Film: Monkeybone - Why?

Monkeybone was shown on C4 over the weekend, and was the first time I had seen it. Now, I am only left with questions, including why am I writing this post.

Monkeybone is apparently based on a graphic novel that I had never heard of (and I can't find it via Google, which is not a good sign; if anyone can point me in the direction of Kaja Blackley and Dark Town, I'd appreciate it) that has been turned into a very odd film. I would normally go into some detail about the plot and other aspects of the film, but I really can't justify doing that for this film, as it would give it a validity that it doesn't deserve.

Why did the various actors in the film do it? Why is Chris Kattan (one of the most annoying alumni of SNL) on the posters for the film when he doesn't even turn up until near the end and only stays around for about 15 minutes? Why does Charles Taylor (of Salon.com) love it so much? Is he insane or just medicated? Why did John Turturro do the voice of Monkeybone? Why is Harry Knowles, supposed purveyor of good films, fleetingly in this? Why does Stephen King play himself in this film? Why does the now Oscar-nominated Thomas Haden Church have an uncredited role in this?

The real fault is my own. I have this strange compulsion to watch films that nobody else would go out of their way to see. It's not a desire to see films that are so bad, they're good, like Showgirls (which I have seen, just because). It's banal nonsense which doesn't work and has no reason to exist anymore. I saw The Saint with Val Kilmer. Two hours of my life, gone. I watched Dungeons & Dragons. I still shiver thinking about it. I watched Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever in the bloody cinema, no less. Why do I punish myself so? There are so many good films to see that I haven't yet. It's so stupid.

I did redeem myself over the weekend by watching a lovely slice of b&w British quality in School for Scoundrels, with the ever-wonderful Alastair Sim and Terry-Thomas in finest oily form, but I still feel slightly dirty for having soiled my eyes with Monkeybone. Admittedly, it's visually arresting when in the Downtown section of the film, but that's not reason enough for making it in the first place. Down with mediocre films, I say, if for no other reason than I won't have to watch them.

Comedy: Chris Morris profile

Some Chris Morris news in this Observer profile.

Chris Morris is a modern comedy god, from radio's On The Hour, television's The Day Today (a news parody so accurately scary and prophetic, I can no longer watch news programmes seriously) and the infamous Brass Eye, and now he's going to be bringing us a sitcom, for which the world should be grateful.

For more information, try the excellent Glebe's Thrift Funnel, or this Wikipedia entry for a quick fact felch, or you can listen to the genius of the man at the excellent Cook'd and Bomb'd website, which has lots of wonderful stuff for the discerning fan.

Update: Walking to the tube, I saw a poster for what looked like a new mobile phone, with a catch-quote of "It's well weapon". I was scared that this was for a genuine product. Fortunately, it was not; it's a parody ad for the new sitcom, Nathan Barley, co-written by Chris Morris. You can see the ad in full here, which is just one of many things on the site from the series which looks to be great. (Thanks to Londonist for that.)

Film Review - Sideways

I got to see this last week due to The Times preview screenings. This is the only reason for buying The Times.

This is a delightful film. This description sounds a bit soft, but that's the most appropriate word. It is a film about two middle-aged men who realise that life has past them by and it won't get any better, but a delightful script and delightful acting make this a joy to watch from start to finish. It's warm, witty, moving, dark, annoying, disturbing and uplifting, and what more could you ask from a film?

I could be nasty and say how critics love this because they are happy that a nerdy, bookish, lonely, slovenly chap can find love in the arms of Virginia Madsen, but I won't.

Paul Giamatti is wonderful as the wine-loving, failed writer, and it's a shame that he didn't get an Oscar nomination. Thomas Hayden Church, Sandra Oh and Virginia Madsen are also perfect in their respective roles, inhabiting their characters rather than 'Acting', and you get the sense of really getting to know who these people are, which is a wonderful feat in two hours.

The 'Pinot' scene, where Giamatti describes his love of the Pinot grape but is actually talking about himself is very touching, when it could have been uncomfortable in its obviousness if the actors weren't just perfect. It's one of many great scenes, which include verbal sparring and slapstick, that make this my favourite contender for adapted screenplay.

Payne is becoming an accomplished director, bringing his own feel to a film, and can obviously bring a lot out of his actors (especially if he can get Jack Nicholson to not 'do' Jack in a film, as he did for About Schmidt). The recurring visual of darkness behind doors can be seen as a metaphor for the charcters' view on life, but it also allows for a pleasing ending, where a knock on a door and a fade to darkness are a much more rewarding and hopeful ending than a conventional union would have.

Rating: DAVE

BBC notices blogs - they must be important

The BBC provide the best news on television and online, so when they do a new items about the Bloggies, well, that's some serious validation right there. The report says how the 2005 Bloggies server went down from so many people voting. I'm impressed, but it also makes sense, because that's the way blogs work. I know that this site will never, ever be linked to any awards, but it's nice to know that something is done to reward those people who inspire and enthuse fellow bloggers like myself with their sterling and continuous efforts.

Comics: Apparat review

The Apparat line of comics was Warren Ellis writing a set of one-off issues of comics based on the idea that superheroes didn't exist in the publishing world. See here for the official site, which includes some information from Ellis and the covers. There's also a preview here.

Frank Ironwire
Ellis likes his emotional detectives; the debauched individual who gets deep into the heart of the crime because that's their job and they are very good at it. This stuff reminds me of the Derek Raymond novels, which isn't surprising as I only read them after they were recommended by Ellis in the first place. Our hero is a bleak, crumpled old man but with a poetic soul, even though he's up to the stomach in man's inhumanity to man. Art from Carla Speed McNeil is a little scratchy for my personal tastes, but she gets to the heart of the story and brings the reader into it as well.

Simon Spector
This could easily work as an ongoing, so it's a shame it won't be, as that would defeat the object of the exercise. This is pure pulp action, with guns blazing and people being rescued and individuals trained to perfection and drugs, reminding me of Doc Savage and the Shadow, but there are plenty of others in the mix. Jacen Burrows is an excellent Ellis accomplice, and I agree with Greg that it's a crying shame that he isn't doing more high-profile work. The ballet of violence is exquisite and the drug-fuelled connection of clues is very nicely done by both writer and artist.

Quit City
This is a quiet tale which could easily exist outside the conceit of the Apparat idea, as it doesn't touch on the aspect of aviation which it implies. It's more about not interacting with the pulp genre that it is in, and the story, of a former aviator coming home and meeting the ghost of the boyfriend she ran away from in the first place, reminds me of his Hellblazer stuff more than anything. The art by Laurenn McCubbin is more light and collage-y than normal for an Ellis book; she is a talented artist, but the looseness of the work seems at odds with the constraint of panels and page-to-page storytelling, but she creates a fully realised world that many comic book artists unfortunately don't.

Angel Stomp Future
Aaah, the Ellis sci-fi stuff; his home turf. You know you're in for fun when the first panel has "Speculum Bar – where warm drinks are mixed in and served from the muscular rectums of young Algerian girls". This has all the strangeness of the real world filtered through Ellis's warped brain and twisted just a little more for our viewing pleasure. The lead character is a strong Ellis woman; smart, lippy and doesn't take any shit, but still a little damaged. I'd love to know more about this character. Juan Jose Ryp is fantastic on art duties – like Fabry crossed with Darrow – wonderfully detailed and deranged, and I wonder if the gag about the retroactive abortion booth was the script, artist or both. Reminds me why I miss Transmetropolitan (Ellis's best work in my opinion) so very much.

An interesting experiment from Ellis, making you wish other mainstream creators would do something similar.

Movies: Oscar Nominations Opinions

Armed with the knowledge that I haven't seen all the films nominated, you can take my opinions on the nominations with Galactus-sized pinch of sodium chloride, but that won't stop me from sharing anyway.

As I do a note-perfect impression of a very lazy person, it's taken a while for me to speak my mind on the subject. Subsequently, other people have posted their takes: Tom has an always well-written and informed look, Jog speaks his mind (and don't worry about writing about films, Jog; it's okay to talk film every so often), while the lovely people at Empire talk about the people who were snubbed by the august body of people who make up the Academy. Bear in mind that I did have my own opinions prior to reading those of these fine folk so, even though there is some crossover (particularly you, Tom, you dog), I'm not copying people, honest.

Best Picture
The Aviator
Finding Neverland
Million Dollar Baby
Ray
Sideways
The Aviator is large scale and celebrates Hollywood, so appeals to the voters for the sort of thing that should be a best picture. The trouble comes with the split between this and Million Dollar Baby – do they give the latter the Best Film nod to compensate for finally giving Marty the Best Director? Or will they go for The Aviator safe bet for the big two?

Best Director
Martin Scorsese – The Aviator
Clint Eastwood – Million Dollar Baby
Taylor Hackford – Ray
Alexander Payne – Sideways
Mike Leigh – Vera Drake
My bias towards Marty aside (just give it to him, for God's sake), this should be his year. Clint already has one, Payne and Hackford haven't been nominated before and, great though he undoubtedly is, Leigh won't get it for something about abortion, perhaps why the best director apparently direct a best nominated film.

Best Actor
Don Cheadle – Hotel Rwanda
Johnny Depp – Finding Neverland
Leonardo Dicaprio – The Aviator
Clint Eastwood – Million Dollar Baby
Jamie Foxx – Ray
Haven't seen Ray, but that's where the buzz is. Nice to have Depp there, even if they won't give it to him. Dicaprio might have some following after the Globes, but it seems unlikely. It's great to have Cheadle in there, who is a great actor, even if his Cockney accent in the Ocean film grates on the ear. Can't see why Clint would get it, so the Academy might feel happy with itself by rewarding a black actor, even if he might be seen as a bit of an upstart, what with him being a comedian who has lucked into the role of a lifetime. I mean, Jim Carrey isn't even nominated for his turn in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Talking of missing out, what about Paul Giamatti for Sideways? Director, supporting actor and actress, screenplay, but apparently he's not good enough to be there? Boo, hiss.

Best Actress
Annette Bening – Being Julia
Catalina Sandino Moreno – Maria Full Of Grace
Imelda Staunton – Vera Drake
Hilary Swank – Million Dollar Baby
Kate Winslet – Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Swank has the buzz after the Globes, but I'd be happy to see a Brit win. Kate Winslet has the pro of being nominated three times, but the con of the film being seen as a little odd (even though the film is great and she is marvelous in it). Staunton is more serious in a more serious film, which the Academy tend to favour. But it is a film about abortion, which might be tricky. Can't see them giving it to Moreno, but haven't seen the film. Bening seems an outsider with a film that no-one saw, even though she is a good actress.

Best Supporting Actor
Alan Alda – The Aviator
Thomas Hayden Church – Sideways
Jamie Foxx – Collateral
Morgan Freeman – Million Dollar Baby
Clive Owen – Closer
Alan Alda? Really? I mean, wow. Was he that good? Anyway, let's forget him; I personally don't think he's in the running (famous last words). Foxx will stop himself with Ray, and Church is just a one-off, I think; right place at the right time. The main contenders should be Freeman and Owen. Freeman has the 'multi-nominated, no win, old vet that people love' thing going for him, whereas Owen has the Globes behind him. Too close to call.

Best Supporting Actress
Cate Blanchett – The Aviator
Laura Linney – Kinsey
Virginia Madsen – Sideways
Sophie Okonedo – Hotel Rwanda
Natalie Portman – Closer
This is a strange mix, as it always is. There have been some strange winners here in the past (what has Whoopi Goldberg done since her bizarre win for Ghost? Apart from annoy people, I mean.) Blanchett is good in The Aviator but it would be a strange win for her (she deserved it more for Elizabeth, for example). Madsen was excellent in Sideways, but she's an outsider. Happy to have a Brit in there, but can't see Okonedo troubling voters. Haven't seen Kinsey, so my Linney radar is blank there, and Portman has the Globes. I'd personally be happy for Portman to win, even though I haven't seen Closer, but that doesn't count unfortunately. This one's up in the air.

Best Original Screenplay
The Aviator
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Hotel Rwanda
The Incredibles
Vera Drake
I'm terrible when it comes to screenplay, as I always go for my fave. Very occasionally, this works, but not often. So, personally, I want Eternal Sunshine to get this, as it was one of the best and most original things last year, as well as being touching and powerful. The nod for The Incredibles seems a little strange, as action pictures don't usually get one, but maybe they trying to be progressive. Also weird is the nod for Vera Drake because, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I've read that Leigh doesn't do screenplays in the strictest sense, only a strong sense of the story and where it goes and then getting the actors to improv the scenes after a lot of rehearsal. The Aviator and Hotel Rwanda seem outsiders here.

Best Adapted Screenplay
Before Sunset
Finding Neverland
Million Dollar Baby
The Motorcycle Diaries
Sideways
See above for my problems with screenplay picks. This one is quite tricky; will they give it to Million Dollar Baby for not giving it other Oscars? Or go foreign with The Motorcycle Diaries? Or out there and go for Before Sunset (with no other nominations)? Having not seen the others, I'll go for Sideways, as I don't think it will get anything else.

Best Animated Film
The Incredibles
Shark Tale
Shrek 2
The Incredibles. The Incredibles. The Incredibles. Simple. Shrek 2 was very, very funny, but not the best film winner. Shark Tale was an embarrassing mess/product endorsement with dating pop culture references that should have been drowned at birth, and is insulting the other two films by its presence on the list.

I'm not doing all the list, because I'm lazy. But these are the ones I always look at, so you get my thoughts on them. Come back in a little over a month and find out how wrong I was.

Comics: Incoming Issues

(So, BlogThis! allows me to post things for the moment, so I can appease my addiction to posting my opinions.)

Comics being held for me at my favourite London comic shop, Gosh!, this week:

Usagi Yojimbo #81
JLA Classified #3
Legion Of Super Heroes #2
Planetary #22
Sleeper Season Two #8
Fantastic Four #522

(With thanks to Chuck who emails the New Comics Release List, week in, week out, to let people know what comics, among other things, are shipping.)

Looking forward to a new dose of Usagi, after the Art of Usagi Yojimbo hardcover (see here for my review), there hasn't been one in a while. I'm one of those folks who liked-but-didn't-love Seaguy, so I didn't buy We 3 as it came out, which appears to be a mistake, given the excellent word it has gained on the blogosphere, so I'll be picking up the trade when it appears. To make up for it, I have some Grant Morrison Mainstream Madness in JLA Classified. Always good to see more Planetary, even with the protracted wait between issues. Mark Waid gets a double hit with LSH & FF; I'm intrigued by his take on the LSH, and his FF has been a lot of fun, so it'll be a shame to see him & Ringo move on after #524.

Is Blogger working today?

This must be the price to pay for using a popular, and free, blogging service. There are problems loading blogspot sites, and I can't get to the new post page to fill this blog with lots of patented Clandestine Critic nonsense. But, I can use BlogThis! to do this post (well, I assume; I'll be able to see when I hit Publish, but I won't be able to edit it if things work or not when I do, so this might look a bit foolish if this posts and then can't do anything else – aaaarrrrggghhhh), so will someone tell me what's going on?

If I may mangle a Harlan Ellison title: I have no application and I must blog ...

Clandestine Critic's Current Comics Comments

The title needs work, but it will do for now. So, let's have a look at the comics I purchased for my own entertainment pleasure last week:

Authority: Revolution #4
Still haven't decided if I like this yet, as it hasn't quite clicked for me yet. I don't read his Captain America, but it makes me wonder if Brubaker is a straight super-hero kind of guy. Still, this issue has some nice stuff, like Jenny Quantum, and the Nguyen's handle on the team is beginning to gel.

Daredevil #69
I'm really enjoying Bendis & Maleev's run on DD, and this story is no different, with the fractured narrative helping the story to develop in a more satisfying manner. The additions to history, the effects on the future and the lovely moments that Bendis puts into his better work are fine additions to the Daredevil canon, and Maleev is more than up to the job, from his fantastic covers to his ability to keep a sense of continuity even when aping the old style comics.

Powers #8
Bendis has his teeth in another great little idea, with cops accidentally killing someone who has paid a superhero to be able to do their job, with the power gem supposedly missing, and the best double team in comics, Pilgrim & Walker, on the job. Oeming's art matches the feel of the snappy dialogue and askew look at the world of powers and cops.

Wanted #6
This rather silly ending reminded me of Millar's Chosen, which was also a big 'Fuck You' to the audience, after they stuck with the story for the duration, while he laughs to himself at the computer. I had enjoyed the rest of the series, but felt let down. J.G. Jones' art looks lovely, even if Eminem, Halle Berry and Tommy Lee Jones should ask for copyright reimbursement (he said, referencing Chasing Amy).

Wonder Woman #212
Having avoided superheroics for most of his run, Rucka throws in the whole JLA for good measure. Seems a little at odds with the rest of his run, but he still keeps things on track with Greek mythology still a strong part, other pieces are moved into place and previous storylines aren't forgotten just because we're onto the next chapter. Guest artist Raiz does a good job, although the occasional panel seems a little off, which throws me out of the story.

Oscar Orgy Begins

The nominations for the 77th Oscars have been announced. I haven't had the chance to fully digest them, but there are some surprise inclusions (Alan Alda?), some bizarre ones (Shark Tale) and some good ones (Mike Leigh for Best Director). I just felt I would be remiss if I didn't post the link as soon as possible. Hopefully, I'll be able to post more later.

Are free film magazines worth the money?

Here in the UK, the two major cinema chains are Odeon and Vue (formerly Warner Village). I've recently been to both (as you can see by the reviews I've been doing) and pick up their free magazines to read. Not for their content, but to look for errors, ever since I read one issue where there was so many typos, fact-mischecking, and downright stupidity I actually wrote a detailed critique of the issue to the editor, offering my services as a proof-reader. Strangely, they didn't reply. But they have improved, so I feel some small sense of victory.

So, Odeon has Addict Magazine andVue has Unreel, which calls itself the 'UK's Leading Free Movie Magazine' which is quite funny, because how many are there, and what are you boasting by that remark? Their page content is over half adverts, and the rest being mostly film reviews, with Unreel taking a slight edge in the professionalism stakes by having a news section of sorts. I say 'reviews' but they read like 'previews' as if the people haven't actually seen the film yet, but are praising it in order to get you to see it (well, they need more people in the cinema, don't they?), which I suppose must be quite creative writing on their part.

The only problem is when they get overcreative. Take for example, in the latest Addict, their review of the remake of Assault on Precinct 13, where they get the plot of the film wrong, not mentioning the police are gunning for the Laurence Fishburne's character, whose name they get wrong. Or, in their (p)review of Spanglish, where they call James L. Brooks 'the master'. It's quite bizarre, and it keeps me entertained until the lights go down and the rubbish trailers start.

Until I saw that they are both published by the same people Concept Publishing Ltd, Bath, and done by the same people, Lisa Thompson (editor) and Sarah Thompson (contributor). My cynical nature leans towards nepotism but I suppose it is possible to have two people working at a magazine that produces content for a freebie who AREN'T related. The fact that these two people are responsible for these free monthlies saddened and impressed; saddened that two people produce so much pap, and impressed that they can sell the same stuff (but ever so slightly different) to the two largest cinema chains in the country.

Actually, I don't want to have a go at the cinemas, especially Odeon. In the Addict magazine, they have a Tenuous Link question (or Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon by another name). It's not a competition, per se, but they give an email address for you to send the answer to, so make of that what you will. They gave the answer to the last one, and then ask if you can link George Clooney to Dennis Quaid in four films or less, the only caveat being the link must be between credited actorsactresses. I was bemused, because I can do it easily via either Catherine Zeta Jones or Don Cheadle, both of whom star with Clooney in Ocean's Twelve and with Quaid in Traffic. So I emailed them with the answer, because I get bored easy, and told them that it wasn't much of a challenge.

They replied, okay, so you want a challenge, how about linking Faye Dunaway to Ed Norton? Bemused again by the simplicity of the task, because Mark Wahlberg links them (The Yards and The Italian Job respectively), I email them back. They reply to tell me that, because I'm so 'Addicted to film!' (to use their own tagline), they're going to send me a free ticket to an Odeon cinema. I chanced my arm and asked for another one for my girlfriend, and lo and behold, waiting for me on Saturday morning are two free tickets. So, fair play to the Odeon team for being thoroughly lovely people and for giving me free tickets for no other reason than I know a bit about film.

Film Review - National Treasure

Before you say anything, it was free, okay? I wouldn't normally see something like this in the cinema but it's nice to see a film for free, and my girlfriend wanted to see it because she likes Nic Cage. (See what I did there? Casually dropped into the conversation that I have a girlfriend, in case anyone was wondering about my sexuality or my partnership status, and blamed her at the same time, thus incurring her wrath when she reads this. There's just so much going on in this post.)

Now, I haven't read The DaVinci Code, but I'd guess there are similarities, even though this script has been in the works for several years prior to the book. I haven't read the book, and don't want to, but can see why the idea appeals; hidden codes in very famous things that people know (or think they know) that leads to conspiracy theories and swanning off to exotic locations. Probably makes for an entertaining, if extremely light, read. As a film, it doesn't quite come across, because all the history stuff is a bit dry for most blockbuster audience, so they have to stick in explosions and guns and car chases, and the film is nothing but plot with only lip service paid to characterisation.

The obvious cinematic antecedent here is Indiana Jones. There is, I believe, a nod to a scene-shift in The Last Crusade, where the young Indy has his hat put on his head, which cuts to older Indy having his head lifted with the hat. Here, the young Gates lowers his head, to cut to the old Gates looking up in a snow sled. Or I could be looking for more than there is in a fairly obvious scene transition. Also, they both have dads who are pains in the derriere, they are both 'indiscriminate' with ladies, they're both history buffs; fortunately, they don't go so far as having Gates with a fedora and whip. Also, there's a bit of Tomb Raider thrown in, with the nerdy male computer/comedy sidekick, and Jon Voight as the father.

The story. Well, Nic Cage is Ben Franklin Gates, the latest in several generations of the Gates family who have been looking for the treasure of treasures that was discovered by the Knights Templar, who became the Freemasons when they came to the Americas, then hid it when they thought the British were coming to steal it (we Brits have a nasty history of nicking things from around the world, but surely the Knights Templar nicked it in the first place? Why aren't they 'evil'?). The last clue was passed to the first Gates, who has passed it down through the generations, along with the story of the treasure. Now, the Gates name is mocked in academic circles, and finding the treasure seems more remote than ever.

Then, it's a case of clue, history lesson, heist, chase, clue, chase, clue, chase, clue, clue, climax, resolution. (I might have missed some clues from that list). There's some clunkiness in the plotting towards the end, where Diane Krueger's character becomes more able than she was before, and bringing the Dad as a hostage, just so he can turn the denouement at the end, was a little forced. But it's light and entertaining and a pleasant enough diversion for two hours.

In the acting stakes, Cage is looking a bit tired in the action scenes (unless that was a character trait deliberately performed by Cage, because his character is tending towards the bookworm end of action heroes, but he is 40 now, so make of that what you will), Sean Bean is reliable enough as the English bad guy, Voight looks doddery, while Harvey Keitel, as the FBI agent in charge of the case, looks like he's come straight from pantomime, based on the amount of make-up (especially eyeliner) he has plastered on his mush. Krueger looks pretty and Justin Bartha, trying to erase Gigli from his CV, even though he was probably the best thing in it (yes, I've seen Gigli, no, I didn't pay any money to see it), gets most of the funny lines (the dialogue seems to have been through many more rounds of script doctors than the three credited screenwriters would suggest). All in all, fun fluff without substance, but it doesn't leave an unpleasant taste in the mouth either.

Rating: VID

(As you can see from the above, I had to write this blog in order to overcome my cinematic diarrhoea; look at the amount of crap I can produce when talking about an average film that I didn't want to see in the cinema, and you get an idea of what my girlfriend has to put up with on a regular basis. You can send your sympathies to her via me.)

Comics: Art of Usagi Yojimbo

Art of Usagi Yojimbo, Stan Sakai, Dark Horse Comics

The Art of Usagi Yojimbo hardcover celebrates 20 years of Stan Sakai writing and drawing the adventures of the rabbit ronin, Miyamoto Usagi. In comics today, that's quite an achievement, especially for the anthropomorphic (aka furry comics) stylings of a samurai bunny set in the times of feudal Japan, in black and white.

Most people get thrown by that description. Especially the 'rabbit' part. Which is a shame, as it's one of the most wonderful comic book series being published today. Sakai has created in Usagi a fascinating character, and given him a rich and diverse world of supporting characters with which he interacts in stories ranging from wars to detective stories to horror stories to day-in-the-life tales to multi-part epics.

Recently, Stan had Usagi journey with his son Jotaro, although Usagi has not told Jotaro that he is his father, and pretends to be an uncle. There is a strong bond between the two of them already, made stronger by the fact that Jotaro is being trained by Usagi's sensei, Katsuichi, and their adventures bring them even closer. The poignancy of the predicament is made more intense when, at the end of the tale and the two have to go their separate ways again without the truth being revealed, we discover that Jotaro has been told the truth by his mother, but he was told not to tell Usagi in case it complicated matters. I'm not embarrassed to admit that the story brought a tear to this cynic's eye.

This tale even prompted me to send an email to say thanks to Stan for this lovely story, which got published in the comic (although probably more for the question about purchasing back cover art) but it means that I know am part of the publishing history of this amazing series, something of which I am quite proud.

For more about Usagi, the official site Usagi Yojimbo Dojo will tell you everything you need to know about Usagi, such as the fact that the pronunciation is 'oo-sah-gee'.

The book itself is a wonderful thing; big, heavy and lovingly presented. I don't have any other 'Art of …' books, and this one is perhaps unusual, as Stan's art isn't the sort of work that is presented in this format. His style is rooted in a story-telling tradition, where the art tells the tale instead of just being cool images ready for sale at a convention. So, his seemingly simplistic line is actually full of detail, in reference knowledge and it's application to the scene it is trying to tell.

The book contains a lot of material that recent converts to Sakai's work wouldn't have easy access to, including pieces from magazines about the creation of the comic and promotional pieces from long gone publications. Previously unseen material, plus original covers, as well as covers from the trade paperbacks make an excellent package for the Usagi fan, and it's interesting to see some pin-ups in the back from different artists, seeing their interpretation of the rabbit. My favourite was the Andi Watson page, which gets the sense of design inherent in a work recreating feudal Japan with animal characters.

This is a gorgeous tribute to a great artist and his great creation, and something special for his fans. It will be getting pride of place on my mantelpiece.

Update: Other big name online reviewers weigh in with their thoughts on the book; Augie enjoys it over at his Pipeline column, as does Randy at The Fourth Rail. While I don't always agree with these two on everything they like, my general egocentricity is satisfied when other people like the things I like as well.

Journalist knows nothing - my inner geek sees red

There is a free newspaper in tube stations here in London called The Metro. If it wasn't free, and didn't do a cryptic crossword I can complete, I probably wouldn't get it. But old student habits are hard to break, so a free paper is part of my morning ritual.

In it, they report on the Stan Lee/Marvel case. However, they refer to Stan as 'the artist who created Spider-Man' and 'who also drew the Hulk and the X-Men' (emphasis my own). I wish they put their items on the web so I could point you in their direction and you could bombard them with hate mail.

I know that comic book knowledge is not high on the majority of people's list of 'things to know', but for a journalist not to even bother getting facts right? They've stolen the info from other sources anyway, so why did they have to say that Stan drew the comics? It makes me so angry, the disregard that the media has for the comic book art form, but it's never going to change, is it?

I'm going to be sad for a bit now. You may leave.

Kevin Smith coming to London

If you, like me, are a fan of Kevin Smith, you'll be happy to know that he's coming to London again. After his trip last year to the Prince Charles cinema for one his legendary Q&As, he's going to be over here again, in the slightly larger Criterion Theatre, Piccadilly, and this time he'll be filming it for his next 'Evening …' DVD.

I had the good fortune to see him in the Prince Charles, and it was fantastic. The man can tell a story, and obviously wanted to be a stand-up comedian when he was younger. He's funny, warm, brutally honest about himself, and has many stories to tell. The four hours flew by, and they were having a difficult job getting him to leave at the end of the night, as both he and the audience didn't want him to go. I thoroughly recommend the experience.

If you go to the link, you can get tickets, one at a time, for £30, which is well worth it. But, if you are a Smith fan, you probably already know all about it from News Askew anyway, and probably own the first DVD already as well. But it's my blog and I'll post if I want to ...

Don't Panic! BAAAAAAAAAA!

In news that makes me happy, Stephen Fry is to be voice of The Book in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy film (the link takes you to the page on the Douglas Adams site. I would link to the official site, but I always get a register page, which is very stupid for something that is essentially an advert).

Stephen Fry is a brilliant chap; writer, actor, director, all-round renaissance man with wonderfully silky tones, which make him a perfect for choice for the voice. Of course, nothing can replace the voice of the original, Peter Jones, but this is the perfect replacement. With Alan Rickman cast as the voice of Marvin the Paranoid Android, the film will sound great; now, it just has to look great …

My Film Rating System

***** out of DAVID

So, most reviewers use a five-star system for rating movies. Probably due to the economy of five instead of ten stars on a page or film poster. There are five letters in my name, the number of letters therefore relating to the quality of the film, and the letters used indicating something about the film as well.

DAVID – A perfect film, just as I too am perfect. Everything about this is wonderful, a classic in the making, an example of what cinema has to offer; again, similar to me.

DAVE – A good film, a film you could recommend to your mates, reliable, fun, worth the effort, just like a Dave is a good mate, reliable and fun to be with.

VID – Wait until the film comes out on video. A good film, not great, fun for some, maybe not for others. Don't bother going to the cinema to see it, unless you like that sort of thing already.

DA – Like a District Attorney, the intentions were noble in the beginning, but you have to remember that, in the end, they are still a lawyer, and therefore questionable. This film probably seemed like a good idea, but it didn't work out the way it should. Some nice bits, but really not worth it.

D – For 'Deplorable' or 'Despicable' or 'Diabolical' or 'Disastrous' or whatever; you select the adjective of your choice. A film so bad, it makes your eyes bleed, makes you question the sanity of the people involved, or wonder how the film got made in the first place.

Apologies in advance if you have to keep looking at this post to understand my film reviews. I'll keep a link to it on the side when I sort out my links.

Film Review - Team America: World Police

I have a lot of affection for the original Super-Marionation Thunderbirds, even if it probably doesn't hold up well today. Yes, they were puppets, and you could see the strings, and they walked funny, and their mouths moved up and down badly, but it was cool and fun and futuristic and exciting to a young boy, and nothing you can say will change that. I also love South Park, so I should probably admit to being somewhat biased toward this film, which I should admit up front.

Team America do exactly what it says on the tin; they police the world, even if, as in the opening scene in Paris, they manage to destroy a lot of real estate in the process (like the Eiffel Tower, L'Arc de Triomphe and the Louvre). So, this is Trey Parker & Matt Stone's swipe at America's position in the world today. But with puppets. After the tragic, yet hilarious, death of one of the original team in this opening scene, Gary, an actor, is brought in to the team to help them stop the ultimate threat to the world, in the form of Kim Jong-il, the leader of North Korea. What follows is a hysterical attack on just about everybody, but especially liberal actors, Jerry Bruckheimer films, and American attitude to everything non-American.

Although this isn't the greatest movie in the world, it is very, very funny. Where can I start in an attempt to persuade you of the funny? The line 'You had me at "Dicks fuck assholes"', perhaps? The 'We need a montage' song? The song lyric "I miss you more than Michael Bay missed the mark when he made Pearl Harbor"? Our hero vomiting his guts up, then passing out in a pool of his own sick? A finishing speech borrowed from a drunk about how the world is made of three people; dicks, pussies and assholes? Puppets of famous actors being decapitated, shot to ribbons, blown up, set on fire and cut in half? Kim Jong-il, singing "I'm So Ronery"? Matt Damon saying nothing else apart from "Matt Damon!"? Hot puppet sex in every position? Lease the musical, with the song "Everyone's Got Aids"? The deliberately rubbish Arabic speech, along the lines of 'Dirka dirka dirka'? Kung fu action which is basically two puppets flailing badly at each other to funky music? A theme tune called 'America: Fuck, yeah!" If none of the above appeals to you, then don't go see the film. Ever.

This is a very silly movie (albeit one with a serious point about the way America views itself as policing the world but ignorant of it – when the film moves to a new location, there is a caption saying how far it is away from America) with lots of silly jokes, silly songs, silly people and silly voices. It is very funny, even if the film as a whole isn't great – the South Park guys know how to make themselves (and me) laugh a lot, even if the story doesn't always hold together from start to finish, and they seemed to have bottled it when mocking the most obvious target, George Dubya Bush. I know they have stated that they don't want to go for easy targets, and that everyone is mocking Bush because it is so easy (hence their own live action sitcom, That's My Bush) but that doesn't excuse the fact that there is no puppet of Bush, while other leaders, such as our very own Tony B Liar, cameo in the film. But they can be forgiven for that if they are going to make me laugh like an idiot for an hour and a half.

Rating: VID for general consumption, DAVE if you like South Park

Comics/ Movies: Fantastic Four Teaser Trailer

Big news of the day, for those of us who enjoy the media of comics and film, and the strange ground where they meet: the Fantastic Four Trailer is now online for our perusal.

This is causing a little ripple through the comics blogosphere, but not much. I'm not sure if this is because the Fantastic Four doesn't have the same hold on people that Spider-Man or the X-Men or Batman, or if folks are just feeling a little burned by comic book adaptations, and don't want to get their hopes up after being disappointed so often. But people aren't particularly excited, which doesn't bode well.

As I've said before, I still have a morbid curiosity to see comics on the big screen. I've enjoyed some Fantastic Four comics; Mark Waid & Mike Weiringo are doing some lovely work at the moment, I enjoyed the Walt Simonson run from about 10 years ago, and John Byrne's famous run from ages ago was terrific (before he went barking mad, indicated by his forum, including his post that fired around the blogosphere, that he thought that Jessica Alba, as a Latino woman with blonde hair, looked like a hooker – I'm not making this up).

Admittedly, I've never seen the original Stan & Jack stuff from the 60s, which suggests I'm not a completist, but I've sampled and have thought that the team has visually interesting powers, which would look good on the big screen, once CGI had caught up. But the trailer doesn't fill me with anticipation, which kind of defeats the point of a 'teaser' trailer in the first place. I mean, if that's the good stuff to make people go, "Whoa, I've got to check that out!", what's the rest of the film going to be like?

File under 'Mmmm …'

Film review: The Aviator

The Aviator is a very good film. Not a great one, not one that I think deserves the accolade of 'Best of the Year', but this doesn't stop good-but-not-great films being given that title (can anyone say, hand on heart, that Chicago, A Beautiful Mind or Gladiator, to name three recent films, were the best films in the years they won Best Picture? I thought not.) and I wouldn't mind it happening if it meant that Marty got his overdue recognition.

The Aviator is basically 'Howard Hughes: The Not-Quite-Mad-Yet Years', as we see a period of his life from filming 'Hell's Angels' to when he gets the Hercules, the world's biggest plane, to fly following his hearing in front of a senate committee. This, for me, are the more interesting years of his life, with the aviation and Hollywood aspects being intertwined as we get to see some of the events and people in his life. I don't know enough about the man to question the truth of what we are shown, but I do know that it's bloody interesting. A man very rich from drill parts, he makes films, he makes planes, he buys TWA, he shags around, he stands up to people, he goes a bit doolally – what's not to find interesting?

Leonoardo DiCaprio is great as Hughes, both as the charmer/enthusiast and as the bonkers/twitchy/on-the-edge aspects of the man. Say what you will about him, but the boy can act, and this was a good role for him, and he steps up to the plate admirably. There are great turns from supporting actors (everyone else is supporting), from Cate Blanchett doing a great Katharine Hepburn, to Alan Alda as an oleaginous senator, Alec Baldwin (not quite the 'Greatest Actor in the World' that Team America would have you believe) as the head of Pan Am (who gets the only swear word in the film at a powerful moment, made more powerful by the lack of colourful language that other stories of the time I've read would suggest was more normal for the period), to John C. Reilly as Hughes' business manager, to the (essentially) cameos from Kate Beckinsale, Jude Law and Ian Holm.

The story is laced with humour, the visuals are dazzling, with the camera moving gracefully around, and the period faithfully recreated. The Howard Shore score felt too intrusive sometimes, although the old songs used were great, something that felt more 'Scorsese-ish', if that doesn't make me sound up my own derriere. I didn't notice the three hour plus running time, which is always a good sign, so absorbed was I in the drama, and it made me want to know more about the man and the people who interacted with his life. The only thing lacking was that certain je ne sais quoi that makes a very good film into a great film. Je ne sais pas quite what that je ne sais quoi was, which could be why I'm reviewing the film in my blog and not making millions telling Hollywood how to make their films.

Rating: DAVE out of DAVID (or **** out of *****)

(I'll explain my system shortly, promise.)

Official Blogging Status Achieved

When I started this blog, only the other day, I was thinking about how I'd have to spend some time writing posts, developing a voice, putting up regular updates before I would have to move to the next stage of getting people to link to me and notice me.

So, I was mightily surprised by this post from veteran blogger, TomTheDog, which links to my post about the Golden Globes, which was only my second post, and the fact that he's added me to his links list already. When I get round to sorting out my links list, I'll reciprocate.

This is great – it means I don't have to do anything more, as I've already entered the incestuous world that is the blogosphere!

Um.

So, what now?

Actually, I'm mighty flattered, and will have to live up to the honour of this link by continuing to post more nonsense, I mean, careful cultural criticism and indiscriminate linking.

For example, I wanted to talk about how the lovely, luscious, etc., Natalie Portman, even before she got an award to officialy maker her an 'Actor', has decided to star in a comic book adaptation. (Let's hope this doesn't mirror Halle Berry, who got her Oscar, perhaps through Academy sentiment for ignoring black actresses for so long more than her acting ability, and then went and starred in the wonderfully reviewed Catwoman.)

As a fan of the comic book medium, I always get a little excited by seeing comics translated into films. Well, except for Catwoman, perhaps. Comic books use dynamic yet static images to tell a story and, especially in superhero books, represent movement and action. We, the reader, have to do the work and provide the motion between the panels (as discussed by Scott McCloud in his excellent book, Understanding Comics). So, seeing it translated to live action is always a bit of a thrill, especially in something as dynamic as, say, Spider-Man, or the X-Men. It's just the way I am. Sometimes, this leads to disappointment, sometimes to glee, but this doesn't dampen the interest each time something new is announced.

Now, V for Vendetta is a great piece of work by the comic genius that is Alan Moore. A tale about fascist England and the man who fights against this using acts of terrorism, it is told with Moore's usual poetry (all the chapter headings are words beginning with the letter 'V', which sometimes required turning to the dictionary, and reflected the themes of the ensuing chapter) and ably assisted by David Lloyd's painted art.

But, the film is being written by the Wachowski brothers, which is worrying after the Matrix sequels tried to destroy their original masterpiece, and because of the fact that V wears a Guy Fawkes mask, and it contains terrorism. I was going to write more about how worried I am by this, but someone more able and funnier beat me to it. Dorian tells it like it is, so I don't have to.

Gosh, this blogging lark is easy; why didn't I do it sooner?

Cinema: Awards Splatter

The Golden Globes were handed out last night in a ceremony that isn't shown on British television. And, as Empire (the greatest film magazine in the world) rightly states, they haven't exactly gone with any particular film, throwing them out to quite a handful of different nominees.

I've never known quite why the Globes were such an indicator for the Oscars (apart from looking at the results from year-to-year, obviously) and I do realise that all these award ceremonies are complete nonsense anyway, especially the Oscars, but I do enjoy them, if only for the fact that they celebrate movies as a whole, even if they don't get it right.

The reason for specific mention is that The Aviator won best film but Martin Scorcese didn't win best director (that went to Clint Eastwood for Million Dollar Baby). Now, as a film fan, I enjoy the work of both these fellas, but I really want Marty to finally get his overdue Oscar. Clint has his, so there's always room for more people to get some, and the Academy is very good at giving Oscars to people for not-so-deserving roles the year after they should have for a more deserving role, but didn't because they got it wrong the first time (e.g. Judi Dench for her cameo in Shakespeare in Love, instead of the year before for Mrs. Brown, where they gave it to Helen Hunt for As Good As It Gets, which is so undeserving, I'm not going to link to it).

I have yet to see either The Aviator or Million Dollar Baby (I aim to rectify the former this evening with the free ticket offer from the Evening Standard, which is the only time you'll see me mention that rag, and the only time I would pay for it, which is deservedly in financial trouble, according to this item from londonist.com) so cannot pass judgement on them yet, but I just want to let the world know that it's time to give Marty the Oscar, get it out of the way, so you don't have to be giving him one of those lifetime achievement runner-up prizes that they had to give to Hitchcock, for God's sake.

Anyway, for those of us in the UK who couldn't see the Globes ceremony, Tom the Dog posted a minute-by-minute review of the show. Thanks, Tom.

Commencing clandestine criticism

Welcome to my little corner of the internet. Here, you will find commentary on what I call my 3 Cs - cinema, comedy and comic books. There will be links to news, other reviews and pretty pictures, as well as some meandering on other, unrelated topics, as I believe is mandatory for a blog.

Why Clandestine Critic, I hear nobody ask apart from myself? Well, a few reasons. One, I like the sound of it (Clandestine Reviewer doesn't have the same oomph, even if it might be more appropriate.) Two, I am a sucker for alliteration (see title for this post, for example). Three, it reflects the nature of criticism, infiltrating the source while remaining behind the art itself (if that doesn't sound too pretentious.)

Finally, the name pays tribute to one of my favourite comic book series by a favourite creator - The ClanDestine by Alan Davis. It only lasted for a handful of issues back in 1994 (due to various reasons, which I'll go into when I write about it at some point) but I've always remembered it fondly and deservedly. And what is a blog good for if not a soap box for someone's obscure passion?

Power of blogger. Activate!