Search
Often cited as one of the most influential comic-books/graphic novels, alongside the likes of [b:V for Vendetta|5805|V for Vendetta|Alan Moore|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1343668985s/5805.jpg|392838]'V for Vendetta' and [b:Batman: The Dark Knight Returns|59960|Batman The Dark Knight Returns (The Dark Knight Saga, #1)|Frank Miller|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1327892039s/59960.jpg|1104159]'The Dark Knight Returns', this was, if I'm honest, one such that I'd never even heard of until the 2009 movie of the same name.
Set in an alternate 1985 America in which costumed superhero's are (were) real but have since been outlawed, there's a definite argument to be made that this would inspire the Pixar film The Incredibles: family drama, costumed superheroes coming out of retirement, conspiracies afoot ... see what I mean?
But whereas The Incredibles is aimed at a family audience, this is anything but: violent throughout, slow (at times seemingly glacial) moving and even dealing with the effects of (and fallout from) rape, this is definitely not one for the younger reader!
On the plus side, it does have a stunningly realised world alongside a compelling backstory to several of the characters: like several other literary classics, this is one that I can now say that I've read but wouldn't really be rushing back to do so again anytime soon.
Set in an alternate 1985 America in which costumed superhero's are (were) real but have since been outlawed, there's a definite argument to be made that this would inspire the Pixar film The Incredibles: family drama, costumed superheroes coming out of retirement, conspiracies afoot ... see what I mean?
But whereas The Incredibles is aimed at a family audience, this is anything but: violent throughout, slow (at times seemingly glacial) moving and even dealing with the effects of (and fallout from) rape, this is definitely not one for the younger reader!
On the plus side, it does have a stunningly realised world alongside a compelling backstory to several of the characters: like several other literary classics, this is one that I can now say that I've read but wouldn't really be rushing back to do so again anytime soon.
The Impossible Has Happened: The Life and Work of Gene Roddenberry, Creator of Star Trek
Book
8 September 2016 will mark the fiftieth anniversary of the debut of the world's most successful...
The Butchers of Berlin
Book
'One of Britain's most visionary writers' DAVID PEACE 'An appalling, beautifully-lit abyss' ALAN...
Edge of the Orison: In the Traces of John Clare's Journey Out of Essex
Book
In Edge of the Orison the visionary Iain Sinclair walks in the steps of poet John Clare. In 1841 the...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Batman (1989) in Movies
Oct 10, 2019
Batman- i love this movie, i have seen it about 7-9 times. I love michael Keaton as bruce wayne/batman. I love jack nicholson as the joker. This movie has action, comedy, suspense, laughing gas, a prince song, adventure and so much more. Also you have darkness, romance, lots of screaming from Vicki Vale played by Kim Basinger. Did i mention that Tim Burton directed this film.
The Plot: Having witnessed his parents' brutal murder as a child, millionaire philanthropist Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) fights crime in Gotham City disguised as Batman, a costumed hero who strikes fear into the hearts of villains. But when a deformed madman who calls himself "The Joker" (Jack Nicholson) seizes control of Gotham's criminal underworld, Batman must face his most ruthless nemesis ever while protecting both his identity and his love interest, reporter Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger).
Keaton's casting caused a controversy since, by 1988, he had become typecast as a comedic actor and many observers doubted he could portray a serious role. Nicholson accepted the role of the Joker under strict conditions that dictated top billing, a high salary, a portion of the box office profits and his own shooting schedule.
The tone and themes of the film were influenced in part by Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's The Killing Joke and Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. The film primarily adapts the "Red Hood" origin story for the Joker, in which Batman inadvertently creates the Joker by causing him to fall into Axis Chemical acid, resulting in his transformation into a psychopath, but it adds a unique twist in presenting him specifically as a gangster named Jack Napier.
Considered the role of Batman, including Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner, Charlie Sheen, Tom Selleck, Bill Murray, Harrison Ford and Dennis Quaid.
Brad Dourif, Tim Curry, David Bowie, John Lithgow and James Woods were considered for the Joker.
This film is great and should be watched.
The Plot: Having witnessed his parents' brutal murder as a child, millionaire philanthropist Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) fights crime in Gotham City disguised as Batman, a costumed hero who strikes fear into the hearts of villains. But when a deformed madman who calls himself "The Joker" (Jack Nicholson) seizes control of Gotham's criminal underworld, Batman must face his most ruthless nemesis ever while protecting both his identity and his love interest, reporter Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger).
Keaton's casting caused a controversy since, by 1988, he had become typecast as a comedic actor and many observers doubted he could portray a serious role. Nicholson accepted the role of the Joker under strict conditions that dictated top billing, a high salary, a portion of the box office profits and his own shooting schedule.
The tone and themes of the film were influenced in part by Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's The Killing Joke and Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. The film primarily adapts the "Red Hood" origin story for the Joker, in which Batman inadvertently creates the Joker by causing him to fall into Axis Chemical acid, resulting in his transformation into a psychopath, but it adds a unique twist in presenting him specifically as a gangster named Jack Napier.
Considered the role of Batman, including Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner, Charlie Sheen, Tom Selleck, Bill Murray, Harrison Ford and Dennis Quaid.
Brad Dourif, Tim Curry, David Bowie, John Lithgow and James Woods were considered for the Joker.
This film is great and should be watched.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated A Little Chaos (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Better suited to T.V.
From the mind of director Alan Rickman, everyone’s favourite Slytherin, A Little Chaos follows the story of a gardener as she tries to prove her worth, creating a fountain at the beautiful Gardens of Versailles. But does this historical drama have any depth?
Kate Winslet takes on the role of Sabine De Barra, a visionary landscape gardener who is tasked with creating the stunning piece of architecture in Versailles for King Louis XIV, portrayed by a typically on-point Rickman.
8379_poster_iphoneThe plot is stretched out into a film that lasts a little over two hours and despite some breath-taking scenery and excellent performances, A Little Chaos couldn’t be further removed from its title – in fact it’s all a little flat and Saturday night TV drama-esque.
A promising supporting cast that includes Stanley Tucci as Louis XIV’s gay brother and Matthias Schoenaerts, a former Cesar award-winner, as the king’s principal gardener, is wasted as the film spends much of its running time trying to tie together numerous loose ends, from a tragedy plot to a new-found romance.
Rickman’s direction is admirable and he certainly knows how to get the best out of his landscapes, but like the many shrubs in A Little Chaos, it all needed pruning back slightly more with at least 20 minutes of exposition being completely unnecessary.
Moreover, for a film that has its secondary focus on horticulture, there is very little in the way of gardening, and I for one was hoping for more beautiful shots of the stunning grounds rather than rain-soaked Winslet and admittedly impressive hair pieces.
Nevertheless, both Winslet and Rickman are superb in their roles and it’s nice to see the latter take on something a little less sinister after his well-received performances in the Harry Potter franchise and of course his brilliant turn in Die Hard.
The former is, alongside Meryl Streep and Julianne Moore, one of the most reliable actresses in cinema. Her performance here is excellent and through her tragic past, we see more to the character of Sabine the further we get into the picture.
It’s just a shame that none of it registers. After a disappointingly slow first half, things only moderately gain pace as the film
reaches its poorly CGI finished conclusion. Winslet’s character is given more depth than she needs and the audience faces the difficult task of dealing with numerous bits of information that don’t really come together.
Overall, Alan Rickman’s latest effort in the director’s chair lacks the magic and sparkle that he brings to his acting and despite mesmerising performances from Kate Winslet and Rickman himself, A Little Chaos is more at home on the small screen, rather than the big.
After all, if an overly camp Stanley Tucci fails to generate interest, there’s something seriously amiss.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/19/better-suited-to-tv-a-little-chaos-review/
Kate Winslet takes on the role of Sabine De Barra, a visionary landscape gardener who is tasked with creating the stunning piece of architecture in Versailles for King Louis XIV, portrayed by a typically on-point Rickman.
8379_poster_iphoneThe plot is stretched out into a film that lasts a little over two hours and despite some breath-taking scenery and excellent performances, A Little Chaos couldn’t be further removed from its title – in fact it’s all a little flat and Saturday night TV drama-esque.
A promising supporting cast that includes Stanley Tucci as Louis XIV’s gay brother and Matthias Schoenaerts, a former Cesar award-winner, as the king’s principal gardener, is wasted as the film spends much of its running time trying to tie together numerous loose ends, from a tragedy plot to a new-found romance.
Rickman’s direction is admirable and he certainly knows how to get the best out of his landscapes, but like the many shrubs in A Little Chaos, it all needed pruning back slightly more with at least 20 minutes of exposition being completely unnecessary.
Moreover, for a film that has its secondary focus on horticulture, there is very little in the way of gardening, and I for one was hoping for more beautiful shots of the stunning grounds rather than rain-soaked Winslet and admittedly impressive hair pieces.
Nevertheless, both Winslet and Rickman are superb in their roles and it’s nice to see the latter take on something a little less sinister after his well-received performances in the Harry Potter franchise and of course his brilliant turn in Die Hard.
The former is, alongside Meryl Streep and Julianne Moore, one of the most reliable actresses in cinema. Her performance here is excellent and through her tragic past, we see more to the character of Sabine the further we get into the picture.
It’s just a shame that none of it registers. After a disappointingly slow first half, things only moderately gain pace as the film
reaches its poorly CGI finished conclusion. Winslet’s character is given more depth than she needs and the audience faces the difficult task of dealing with numerous bits of information that don’t really come together.
Overall, Alan Rickman’s latest effort in the director’s chair lacks the magic and sparkle that he brings to his acting and despite mesmerising performances from Kate Winslet and Rickman himself, A Little Chaos is more at home on the small screen, rather than the big.
After all, if an overly camp Stanley Tucci fails to generate interest, there’s something seriously amiss.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/19/better-suited-to-tv-a-little-chaos-review/
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated V for Vendetta (2005) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Missed the point... Ponderously
Contains spoilers, click to show
"BOLLOCKS!" This is the standard British insult which is banded about by the stereotypical characters as perceived by our American cousins. Or is this a succinct review of the film? Alan Moore, more famously known for Watchmen, was the original author of the graphic novel of the same name, which was published between 1982 and '85 and then later reprinted in full by DC comics, had his name removed during production. The Brothers Wachowski, of The Matrix fame, a seminal film, penned the adaptation and did so without truly understanding the source.
We ended up with a dull, overly bombastic and ponderous take on a much more subversive novel, with stereotypical fascist villains, shown to have taken power by releasing a virus upon the country's population, rather than the comic's thesis on the apathetic voters, legitimately electing them.
This is Hollywood does Britain, and as usual, they got it wrong. This is a sci-fi fantasy, where the hero/terrorist dons a Guy Fawkes mask and romantically spreads revolution across the country. But Hugo Weaving's ranting, good though he always is, is just boring and overblown. He is a Nutter and not in the good sense. I don't understand what gives him the right to blow up Parliament for us? I think that he's the other side of the same coin; a dictator in his own right. Is this the point? Maybe, but that point is lost when the film is trying to walk the fine line between epic political film-making with an edge, and a major comic book adaptation by the creators of the revolutionary Matrix. Though, the ill-conceived sequels should have served as a warning to us all as to what to expect from this project.
When I first watched this, I thought it was okay, but on repeat viewings it just continues to fall further and further down in my estimation. Boring, contrived, and misconceived. The Brothers Grimm Wachowski need to rethink their strategy and their role in the business and they are in no way, shape or form serious filmmakers. They have a fantastic and they did have a revolutionary view of cinematography, but as for being deep and meaningful writers... more ponderous and self absorbed than anything else.
We ended up with a dull, overly bombastic and ponderous take on a much more subversive novel, with stereotypical fascist villains, shown to have taken power by releasing a virus upon the country's population, rather than the comic's thesis on the apathetic voters, legitimately electing them.
This is Hollywood does Britain, and as usual, they got it wrong. This is a sci-fi fantasy, where the hero/terrorist dons a Guy Fawkes mask and romantically spreads revolution across the country. But Hugo Weaving's ranting, good though he always is, is just boring and overblown. He is a Nutter and not in the good sense. I don't understand what gives him the right to blow up Parliament for us? I think that he's the other side of the same coin; a dictator in his own right. Is this the point? Maybe, but that point is lost when the film is trying to walk the fine line between epic political film-making with an edge, and a major comic book adaptation by the creators of the revolutionary Matrix. Though, the ill-conceived sequels should have served as a warning to us all as to what to expect from this project.
When I first watched this, I thought it was okay, but on repeat viewings it just continues to fall further and further down in my estimation. Boring, contrived, and misconceived. The Brothers Grimm Wachowski need to rethink their strategy and their role in the business and they are in no way, shape or form serious filmmakers. They have a fantastic and they did have a revolutionary view of cinematography, but as for being deep and meaningful writers... more ponderous and self absorbed than anything else.
British Comics: A Cultural History
Book
British Comics is a unique cultural history of British comic papers and magazines, from their...
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Swamp Thing, Vol. 4: A Murder of Crows in Books
Nov 30, 2020
Earlier this year I had finished Vol. 3 and was ready to start on Vol. 4, but I just wasn't feeling it. The timing just wasn't right. So, I put off my re-visitation of Alan Moore's <b>EFFING BRILLIANT</b> SWAMP THING run...until the other night, when the "timing" returned and I devoured it two nights! Now, with that out of the way, onto my review...
In my reviews for the first three volumes, I mentioned that this was a re-visitation of sorts. It was always something I had intended, returning to a series I had not read since it first came out in the 80s, but it wasn't until going the digital route that I felt the time was due.
This is the volume that introduces that ol' bastard John Constantine, and for that alone, this volume is worth the price of admission! However, it was the path that Constantine sets Swampy on, and the tense and unforgettable finale that culminates in Issue 50, the last part of this volume! For that turns it all the way up to Eleven! Yeah, no Spoilers, despite it's age, but it is intense as a comic could be and then some!
Moore has become, in my eyes, some of a pain in the ass over the last few years. However, with SWAMP THING, as well as WATCHMEN and THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, he was totally on his game! There was not one issue in this volume that had me thinking, <i>"Yeah, this was good, but that one story was just absolute rubbish!"</i>. It was pure gold!
Now let it be said that I think the artwork of Jock is about as good as it gets as far as stirring horror images that stay with you long after the story is finished! However, after seeing the art of Stephen R. Bissette and John Tottleben, I was reminded of being scared reading this the first time out, and even now, on the re-read! Man, what I wouldn't give to seem them do another Swampy run, maybe even a guest spot on JUSTICE LEAGUE DARK! Oh, I am excited just imagining how frikkin' <b>AWESOME</b> that would be!
Look, there are a ton of great reviews out there, wherein the writer takes and analyzes everything of importance in this volume. And a number of those great reviews are right here on Goodreads! But, I can't add much to what has already been said! All I can add is this: You soooooo need to read this series! That's all I'm gonna say!
In my reviews for the first three volumes, I mentioned that this was a re-visitation of sorts. It was always something I had intended, returning to a series I had not read since it first came out in the 80s, but it wasn't until going the digital route that I felt the time was due.
This is the volume that introduces that ol' bastard John Constantine, and for that alone, this volume is worth the price of admission! However, it was the path that Constantine sets Swampy on, and the tense and unforgettable finale that culminates in Issue 50, the last part of this volume! For that turns it all the way up to Eleven! Yeah, no Spoilers, despite it's age, but it is intense as a comic could be and then some!
Moore has become, in my eyes, some of a pain in the ass over the last few years. However, with SWAMP THING, as well as WATCHMEN and THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, he was totally on his game! There was not one issue in this volume that had me thinking, <i>"Yeah, this was good, but that one story was just absolute rubbish!"</i>. It was pure gold!
Now let it be said that I think the artwork of Jock is about as good as it gets as far as stirring horror images that stay with you long after the story is finished! However, after seeing the art of Stephen R. Bissette and John Tottleben, I was reminded of being scared reading this the first time out, and even now, on the re-read! Man, what I wouldn't give to seem them do another Swampy run, maybe even a guest spot on JUSTICE LEAGUE DARK! Oh, I am excited just imagining how frikkin' <b>AWESOME</b> that would be!
Look, there are a ton of great reviews out there, wherein the writer takes and analyzes everything of importance in this volume. And a number of those great reviews are right here on Goodreads! But, I can't add much to what has already been said! All I can add is this: You soooooo need to read this series! That's all I'm gonna say!