you missed out on.

Before you begin, a few things to watch for:

1. The "authentic" settings for some of the heroes, such as an Aquaman figure nestled near a lapping shore and a tiny Spider-Man figure unceremoniously stuck to a concrete wall.

2. What appears to be a phone cord strung across the frame featuring Captain Marvel, simulating what could only be...a magic lightning bolt?

3. Green Arrow is apparently "the crimefighter from the forest".

4. "The Falcon, that great black superhero!" (their words, not mine)

5. The Human Torch is revealed to be "faster than the speed of light" (coming as news to Fantastic Four fans everywhere).

6. According to Mr. Announcer Guy, Mr. Fantastic and the Invisible Girl both have the power of invisibility, with no mention of Reed's stretching abilities. Oops!

7. Conan's "sword of justice"? More likely his sword of blood and gruel-caked vengeance!

8. "Thor...using his viking power against evil!" Listen, I live in Minnesota, and if there's one thing we Minnesotans are sure of, it's that Vikings really aren't all that powerful (as any glance at NFL stats should confirm).

Anyway....enjoy the video!

Spider-Man Meets...Burgess Meredith?

Courtesy of the awesome Frederator site, someone spotted a pretty amazing cameo on an old episode of Naked City.  No, it's not what you're thinking (perverts).  Naked City was a popular police drama of the late 50's and early 60's (sort of the Hill Street Blues of its day).

Anyway, so the guy's watching the episode and something on a newsstand in the background jumps out at him.  Check out the screen-grab:

(click on the image for a larger view):

That's not only a Spider-Man comic book displayed behind the actors, but the very first appearance of Spider-Man in Amazing Fantasy #15 (1962), hanging there as casually as any other comic book on the stand.

Here's another shot of it nestled behind the reliably sweaty and overwrought Burgess Meredith:

But wait....there's more!.  Take another look at the shot of the two actors, then look just to the right of Amazing Fantasy #15.  Sharp-eyed fans of Silver Age Marvel Comics will recognize the cover to Journey Into Mystery #83, featuring the first appearance of The Mighty Thor!

I'm sure none of the cast and crew of Naked City would have ever guessed a 24¢ purchase of both titles would net them well over $100,000 in today's collector's market.  Maybe that's why Burgess Meredith was sweating so profusely.  He somehow knew he was in the presence of comic book history!

Click here for the original Frederator post.

At the Movies: Ghost Rider

With both of us having Presidents Day off, my son and I thought we'd take in the new Ghost Rider movie. I went into it having read a number of reviews from comic fans and non-fans alike, many of whom gave it a qualified "good, but cheesy" or "entertaining despite the goofiness" kind of review.

Well, after seeing the movie, I'll definitely confirm the cheesy and goofy elements....but at the same time, isn't that what the Ghost Rider character was always supposed to be? In other words, this was one hell of a faithful adaptation to film (pun intended).

After all, Ghost Rider's supernatural cycle first roared to life at the height of motorcycle stuntman Evel Knievel's popularity in the early 1970's, while at the same time capitalizing on pop culture's renewed interest in the supernatural. Right from the start, Ghost Rider was never intended to embody the elegant frights of Victorian literature, but instead became an almost "patron saint" of a uniquely American supernatural genre.

What would that be, exactly?

Well, it's that wonderfully "caricatured" brand of the supernatural we see at a traveling carnival's haunted house or the extravagant ghouls tatooing the arms of its toothless Carnies. It's the cartoonish demonology of heavy metal bands or the intricate painted flames adorning hell-powered muscle cars. It's the paradoxically plainly silly yet undeniably cool sound of a rumbling Harley engine or a testosterone-fueled drag race a few blocks down. A world where Bon Jovi-spawned demons follow rules, sign contracts and wear fashionable floor-length leather coats.

It's this bizarre hybrid of "Trailer Park Gothic" and Harley-culture machismo that I think the Ghost Rider movie perfectly captures and celebrates. Nicolas Cage delivers an eccentric, Elvis-channeling Johnny Blaze, while Peter Fonda (the Easy Rider himself) plays a convincing "gentleman devil" archetype. Eva Mendes pulls off the near-impossible as a compassionate, intelligent love interest while simultaneously looking like a NASCAR Cleavage Queen. Bringing his trademark cowboy gravitas to the cast was Sam Elliot, imparting his mumbled wisdom to Johnny "Bonehead" Blaze.

Director Mark Steven Johnson (who also directed the unfairly-maligned Daredevil) completely understood the tricky balance he needed to strike between camp and cool, which his brisk pacing of the film helped to pull off. Slow moments of introspection and "high art" would have not only made the goofier elements that much more conspicuous, but would also completely miss the point of the Ghost Rider character itself, much like Ang Lee's pretentious "Hulk" movie did a few years back. No, Johnson seemed to know we weren't here for deep existential insights into the duality of man, or to explore the mysteries and contradictions of faith, and...instead.....gave us an exhilerating, pedal-to-the-metal ride through a garish CGI spookhouse.

So, if you're looking for the glacially-paced horrors of M. Night Shyamalan movies or the "weirdness in the nooks and crannies of the everyday world" stories of Stephen King...this movie isn't for you. However, if you "get the joke" when it comes to the high-octane carnival of screaming hell-cycles and flaming skulls wearing studded leather and pocket chains...step right up.

Rating: Three out of four Flaming Skulls for Ghost Rider

At The Movies: Miller Time!

As I mentioned last week, I was looking forward to seeing the movie 300.  Now that I have, and after letting it "marinade" in my mind for a few days, I thought I'd share a few of my impressions.

First of all, I'll defer the historical analysis to experts like Victor Davis Hanson.  Like I've said before, I don't look to movies for history lessons, but at the same time, I was pleasantly surprised to read Hanson's defense of the stylistic license taken in 300, correctly pointing out that the Greeks themselves often used highly stylized imagery when recording their history.

With the focus diverted away from archeological authenticity, the real triumph of 300 became all the more clear.  While watching it,  the thought occured to me that we've moved beyond simply adapting superheroes to the screen and are now able to faithfully translate the visions of the creators themselves to film, in this case from the unique imagination of Frank Miller.

Spider-Man 3: The Missing Action Figure

2007 has been a big year for movies based on Marvel Comics characters.  First Ghost Rider, in June Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, and right between them both...the much-anticipated Spider-Man 3.

As with any comic-based movie, a small army of coordinating action figures will hit the toy shelves weeks or even months before the movie's actual start date, and Spider-Man 3 is no exception to that rule. 

Featuring most of the film's major characters (along with a dizzying array of variant figures), the Spidey-3 line of toys can be found in just about any major retailer's toy section.

However, in addition to new lines of action figures, Marvel Comics films invariably bring something else: A fresh batch of Stan Lee cameo appearances!

In nearly every Marvel film adaptation (as well as NBC's Heroes), Marvel's charismatic co-founder has always managed to show up...whether as a hotdog vendor (X-Men), a gallant passer-by (Spider-Man I and II), a careless pedestrian (Daredevil) or as Willie Lumpkin, the mailman of the Fantastic Four.  In fact, my teenage kids now recognize Stan the Man and can spot him instantly in his cameo roles. It's this recognition (and ubiquity) of Stan Lee (one of my personal idols, by the way) that begs the question:

 Just imagine...your Cameo Appearance Stan Lee® on the
outskirts of an action-packed Spider-Man 3 battle scene!

...or as an extra in Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer...

...or as Galactus himself  ...

...or even a multi-company crossover appearance!

C'mon Toy Biz, Hasbro or McFarlane Toys...we
needs us a Cameo Appearance Stan Lee figure!

Spidey 3: The Verdict

It's certainly no secret that I'm a complete drooling fanboy over Sam Raimi's first two Spider-Man films. 

Oblivious to all the griping and nitpicking from the usual suspects, I can confidently say that Raimi "gets it" in a way no other director has when it comes to translating a comic book character to film. 

As I watched both Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2, I knew for certain that Raimi read the same Spider-Man comics I did, saw the same things in Peter Parker and his classic supporting cast, and knew exactly what made the "engine" of this particular character run. 

Were the first two movies perfect?  Of course not...and I would turn that around to my purist pals and ask: Were the comic books themselves perfect?  Again, of course not...so once we let go of perfection as our goal, the experience becomes that much more enjoyable.  Organic web-shooters vs. mechanical web-shooters?  You guys fight it out...I couldn't care less.

However, as much as I love the first two movies, when details of the third movie began to emerge, I have to admit I got a little concerned.  Like one of those chainsaw jugglers asking for more even more chainsaws, Raimi seemed to be taking a huge risk with the number of villains and subplots he was taking on in Spidey 3.  It seemed an audacious, even reckless challenge he set up for himself...part of me a little alarmed, yet another part intrigued by the P.T. Barnum-like audacity of it all.

Well, I'm happy to report the Dapper One pulled it off again...spectacularly (or amazingly), I might add.

Sure, there were a few bumps in the road (where did Raimi get those awful TV news reporters?), but...somehow...against all odds, it worked.

Rather than do a tedious scene-by-scene analysis, I think I'll tackle the major characters and give a few impressions of each.  Still...expect some SPOILERS (consider yourself Spoiler-Warned).

Peter Parker (Toby Maguire):  Another great performance from Maguire as Peter Parker, effortlessly evoking both the pathos and the humor that have long-defined the character....along with a new perception that he's matured since the last film, as thoughts of marriage (i.e. "becoming a grown-up") come to the forefront while his roles as student, nephew and employee (heavily emphasized in the first two movies) recede.

Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst):  Of all the returning cast members, probably the most disappointing performance and screen presense.  Dunst hasn't seemed particularly thrilled with being in the Spider-Man movies, and it really shows here.  Her somewhat haggard appearance didn't have any of the zing you'd expect from someone playing a sparkplug like  M.J.  Yeah, the material was pretty serious stuff, but at the same time, Dunst just seemed flat-out bored in many of her scenes.  Happily, the strength of the other actors overshadowed Dunst's auto-pilot performance.

Harry Osborn (James Franco):  Franco's come a long way since his turn as Harry in the first film, and his flip-flops between sanity and madness have been fascinating to watch.  Like the haunted figure of the comics, Franco's Harry is completely eclipsed by the shadow of his father, making his (pleasantly) surprising redemption all the more uplifting.  I feared Harry's story would get short shrift when I heard about both Venom and Sandman appearing in Spidey-3, but Raimi managed to finish Harry's story with style, clarity and humanity.

Aunt May (Rosemary Harris): Like so many great actors who've appeared in so-called "popcorn movies" (such as Alec Guinness in Star Wars or Brando in Superman), Rosemary Harris brings a real legitimacy and respectability to all of the Spider-Man films.  Her character's warmth and wisdom help ground the movies in some form of recognizeable reality.  Though she didn't have as large a role as in the previous two films, her contribution to the movie's emotional heft was much appreciated.

Eddie Brock (Topher Grace): Grace did an adequate job as the greasy Brock. It was a small, sort of two-dimensional role, but Grace did a good job with what he was given.  As I recall, the comic book version of the character wasn't that complex either, so in that respect, a successful jump to the screen for the Brockster.

Flint Marko/Sandman (Thomas Haden Church):  Every superhero movie has that magical "aha" moment when a fictional character suddenly comes to life before your eyes, and Marko's emergence from the sand pit as The Sandman was definitely the "aha" moment for Spider-Man 3...much moreso than even Venom.  Maybe it's because I've enjoyed Marvel's Sandman charcter ever since I first encountered him way back in Fantastic Four #148 (1974).  His shifting to sand form was exactly what I used to picture in my mind's eye with panels like this (from FF #148):

I thought the addition of a sick daughter to Marko's backstory, while calculated, brought some dimension to a character who's been little more than a blunt instrument for most of his history.  Further pushing the envelope on the Sandman character was the decision to weave him into Spider-Man's origin.  Though I'm not jumping with joy over the ret-con, it doesn't bother me as much as I feared it would.  Uncle Ben still dies as a result of Peter's apathy, so that aspect of his origin remains intact.  That said, Peter's forgiveness of Marko at the end of the film felt forced, as was Marko's sudden return to rationality (after smashing up downtown as a mountain-sized sand creature).  But, I guess the Sandman "aha" moment was so strong for me, and Church's haunted performance so strong, I could ultimately overlook the odd wrap-up.

"Bad Pete" (Tobey Maguire):  I thought this version of Peter was so entertaining, I'm considering it a separate role. I'd read that Maguire was pretty excited about getting to play a darker version of Pete, and his scenery-chewing performance confirmed it.  What I enjoyed the most about the role was that Bad Pete wasn't actually cool...but rather a caricatured version of cool only a nerd like Peter Parker would think is authentic.  I also appreciated how his turn as Bad Pete was a real struggle for him, seemingly overcoming his initial dip into the dark side, only to run back to it in a moment of weakness.  For some, the emo hair was undoubtedly too much, but as with most aspects of this movie, it worked for me.

Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard):  Though she certainly looked the part, Gwen Stacy really could have been any female character.  Yeah, I liked how Raimi managed to plug her in somewhere, but being aware of the enormous dramatic history behind the character becomes a mild distraction.  Happily, her role was pretty small, so no damage done. Nice, sweet performance by Bryce.

Now for the non-human, but no less important roles of our CGI guys:

Venom:  Though a smaller role than I originally assumed, the screen version of Venom made for some fantastic visuals and, most likely, some pretty hellacious nightmares for the kiddies in the audience (Hello, parents...PG-13?).  I was curious as to how they'd handle Venom's extraterrestrial origins, and was amused to see they settled for something straight out of The Blob. 

Spider-Man: Still the undisputed star of the show, the CGI Spider-Man sequences are more breathtaking than ever.  They've come a long way from the rubbery, weightless Spidey of the first movie, creating aerial battles that burst with momentum, mass, impact and topsy-turvy vertigo.  It also helped to increase the amount of maskless face time for the actors, making the combatants a bit more realistic when glimpsing human faces (even though they were most likely CGI) while simultaneously stoking the actors' egos.  The black Spider-Man costume was striking, joining the traditional Spidey costume on the top shelf of superhero movie costumes.

Of course, I adored the inevitable Stan Lee and Bruce Campbell cameo appearances, and J.K. Simmons as Jonah Jameson was spot-on, as usual.  Even the "little moments" were memorable, like the boy pleading with Spider-Man not to accept a girl's kiss, or the gentle friendship of Ursula, the landlord's daughter (Mageina Tovah).

Was there too much "soap opera"?  Short answer: No.  Read the comics....the drama has always been a big part of Spider-Man. Did you want unrelenting, wall-to-wall action? Visit the Spider-Man ride at Universal Studios.  If you're disappointed in the movie, please...don't let me talk you out of it.  As for me? I'm rating it a solid four out of five Spidey Heads!

And so ends an extremely busy Spider-Man Week.  I hope you enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed putting it together. Seven consecutive days of original material (some more complex than others) isn't something I'm pining to repeat anytime soon, but if something else comes along that I love as much as Spider-Man, who knows what'll show up here on Comic Coverage?

A Long Time Ago...

How could it possibly be thirty years since Star Wars made its theatrical debut?

It's hard to explain to kids who've grown up with the clockwork regularity of summer blockbusters what it was like back in the spring of 1977 when Star Wars burst onto the scene.

Sure, Steven Spielberg's Jaws was a sort of "blockbuster prototype", in that it was a movie that had much of the older youth culture all abuzz. However, since it was rated R, those of us under 17 weren't part of the equation (this was back when more parents banned their kids from R movies).

No, it wasn't until Star Wars that a movie truly became a tsunami-like "pop cultural event"...made even more remarkable in that Star Wars had nothing close to the marketing juggernaut behind it that modern blockbusters enjoy. It just kind of... showed up.

In fact, the first time I recall Star Wars popping up on my own radar was when I caught a glimpse of the first Star Wars comic book at the local newsstand (above). I still recall being intrigued by the cover (and the title), but I'd already busted my modest comics budget, so I passed it by. A few weeks later, the Star Wars buzz had trickled down to the "ten year-old boy" level and, one parental escort to the movie theatre later, my friends and I were ready for...well...we had no idea.

Needless to say, Star Wars completely blew my mind, starting with the (literally) jaw-dropping opening scene. I still remember that massive, unending Star Destroyer flying overhead and a guy in the theatre blurting out "Holy S#@%!"....which was pretty much what everyone was thinking. I think that's when it dawned on me that...somehow...everything had changed.

Happy 30th, Star Wars! Although creator George Lucas went on to make some pretty bizarre decisions in the years since , he absolutely nailed it with Star Wars (and its sequel The Empire Strikes Back).

Yo Ho. A Pirate's Life Ain't for Me.

I don't know what it is. 

Maybe I wasn't born with the Pirate Gene...but for whatever reason, pirates have never fired my imagination as they obviously do for others. 

But hey, I tried. 

I really did try to enjoy the first two Pirates of the Caribbean movies, but I just wasn't feeling it.  Other factors probably contributed to my dislike of the movies, such as their meandering plots, frenetic pacing and Johnny Depp's relentless scenery chewing, but at the end of the day, I guess the pirate backdrop isn't enough to keep me awake (yes, I did drift off during Pirates 2).

However, despite my aversion to All Things Pirate, I'm always willing to make an exception.  I mean, why subject myself to a mascaraed, drunken fop like Captain Jack Sparrow when I can get the Thing as Captain Blackbeard?

Fantastic Four #5 (1962)

At The Movies: Fantastic!

How do you finish off a fantastic Father's Day weekend?  By seeing the new Fantastic Four movie, of course!

After a busy weekend visiting the old hometown (Duluth, MN), I made it home in time to catch a showing of Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.  The ladies graciously bowed out, so it was just Dad and The Lad seeing what the sequel had to offer.

First, some credentials. 

I've collected and adored Fantastic Four comics ever since climbing aboard the Comic Book Crazy Train way back in the early 70's, and I've got every issue (in one form or another) from issue #1 through the mid-300's, plus a smattering of more recent runs. 

In short, I know what the heck I'm talking
about when it comes to the Fantastic Four.

Not that knowledge to the source material is required to comprehend and enjoy the movie...in fact, it would be a crashing failure if it did.

However, the "inside baseball" insight can certainly enhance an already good adaptation when you see many of the defining elements incorporated in economic and clever ways.

From this perspective, I enjoyed the original Fantastic Four movie in 2005.  They did a pretty good job of introducing the characters to the general public through good performances and better-than-expected special effects.  Through it all, the movie never seemed to take itself as seriously as many superhero movies tend to, which allowed alot of the lighthearted spirit and family dynamic of the comic book to shine through.

Okay, now that the set-up's out of the way, what did a self-proclaimed Fantastic Fan think of the sequel? Well, like I did for my Spider-Man 3 review, I think I'll give my impressions of the major characters, all of which will include SPOILERS (consider yourself officially Spoiler-Warned).

Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd): Of the four, the personality of the comic book Reed Richards is often as pliable as his body, and tough to nail down.  Many writers err in portraying him as simply an absent-minded space case, or a coldly logical Vulcan, forgetting the laser-focused intensity and passion of Lee and Kirby's original.  Gruffudd's performance strikes just the right balance between a mildly distracted and intensely driven Mr. Fantastic, as he simultaneously monitors a cosmic conflagration while helping Sue plan their wedding.  With only a hint of the graying temples that define his comic book counterpart, Gruffudd still projects the required maturity and "gravitas" the role requires...despite the inherent goofiness of his stretching powers. Oh, and I can't forget to mention the beard stubble!  Whenever Reed gets really intense in the comics, he ends up with a major case of five o'clock shadow....a great little touch they incorprated into the movie.  Someone knows their stuff.

Sue Storm (Jessica Alba): You know, I see Alba getting knocked left and right by other reviewers, but I don't think she did a bad job at all. Would I prefer someone a bit older?  Sure.  Do those blue contact lenses give Alba a vaguely spooky Children of the Damned look?  Admittedly, yes.  Despite those mild distractions, Alba seemed to get into the Invisible Woman role more than she did in the original.  In the comic books, Sue is sort of a defacto "mother figure" (in a positive, non-creepy way), and I thought they did a good job of suggesting that here and there.  I was disappointed that they (once again) made Sue lose all of her clothes, and actually felt kinda sorry for Alba for having to endure yet another cheap laugh.  Her "Why does this always happen to me?" line was a good question I'd like to see the filmmakers answer. I really enjoyed the scenes of Sue using her powers, which made it clear that she's one of the most, if not the most powerful of the foursome.

Johnny Storm (Chris Evans): As one of the highlights of the first film, Evans once again pulls off a great performance as the impetuous Human Torch. Like many cocky, charismatic cads before him, Johnny learns a Valuable Lesson in humility as his brush with the Surfer scrambles his superpowers...which Evans performs with real heart.  We get a sense that Johnny has finally turned a corner in his extremely long path to maturity.  I noted that the female military officer Johnny was hitting on was named "Frankie Raye", who, in the comics, was one of his major romances (and eventually became another herald of Galactus).

Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis): I have to admit, I was disappointed that the filmmakers decided to use a real-life body suit for The Thing.  If any character cried out for an all-CGI interpretation, it was Ben Grimm.  Perhaps the unconvincing CGI Hulk from Ang Lee's famous bellyflop of a movie scared the F.F. crew away from this approach, or maybe Michael Chiklis wanted to have more of a "real" presense in the movie.  Whatever the reason, I wasn't too thrilled with the smaller version of Aunt Petunia's favorite nephew.  Happily, the Thing suit grew on me, especially with Chiklis' spot-on performance.  Simple without being stupid, gruff without being a complete crank, the movie Thing captured much of the character's humor and disarming vulnerability. 

Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon):  I was surprised to learn that Dr. Doom would return in the sequel, and I certainly wasn't expecting that he would also regain his looks and get a government pardon.  Thankfully, he quickly reverted back to villainous form, echoing a classic comic book tale where Doom temporarily steals the Surfer's power.  I question the wisdom of including Doom at all, but minus any real presence from Galactus, I guess the film needed something the gang could fight, and Doom once again filled the bill.

Doom steals the Power Cosmic
(Fantastic Four #57, 1966)

General Hager (Andre Braugher): Playing Hollywood's 10,478^th take on the stereotyped stone-faced and morally compromised military big shot (ho hum), Braugher wasn't given much to work with here.  He was basically just the "Corrupt Military Machine" foil to Reed's virtuous "Noble Scientist". I think the most memorable aspect of the character was his shockingly graphic death....especially for a mere PG rating.

Alicia Masters (Kerry Washington):  Like Braugher, she wasn't given much to do, which was somewhat disappointing considering Alicia's huge role in the comic book version of the Surfer's comic book debut.  It was the gentle soul of Alicia, not Sue, that inspired the Surfer to challenge Galactus and ultimately save the Earth, and it would have been great for that aspect of the story to make it into the movie.  With Sue now in that role, it worked just fine and accomplished the same storytelling goal, but knowing the original source material actually hindered my enjoyment in this case.  A wonderful, beautiful actress just the same.

The Silver Surfer (Doug Jones & the voice of Laurence Fishburne):  From the first few promotional images I'd seen of him, I've been thrilled with the "translation" of the Surfer from comic book to film.  I still recall way back in the 1970's, Stan Lee had been trying to get a film version of the Surfer made, at one point breathlessly reporting that a "scientist in Australia" had figured out a way to levitate a board a few inches off the ground...which, even with our naturally lowered expectations in the 70's, didn't seem all that impressive.  I'm happy Stan's low-wattage Surfer movie never got farther than that, since nearly 30 years later, I was able to enjoy a near-perfect realization of Jack Kirby's original vision of the character. 

The comic book version of the character has long been "tamed" by writers (including Stan Lee) who later took him in a more philosophical, self-pitying direction, but when he first appeared in Fantastic Four #48 (1966), he was a mysterious figure who seemed both noble and a little spooky.  This is exactly the vibe the movie was able to capture, as the sightings and enigmatic activities of the Surfer truly seemed beyond humanity's understanding.  Even in his leaden "non-powered" state (which I suspect might have been one of the original, non-CGI options for the character), he still emanated the mythic, otherworldly grandeur of so many Kirby creations.  Fishburne's voicework complemented the physical presense, giving the Surfer the proper note of "serene fatalism".  I've heard rumors of a Silver Surfer spin-off movie (which the final scene certainly paves the way for), and I think it would work.  That is, if they actually showed Galactus.  Which brings me to....

Galactus:  I was really torn on this one.  On one hand, I desperately wanted to see a "real" version of Kirby's armored space-god, such as the amazing version that briefly appeared in a cinematic for the Marvel: Ultimate Alliance video game (above).

On the other hand, I understand that some comic book images don't translate particularly well to the movie screen, and the elaborate Kirby headgear of Galactus might be one of them.  I don't know how it would have come across...and it seems like the filmmakers might have faced the same dilemma.  As it turned out, Galactus was portrayed as a sweeping "space storm", cloaked in cosmic thunder and smoke like God in Cecil B. DeMille's Ten Commandments.  I can get behind that interpretation just fine, as it really conveyed the awesome "otherness" of Galactus, perhaps much more effectively than a 50-foot man with a bucket on his head would have.  Still, old-timers like me were thrown a bone with a very brief glimpse of his distinctive comic book silhouette during his final confrontation with the Surfer (if you blinked, you probably missed it), so there's at least the possibility of the Big Guy taking on a more familiar physical form in a Surfer "prequel" (chronicling his origin story, I presume).  Whether visible or not, the Galactus concept made a successful jump to the movie screen...something I really wasn't sure would work in the context of a live-action Fantastic Four film. 

Some other stuff to note:

1.  The Fantasticar:  Though not quite as vital to the Fantastic Four as, say, the Batmobile is to Batman, the Fantasticar is still a pretty important detail to get right.  While I liked the general design of the Car, what I really appreciated was how it separated into different mini-fliers, just like in the comics.  Nice touch.

2.  The inevitable Stan Lee cameo was great, as Stan was refused entry to Reed and Sue's building-top wedding ceremony.  Some people are mightily bugged by these, but I love 'em.

3.  The fun quasi-nod to The Super Skrull, one of my favorite F.F. villains. In the movie, the Surfer altered Johnny's molecules, which allowed him to spontaneously "swap" powers with his teammates.  In their battle with a super-charged Dr. Doom, Johnny absorbs all of their powers, becoming a one-man Fantastic Four...an obvious visual tribute to the Super Skrull.  I had hoped the Skrull would be the villain for a (possible) third movie, but I'll settle for this if they go for something else.

4.  The real sense of "family" the film captured.  Unlike most comic book superteams who hang out for awhile at their headquarters and then return to their "real" lives, the Fantastic Four have always lived together as a family.  Like any family, they've had their ups and downs, crazy arguments and bouts of cabin fever, but at the end of the day, their devotion to each other defines their unique place in comic book history.  The film did a great job of conveying that without knocking us over the head with it.

Overall, I'm rating Fantastic Four: Rise of
the Silver Surfer 4 out of 5...er...Fours.

The Highlight Reel: Look Who's Coming to Dinner

You're all familiar with this classic scene from The Empire Strikes Back, right? (click on the "play" arrow)

Yeah, so was I...the first time I saw it!  Let me explain.

As I've said ad nauseum, I'm a Fantastic Four fan from way back. So much so, that when my 14 year-old self watched that scene in the summer of 1980, I immediately recalled a similar sequence from Fantastic Four #142 (1974).  So similar, in fact, that I've often wondered if a certain bearded, plaid-wearing movie mogul might have read that same comic book and (either consciously or sub-consciously) incorporated that sequence into his famous sequel.

Here, I'll let you be the judge.  The set-up:  Reed Richards, recently separated from his wife Sue, shows up to attend a 10 year college reunion, accompanied by substitute F.F. member Medusa. Written by Gerry Conway and masterfully illustrated by Rich Buckler (pencils) and Joe Sinnott (sublime inks), the alumni are then escorted into the dining room...and into one of the most unforgettable "villain reveals" in my collection (click on the panels for a larger view).

So...what do you think?  A dining room trap laid by a masked, heavily armored and cape-wearing arch-villain, greeting his "guests" with sinister mock formality?  Coincidence...or influence?

Well, whatever it is, it's certainly a worthy addition to The Highlight Reel.

P.S. Of course, nothing in the world of entertainment is entirely original.  Everything has been influenced by something that came before it...even the Dr. Doom panel.  Doom's wide-eyed, frightening expression recalls Lon Chaney's terrifying facial expression from The Phantom of the Opera's classic reveal scene, nearly 50 years before F.F. #142. Again...what do you think?

Thoughts on the Iron-Man Trailer

Yesterday, the trailer for Marvel's Iron-Man movie was officially released (no more lousy bootleg video to squint at).  The verdict?

Here...you can see it for yourself in small, medium, and large.  I recommend "large" if your internet connection is up to the challenge.

From various interviews with director Jon Favreau, to the inspired casting of Robert Downey Jr., and the fact that Marvel is producing it, I've had good feelings about the Iron Man movie from the start...but this trailer confirms that this will definitely be one of the better comic-to-film adaptations.

In fact, considering how shabbily Marvel itself has portrayed Iron-Man recently, the movie may even surpass the comics when it comes to treating the character (and his disillusioned fans) with any kind of respect. For the past couple of years, Iron-Man has been made into either a clueless utopian or a mustache twirling villain-slash-political allegory (depending on the writer), so it's heartening so see the character get some love from somewhere in the pop cultural continuum...in this case, from Hollywood of all places!

Anyway, back to the trailer itself. A few impressions:

1. Robert Downey Jr. was born to play Tony Stark. In just the few scenes I've watched, Downey deftly conveys Stark's intelligence, wry sense of humor, borderline arrogance (okay, full-blown arrogance before his accident), and intensity...not to mention the fact that he really looks like him!

2. I like how the original origin has been "transplanted" into a modern context. Instead of the jungles of Viet-Nam, Stark appears to suffer his life-altering injuries in a Middle Eastern hotspot of some kind (as a result of an IED attack). He also appears to fall into the hands of a generic Islamist terrorist gang....though I've heard the Mandarin is the main bad guy...so maybe the thugs are working for him. We'll see.

3. I really have to hand it to Marvel and Jon Favreau for including the original grey "prototype" armor. If any other studio were producing the movie, I'm positive that we wouldn't be seeing the bigger, bulkier armor for fear that it looked too silly or clumsey. That said, the prototype armor's inclusion is a creative risk...and if the film is in danger of jumping the rails at any point, this is it. Favreau's real test as an action movie director will be to pull off these scenes with a minimum of eye-rolling or unintended laughter from the audience. (fingers crossed)

4. The actual Iron-Man armor looks absolutely amazing...and not nearly as bulky or clumsy-looking as I feared it would. I especially loved the shots of Iron-Man in the dark, with only his eye slits and chest piece glowing.

5. Of course, the highlight of the trailer was Iron-Man's flight with the fighter jets (who was escorting who?), and the final shot of Iron-Man snapping on the booster jets. Definitely one of those "whoa!" moments when the comic book images in my head are suddenly translated to the screen.

6. The only negative reaction I had was the inclusion of the old Black Sabbath tune "Iron Man" in the background of a few action shots, and it's distinctive "I...am...Iron Man" sound bite toward the end of the trailer. I don't know...action films (by law) require driving rock soundtracks, but my fear is that by incorporating such an obvious (and borderline campy) head-banger artifact into the film, it may produce an effect or reaction the filmmakers aren't intending. Not a big deal...and it may never find its way into the finished film....but just enough to add a note of caution to my enthusiasm for the film.

So...what do the rest of you think?

Memory Albums: The Soundtracks of Summer

In the midst of some early fall cleaning and organizing, I came across an old box of vinyl record albums I hadn't laid eyes on for years. 

In our current age of ever-miniaturizing technology and super-jukeboxes the size of a credit card, I was a bit taken aback at how large and unweildly those albums seemed...but man, what fond memories they still hold.  You see, as the "first born" in my family, I didn't have older brothers and sisters to inherit albums and absorb music knowledge from...so the first music I really latched onto as a young teenager was movie soundtracks. 

As odd as that might sound, it was certainly the perfect era to discover that kind of music, since epic adventure movie soundtracks were enjoying a grand comeback courtesy of John Williams' mindblowing (and very successful) Star Wars score in 1977.  Over the next five years or so, every summer had at least one unforgettable movie soundtrack, with the vast majority of them composed by Williams.  Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), Superman: The Movie (1978), Lord of the Rings (1978), Star Trek: The Motion Picture (composed by John Barry, 1979), The Empire Strikes Back (1980), Superman II (1980), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), E.T.The Extra-Terrestrial (1982), and Return of the Jedi (1983)....what a fantastic time to be a teenager!

I spent alot of time listening to those albums as a kid.  I listened to them while reading (books or comics, no doubt), drawing, brooding (as teenagers occasionally do), or just dreaming.  As a whole, the larger-than-life nobility, high adventure, and sheer excellence of that music gave me something more than the passing fancies of pop music ever could. In a word, it was transcendent...even before I even knew the word or what it meant (it was just something I felt).

Of course, all of that music has since been digitized and funneled into my iPod...but I'm still not quite sure what to do with all those old albums. Do I sell them to vinyl collectors...or keep them around to show my grandkids someday?

Sure, they're really not much to look at...just a bunch of black, vinyl discs.  With really cool (large scale) album art.  And liner notes you could actually read without a microscope.  And all kinds of surprises, like the laser-etched "S" shields on my Superman II album (which was DANG cool for 1980, let me tell you):

Oh, yeah...I'm definitely keeping them.

At The Movies: Superman-Doomsday

This past Tuesday saw the release of Superman: Doomsday, the first of a new series of animated features adapted from acclaimed DC Comics stories.

Loosely based on the wildly hyped Death of Superman comic book event of the early 90's, the movie has no connection to the previous animated Superman projects (though the basic character design certainly evokes them).

However, Superman: Doomsday's biggest departure from those previous incarnations is probably the movie's PG-13 rating...which may or may not have been the wisest decision.  But I'll cover that a little later.

First off, a brief synopsis...which means you are now officially SPOILER WARNED. From here on out, I'll be discussing plot details and featuring various scenes from the movie...so if you don't want to know, check out some other sections of Comic Coverage.  There's pretty much something for everyone here.

Ready?  Good...I'll see you on the other side of the jump.

Punch Superman....Win a DVD!

As you saw from Saturday's review of the new direct-to-video Superman: Doomsday DVD, it didn't exactly make my All-Time Top Ten list.

However, that's not going to stop me from giving it away to the lucky winner of the Great Superman Beat-Down Contest!

How do you win?  Easy...just direct your attention to the Superman Beat-Down Gallery below.  As you can see, Superman's been at the receiving end of some spectacular thrashings over his nearly 70 year career, illustrated by some of the best illustrators in the business.

Your task is to identify the artists who penciled each beat-down scene, then email me your answers.  The first person to guess them all correctly, or to get the most correct by 6:00 PM on Tuesday, September 25th will win the Superman: Doomsday DVD, a black armband (to publicly demonstrate your grief), and maybe a few other surprises. Heck, I'll even throw in shipping!

Oh, like I do with all my contests, I'll be switching off the comments so nobody nabs the correct answers from other contestants. 

With that, good luck and have fun!

Cover to Cover: Celebrity Parade!

Real-World Celebrities Meet Star-Struck Superheroes

Admit it. At one time or another, we’ve all been a little starry-eyed over the prospect of meeting or even glimpsing a popular celebrity “in the flesh”.  From 1950’s teenie-boppers screaming over Elvis to modern day fanboys packing the San Diego Comic Con to gaze at this year's Veronica McBuffy, everyone (of every era) is guilty of worshipping at the Altar of Celebrity…even comic book superheroes!

Intended to bolster comic book sales, superhero comics have a long history of celebrity appearances….dating all the way back to the early 1940’s!  One of the earliest I’ve come across was the cover of Flash Comics #28 (1942), which featured a kaleidoscope of movie stars from Hollywood’s Golden Age.  Some of the faces are still instantly recognizable here in the 21st century, while others are as unfamiliar as the faces in a stranger’s photo album.

In Action Comics #127 (1948), Superman made an appearance on the popular radio show Truth or Consequences, created and hosted by Ralph Edwards (of This is Your Life TV fame).  Obviously, Supes failed the “Truth” portion of the quiz show and, according to the rules, had to endure a zany, humiliating “Consequence”.

Full Circle

Hat tip: JoBlo.com

Bizarro's Toybox: I'm Dreaming of a Black Sith-mas

Last Christmas, I came across some incredibly strange toys I consigned to Bizarro's Toybox, where the abnormal is normal, bad is good, and wish list toppers like Guitar Hero 3 are nowhere to be found.  Well, this year, it looks like I'll only have time for one visit to Bizarro's Toybox, so I'll try to make it extra-special.  In fact, instead of one unusual item, how about ten?

Okay, we all know about Darth Vader, right?  Principal bad guy from the Star Wars movies (the good ones), armored Sith Lord, evil father of Luke Skywalker, and pupil of the Dark Side of the Force?  Yeah, that guy.  Well, as someone who's got Darth Vader's helmet-face mask thingie on full display in his studio, it's safe to say I'm a big fan of the character (despite George Lucas making him into such a whiny putz for the prequels).  However, my enjoyment of the character usually doesn't extend to the hundreds (thousands?) of products featuring his likeness.  Oh, I can usually find something to admire in just about any Darth Vader product...but man, some of this stuff really crosses over to the Dark Side of licensed merchandising.  How about a Top Ten countdown featuring some of the darkest? (click on the images for a larger view)

10. A toddler size Darth Vader Costume:  What better costume to dress a happy, innocent toddler in than that of a conquering Sith Lord who actually murdered small children in Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith?  No thanks...I think we'll stick with Bob the Builder or Picachu and save the Vader look for the older kids.

9. The Darth Vader Night Light: On a similar note, what sort of parental thinking process is at work (or not) when a glowing Darth Vader head is brought in to calm a child's nighttime fears? "Shhhh....go to sleep, now.  Just look at that frightening, skull-like mask, and you'll feel all safe and snuggly..."

8.  "Duck Vader" Bath Toy: Moving from bedroom trauma to bathtub trauma, who needs rubber duckies when you can scare the dirt off toddlers and pre-schoolers with this glowing, Vader-esque duckie?

"Ducky Vader, you're the one
You make bath time lots of fun
Ducky Vader, I'm awfully fond of you
Woo woo be doo!"

7.  Hey, it's Lil' Vader, a cute, stubby little Vader aimed squarely at...you guessed it...pre-schoolers!  If the masked version of Lil' Vader (left) isn't enough to make them forget their potty training, imagine what the sunken eyes and pasty skin of the unmasked version will do!

6.  The Darth Vader inflatable backpack:  Finally moving up to an older age bracket, the Vader backpack gets points for a clever design, but once again I go back to the image of Vader's head as essentially a high-tech skull.  That's when the product starts getting a little weird for me.  Yeah, yeah....that's probably the parent in me talking.

5.  Darth Vader Birthday Cake: Birthdays...a time of fun, frivolity, and celebration.  Naturally, the perfect cake for such a happy occasion is one that reminds kids that Anakin Skywalker (pictured in the upper-right corner) was horribly burned in the fires of a volcano planet, necessitating the creation of his life-preserving Darth Vader armor.  Happy Birthday!

4.  Darth Vader Piñata- Next on the Happy Sithday agenda is the Darth Vader piñata, where kids traumatized as babies by the Darth Vader night light can finally strike back at the candy-filled lapdog of Emperor Palpatine. Then again...maybe it's not filled with candy...but blackened bits of Anakin Skywalker's soul!

Whatever it's filled with, just make sure the kids are wielding lightsabers when striking at the piñata.

3.  Darth Vader Nutcracker: Play Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker Suite as you dance and twirl around the room with your very own Darth Vader Nutcracker.  Hand carved from wood by Steinbach of Germany, this limited edition piece will set you back a mere $300.

2.  Men's Darth Vader Boxer Shorts:  Which begs the question:  "Is that a protruding breath mask or are you just happy to see me?"

1.  The Darth Vader Chopper:  One of the "crown jewels" of the Bizarro Toybox collection, the crass stupidity of this product is surpassed only by its kitschy appeal and unintentional humor.  Besides, didn't the Star Wars universe have flying Speeder Bikes for motorcycle equivalents?

Had enough?  Yeah, me too.  I can only take so much of George Lucas' greed-based insanity. Let this edition of Bizarro's Toybox serve as a warning to Lucas and Star Wars fans alike:

Highlight Reel: Pioneers of a New Frontier (Win a DVD!)

The chronology is a familiar one to most of us comic book fans. 

First came Superman in Action Comics #1 (1938), a "Big Bang" event that gave rise to the first generation, or "Golden Age" of comic book superheroes.  Following World War II, superhero comics lost their appeal and disappeared from newsstands...with only a handful of the most popular remaining (among them Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman).

Nearing the end of the 1950's, as Cold War adversaries began their race into space, a new age of daring, trail-blazing science dawned...making test pilots, scientists, and astronauts America's new celebrity class.  Patterned after these "science super- stars", a second generation...or "Silver Age" of superheroes burst onto the scene.

It's within this era that Darwyn Cooke's incredible DC: The New Frontier takes place.  Set during the actual years of the Silver Age, Cooke traces the emergence of the Space Age superheroes against a backdrop of Cold War tension and an encroaching alien invasion.  Although Cooke flirted with some shopworn liberal tropes (1950's paranoia and hypocrisy, the Dark Underbelly of America, yada, yada, yada), he thankfully devoted most of the page count to a gritty, full-throttle adventure that constantly reminded me why I love these characters so much.  Adding to the joy was Cooke's amazing artwork, blending a sophisticated retro design with streamlined figures that recall the animation styles of the era and comic book masters like Alex Toth and Jack Kirby.

Although it's tough to encapsulate the New Frontier experience into a single clip for the Highlight Reel, something that comes close is an "epilogue" sequence from the final issue.  As Cooke takes us on a farewell "flyover" of DC's Silver Age pantheon, portions of John F. Kennedy's 1960 acceptance speech are used to great effect, elegantly bringing together the heroic themes of history and imagination.

(click on the pages for super-sized views)

You know, after JFK's inspiring message of civic responsibility and can-do optimism, I feel like giving something away!  How about this: The first person to correctly identify all 70 characters on these pages will win a Justice League: The New Frontier DVD!  Although it's not officially on sale until Tuesday, February 26th, the good folks at Warner Home Video and M80 Promotions have sent me a copy to review (which I'll post next week) and one to give away to a lucky reader!

Okay, here's how I'm going to do it.  To make identifying and submitting your guesses easier (which, in turn, makes MY life easier), I've created monochromatic versions of each page with numbers by each character, so when you submit your list, your guesses will correspond to the 70 numbered characters. 

(click on each page to see the numbered characters)

For example, if you see the number "1" next to Widget-Man, you'll type "1. Widget-Man" on your list.

The first person to correctly identify every character will be announced as soon as I can post your name...or, if nobody nails them all, whoever identifies the most characters correctly by 7:00 PM on Friday, Feb. 22nd will win the DVD (the winner will be announced on Saturday).

Got it?  Great.  Have fun and good luck. In the meantime, how about a New Frontier trailer (complete with the JFK speech) to inspire you?

UPDATE: Wow! That sure didn't take long! We've already got a winner, and it's George Chambers from New South Wales, Australia! Congratulations, George....you nailed them all! Your copy of Justice League: The New Frontier will soon be winging its way Down Under! For those of you who are curious about the answers, I'll be re-opening the comments section and posting George's answers for you to see.

At the Movies- Justice League: The New Frontier

As I mentioned in last week's Highlight Reel , I had the opportunity to watch Justice League: The New Frontier, a direct-to-video adaptation of Darwyn Cooke's glorious tribute to DC's Silver Age superheroes (on sale tomorrow).

So...what's the verdict?

Well, considering my intense dislike for Superman: Doomsday (the first animated adaptation of a popular DC story), I wasn't sure what to think about New Frontier's prospects. Granted, I wasn't a fan of the Death of Superman comics (which Doomsday was based upon), so maybe my enjoyment of the New Frontier comic book story would likewise help me enjoy its animated adaptation.  Then again, could a six issue mini-series stuffed to the rafters with characters and sub-plots really make the jump to a mere 75 minute movie?

Against all odds...yes!

In fact, I was amazed at how many of the characters and story beats made it into the movie....and even more amazed at how clear and coherent the storytelling was.  Sure, a few sub-plots were referred to only in passing (the John Henry/racism storyline) or removed entirely (the Losers on Monster Island and Challengers of the Unknown), but for the most part it was all there in an efficiently streamlined form.

Now, before I get too swept away with the good stuff, I guess I should get the not so good stuff out of the way first, right?

At The Movies: Iron-Man

There's just something about the opening night of a superhero movie I can't resist (not that I've ever tried to resist one), and Iron-Man was certainly no exception.

When I saw the Iron-Man trailer last September, I knew things looked good for the inaugural film of Marvel Studios, a conviction that grew as positive press for the movie continued to pour in.

Which brings us to opening night.  Like I said, it's hard to resist the kick-off of a superhero movie, but all the great buzz combined with my fondness for the Iron-Man character made my butt in a seat on opening night a foregone conclusion.

So, now that I've actually seen it...what's the verdict?  I'll break it down into various categories:

1. Setting: I appreciated how the ongoing Jihadist threat was woven into Iron-Man's origin (replacing the original Viet-Nam angle).  Although the "Ten Rings" terrorists are a vague reference to the Mandarin (an old ring-wielding Iron-Man villain), they're clearly the same sort of nomadic fanatics making life miserable here in the Real World.  Depressingly familiar images of flea-bitten warlords, wide-eyed followers, and videotaped hostages all pack a ready-made emotional punch and give Iron-Man an urgency and relevance other superhero films just don't share.

2. Story: Without going into spoiler-heavy detail, I loved the tight, no-nonsense storytelling. With just the right amount of information, complex personalities and relationships are communicated with a minimum of fuss. For example, instead of resorting to tedious exposition, the conflict between Tony Stark and bad guy Obadiah Stane is cleverly introduced through a series of magazine cover photos. This same economical approach infuses the entire movie, which allows Iron-Man to clip along at just the right pace.  Slower "emotional beats" elegantly balance out (and amplify) the action scenes, so nothing feels indulgent or meandering (I'm looking at YOU, Superman Returns).  At its core, it's the story of hubris transformed by tragedy into redemption through self-invention...a theme the movie never loses sight of despite the potential distractions of head spinning action scenes and generous amounts of clever humor.

3. Acting: Although the movie had solid performances all around, Robert Downey Jr. completely knocked it out of the park. In fact, his nuanced, intelligent and genuinely moving portrayal of Tony Stark was so good, I can't imagine anyone else in the role...that's how much he owned it. Unfortunately, the dominance of Downey's acting cast a bit of a shadow over the supporting performances of Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts) and Terrence Howard (Jim Rhodes).  They certainly weren't bad by any means, but their interaction with Downey seemed to amplify their weaknesses. Someone who managed to stand toe-to-toe with Downey was Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane, whose disarming charm made his two-faced treachery all the more shocking. 

4.  Special Effects: Part of the challenge of any science fiction movie is to give mythical technology the illusion of believability...and Iron-Man pulls it off.  From Tony Stark's awkward flying tests to the magnificent "suiting up" scene (with that awesome robot "pit crew"), the off-the-charts impossibility of super-powered armor was easy to ignore with such convincingly "real" costuming and effects. Most impressive was the near-seamless integration of computer animation with live action...making me realize they've come a long way since the first Spider-Man movie's rubbery and not terribly convincing CGI sequences. Sure, the "robotic" appearance of Iron-Man gets more of a pass from our brain's "authenticity gauge" than a non-armored figure would (I'm looking at YOU, Hulk), but still...what they accomplished in Iron-Man was about as believable as anything I've seen so far.

5.  The Directing: Special kudos to director Jon Favreau, who infused what could have been a soulless, high-tech thrill ride with humanity and grit. His inspired casting (remember, Downey was seen as a pretty risky choice in some quarters), insistence on a smart script, and the performances he coaxed from actors and sci-fi wizards alike deserve a sustained (albeit symbolic) standing ovation.

That's the long story.  The short story?  I'm rating this a full five out of five Iron-Man helmets!  Yes, it's that good.  As soon as you pick up your Free Comic Book Day comics, proceed immediately to the nearest movie theatre to see Iron-Man! 

Marvel Movies AHOY!

For the past several days, in seems the entire pop cultural spectrum has been buzzing about the "invincible" box office mojo of Iron-Man, the first official film of the fledgling Marvel Studios. Adding to the giddy excitement of the mammoth $100 million weekend was yesterday's perfectly-timed Q1 financial report from Marvel Entertainment, Inc.

Normally I don't get too excited about financial reports, but this one included Marvel's slate of future movie projects...complete with release dates! Now, I realize this is probably premature...and release dates can change on a whim...but I thought I'd take a look at the list and jot down a few thoughts on each movie, if anything to look back and see how prophetic (or pathetic) my musings were.

First of all, it looks like nothing from Marvel is on tap for 2009...which I can hardly complain about since the Iron-Man and Hulk movies are a mere six weeks apart here in 2008. I have to say, though...as great as it is to have two big Marvel movies coming out the same summer, I think it'll become more obvious as blockbuster season rolls on that summer of 2009 might've been a better time to release the Hulk.

However, as you'll soon see, the "double-release summer" appears to be something Marvel is sticking with for their upcoming films...so I guess we'll have to see how that strategy pans out before I get too skeptical. I suspect the Hulk movie's performance will have a strong influence on many of these tentative release dates...but for now, let's go with the schedule Marvel's provided. Leading off the list, of course, is...

Bizarro's Toybox: A Kinder, Gentler Hulk

Since my kids are well into their teenage years, I'm completely out of the loop when it comes to toys aimed at younger children, especially the toys of the pre-school and early grade school crowd. However, during a recent trek to Target, I decided to take a stroll through their toy section to check out the latest superhero toys. Stopping me in my tracks was Hasbro's line of Hulk toys and games.  My reaction?

Two words: "What the?!..."

Here, let's run down a few of the Hulk-themed toys I ran across, which...while cute as a button, were also strange as all get-out (click on the photos for larger views)....

Marvel Super Hero Squad-Abomination and Hulk: Since the new Hulk movie is rated PG-13, these doe-eyed versions of Hulk and the Abomination are subtley cynical creations. Although the age group they're aimed at clearly aren't the movie's target audience, Hasbro (and everyone else) knows full well that boatloads of clueless parents will bring their tiny tots to the movie anyway, regardless of the PG-13 rating.

Yeah, I know...it's not the first time PG-13 movie tie-ins have been marketed to a much younger crowd, but I guess seeing a freaky character like the Abomination translated into a "Happy Lil' Fella" is pretty jarring. Plus, how many tykes can even pronounce "abomination", anyway?

Power Glow Hulk: From the sales pitch:
"The gamma radiation running in the Hulk's blood surges, giving him incredible strength! His very skin glows green from the incredible energy within, and nothing can stand up to the Hulk's gamma charged power!"

In other words, pretend you're playing with something that's emitting high levels of radiation!  Wheeeee!

"Press the Hulk figure's power glow button and watch his "skin" glow green with anger!"

Dare I ask where the power glow button is located?

"Fists clenched with rage, this gritted-toothed hero means business - and he's heading for your neighborhood!"

A rage-filled, extremely radioactive man-monster is heading for our neighborhood? Pleasant dreams, kids!

  Operation Hulk: Okay, what do we have going on here?  Apparently Lil' Spider-Man and Lil' Iron-Man need our help "fixing" an ailing Hulk. Why a powerhouse like the Hulk would require hospitalization, or how teddy bears and butterflies penetrated his invulnerable hide isn't explained...but like the classic Operation game it's based on, there's plenty of pressure on kiddies to remove the "funatomy parts" without triggering the heart-stopping Sound Effect O' Failure.
But wait...what's that green mist that seems to be emanating from the Hulk's nether regions? Obviously some sort of gamma-charged super fart (the Holy Grail of kid humor)...silent and plenty deadly based on the skull and crossbones symbol floating inside of it!

Don't Wake Hulk: Based on "Don't Wake Daddy" (yet another heart attack-inducing game), this version features a very kid-friendly Hulk who "needs his sleep" while his superhero buddies engage in the noisy business of crime fighting. If you have to push Hulk's alarm clock one too many times, up he'll pop in a fit of rage...sending your hero straight back to the Starting Line!  As we all know, a sleepy Hulk in the comics usually lead to him to transform back into Bruce Banner, but I think we can overlook that bit of Hulk lore in this instance. After all, how many kids would want to play "Don't Wake Bruce"?

Zoom-N-Go Hulk ATV 4-Wheeler: Hilarious on so many levels, Zoom-N-Go Hulk puts the "nonsense" in "nonsensical". What...riding an ATV is preferable to his 100 mile leaps? Does he stop at a gas station to fill the tank? Could this technically be considered "Off-Road Rage"?  Most important, can he pop extended wheelies?

Plus, not to be too much of an old poop, but considering the surprising number of young kids that ride ATV's (especially in my part of the country), check out the responsible riding skills the sales pitch encourages:

"The Hulk smashes right through anything that gets in his way!  He’s the most powerful superhero there is, so when he hits the road, everyone else better watch out!  The Hulk is coming through and nothing can stop him!"

Now, get the Hulk to ride the Zoom-N-Go ATV in the upcoming movie, and I think you've pretty much guaranteed a HULK SMASH BOX-OFFICE success.

Super Cereal Spokesman...or Creepy Peeping Tom?

Superman and Kellogg's go way back...all the way back to the early 1940's with Kellogg's PEP cereal, a frequent advertiser of the Superman radio show. In fact, a rare store display for PEP cereal featured a magnificent painting of Superman visiting with his young fans (click on the image for a larger view).

The Kellogg's/Superman alliance continued into the 1950's when the cereal company became a key sponsor of the Adventures of Superman TV series. In a series of commercials for the new Sugar Frosted Flakes cereal, Superman star George Reeves (as Clark Kent) is shown strolling through 1950's suburbia and occasionally stopping to eavesdrop on families and friends discussing the tasty new cereal.

Peering through fences and pup tents with his x-ray vision, Clark's most egregious violation of privacy occurred when he observed a squabbling brother and sister...who ultimately come together through the healing power of Sugar Frosted Flakes. As "Peeping Tom" Kent summed it up, "Kids may argue, but never about Kellogg's Sugar Frosted Flakes". Check it out:

 

Random Coolness from Superman: The Movie (Part One)

As I've said before in previous Random Coolness posts, even though much of the comic book reading experience is about the "Big Stuff", I continue to insist that some of the coolest things in comics are minor elements and small details that have stuck with me over the years.

The same principal applies to movies, especially movies that are as familiar and close to my heart as Superman: The Movie. I don't have an exact count, but it's safe to say I've seen the movie dozens and dozens of times...so with that many viewings, I've found that it's often the smaller, more subtle moments that maintain its lasting appeal for me.  Oh, I still enjoy the major "milepost" scenes of the movie, such as Jor-El's speech to baby Kal-El, the helicopter catch, and the earthquake rescues...but there's something about the little details that really "push my buttons" and sustain my interest. 

It's from this perspective that I wanted to discuss Superman: The Movie. From the beginning of my Superman@70 month I'd planned to cover the movie (it would be criminally negligent of me NOT to), but I didn't want it to be just another rehash of the big picture stuff.  Instead, let's take a look at the first twelve of twenty-five Randomly Cool elements from Superman: The Movie.

1. The Comic Book: Not exactly an obscure moment (it is the opening scene, after all), but I can't emphasize enough how brilliant this sequence is. Instead of shying away from Superman's quaint beginnings, the movie embraces them from literally the first frame...which was actually quite a brave thing to do during the anti-establishment fervor of 1970's cinema. The narration of a child earnestly reading a Golden Age comic book instantly brought the audience into a place free from the era's fashionable cynicism and into the realm of innocence, hope and the promise of high adventure.

2.  The S: You know a movie is great when even the opening credits are entertaining. Set against John Williams' perfect score (and I do mean "perfect"), the cosmic journey from Depression-era Earth to Krypton never, ever gets old for me, despite some of the rather dated "space travel" effects. Beginning the journey with a major "wow" factor was the brilliant red of Superman's S-shield accompanied by a hissing blast of power-sound. Disappointingly, the revised sound mix of the DVD version of the movie diminishes the explosive punch of the S when it first appears.  Thankfully I transferred my original VHS version to DVD, so I can continue to savor the original sound mix of this moment.

3. The Temptation of Jor-El: The older I get, the more I appreciate the opening scene of Jor-El presiding over the sentencing of General Zod and his gang.  Throughout the formalized dialog, there's an unspoken backstory between Jor-El and Zod hinted at through the eyes, faces, and body language of the actors. When Jor-El submits the final "guilty" vote, Zod tries to escape his fate by tempting Jor-El to join him. Jor-El's answer is to slowly walk away...turning Zod's measured appeal for collaboration into a raging torrent of threats. Through it all, Jor-El continues to walk into the surrounding shadows...which (to me) symbolize his own morally ambiguous position within Krypton's ruling class. Was he tempted to take control of Krypton from its clueless Science Council, though perhaps not in the way Zod would? This scene certainly makes me wonder.

4.  Jor-El Alone: In another great bit of symbolism, an unpersuaded Science Council has adjourned their meeting and left Jor-El standing alone, with no support for his warnings of Krypton's impending destruction. This scene establishes a theme of solitude and isolation that will continue to surface throughout the movie.

I have to add how much I appreciate the movie's concept of Science Council members wearing a unique family crest or symbol on their robes. When I first saw the film, I thought it strange that Jor-El would wear an "S" symbol, but seen in the context of it being a Kryptonian design that just happens to look like an "S", it brings a whole new dimension to the fictional Kryptonian society, and a refreshing break from the Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers template still being used in the comics. It also helped explain why Superman would wear the symbol on his costume in the first place, since most modest mid-western boys would never think to call themselves "Superman". Instead, it was the symbol of the El family that Kal-El wore on his action togs...leaving the invention of the "Superman" moniker to the members of the press (Lois Lane to be specific). Very elegant and inventive.

5. "He will never be alone.": As a counterpoint to the previous image, Jor-El reassures his wife Lara that their Earth-bound son "...will not be alone. He will never be alone." Anyone who's seen the movie knows that Jor-El will essentially "live on" through the Kryptonian super-science of the crystals, so there's some very literal foreshadowing going on here. Shading the meaning a bit more may be Jor-El thinking about his own solitude (see #4) and how he's determined to prevent that for sonny boy.

6. Horror: In the comic book depictions of Krypton's destruction, the typical approaches were either (A) shots of buildings tumbling down or (B) a long shot of the entire planet exploding. Largely absent from those approaches were the people of Krypton, so the horror and enormity of what was happening was somewhat muted. That's why the shots of screaming Kryptonians falling into fiery chasms were so powerful and haunting. At that point, you realize the sound of Krypton's destruction wasn't so much the planet exploding, but the helpless, agonized death-cries of its people.

Random Coolness from Superman: The Movie (Part 2)

 

 

Earlier this week, I took a look at the little things that made a big impression on me from Superman: The Movie. In  Part One, I covered the beginning of the film through its unforgettable Smallville scenes. Let's pick things up as Clark concludes his journey to the frozen Arctic (click on the photos for a larger view)...

13. The Blankets: As Clark opens his backpack to remove the glowing Green Crystal, a sharp eye will catch a glimpse of the red, blue, and yellow fabrics stuffed inside. These can only be the Kryptonian blankets sent along with baby Kal-El's rocket ship. According to the comic book origin, these were the same fabrics used to create Superboy's indestructible costume...and it's likely that the backpack blankets were the fabrics used for the Superman costume we'd be seeing shortly.

14. "Speak." One of my absolute favorite sequences is the mysterious communion between Kal-El and the pseudo-spirit of his father Jor-El. After emerging from a cascade of light, the image of Jor-El assures his son that he will answer his many questions about his true heritage. Just before turning the conversation over to Kal-El, Jor-El says, "So, my son. Speak." With only this brief line, Marlon Brando (with face slightly upturned) conveys a regal, even imperious bearing...which perfectly sets the birth father apart from the humble adoptive father who raised Clark Kent.

15. Superman Revealed: After twelve years (!) of Jor-El's mentoring, Kal-El is now ready to enter the world with full knowledge of his Kryptonian heritage and power. I still recall the thrill of seeing Christopher Reeve take flight for the first time and soar so smoothly past the camera, giving us viewers enough of a thrill to wait another half hour before seeing any Superman action scenes. Keeping him somewhat in the shadows as he flew past was also a great move, simultaneously revealing him while retaining a bit of mystery. Combined with the heraldic blast of the Superman March, the origin story arc ends on an epic, triumphant note.

16. Speeding Bullet: Seemingly shot by a mugger, Clark reveals that he "must have fainted" to an underwhelmed Lois. As she walks away (without offering her new co-worker a hand up), Clark reveals the bullet he snatched from its path with a knowing smirk. In an instant, the core appeal of the Clark Kent character is revealed: "There's more to me than what appears".

17. "Um...Lois?" Of course, another major aspect of the Clark Kent character (in the sense that Clark is now very much a "performance" of Kal-El's) is the lengths of humiliation he willingly subjects himself to. Without getting too much into the amateur analysis, I believe Superman's willful buffoonery as Clark is actually an important (and very necessary) psychological safeguard for the most powerful being on the planet.

A textbook example of this practiced humility begins when Lois slips into the ladies room and is followed (almost puppy-like) by a clueless Clark. Shooing him out and shutting the door, Clark's coat gets caught in the door. Perfectly in character, Clark softly knocks on the door for Lois to open it. After freeing the captive coat, Clark proceeds down the hall, misses an elevator, gets yelled at by a guy in another elevator, then is completely ignored by two coworkers he bids "good night" to. The sequence ends with Clark standing alone in that dreary hallway, hands at his side...able to destroy the building with the stamp of a foot, yet choosing to remain the fool.

18. Straight Outta the Comic Book and Onto the Screen: Although Christopher Reeve was Superman in every frame he appeared in, the close-ups on the roof of the Daily Planet following the helicopter rescue are quite simply the comic book come to life. Not just the look, but the earnest & positive personality Superman should exude.

 

Playing Catch-Up

So, have I mentioned Superman turned 70 in June?

KIDDING!  (sorry, I couldn't resist).  After last month's wall-to-wall Superman@70 marathon, we now return to regular Comic Coverage programming...which translates to "anything but Superman" (to the collective cheers of comicdom).

During that month of super-centric posting, there were a number of things that I'd normally talk about, but had to take a back seat to You-Know-Who.  So, l think I'll get back into the swing of things by catching up on some of those belated blatherings. First up:

The Incredible Hulk movie: I'm sure you've all spent many a sleepless night wondering what I thought of the new Hulk movie since it hit theatres back on June 13^th. The verdict?

"HULK SMASH EXPECTATIONS!" 

Really, nobody was more pleasantly surprised at how good this movie was than me.  Or maybe it's because my expectations were steadily lowered leading up to opening day...but whatever the reason, this thing rocked.

The highlight of the film? The HULK himself, of course!

I was concerned about the somewhat plastic-looking CGI from the previews, but as I'd hoped, they did a great job of working out the kinks during the intervening months.  The man-monster was a great amalgamation of several comic book looks from over the years, though the versions of both classic Marvel artists John Romita Sr. and Sal Buscema seemed to dominate. Unlike the green "gumby" from the previous Hulk film, this Hulk had a convincing range of motion and well-played facial emotion (though I was more partial to the "rage" end of the emotional spectrum).  

Sure, the comic book proportions of his body still fight my mind's resistance to such exaggeration in a realistic context, but the CGI wizards managed to pull it off, especially when aided by techniques that subtly masked CGI's vulnerabilities (such as using creative shadowing for quieter scenes or shaky-camera effects during battle scenes). Of course, my giddy laughter during the pure chaos of Hulk's rampages is testament that these guys did a fantastic job of bringing the Jolly Green Giant to life.

The other performances were generally pretty good. Ed Norton did a great job of playing Bruce Banner...giving him enough pathos to feel for him, but not wallowing in it to the point of boredom (like the Ang Lee snoozer). Tim Roth did well as Emil Blonski, though I have to say I've about had my fill of psycho special-ops characters. I wasn't as impressed with both General and Betty Ross, though.  William Hurt and (especially) Liv Tyler seemed ill-suited for their roles, and not terribly convincing (Tyler a biology professor? Really?) But who cares.  Their non-entity status was easily overlooked with the movie's great pacing and generous amounts of Hulk action.  Add the nifty cameo appearances of Stan Lee, Lou Ferrigno, and a certain Mr. Stark, and you've got yourself a smashing addition to Marvel's growing roster of comic-to-film successes. Not quite as good as Iron-Man (the new Gold Standard for superhero films), but definitely worthy of

4 out of 5 Ferrignos!

Free Inside: Nightmares for Life!

I realize most people view their own childhood as the Shining Golden Age before the inevitable Fall Into Mediocrity and Ruin, but in the case of cereal box prizes and premiums, I can definitely say I grew up during its Golden Age.

During the 1970's and 80's, kids' cereal boxes contained an embarrassment of riches, including music records, games, boomerangs, bike accessories, posters, and (my favorite) mini "rip cord" race cars (similar to Kenner's SSP racers).

As time went by, the line between "adult" and "kid" cereals began to blur thanks to adults who continued to buy kid cereal. As a result, the marketing of "in-box" cereal premiums has largely become a thing of the past, with some strange...even surreal exceptions.

A prime example of these befuddling promotions caught my eye last week as I enjoyed a bowl of delicious Cinnamon Toast Crunch (yes, I'm one of the aforementioned line-blurring, kid cereal-eating adults). Flipping the box around, I beheld this rather unsettling sight:

Imagine, if you will, some sleepy five year-old kid pouring him or herself a bowl of Crunch, then seeing the Joker Chop action figure leering out at them or...even worse...lurking in their cereal box! A bizarre amalgamation of Heath Ledger and Verne Troyer, this Mini-Me Joker boasts a "powerful chop" (it's not) in addition to its black, sunken eyes and bloody gashed cheeks.

Really, who's this toy marketed at, exactly?  Considering the upcoming Dark Knight movie is a hard PG-13, nobody can claim that young kids are officially part of the marketing plan (though clueless parents can always be counted on to buy them a ticket).  At the same time, will the aging fanboy collectors really want a cute-as-a-button Joker figure...especially with so many "realistic" figures available to display on their nightstands? Add to that the weirdness of actor Heath Ledger's death, and this entire promotion becomes one heck of a "Surreal Sandwich".

As with so much cynical modern marketing, I don't get it.  Well, I do in the sense that I know there's virtually no printed surface that's off-limits to a movie tie-in...but seeing the decidedly NON kid-friendly Ledger Joker marketed so casually toward kids just blows my mind. 

In fact, it would almost be like the cereal boxes of my youth including a free toy of Alex DeLarge, the amoral psycho from A Clockwork Orange. Sounds insane, right?

How is this Joker toy any less insane?

At the Movies- Hellboy II: The Golden Army (spoilers)

Having enjoyed many of Mike Mignola's Hellboy stories over the years (and the first movie based on them), Hellboy II: The Golden Army looked like something I'd enjoy. This past weekend, on the day before dropping my Lanky Lad off at camp for a week, he and I checked out the movie.  What did I think?

Sadly, like so many "event movies", Hellboy II was a non-stop feast of astounding visuals, but not much else.

Most of the performances seemed by-the-numbers and "phoned in", with star Ron Perlman exhibiting little of his charisma from the first movie and, frankly, seeming a bit bored under all that makeup. Selma Blair (playing Hellboy's girlfriend Liz) also seemed to be killing time...which (combined with Perlman's blase' presence) evaporated all traces of the wounded, eccentric chemistry they shared in the original.

Speaking of evaporating charisma, it looks like the decision for David Hyde Pierce to perform the voicework for the Abe Sapien character in the first Hellboy was the right one.  This time around, Doug Jones (the guy in the Abe Sapien costume for both movies) also supplied the voice work, which was nowhere near as entertaining as Hyde Pierce's performance. Sure, Abe had the same quirky movements, but his voice just sounded flat and not quite right.  Kind of like the character's interest-free romance with the elven princess Nuala.

Playing his 7,587th smug jerk, Jeffrey Tambor seemed as bored with his typecasting as I am. I realize the role of Tom Manning requires someone of Tambor's vast experience playing nervous, priggish bureaucrats...but really, I think the role could have used someone with a bit more engagement or spark. Which points to one of the larger problems I had with the movie: while I get all of the "average day at the nutty office" stuff they're trying to do here, it's all been done before in movies like Ghost Busters and Men In Black. So, when Tambor casually talks to Hellboy while BPRD agents struggle to strap down a squealing Lovecraftian nightmare in the background, it's no longer funny. It's just boring.

I'm of two minds on the character of Prince Nuada.  One one hand, I thought he was by far the most entertaining character in the entire movie, due to both his stunning visual look and the performance of actor Luke Goss.  On the other hand, I found myself feeling irritated with director Guillermo Del Toro for essentially ripping-off Michael Moorcock's legendary fantasy character Elric of Melnibone. In addition to Prince Nuada being a visual dead-ringer for the albino adventurer, Nuada's imperious demeanor, sorcerous trappings, and ruthless fighting skill more than evoked Moorcock's most famous creation.  Yeah, freaky albino bad guys are nothing new in cinema...but Nuada was so close in look and style to Elric, that it went past "homage" and straight into "rip-off" territory for me.  It's especially irritating considering the rest of the movie is such a faithful translation of Hellboy creator Mike Mignola's unique visual vocabulary, that you'd think there would be no need to so flagrantly "smuggle" the image of Elric into the movie.  Very, very disappointing....yet at the same time, incredibly cool to see this pseudo-Elric running around on film.  The phrase "so close, yet so far" comes to mind (I hope Michael Moorcock gets a taste of the film's likely profits). 

Of all the irritations in the movie, I think the most persistent one was director Del Toro's obsession with intricate "mystery wrapped in an enigma" devices and machinery.  When he wasn't wasting half a minute showing interlocking gears and cogs intricately whirling and spinning into place, he was wasting another half minute zoomed in on delicate interlacing metalwork magically sprouting and curving into even more intricate formations. Although I've gone on record many times saying how much I appreciate the small details in things, Del Toro takes it to an embarrassingly self-indulgent level, which effectively slams the brakes on the movie's forward momentum. Perhaps the biggest challenge facing a director of film isn't necessarily the struggle of bringing your vision into reality, but recognizing (and resisting) your own quirky fixations and obsessive preoccupations.  It looks like Del Toro's still got a ways to go in that department.

After a dizzying array of interlocking puzzle boxes and "Jim Henson meets Harry Potter" creatures, Hellboy and company finally encountered the Golden Army which, like the rest of the movie, didn't live up to the hype.  Pretty to look at, to be sure....but with all the detached indifference and flashy incoherence of a video game.

For so much of this "style over substance" excess, I'm afraid I can only give Hellboy II a paltry

2 out of 5 Hellboy Heads

Simply the Best: The Killing Joke

 No, I haven't seen The Dark Knight yet (I plan to see it later today), but if the wall-to-wall hype and early word of mouth is to be believed, it looks like one hell of a ride. With so much focus on Heath Ledger's Joker, I can't help but think about one of my favorite images of arguably the greatest comic book villain of all time. In the spring of 1988, superstars Alan Moore and Brian Bolland collaborated on Batman: The Killing Joke...which sounded good on paper, but fell short for me (especially the wrong-headed ending with Bats and the Joker yucking it up like old drinking buddies).

However, it's Bolland's spectacularly creepy cover that continues to stick with me and, frankly, haunt me all these years later.

Although there are dozens of unique interpretations of the Joker over his nearly 70 year history, Bolland's remains my favorite.  Sure, other artists can do the big rictus grin of jagged teeth and the foppish gangster/pimp clothing....but Bolland goes farther by perfectly (and consistently) capturing the viciousness and almost elemental evil within his facade of whimsy.  Even small details like the black pool of the Joker's left eye (with its tiny speck of light) and the snarling folds and wrinkles of his face make him seem less a "Clown Prince of Crime" and more a sadistic, leering demon.

Amping up the creepy factor is the camera, which on its own isn't particularly creepy, but after reading the story, I realized it was a reference to a scene in which he snaps pictures of Barbara (Batgirl) Gordon after brutalizing and crippling her. Although stories before this one had taken the Joker into darker regions, The Killing Joke seemed to be the moment the straightjacket came off for a much darker, over-the-top Joker from that point onward.

At The Movies: A Hard Day's Knight (spoilers)

Despite my early reservations about the film, the Hollywood hype machine and a tsunami of hysterically positive reviews got me genuinely excited to see The Dark Knight this past weekend.  Though I wasn't part of the initial wave of Friday's midnight zealots, I was able to catch a (packed) Saturday afternoon showing with my equally-stoked teenagers. What did I think?  Well, the title of the post might have already tipped my hand...but let's break it down Two-Face style:

The Good Stuff:

Heath Ledger as The Joker.  Though I don't quite see the night-and-day contrast others are seeing with Nicholson's 1989 performance (both chewed copious amounts of scenery), Ledger's Joker bypassed the vaudevillian hand buzzers and acid-squirting flowers for an eerie, nonchalant nihilism and laser-focused ruthlessness.  Recalling the earliest comic book version of the character, Ledger's Joker is a cunning and sadistic manipulator, and not the giggling, child-like prankster seen in other incarnations. Amping up the Joker's creepiness was the complete mystery of his background, made even more opaque by the divergent sob stories behind his mutilated face.

The Two-Face makeup: I find that whenever something from the comics is almost perfectly translated to the screen, I laugh out loud like a kid on a roller coaster. Despite the grotesque appearance of Harvey Dent's disfigured face, that's exactly what I did when I saw how close Two-Face resembled the comic book version...complete with the gaping eyeball, snarling teeth, and exposed tendons. An outstanding visual treatment of my favorite Batman villain.

The Bat-Pod: Shame on me for not making the connection between those plump tires of the Bat-Pod and the tires of the Bat-Tank (I refuse to call it the Batmobile)...what a cool surprise to see it popping into action from the tank's wreckage, and even cooler to see Batman's (mostly) expert handling of the bike and its weapon systems.

And thazzit.  Now....hand me that chainsaw over there.

The Bad Stuff:

Christian Bale: Like so many actors before him, Bale's Bruce Wayne is a bland cipher of a character with almost no screen presence or feeling of who he is, what he feels, or what's going on in his head. With a permanently bemused expression, Bale's Bruce Wayne seems to have all the passion of a wet blanket, made worse by his bizarrely casual decision to hang up his Batman cape (since Harvey Dent was supposedly all Gotham needed to conquer crime). This is the guy who trained his whole life to be Batman? I get no sense of that from this version of Bruce Wayne.

Batman: Can I just say it? I'm completely fed up with the ultra-armored Batman of the movies. Sure, I get the "real life" necessity for that kind of protection, but in execution it's never, ever looked very good. I thought this time around might be different with the costume's new movable neck, but the new headpiece seems to cause more problems than it solves.The laughably tiny mouth area makes his head look even more rigid than before...which, paired with a rounded headpiece that looks like a giant rubber lightbulb, hardly makes Batman the imposing figure he's supposed to be. Also, haven't we solved the "fish lips" problems with the Batman mask yet? When the mask pulls Bale's lips up so dramatically, his exposed teeth gave him a horse-faced, Jim Carrey expression that, once again, hardly strikes fear into criminals.

Fights with this costume have always looked clumsy and flailing, with none of Batman's legendary finesse or jaw-dropping fighting skills.  All I saw was Batman nailing guys with his ultra-padded elbows and then pummeling them like some drunken brawler. Oh, and where's something as simple as mace in Batman's utility belt to spray attack dogs with?  Did you ever think dogs would give Batman as much trouble as they do in this movie?

Worse yet, Batman (like Bale's Bruce Wayne) was a frustratingly inert figure, with no real sense he ever knew what what going on around him or what to do about it. When he wasn't using that ridiculous "growly monster" voice (which elicited laughter not only from myself, but from most of the audience), he was rolling his Bat-Cycle following his "I can't run over the Joker" angst-attack, or stupidly botching the rescue of Harvey Dent (what, you don't carry a mini fire extinguisher on your utility belt, you blockhead?). Now, don't get me wrong...I'm not looking for the infallible Batman of the comic books...but come on.  The Batman of this movie (as with all the others) is a curiously halting, incompetent figure with none of the "go for the jugular" intensity and cunning I'm still waiting for.

(Yeah, that photo of Batman above is actually Lego-Batman...but it reminded me so much of Bale's Batman, it seemed like the right thing to do.)

Rachel Dawes: The dull-as-dishwater character from Batman Begins returns, every bit the non-entity she was before, but this time played by a haggard-looking Maggie Gyllenhaal instead of Katie Holmes (the current robo-wife of Tom Cruise). Since her relationships with both Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent are never made very clear (or convincing), there's really no emotional attachment to the character throughout the movie, including her afterthought of a death scene. Bruce then whines that his life as Batman caused her death, forgetting that her self-chosen career as a high profile Gotham City lawyer was already pretty dangerous (see "Batman Begins").

Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine: No these guys were't bad, but the great actors were given such inconsequential roles that the movie suffered a bit more from their virtual absence.

Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon: I'll take Oldman's Gordon over Tim Burton's befuddled Pat Hingle any day, but not by much. Like so many allegedly heroic figures in Chris Nolan's Batman films, he's more a passive onlooker (with those dorky Buddy Holly glasses) than a driven idealist. In fact, I wonder sometimes if Nolan is sending some kind snide message on authority figures in general, since all of the police officers and SWAT team members in the movie seemed to be nervous, incompetent stumble-bums who were easily tricked, frightened, or outmaneuvered. I realize a certain amount of confusion needed to be shown in order to bolster the Joker's chaos-agent bonafides, but things like the attack on Harvey Dent's police escort displayed such ineptitude from the whimpering SWAT team members (among many other examples), I wonder what Nolan's point was with that. If anything.

Harvey Dent: As much as I loved the Two-Face makeup, Nolan did a horrible job of setting up the character's transition from an incorruptible White Knight into a deranged lunatic. I'm not necessarily asking for Harvey to have had a pre-existing split personality or a similar deep-seated disorder, but at the same time, I think some seeds needed to be sown earlier in the film that made his embrace of evil a bit more coherent. The message that a tragic death or disfiguring accident is enough to turn someone around 180º in personality and motivation is a bleak one (perfect for this movie, I suppose), made even worse by Nolan's ham-handed handling of Harvey Dent's story arc. Aaron Eckhart did an okay job, but visually I thought the guy playing Gotham's "Mayor Mascara" would have been a better choice to play Dent (minus the mascara, of course).

Now that I've gone through the major characters, it's time to heap some scorn on director Chris Nolan's storytelling abilities (or lack thereof). While I appreciated many of his inventive shots and the bleak cinematography, the gaps, loose ends and nonsensical elements in Dark Knight simply overwhelm the good stuff. Let's count a few of them:

1. The entire sub-plot of the Asian accountant "Lao" and the Hong Kong junket was as incoherent as it was dull, devoting way too much screen time to a ridiculously over-wrought capture of the guy and to clumsily establish the lame sonar technology that would be used later in the film.

2. The staged "death" of Jim Gordon was itself so badly and confusingly staged, there was zero emotional impact when it happened, and zero emotional impact when he popped out of nowhere to save Batman's bacon (whom it's not clear if he was in on the scheme or not).  Just a very poorly staged bit of misdirection.

3. The concept of Batman imitators running around Gotham seemed to be something Nolan was toying with, but never really developed to any sort of interesting or relevant level. Perhaps they were part of the idea that Gotham's crime level was dropping under Batman's watch, which itself wasn't clear to me.  As with so many elements in this movie, things are thrown in...mentioned in passing....hinted at....or never followed up on. Some call that smart storytelling that encourages viewers to use their brains...I just call it sloppy.

4. Nolan was also incredibly sloppy when it came to the simple (yet important) business of connecting scenes and events together in a coherent fashion.  A good example of this is the scene with a cop guarding the Joker in his jail cell. After the Joker taunts him for a time, the cop moves in to (presumably) rough up the Joker.  The scene switches to events elsewhere in the building, crazy stuff starts happening, then the Joker busts in with the same cop as his hostage.  Now, we can surmise the Joker got the best of the cop, but I think something like that needed to be shown in order to better "connect the dots".  No, we didn't need an extended fight scene between the two, but it was important to show the Joker turning the tables on the cop and for the Joker to move out of the room.  As it was, the Joker (and so many other characters) seemed to appear and disappear at random, with no sense of where they've come from or how they got there. Again, I don't need my hand held, but Nolan is leaving out important storytelling beats in too many places.

Another non-sequiter was when the Joker crashed the party for Harvey Dent.  As you may recall, Batman jumps out the window after Rachel Dawes, grabs her in mid-air and then falls (unhurt!) onto a car in the street.  The strain on credulity aside (Bruce's suit may protect his skin, but not the impact on his internal organs), what happened up in the suite?  Did the Joker and his guys just kinda shuffle out the door? Did they go after Batman for the golden chance to finish him off in a weakened state? Nope. Nothing.  End of sequence, I guess.

The worst instance of Nolan's sloppy storytelling came when Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent were both kidnapped....completely off camera!  Again, we didn't need an extended treatment of this, but at bare minimum it needed to be established and shown that it was happening.  As it was, their abduction was simply said to have happened...almost like a random scenario from a video game, making the emotional impact almost nothing when it finally becomes clear that's what's happened.

Adding to my irritation was Nolan's love affair with explosions.  Now, it's a strange place for me to be in where I'm advocating fewer explosions, but really...after about the 60th or 70th gigantic fireball explosion, it was just boring...and something's really gone wrong if I think explosions are boring.

Okay....I think I've probably said enough about the lousy direction (though I could cite many more examples), but indulge me in a few more irritations.  I thought the whole concept of the high tech sonar rigged throughout Gotham was ridiculous and not very "Batman"...and the sequence of Batman using it to find hostages was a bewildering, incoherent mess. As with so many of the other Batman movies, the "hero" is essentially Iron-Man in a cape with none of Robert Downey Jr.'s charisma. Yes, Batman has always relied upon gimmicks and technology to assist him in his war on crime, but not to the point where they prop him up to the extent they do in the movies....which makes us lose sight of the man inside the bat suit (except when he's talking in that ridiculous Scary Monster Voice, that is).

Also, could there have been less emotional impact when Bruce was shutting down his Batman operation? With the same "poker face" he maintained for the entire movie, Christian Bale made the (supposed) ending of his mission look about as dramatic and impactful as changing his socks.  Some say "understated"...I call it "boring" and a missed opportunity for Wayne to exhibit something approaching an actual emotion.

Another thing: why in the world would Bruce Wayne think an aggressive DA would be enough to keep Gotham under control? Did he seriously think the Little Fish (you know, the type of street level criminal who killed his parents) would go away when Harvey Dent caught the Big Fish? Really? Whatever, Bruce.

Obviously, I'm in a very small minority here since everyone else I'm hearing and reading can't seem to say enough good things about the film.  Where this is coming from, I'm not entirely sure...though I suspect the death of Heath Ledger may have made people want to like this film more than they normally would.  But, whatever the reason, I'm just not seeing the masterpiece people are raving about.  From my viewpoint, what could have been an exciting duel between Batman and the Joker was, instead, a dreary, meandering, and incoherent mess that was far too long and filled with characters I cared nothing about.

Overall rating: A harsh (yet well-deserved) Two out of Five Batman Heads

Star Wars: Putting the Science in Science Fiction

For most of the summer, the Minnesota Science Museum here in the Twin Cities has been hosting Star Wars: Where Science Meets Imagination. Although a valiant attempt was made to include "real world" science throughout the exhibition (it is a science museum, after all), let's not kid ourselves: most visitors are only there to see actual costumes, props, and models from the Star Wars movies.

With only about a month remaining for the exhibition, my kids and I decided to spend part of our Sunday afternoon checking it out.  Here are some of the highlights (click on the images for a larger view):

Left: The exhibit's attention-grabbing promotional panels displayed on the huge street-facing front wall of the Minnesota Science Museum.

Right: Luke Skywalker's original landspeeder from Episode IV: A New Hope, on public display for the first time (having been stored in George Lucas' private garages for most of that time).

Left: The actual Han Solo and Chewbacca costumes from Episode IV.

Right: A Millenium Falcon model used during the filming of Episode IV. I was surprised by how large it was (which seemed to be about 4 feet long from end to end).

Left: The filming model of Luke Skywalker's X-Wing Fighter.  I don't recall which movie it appeared in, though I think it may have been Episode IV.

Right: The actual model of the Rebellion's Blockade Runner, the first spaceship to appear in Episode IV's unforgettable opening sequence.

 

Left: A Jawa costume from Episode IV (though I was a bit disappointed there weren't any glowing red eyes inside the hood).

Center: An actual, honest-to-goodness Yoda puppet from Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. A major (and mighty surreal) highlight of the exhibit for me.

Right: The hooded Princess Leia costume from the opening sequence of Episode IV, along with a C3PO costume from the most recent Episode III. Sorry, I don't recall which movie this particular version of R2-D2 appeared in.

Left: The Seeker Remote that assisted in Luke's Jedi Training from Episode IV.

Center: An actual-size model of a Droidica, which appeared in Episodes I through III.

Right: An IT-O Interrogator unit, used by Darth Vader in Episode IV to torture Princess Leia.

Left: Another big one for me: An actual Darth Vader costume from Episode IV. I was amused at just how crude many of the costume's elements looked close up, especially the square instrument panel mounted on Vader's chest.  The various buttons were crudely painted and the metallic parts looked random and hastily assembled (which they probably were, actually). Still....what a thrill to see it.

Center: A display of a Tusken Raider (or "Sandperson"), first appearing in Episode IV. To its right is (I presume) a female Tusken Raider, which I don't really recall seeing in any of the films...though I assume the female versions probably appeared in Episode II (during Anakin's raid of the Tusken village).

Right: A Wampa costume from Episode V.

Left: A tauntaun and rider model from Episode V.  The level of detail was amazing, right down to the eyelids and lashes of the creature.

Center: Also from Episode V, an AT-AT unit...and one of my favorite elements from the Star Wars movies (I still own a model of one somewhere in my storage boxes).

Right: A display of guns and lightsabers from various Star Wars movies. Since replicas of this sort of thing have been floating around for years, these weren't as fun to see as many of the previous items were.

Apparently, the Minnesota Science Museum is the final stop of the Star Wars Exhibition tour, so this is the last chance to see any of this stuff for awhile.  Though I'm not sure it was worth the admission price (it was quite a cash-grab by the Minnesota Science Museum), it was still fun being able to see many of these "mythic" Star Wars items up close and personal.

We Outta Be In Pictures: Marvel Movie Magic circa 1981

After so many years of high profile superhero movies, it's easy for us comic book fans to get a little spoiled.  In fact, fat budgets and CGI wizardry have made the adaptation of superheroes to film so commonplace, movies that would have paralyzed me with glee twenty years ago receive the ever-critical eye of the discerning fan (such as my recent tomato-tossing review of The Dark Knight).

However, while I stand by my Dark Knight review, I have to admit that sometimes I forget just how far we've come since the "bad old days" of comic-to-film adaptations.

In fact, for many years, one of the running jokes following the success of Superman: The Movie was how Marvel Comics just couldn't seem to get any traction when it came to getting their comics translated into movies.  Sure, they had a handful of characters that made it onto TV in the late 70's (most prominently The Incredible Hulk), but on the movie front, it was all talk and no action.

To give you younger fans a taste of this purgatory of vague plans and underwhelming development deals, I thought I'd run some excerpts from Amazing Heroes #1 (1981).  A refreshing alternative to the cynical and stuffy Comics Journal, the staff of Amazing Heroes actually seemed to like comic books and the people who created them. Covering the New York Creation Convention, they reported on Stan Lee's Marvel Movie Update to an eager convention crowd.

Here's a few of the highlights (or, more accurately, lowlights):

Fantastic Four: "Some guy, young guy like a George Lucas who's in the business, bought the rights to it. I've been meeting with him for the past three months and he's planning to do a major, big budget motion picture of the Fantastic Four."

Got that?  "Some guy" wanted to do a big budget F.F. movie. 

Good enough for me! 

Ghost Rider: "Believe it or not, Dino De Laurentiis took an option on the Ghost Rider. How he's going to do it, I don't know, but it's in the works."

Translation: "I have no idea how they're going to light a
guy's head on fire for an hour and a half, but I'll let the
guy who directed 'The Towering Inferno' figure it out."

Thor: "Major motion picture. We're talking Orson Welles playing Odin. Anyway, Orson Welles hasn't heard about it yet, but we were sitting there as if he's in the bag."

"We will make no Thor movie before it's time."

Spider-Man: The guy who produced "Beatlemania" wanted to do Spider-Man as a Broadway musical. Anyway, now we're talking about doing it as a movie, a musical but a serious musical."

(cue music) "With great power comes great responsibilite-ee-eeeee!"

The Silver Surfer: "The Silver Surfer is still on the way to being a big movie. Lee Kramer, who's going to produce it, is at this very moment in Australia and I think he's renting the whole continent as the setting! He found a scientist in England who is working on something called linear induction. At the moment he has this linear induction worked out so it can make a surfboard go this high above the ground and really travel with a man on it. They promise me by the time the thing is filmed, they'll get the surfboard that high. They get the camera underneath it, they paint the sky--it'll look like he's out in space!" Lee also said he'd be "closely involved" with the making of the movie and that the Surfer "will probably fight Galactus" in the film.

"They get the camera underneath it, they paint the sky--
it'll look like he's out in space!" Bada bing, bada boom! 

I'm an eternal fan of Stan Lee, but how many of you think
there was even a pixel of truth in that entire paragraph?"

Captain America: "There's a guy doing a Captain America Broadway musical. It's not what you'd expect. It's not an action-packed thriller, although it will be thrilling and there may be some action. We're going to pick Captain America up in middle age. His hair is thinning, he's getting a little bit of a pot belly. He's living in a furnished room somewhere with a little light bulb that hangs on a chain over the little iron bed and a sink in the corner of the room. And he's saying 'How did I come to this? What happened to my life?' And then we get him involved in an adventure. I think it's going to be a hit. That's about a year off."

No details on who this mysterious "guy" was, but a nosebleeding
amount of detail on what Loser Cap's apartment would look like?

Yeah, and who'd think a Broadway show about a fat, balding Captain America wouldn't be a "hit"?

Other plans included a possible X-Men movie ("Now as soon as I get one of the books and learn who the new X-Men are..."), Howard the Duck (by "the guy who wrote Bronco Billy"), and (I kid you not) a country-western superhero named "Denim Blue".

Thankfully, none of these absurd treatments ever made it into movie theatres (or onto Broadway stages).  After several near-misses in the early 90's (such as Roger Corman's aborted Fantastic Four and the dreadful, direct-to-video Captain America), 2000's X-Men movie finally broke the spell...sparking nearly a decade's worth of Marvel movies ranging from decent to excellent (with no end in sight).

Hitting the Superman Re-Set Button

As the summer movie season winds down, various articles and summations of "lessons learned" continue to trickle in.  One of those articles appeared in last week's Wall Street Journal, which detailed the reaction of Warner Bros. movie studio to the remarkable success of their Dark Knight movie and how it's changed their development strategy. After enduring the usual stating-of-the-obvious banalities ("While big ambitions can result in a huge payoff, they can also end in huge losses"), I came across this bit about Warners' reassessment of their Superman franchise:

Warner Bros. also put on hold plans for another movie starring multiple superheroes -- known as "Batman vs. Superman" -- after the $215 million "Superman Returns," which had disappointing box-office returns, didn't please executives. "'Superman' didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to," says (Warner Picture Group President) Jeff Robinov. "It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned." "Had 'Superman' worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009," he adds. "But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Batman and Superman movie at all."

A couple of reactions:

1.  Just to clarify, it's my understanding that "Batman vs. Superman" was shelved before Superman Returns went into development (correct me if I'm wrong).  I think the multi-hero project the (typically clueless) reporter was referring to was actually the recently shelved "Justice League" movie.

2.  If there's any professional class better at obfuscation than politicians, it's entertainment executives. Let's try to decode Mr. Robinov's spin:

 "Superman' didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to..."

Translation: "Superman didn't make $400 million like Dark Knight."

Sure, Robinov could be referring to a factor other than total box office, but since money is all these guys understand, I doubt it.  

But if it's money he's talking about, let's talk money: According to Box Office Mojo, Superman Returns netted $391 million worldwide compared to Batman Begins netting virtually the same amount ($371 million worldwide).  The difference? Batman Begins is consistantly hailed as a critical and commercial success, while Superman Returns continues to be poo-pooed by guys like Robinov and others who weren't "pleased". So, based on box office take alone, what was it about Batman Begins that made it "work" (thus green-lighting a sequel), yet Superman Returns didn't work (despite pulling in an additional $20 million). 

I know.  Shame on me for trying to apply logic to a movie studio's pronouncements.

3. That said, let's take a look at another, even more opaque and irritating comment from Robinov:

"It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned."

Now, even my great abilities to translate obfusaction are stymied here.  What in the world does he mean by how Superman needs to be "positioned"?  I'll take a wild guess and say he's probably not referring to Brandon Routh's flying poses, but rather the overall emotional tone of the movie...which leads me to my real concern with Warner hitting the reset button on the Superman franchise.

You see, elsewhere in the same article, Robinov cuts to the chase:

"Like the recent Batman sequel -- which has become the highest-grossing film of the year thus far -- Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as "The Dark Knight." Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.' DC properties. "We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well."

Got that, folks?  The "key" to successfully translating superheroes to film is...evil!  Silly me for ever thinking it could be the idealism and escapism superheroes have always represented.

Now, I'm the first guy to admit Superman Returns had big enough problems to warrant a new approach (only one of which was saddling him with a kid), but the solution should never be to add a "brooding tone" or to "go dark".  Of course the brooding works for Batman....he's Batman, and Batman broods!  He's the original "emo superhero", for Pete's sake!  But darkening Superman? Huge, huge mistake.

If anything, what Superman Returns needed was far less brooding and much more action and jaw-dropping spectacle.  Yeah, the airplane rescue sequence was exactly that, but the rest of it? Lots of standing around, lots of talking heads, more than enough campy Luthor scenes, and director Bryan Singer's odd preoccupation with re-creating the original movie's look and feel (such as meticulously duplicating the Kent farmhouse).  

So...yes...Superman Returns wasn't a cinematic masterpiece for the ages, but the way to turn that around isn't to make him into Batman with a red cape. In fact, that kind of talk suggests a step backward to the dark years of development hell when Tim Burton wanted Superman to be essentially Edward Scissorhands with a haircut and an S-shield (which, I kid you not, could be removed and broken into smaller "knife weapons").

Where does that leave director Bryan Singer, who was initially supposed to start planning for a Superman sequel? According to Anne Thompson, editor of Variety.com:

"I was told that it is a priority at the studio to find the right direction and if Bryan Singer is willing to do that, fine, but if he gets in the way, he may not stay on the project. There are no writers working on a Superman script now. The studio wants to figure it out. "It might be better to start from scratch," one exec admitted."

"If he gets in the way"? What is this, the Sopranos? What's going on over there in the WB studios? 

Bottom line: Am I open to a rejuvenated Superman movie franchise? Sure....but not with clueless suits like Robinov calling the shots.

The Iron-Man DVD: Which One Should I Get?

As most of you probably know, the much-awaited Iron-Man DVD hits stores on Tuesday, September 30th. I'll be nabbing the "Ultimate 2-Disc Edition", of course...but which one should I buy? Realizing that offering the lowest price for the identical product is no longer enough to attract more customers, several major retailers will be offering exclusive versions or unique deals with their Iron-Man DVD sales.  Take a look at the five exclusives below, then...following the descriptions...help me out by voting on which one you think I should buy!

1. Walmart: The 2-disc Ultimate plus an exclusive digital comic book titled "Iron-Man: Security Measures", by Christos Gage and Hugo Petrus. The comic book purportedly ties directly into the movie offering backstory offered no where else. The story centers around Nick Fury, Director of SHIELD (Samuel L. Jackson in the cameo role at the end of the film after the credits) and his perspective of the events in the Iron Man film. It also depicts how he and Tony Stark almost crossed paths several times prior to their fateful meeting depicted in the film. This bonus disc also includes a paper version of the digital comic and behind-the-scenes photos and interviews. Price: $22.99

2. Best Buy: Buy any edition of the Iron-Man DVD and get a free lithograph (I'm not clear what the size is). There's also a gift set which includes the Ultimate 2 Disc Edition movie, a mini bust and a $50 gift card to SideshowCollectibles.com, all for $39.99

3. Circuit City: Access six free digital Iron Man comics with art by Adi Granov with purchase of the Ultimate 2 Disc or the Blu Ray editions. Price: $22.99

4. Costco: An Iron-Man DVD Gift set featuring the Ultimate 2 Disc edition and three Iron Man Bobble Heads for $39.99. From the looks of it, the bobble heads correspond to the three different suits of armor appearing in the movie.

5. Target: A deluxe DVD package shaped and molded like the Iron Man mask and additional bonus footage included as well. Price: $22.99

So, whattaya think? I'm leaning toward the Target package (that helmet case is just too cool).  Click on your vote below to give me your recommendation.  Who knows...maybe you'll sway me.

UPDATE: It looks like the Target DVD is the one for me!  I was leaning that way anyway, but 57% of you who voted convinced me that was the right choice. The poll is now closed, so thanks to everyone who participated!

Gold Nuggets: The ORIGINAL Iron-Man!

The Obscure Adventures of Comics' Greatest Generation!

It's not a stretch to say that a huge chunk of comic book fans will be streaming into stores today to pick up a copy of the new Iron-Man DVD. However, in addition to the teeming hordes of Comicdom, the high-tech hero seems to have hit a chord with the general public as well, making Iron-Man not only one of the best comic book adaptations but also one of the most successful. With that popularity comes the question a curious public might ask: Where did the concept of Iron-Man come from in the first place? Well, the oldest and most obvious sources of inspiration are the armored warriors of antiquity and the knights of the Middle Ages....but in the context of the 20th century comic book, the first armored superhero was none other than...

BOZO THE ROBOT!

Making his debut in Quality's Smash Comics #1 (1939), Bozo the Robot was invented by the evil Dr. Van Thorp, who...like many mad scientists...wanted to rule and/or destroy the world. After overhearing Van Thorp's ranting monologue, a dashing passer-by named Hugh Hazzard rushed in, gave Van Thorp a well-deserved thrashing, then "resuced" Bozo the Robot. Discovering the robot could be controlled from the inside, Hugh decided to wear the "Iron-Man' suit to fight crime. Let's join Hugh as he listens to an urgent news update on the radio (click on the panels for a larger view)...

Note the dish-like propeller spinning atop Bozo's helmet, which (somehow) allowed him to fly in an awkward verticle position. Of course, this story took place before the standard horizontal flying positions of superheroes were worked out (even Superman was still kinda-sorta leaping), so I guess we can cut Hugh/Bozo some slack. Essentially just a sheet metal shell, there's no indication as to what sort of technology or power source ran the Bozo suit...since this was long before the day of miniturized transistors or microcircuits. But...that was the simple thrill of early science fiction.  It just somehow worked. No questions asked.

But I digress.  Let's rejoin Hugh/Bozo as he tracks down the elusive green sedan and employs the armor's "telescopic eye" to scope out the gang's getaway car...

As the word "ain't" confirms the low-brow criminality of the passengers (since it's a fact that bad guys have poor grammar), Bozo administers some harsh Golden Age justice to the carload of escaping felons...

By the way...what is it with late 1930's superheroes and green sedans? Were they the vehicle of choice for the criminal class? Did their undercarriage design make them easier to deadlift? Was it part of a primitive product placement/viral marketing campaign?  What?

Oh, and that goofy, grinning face design on Bozo's helmet? 

Scary enough to kill a guy!

 

Even "Superman" Doesn't Want a Dark Superman

Regular readers may recall my extremely negative reaction to a statement from a Warner Bros. film executive this past August. In a nutshell, Warner Picture Group president Jeff Robinov was so pleased with The Dark Knight's success, he (insanely) believed that forthcoming DC adaptations should be "bathed in the same brooding tone" as the Batman movie.

Read the original post to see just how vigorously I disagreed with Robinov's assessment. Well, it appears that I'm in good company, since Brandon Routh (the star of Superman Returns) also seems skeptical of a darkened treatment of Superman.  In a recent interview with IESB.net, Routh...who may or may not reprise the role of Superman...nonetheless had this to say about a possible darkening of the character:

"I don't know, I don't think the character necessarily has to be darker, I think he is kind of dark in a sense, emotional dark, in Superman Returns, and the movie as a whole was slightly dark, they could have had more prowess in it I suppose, and I think that's one thing that can be done in the sequel, so I don't know how much darker you want to make it necessarily. You make the stakes higher, you make the villain darker, I think that's a way to do it. But I don't think Superman himself needs to be darker. He definitely has to struggle, how does Superman be a part of the world? And does he have to make sacrifices to be a part of that world? To fit in and what purpose does he really play in the world? Those are all kind of dark places to explore. But, I don't think Superman should ever be dark and brooding, that's not his nature."

Absolutely right.  Although I've never gotten the impression that Routh is some kind of lifelong Superman fan, he obviously understands enough about the character to know a gratuitously darker Superman isn't the way to go. Strangely, this shouldn't be something you'd pick up only after portraying the character in a movie...it's something most people who've ever been exposed to the character seem to understand.

That is, unless they're film executives of the company that actually owns the character of Superman!

Thirty Years? ALREADY?

As a little tyke, my birthday was celebrated in the usual way: cake, party games, presents, little pals, etc. However, as I grew older, my parents would pop for a movie for me and a few friends. Kinda modest by today's ever-escalating entertainment standards for kid birthdays, but as a budding movie fan...I loved every minute of it.

As the last of those fondly-remembered "movie birthdays", I celebrated my 13th birthday by seeing a movie that had opened only six days earlier on December 15th, 1978. Superman: The Movie, as you might imagine, completely blew the minds of my friends and I. From the opening "comic book scene" to the closing scene's "smiling fly-by", we were transfixed by the movie's epic scale and surprisingly "serious" take on the character. Remember, my generation marinated on campy, low-wattage superhero movies and TV shows...so the big budget majesty of Superman was the first time we realized that the world of fantasy really could "come true" if there was enough money, talent, and willpower behind it.  No, we didn't quite "Believe a Man Can Fly" (as the movie poster proclaimed), but we did walk away believing that more of this kind of wide-eyed spectacle was in our future.

Now, thirty years later, comic book movies are better than ever...with the promise of even better stuff to come.  But for me, that singular moment when fantasy blurred into reality (or a sort of pseudo-reality) was that 13th birthday exactly three decades ago. Yeah, Star Wars had blown my mind in another way a year and a half earlier, but with its lightsabers and planet-obliterating Death Stars, it didn't have nearly the "feel of the real" (or, in fancy-speak, "verisimilitude") that Superman did. 

So, to everyone associated with Superman: The Movie...especially director Richard Donner, the brilliant composer John Williams, and the late, great (and fondly remembered) Christopher Reeve, thank you for that special afternoon thirty years ago and all the inspiration the movie's provided ever since.

2008: The Good & The Bad

 

Here in the closing days of 2008, I thought I'd take a rare jump onto the bandwagon and offer my own take on the best...and worst...the world of comics (and comics-related media) had to offer over the past year.

With the optimism the holiday season brings, let's 

begin with the Good Stuff (in no particular order):

1.  The Iron-Man movie: Although I was cautiously optimistic toward Marvel Studios' freshman effort, I had no idea just how wildly successful Iron-Man would turn out to be, both creatively and financially. Marvel proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that fidelity to the source material (as well as clever, carefully-seeded connections to future Marvel movies) is a winning strategy...and an approach the perpetually flat-footed Warner Bros. studios are quickly trying to adapt to their inert (non-Batman) superhero franchises. Check out my review of the movie for more specifics, but to sum it up: Iron-Man was a finely-tuned collaboration between a director who "gets it", top-notch actors (especially Robert Downey Jr.), eye-popping special effects, and a very smart marketing campaign. In other words, it's the new standard against which all Marvel movies will be measured (sorry, Spider-Man 2...you've been replaced)!

2. Writer Geoff Johns: As one of the most prolific, enthusiastic, and professional writers in the business (if not the most), Geoff Johns has become a sort of defacto "quarterback" of DC Comics as his ideas and ambitious storylines propel the publisher into exciting new directions. Like any popular creator, Johns has his vocal critics...many of whom claim he's systematically reinstating DC's "Silver Age" of the 1950's and 60's, but fans of his (like me) don't see rote revival but rather carefully considered re-imaginings combined with compelling new ideas.

Yeah, I can agree with some of the criticism leveled toward his occasional use of visceral, violent imagery...but the key word is "occasional".  Experience seems to have given Johns a bit more wisdom regarding where and when to use such imagery, but it's still a characteristic that dogs his work...and, frankly, a bit of a "crutch" he could easily drop altogether in my opinion. His work is strong enough without having to resort to the cheap shocks. 

However, that's the only qualification I have in endorsing Johns' writing. In fact, considering so many of my monthly comic books are either written by Johns (Green Lantern, JSA, Action Comics, Final Crisis: Legion of Three Worlds), are collaborations with Johns (Superman, Green Lantern Corps), or his upcoming titles (Flash: Rebirth, a Legion of Superheroes revival in Adventure Comics), it's obvious the positive, entertaining aspects of his writing far outweigh the occasional turn-off of excessive violence. As with the past couple of years, Johns remains the writer to watch.

3. Superman's 70th Anniversary: Back in June, I tried something I'd never done here at Comic Coverage before or since, and that was 30 consecutive days devoted to a single topic: 70 years of Superman. The character has always been a favorite of mine, but my enthusiasm for the month-long commemoration was certainly fueled by the ongoing quality of DC's line of Superman books. Following several years of colossally bad stewardship of the character, DC finally hired an editor and a stable of creators who reinvigorated the character and his world...once again making the Superman titles the first books I read on a weekly basis. Finally...it really IS a great time to be a Superman fan.

4. The Incredible Hulk movie: Hitting two for two, Marvel Studio's second film was also great fun...and certainly more entertaining than Ang Lee's dull-as-dishwater 2003 version. Equal parts a comic book adaptation and a nod to the 1970's TV series, this version had many more of the elements I'm looking for in a Hulk movie...namely huge amounts of noisy smashing sprinkled with a bit of angsty emoting (which the 2003 movie got exactly backwards). Where the franchise goes from here is anyone's guess, but it's great to see an old favorite brought to the screen in such style and wall-shaking volume.

5. The Reprint Tsunami: In addition to the usual trade paperback collections of recent stories, there seems to have been a virtual explosion of affordable volumes reprinting the great (and, yes, not-so-great) comic books of decades past. Whether it's the pricier hardcover color volumes or the dirt cheap black-and-white "phonebooks", comic book history has never been more accessible to old and new fans alike. Dark Horse has recently jumped into the ring with their reprints of Gold Key titles like Magnus Robot Fighter and Doctor Solar, and other defunct publishers like ACG (who published cult favorite Herbie the Fat Fury). As a steady stream of consumers and public libraries snap up these books, more people than ever have easy access to several decades worth of outstanding entertainment.

With those five highlights duly noted, let's make the inevitable 

turn to 2008's comic-related lowlights...a.k.a. "The Bad".

1. The Dark Knight movie: I said it then, and I'll say it again: I don't get it.  I simply don't get the hysterical enthusiasm for The Dark Knight which, outside of a single brilliant performance by Heath Ledger, was a dreary, incoherent mess. Most disappointing was the inert performance of Christian Bale as a blank-faced Bruce Wayne and laughably robo-armored, monster-voiced Batman. Depressing, non-sensical crap.

2. Writer Grant Morrison: Though just as prolific and high-profile as fellow DC writer Geoff Johns, Morrison's stock really took a tumble during 2008, at least from my point of view. To be sure, when Morrison is "on", his ambitious high-concept epics are a thing to behold (like his JLA, Seven Soldiers, and All-Star Superman stuff)....but man, when he's phoning it in, it's a lazy, non-linear stagger through fever-dream journals and meta-textual abstractions. Which leads me to...

3. Final Crisis: Yaawwwnnn. As the supposed be-all end-all of DC's Crisis-themed projects, the still-incomplete Final Crisis has become the poster child for poorly conceived and executed event comics.  Plagued by art delays and a dull, meandering storyline, Final Crisis is little more than Morrison's arcane meditations on word power, cosmic symbology, and...oh yeah...his refurbished version of the New Gods, Jack Kirby's campy-cosmic space opera that's never been a good fit with the DC Universe. Sure...we got the return of Barry Allen out of it, but even that's been handled in such an obtuse way, I wish it had happened somewhere else (like in The Flash or even Legion of Three Worlds). All in all, a crashing disappointment...with little hope the two remaining issues will somehow make sense of it all.

4. Mark Millar and Bryan Hitch's Fantastic Four: The much-ballyhooed takeover of The Fantastic Four by golden boys Mark Millar and Bryan Hitch was probably the biggest creative belly flop of 2008. Unceremoniously kicking the critically-acclaimed team of Dwayne McDuffie and Paul Pelletier to the curb, the King of Self-Promotion and his pal "Hitchy" spectacularly missed the target with Marvel's First Family, growing more pathetic with the long delays that inevitably accompany the self-styled rock star creators. Now that his narcissism and relentless self-promotion seems more at home in Hollywood, is it fair to say that Mark Millar's time in comics has passed? Sure, he's been threatening to overhaul the Superman character for at least a decade...and is equally determined to write a trilogy of Superman movies...but as the hot air from so many of his over-hyped projects continues to dissipate...does anyone really care? 

5. $3.99 cover prices: Comic book fans are good at threatening to cut back on comics (or drop them altogether) following a cover price increase, but now that Marvel (and shortly DC) has surpassed the $3.99 barrier, I suspect many of us will finally follow through on those threats. Just as we found out what the breaking point was for a gallon of gasoline earlier this year (also about $4.00), four bucks for a lousy 22 pages of story seems to be another "clarifying moment" for comic book consumers. I know I'll be cutting back in 2009, although it'll be more out of protest than actual financial strain. We need to see more diverse, innovative formatting in comics...not another bump in cover price.

At The Movies: Back to the Ol' Drawing Board

In the aftermath of last summer's stunning success of The Dark Knight, some of you may recall that Warner Bros. bigwig Jeff Robinov had an epiphany that all DC superhero movies should be similarly dark and brooding...even if the characters weren't dark and brooding by nature like Batman. Naturally, I was irritated that such a clueless doofus was calling the shots at the WB...especially when compared to Marvel's rock-solid and incredibly faithful adaptations of their own properties.

Thankfully, a story that broke a few days ago suggests that Mr. Robinov's dark visions may not come to pass afterall. In an interview with David S. Goyer at the IESB.net, the Dark Knight writer said that all DC properties have been put on hold for the time being. In an oddly-worded quote, Goyer (kinda-sorta) elaborated...

"A lot of the DC movies at Warner Brothers are all on hold while they figure out, they're going to come up with some new plan, methodology, things like that so everything has just been pressed pause on at the moment. It was the double header of both Iron Man and The Dark Knight coming out, so more than ever I think they've realized, I think DC was responsible for 15% of Warner Brother's revenue this year, something crazy like that, so they realized that comic books, it's become a new genre, one of the most successful genres."

Now, Robinov's earlier plan to "go dark" wasn't specifically referenced by Goyer or anyone else, but the fact that Warner Bros. appears to be calling a "time out" is definitely a good sign.  No, I'm not happy to wait even longer for future DC films....but if by "taking a breath" they can put together a coherent plan, things may just turn around for DC/Warner's troubled (non-Batman) movie plans.

A Return to Romney Marsh!

"Scarecrow! Scarecrow!
The soldiers of the King feared his name. Scarecrow!
On the southern coast of England, there's a legend people tell,
Of days long ago when the great Scarecrow would ride from the jaws of Hell
And laugh (Ahhh! Ha-ha! Ha-ha! Haaa!) with a fiendish yell!"

"With his clothes all torn and tattered,
Through the black of night he'd ride,
From the marsh to the coast like a demon ghost
He'd show his face then hide (He'd rob the rich then hide)
And he'd laugh (Ahhh! Ha-ha! Ha-ha! Haaa!) till he split his side!
Scarecrow! (Scarecrow!) Scarecrow! (Scarecrow!)"

excerpts from The Scarecrow Song, by Gerard Shermann and Terry Gilkyson  

As a kid, I was a big fan of The Wonderful World of Disney, broadcast Sunday evenings on NBC. My favorite shows were, of course, the animated shorts of Donald Duck and Goofy (not so much Mickey)...but I also have fond memories of Disney's lavish live action movies. One of them, above all, fascinated me from the first (and only) time I saw it in an early 1970's rebroadcast.

As a budding comic book fan at the time, you can imagine how big of an impact Dr. Syn: The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh had upon me. One part Zorro, another part Robin Hood, Dr. Christopher Syn was a mild-mannered priest in 18th century England living a secret life as The Scarecrow, a fearsome rebel leader who fought the King's forces and helped the poor. However, unlike Zorro and Robin Hood, the Scarecrow was a much more intense, visually frightening character...obviously a sight that made a lasting impression.

As the years went by, I always hoped I'd be able to see it again...but after a supposed video release in the 1980's (which I never managed to find), Disney...for whatever odd reason...chose not to release it to video or DVD...until late in 2008. Alerted by a coworker who also pined to see Dr. Syn again, I jotted the DVD set onto my Christmas list and...sure enough...finally added Dr. Syn: The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh to my collection!  Part of Disney's tin-boxed "Treasures" series, the nifty limited edition set includes two discs, one with the original 3-part TV presentation, the other the theatrical version, along with the usual extras, a certificate of authenticity, and a publicity photo of Dr. Syn.

Unfortunately, due to the hurly burly of the holidays, I wasn't able to actually sit down and watch the DVD until just last weekend. Naturally, I chose the TV edition since those old introductions by "Uncle Walt" are pure "nostalgia crack" for me, immediately beaming me back to those long ago Sunday evenings. I was surprised to learn from one of Disney's genial chats that the Dr. Syn books (by Russell Thorndike) were supposedly based on actual historical accounts...though I haven't come across anything backing that claim up. Regardless of its historic roots (or not), the movie was every bit as good as I remembered it, which is somewhat rare for long-buried relics of childhood (since they don't often age well).

Strangely, and sadly, only days after (finally) watching the movie again, I heard the news that its star Patrick McGoohan passed away (Jan. 15). Bringing a wry stoicism to the priest and a manic flair to his alias the Scarecrow, McGoohan's performance was not only the highlight of show, but (as I've learned) one of the actor's favorite roles as well. And speaking of his many distinguished roles, I can't believe I've gone this long without ever checking out The Prisoner, the groundbreaking 1960's television series starring (and produced by) McGoohan.  I plan on rectifying that oversight very soon (via Netflix).

Now, I was planning on providing a link for interested readers to scoop up their own copy of this wonderful DVD set, but it appears as if Disney (once again!) cluelessly underestimated the appeal of Dr. Syn...because the Limited Edition is already sold out!  Ahhh! Ha-ha! Ha-ha! Haaa!

Looks like you'll all be joining me in those Netflix queue lines, huh?

Recommended Reading: Absolute WATCHMEN

When Warner Bros. and Universal Studios finally resolved their legal monkey-business a few weeks back, I knew I could officially start getting excited for the March 6^th opening of the Watchmen movie. 

I know as much as anyone else that a complex work like Watchmen almost defies translation to movie form...but having had similar doubts about the Lord of the Rings movies (and happily being proved wrong), I'm willing to give Warner Bros. and director Zack Snyder the benefit of the doubt.

Naturally, the best way to prepare for the movie is to reread the original comic book version. Now, I've read Watchmen almost every year since its publication in 1986, and each time it's just as rewarding as the first reading. In fact, I think my respect, enjoyment, and flat-out astonishment for Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' masterwork has only increased over time. Regardless of the format, whether it was the original issues of the 12-part maxi-series or a trade paperback collection, each reading has been an experience I could honestly describe as transcendent.

Ah...but when DC's line of Absolute hardcovers hit the marketplace, I knew yet another Watchmen format would be finding a home on my bookshelf...and what a format it is!

Measuring a whopping 8.5" x 13" and featuring a "fresh coat of paint", Absolute Watchmen was the perfect way to make a familiar story a stunning new experience.

In fact, the best part of the larger format is how it's forced me to slow down and savor every panel. The watchmaker precision of Moore's story and exquisite detail of Gibbons' illustrations, while obvious before, now seemed gloriously magnified...like the crystaline beauty of a snowflake under an electron microscope. 

As I alluded to earlier, another great touch was the complete remastering of the color by original colorist John Higgins. Fine-tuning color tones, altering some background colors, and adding a dot-screen effect to the pirate sequences (making them more obviously comic book panels), Higgins turned the quality dial up to a Spinal Tap eleven.

I'll spare you a blow-by-blow laundry list of observations on the story itself. You've no doubt read better and more insightful ones from others over the years...or, if you haven't read Watchmen yet, I don't want to spoil any of the magic of discovering it for yourself. But I will say this: You owe it to yourself to read (or reread) Watchmen at some point before the movie hits...not so much to compare the comic book to its film adaptation (though that comparison is inevitable), but more to appreciate and celebrate one of the pinnacles (if not the pinnacle) of comic book storytelling.

For those of you, like me, who have earlier formats of Watchmen, I highly recommend that you get yourself a copy of Absolute Watchmen...ideally before the movie hits. Although it's a bit skimpy in the extras department compared to other Absolute editions, it hardly matters when you've got the mesmerizing complexity, transcendent themes, and almost supernatural symmetry of Watchmen headlining the gig. 

 

Humble Beginnings: WATCHMEN Edition

"She was the daughter of Zeus alone. No mother bore her. 

Full-grown and in full armor, Athena sprang from his head."

– from Mythology, by Edith Hamilton

Unlike the birth of that ancient Greek goddess, creative works seldom (if ever) come about so suddenly and completely. Speaking as someone who's worked in the field for a few decades, the creative process is more like a vigorous workout or, in some cases, an unruly brawl as ideas and images are coaxed (or pulled kicking and screaming) out of the ether and into reality. In fact, it's heartening to know that not even Olympian works of comic book art like The Watchmen sprang "full-grown and in full armor" from the heads of creators Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. 

Included in the supplemental section of the highly-recommended Absolute Watchmen, Moore and Gibbons' earliest concepts for their legendary masterwork are explored...making it clear that even something at this level was a gradual process of thinking, exploring, revising, and refining.

The most telling example of this intense, amorphous process is the evolution of Rorschach. My favorite Watchmen character from the start (and one of my all-time favorites)...it's hard to imagine him looking any other way. In fact, since he was based on a previous, similarly-costumed character named The Question, you'd think his creation would've been a slam-dunk compared to the other core Watchmen characters. As the progression below proves, that simply wasn't the case (click to enlarge):

Left: Rorschach in a full body-suit of shifting patterns, as described by Alan Moore in his written proposal (taken from an early color guide for colorist John Higgins). Obviously a huge departure from The Question's look and closer to a traditional superhero's. Could you imagine Moore's Rorschach dialogue coming out of this version of the character?

Center: Still sporting the body-suit, a hat and trench coat are added to the mix...making him look more like an elaborately-tattooed flasher than the spooky, subdued figure we're familiar with.

Right: Finally...there's the sociopathic-yet-strangely-noble character we all know and love.

Later today, I'll be seeing him come to life in the Watchmen movie. Stay tuned for my full review later this weekend!

Has March 6th ever been this exciting?

At The Movies: WATCHMEN (Spoilers)

"Thermodynamic Miracles...events with odds against so 

astronomical they're effectively impossible, like oxygen 

spontaneously becoming gold. I long to observe such a thing."

-Doctor Manhattan from "The Darkness of Mere Being" (WATCHMEN #9)

Much like oxygen turning to gold, the odds of WATCHMEN making a successful jump from comics (where it's long enjoyed "Citizen Kane" status) to film seemed equally astronomical. After all, how could the format and time limitations of a movie even hope to capture the deep, meditative currents and multilayered complexity of Moore and Gibbon's masterwork? In short, who could pull off the cinematic miracle of filming what many (including its author) considered to be unfilmable?

Well, having watched The WATCHMEN on its opening day, I believe I've witnessed just such a miracle.

Recalling Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy (the other unfilmable film), WATCHMEN director Zack Snyder was able to take an immensely complex story and not so much slavishly adapt it, but DISTILL its essential elements and themes into a remarkably streamlined yet coherent tale. Sure, plenty of material and story beats were cut, but what remained was everything I've loved about WATCHMEN for the past 23 years. Yes, it's THAT good.

Some of the many highlights:

1. The Intro sequence: Set against Dylan's "The Times They Are a Changin'", Synder elegantly establishes the movie's alternate history using archival newspaper photos and videos, some of which added details that, while new, were perfectly in sync with the WATCHMEN sensibility (such as the helmet reflection of Doctor Manhattan filming the first moon walk).

2. Visual fidelity: I appreciated the fidelity to the "camera work" of Dave Gibbon's original layouts, in some cases faithfully duplicating the framing, iconic character poses, and even cover images from the original 12-issue maxi-series. Stand-outs include the micro-to-macro pan from the bloodstained smiley face button up to the Comedian's shattered apartment window (from issue #1's cover and opening page), a giant Doctor Manhattan looking over his shoulder to greet Rorschach, the Comedian perched on the Owlship during the Keane Riots, and Manhattan's immense clockwork fortress rising out of the Martian soil. What a surreal thrill it was to see so many of these memorable sequences brought to life. 

3. Emotional fidelity: Even more impressive than the visual faithfulness of the movie was how it precisely duplicated the emotional tenor of the WATCHMEN's most daring chapters despite their necessary streamlining.  My two favorite chapters have always been "Watchmaker" (the Doc Manhattan origin in issue #4) and "The Abyss Also Gazes" (Rorschach's tale in issue #7), and I was floored by how Synder (1) duplicated the unique feel of each character's backstory and (2) seamlessly integrated them into the larger movie without the jarring emotional disconnect you'd expect from such "detours".

4. The acting: Although I prefer starring roles of comic book movies to be cast with unknown actors, the flipside to that is not knowing what kind of performances you're going to get. Happily, the relatively unknown (or not widely known) cast of WATCHMEN turned in some outstanding performances. Some of the best were Billy Crudup's ethereal Doctor Manhattan, Patrick Wilson's likeable Dan Dreiberg, and (of course!) Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach...which leads me to...

5. Rorschach: Like I've said before, the spooky-yet-strangely-noble character of Rorschach in not only my favorite WATCHMEN cast member, but one of my favorite characters in all of fiction. Not a favorite in the sense of admiring everything he does or believes, but more from the ruthless emotional power of his story, especially the twisted moral/psychological origins of his masked identity. Jackie Earle Haley's performance of Rorschach and his alter-ego Walter Kovacs was almost frightening in its accuracy, amplified by the convincing reality of his pattern-shifting mask. Reading the WATCHMEN comics, I had always imagined Rorschach having more of a blank monotone voice than the more guttural voice used by Haley, but (unlike Christian Bale's ludicrous Cookie Monster Batman voice) it never crossed the line into distracting caricature. As great as Haley's entire performance was, his session with the hapless prison psychologist was absolutely riveting and unforgettable.

6. The Ending: Probably the most controversial aspect of the movie, Snyder's decision to alter the nature of Veidt's hoax worked surprisingly well and, I have to admit, works better in some ways than Alan Moore's original concept. Instead of a Lovecraftian alien threat obliterating half of New York, Veidt tricked the world into thinking the exiled Doctor Manhattan was punishing humanity from afar for their nuclear escalation, thereby bringing an almost instant peace between the warring superpowers. The essential goal of Veidt's plan remained the same, while keeping the potentially ultra-campy sight of a giant trans-dimensional squid from possibly derailing the sense of realism Synder managed to build up to that point. It also allowed Snyder to shed the entire "mystery island" plot line, which I felt didn't damage the story at all. Sure, the size and scope of Veidt's plan wasn't as far-reaching...but it was a logical "story branch" to prune.

7. The R-Rating: The one factor that gave the movie even a chance of succeeding was the decision to go with an R-rating. Rather than watering the story down for a PG-13 audience, the studio took a risk and retained the tough language, disturbing violence, sensuality, and...most important...its daring exploration of morally ambiguous themes only adults and mature teens are equipped to wrestle with. Naturally, clueless parents will still bring kids that are far too young to WATCHMEN, but at least the R rating will keep a majority of the kids and pre-teens away (I hope).

8. The Music: The eclectic mix of music really enhanced my enjoyment of the movie and helped to really anchor the narrative to its various time periods.  Not in a manipulatively nostalgic kind of way (i.e. Forrest Gump), but simply as another tool to establish a specific tone. The aforementioned Dylan song was a big one, but 99 Luftballoons and Ride of the Valkyrie also set the perfect emotional tenor. Also, I've gotta download Desolation Row, the My Chemical Romance tune that kicked off the end credits.

Of course, even movies as great as WATCHMEN don't get everything right.  Here's a few of my very minor quibbles:

1. The unconvincing look of the aged Sally Jupiter. Like they did for Titanic, I would have preferred an actual (and less beautiful) old lady to play the 1985 version of Jupiter, and not Carlo Gugino wearing old lady makeup. 

2.  The distraction of using actors to pose as low-wattage real world celebrities. It seems like a waste of time and energy to have cast people to play Eleanor Clift, Ted Koppel, or Lee Iacocca (!) when generic reporter/businessman figures would have accomplished the same storytelling goals . Somewhat annoying and self-indulgent on Snyder's part. 

3. The somewhat thin background of Adrian Veidt.  As the film's main threat, it would have helped to carry over a bit more of his impressive life story from the comic version. Of all the film's characters, Veidt was the most remote, yet the most important to understand in his outlook and motivations.  They touched on them just enough to make it work (and explain his grandiose trappings), but there could have been a bit more to drive home the moral ambiguity and messianic arrogance of Ozymandias.

4.  I would have preferred to see the Comedian wearing that sinister leather gimp mask during the Keene Riots scene.  After Nite Owl asks "Whatever happened to the American Dream?", the fully-masked Eddie Blake answering "You're looking at it" would have achieved a much more unsettling effect than his domino mask look. I can understand the argument for visual continuity, especially with so many characters and time periods being covered, but I guess I miss the grotesque final "evolution" of the Comedian's costume.

Like I said, minor quibbles...and certainly nothing to seriously impact my overall enjoyment of the movie, which I would rate 4.75 out of 5 WATCHMEN Blood-Stained Smiley Faces!

Worst Cover Ever: Hugh Jackman's Replacement?

Although it hasn't even been a week since my previous Worst Cover Ever, and I hesitate to go so negative following a joyous Easter Sunday...but after looking at Marvel's most recent batch of previews for their June comic books, I spotted a cover so hideously goofy (or goofily hideous), I just had to feature it...despite the fact that it's not even published yet.

Wolverine: Revolver is a one-shot story set in Las Vegas by crime novelist Victor Gischler and Spanish illustrator Julio Das Pastoras.  While Das Pastoras' interior art looks pretty cool, his cover art certainly isn't helping the book's prospects (click on the image for a larger view)...

Sure, the painting is technically well-done....and the looming Man-Bat clone looks great (although DC Comics might have a slight problem with the similarity)...but who did Das Pastoras base Wolverine's face on?  Horse-mouthed actor/wack-job Gary Busey?

At The Movies: Wolverine

Whether it was the magic of Free Comic Book Day or today's beautiful weather, I suddenly had the urge to go check out the new X-Men Origins: Wolverine movie. Up until today, the movie looked like Dud City...a hunch that seemed to be confirmed by an avalanche of bad reviews.

However, I think it helped going to see it with my teenage son and his pal, since I tend to see a movie through the "eyes" of the people I'm with.  What I saw was a tightly-shot movie that clipped along at a brisk pace, but not so brisk that it didn't cover the major beats needed for Wolverine's story.  I think the primary reason for its surprising quality was Hugh Jackman's charismatic performance.  The guy obviously enjoys playing the character, and I think that enthusiasm transferred to the rest of the cast...most of whom were roguish mercenaries and stereotypically sinister military spooks.

Any big surprises or genre-bending twists?  Nope. Was there some kinda goofy stuff? Plenty (especially the "mutant zoo" of young X-Men before they were X-Men), but overall, a surprisingly entertaining movie that moved Logan right where we found him in the first X-Men movie (which was almost 10 years ago, folks!). 

Final verdict: Not at all the Super-Stinker I thought (and heard) it was going to be.  Was it Citizen Kane? Heavens, no...but I don't think it was trying to be. What it was trying to be was an engaging, fast-paced, "stylishly" violent, occasionally funny, and action-packed popcorn movie....and I think on that level it succeeded.

Rating: Three out of Five Dramatic Claw-Extension Close-Ups

 Think that's too high a rating? Go watch Wolverine, then watch Superman IV 

and THEN we'll talk about what makes for a truly horrid movie.  

Simply the Best: The Coming of the Anti-Hero

When the movie Dirty Harry hit theaters in late 1971, Clint Eastwood's portrayal of the cynical, unorthodox title character really seemed to hit a nerve with the general public. Weary of escalating urban crime and chaos, movie audiences found the ruthless Harry Callahan to be a no-nonsense antidote to the increasingly bureaucratic and therapeutic response of the criminal justice system.

Well, at the time, I was obviously much too young to even watch Dirty Harry, much less perceive the shift in the socio-political winds. However, in the smaller microcosm of superhero comics (which I'd stumbled into the summer of '73), the debut of The Punisher on the mindblowing cover of The Amazing Spider-Man #129 (1974) seemed to signal a change in tone that even an eight year-old kid like me could pick up on. 

Sporting one of the best-designed costumes in all of comicdom, the deadly skill and steely concentration of the mysterious mercenary are obvious in this jaw-dropping Gil Kane cover (inked by John Romita Sr., who'd also designed the Punisher's costume). Kane's trademark perspective-twisting anatomy skills are put to good use here as Spider-Man literally twists in the wind trying to escape the Punisher's deadly aim...which didn't look likely with those cross-hairs directly over his heart!

In addition to the rather startling sight of the Punisher (against a blazing yellow background, no less), the layout of the cover has some cool "under the radar" stuff going on.

In the left-hand example below, note how a "V" shape is formed by the Spidey corner icon following an invisible angled line to the Punisher's head, to his shoulder, then directly to the center of the cross-hairs...with the perspective of the background buildings forming the second angle of the "V" shape.  So, while the Punisher is the "star" of the cover, the eye is still riveted to the topsy-turvy title character.

In the example on the right, note how the direction of the Punisher's shot lines up perfectly with the high-powered bullet's impact "blast" on the building behind Spider-Man. Despite the switch in perspectives, the visual connection between the rifle shot and the background impact blast elegantly and efficiently makes it clear that the Punisher is the one shooting at Spider-Man.  In fact, if the impact blast had been placed somewhere else, it's very likely the viewer wouldn't get as clear of a "read". A wonderful, yet deceptively simple cover design.

For the next several years following his debut, the Punisher's appearances were few and far between...making the character all the more mysterious and fascinating. Sadly, the appetite for darker, morally ambigous characters grew steadily through the late 70's, the 80's, and beyond...to the point where a once-intriguing figure like the Punisher became lost in a sea of thuggish pseudo-heroes and disaffected loners. But back in late 1973, this dangerous mercenary who'd declared a war on crime far deadlier than even Batman's was every bit as controversial and intriguing as his debut cover.