My own self

I have seen the film. (Which film? Get outta here, you know which film). And so does Mr Gaiman's following words ring true?

"Last night I went to New York for The Dark Knight Rises premiere. I really enjoyed it. I think I preferred The Dark Knight movie, because it had Heath Ledger's Joker and a plot I found hard to predict. Dark Knight Rises doesn't have those things: once the set-up is done you have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen and when (even if you've worked hard to keep yourself spoiler free, as I had), but how it happens is the delight. I preferred the last movie, but this is a better Batman movie, and, I suspect, a better film."

Almost every word. My only disagreement is I think "The Dark Knight" was rather a few notches better film, but "Rises" was as Mr Gaiman says definitely a better _Batman_ film.

I would have wished for some Joker homage (would hysterical laughter from off screen in one of the prison sequences been so much to ask for?), but that is really my only quibble. They stayed true to the comics as much as or more than the previous two (I still have some qualms about their Batman portrayal, but they got closer here than ever before), and while it was rather predictable compared to the second film (having read a few Batman comics, I predicted everything down to the main twist and suspect most will) it was never so in a bad way. Aces, Mr Nolan. Aces!

"Green Lantern": Not so much bad as just plain bland and filled with sadly missed opportunities.

Still, I chuckled at some of the jokes, and when it tried to be visually pretty it managed it well (but the 3D is once again completely pointless for the enjoyment of a movie which flaunts the attribute), and for a novice at the comics (I mostly know GL from animated movies and ditto series) they seemed to have the universe of it all pretty faithfully down.

In sum, I don't regret buying the ticket, if barely, and I will watch a sequel - albeit with very low expectations.

So! This might seem like a random list, but considering the enormous amount of comic book based movies and TV shows, I think it's actually a rather interesting mental exercise. Because the best character adaptations don't all necessarily happen in the best movies.

In fact, there has been so many comic book movies in the last decade, I need to narrow the field down. So I'm doing strictly characters from the mainstream superhero DC universe and ditto Marvel Universe. No special imprints, no Image, no Dark Horse, no Asterix or Tintin. A disservice to movies which otherwise fit the competition really well (I can think of several characters in Watchmen that should make this list, for instance), but some hard choices has to be done.

Why am I doing this list now? Well, because I feel like it. But also because there's such an impending avalanche of new ones coming up this year and in the years to follow soon. Likely - or at least hopefully - many of these performances will be drowned out by new, even better ones. So I'd like to highlight them while I can.

Then, the disclaimer. Here are the major live action adaptations I'm aware of that WOULD fit the list's requirements, but that I simply have not seen. And yes, most of them are the old ones - I didn't even read superhero COMICS until I was eighteen, the need felt to check out the dated stuff has not been the greatest. Also, my apologies for any major series or movie which I am not sufficiently aware of to mention on this list of things I have not seen...

Adventures of Superman (TV series, 1952-58)
Batman (TV series and movie, 1966-68, 1966)
Wonder Woman (movie and TV series, 1975-79)
The Incredible Hulk (TV series and movies, 1978-82, 1988, 1989, 1990)
Supergirl (Movie, 1984)
The Punisher (Movie, 1989)
The Flash (TV series, 1990-1991)
Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (Movie, 1998)
Birds of Prey (TV series, 2002-2003)
Blade: The Series (TV series, 2006)
Punisher: War Zone (Movie, 2008)

So, then! On to the list!


Honourable mentions:
* Michael Rosenbaum (Lex Luthor, Smallville), John Shea (Lex Luthor, Lois & Clark). Both did an excellent job as Lex, but both fell a little short of encompassing the whole character. They had the psychotic control-freak businessman nailed, but where is the brilliant scientist? Never really reared his head.
* Toby Maguire (Spider-man, Spider-man-movies). Again, a really good performance, in my opinion. But again, the fullness of the original character does not translate. He's got the geek down, the nervous, the kind and even the slightly juvenile. But as many has remarked, where is Spidey's trademark levity and wit? Where is the wisecracking? The performance simply doesn't have all the major character traits of the original.
* Patrick Stewart (Charles Xavier, X-men-movies). Familiar refrain. Great actor, great job, love basically every scene he's in. But he just doesn't have a chance to show all of Xavier's sides. Xavier as I've read him is supposed to have a certain amount of menace, a hint of ruthlessness, just one little strain of his personality that eerily echoes Magneto's full-blown megalomania. In the movies, he's just a tad too goodie-two-shoes.
* Ioan Gruffudd (Reed Richards, Fantastic Four-movies). I thought he did a really, really good job. Don't have any complaints at all, as a matter of fact. Problem is - Richards is really not the kind of character who can make a list like this very easily, because he, on his own, is not terribly cool or interesting. He can be, but usually in juxtapositions with others. For the adaptation of a character to stand out, the character must to, and Richards just cannot compete properly with the ones who actually made the list.
* Christopher Reeve (Superman, Superman-movies). Same thing as Gruffudd, really. Great performance. Not that interesting character, but what there is to nail is nailed.
* Michael Clarke Duncan (The Kingpin, Daredevil). Another really good performance. But it somehow lacked... evil? Kingpin is evil. In the movie, he was just... ruthless, calculating, brutal, scary, all those things. But I don't know. Not quite evil. I can't put my finger on it.
* Jim Carrey (The Riddler, Batman Forever). The one good thing about this movie? Yeah. And a great villain, which is why he deserves a mention. He's not really Riddler, though. He's silly, and tosses around jokes like a lunatic. This is a decent adaptation of Joker when he's in a less horrific mood, but it doesn't really say Riddler to me.
* Thomas Jane (The Punisher, The Punisher). If I remember the Net correctly, people generally don't think Jane did a good Frank Castle. From my - admittedly humble - exposure to the character, I think he did. Sure, the movie might have fallen short a bit, but I felt he was Castle alright. But sure, he was not quite... raw enough to be so memorable as to make the list. Hence the honourable mention.

Actual runner-ups that I wish I could fit on the list, from wishing the most to the least: Kelsey Grammar's Beast (X-men 3: The Last Stand), Joe Pantoliano's Ben Urich (Daredevil), Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent (The Dark Knight), Teri Hatcher's Lois Lane (Lois & Clark), Thomas Haden Church's Sandman (Spider-man 3), Kevin Spacey's Luthor (Superman Returns), Lane Smith's Perry White (Lois & Clark).

Finally, the list!

12. Doctor Octopus - Alfred Molina
This guy first blew me away with warmth, and then he just went absolutely mental and I bought it. I always felt Doc Ock was a cheesefest of a villain, and I was so annoyed when I heard he was going to be the villain of Spider-man 2. More fool me. This performance stayed absolutely true to the character as I remembered him from the comics - and somehow made him seem anything but ridiculous. Tragic. Awe-inspiring. Horrifying. Anything but ridiculous.

11. Foggy Nelson - Jon Favreau
I am of course talking about the Daredevil Director's Cut - Nelson was hardly even in the stunningly inferior theatrical release. Indeed, the plotline in which Nelson gets to play a bigger part is a large part of why the director's cut is so much better, and Favreau's adorable performance is a central reason why. I love the little scenes between him and Murdock in the restaurant so much, I think I've rewatched the movie for them alone at least twice. Can I explain why? No. They're not THAT awesome, when you really look at them. And yet, such is the power of Foggy.

10. Scarecrow - Cillian Murphy
Surprise entry, this guy. When I was mentally going through these movies and TV shows in my head, comparing characters from how I experienced them in the comics to how they came across on screen, Scarecrow didn't really spring to mind. Sure, his character is rather close to how he is in the comics, but he is definitely less of the bookish weakling who only finds strength in the mask and the toxins, and more of a more conventional narcissistic lunatic. Not really top list of adaptation material, I thought. But then thinking more about it, he grew more on me. The basics of the characters are all there, really - we're talking lacks and holes in degrees, not in content. And he really does come across as creepy and over-educated - which I think would be the two main components I'd hold out if I were to describe the character. Yeah, I think that this is as good an adaptation of the character as you could get without making him the focal point of a movie rather than a supporting villain. And it's a great character, of course.

9. Bullseye - Colin Farrell
I realise I might be well off the mark here, having read only a very, very modest amount of comics in which Bullseye is featured heavily. But somehow I don't think so. Farrell's ridiculously high-strung kill-obsessed assassin really, really makes an impression. And he does it without coming off as just another generic super-ninja or low-brow thug or psychotic killing machine devoid of personality. Yeah. Bullesye. (Oh come on I had to).

8. Ben Grimm - Michael Chiklis
Making me want to see The Shield more than ever, this performance is the clear highlight of the otherwise very underwhelming (but I maintain rather well cast) Fantastic Four-movies. Grimm is perhaps the most touching and heartwarming big-name character in mainstream superhero comics, and it really comes across.

7. Commissioner Gordon - Gary Oldman
The fight thickens, and I increase the font size a tad. Oldman deserves it. From this point on, it's really almost more about the mood of the day than anything else. Oldman's Gordon is just pitch-perfect. I really liked the actor before - after this, he has joined the incredibly short list of actors whose involvements in a project actually makes me consider seeing it all in their own right.

6. Green Goblin - Willem Dafoe
Yeah, yeah, Spider-man is a pretty fair movie, but not an awesome one. But why is it fair? The plot is very straightforward, the characters, while well played, are somewhat stereotypical... So why is it not just mediocre? Well, I think it's because every single scene Dafoe is in - at least without the goblin mask - is just above and beyond hairs-on-edge _fantastic_.

5. Iron Man - Robert Downey Jr.
Basically, see the reasoning for Dafoe above, but imagine that he was the main character of the movie.

I know, right?!

4. The Joker - Jack Nicholson
He's not my Joker - that will always, always be Mark Hamill - but man, is he a good one. Joker is a character so multi-faceted you can argue any interpretation of the character which works in the story he's in is a faithful adaptation. Certainly applies here. I love Nicholson's little giggling at his own private jokes, and yet stuff like the experiments on his lover's face makes him so chillingly creepy I still try to shake the heebee jeebies.

3. Magneto - Sir Ian McKellen

Ohyeah. He might not have the sheer mass of the original's physical presence, but otherwise, it's just brilliant. I feel sorry for him, I sympathize with him, I even go very far in agreeing with him - but then he does something terrible which reveals the ugly fact that deep, deep down, Erik Lensherr is a selfish, selfish man whose values are only ever heeded as long as his own security is not on the line. And then three seconds later? You absolutely adore him again, and would elect him world emperor any day. That's exactly the sort of charisma Magneto should have. And it's exactly what McKellen gives him.

2. The Joker - Heath Ledger

Well, what is there to say? Other than there should have been five sequels with Ledger doing the Clown Prince of Crime every time.






1. J. Jonah Jameson - J. K. Simmons

Who else?






So. Which would be YOUR top twelve picks? And which did I forget like a horrid awful person who should wallow in misery and shame for the rest of his days?

Wonder Woman: Mind your head.
Flash: I can't believe you kept that thing.
Wonder Woman: Spoils of war. I like it.
Flash: What do you need a plane for anyway? You can fly.
Green Lantern: You drive a car.
Flash: That is so not the point.

- Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths

Joker, in Arkham Asylum, as Lex Luthor breaks The Riddler out and they refuse to let Joker in on what's going on:

Nigma?! NIGMA!?! You can't DO this to me!

I can leave here whenever I WANT. You know that! I only stay here for as long as I think it's FUNNY!

[the two of them leave, Joker stops screaming, and turns around in his cell, talking to himself]

And it's not funny anymore.

Who watches the Watchmen?

I did! I did! And I'd like to go again! May I go again, mom, pleeeeeease?


Yes, I've now seen Watchmen, the movie based off of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' twelve-issue comic from the mid-eighties. As much of what I've read of Moore's work, it is highly dystopian, and very intelligent. As, er, some of what I've read of Moore's work, it's also rather entertaining. It is certainly very challenging. Frequently referred to as the best graphic novel out there, I must admit that Watchmen is among the heavier reads I've encountered, and few "regular" novels can compete with it for complexity.

It is thus no small wonder that the task of making this into a movie has daunted people from doing so for a long, long while. It is also no small wonder that Mr. Moore is outspokenly negative to the mere idea of making a movie out of any of his work. Too bad for him. While I agree that League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was a rather heavy departure from the source material, V for Vendetta was among the better adaptations I've ever seen. I thus have no problem with the attempt of adaptation of his work in general, though I do believe that when the creator doesn't want you to, you shouldn't, rights or no rights. Even if the creator is a stuck-up elitist who seems to judge people's worth by their amount and IQ-points over 150 and anarchist sympathies.

Still, all that aside, I agreed, Watchmen couldn't be made into a satisfactory movie. I freely admit, I was wrong. This movie satisfied me. Did it cut out some complexities? Yes, of course. Did it change some details and executions to make it work better on screen? Absolutely. And why shouldn't it?

Before seeing it, the one thing I heard most of all from friends and reviewers was how this movie was alright but too enslaved by staying true to the original book to dare being its own thing and thus achieve greatness. My expectations, then, were neither high nor low.

This seems to have been the way to go, expectation-wise, as I greatly enjoyed it. Mind you, it's been years since I read the book. I could simply be forgetting all the little things that made Moore's work superior to this. But I in all honestly felt that the movie stayed true to the comic, whilst also working as a movie. The pacing, so close to the book's own, was a little off in a movie, sure, but they shifted the weight of the narrative just enough that the pacing wasn't too off. And yes, the regular humans in superhero outfits fight as if they're rather superpowered anyway, and yes, the fightscenes are more flashy than in the book. So what? I mean, the only thing this movie remotely fits into, marketing wise, is the superhero-movie staple. Without scenes like this, anyone seeing the movie without having read the book would be thoroughly disappointed, not getting what they expected at all.

My only real problem with the movie, in fact, other than that the pacing could have been slightly better, was its overly long sex-scenes. Particularly two of them got to the point where you're embarrased as the viewer. That's unfortunate, and hurts the pacing further as well. I'm no prude, I don't mind the nudity and the simulated sex on the screen in front of me. I just mind it when it goes on, and on, and on. Two people moaning is not the world's most interesting thing. Still, it's a minor quibble.

All in all, I really and thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Almost as much as I did V for Vendetta, in fact. V had the combined advantages of a smaller cast and a shorter running time, though, making it feel more intense and work better as a movie to begin with. Considering the much more difficult task set to the filmmaker's on this one, I think they did way better than I could ever have imagined when I heard they were finally making it. The visuals are superb, and even though Dr. Manhattan looks about as fake as I expected crappy special effects rarely bother me. The use of music is simply phenomenal. The plots, characters and dialogue are basically all lifted directly from the book, meaning that while the dialogue sometimes might sound slightly off, it always sounds rather awesome, too, and as for the plots and characters, well, if one didn't like it one wouldn't have liked the book. And I did, very much. What remains then, is the acting. I am a very poor judge of these things, but I thought it was rather well done on the whole. Especially the Comedian and Nite Owl seemed spot-on, but I honestly didn't have a problem with any of the characters.

Also, this movie has Roschach. There has ever been another movie that could make that claim.*


I thought it was nifty. And I want to see it again. The only reason I'm not getting this movie a 9 is because I believe it might get overlong on rewatches, and I need to do them before I award it its final 0.5. For now? A very strong 8.5/10



* (If someone comes running with the 300 Easter Egg now, I'll bite. Seriously. With my teeth.)

I have only one rule when dealing with the enemy.

Give them nothing. Not solace, not mercy, not kindness, not torment, not provisions, and, most assuredly...

...not satisfaction.

- Bane,
The Secret Six

I don't want an empire, buddy. Never did. All I want... all I've ever wanted... is to have a good time. And to annoy Batman, whenever possible, of course.

And to one day murder Batman and defile his carcass sexually.

And a pony.

- The Joker,
Batman: Cacophony, Kevin Smith/Walt Flanagan

The canon status of Batman Confidential is apparently questionable, as it deals with telling the stories of major events during Batman's long history, like first meetings between big characters, introductions of staple objects in the Batman mythos, and the like, but seems to, most clearly in their re-telling of The Joker's origin story, be on contradicting terms with established continuity. Despite this, I ended up giving it a read, quite frankly thinking the premise sounded interesting despite by dislike of non-canon material.

The first story arc published in Batman Confidential was Rules of Engagement, which chronicles Bruce Wayne's first meeting with Lex Luthor early in the Batman's career. A very well done story that not only beautifully contrasted the personalities of the DC Universe's most high profile billionaire geniuses but also told a rather believable story of the Batman's first exposure to a sci-fi-level high tech villain, his first team-up with Lucius Fox as Bruce Wayne, and his acquiring the Batwing. True and true a good story that I enjoyed enough to get right on the next one, Lovers and Madmen.

Now this one is a controversial one. It tells us how The Joker came about, but in a very new way. In this incarnation of his origin, Batman created him. "Jack" was an excellent shot, a gifted criminal, an intelligent and able man who never messed up a job. But he was tired of it all, finding no more joy or meaning in his work, and being on the verge of assisted suicide. Then he sees Batman - this man who, while dressed in a silly costume, acts more serious than anyone - and crime becomes fun again. But not perfect, untraceable crime, no - random, brutal crime that pays off in monetary ways only secondary to being unpredictable and gruesome. Batman, towards the end of his first year in the job, becomes first frustrated, then desperate, as he realises that this man is not a criminal he can logically deduct the actions of, but a true madman, and he's at a complete loss for what to do. So he decides to let the mob kill this unpredictable Jack-persona. Beautifully baked into the plot is a romantic subplot where Bruce Wayne meets a woman who makes him sleep all through the night for the first time since his parents were killed. Regretting his decision to cross the line into actively encouraging murder, Batman tries to stop the gangsters, but Jack has already broken free and overpowered them all. The mob boss shoots at him, missing and hitting a tank of chemicals that spill over the Joker, and he's caught under the chemical water for almost five minutes before emerging having swum through the sewer-system, his hair green and his skin white, looking at the moon and laughing maniacally as he finds its face looks like a bunny.
I liked this story, but I must admit, Batman killing someone and also not having predicted the truly insane criminal in all his years of training does, as the would-be-Scarecrow Dr. Crane comments in the story, seem odd. Further, I feel that I can't tell what the chemicals did to really change Jack, other than give him a gimmick. His newfound crimes of joy and brutality were already there, and the change into the Joker was so gradual I didn't really feel like it ever had the potency it could have had. Still, a well-crafted and entertaining story - that also sees the invention of the Batcomputer, sarcastically named by Mr. Pennyworth. I might just keep following this book.

Uhm.



Eh.



Er...


I...

Ah, there's...


Hrm.


So, I've seen Dark Knight.

Specific spoiler-free review after the cut (spoilers generalizing about themes or moods of the movie etc will probably abound, difficult to say anything at all about anything without that) followed by a clearly separated paragraph with spoiler-laden comments that should be easy to avoid.

Read more...

Ah, the much-awaited movie's somewhat less awaited anime-style animated prequel! They do flaunt some interesting names in the credits, though - Brian Azzarello, David S. Goyer, Bruce Timm, to name a few - so I had some expectations.

Batman: Gotham Knight is a miniseries of six short movies made in different animation-styles but with the same voice-actors for the same characters. The movies each have an individual structure, theme and plot, but they take place in the order they're put on the DVD, and they do tie together to form a bigger story bridging Batman's role in Gotham between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

Having Kevin Conroy voice Batman is a great pleasure and a privilege. To me, this is how Batman is supposed to sound. Of course, it does contain a certain feeling of loss, too, as it makes me wish for more of the original Batman the Animated Series instead of all this modern stuff... Hearing Conroy's Batman still sets one heck of a mood, though. And the darker style of these animations totally works with his scary Bat-voice.

The individual stories are better than the whole, I felt, and the focus seems indeed to be on the individual narratives rather than the big picture story. (For instance, animating Alfred into looking like he does in the comics in one episode, thin, balding and with a mustache, and having him look more like Michael Caine in the next, that takes you very much out of the feeling that this is one continuous story)

The first one, Have I Got A Story For You, is clearly inspired by the old Batman Animated-episode Legends of the Dark Knight - and indeed, I hear that episode is included among the bonus material on the two-disc version of this release. Like that one, it features some youngsters of Gotham meeting up to tell each other rather excitedly about their individual recent sightings of the Batman - and their wildly differing experiences of him. Well done story which very well sets the tone of this DVD: we are to see what impression Batman has been making on Gotham since Batman Begins - not follow his personal life. The DVD is about Batman as the Gotham Knight, not as the person. More than any story, this opening one clearly establishes that. Still, it's not that interesting, and probably holds the animation-style I liked the decidedly least of all the six as well. Interestingly, while this is one of the episodes featuring a Batman the furthest removed from the viewer's access, it's maybe the one where he by the end of it appears the most human.

The second one, Crossfire, shows us the look the Gotham police have grown to have on Batman, just like the first one shows how he's seen by the younger crowd among the civilians. Needless to say, this particular episode is thus much darker and grittier. Batman comes off as very impressive, but also as very, very dark and scary. The episode is probably my favourite of the entire DVD, and I have no problems admitting that that's a big reason why.

The third episode is called Field Test, and lets us far closer in on Batman than we have been so far on the DVD. We're actually seeing Bruce Wayne in this episode, and quite a lot, too, and where the first episode dealt with idolisation of Batman and the second of a combination of suspicion and begrudging respect, this episode in the end mainly deals with Batman's limits and ethics. Which is of course a theme closely tied to the first two, but seen more from Batman's own perspective than from the city's.

In Darkness Dwells is written by Goyer, who co-wrote Batman Begins, and it brings back Jonathan Crane as the Scarecrow. This episode features lieutenant Gordon rather heavily, and his uneasy co-operation with the Batman, underlining the odd combination of distrust and respect the two have for each other. It bridges very directly into Working Through Pain, where we finally get truly close to the Dark Knight, following his struggle to get out of the sewers despite his wounds and into safety while thinking back on his training by a rogue fakir in dealing with pain - both external and internal. The episode features his old trauma in relation to guns rather heavily, which neatly sets up the final piece of the DVD.

Deadshot is an interesting way to end the DVD. He's not one of the more famous Batman villains, neither to readers of the comic or more casual fans familiar with the character mainly through other media. He's still a rather interesting and engaging one, and, as portrayed here, rather eerily charming. I've personally not read his original arc in the Batman-comics, but I found myself wondering, as I was watching this, if Batman's gun-trauma was used as interestingly there or not. Because here is a man who is basically the DC universe's version of Marvel's Bullseye, the guy who can hit just about anything, but who unlike Bullseye prefers traditional guns in most situations. Batman has a very big and interesting rogue's gallery, but none so closely tied to the idea of the gun as Deadshot. A very good way to end the DVD, in my opinion, and featuring another of my favourite animations here.

All in all I'd say the disc is recommended for those interested enough to want to see it. However, if the concept of six short animated episodes set between the two major live-action movies sounds uninteresting to you, you'd probably not change your mind watching this. Still, it's done with style and care, and shows both affection for and interest in the character and the franchise on the creators' end. I wholeheartedly applaud the effort.

Originally posted by Terje:

Sometimes, I wonder how “heroes” like these [Green Lantern and Captain Marvel] have managed to survive for 40, 50 years. To the extent that they have, of course.

Because they’re bigger than life, and they are cumulative creations, meaning that as new writers (and I suppose, artists) get assigned to them, their mythology, personalities and identities grow. The ones, for instance, that are originally concieved as too ridiculously powerful becomes iconic, a wonderful foil for other characters or simply interesting sources for stories of how it is for a god to devote his life to protect those who would by all means seem to be less than he (Superman). The very things that make them inherently ridiculous is what makes them iconic, and they’ve had decades of cumulative story-telling creating an often very rich and interesting tapestry of backstory and depth explaining why this seemingly ridiculous trait actually makes sense with the character and the world.

The reason why a story about a guy who wields absolute power through a ring limited only by his imagination and things of the colour yellow becomes iconic and popular is the exact same reason why people told stories about the bull that mounted Europa or Herakles killing the Hydra for centuries. The advantage of the superhero comic books that the faerytales, legends and myths of old never quite could match, though, is the depth of the cumulative qualities. Stories of Herakles would probably get bigger and more impressive, boring bits being cut away and good bits being added, as the centuries went past, true, but nothing in human history can compete with the modern age’s archives of past stories, allowing stories to be built on stories that’s built on other stories. Like the stories of Herakles and Perseus, the stories of the Green Lantern were constructed over a long period of time by many, many story-tellers - but unlike the stories of Herakles and Perseus, the storytellers of DC and Marvel Comics have had a certain (and increasing) amount of joint direction, co-operation and planning that was never available or even doable with similar characters of old.

Why these heroes survive for half a century? You might as well ask why people tell stories.