I've started collecting comics recently, and I feel it's about time I started reviewing 'em. For today, I'll be reviewing the miniseries The Dark Mirror from Detective Comics #871-73.
First, let me set up the ground rules for future comic reviews: I'll be reviewing miniseries and/or one-shots since I don't have the time to do individual issues. To set the perameters: A+ is Batman: The Long Halloween while F is Batman: Fortunate Son. Both of which I've personally read and both of which I believe best represents the standards of an excellent and horrible comic, respectively.
Dick Grayson's still breaking in the ol' cape and cowl while a particularly gruesome case surfaces. Someone's selling supervillian paraphernalia and distributing it to the bored, thrill-seeking socialites and millionaires of Gotham. Further investigation uncovers the Glass House auctions led by "The Dealer" in which iconic items such as Killer Croc's mutagen, Dr. Langston's Man-Bat Juice, and most sickening of all, a bloodstained crowbar rumored to be the one that the Joker used to kill former Robin Jason Todd. Grayson goes undercover and faces a darker underbelly than he ever imagined and questions his capabilities as the new Batman.
Detective Comics is taking a more genre emphasis in the numerous Batman series. To whit, it's a heady and visceral mix of horror and noir, and the seediest and creepiest that Gotham has to offer is put front and center. The best example would be how the members of the Glass House auctions all wear gas masks to block out the insanity poison that not only make them look creepy but also make them eerily reminiscent of the Combine foot troops from Half-Life 2. The art style as done by Jock is especially effective in conveying these themes. It's too bad that I'm not well versed in comics enough to compare, but Jock's work effectively portrays Gotham as Silent Hill.
I especially enjoyed Scott Snyder's writing, as it's a moment where Grayson's youthful optimism is shattered for all it's worth. Gone are the days where he was the free-willed youth bounding above Gotham at Batman's side; all the remains is the ugly truth that Gotham's depravity knows no bounds. This level of depravity is best represented in the auctioneer themselves: a group of bored rich people who've taken on an almost cult-like worship of the Rouges Gallery. They literally turn into a pit of animals trying to rip off any piece of Grayson's body they can get.
Overall the series is a very engaging read. I look forward to the Snyder/Jock collaboration in the future, and despite the fact that I'm a casual Batman Comic fan I never felt out of the loop of these recent developments such as Grayson as the new Batman. An exceptional work overall.
Final Grade: A. Snyder and Jock are exploiting the dark and depraved of Gotham for all it's worth and I'm enjoying every bit of it.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Why I'm not looking foward to the Avengers Film
As a fellow geek, I try to keep myself on the pulse of current geek events, culture, and controversy. ONe of the biggest events in recent memory would be the announced Avengers film. Geek icons from Moviebob to Linkara have all announced their anticipation for the film, as it marks the culmination of a huge compilation of the finest Marvel superheroes to date and their respective film franchises: The Huk, Iron Man, Spider-Man, X-Men, and recently Captain America. Ten long years of ups and downs for the Marvel film franchise, it looks like this should be the defining moment of the comic film genre....
...one that I'm not looking forward to at all.
First, let me make my biases apparent: I'm a DC fan, primarily for Batman. My first cartoon was Batman: The Animated Series. My first comic was Legends; I consider The Dark Knight to be the best film of the first decade of the new millennium. You're in full right to call me out on having my biases blind me from something great. However, I'm also looking at it from a critic point of view. I prescribe to Murphy's law, and it applies to Marvel's goals and aspirations for the Avengers project.
First, let's look at Marvel Studio's track reccord. For every Iron Man we have a Fantastic Four or a Ang Lee Hulk or even a Spider-Man 3. The track record is 1 good film for every 3 bad ones. Now to be fair, DC has had its share of duds (Batman and Robin, etc.) But what DC has over Marvel is better quality control thanks to the fact that DC is a subsidy of Warner Bros. With one studio overseeing the whole thing, there's better management as opposed to several different studios working from the same source material. Marvel Studios' main collaborators have been Paramount, Universal, Fox, and Sony. With so many different production companies, quality control is going to be inconsistent. I wholeheartedly blame Sony for the mess that is Spider-Man 3, as it was Sony who wanted to cram Venom and Gwen Stacy into an allready stuffed film and not Sam Rami. With Batman and Superman, it's all being distributed by Legendary Pictures and produced by the genius that is Christopher Nolan. Even the Green Lantern film is being directed by Martin Campbell who has serious directing chops. Too many cooks spoil the stew, and when you have too many distributors working on your films, it's a lot harder to keep an handle on your firms.
The second and final point is that the Avengers is an ensemble piece. Murphy's law dictates that the individual films will be rushed in order to accommodate the big film. We have a new film, X Men, Thor, and Captain America films debuting this year. Next year will be the Avengers and the Spider-Man reboot sans Sam Rami. Now the reason Spider-Man is getting a reboot is because of Sony's own Executive Meddling and the result was that Spider-Man 3 bombed. It's clear that with three films in the same year Mavel's rushing the prodject in order to get the big show on the way. When you do that, the individual parts become weak as less time is given to flesh out each individual character. I have to agree with Nolan's stance on no Justice League film. Batman's strengths lie in his solidarity; this is the Dark Knight who fights and works for the most part alone. He doesn't need a Robin or even Superman to help him fight crime. Likewise, the Superman franchise is very much a wild card. The previous effort was mediocre at best while others (III with Richard Pryor and IV with a heavy handed nuclear Aesop) were particularly bad. Superman needs time to fully develop, and any move to rush him for an ensemble piece would only make things much worse than they already are. We can see a similar predicament with Captain America: his previous films have all been bad, and Marvel's move to speed up an Avenger film a year away from Captain America's reboot spells disaster.
Despite my criticisms, I am a firm believer of giving others the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Marvel can pull it off and produce well made self-contained films and an ensemble piece within the span of two years. I, as always, will remain skeptical of the final product. In the meantime, I'll look foward to what a proven director and a proven cast can do come '12...
...one that I'm not looking forward to at all.
First, let me make my biases apparent: I'm a DC fan, primarily for Batman. My first cartoon was Batman: The Animated Series. My first comic was Legends; I consider The Dark Knight to be the best film of the first decade of the new millennium. You're in full right to call me out on having my biases blind me from something great. However, I'm also looking at it from a critic point of view. I prescribe to Murphy's law, and it applies to Marvel's goals and aspirations for the Avengers project.
First, let's look at Marvel Studio's track reccord. For every Iron Man we have a Fantastic Four or a Ang Lee Hulk or even a Spider-Man 3. The track record is 1 good film for every 3 bad ones. Now to be fair, DC has had its share of duds (Batman and Robin, etc.) But what DC has over Marvel is better quality control thanks to the fact that DC is a subsidy of Warner Bros. With one studio overseeing the whole thing, there's better management as opposed to several different studios working from the same source material. Marvel Studios' main collaborators have been Paramount, Universal, Fox, and Sony. With so many different production companies, quality control is going to be inconsistent. I wholeheartedly blame Sony for the mess that is Spider-Man 3, as it was Sony who wanted to cram Venom and Gwen Stacy into an allready stuffed film and not Sam Rami. With Batman and Superman, it's all being distributed by Legendary Pictures and produced by the genius that is Christopher Nolan. Even the Green Lantern film is being directed by Martin Campbell who has serious directing chops. Too many cooks spoil the stew, and when you have too many distributors working on your films, it's a lot harder to keep an handle on your firms.
The second and final point is that the Avengers is an ensemble piece. Murphy's law dictates that the individual films will be rushed in order to accommodate the big film. We have a new film, X Men, Thor, and Captain America films debuting this year. Next year will be the Avengers and the Spider-Man reboot sans Sam Rami. Now the reason Spider-Man is getting a reboot is because of Sony's own Executive Meddling and the result was that Spider-Man 3 bombed. It's clear that with three films in the same year Mavel's rushing the prodject in order to get the big show on the way. When you do that, the individual parts become weak as less time is given to flesh out each individual character. I have to agree with Nolan's stance on no Justice League film. Batman's strengths lie in his solidarity; this is the Dark Knight who fights and works for the most part alone. He doesn't need a Robin or even Superman to help him fight crime. Likewise, the Superman franchise is very much a wild card. The previous effort was mediocre at best while others (III with Richard Pryor and IV with a heavy handed nuclear Aesop) were particularly bad. Superman needs time to fully develop, and any move to rush him for an ensemble piece would only make things much worse than they already are. We can see a similar predicament with Captain America: his previous films have all been bad, and Marvel's move to speed up an Avenger film a year away from Captain America's reboot spells disaster.
Despite my criticisms, I am a firm believer of giving others the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Marvel can pull it off and produce well made self-contained films and an ensemble piece within the span of two years. I, as always, will remain skeptical of the final product. In the meantime, I'll look foward to what a proven director and a proven cast can do come '12...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)