Wednesday, March 04, 2009

When Words Collide: Following Watchmen

Really, this week's "When Words Collide" probably isn't geared for you. If you're a regular reader of this blog, you are smart enough to know all about any possible recommendations I might make about what you should suggest to your friends after they've read "Watchmen."

BUT, it might be a chance for you to tell me how wrong I am.

People love doing that, right?

So take a look at my suggestions for "Following Watchmen," consider what prospective readers I target, and come back here and tell me everything I should have included. Tell me everything I was an idiot for mentioning.

Let's debate these suggestions, and have a massive verbal throw-down.

Because I have been hearing worse and worse reports about the quality of the "Watchmen" movie, so if you leave lots of contentious comments, at least I'll have something to look forward to this weekend.

Agents of Atlas #2 Review

Recently reviewed by me at CBR: Agents of Atlas #2, about which I write the following sentences: "There's plenty of Gorilla-Man in this issue, don't worry, but Parker knows how to walk the line between serious and winking-to-the reader. Parker knows Gorilla-Man is ridiculous, Gorilla-Man knows he's ridiculous, but neither of them flaunt it. Instead, we're treated to a tough-talking hero in the manner of the Thing, but without the constant longing for humanity. Gorilla-Man seems perfectly fine being who he is. The rest of the Agents of Atlas seem similarly comfortable with their place in the world, with the exception of former S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Jimmy Woo, who uses his strange position as new leader of his father's criminal syndicate to do good, instead of evil. The Agents of Atlas are kind of like the Bizarro Thunderbolts, doing good deeds while pretending to be bad."

Read the entire review HERE.

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Similarly Profound Thoughts from the Father of a Five-Year-Old

Before I went to sleep, I couldn't help but think: "What if a 5th-dimensional imp had a palindrome for a name? Mister Retsim would be really easy for Superman to defeat."

Profound Thoughts from a Five-Year-Old

Out of nowhere, as I was putting my daughter to bed tonight, she said, "When I see two things, I just can't help it! I want to put them together to make art."

New Avengers: Reunion #1 Review

Recently reviewed by me at CBR: New Avengers: Reunion #1, about which I write the following sentences: "The premise of this series is that Mockingbird is back from her Skrull abduction, but as an ex-secret agent, an ex-Avenger (or current New Avenger), and all-around woman of action, she's not just going to sit back and whine about her pain and sorrow. She has a new job to do, with new inside-Skrullball information to rely on. And her husband (her former husband according to California state law, which declared Bobbi Morse legally dead years ago) is always a step behind her. He wants to pick up where they left off, but she may be a completely different person from who she was back in the 'West Coast Avengers' glory days. Just because Clint Barton wears a new costume and carries nunchucks instead of bows and arrows, it doesn't mean he wants things to change."

Read the entire review HERE.

Monday, March 02, 2009

Unknown Soldier #5 Review

Recently reviewed by me at CBR: Unknown Soldier #5, about which I write the following sentences: "But Dysart smartly avoids such preachiness by focusing on the details of Moses's situation. It's the story of one man's struggle to do what's right, even when forces beyond his control have literally destroyed his face and taken away who he once was. By keeping the story whirling around the Unknown Soldier -- a label that has only metaphorical meaning here, since we all know who is behind these particular bandages -- Dysart makes the comic about characters in action, and not about the social problems themselves. The themes are readily apparent -- and War Is Hell, for sure -- but they resonate more deeply because they are connected to a compelling narrative. This is a violent, messy Vertigo crime comic set in a war-torn landscape. The crimes are political ones, with personal repercussions, but it's far closer to the crime genre than the stereotypical 'war comic' genre you might expect from its title. "

Read the entire review HERE.

What I'm Reading: The Learners

Even though I teach literature and love books, it's been a while since I have actually read a novel that's not for use in school. I know that's sad, but it's my reality right now, simply because I either lack (a) the desire, (b) the time, or (c) the patience to read prose fiction of any length.

I used to read a couple of novels a week, and now that I only read a few book-length works of prose fiction a year, I wonder if it's because I'm getting older and less willing to put up with sustained mediocrity (How many novels are really better than all the ones I've already read? Very few!) or if the internet really has changed everything (My brain is built for internet speed now, for better or worse). I think it's probably both.

I spend most of my time reading comics not just because I love comics, though I do, but because they fit into the nooks and crannies of my busy life. They take the perfect amount of attention and time, and are easy to slip into the ten or fifteen minutes I have between doing other things.

Anyway, I did read a novel this week, and it doesn't even have anything to do with comics. Well, it's sort of tangentially related to comics, with the Charles Burns cover and the fact that it's written by Chip Kidd, a guy who has worked on plenty of comic art books.

But "The Learner" isn't ABOUT comics, and that's what counts. It's the sequel to "The Cheese Monkeys," one of my favorite novels ever -- well, at least in my Top 100 -- and although it's not quite as good as Kidd's first, it's pretty darn good.

It takes place in 1961, in an advertising agency, so my recent interest in "Mad Men" can't help but color my impression of this novel. Yet Kidd is interested in entirely different things, and his story explores the effect of the real-life Milgram experiment on his fictional protagonist. The Milgram experiment was that one where unwitting participants administered shocks to "learners" who failed to remember an answer. They were "unwitting" because they thought they were involved in a memory test, but they were actually involved in an Obedience to Authority test.

His involvement with the experiment shakes the narrator to the bone, and raises questions about perception and reality that tie into the notion of advertising.

Kidd also explores the relationship between Form and Content, explicitly, both within the narrative and in some metafictional digressions between chapters.

Even though "The Learners" stumbles at the end, and doesn't quite live up to the quality of "The Cheese Monkeys" -- which, if I recall, also had some problems in the final section -- it was nice to read a novel again.

I'll let Kidd close this post by speaking for himself, on the notion of Form and Content:



What are YOU reading?

Sunday, March 01, 2009

Dark Reign Hits THE SPLASH PAGE

Chad Nevett and I discussed Andy Diggle's "Thunderbolts" and Brian Michael Bendis's "New Avengers" this week, trying to determine if either book carried on the Warren Ellis legacy with any kind of quality. The first part of our discussion can be found HERE. The second part, in which we shift into looking at "Dark Reign" in concept and execution, is presented, for your reading pleasure, below:

Chad Nevett: An idea we're dancing around a bit, but needs to be addressed: does the current "Dark Reign" story actually work? I thought the attempt by Osborn to make himself look great was awful, "New Avengers" ended with Clint Barton going on TV and calling Osborn an insane supervillain, and there is the little problem of it being public knowledge that he WAS the Green Goblin... does this actually work or is it asking readers to suspend their disbelief too much?

Tim Callahan: I think that it's so ridiculous it actually works. And we should remember that the citizens of the Marvel Universe haven't read nearly as many Marvel comics as we have, so even though Osborn may have been known publicly as the Green Goblin, is that something that people think about often within the Marvel Universe itself? I mean, by showing that the superheroes constantly sayin, "um, he's the GREEN GOBLIN, people, he's evil and insane!!!" Bendis and company don't pretend that everyone in the world is ignorant, but it's also a matter of the way the average citizen views the superhero/supervillain situation differently, perhaps. So I think it's believable on two levels: (1) that the average Marvel non-superperson probably just thinks about the efforts of the costumed characters as these abstract events -- they can't be expected to keep track of who's turned evil this month, or who's reformed, or who's really caused trouble for whom. The Daily Bugle has called Spider-Man a "menace" for, what, ten billion consecutive issues? So when they see Spider-Man fight Green Goblin, doesn't that make the Goblin a "hero"? and (2) In fearful times, people don't care as much about the past behavior of their leaders -- they just want someone who will be tough and get the job done.

Maybe it's the Canadian in you that sees it as unbelievable, but in America, we've had KKK leader David Duke elected to public office, and I think Bendis mentioned in a Word Balloon interview (and I'm paraphrasing), "Look at history and tell me that we don't elect horrible people all the time."

What I enjoy about Dark Reign is that Osborn is so unstable and all of his ideas are doomed to failure. But that makes it all the more fun to watch. It's not that he's incompetent, it's just that he can't see how out-of-his-mind he truly is.

CN: Oh, I buy it as a highly entertaining premise, and that, you're right, he is good at what he does. The idea of how people living in Marvel's America see things is certainly interesting. Bendis has stressed the concept that just because we're familiar with everything, that by no means equates to the characters being aware of everything or everyone. I've liked that element of his writing quite a bit.

Even still, this is a man with a serious criminal record and shady past... would people really want him in charge of national security? Are you Americans THAT messed up? I think referencing the horrible people elected works but only to a point as this was an appointed position, obviously meant as one final slam against Bush and his insane appointments, but would Obama actually keep him? That's what "Thunderbolts" attempted to answer, but the plot was so transparent that I couldn't buy that either. It's like they've written themselves into a corner and their only solution is to go even bigger and more ridiculous in the hopes that it's so unbelievable that no one really notices (within or without the Marvel universe). In a way, Marvel's use of real life political figures hurts the premise, for me, at least. (Actually, I find that idea in and of itself quite stupid since the Marvel universe is such a drastically different world, I have to question how events could line up there and here to produce, consistently, the same presidential election results. For some reason, that bothers me.)

Since this seems a very cynical, satirical take on how easily misled people are, other people have raised the point that it doesn't actually fit with the current political climate in America where Obama's election was a cause for celebration and hope, while "Dark Reign" seems filled with cynicism and hopelessness. Your thoughts as the token American of this discussion?

TC: It does seem shockingly out of step with the times all of a sudden, but I've never really liked the way Marvel tries to mirror the "real world" anyway. Or maybe I have, but I don't anymore -- it became quite tiresome during "Civil War" and I thought the political subtext of "Secret Invasion" was the worst part about it. So if Marvel is out of step, that's really okay with me, as long as they're telling interesting stories. And "Dark Reign" is so far, so good.

But I have a history of liking the way Bendis projects begin and loathing the way they end, so there's that.

Yet, as a company-wide status quo, I'm all for "Dark Reign." Let it unfold, as ridiculous as it might be, I say.

You know what bothers me more than Obama just going along with the Osborn appointment? The way Mockingbird has all of a sudden just popped right back into Avengers action as if almost nothing has happened. It's bad enough that Hawkeye insists on wearing the Ronin costume -- which gets a nice wink in "New Avengers" when it's referred to as "Echo's" costume -- and using non-arrow weaponry, even though his primary use as a crimefighter is in his bow skills, and Clint Barton's reintroduction to superheroics was pretty understated, but Mockingbird? She returns from space after being thought dead for years, and she just kind of tags along like not much has happened? And the other Avengers just go along with it? I know Bendis gives her a bit of internal dialogue on the matter, but her inclusion with the rest of the gang seems so forced.

Do you have similar annoyances about that?

CN: I don't care enough about Mockingbird to be annoyed by it. Also, I figured that will be handled in that mini starring the two of them that I have no intention of reading. But, when you mention it, it does come across almost as "One of the gang has a new girlfriend that tags alone everywhere with them!" That the others go along with it is the thing that stands out the most, actually. She has nowhere else to go, nothing else to do, but, yeah, there should be a few moments where people stop and wonder about her. And, now that I think about it more, it does seem stupid that those questions will be answered in a mini-series that a fraction of New Avengers readers will buy. It seems stupid to do things that way. At least give some mention and expand on it elsewhere if you must, but, otherwise, it makes the better selling, more popular book look weaker. And, I know, the strategy behind this is to make people buy the mini-series in bigger numbers, but that isn't going to happen. It just flat out is not going to happen, so deal with it in another way.

One thing that really annoys me is when Bendis tries to overlap stories as he did here and in Dark Avengers #2, except they don't overlap at all. First, there's the art issue where Mike Deodato and Billy Tan draw two very different scenes, then there's the problem of the scenes playing out in two very different ways... how exactly does that work? In Dark Avengers, the conversation continues on and they go deal with Dr. Doom's problems, but in New Avengers, Spider-Woman shows up. What, did the group have two identical conversations that just happened to diverge at one moment?

TC: Maybe the cosmic battle was so difficult for human brains to comprehend that it became fragmented into dozens of different versions of the story.

Oh, wait, that's Countdown and Death of the New Gods.

No, I know: Superboy punched the wall of Bendis's house.

I don't know, really. I read that bit in "New Avengers" and honestly couldn't remember whether Spider-Woman showed up in "Dark Avengers" or not. Bendis's comics have all started to blend together into one chatty chat-fest in my brain. Maybe that's what's supposed to happen, thereby preventing us from asking any questions at all.

And I'll be reviewing that Hawkeye/Mockingbird spin-off for CBR this week, so I'll let you know if it's any good. Maybe it will get five stars, and you'll be compelled to buy it. (Maybe not.)

CN: I feel compelled to buy nothing... except for Secret Warriors. That book is damn good.

Saturday, February 28, 2009

What I'm Watching: The Wrestler

I don't really think the Academy Awards are anything more than a big Hollywood commercial -- and could this year's show have been any more obvious about that? -- so I don't give the results much thought usually, but Sean Penn has NEVER given a performance as good as Mickey Rourke's in "The Wrestler."

And Sean Penn has given some very good performances.

Whatever it is that makes an actor great, that makes a performance become something more than playing pretend, Mickey Rourke has it, and he's never had it more than in "The Wrestler," which I finally got a chance to see this week. It's not just that he becomes Randy "The Ram," it's that Randy Robinson exists and this is his story. As aware as I was of Rourke's virtuoso performance, it never felt like an acting job. It always felt like a window into this character's life. It felt as real as cinema can get.

"The Wrestler" is not my favorite Darren Aronofsky film. It's too much like a minimalist short story to compete with my fondness for other Aronofky movies. Too simplistic in getting from point A to point B. I prefer the formal experimentation of "The Fountain" or the manic stylishness of "Requiem for a Dream" -- more of the latter than the former. But "The Wrestler" is still a very good film, full of brilliant small moments and an attention to detail that makes almost every other movie seem like a work of pure artifice. When the Ram is working the deli counter, the movie gains a lively, passionate rhythm, and when he's in the ring, "The Wrestler" shows the pleasure and pain of the Ram living the only way he knows how. The whole movie shows that, actually. It's a story about struggle and regret, love and loss, and sadness. But it never wallows in its own pity, and Mickey Rourke never lets the Ram's spirit break totally, even when he's at his most outwardly vulnerable.

"The Wrestler" shows as much of any actor's back as I've ever seen in a full-length motion picture. We are constantly behind the Ram, following him as he prepares for battle, a few steps behind him, but never too far away. It's an angle and a camera move Aronofsky repeats throughout the movie -- our "hero" is always walking away from us, even as he's applauded by thousands -- and Aronofsky echoes it to great ironic effect in the march toward the indignity of working at the deli counter.

It's a good movie, but Rourke's performance makes it something special. And even Sean Penn knows who really deserved to win on Sunday night.

What are YOU watching?

Captain America #47 Review

Recently reviewed by me at CBR: Captain America #47, about which I write the following sentences: "What distinguishes this particular issue from the past few, story-wise, is the explicit guilt of Bucky Barnes. Here's a guy -- a former sidekick, yes, but also a former killer, a Soviet assassin -- who stepped into the shoes of Captain America without missing a step. His style is different that Steve Rogers's, sure, but we haven't seen much of Bucky's interior life. Brubaker has been giving us so much action, political intrigue, and relationship-building, that he hasn't really had a chance to show how conflicted Bucky must be. How tormented the former Winter Soldier actually is, even as he wears the garb of the most noble of heroes."

Read the entire review HERE.

Friday, February 27, 2009

Mister X: Condemned #3 Review

Recently reviewed by me at CBR: Mister X: Condemned #1, about which I write the following sentences: "We know things about him, and 'Mister X: Condemned' has reminded us about some of those things, but he's still an enigmatic figure, even when the comic bares his name. Because when you're dealing with a Dean Motter 'Mister X' story, you're dealing with an emphasis that's more about the characters scurrying around inside the maze of Radiant City than about the characters themselves. It's the scurrying that matters, and the maze itself. It's not a literal maze, of course, but it's the peculiar 'psychetecture' of the city that gives the setting its unique flavor. The setting is the character here, and that's not unusual for Motter."

Read the entire review HERE.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Hulk #10 Review

Recently reviewed by me at CBR: Hulk #10, about which I write the following sentences: "What we get here is a spiritual sequel to 'Contest of Champions,' but with more gloriously bombastic art and more potential for explosive action. 'Hulk' will never be accused -- at least not in this incarnation -- of being a thinking man's comic, but it doesn't aim to be. It aims for pure comic book energy, for the giggling madness of four-color fantasy, for the epic splendor of titans tussling. I'm starting to sound like Stan Lee myself with all this hyperbole, but that's the kind of mood this comic puts you in. It's all about the visceral thrills of seeing the Defenders vs. the Offenders, the battle we've all been waiting for."

Read the entire review HERE.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

When Words Collide: Terror in the Classroom

Spurred to read "Drifting Classroom" by the internet double-threat of Jog and Tucker Stone, I had the first volume sitting on my shelf for a while before I bothered to crack it open.

Before I started reading it, I also picked up Volumes 2-4, just because my son wanted some Pokemon manga thing, and in ordering it through Amazon, I noticed that it was part of the 4-for-3 promotion they run, and figured, "eh, I might as well get three more volumes of 'Drifting' for the price of two," so I added those to the cart.

Then, as I mentioned in a "What I'm Reading" post from a few weeks back, I dove into this series and immediately wanted more.

So now I've read all eleven volumes. And I just had to write something about it. And of course I had to tie it to some postmodernist literary discussion of Donald Barthelme, because that's what I do. Hence, this week's WWC entry: "Terror in the Classroom."

It's probably the greatest thing on Barthelme and Umezu that you'll read this week (if not this month).

Batman R.I.P.: The Deluxe Edition Review

Recently reviewed by me at CBR: Batman R.I.P.: The Deluxe Edition, about which I write the following sentences: "But this is still a book worth reading, largely because what it loses in internet-speculation context, it gains in distance from Morrison's own promises. Many readers were annoyed, even angry, by the lack of clear resolution in the final chapter of 'R.I.P.' Here, in this isolated, hardcover context, the final chapter works much better. It's still not a conclusive finale to the larger question of Dr. Hurt's identity, but such a conclusion isn't promised within the book's pages. What's promised within its pages, implicitly, is a resolution to the Batman-gets-broken-mentally storyline. And that does, indeed, resolve, with a mentally-shattered Batman rising up from his own staged death -- as he literally smashes out of his own coffin -- and turning the tables on his enemies. It's a good Batman story, with betrayals and counter-betrayals, with a bravura performance from the Joker, and with enough unique visual concepts (the garish Zur-En-Arrh costume, Bat-Mite, the Club of Villains) to make the story rise well above the fair-to-middling morass of Batman collected editions."

Read the entire review HERE.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Cronin's Final Crisis FAQ is Good

Brian Cronin posted his "Final Crisis FAQ" at Comics Should Be Good today, and besides being an excellent resource for everyone with any kind of questions about what went on in the series, it's also thought provoking.

(By the way, though I agree with basically everything Cronin says -- and he certainly understands "Final Crisis" fully -- I do think Dax Novu/Mandrakk is supposed to be the Monitor from the original "Crisis." Cronin implies that he might be, but I think the connection is much stronger than just an implication. But that's not really the point of this post, so I'll move on.)

Here are some thoughts provoked by the FAQ:

1) Did people really not understand all this stuff that they're asking questions about? (Like who the black kid in the burger joint was supposed to be? Or who actually attacked John Stewart? I mean, that stuff was an ESSENTIAL PART OF THE STORY and fully explained within its pages.)

2) Did they even bother to read "Final Crisis"? (Because some of those questions imply they read neither the words nor the pictures.)

3) Why do readers in the comments section say stuff like "Unfortunately, just the fact that the series needed something like this to make some sense of it, shows how poorly constructed and produced it actually was"? (Brian Cronin obviously didn't need "something like this to make some sense of it," and neither did I, and neither did almost anyone I've actually talked to about the series. YOU needed it, person-who-left-that-comment, but that doesn't mean the series needed it.)

4) When "P_B" asks for "an attempt at tracing Superman chronologically through the whole thing," why didn't Cronin link to my attempt at tracing Superman chronologically through the whole thing? Do you hate me Brian Cronin? (I know you don't, because you linked to the "Final Crisis Dialogues" in a later post!)

The FAQ is really cool, though, and puts the answers all in one place for readers who couldn't make sense out of the series. (Though they might want to practice reading harder. Too snarky? Too bad! Read HARDER!)

Monday, February 23, 2009

Kupperberg's Intuition: What Say You?

In his debut essay on ComicsCareer.com, Paul Kupperberg writes about "Thought: The Enemy of Art." It's not a shockingly provocative piece, but Kupperberg emphasizes that art is more about intuition than rationalization, at least on the creative end. In his concluding paragraphs, he contrasts the constrictive hyper-plotting technique of another writer with his own, looser, style:

Plotting is a mechanical structure: One comic book writer friend of mine creates elaborate charts of story direction, individual character arcs, introduction of subplots, how long they played out, secondary and tertiary subplots and how they evolved to become major subplots and then the main plots. He can wipe the floor with me on the down and dirty connect-the-Legos-level of sheer mechanical plotting. My plotting in comics — even ones I wrote over long stretches — was always ad hoc, based on some broad outline that I sort of knew where it was headed — unless I changed my mind and went somewhere else because my free-form plotting allowed me the room to do that. With his plotting, you start pulling on one thread and the whole sweater unraveled.

On sheer writing ability alone, I kick his ass. I’m not bound by the specs of the plot-machine he builds for himself. He has said he envies my ability to write that way, more from the gut and less from the head. The gut is where the passion and the juice come from. The head is where rational thought lies. You want about 25% of the latter and 75% of the former in your work. Know where you’re going, understand the mode of transportation you’ve chosen to take you there, but don’t be bound by some route you’ve laid out on the map before you even left the garage. Take detours, visit interesting roadside attractions, cut across land marked with “No Trespassing” signs, leave the blacktop and explore some dirt roads, and stop every now and then for a couple or four slices of pie at that diner you pass along the way.

Just do it, but whatever else…don’t think!

Old-fashioned seat of your pants, make-it-up-as-you-go along storytelling has driven comic book narrative for years and has reached giddy heights in stuff like "The Drifting Classroom" and "The Walking Dead," just to name two things I've read recently. But I tend to prefer more structured work. I like when things fit together and narrative strands from months or years earlier turn out to be essential to the overall structure.

And, honestly, I've never read anything by Paul Kupperberg that I thought was all that impressive, even though he's been working in the industry for decades. So when he says, "On sheer writing ability alone, I kick his ass," what is he talking about? What are the great Paul Kupperberg works? I really have no idea.

What do you think about his intuition vs. rationalization approach to writing? What do you think about Kupperberg as a writer?

Sunday, February 22, 2009

What I'm Reading: Johnny Boo, Fantastic Four

James Kochalka's second "Johnny Boo" children's book arrived at the Geniusboy Firemelon household this week, much to the delight of the local children. We gathered the little ones out on our front porch, roasted mashmallows, made snow angels, carved ice sculptures of our favorite Bible scenes, and read excerpts of "Johnny Boo: Twinkle Power," followed by selections from "American Elf," the first three volumes of "Superf*ckers," and then sang and danced along to James Kochalka Superstar's "Bad Astronaut."

It was frolicksome.

Okay, maybe all that other stuff didn't happen, but I did read the new "Johnny Boo" book with my son last night, and at one point he laughed so hard that he couldn't read his part out loud. He was convulsed with joy at the hilarity of the Ice Cream Monster's wiggle power.

I don't know how many of you have young kids, but great children's books are surprisingly difficult to come by. Sure, you could probably name a dozen off the top of your head -- the stuff by Maurice Sendak, or Richard MacGuire, and, yeah, Dr. Seuss -- but even if you can name a dozen, or even twenty, that still leaves over 340 bedtimes in which to read some other, lesser, work of children's picture book literature.

James Kochalka's delightfully joyous picture books are much appreciated. Keep 'em coming!

I also finished up my long-delayed reading of all the "Fantastic Four Visionaries: John Byrne" volumes. I had read the first six last summer, and then I just never got around to Volumes 7 or 8. I have to say that Byrne's run does not end well at all. I had actually read the last eight (or so) of his stories when they originally came out -- along with a smattering of earlier issues, whenever our local general store's selection matched my desire to convince my parents to buy me a comic. So I knew that it kind of petered out at the end, although I forgot that Byrne left in the middle of a story arc -- to go off and do "Superman" from what I recall -- and Roger Stern and Jerry Ordway finished up a really terrible twisted-future-inside-a-bubble-tale for him. Maybe Byrne could have nailed the landing on that one, and his first installment was decent enough, but Stern and Ordway just turn it into an overlong, over-wordy lesson on how not to tell interesting comic book stories. And I like Stern and Ordway -- especially their work from the mid-1980s -- but their "Fantastic Four" work was not their best.

But I do still think that John Byrne, in his prime, is basically my Platonic ideal of a superhero artist. I prefer plenty of other artists these days, but when I think of pure superheroics, John Byrne comes to mind. I don't know if it's his clean design sense, his perfectly-paced action, or his deceptively simple character work, OR if it's just because his comics were some of the first I ever saw as a kid (or, more likely, a combination of all those things), but there's something soothing and comforting about Byrne's artwork. It's just plain pleasing.

The stories in Volumes 7 and 8 aren't so hot. Volume 7 is pretty terrible, actually, with the inclusion of an "Avengers Annual" that crosses over with an FF skrull story, and a whole section devoted to the revival of Jean Grey (even "X-Factor" #1 shows up in its entirety, a comic Byrne had absolutely nothing to do with). Volume 8 is an improvement, but ends with the weak Stern/Ordway issues, and then...that's it. Byrne's "Fantastic Four," which had plenty of memorable moments -- most of which involving Dr. Doom, who appears in the last two volumes just as part of a convoluted Beyonder sequence -- fades away in the end, never living up to its potential as an epic saga. The eight volumes (and I know there's a "Volume 0," but I'm ignoring that one) provide a few great individual stories, but nothing that rises above good mid-80s Marvel comics.

Still, John Byrne is one of the great superhero artists of all time, at least at Chateau Geniusboy Firemelon.

What are YOU reading?

Saturday, February 21, 2009

What I'm Watching: Day of the Outlaw

Andre de Toth's 1959 snowbound western "Day of the Outlaw" features the incomparable Burl Ives as Captain Jack Bruhn, a military man who leads a pack of roaming outlaws into a small frontier town. Like pretty much everyone from my generation, I only really know Ives as the snowman narrator of "Ruldolph the Red-Nosed Raindeer," so hearing his familiar voice come out of a hardened killer was startling and wonderful.

Startling, because his sweet, soothing voice commands the respect of his men and creates some sympathy from Robert Ryan's Blaise Starrett. Wonderful, because unlike the typical Western villain, Ives seems like a kindly grandfather burdened by difficult choices. He's evil, but it's an evil built upon a series of choices made long ago -- decisions he may regret, but he cannot change the past.

But that spark of redemption drives the film, as Ryan -- a cattleman not without his own dark flaws -- tries to appeal to the best of Ives's morality in an attempt to keep the outlaw gang from destroying the town. The gang wants nothing more than to drink whatever the tavern has to offer and grope whatever women happen by. Ives has more dignity than that -- he forbids whiskey and women -- but he's dying from a bullet wound, and that ticking clock amplifies the tension significantly.

The female lead, so lasciviously shown on the movie poster, is none other than Tina Louise from "Gilligan's Island" fame. She's great in this role (a much more conservative one than the poster would indicate), and she's almost unrecognizable for those of us who grew up on her Marilyn Monroe caricature in reruns. Here, she's fierce and stoic, and she doesn't have enough to do, but what she does, she does well.

"Day of the Outlaw" ends with an anticlimactic showdown in the snow, as Robert Ryan's character leads the outlaws over a mountain pass that doesn't really exist, and one by one, the gang members fall prey to the harsh wintry conditions.

But when Burl Ives is on screen, it's a captivating film, and definitely worth a look.

What are YOU watching?

Justice League of America #30 Review

Recently reviewed by me at CBR: Justice League of America #30, about which I write the following sentences: "If this Milestone crossover arc was meant to introduce the characters to the readers of the DCU, it's not very successful. McDuffie gives black Superman analogue Icon a few lines of dialogue and a little bit more characterization than the others, but the rest of the Milestone characters leave no impression at all. Except the dude made out of clouds and sky -- Twilight, I believe he's called. He has a strong visual presence at least. The rest of the Milestone characters look like little more than rejects from the 1990s school of ugly costume design. When Icon's partner, Rocket appears, her dramatic entrance is diminished by her ridiculous appearance. I'm sure the hoop earring, headgear, metal leg straps, plus jacket-over-the-costume look was pretty cool in 1993 -- actually, I remember 1993, and it wasn't even cool back then -- but it's 2009, and next to the classic costumes of the JLA, it just doesn't work. Her costume makes Zatanna look classy by comparison."

Read the entire review HERE.

Friday, February 20, 2009

X-Men: Legacy #221 Review

Recently reviewed by me at CBR: X-Men: Legacy #221, about which I write the following sentences: "Mike Carey has found various ways to tell that kind of highlight-reel story, from bringing in Mr. Sinister to play with memories or, in this arc, showing physical manifestations of Rogue's fragmented psyche while simultaneously getting the now-sentient Danger Room to replay events from the past. No matter how he frames it, all Carey gets to do with this series is linger in the past. And that makes this series pretty useless."

Read the entire review HERE.

(Boy is that a hideous cover!)