The second part of the ninth episode of Satacracy 88 is up at itsallinyourhands.com. This series is getting major buzz, now that it won the Emmy. There is also a report about it on the New York Times, and all major newspapers, I think.
In this episode Calloway (Marc Cittadino) recruits a recently brainwashed Arial Zim (Adrain Zaw) to the cause. A lot of information is thrown at the viewer in a big block, which should not work. But it does, because we identify with poor wounded Zim in the first few moments, and are entertained by how overwhelmed he must be.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Live Free or Die Hard Review
I have not seen the first Die Hard in years, but I remember it being one of the best -- maybe the best -- action movie ever. I seem to have blocked out Die Harder and Die Hard with a Vengeance, but I vaguely remember there was something about an airport, and Samuel L Jackson, and the brother of the guy from the first film. I went to see Live Free or Die Hard because it looked like an old fashioned action flick, I love Bruce Willis, and the complaints of the reviews centered on zeitgeist (McClane is like Rocky, and Rambo; Willis and Ford are still in stuff like this in their 50s), and on theme (a movie about tech being bad uses CGI) -- things I do not care about for a film like this.
Also NYC buses featured one of the best ad campaigns I have ever seen -- the side of the bus has a long black rectangle and in over-large block letters that threaten not to fit it says "YIPPIE-KAI-YAY MO" and then it cuts off, as if the curse word simply will not fit. At the bottom, in small letters it says "John 6:27" a parody of a biblical citation that replaces chapter and verse with month and day. Half a quote, and a very common first name that is the name of the main character is all they need to remind me about Die Hard. That kind of stuff gets into your lizard brain. They programed me for this back in 1988. I am only human, for Christ's sake.
The dialogue in Live Free or Die hard is not great, especially at the beginning; many of the "quips" would best be deleted. There is nothing approaching the iconic "Yippie-kai-yay Motherfucker" (Slate had a whole bad article on the phrase, by the way). Also it seems to get a PG-13 rating no one can even say "fuck" which seems absurd, especially as the film wants to allude to this famous line. And the plot and the main bad guy -- whatever, lame Bond stuff. There is a lot of "implement phase 1" stuff and "Do you want to break into the Pentagon? Double click yes" that Eddie Izzard makes fun of. And the cameo (is it a spoiler to say who?) felt unnecessary. Also the film has the black vulcan from Star Trek Voyager in a minor role, which was distracting.
But the film basically does a great job delivering bang-em-up action sets often enough to be satisfying, and fun enough to inspire round after round of applause. The film also smartly ratchets up the audacity (man vs man, car vs helicopter, man and car vs kung-fu chick, Semi Rig vs fighter jet) and the stakes (save a stranger, save a friend, save a daughter). Bruce Willis is such a bull, and the action is all old-school. This film will not, and should not, take on Kill Bill and the Matrix. It smartly stays on its own turf. There is a great line where Willis fights a girl who knows Kung-fu and says "Enough of this Kung-fu shit" and then runs her over with an SUV. That's exactly it. That's what Die Hard is supposed to be about.
One of the complains in the reviews was that McClane was such a relatively regular guy in the first film -- he feared flying, and had a real vulnerability in the famous broken glass scene -- but here he is an indestructible superhero. But to me, this makes sense. The first film, almost 20 years ago, is legendary. McClane can only be a superhuman legend now. The second complaint I heard coming out of the theater follows the same logic -- that Semi-Rig vs Jet fighter was just too much. But it should be too much -- the stakes have to be raised, and the audacity has to go though the roof: you are going to have to do something genuinely ridiculous toward the end of your forth installment. Yeah, its a little dumb, but it is Bruce Willis and I am watching Die Hard, so knock it off.
Also Mary Elizabeth Winstead -- the cheerleader from Death Proof, and the villain in Sky High -- is lovely, and spunky and fun.
Also NYC buses featured one of the best ad campaigns I have ever seen -- the side of the bus has a long black rectangle and in over-large block letters that threaten not to fit it says "YIPPIE-KAI-YAY MO" and then it cuts off, as if the curse word simply will not fit. At the bottom, in small letters it says "John 6:27" a parody of a biblical citation that replaces chapter and verse with month and day. Half a quote, and a very common first name that is the name of the main character is all they need to remind me about Die Hard. That kind of stuff gets into your lizard brain. They programed me for this back in 1988. I am only human, for Christ's sake.
The dialogue in Live Free or Die hard is not great, especially at the beginning; many of the "quips" would best be deleted. There is nothing approaching the iconic "Yippie-kai-yay Motherfucker" (Slate had a whole bad article on the phrase, by the way). Also it seems to get a PG-13 rating no one can even say "fuck" which seems absurd, especially as the film wants to allude to this famous line. And the plot and the main bad guy -- whatever, lame Bond stuff. There is a lot of "implement phase 1" stuff and "Do you want to break into the Pentagon? Double click yes" that Eddie Izzard makes fun of. And the cameo (is it a spoiler to say who?) felt unnecessary. Also the film has the black vulcan from Star Trek Voyager in a minor role, which was distracting.
But the film basically does a great job delivering bang-em-up action sets often enough to be satisfying, and fun enough to inspire round after round of applause. The film also smartly ratchets up the audacity (man vs man, car vs helicopter, man and car vs kung-fu chick, Semi Rig vs fighter jet) and the stakes (save a stranger, save a friend, save a daughter). Bruce Willis is such a bull, and the action is all old-school. This film will not, and should not, take on Kill Bill and the Matrix. It smartly stays on its own turf. There is a great line where Willis fights a girl who knows Kung-fu and says "Enough of this Kung-fu shit" and then runs her over with an SUV. That's exactly it. That's what Die Hard is supposed to be about.
One of the complains in the reviews was that McClane was such a relatively regular guy in the first film -- he feared flying, and had a real vulnerability in the famous broken glass scene -- but here he is an indestructible superhero. But to me, this makes sense. The first film, almost 20 years ago, is legendary. McClane can only be a superhuman legend now. The second complaint I heard coming out of the theater follows the same logic -- that Semi-Rig vs Jet fighter was just too much. But it should be too much -- the stakes have to be raised, and the audacity has to go though the roof: you are going to have to do something genuinely ridiculous toward the end of your forth installment. Yeah, its a little dumb, but it is Bruce Willis and I am watching Die Hard, so knock it off.
Also Mary Elizabeth Winstead -- the cheerleader from Death Proof, and the villain in Sky High -- is lovely, and spunky and fun.
Friday, June 29, 2007
FreeForm Comments
Say whatever you want to in the comments to this post -- random, off topic thoughts, ideas, suggestions, questions, recommendations, criticisms (which can be anonymous), surveys, personal news, self-promotion, and so on.
For my part, too much Kill Bill, Avatar, and a deep love for the new The Immortal Iron Fist comic book have planted a bug in my brain I cannot seem to get rid off. I think I should learn Kung-fu. I think it would go well with my doctorate (I should have a date of my final examination within the month). I am twenty-eight. Is this an awful idea? It feels like a good idea to learn a sport, one without a team, but it also seems a bit like a mid-life crisis.
I found out on wikipedia that "Kung-fu" does not necessarily mean martial art; it just means skill. So the casual use of phrases such as "I am going to break out all my computer-fu and fix your lap top" are not wholly inaccurate, which is kind of funny.
For my part, too much Kill Bill, Avatar, and a deep love for the new The Immortal Iron Fist comic book have planted a bug in my brain I cannot seem to get rid off. I think I should learn Kung-fu. I think it would go well with my doctorate (I should have a date of my final examination within the month). I am twenty-eight. Is this an awful idea? It feels like a good idea to learn a sport, one without a team, but it also seems a bit like a mid-life crisis.
I found out on wikipedia that "Kung-fu" does not necessarily mean martial art; it just means skill. So the casual use of phrases such as "I am going to break out all my computer-fu and fix your lap top" are not wholly inaccurate, which is kind of funny.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Joss Whedon's Astonishing X-Men 1
[I do not know if I am going to stick with this, but trying it seemed like the right thing do to after the Morrison run. I am not committing to a whole issue by issue thing, but I at least want to do this one, and try the next one. Then we will see. Astonishing has the blogging virtues of being 1) not by Morrison (I focus on him too much), 2) related to what we just finished, 3) simple and relatively short, 4) of mixed quality (so I am not just simply complaining, or enthusing).]
Joss Whedon and John Cassaday's Astonishing X-Men #1 can only be properly appreciated in the context of Morrison's New X-Men run. I have mentioned this before, but it is worth noting again -- Morrison and Whedon have a subtle antagonism. Whedon took over Morrison's X-Men, Morrison was thinking of Whedon's "Hush" episode of Buffy during his "silent" New X-Men issue (which ends with the same words Whedon's "Hush" did), and his Vimanarama could not be more Whedonesque if it was fan-fiction.
Whedon's Astonishing opens up with a horror scene of a demonic monster and a little girl. Of course it is primarily just an exciting hook. Formally it features two twist reveals on the same page -- first, the horror turns out to be a dream, then the child's bedroom turns out not to be in a house, but in a facility with two way glass, and a dark figure watching. Whedon always finds the way to turn the screw one more time than you think he will. But this prologue also serves to create continuity between this work and Whedon's Buffy, which was all about little girls and monsters. As in Buffy, the monster and the little girl's relationship is not what it seems. But, twisting that screw again, Astonishing is more than a continuation of Buffy: it is also a return to Buffy's roots, as by his own admission Kitty Pryde, who re-joins the X-Men in this issue, was the inspiration for Buffy (girls who kick ass); I would add she is also the template for the tough girl geeks no Whedon show would be without: Willow (from Buffy), Fred (from Angel) and Kaylee (from Firefly).
Morrison's wild experimentation -- including making a biting commentary that the X-Men franchise is incapable of change -- needed to be reigned in, and so Marvel made the dramatic hire of the high profile Whedon to fix the insanity, and make it stick. This issue is the counter to Morrison's first issue.
Morrison's first line of his first issue was Cyclops telling Wolverine "You can probably stop doing that now." The narrative point was that Wolverine had probably busted the sentinel enough, but the line also served as an announcement of Morrison's initial aim -- the X-men should stop repeating themselves, stop doing what they have been doing, and aim for something new. Compare this to Whedon's first (proper) line. After the prologue the first words of Astonishing #1 are Kitty Pryde returning home and thinking "Nothing has changed." She remarks that the mansion has been rebuilt (from Morrison's Magneto attack) just the way it was because Professor X would want to "give everyone a sense of stability, of continuity." Instead of radically redesigned costumes we get visual representations of memories, scenes from old comic books, just to make sure we understand Whedon's double meaning on the word continuity -- this is about comic book continuity. Morrison, Whedon implies, changed too much, ignored the continuity of, for example, the current design of the Beast.
Morrison's first issue featured classic sentinels being destroyed and redesigned ones being created; Whedon has classic sentinels appear to attack the school, but they are only danger room illusions. What Morrison does in his first issue, Whedon deftly counters point by point.
In his first issue Morrison had the X-Men meet in a virtual place (Xavier's mind-scape) and discuss their new costumes and the fact that they never were superheroes (both excellent examples of Morrison's major revisions). In Whedon's first issue he has the X-Men meet in a virtual place (an illusory Danger Room landscape) to discuss the opposite -- getting back into their old outfits and being old-fashioned superheros again. "All the black leather is making people nervous" Scott says of the Morrison uniforms. (Were they making Marvel nervous because Morrison's NXM was not selling as well as they wanted?). Where Morrison gave us stylized fashion spreads, Whedon gives us a drab locker-room with Kitty and Emma changing clothes realistically -- no pop sexy here. "The spandex goes on one leg at a time, just like everybody else" he seems to be saying.
As much as Morrison put his stamp on the book, Whedon does too, as much as he can. Kitty apologizes to Emma for being late with "I'm sorry. I was busy remembering to put on all my clothes." As Scott and Wolverine fight over the memory of Jean, Emma says "Superpowers, a scintillating wit, and the best body money can buy, and I still rate below a corpse." Standing in a miniature Hawaii Kitty just blurts out "Now I have cloud hair." Emma makes fun of Kitty's many code names. Whedon counters Morrison on many points, but he embraces fully the auteur status Morrison had.
Cassaday is great, though he uses photo-realistic elements, such as carpet patterns, to poor effect, and he fails to sell the key moment in the book -- The X-Men in costume. I do not understand the purpose of placing them so far back in the frame, and at an angle like that. Ord and Dr. Rao I will save for later.
Whedon's first issue is solid on its own merits, and his run stands well against Morrison's run. But in this issue he fails by taking on Morrison's incredible first issue so directly, and comes off as more stodgy and conservative than he deserves. To be fair Whedon may be bowing to editorial pressure to put the X-Men back in uniform, for example, but once he takes on the book we get to blame him for stuff like that, as surely as a soldier is fair game to shoot at, even though he did not start, nor does he control, the war.
Joss Whedon and John Cassaday's Astonishing X-Men #1 can only be properly appreciated in the context of Morrison's New X-Men run. I have mentioned this before, but it is worth noting again -- Morrison and Whedon have a subtle antagonism. Whedon took over Morrison's X-Men, Morrison was thinking of Whedon's "Hush" episode of Buffy during his "silent" New X-Men issue (which ends with the same words Whedon's "Hush" did), and his Vimanarama could not be more Whedonesque if it was fan-fiction.
Whedon's Astonishing opens up with a horror scene of a demonic monster and a little girl. Of course it is primarily just an exciting hook. Formally it features two twist reveals on the same page -- first, the horror turns out to be a dream, then the child's bedroom turns out not to be in a house, but in a facility with two way glass, and a dark figure watching. Whedon always finds the way to turn the screw one more time than you think he will. But this prologue also serves to create continuity between this work and Whedon's Buffy, which was all about little girls and monsters. As in Buffy, the monster and the little girl's relationship is not what it seems. But, twisting that screw again, Astonishing is more than a continuation of Buffy: it is also a return to Buffy's roots, as by his own admission Kitty Pryde, who re-joins the X-Men in this issue, was the inspiration for Buffy (girls who kick ass); I would add she is also the template for the tough girl geeks no Whedon show would be without: Willow (from Buffy), Fred (from Angel) and Kaylee (from Firefly).
Morrison's wild experimentation -- including making a biting commentary that the X-Men franchise is incapable of change -- needed to be reigned in, and so Marvel made the dramatic hire of the high profile Whedon to fix the insanity, and make it stick. This issue is the counter to Morrison's first issue.
Morrison's first line of his first issue was Cyclops telling Wolverine "You can probably stop doing that now." The narrative point was that Wolverine had probably busted the sentinel enough, but the line also served as an announcement of Morrison's initial aim -- the X-men should stop repeating themselves, stop doing what they have been doing, and aim for something new. Compare this to Whedon's first (proper) line. After the prologue the first words of Astonishing #1 are Kitty Pryde returning home and thinking "Nothing has changed." She remarks that the mansion has been rebuilt (from Morrison's Magneto attack) just the way it was because Professor X would want to "give everyone a sense of stability, of continuity." Instead of radically redesigned costumes we get visual representations of memories, scenes from old comic books, just to make sure we understand Whedon's double meaning on the word continuity -- this is about comic book continuity. Morrison, Whedon implies, changed too much, ignored the continuity of, for example, the current design of the Beast.
Morrison's first issue featured classic sentinels being destroyed and redesigned ones being created; Whedon has classic sentinels appear to attack the school, but they are only danger room illusions. What Morrison does in his first issue, Whedon deftly counters point by point.
In his first issue Morrison had the X-Men meet in a virtual place (Xavier's mind-scape) and discuss their new costumes and the fact that they never were superheroes (both excellent examples of Morrison's major revisions). In Whedon's first issue he has the X-Men meet in a virtual place (an illusory Danger Room landscape) to discuss the opposite -- getting back into their old outfits and being old-fashioned superheros again. "All the black leather is making people nervous" Scott says of the Morrison uniforms. (Were they making Marvel nervous because Morrison's NXM was not selling as well as they wanted?). Where Morrison gave us stylized fashion spreads, Whedon gives us a drab locker-room with Kitty and Emma changing clothes realistically -- no pop sexy here. "The spandex goes on one leg at a time, just like everybody else" he seems to be saying.
As much as Morrison put his stamp on the book, Whedon does too, as much as he can. Kitty apologizes to Emma for being late with "I'm sorry. I was busy remembering to put on all my clothes." As Scott and Wolverine fight over the memory of Jean, Emma says "Superpowers, a scintillating wit, and the best body money can buy, and I still rate below a corpse." Standing in a miniature Hawaii Kitty just blurts out "Now I have cloud hair." Emma makes fun of Kitty's many code names. Whedon counters Morrison on many points, but he embraces fully the auteur status Morrison had.
Cassaday is great, though he uses photo-realistic elements, such as carpet patterns, to poor effect, and he fails to sell the key moment in the book -- The X-Men in costume. I do not understand the purpose of placing them so far back in the frame, and at an angle like that. Ord and Dr. Rao I will save for later.
Whedon's first issue is solid on its own merits, and his run stands well against Morrison's run. But in this issue he fails by taking on Morrison's incredible first issue so directly, and comes off as more stodgy and conservative than he deserves. To be fair Whedon may be bowing to editorial pressure to put the X-Men back in uniform, for example, but once he takes on the book we get to blame him for stuff like that, as surely as a soldier is fair game to shoot at, even though he did not start, nor does he control, the war.
Comics Out June 27, 2007
Matt Fraction, Ed Brubaker and David Aja's The Immortal Iron Fist 6. This ends the first arc and it is just flawless -- perfect on every front -- art, story, dialogue, concept -- including the fact that it ships without delay. I have never in my life wanted a comic book to be able to say "motherfucking." The line is the best one in the book, and there are more than a few great lines. I have not mentioned Matt Hollingsworth, but the colors on this things are just fantastic. "More kicking" (a line from the issue), Heroes for Hire, good jokes about gay marriage, cute girls with swords. Perfection, in comic book form.
Mike Mignola and Duncan Fegredo's Hellboy: Darkness Calls 3. I feel thie same way about this as I feel about every Hellboy comic -- the art is great, the character is too passive. Mignola just has him wander around in mythological stories he has read.
Mike Carey, Humberto Ramos and Chris Bachalo's X-Men 200. Yeah, whatever. This was super boring, and Bachalo only drew 12 pages of it (though they made the wise decision for him to draw one whole subplot so the art was not just random). It is supposed too kick of some big new thing, but it was just old people showing up, very vague allusions to some big bad, and traitors (lame). Bachalo is always great, I do not care what people say. The backup story is supposed to lead up to the next big X-Men event, but it was also super lame.
In Comics News: Newsarama has a preview of Matt Fraction's The Order, an interview with Barry Kitson (the artist), and interview with Matt Fraction.
Review, recommend, and discuss this week's comics and comics news.
Mike Mignola and Duncan Fegredo's Hellboy: Darkness Calls 3. I feel thie same way about this as I feel about every Hellboy comic -- the art is great, the character is too passive. Mignola just has him wander around in mythological stories he has read.
Mike Carey, Humberto Ramos and Chris Bachalo's X-Men 200. Yeah, whatever. This was super boring, and Bachalo only drew 12 pages of it (though they made the wise decision for him to draw one whole subplot so the art was not just random). It is supposed too kick of some big new thing, but it was just old people showing up, very vague allusions to some big bad, and traitors (lame). Bachalo is always great, I do not care what people say. The backup story is supposed to lead up to the next big X-Men event, but it was also super lame.
In Comics News: Newsarama has a preview of Matt Fraction's The Order, an interview with Barry Kitson (the artist), and interview with Matt Fraction.
Review, recommend, and discuss this week's comics and comics news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
