Stranger Things Review

It's unusual today to become aware of a new movie or television series only a few weeks before its debut. In 2016, popular entertainment is usually telegraphed online, months if not years in advance, providing ample time for companies to churn out numerous trailers, promotional material, comic con hype and press conferences. Entertainment blogs and websites, in turn, have a field day writing speculative articles, spreading rumors, and nitpicking every production decision before they see the finished product.

I don't know how long Stranger Things had been marketed to the public before its premiere last Friday, July 15. I cruise several entertainment blogs and hadn't heard anything about it until I stumbled on the second trailer about two weeks ago. Maybe I was out of the loop, but Stranger Things appears to have had a quiet buildup and roll-out. That's fine, because if the quality of the show generates the buzz it deserves, the series is going to earn widespread love gradually, the old-fashioned way. Stranger Things is a near-perfect course study in suspense storytelling, layered with homage to genre films of the 1980s with simple but satisfying character arcs-- a story that follows a tried-and-true formula with infectious fondness and gravitas.

When the story opens on four preadolescent nerds playing Dungeons & Dragons in 1983, it's immediately apparent who the show is meant for. If you've seen E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, the Goonies, Wargames or any any of their ilk representing a specific kind of kids' adventure movies from the 1980s, you already know the meat and potatoes of Stranger Things. It also channels oldschool Stephen King and is decidedly more mature than the aforementioned movies, understanding that its primary audience will be adults longing to relive the stories of their youth. Staples of the genre such as government conspiracy, unexplained phenomena and very real danger that would be considered too violent for today's coddled kids are all on full display in Stranger Things.

Mike, Will, Lucas and Dustin are a close-knit quartet of kids whose world is shattered when Will, on the way home from a 10-hour role-playing marathon, disappears. From that setup, the series interweaves three sub-plots, neatly divided between the children, their teenage siblings, and the adults in their lives, into a larger narrative as the search for Will gets underway. That trichotomy allows for a comprehensive homage to 80s films that follow similar plots, and the greatest achievement of the series is that while a well-trodden (but not unwelcome) formula plays out, it subverts tropes often enough to stay fresh. It feels like a mini-series from the 1980s that you just missed until it showed up in your Netflix recommendations.

Breakout characters in the cast include Winona Ryder as Will's mother Joyce and David Harbour as Police Chief Hopper. Their "B" story kicks off as Joyce believes she is receiving messages from Will, wherever he is, while everyone around her naturally believes she is crazy. Hopper, influenced by the loss of his own daughter and subsequent dissolution of his marriage, is inclined to believe in Joyce's frantic, desperate hope that her son might be alive. Some have accused Ryder of overacting the part of the manic mother of a lost child-- I thought the level at which she played Joyce's intense gauntlet of emotions was probably spot on for the situation. Harbour is usually understated in his performance, with emotion brewing just below the surface, and is a good foil for Joyce.

Then there's Eleven, the biggest piece of the puzzle. Played by young Millie Bobby Brown, "Elle" (as the boys rename her) is a sensation in every scene. It's apparent early on, when she emerges in a torn hospital gown from the forest outside of town, that she holds the key to solving Will's disappearance. Her story is told through disjointed flashbacks and to a lab, a cell, an endless void-- the places nightmares are made of. She's the kind of character who can make your hair stand on end with just a few soft-spoken words, a living treasure trove of secrets that reveal themselves gradually as Stranger Things's mythos falls into place.

If there's a weak link at all in Stranger Things, it's the middle subplot, that of the teenagers. More than the others, it's filled with cliches-- although in a nostalgia piece like this, that could be seen as a positive. Will and Mike's siblings, Nancy and Jonathan, are more focused on their relationships and high school drama than facing an unknown, horrifying force that may be stalking them, but to be honest, that might be an accurate representation of average teenagers. I hesitate to say they detract from the show, however, because they're never given an overbearing amount of screen time.

Scared teens? Check. Unseen evil? Check. Bike escape scenes? Check (with apologies to Henry Thomas). To say much more would risk spoiling the series and its mysteries, so I won't. I'll conclude by saying that, outside of the Marvel series, there are only a handful of Netflix originals that qualify as must-see viewing. Stranger Things is one of them. At a trim 8 episodes, you can watch it in a single Saturday, like the 400-minute movie it really is.

Civil War Mini-Review and Box Office Performance Analysis

A few weeks after it might have been relevant, I would like to post some thoughts on Captain America: Civil War, and also take the opportunity to do some analysis of its box office returns and how to interpret them.

I generally don't like comic book stories that put superheroes against each other. I am in the minority that didn't like the Civil War comic series that came out in the mid-2000s, both because the focus was on hero-vs.hero and because I felt like it made superheroes "too real." An accident in a superhero fight that killed a few city block's worth of people was the catalyst for the debate on superhero registration, as I recall, and much like DC's depressing "Identity Crisis" series, it's just more realism than should define "escapist" entertainment.

That all being said, I liked the big-screen Civil War. First of all, it has almost nothing to do with the comic, only that it pits Captain America against Iron Man in a philosophical argument that inevitably turns physical. But the reasons are all different and more relatable to the audience. While Steve Rogers is fundamentally opposed to the idea of putting the Avengers under the control of the UN, his more immediate motivation is protecting Bucky. Tony Stark, whom the movie depicts as far less pigheaded than in the comic, is motivated to support UN oversight by the fallout of a battle that was a direct result of his hubris and error (the creation of Ultron).

The big hero-vs.hero fight that everyone is talking about is indeed excellent. I liked it best for the opportunities it gave for certain Marvel Cinematic Universe characters to shine. Most notably and unexpectedly, Ant-Man stole the show and satisfied that Paul Rudd's quirky charm would fit right in with the other Avengers. The Scarlet Witch also got a lot of subtle yet satisfying development, as an individual growing into her powers and as a foil for potential romantic interest Vision.

And then, of course, there are the newcomers. Black Panther met expectations with a strong introduction and performance by Chadwick Boseman, who impressed me a couple years ago as Jackie Robinson in 42. He will be an excellent lead in the Black Panther movie that's in the pipeline. The other big draw of the movie for many fans was the MCU version of Spider-Man, played this time by Tom Holland. I was not as enthused about this; frankly I've got Spider-Man burnout at this point with this being his third reboot. But Holland delivered a spot-on performance. I've got no qualms with his becoming part of the MCU, but I could really take or leave him.

Although I liked the movie, I do think it would have been better as an actual Avengers installment. With CW rounding out the Captain America trilogy, it's becoming clear that Marvel is going to ignore what I consider to be the most iconic storyline of his run (this side of Winter Soldier at least)-- namely, Cap's renouncing of his title and his replacement by the US Agent. It's perfectly understandable why they want to ignore what could be a very controversial story about loyalty to country, as well as the power of the military-industrial complex. I know they'll never tackle that, but I can't help but feel it's a missed opportunity.

Just as interesting as the movie, to an industry enthusiast like myself, is how Civil War is performing compared to expectations, the rest of the MCU, and of course, to Batman v Superman. Predictions were all over the place. Those who saw CW as "Avengers 2.5" predicted high, while at the opposite end of the spectrum were those who predicted that "superhero fatigue" would hurt returns. Both of those approaches were misguided, and CW has performed to exactly the middle.

Cap 1 earned a respectable $176 million domestic as the MCU built towards the first Avengers film. The phenomenal success of that inaugural superhero team-up fueled inflated returns for the movies that followed it (Iron Man 3 was the clearest beneficiary with $409 million domestic). That and the fact that Winter Soldier was a fantastic action thriller (in my opinion, Marvel's best movie) helped it exceed the first Cap by over 40%. And now, as of this writing, Cap 3 is on track to build on Cap 2's cume by 50%.

So much for superhero fatigue. Naysayers feared that the poor quality of Batman v Superman would hurt Civil War, because A) the typical non-geek moviegoer doesn't make the distinction between Marvel and DC, and B) it would sour them on the concept of superheroes fighting each other. Obviously that didn't happen. And, while the average person probably couldn't tell you which superheroes are DC and which are Marvel, I think they understand that the MCU characters inhabit a universe that is separate from that of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman. They've seen Cap and co. on screen together enough times to get that by now.

But, there is a flipside to that familiarity, and to the increasing interconnectedness of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's the same problem that comics have faced for decades now, a factor that has contributed to the slow erosion of comic sales. The more expansive and complex you make a universe, the more investment you ask from your audience to become a part of it, and the more difficult you make it for a new viewer to "jump on." The comics industry is always talking about "jumping on" points in comics-- in fact, they frame many of their event books that way in order to attract hesitant newcomers.

Think then, for a moment, about how much you need to know going in to understand Civil War. Cap 2 was removed enough from Cap 1 to function as a standalone movie, but Cap 3? No way. Cap 2 and Age of Ultron are required viewing for Cap 3, and Avengers 1, Iron Man 3 and Ant-Man if you want to be thorough. The increasing necessity of audience investment allows for great, expansive storytelling, but it also presents a growing challenge to the filmmakers to keep each movie accessible.

I remember watching the same thing happen over six years with my favorite TV show, LOST. While the show was a hit for its entire run, it did see its average ratings slip by over a third from the first season to the last. In part, that was because the show had become so complex, and the narrative so dependent on seeing everything that had come before it, that it was virtually impossible to jump off the train for even a few episodes and be able to successfully jump back on. The MCU's problem isn't quite as severe, but I believe it will play at least a small role in attendance of the movies as the franchise moves forward.

All this begs the question: is there a "ceiling" for Marvel movies' box office gross? Really, the only people who are asking that question are the ones who had unrealistic expectations for the movie, or those subscribing to the notion of superhero fatigue. As I laid out already, Civil War is performing to exactly what should have been expected of it from the start. Comparing it (or any other Marvel movie, including Age of Ultron) to the Avengers' box office is misguided. A movie like The Avengers comes along once or twice in a generation. It was the culmination of a franchise-building strategy that had never been attempted before, the novelty of which accounts for some of its ticket sales and cannot, by definition, be repeated.

Industry watchers should expect the Marvel movies to continue to perform like other franchise blockbusters. The good ones will make a lot of money. The not-as-good ones will do okay, having decent opening weekends based on brand recognition. I expect that almost all of them will at least be profitable (only 2008's The Incredible Hulk was a loss for the studio). Even the occasional ho-hum entry shouldn't affect their momentum as long as most of them are good. I doubt any will make Avengers numbers again, but that's not necessary for Marvel to claim dominance of comic book movies.

Lastly, and inevitably, we have to compare Civil War to Batman v Superman. More accurately, there is no comparison. The parallels are obvious, but so are the glaring contrasts. Cap 3 has a 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes; BvS has 27%. Cap 3 has already joined the billion-dollar club in worldwide gross; BvS is limping its way to $875 million. But the biggest contrast lies in audience reaction to the movies and the resulting good will (or lack thereof) going forward.

 
By all accounts of MCU devotees, Civil War has met or exceeded their expectations, and has audiences pumped for upcoming movies like the Black Panther and Spider-Man solos, and of course, the next Avengers installments. Batman v Superman, though it has earned enough money to be profitable, has cast a dark shadow of trepidation on the future of the DC Cinematic Universe. We've been burned twice now with Man of Steel and BvS, and many are wondering when, if ever, we are going to see a genuinely good DCCU movie. Suicide Squad? Maybe. Wonder Woman? Possibly. The chances are higher with anything not helmed by Zack Snyder, but like a virus, his handiwork has infected the entire brand to the extent that predicted production shakeups inside WB have indeed come to pass. As a comic reader who prefers the DC Universe, I live in hope that the movies will eventually find their footing.

The Marvel Cinematice Universe continues this November with Dr. Strange. I know you'll be there.

Is Batman v Superman a Success?

Opinions are varying wildly among analysts, fans and critics over whether Batman v Superman's box office performance thus far, along with its projected final earnings when it leaves theaters in the coming weeks, should be considered a success or a failure. To a good extent, those assessments are falling along the "party lines" of those who enjoy and defend the movie, and those who were profoundly disappointed in it. If you've read my earlier posts, you know my opinion, but I'm going to attempt an objective analysis here.

As of this Monday morning, BvS' worldwide gross stands at $783 million, with $296 million of that coming from the United States. It's mind-boggling to think that the success of a movie that has earned three quarters of a billion dollars in three weeks could even be up for debate, but consider the following: BvS' box office fell off 69% in its second weekend, and another 54% this weekend. Those are huge drops, even for a front-loaded tentpole movie, and they all but cancel out the promising $166 million that BvS earned on its opening weekend.

As it stands, BvS will struggle to earn $350 million in North America. Now, consider that Marvel's Guardians of Galaxy, a movie featuring heroes no one in the mainstream public had ever heard of (including a talking raccoon and tree), earned $333 million domestically. When you consider that a movie starring the two most iconic superheroes of all time will make roughly the same, it gives you a fair idea of what should have been versus what will ultimately come to pass. I think it's fair to say that the movie will not live up to the hopes Warner Bros. had for it, just as it has failed to pass muster with a majority of fans and critics.

But does that mean it was an outright failure? Not necessarily. Though it will not join the billion-dollar club, as it could have easily done if it were a better product, the movie will still break even when box office, home video, and merchandise sales are tallied, and probably make a small profit for WB. Supporters are also quick to point out that its final box office take will likely eclipse all but three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies-- Avengers, Age of Ultron and Iron Man 3. It has also outgrossed its prequel, Man of Steel, which is laudable for any franchise film.

To me, the question of BvS' success or failure comes down to two factors: expectation vs. reality, and the intangible outcome rather than the financial. I've already said that the movie will not meet WB's financial expectations, but obviously, more was at stake with this movie. BvS was intended to launch an entire DC Comics cinematic universe, a chain of blockbuster films to rival the Marvel Cinematic Universe for years to come. There's every reason to believe that anticipation for those upcoming movies will be affected not only by how well they were teased in BvS, but also by what people thought of this inaugural outing.

(As a side note, I continue to find it amusing and somewhat disingenuous that we have all collectively consented to refer to BvS as the foundation of the DCCU. In fact, that's the role WB was hoping Man of Steel would fill. When that movie also underperformed and also met with mixed reviews, they changed their plans to shoehorn Batman into the films earlier than was intended. It smacks a little of revisionist history to act like we haven't see all of this unfold before, and to pretend that WB isn't just preparing to kick the can down the street again.)

The unavoidable fact that WB has to confront, regardless of box office intake, is that BvS has weakened the DC cinematic brand. The movie has its supporters, and that has to be respected, but the majority of moviegoers have had reactions ranging from ambivalence to outrage. By contrast, for its opening act, Marvel took a B-list comic hero and built an action-packed, funny, endearing, and insanely popular franchise around him. The following films featuring Hulk, Thor and Captain America boosted enthusiasm for the slow build to the ultimate crossover, The Avengers.

Instead of riding the roller coaster of all that goodwill, the DCCU now has BvS to thank for starting things off on a deficit. The best thing that Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman and the other upcoming films have in their favor is that they are NOT directed by Zack Snyder. Even so, and even if they are excellent movies with great reviews, they will still be in a position of having to earn back viewers' trust. THAT is the biggest failure of Batman v Superman. And it's not an insignificant one.

More Batman v Superman Reaction

Despite overwhelmingly negative reviews and mixed fan reaction, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice earned a massive $424 million dollars worldwide this weekend, with $170 million of that coming from North America. This total is somewhat influenced by the fact that BvS opened in more countries simultaneously than is typical of a big budget blockbuster movie, but there's no denying its massive success. It's fairly certain now that it will join the billion-dollar club, meeting WB's hopes and expectations for the lead-in to their other franchise movies.

Amidst all the hate the movie is receiving (of which I am a participant), it's easy to forget that many movies that get terrible reviews end up with massive box office totals. Many of us had become so accustomed to the overlap of quality and financial success in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that it was easy to forget that movies like Transformers and the Star Wars prequels earned huge box office returns. Mainstream moviegoers usually don't care what critics say, and are looking for a different kind of escapist entertainment for their dollar. These are the silent majority, who don't post online about their satisfaction with a movie, but show up based on trailers and their own visceral instinct of what they want to see.

There's no denying that BvS is full of pretty special effects to look at, though I wonder whether average audiences found themselves bored in the first hour of the film, which is almost entirely devoid of 'splosions. I also wonder, for those who don't actually analyze films or study the craft of moviemaking, if they found themselves not enjoying the movie as much as they hoped, even if they aren't able to articulate why. Or, on the other hand, do they just love it despite all its flaws because they're looking for nothing more than a passing adrenaline rush fueled by effects and violence?

It would be arrogant for me to suggest that positive reaction to a movie that's reviled by critics and hardcore fans is "wrong" or "idiotic." I do my best to avoid that inclination. My dissatisfaction with a movie shouldn't be the standard by which everyone else's tastes are measured. And while I find BvS to be a deeply flawed movie devoid of the spirit of the comic books and iconic characters from which it is sprung, I guess a lot of people don't see it that way.

Is there anything to like about Batman v Superman, besides Wonder Woman as I mentioned in my last post? I guess. I liked Jeremy Irons' Alfred just fine, even though I prefer Michael Caine. I liked some of the imagery associated with Bruce Wayne, such as the design of the Batcave and the burned-down Wayne Manor. The actual Batman v Superman fight was good-- Zack Snyder has no problem creating incredible imagery and action sequences-- despite being such a small part of a movie that's billed as being all about that rivalry. And I liked some of the soundtrack, Wonder Woman's theme in particular.

My biggest regret is that the huge amount of money that BvS is going to make will convince WB that they are on the right track-- that Zack Snyder is the right creative overseer of the DC Cinematic Universe, that the dark tone of these films is the way to go, and that stuffing these movies with light shows while story takes a back seat to action equals a successful franchise. I'm curious to see how much those elements bleed over into the films that are not directed by Snyder, such as Wonder Woman. In the Marvel movies, there is a balance between individual directorial control and a mandated adherence to the overall vision for the franchise, which has occasionally resulted in directors being ousted from the films.

Because I'm not a cynic at heart, I will continue to take each of these movies as their own entities and approach them with an open mind. It's safe to say my enthusiasm has been severely dampened, but I'm still hopeful about Wonder Woman in particular, and as a DC fan, I'll be there for Suicide Squad and the rest of them.

Ten Reasons to Hate Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

1. The whole damn thing is just too dark. Not a new complaint about the DC cinematic universe, to be sure, and I grant that it can't be an easy thing to balance the presence of Batman and Superman in the same universe. You don't want to change Bruce's personality or style, but as part of the Justice League, he has to interact with larger-than-life heroes on a grander scale than any of his escapades in Gotham City. The Superman of the comics has more sunshine and unfettered optimism in one pinky than Batman has in his entire Batcave. But since Batman has been the most successful DC character on film to date, board-room logic dictates that everything be dragged down to his level instead of vice versa. The end result is Superman gazing with disgust at the dreary world around him, looking more out of place than Eddie Valiant in Toontown and with far less hilarious results.

2. Superman hates himself and so does the rest of the world. How dare you save countless innocent lives, Superman, how dare you! We must hold congressional hearings about your good deeds and spend upwards of 30 minutes of screen time pondering the contradiction of an all-powerful man living in a democratic society. We also invite you, Superman, to spend another 30 minutes doing the same, looking down and complaining to Lois or your mother about how doing the right thing is so hard. You must never smile during these proceedings. The good deeds you do must all be in slow-motion montages in which you look positively miserable as you look down from the sky at those who worship you, because Bryan Singer was being too subtle when he had you stabbed in the rib with Kryptonite.

3. Most of the movie feels like a trailer. I'm not just snidely referring to its Bay-esque editing and pacing. It plays largely like just a setup for Justice League and the rest of the upcoming DCCU. Wonder Woman, whose solo movie is next in the pipe after August's Suicide Squad, gets special attention, but even fellow Leaguers Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg get snippets long enough to qualify as film teasers. One of the most grating new phenomena in movies is that trailers have become events in themselves: there are now actually premiere dates of trailers, teasers for trailers, and commercials on YouTube before the commerc-- uh, trailer starts. Now, we have the first full-on movie-length trailer.

4. The first hour is almost intolerable. The movie is so overwrought that it has to spend a full hour, at least, before any action of significance takes place. The basic premise is simple-- Lex discovers Kryptonite, Batman wants to steal the Kryptonite in order to kill Superman. But they have to give the other characters something to do in the meantime, so Clark Kent investigates Batman while Lois Lane investigates Lex Luthor, Alfred investigates stuff for Bruce, Lex investigates Superman's ship and Zod's dead body, Wonder Woman investigates everybody, and Perry White resents all of this investigation (like ya do, as a news editor). There's a lot of file hacking and downloading, so much that one character literally falls asleep on screen while the downloading is taking place. This is what happens when a movie is simultaneously trying to apologize for its own prequel, set up an entire franchise of sequels, and be entertaining in its own right at the same time-- though, that last part comes across as an afterthought.

5. The dream sequences. Oh god, the dream sequences. It's hard to describe how bad these are. It's possible they're even worse than the dreary, self-important introspection that makes up the rest of the film's first-act quagmire. They serve absolutely no purpose other than to insert action sequences where the narrative structure wouldn't otherwise allow, and to once again foreshadow future movies. But the viewer doesn't care about the outcome of a fight that it knows isn't real. Once you get fooled by the first dream (a cheap jump scare that would be better suited to the Insidious franchise), you don't get fooled again. Of course, if I were really cynical, I could also say that the dreams existed so they could sell "Desert Batman" action figures. But I would never say that.

6. Lex Luthor has no motivation other than "I'm crazy and rich." Lex is a pliable villain. He started his career in comics as a mad scientist, then became a scheming CEO under Byrne's pen in the 1980s, and later morphed into a kinda-good-guy who was actually out to help humanity but just had a personal grudge against Superman. Jesse Eisenberg plays Luthor like a mentally unstable Mark Zuckerberg (go figure) whose favorite memory of college was that Philosophy Gen Ed he had to take. I don't understand his endgame in pitting Batman against Superman, or creating Doomsday. After all, if Doomsday survived the fight against Superman, where would that leave him? Lex isn't the Joker-- he never wanted chaos for chaos' sake-- but "crazy" is a nice, lazy way to motivate your villain, and that's the road taken here.

7. Batman straight-up murders people in this movie. Has he killed people before? Sure. It's a common criticism of Tim Burton's Batman movies. There's the famous "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" line from Batman Begins. And everyone knows he's made a handful of exceptions in comics over the years. But by and large, Batman doesn't kill. And he certainly doesn't smash villains' cars into one another as their mangled corpses flail about inside, throw their own grenades back at them or use Batmobile-mounted machine guns to turn entire structures into butter. BvS' Batman is basically the Punisher with a billion dollars. If that isn't distasteful enough for you, simply from a thematic perspective it robs him of any moral high ground he would like to stand on when comparing himself to the city-leveling Big Boy Scout.

8. When it finally goes down, the big fight is anticlimactic. In a movie called Batman v Superman, the "v" part only amounts to about 15 minutes. Now, I'm not one of the fanboys who's been salivating over the prospect of a titanic clash between these two characters. Personally, I like my heroes to be on the same side, which is why I don't much care for the premise of Captain America: Civil War either (although I know how that one turns out too, and I'm sure it will run circles around this disaster). We all know these things end up with the disparate heroes coming together in common purpose, but it's clear from speaking to many fans that the Batman/Superman matchup was their primary source of anticipation. Sadly, the inevitable clash is predictable in both setup and execution, no doubt leaving many bloodthirsty viewers feeling like they just watched two hours of pre-fight for 30-second match.

9. If you saw the second trailer, you've basically seen the movie. No, really. When the second trailer hit, there was an outcry that it gave away too much, and the WB spin team quickly disavowed that notion. Turns out, the assessment was pretty dead-on. If you felt like you could safely piece together all three acts of this movie from two minutes of footage, that's because you probably did. Heroes brood and pontificate. Heroes fight each other. Heroes stop fighting each other and fight big ugly monster instead. The End. Between the trailers and the news about the Aquaman, Flash and Cyborg cameos, there's not a single surprise left in the movie, not a single story beat that a ten-year-old couldn't see coming a mile away.

10. The best thing in the movie gets maybe 20 minutes of screen time. You probably know who I'm talking about, because critics and audiences alike are hailing Wonder Woman as the sole highlight of this mess. She got the only eruption of cheers and applause in the entire screening I attended, warming the heart of this cranky feminist who resents that it will be almost 20 years since the dawn of the modern superhero film before the most iconic female comic character in history gets her own movie. Maybe it's a blessing in disguise that the script doesn't allow Zack Snyder and David S. Goyer more time to potentially ruin Diana. When she takes center stage in 2017, she'll be in the hands of another director with hopefully better prospects.

Seriously, Wonder Woman's entrance was a crowd-pleasing moment that almost redeemed my evening. Almost.

The Saga of Animal Man

This review will contain MILD spoilers for Animal Man, but nothing major.

I had the first two collected volumes of Animal Man-- the late 80s, early 90s Vertigo series-- sitting in my "unread" longbox for about three years. At that time, I had read a few things about the series-- that it was a groundbreaking epic by the legendary Grant Morrison, and that it famously broke the fourth wall by making its titular hero aware that he was a comic book character. I had seen the famous panel wherein the Animal Man, AKA Buddy Baker, makes this discovery (Google "animal man I can see you") and you won't have any trouble finding it).

I don't consider this a major spoiler because the series is notorious for that revelation. It turns out that it takes quite a while to build to it, but I was hooked early on, and when I finally completed the two volumes gathering dust in that longbox, I was compelled to seek out the remaining five chronicles of Animal Man to see where the story went. It was a wild ride, with lots of highs and lows. Animal Man is a remarkable series-- a touch uneven, given the variation in writing and drawing talent-- but filled with thought-provoking and engaging stories.

The seven collected volumes can be divided into three major parts, defined by the contributions of Animal Man's three primary writers. Grant Morrison penned the first 26 issues (volumes 1 - 3), followed by a brief arc by Peter Milligan before Tom Veitch took over for 18 issues (volumes 4 and 5), and Jamie Delano then made Animal Man his own for 29 issues (the massive volumes 6 and 7). These three periods represent sharply contrasting tones, themes and narrative directions for the series.

Grant Morrison's Animal Man is every bit the magnum opus it's touted to be. DC's concept of an Animal Man revival was to take an obscure 1960s C-Lister, who had barely been in a dozen comics, and redefine him for the rebooted, post-Crisis-on-Infinite-Earths universe. They also wanted to give him a dark edge-- though the Vertigo imprint didn't technically exist yet, Animal Man fit right into that wheelhouse-- and make him topical and relevant. Morrison succeeds in all of these goals, probably beyond anything that was conceived when the project first got underway.

Let's get the basics out of the way first. Buddy Baker is Animal Man, a superhero with the power to reach out to nearby animals through something called the morphogenetic field (later referred to as the Life Web, and later still, The Red) and adopt their abilities. For example, he can adopt the speed of a cheetah, an eagle's ability to fly, or an ant's ability to lift 50 times its own weight. In typical 1960s fashion, he got these powers through radiation, in his case from a downed alien spaceship. In the present, he works as a movie stuntman while raising two children, Cliff and Maxine, with his wife Ellen.

Now, that status quo only lasts for about a dozen issues or so, since Animal Man's plot moves in wild and unpredictable directions almost from the get-go. Most critics agree that the series' first watershed moment comes with issue five, titled "The Coyote Gospel." The disturbing and bizarre tale of a Wile E. Coyote knockoff posits the basic question of what it would be like to be an animal that experiences all of the unending cruelty of the physical gags of Looney Tune cartoons, only in the real world. It hits the reader like a brick wall and foreshadows many of the themes Morrison would explore in the following issues, particularly about the relationship between creators, artists and characters.

From there, Morrison provides some short story arcs with an emphasis on animal rights topics, all the while weaving an undercurrent of mysteries that build gradually over the next 20 or so issues before culminating in some of the most satisfying "a-ha" or "payoff" moments I've ever read in a comic. The climactic final issues of Morrison's run make volume 3 easily the strongest of Animal Man's collected works. The metafictional nature of the conclusion is somehow apt, despite being somewhat detached from the storylines that built to it. If you need a hint of where the story goes, you need only look at the title of volume 3-- "Deus Ex Machina."

I should say a word about the art during Morrison's run before moving on. It could best be described as-- serviceable. Chas Troug's pencils tell the story, and are perfectly pleasant to look at-- especially considering some of the low-lows of volume 5-- but are not especially memorable. The writing is the star, and not until Jamie Delano took over as scribe would Animal Man's art would parallel the story in terms of quality.

Determining how to follow Grant Morrison's epic run must have been a challenge for DC editorial. The relatively short Peter Milligan run was a misstep. It attempted to retain the weirdness of Morrison without the metafiction, resulting in a bizarre tale about alternate realities and Schrodinger's Cat. When Tom Veitch takes over, the narrative takes another left turn. His tactic was to retcon Animal Man's 1960s origin substantially, and bring Native American mythology into the mix.

While some parts of that arc are successful, it takes way to long to get there, and the story diverts into much less interesting arcs on the way, such as Animal Man working for the government to protect the President from a trio of bratty psychic children. Veitch also gives Buddy an annoying hippie sidekick named Travis, who grates on the nerves just about every time he's on panel. While regular artist Steve Dillon provided "just-okay" art, there were a few fill-in artists in volume five that were beyond terrible-- one so bad that he actually traced a drawing of Buddy's daughter from a previous issue. It's almost amazing to see that art so bad made it into a mainstream comic.

After the entertaining but underwhelming Veitch issues, Animal Man returns to true glory in volumes 6 and 7, when Jamie Delano takes over writing duties and Steve Pugh handles most of the art. Pugh's art is atmospheric and dark, perfect for the new direction that Delano takes Animal Man in these two volumes. His characters are distinctive and facial expressions are vivid. Pugh is also adept at drawing the wide variety of animals that are, of course, essential to a story about a hero named Animal Man.

It is in these volumes that Animal Man once again makes a radical departure from anything that could remotely be considered a superhero story. It's hard to describe where the story goes without giving spoilers, but it's miles from where you could possibly imagine. One early story involves Buddy rescuing his son from a murderous psychopath. Focus shifts to Ellen for a while as she gets involved with some militant feminists. The final arc, which comprises the enitre 465-page volume 7, involves religion, revolution, life, death, and radical transformations that send the life of Buddy Baker spiraling into chaos.

I've never felt so compelled to devour the entire run of a comic series in trade form as I have with Animal Man. I think a large part of that is due to Grant Morrison's three-volume epic; after that, I was attached enough to the character of Buddy Baker to wade through some of the weaker issues to get to Animal Man's climactic conclusion. I think it's a worthwhile series for anyone interested in a dark series with unique storytelling.

Recent Trade Reads

I didn't pick up new comics this week, so instead, here are some quick reviews of recent trades I've been reading.

Iron Man: Armor Wars Prologue/Armor Wars/Armor Wars II

If you look at the whole run of Iron Man and had to pick one name of a creator that defined the character more than any other, it could only be David Michelinie. He wrote Iron Man for 75 issues over the course of 8 years. He introduced Iron Man's greatest ally, Jim Rhodes, and many of his greatest nemeses. Most importantly, he penned the Demon in a Bottle arc, which produced one of Tony Stark's defining traits as a man struggling with alcoholism.

Many comics of the 70s and 80s seem laborious for modern readers due to three decades worth of evolution in comic writing style. Gone are thought balloons and detailed narrative descriptions of locations and action; in their stead, "decompressed" cinematic storytelling and story arcs "paced for trade" are the new normal. For some reason, I have never found that to be the case with Michelinie. His writing certainly fits the old-fashioned writing formula, and yet it still seems like not a word is wasted, no narration boring or unnecessary. Like his contemporaries Byrne and Simonson, his stories stand the test of time.

The Armor Wars represented Michelinie's return to Iron Man after an absence of several years. The "Prologue" trade is mostly a misnomer; it consists of one-shot stories (albeit enjoyable ones) culminating with a two-issue story that brings the villain "Force" back into Iron Man's pages. This time, though, Force has developed a conscience and wants to retire from crime, something that Tony is glad to help him do.

The revelation that stems from Force's side-switch waits until the Armor Wars proper, when Tony realizes while analyzing the ex-villain's costume that it contains Stark Industries technology. Tony concludes that his rival Justin Hammer must have pirated the technology and sold it to various bad guys willing to cough up premium prices to get their hands on the same tech that makes Iron Man such a formidable foe. Realizing that his own inventions may have caused untold suffering of innocents, Tony vows to take down every villain in possession of stolen Stark technology.

The moral crisis of Tony's revelation about his technology's misuse fuels the first part of the book. As modern audiences have seen in the Iron Man film, Tony's ethics won't allow him to ignore the crimes and tragedies in which he unwittingly played a part. Michelinie thoroughly examines the kind of man Tony really is, the "capitalist with a conscience" who takes a disproportionate share of the world's burdens on his shoulders. His struggle becomes even more compelling when he is forced to strain friendships and loyalties to the breaking point, and risk his entire fortune, for the sake of his singular quest.

Rhodey is defined primarily by his well-earned loyalty to Stark; his dogged determination to stand by his boss is fueled by his respect for Tony's ideals and his admiration for the hero he remains after facing so much adversity. Still, Michelinie elevates Rhodey beyond the role of just a "sidekick," giving him his own concerns and problems that interweave with the complications that arise from Stark's Armor Wars.

After two great graphic novels penned by Michelinie, Armor Wars II has to be considered a disappointment. In the first place, the label "Armor Wars II" is wholly misleading. One would think that a sequel story arc would either call back to the original Armor Wars, or mirror some of the plot elements. Instead, we get a completely unrelated story about a villain who uses technology secretly implanted in Tony Stark's body to take control of him. Tony discovers that staying in the Iron Man suit allows him to use mental commands to counteract the remote puppetry, but his body is being brutally decimated the longer he stays in his iron prison.

Again, it's completely different setup, and I can't help but have the impression that the titling of the arc was done for the sake of publicity. Now, that's not to say that Armor Wars II is a bad story; it's a pretty good one. But it's not Michelinie. John Byrne takes the writing reins, and I unfortunately found it to be surprisingly weak and unbalanced writing from such a respected writer. Unlike my earlier comments about the timelessness of Michelinie's writing style, here Byrne spends pages at a time filling panels with nothing but inane thought balloons, resulting in sluggish pacing.

That being said, when the action kicks into high gear in the second half of the book, it's compelling, and it's complemented by the excellent artwork of John Romita Jr. I didn't realize he was a polarizing artist until recently; for me he has always been one of the greats. I enjoy his thin, cartoony style and hyperactive hatching. His angles and poses in large panels lend adrenaline to Iron Man's inevitable showdown with his would-be puppet master.

Another thing worth noting about Armor Wars II is a subplot featuring The Mandarin. Iron Man's greatest foe is depicted seeking out an ancient and terrifying source of power that has a connection to his ten mystical rings. However, the storyline doesn't come to fruition in this trade; instead, the reader will feel compelled to read the Dragon Seed Saga in the trade that follows. I'll leave that one to review another time.

Without question, among the three Armor Wars books, the middle volume stands out as the highlight. The prologue is also a great read, but it lacks the cohesiveness of the single storyline presented in the book that follows. As for Armor Wars II, it's enjoyable, and the noticeable writing flaws are balanced out by high-octane art, but one should go into it with the understanding that it's almost completely unrelated to the other two books that bear the same name.

Wow, I've already received a request for my opinion on comics!

I was asked what the top five books are that you should be reading from the Big Two. I honestly can't answer that question because A) I'm fickle; I add and drop a lot of books; B) my tastes only share a moderate amount of overlap with the books that are critically lauded, and C) I lean toward DC and particularly to female-driven books.

That all having been said, I will present my personal favorite five books of what I'm reading right now from the Big Two. That also comes with the caveat that TMNT from IDW pretty much trumps anything from DC or Marvel. Honestly. It is, without hyperbole, an instant classic run unfolding before our eyes, in my opinion.

5. Legend of Wonder Woman

This is a web comic that has just started coming out in floppies. Wonder Woman's origin has always been a mess for many reasons. It's more complicated and mythological than that of Batman or Superman, and it's had many iterations. The New 52 revised origin was extremely polarizing among WW fans for good reason. Legend of Wonder Woman attempts to cut through all that with a long-form retelling of the origin aimed at readers unfamiliar with Wonder Woman. The first issue begins with the history of the Amazons and ends with Diana still as a child, feeling the early appeals to becoming a warrior. Clearly this series will take its time developing Diana and it's off to a great start.

4. Midnighter

I heard a rumor that this is going to be canceled soon, which is a shame. Midnighter surprised me greatly. He's not just a gay Batman/Punisher knock-off. He's a pretty nuanced character who is introspective, sensitive and caring in one scene and then covered in the blood of bad guys the next. He's just written well, and I enjoyed the art of the first story arc.

3. Batman

Snyder's run is coming to an end, and what a run it's been. I hope Mr. Bloom ends up in Batman's permanent rogue's gallery. Snyder understands that we all know that comic book changes are never permanent, and he uses that to shake things up even more. Commissioner Gordon as Batman in a robot suit!? Amnesiac Bruce Wayne?

2. Ms. Marvel

Even if you don't care about the groundbreaking status of Ms. Marvel as Marvel's first Muslim superhero, the book is just fun. It has a sense of youth about it without being obnoxious or "trying too hard." Takeshi Miyazawa, who has drawn for a zillion Marvel youth-centered books including Runaways, Power Pack and Mary Jane, is perfectly suited to Ms. Marvel's tone.

1. Starfire

How many good things is it possible to say about this book? Starfire has done a total 180 since she debuted in the New 52 as a generally despised, sexist caricature. In this book, Conner and Palmiotti do what should have been done in the first place-- which is basically to make Starfire an aged version of the one from the Teen Titans TV show. She has a naivety about the human world that's treated playfully, from her casually upbeat behavior down to the hilarious thought balloons we see as she tries to interpret English idioms. The coastal setting is a nice change from the usual city-based superheroes, and there have been some good guest appearances by Grayson and Terra.

And the art of Emanuela Lupaccino? Can't say enough good things about it. She is a superstar artist as far as I'm concerned, or deserves to be. She rivals Amanda Conner herself with expressive characters, dynamic panel layouts and beautiful girls. She did a couple of arcs at the end of the most recent Supergirl book, so I was already a fan. I will shed a tear when she leaves the book because her work is so perfect for the tone and character of Starfire.

Well, that's it for my current Top Five!

First Blog Entry

This is a humble blog dedicated to my reviews of current comics I'm reading, including new releases and graphic novels. I will also share my thoughts on the comics industry, comic-based movies, and a few other topics here and there.

The main aim is to stretch my writing muscles and to have a place to share my thoughts with friends and anyone interested to read them. I used to have a blog dedicated primarily to my favorite TV show, LOST, in its heyday. Since then I haven't done much writing on a regular basis.

To begin with, and since Blogger doesn't have a sidebar for comics, here is a list of new releases I am currently reading:

DC:
Superman
Action Comics
Batman
Batgirl
Earth 2: Society
Martian Manhunter
Midnighter
Starfire
Titans Hunt
Wonder Woman
Wonder Woman '77
Legend of Wonder Woman
Poison Ivy

Marvel:
Wolverine
Captain Marvel
Ms. Marvel
Scarlet Witch
Silver Surfer

Independent/other:
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Red Sonja
Archie

Right now in the world of trades, I just started a trio of trades collecting some of David Michelinie's classic Iron Man issues. I'm also reading through the Vertigo Animal Man issues of the late 80's/early 90's.

My first set of reviews will go up this week!