A Frank Review of "The Dark Knight" and the trailer for "Watchmen"

Like most every other comic book fan in the continental United States, I was roped into seeing "The Dark Knight" opening weekend, so I might as well review it. My caveat is that I've actively disliked the Batman for at least a decade, and never been much on the films, so don't expect much gushing. But then again, this is ...nurgh... so you should know I hate everything by now.

I will not say that this is my favorite Batman film of the series, though time and reflection may change that, but I will say it is objectively the best Batman film ever made. A problem I have with super-hero movies, which I generally dislike, is that they always seem to me like a series of set pieces strung together. Factoring in my contemptuous familiarity with most of the subjects, I'm typically bored to tears by one rote, obligatory moment after another. "The Dark Knight" is the first comic book movie I can readily recall where I was absorbed by the narrative. For once, instead of sitting in a theater making mental comparisons to the comics or simply being aggravated by a weak narrative, I was immersed in the story being told by Nolan. I actively cared about what was happening onscreen, both to the characters and with the plot, which is exceptional. Clearly, that makes "The Dark Knight" one of the best films of its ilk, period.

I believe in Harvey Dent. Since at least Miller and Mazzuchelli's "Batman:Year One," he's been among the most fascinating rogues to face the Caped Crusader. I was greatly disappointed in Tommy Lee Jones' pass at Two-Face in "Batman Forever," his being a once favored actor in the midst of a creative free fall and determined to out-clown Jim Carrey. Aaron Eckhart seemed a perfect remedy for that foul memory going in, and coming out all the more so. Dent is the hero of "Dark Knight," the whole movie turns on his journey, and I was with Eckhart every step of the way. My only complaint is that Eckhart needed a second picture to progress from Dent to Two-Face, as he earned so much good will, my sympathies could not reasonably be expected to turn on silver dollar.

In "Batman Begins," I felt a more personal connection to Katie Holmes' sweater than her character, as she could not have been more of a tacked-on love interest in a film that needed to be trimmed of that fatty subplot entirely. Maggie Gyllenhaal redeems the character, imbuing her with life in her performance, while the script made her presence essential. The combination had me falling for Rachael Dawes, now made a unique and surprising heroine that added immeasurably to my enjoyment of the movie.

Gary Oldman is certainly one of the most daring actors working today, sometimes to the peril of his productions. His portrayal of Jim Gordon is full of distinct ticks that had the potential to distract, but instead allow him to fully inhabit a character never remotely as fully realized outside comics as he is here. Again, the influence of "Batman: Year One" is more deeply felt in this sequel than in "Batman Begins," and it is all to the good.

The same can be said of Gotham City itself, as for the first time it feels like a place human beings live, as opposed to having slightly more dimension than the cardboard backdrops of the German Expressionist films that so clearly inspired the Tim Burton cycle. Aiding in this is the support of many name and unknown actors filling out the population, including Nestor Carbonell as the mayor, Eric Roberts and Michael Jai White as crime bosses, Anthony Michael Hall as a television reporter, Colin McFarlane as the police commissioner, William Fichtner as a bank manager, Ron Dean as a veteran cop, and Monique Curnen as *not* Det. Montoya. Sure, they're all from stock, but they're at least quality stock, not glorified backdrop.

Morgan Freeman, as usual, plays Morgan Freeman. Thankfully, Lucius Fox might as well be Morgan Freeman, so the shoe fits comfortably. Michael Caine, as usual, plays Michael Caine. As Alfred, I find myself less forgiving of the coasting, but I allow myself to let it go by just watching Michael Caine do his thing.

Heath Ledger is very nearly the physical embodiment of the Joker. The way that he moved-- fought-- his mannerisms-- the build-- all so close to the ideal gestalt of many comic book incarnations. The script reflects this, as for once, the Joker is maddeningly brilliant; his insane motivations and general unpredictability made a force above and beyond any super-villain to ever make the leap into live action. This is a mind that could clearly bedevil even the Batman. That said, the scars and voice do not suit the character. Too often, the barely-there green hair dye gives way to Ledger's long blond locks, betraying the pretty boy under the half-assed make-up. Ledger can't pull off the iconic laugh, and irritations like his constant licking about the mouth recall a sexual deviant more than the Clown Prince of Crime. The "Disappearing Pencil Trick" was a movie moment for sure, but also a physical dynamic outside the more dandy comic book Joker's abilities. This is not an Oscar-worthy performance, but "Brokeback Mountain" was, so let's not kid ourselves should it yield posthumous reward to balance a prior neglect.

After seeing "American Psycho," I joined the legions of fanboys in casting Christian Bale as the best possible Bruce Wayne. Unlike those legions, I'll own up to my mistake. Bale's American accent continues to underwhelm, and his grasp of Wayne remains tenuous and utterly without charm. His Batman is worse-- his affected rasp so seemingly painful and occasionally unintelligible it amazes that anyone can take him, seriously or otherwise. His costume does him no favors, so tight around the mouth as to make it puff out like fat around overstuffed pants. The stunt work involving the suit is terrible, necessitating the banal obfuscation that comes from extended use of vehicles, firearms, and quick cuts. When Iron Man comes across as more lithe, it's time to reconsider fabrics.

I loved the modern comic book continuity, with a mini-episode early on involving a returned Scarecrow, again (if briefly) played by Cillian Murphy. The movie could have used a couple more of those, but for reasons you may not expect. You see, this movie comes to a rousing conclusion, and then the sequel starts, leaving you squirming in your seat. Characters speak voluminous dialogue and spoon feed text and subtext to the point where you wish someone would take a hit from the Riddler or something. The film is so bloated, it needed bullshit extras so that it could be chopped in half and sold to audiences twice. Also, that theoretical sequel has a really awful, ham-fisted ending that taints much of what came before. Jim Gordon's closing monologue had me begging for the credit crawl as it droned on without consideration for the audience or its own inanity. The movie closes the deal, then won't shut up, and ends up going home alone (but still has your number.)

On the other hand, more action means more lousy action directing. When it comes to fisticuffs, everything is muddy and the mind checks out. Also, speaking of Iron Man, there are numerous, ridiculous leaps in technology that would destroy the film's credibility if it didn't run so blasted long you eventually forget the contrivances. The Batman movie plague continues in that the villain so outshines the hero, the Dark Knight Detective must resort to deus ex machina to save the day. The screenwriter and direction serve so many characters so well, and then the ball is dropped on every level when it comes to the supposed star of the production.

In the final analysis, "The Dark Knight" is a swell crime movie with horrific digressions, and the only thing getting in its way is the super-hero business. I'm glad I saw the movie, and believe it to be the best made of the perpetually flawed Batman movies. Do go see it, do enjoy it, but do get over the hype.


A major draw for my going into "The Dark Knight" was the opportunity to see the trailer for "Watchmen," if only for the irony of seeing the two titles intertwined once again. "Watchmen" seems to be in the submissive role here, with the trailer's use of the Smashing Pumpkins' "The Beginning Is the End Is the Beginning" from the "Batman and Robin" soundtrack. Its also a variant version of their "The End Is the Beginning Is the End," which won the '98 Grammy for "Best Hard Rock Performance" and was an international, if perhaps minor hit. Even the Batman-centric video was up for a bunch of awards. Odd choice that.

I strongly suspect that the CGI on display will improved greatly by next March, or else it will look embarrassing on DVD. There's a slightly rubbery and highly staged feel to the world presented. The costumes are pretty damned nice and functional, though. I'd say Nite Owl looks more like Batman than the stiff Cat-Man from "Dark Knight." My only problem there is that they look too good, seeing as how these are supposed to be silly poseurs well past their prime.

There is so very nearly a peener on Dr. Manhatten that I'm delighted by the audacity. Jackie Earle Haley, based on one line and gorgeous visuals, seems absolutely perfect as Rorschach. "Watchmen" has never been one of my favorite graphic novels, but the movie looks to be such a strong adaptation, I may well end up preferring it to the source material. We shall see...

1966 Mattel "Fright Factory Thingmaker" Ad

I'm still shocked to see such a gruesome image on the back of a comic book, specifically one of this vintage. That kid is tore up! I actually find this a bit disturbing. Kudos to Mattel, for the image, and for getting "Plastigoop" trademarked!

1978 Slim Jim "Satisfy Your Meat Tooth" Dracula Ad

I guess we'll make this a Vampire Weekend in the advertising department. I almost skipped scanning this one, because the ad was so prominent in comics and magazines when I was growing up, I took it for granted everyone knew it. It has been near thirty years, and it was a fun piece, so I figure to enshrine it here. Anybody know the artist? Looks like Jack Davis

1966 AMT "Grandpa Munster "Digs" The Drag-U-La!" Ad

I got away from the old school scans when my computer went ker-floopty and I lost aspects of my favorite program. I've trained myself with new software in my work at the Idol-Head of Diabolu, so it seems like it's about time we got back to the goods. I'm sure everyone's sick of my reviews by now, anyway...

The Great Comic Book Heroes: Superman

Jules Feiffer observed, "The advent of the superhero was a bizarre comeuppance for the American dream... Once the odds were appraised honestly, it was apparent you had to be super to get by in this world." He went on to note that all the pulp heroes like the Shadow and Green Hornet were fakes getting by with gimmicks, while Superman was essentially omnipotent. That being the case, Feiffer questioned the geeky Clark Kent put-on. "Superman as a secret masochist? Field for study there... why not a more typical identity? ...The truth may be that Kent existed not for the purposes of the story but for the reader. He is Superman's opinion of the rest of us, a pointed caricature of what we, the noncriminal element, were really like." Fans of "Kill Bill" may recall Tarantino and Carradine swiping the argument. I beg to differ.

Who amongst us talks to children openly as equals? That don't wish to be arrested, or at least become scorned by society? How can you be anything but at least a little patronizing and reserved amongst minds that just are not mature enough to be subjected to naked truth? It isn't that Superman critiques mankind-- it's just that Clark Kent is as close as he can come comfortably to our level. Yes, he's talking down to us, but with the best of intentions.

"It seems that among Lois Lane, Clark Kent, and Superman there existed a schizoid and chaste menage a trois... it appears he wanted Lois to respect him for his fake self... to be there when he pretended he needed her. She never was -- so, of course, he loved her. A typical American romance. Superman never needed her... Lois chased him -- so, of course, he didn't love her... Clark Kent acted as the control for Superman... Our cultural opposite of the man who didn't make out with women has never been the man who did -- but rather the man who could if he wanted to, but still didn't... Real rapport was not for women. It was for villains. That's why they got hit so hard."

Alternately, Superman could be the overprotective guardian. Lois wants Superman, in ways a child should not want her super-daddy. Superman, naturally, races to protect her when she once again is endangered, but is then skeeved out by her advances. However, Superman is a loving authority figure who doesn't want to damage the girl's self-esteem, so he provides her with a safe, undesirable affirmation of her womanhood-- Clark Kent. Just a theory.

Next we could consider Larry Niven's 1971 essay, Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex. Suddenly, his heartbreaking, repetitive returns to save doomed Krypton make so much sense. Even if the Strange Visitor from Another Plant were willing to stoop to pedophilia/bestiality and lie with creatures of another species, who's to say they wouldn't "break." Of course he'd know unfathomable longing for his time-lost movie star lady love... it's the reciprocity I wonder about. Sure, Superman would be a sweetly naive, rugged brute of a man to a native Kryptonian. That might keep your interest for a while. Then it starts to set in that this guy has not spent his life amongst his super-intelligent brethren, but simple grade-schoolers. Likely the "special" kind. What would you talk about? Further, if there's one area Superman would fall short under the circumstances, it's "experience." Faster than a speeding bullet? More powerful than a locomotive? These are not quite accolades when applied to one's tender nether regions. Perhaps it was best to leave Krypton as it no longer stood? They'd always have Argo City...

I once had similar thoughts about the Martian Manhunter, until he went through a streak in the 90's when he started bed hopping. I came up with another idea for him, which can be read here.

A Frank Review of "28 Days Later..." (2002) & "28 Weeks Later..." (2007)

The Short Version? Zombie apocalypse, sans "zombies."
What Is It? Horror.
Who Is In It?. "Days:" Cillian Murphy. Chris Eccleston. "Weeks:" Robert Carlyle
Should I See It? Yeah... alright... damn it.



My favorite movie monster is the Living Dead. Usually, I just say zombie, but semantics are important here. You see, in the golden age of Hollywood, zombies were a reasonable approximation of the zuvembi of Caribbean origins. In "voodoo," zombies were the reanimated dead, put to work as soulless slaves by a "witch doctor." Research has suggested there was such a thing, but rather than the dead, these slaves were actually "junkies" strung out on particularly nasty drugs. This being the case, zombie's gotta eat. According to myth, zombies couldn't eat meat, salt, or anything particularly flavorful, as it would awaken their taste buds and their minds to the fact they ought to be dead, and that's where they'd go again. The popular notion of zombies was forever altered in 1968, when the film "Night of the Ghouls" had its name changed to "...Living Dead." Romero and Russo introduced these truly vacant creatures as our loved ones turned mindless and hungry for warm human flesh. This opened the international floodgates for apocalyptic cannibal horror, and while I don't recall whether "Night" referred to its creatures as zombies, that's exactly what they were dubbed.

I explain this because screenwriter Alex Garland and director Danny Boyle steadfastly denied that their "28 Days Later..." was a zombie movie, but instead a tale of violent masses infected with a virulent horror known only as "Rage." This is utter and complete bullshit. The trailer below for their film even claims "Danny Boyle reinvents zombie horror." Again, bullshit. Like "Resident Evil," the story steals liberally and near wholesale from a variety of sources, but unlike the much maligned Paul Anderson picture, it is defiantly unapologetic about the matter, and pompous in its denial of derivation. Innovations? Like when the soldiers become so loathsome you begin rooting for the zombies and the few civilians the troops plan to rape and murder. Right up to featuring a named "hero" zombie, that movie was filmed in 1985 as "Day of the Dead" by George Romero. Fast zombies? Russo's "Return of the Living Dead" had some speedy brain suckers in 1985. Not that it matters, as Tobe Hooper had already done "Lifeforce," which ends with diseased masses of ghoulish "vampires" rampaging the devastated streets of London. Turning the supernatural "zombies" into the scientific "infected?" Romero did that also, in "The Crazies." There's the flashback monologues that help invest you in the characters and horror of the situation, while not straining your budget, but Romero did the same thing in most of his "Dead" movies. So Boyle did a zombie movie, Garner pieced a script together from other zombie movies, neither will own up, and the movie isn't a Tarantinoesque salvage job so much as a variation on themes from equally good or better films.

The part that drives me nuts is that "28 Days Later..." is a good film. The performances are solid, the audience responds to the characters, the frenetic cinematography sells the terror and the movie glides right over budgetary restrictions. If its creators weren't so galling in their plagiarism and invented schism between "zombie" and "infected," I'd be more willing to give it credit. So your mob of vicious, mindless killers beats and tears people apart without the eating of intestines. This is hardly reinvention. Also, the highly effective dread early in the film gives way to suspense and finally fatigue as the story progresses. I appreciated the genre rebelling ending, but by that point I'd lost interest. I do love the music though. Shit, okay, Boyle reinvented "zombie horror" with a better soundtrack. Happy now?



After my less than complimentary review of its predecessor, you might wonder why I would have seen the sequel. I guess the scale of the production seemed impressive, and so much source material for stolen plot had been mined last time, I figured they had to try something new. I was right, in that they found new avenues to plunder, seeing as much of the tone of "Weeks" is right out of the new wave of zombie pictures that followed in "Days" wake.

Like Cameron with "Aliens" (not to mention "Resident Evil,") the focus shifts from a few isolated civilians surviving to a heavily armed military response to the alien threat. Like Romero's "Day" and "Land of the Dead," we are presented with a reoccurring "hero" zombie that motivates much of the action and aids in the final resolution. Like "The Omega Man," we've got the immune human whose blood can potentially cure a plagued people, and like "Return of the Living Dead Part 2," our guide into zombie land is a prepubescent boy (though I wasn't sure for a ways into the movie, as he was something of a mongoloid Taylor Hansen.) Not to mention, with its propulsive pacing, explosions and constant child endangerment, it was pretty obvious someone had taken Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" to heart. The characters are cardboard, except for Robert Carlyle, who gives one of his best performances yet. I had massive problems with the contrived situations and painfully obvious set-ups, but ultimately, I enjoyed the film as a no-brainer. It is more intense, and more consistently so, than the original (while aping Boyle's style to maximum effect.) As a zombie fan, I found this movie far less antagonizing than the first, but it is more of an experience than a story, and one I'm unlikely to repeat.

The Vixen #1 (Nov-Dec 1978)

"THE VIXEN No.1, November-December. "Who Is The Vixen" is by Gerry Conway, Bob Oksner, and Vince Colleta. Fashion model Mari McCabe comes in contact with the Tantu Totem, and suddenly regains her long forgotten past, as well as the powers and abilities of three animals. At the United Nations, she attacks the African ruler who murdered her father, years ago."

That was the synopsis given by The Comic Reader #159 (August 1978) as part of their announcement of DC titles caught in the infamous "Implosion." You can read in great detail the circumstances in this article at Dial "B" For Blog. The gist is the suits at Warner Brothers and sales impacted by heavy snows conspired to cut DC comic production by 40% in one fell swoop, robbing what should have been the first African-American super-heroine with her own title. I'm quite fond of Mari McCabe, and am pleased that she's begun to get her due a quarter-century later through the Justice League of America comic and cartoon.

Dial "B" For Blog covered the first issue of her non-series, among many others here. That's also where I got the art poorly and hastily colored under duress by myself above. According to that blog, "Created by Gerry Conway with Carla Conway... The story's final caption reads: "THE END…AND THE BEGINNING." Vixen finally made her official debut three years later, in Action Comics #521." You can also find the splash page for the aborted project there.

Unsatisfied with those slim details (wrapped in an otherwise highly informative article,) I cast about on the internet for more. Luckily, I came upon the Answer Man Bob Rozakis' synopsis of the issue, as part of fantastically extensive coverage of Cancelled Comics Cavalcade, the only place Vixen's story ever saw print. Here's what he had to say...

"The last full-length book included in is THE VIXEN #1. Is she the same character who finally debuted in ACTION COMICS #521, three years after the DC Implosion? The same one who became a member (with Vibe and Gypsy) of what's been referred to as the Justice League of Detroit? Well, yes…and no.

Super-model Marilyn McCabe is on top of the fashion world and a modern businesswoman, but after seeing President Manitoba of the African nation of D'Mulla on TV, she faints. This brings back awful memories of her childhood, memories buried in her subconscious oft her father being murdered by Manitoba.

After consulting with her attorney and realizing she can not pursue Manitoba from a legal standpoint, Marilyn discovers that a necklace left with her by her father has mystical powers. It awakens powers within Marlyn and she dons the costume of The Vixen.

The Vixen learns that Manitoba, while now preaching peace, intends to unite all of Africa under his rule…by force. His true mission in coming to the United States is not to preach peace, but to murder the sole remaining witness to his crimes in his own country. Luckily, The Vixen is there to save the day. In the battle that ensues, Manitoba is killed by his own manic attack, bringing down a massive cross which crushes him.

The story ends with Marilyn feeling that a new energy has taken control of her, that she has been reborn. And the bottom caption promises us that this is "The End…and The Beginning." (Well, so, it took three years before she actually appeared. Maybe she was just a slow starter…)


Beginning with issue #2, there was to be a back-up feature in THE VIXEN, one that I was going to be writing. It never got past script stage… and a few columns from now, I'll be sharing all the details about a series SO canceled that it never even made it into CCC!"

So there you go. Hopefully The Vixen #1 will be available for us all, but until then, I'm happy to have enough details to keep me quiet in the meantime.