My own self

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.

Holy mother of cheesecake.



This episode beautifully tied together some minor plot-points of season 4 and 5 with a grand one of season 3 and put it all in context to Lionel's is he evil or is he not-flavoured alignments in recent years. And it did almost all of that in one sentence. To which Lionel, magnificent bastard that he again was is that seen (oh, how I'd missed his confident snarls), lightheartedly replies with a quip, of course.


It might not be the most emotionally powerful episode Smallville's ever had. It might not be the most cleverly spun episode with the most exciting plots. But what it is is a VERY healthy dose of sense and coolness into the convoluted Smallville-continuity. Of course, being the mess that it is, this hardly does the brilliant job of tying off a handful of loose ends let's say "Origin" did on "Angel", but I'd still liken it to it in function. Suddenly, the entire Teague-plot of season 4 becomes very relevant and interesting. Suddenly, the dropped Professor Swann-plotline is brought back. Suddenly, Lionel is manipulative again.

Ah, Lionel. He owned this episode. The poor man is finally trying to do good, and is finally conflicted about his inhumane (inkryptonian?) choices, and he is not believed. I've never seen Lionel hunch before he did so the end of this episode. Let us all pray he isn't broken for good. I want to see that snarl again.

Lex can't get along with people even when he custom designs them! It's so SAD. ;_;

Let's put a smile on that face.

Pure awesomeness.

Very well made, the rhymes are quite good, and the punchline's funny, too. :D

I chose this life. I know what I'm doing. And on any given day, I could stop doing it.

Today, however, isn't that day.


And tomorrow won't be either.

- Bruce Wayne,
in Identity Crisis by Brad Meltzer.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor.

- Dream,
Sandman, by Neil Gaiman

"Hello, Arcane."


"I muh-must look quite a muh-mess... Insect eggs, you know. Huh-hatching, insuh-side me... Very appropriate. Ha ha ha ha... [...] Nuh-no! Wait! Puh-please, before you guh-go...

Huh-how many years have I buh-been here?"


"Since yesterday."



"Yesterday?

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

- Swamp Thing encountering Anton Arcane being tormented in Hell,
Volume 2, Chapter 5: Down Amongst the Dead Men, by Alan Moore.