TV: Being Human Series 1

I really enjoyed [LINK] the pilot episode of Being Human [official site], the fantasy drama about werewolf, vampire and ghost who share a flat in Bristol, and was very happy when it was announced that they were getting a full season (well, six episodes). I was a little disappointed that they changed two of the main cast - Andrea Riseborough as Annie the ghost in the original was replaced with the younger Lenora Crichlow, and Guy Flanagan as Mitchell the vampire was replaced with the younger, and perhaps better looking, Aidan Turner. Pandering to supposed BBC3 demographic slightly sullied the return – the cast were sufficiently young in the first place.

It didn't help in the first few episodes – Turner seemed to a more sure of himself Mitchell, albeit just smiling or looking serious; Crichlow came off a more annoying Annie – but I have become accustomed to them. Also, Russell Tovey as George the werewolf had become really whiny, which gets on the nerves rather quickly. The first episode was an introductory episode, basically getting up to speed if you hadn't seen the pilot, which wasn't as much fun for us who had seen it. But the next few episodes were better, with some progression in plots for each character (although I thought the reason for Annie becoming a ghost was a little obvious), even if the vampire nation plot is deflated by the fact that the leader Herrick, essayed by the suave and charismatic Adrian Lester in the pilot, is now played by Jason Watkins, who looks more like a bank manager than somebody vampires would follow into action.

I have a few problems with the internal consistency of the fantasy elements of the story – Annie seems to be a ghost but is able to touch things normally (like the constant tea making) but is supposed to be invisible unless there's a specific reason, but the poltergeist element didn't seem to stay the same from one episode to the next, her emotions running wild affecting the immediate environment but the next episode, where she should be livid with the former fiancee, there is no poltergeist activity at all. The vampire mythology seems to be almost non-existent, as they walk around in the sunlight with no ill effect, but then they have a Star of David has an effect on a vampire (but then not do anything when there are more than one vampire). I would prefer for them to stick to one set of rules throughout.

Things turned bad in the fourth episode when there were what I call idiot plot turns – when the vampire snuff DVD Mitchell is secretly keeping finds its way into the hands of the young boy he has befriended, I swore at the telly at the stupidity of the turn of events (I can understand the thematic reason for using the device to precipitate the alienation of the characters by paralleling it with the reactions caused by paedophilia, but did they have to do it so ham-fisted?); when the young boy gets run over by a car during a mob attack on the flat, my respect for the show nearly evaporated.

Fortunately, the fifth episode was an absolute corker – even though Mitchell's decision to side with the vampires didn't ring true, it did lead to things kicking off. It sees George and Annie go to help Mitchell at the vampire headquarters (a funeral parlour, obviously), although perhaps not as effectively as say, Buffy – the line from George, 'We were like a pair of gay ninjas' summed it up succinctly. There was a lot of humour in this episode as well, with big laughs in context of the story, and events seemed to gel into a coherent narrative. There were still some idiot choices – our three heroes escape from the vampires but then just go straight back to their flat WHERE THE VAMPIRES KNOW THEY LIVE – but it was a gripping episode and had me hooked for the final episode tomorrow: they had better deliver, especially as they have been rewarded with a second series. It's great to see a genre television series doing so well but also being actually good and enjoyable.

Comics I Bought 26 February 2009

Even though X-Factor #40 came out last week, I didn't make the trip to the comic shop just to buy one book – I'm lazy like that. Fortunately, there was a book for me this week, so I had sufficient reason to drag my sorry backside out to the shop to buy both books. I'm going to have to buy more books (and I will be: Detective Comics by Greg Rucka and JH Williams III, The Unwritten by Mike Carey and Peter Gross, Ignition City by Warren Ellis, the next Seaguy series) – we'll just have to wait ...

Usagi Yojimbo #118
This issue sees Usagi back in his own comic, doing what he unfortunately does best ('I don't bluff.') – but he doesn't revel in the deaths he causes, pitying the lives that have been wasted ('Idiots.'), which is why he is who he is. The story is able to balance the outre element of the dark wizardry with humour in the banter between Usagi, Kiyoko and Kitsune about Kitsune thinking Gen might be a good husband. I think that Usagi works best when he is fighting against forces within his sphere of believability – he needs to be saved by Sasuke the demon hunter from komainu on the cover – but the fight against overwhelming odds are what makes for good comics, and Usagi Yojimbo is a peerless comic book. Thank you, Stan Sakai.

X-Factor #40
Once again Peter David requests that people do not spoil the last page of this issue – I am more than happy to oblige. David is fighting against the 'wait for the trade' by remembering what comic books did best to begin with: having a powerful cliffhanging ending on the last page of the individual monthly comic that grabs you and leaves you crazy for the next issue. The issue itself is a talky issue, punctuated with some action, as Jamie visits the dupe who set up as a reverend with a family – there is the usual David humour to keep you entertained, but it is chat-heavy. However, the end of the story more than compensates (even if you can sort of see it coming) – you want to see what happens next. I'm glad that David is doing this and that he's being allowed to carve out his own little niche of the mutant universe.

Film Review: Push

I might be sharing too much here, but I've always loved the idea of 'psychic' powers – telepathy and telekinesis in particular – which is probably one of the reasons I enjoyed Chris Claremont's Uncanny X-Men so much growing up. The ability to do things with the power of the mind alone appeals to me more than the normal super powers of flight, strength, invisibility, etc. I even had an entire run of Psi-Force, the New Universe title from Marvel that was about people with psionic powers (I think that might be where I first saw the 'TK punch', something I'll come back to). This is why I wanted to watch Push, a film all about people with psychic powers.

Push starts with a huge info dump to get us up to speed on the world of Push: narrated by Cassie (Dakota Fanning), we are told that those with powers have been around for a while, experimented on since the end of the second world war by the US government, specifically by 'Division', who are trying to hunt down those with powers and work on a drug that will amplify their abilities (although why is never really mentioned). There are lots of cute names for the different types of powers – movers are telekinetics, watchers are psychics, pushers can put thoughts in your head (although pusher seems more descriptive of what telekinetics can do, but what do I know) – and the film is set '2 days from now'.

Set in Hong Kong, Nick (Chris Evans) is a mover who saw his dad, another mover, killed when he was ten years old by a pusher in the Division (Djimon Hounsou). He avoids contact with the psychically powered, living a life where he can't be traced by the Division's watchers, until Cassie enters his life, as predicted by someone who told his father it would happen, who he must help in her quest as requested by his father. This will involve being chased by the local Triad who are run by powered people bred by the defunct Chinese Division (some of who have the ability to make people bleed by screaming very loudly – not what you'd call a useful or subtle power, or particularly useful) and interacting with other people with abilities (shifters, who can change the shape of physical objects, if only for a short time; sniffers, who can psychically trace people from objects they have touched; stitchers, who can heal people; shades, who can hide people from watchers) in Hong Kong, who are living outside the system. It will also involve set pieces that focus on the movers – telekinesis is very cinematic after all, and they even use TK punches on each other, using their power to increase their physical actions.

This is a film with a lot of potential that doesn't extract that potential and maximising on it. There are several reasons for this: firstly, there is no real focus behind the story. The Division doesn't have a clear goal – why do they want to increase their strengths? Why do they exist? Why do they allow people who used to work for them live, but kill their spouses as warnings? Why do they allow some people to live outside their control, other than keeping tabs on them? It is all counterintuitive and only exists as a powerful bad guy in the background for people to fight against.

Secondly, Paul McGuigan has made some odd choices in bringing this to screen, notably the sparse use of CGI – he has said he wanted to keep special effects to a minimum because great filmmakers did amazing things without them, not realising that the whole point of making this film now is that you are finally able to bring to screen the concepts of the comic book that are only now able to flesh out on screen because of computer imagery. If you don't want to use what is available to make the supernormal powers believable, you are not the right person to be making this sort of film. The fights between movers are quite impressive and hint at what could be. He makes an interesting choice to film in Hong Kong (he talked about reflecting the idea behind Casablanca being a place where people could live outside the system, and Hong Kong was the modern equivalent), which also requires using a 'Bourne' ethos to filming, using handheld cameras to give that documentary vibe of being there, but you don't get that from watching the film itself. McGuigan is not a bad filmmaker – Gangster No 1 was very good and Lucky Number Slevin was well put together (although he shouldn't have remade L'Appartement as Wicker Park) – but he doesn't seem completely suited to job, even if you admire his ambition.

Another problem with the film is the story itself; there are incongruities to the logic to the world that has been created. If these powers are supposed to be linked to the psychic powers investigated by the likes of the Stargate Project, why do we get such non-psychic abilities such as screaming to cause people to bleed or heal people? What about the other psychic powers, such as pyrokinesis or blowing things up with the mind? The 'pushing' seems simple as well – rewriting people's memories seems to be a lot tougher than just 'pushing', and it also seems to be the extent of their telepathic abilities: no mind-reading or hearing peoples' thoughts. And what is it with watchers who can see 'intent' to change the future before the future itself? I'm not a great fan of seeing the future as a power in stories – it opens up a can of worms and means that the writer has to come up with a really good excuse to get around this ability in order for the story to proceed. Which happens here – there is a very silly solution to this problem so that our group of heroes can carry out their plan; and, even then, surely watchers would be able to see the future they carried out anyway? It's annoying and takes you out of the story.

Another problem are the two leads. Dakota Fanning was excellent in War of the Worlds but doesn't seem as comfortable here as a main character, seeming awkward and out of place. Chris Evans was the charisma in the otherwise dull Fantastic Four films, and has shown his acting ability in Danny Boyle's Sunshine, but here he is lifeless and subdued – there are a few glimpses of some of that energy in the film, but they are fleeting and the film feels empty without some of that energy. Hounsou looks good as the main villain but doesn't really bring any menace to the role. Camilla Belle, as Kira, the girl who acts as the MacGuffin bringer to the plot, is also lifeless in her role, which is a problem when she is supposed to mean so much to Nick. Some of the supporting characters (Cliff Curtis as a shifter, Ming-Na as a sniffer) seem more at home, but even their presence in the plot seems a very weak collection of different powers required to complete the plot.

There are a few good things – like I said, there is potential for the ideas in the film (I think this would make a good comic, which could investigate the stories and characters, but I don't think people have been talking very much about the prequel comic from DC, even if it does have some nice covers by Jock), and there is some nice twisting and turning in the story due to the pushing ability (note to stupid and lazy critics: twists are good in films, it doesn't mean it's convoluted; if there were no plot twists, would call it boring and straightforward?). However, the film is really reaching if they think they can create a franchise out of this film, which happens with a hideously blatant open ending after the resolution of the main storyline – I hate it when films do that: I don't mind a continuing story, but give me a satisfactory and complete narrative before you go any further. I'm disappointed more by the failure to execute the potential than I am by the unsatisfactory cinematic experience. Here's to what could have been ...

Rating: DA

Comic Book Artist: Terry Dodson

I first saw Terry Dodson's art on two early Warren Ellis mini-series for Marvel – Storm, and Pryde and Wisdom. His soft, curvy and beautiful characters have an instant appeal, and he can also tell a story. His art has a similarity to Adam Hughes – the gorgeous female characters are a hallmark – but there is more of the traditional superhero comic book art to Dodson's work. He does draw beautiful women but he also draws beautiful men, svelte and muscular in tight-fitting spandex; his work is detailed – he draws proper backgrounds as well as the main focus of the images – but without losing focus or clarity. It's dynamic, exciting and a visual treat, with the aid of his wife, Rachel, on inks to provide excellent superhero art.

His career has been a steady progression – after early work on Mantra at Malibu and Ghost and a Star Wars mini-series at Dark Horse, there was the Marvel work with Ellis, followed by a long stint on Generation X. He then hopped over to DC to illustrate Harley Quinn (written by Karl Kesel) for a year. He returned to Marvel to draw the ill-fated Spider-Man/Black Cat mini-series written by Kevin Smith – started in 2002, it went on hiatus until 2005 when Smith got round to actually finishing writing the book; it's a good thing that Dodson's art, so perfect for drawing Black Cat, was worth the wait (even if the story wasn't).

While waiting for Smith, Dodson drew the five-issue mini-series Trouble – written by Mark Millar – which was supposed to be aimed at teenage audiences but photographs of young girls in bikinis on the cover might have got a different audience ... He maintained his connection with Millar by drawing his year-long Marvel Knights: Spider-Man – Dodson drew a great Spider-Man, and he got to draw a large proportion of his villains as well.

Apart from Adam Hughes, there was no other choice for the recent relaunch of Wonder Woman – Dodson drew a beautiful but powerful Wonder Woman. This is the important distinction – his women are beautiful and sexy but it's not cheesecake or pure titillation; it is his style but it also serves the story (as I mentioned in my review [LINK]). Currently, Dodson is back at Marvel on an exclusive contract, tag-teaming on The Uncanny X-Men, making up for the Greg Land art on the other stories by showing how to draw larger-than-life characters in dynamic mutant action. As an X-Men fan of old, it's a delight to see his art on Marvel's muties.

For more Terry Dodson art, you can see a lot of it at the Comic Art Community gallery [LINK]. CBR has a lot of previews of interior art by Dodson [LINK]. He doesn't have his own site, but there is a group dedicated to appreciating his art [LINK] and you can see a list of his comic book work at the Comic Book Database [LINK].

Oscar Predictions 2009

Emboldened by my success at predicting/guessing the BAFTAs [LINK] and trying to prove that it wasn’t all a fluke or that it was just because I’m British, these are my predictions for the Academy Awards tonight.

I also won’t include a picture of an Oscar, or any image associated with the Academy, after some lowly employee of BAFTA contacted me to ask me, very politely, to remove the old BAFTA image I had on my BAFTA prediction post. No skin off my nose, but you have to feel sorry for someone who has to surf the web for copyright-protected logos …

Disclaimer: the Oscars are vapid, pointless, not a true indicator of real art in cinema and plagued with politics (see any of the infamous cock-ups of previous winners: Crash, Chicago, Helen Hunt, Roberto Benigni, most of the 1980s … you get the point). Still, it’s a larf, innit?

Best picture
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
Milk
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire

What Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire
What Should Win: Slumdog Millionaire

I’m more than happy to go with the consensus and the betting on this; well made, well acted and a happy ending that works because of what has gone before.

Best director
Danny Boyle – Slumdog Millionaire
Stephen Daldry – The Reader
David Fincher – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Ron Howard – Frost/Nixon
Gus Van Sant – Milk

Who Will Win: Danny Boyle
Who Should Win: Danny Boyle

This is the only one where I have a twinge: David Fincher is a really good director who may get sympathy in an Oscar split (see Ang Lee winning for Brokeback Mountain but Crash was best film, or Steven Soderbergh winning for Traffic but Gladiator was best film). But I shall go with the DGA, perhaps the most accurate predictor of an award.

Best actor
Richard Jenkins – The Visitor
Frank Langella – Frost/Nixon
Sean Penn – Milk
Brad Pitt – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Mickey Rourke – The Wrestler

Who Will Win: Mickey Rourke
Who Should Win: Anyone but Mickey Rourke

This is a lock for the melting plastic-faced Rourke although I don’t want him to win – I didn’t think it was a great performance because it was just him – but I know when I’m beat.

Best actress
Anne Hathaway – Rachel Getting Married
Angelina Jolie – Changeling
Melissa Leo – Frozen River
Meryl Streep – Doubt
Kate Winslet – The Reader

Who Will Win: Kate Winslet
Who Should Win: Kate Winslet

Despite the irony of her Extras cameo, all about using the Holocaust to win an Oscar, it’s time for Kate (after five nominations) and nobody can deny she is an actress who is actually Oscar worthy, rather than, say Halle Berry or Helen Hunt or Cher or Mira Sorvino, Whoopi Goldberg, etc.

Best supporting actress
Amy Adams – Doubt
Penelope Cruz – Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Viola Davis – Doubt
Taraji P Henson – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Marisa Tomei – The Wrestler

Who Will Win: Penelope Cruz
Who Should Win: Marisa Tomei

The Woody Allen Supporting Oscar effect should see this through, although I believe that Tomei was fantastic in The Wrestler. However, after the urban legend that bloomed after her win for My Cousin Vinny, the Academy will never let her win again … This is the most unpredictable of all awards – I still can’t believe that Whoopi Goldberg won for Ghost – so there is no such thing as a certainty in this category.

Best supporting actor
Josh Brolin – Milk
Robert Downey Jr – Tropic Thunder
Philip Seymour Hoffman – Doubt
Heath Ledger – The Dark Knight
Michael Shannon – Revolutionary Road

Who Will Win: Heath Ledger
Who Should Win: Heath Ledger

The overwhelming inevitability of this is quite remarkable, much like the performance. I think that the sadness of his young death is the impetus (and perhaps for missing out on Brokeback Mountain, another Oscar trait of rewarding another role when they obviously got it wrong before: see Russell Crowe winning for Gladiator to atone for not winning for The Insider, Judi Dench winning for Shakespeare In Love for not winning for Mrs Brown, Al Pacino winning for Scent Of A Woman to atone for The Godfather, etc.)

Best adapted screenplay
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Doubt
Frost/Nixon
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire

What Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire
What Should Win: Slumdog Millionaire

I don’t think there is going to be a landslide, but three big Oscar wins is still impressive for such a film. A lot of makes a screenplay good is difficult to see on the screen sometimes, but the balance between the horrors inflicted on the characters, the tension in the studio and the love story had to come from somewhere, and that place is the script.

Best original screenplay
Happy-Go-Lucky
Milk
Wall-E
In Bruges
Frozen River

What Will Win: Milk
What Should Win: In Bruges

The category for rewarding the films that don’t get nominations they should have (Wall-E for Best Picture, anyone?) will probably result in Milk winning because it’s not going to win anything else. The voters won’t see an animated film as a best original screenplay, unfortunately; Happy-Go-Lucky is a bizarre choice seeing as Mike Leigh films are based so heavily on improvising on a basic premise. I’d like to see In Bruges repeat its BAFTA win but I can’t see that happening.

Those are the main film categories that I wanted to chat about. The remaining categories will get my prediction for completeness (because they are the picks I put up for the Empire sweepstake)

Best foreign language film
Revanche – Austria
The Class – France
The Baader Meinhof Complex – Germany
Departures – Japan
Waltz With Bashir – Israel

What Will Win: The Class

Best animated feature film
Bolt
Kung Fu Panda
Wall-E

What Will Win: Wall-E

Best original score
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Defiance
Milk
Slumdog Millionaire
Wall-E

What Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire

Best original song
Down To Earth – Wall-E
Jai Ho – Slumdog Millionaire
O Saya – Slumdog Millionaire

What Will Win: Jai Ho – Slumdog Millionaire

Art direction
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Changeling
The Dark Knight
The Duchess
Revolutionary Road

What Will Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Cinematography
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Changeling
The Dark Knight
Slumdog Millionaire
The Reader

What Will Win: The Dark Knight

Costume design
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Australia
Milk
The Duchess
Revolutionary Road

What Will Win: The Duchess

Best documentary feature
The Betrayal
Encounters at the End of the World
The Garden
Man on Wire
Trouble The Water

What Will Win: Man on Wire

Best documentary short subject
The Conscience of Nhem En
The Final Inch
Smile Pinki
The Witness – From the Balcony of Room 306

What Will Win: The Witness – From the Balcony of Room 306

Film editing
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Frost/Nixon
Milk
Slumdog Millionaire

What Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire

Make-up
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Hellboy II: The Golden Army

What Will Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Best live action short film
Auf der Strecke (On The Line)
Manon on the Asphalt
New Boy
The Pig
Spielzeugland (Toyland)

What Will Win: Spielzeugland (Toyland)

Best animated short film
La Maison en Petits Cubes
Lavatory - Lovestory
Oktapodi
Presto
This Way Up

What Will Win: Presto

Sound editing
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Iron Man
Wanted
Slumdog Millionaire
Wall-E

What Will Win: Iron Man

Sound mixing
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Wanted
Slumdog Millionaire
Wall-E

What Will Win: The Dark Knight

Visual effects
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Iron Man

What Will Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Some are guesses (what do I know about Documentary Short?) but the rest are my predictions – we shall see how we do (poorly, no doubt). I won’t be watching it live – not only do I not want to stay up all night, I don’t have Sky Movies or know anybody who does – but I’ll look forward to the various live blogging/twittering the morning after.

Film Review: The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a beautiful love story – the film will only work if you allow the charm of the story to work its magic upon you. Unlike Roger Ebert or Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian, two respected film critics whose opinion I trust, I found Benjamin Button beguiling and entrancing.

The story – Benjamin Button is born old and ages in reverse, until he is a baby when he dies – seems so implausible and so hard to put on screen that it is amazing just to be able to watch the film and not laugh at so stupid it looks. On the contrary, the film looks incredible and you are never in any doubt that what you are watching is real – the only thought in your head is: 'How the hell did they do this?'

The visual quality of the film should not be a surprise when the director is David Fincher – if you've seen where he recreates 1970s San Francisco for the underrated Zodiac, you know he knows how to use CGI flawlessly to make the film believable. His attention to detail is amazing – there is a flashback at the beginning of the film, which acts as a vignette to possibly explain the circumstance that allows for Benjamin's condition, where Fincher creates a Somme battlefield from the First World War for about 30 seconds of film just to create atmosphere and realism in this short and ultimately irrelevant part of the film. The real surprise is that Fincher, the man behind Fight Club and Seven, has crafted such an appealing fairy tale.

The story starts with Daisy (Cate Blanchett, in amazing prosthetics to make her look ancient) is in hospital near death, who gets her daughter (Julia Ormond) to read to her from a diary written by Benjamin (Brad Pitt), thus providing the context for the film, with occasional returns to Daisy and her daughter. The story of Benjamin follows a linear narrative, to make up for the unusual nature of the conceit: on the last day of the First World War, Benjamin is born in New Orleans but his mother dies in childbirth. His father (Jason Flemyng) is distraught, and leaves the child on the steps of a nursing home where he is found by Queenie, a nurse at the home, who is unable to have children of her and so raises Benjamin as her own because she is told that he probably won't last long anyway.

Benjamin fits in at the home because he looks so old – the special effects are amazing because you can see it's Pitt, who does a great job of inhabiting the character – even though he is a child at heart. His life changes when he first sees Daisy as a young girl, visiting her grandmother in the home, and their lives intersect over the years. Benjamin grows younger and he ends up going to see on a tugboat – he may look young but he has the strength and vigour of a young man – finding time to end up in Russia for a while, where he has an affair with a married woman (Tilda Swinton), and even sees some of the second World War when they arrive at the scene of a naval disaster.

When Benjamin returns from the war, looking younger still, he learns that Daisy is a successful dancer in New York – their lives intersect but things don't work out just yet; Daisy wants to sleep with him when she first sees him, but Benjamin doesn't want it to be an experiment for her. When he visits her later in New York, she is in love with another dancer. It is only when Daisy's career as a dancer is ended by an accident (which is perhaps the only negative to the story – taking away her independence is the only way to permit the love to blossom) that Daisy and Benjamin can be together – Pitt's delivery of the response 'Absolutely' to Daisy's 'Sleep with me' is beautiful and funny.

Of course, the story cannot end with a Happy Ever After with Benjamin's condition (and the gutshot you get when a decision is made and a look is exchanged is so powerful), but the power of the love, even for the short time they were able to enjoy it, means that there is still power and poignancy. The story works in the present, bringing together a daughter with her mother, who didn't even know her mother was a famous dancer, and the truth.

This is a really good film, although perhaps not an Oscar-worthy film; the film is well directed, the acting is excellent all round – Blanchett and Pitt are excellent, and it's amazing to see them old and young (the film should win all the technical awards at the Oscars) – and the script is charming as well as funny: any script where you get laughter from the recurring joke of a man being struck by lightening seven times has to be good. The running time is nearly three hours, but you don't notice it because you are so captivated by the this charming and exquisitely told fairy tale.

Rating: DAVE

Comic Book Covers Don't Cover Up, Do They?

On my Tumblr blog [LINK], I post an image a day of things I like, usually comic book covers. As well as books that represent my comic book collection, I also post covers from the solicitations for DC and Marvel that catch my eye. In doing so, I've become worried about the fact that sexuality is used, and female sexuality only, for selling comic books supposedly to kids in the mainstream superhero market. Now, this isn't news to anybody who reads comic books, and nor do I have a problem with beautifully drawn women, but it seems incongruous to have the imagery on superhero comic books. I'm not an old fuddy duddy who objects on moral grounds, or believed that things were better when I were a young man, but looking through the last few months of covers seem to bring up the same unnecessary focussing on breasts on bottoms.

The cover that started this train of thought in this month was for Amazing Spider-Man Family #6 by Paulo Siqueirai – I like the penmanship, the face of the woman is beautiful, but the breasts seem to defy gravity. However, this is quite tame compared with others.


The bottom obsession of J Scott Campbell is first seen, albeit from a distance, in Black Panther #4, but this is nothing to the pathetic obviousness of the cover to All-New Savage She-Hulk #2 – I mean, come on, if it was any more blatant they might as well call it All-New ASS. I think it's the casual nature of using the female form to sell comic books that I find so depressing – I'm used to sex selling everything else (there was a ridiculously sexist ad on the side of a van that used a woman to sell eggs by Lays, for crying out loud) even if I don't agree with it, but why on comic books?


















The strange thing is the prevalence – and it's not just the usual suspects who are completely open about their love of drawing the female derriere, such as Ed Benes and Frank Cho: at least they are honest about their obsessions (which doesn't forgive them). From Marvel, we have Fantastic Force #2 by Bryan Hitch and New Avengers: The Reunion #1 by Jo Chen, which use the now far too common 'woman twisting her back to show her bum', which is just embarrassing, especially the Jo Chen cover.


















And it's not just Marvel: DC has had some recent covers that made me double-take at the sexuality of the covers, particularly because they were covers for strong female characters. The cover for Oracle #2 is by Guillem March – it sets up a strong dynamic by having the reflection of the threat in the glasses, and the line work is strong and graceful. However, the view from above looks straight down the cleavage of a very open shirt, which reveals a lack of bra (which doesn't seem like the sort of thing Barbara Gordon would do). It just removes the power of the composition.

Then there is Supergirl #40 by Joshua Middleton – it's trying to go for a 'suspense reveal' cover, as Supergirl is shocked by the unmasking of an unknown character, but the focus of the image is the lovingly rendered bottom of this mystery person. Is it really necessary? It could easily have been drawn without the focus on the posterior and still had the same power.

These covers aren't going to increase sales on the comics – 'sexiness' is not the way to lure and retain new comic book readers – so why do the editors of these books allow them? Do they think it will help? Perhaps somebody could explain it to me, but I fear that it wouldn't help – these sort of images aren't what we need on the front of our comic books. Is this how we want to show ourselves to the world? It just makes the whole industry seem seedy and pervy, an aspect it's been fighting for a long time. You stay classy, comic book industry ...

Lazy

Lazy by David (with apologies to Willie Nelson)

Lazy, I’m lazy for never writing.
I’m lazy, lazy for rarely posting.

I’m can’t seem to be bothered to work hard.
And produce content even though Google are hosting.

Sorry, I’m so terribly sorry,
Wond’ring just what will make me review.
Lazy for thinking I’ll be able to create something new.

I’m lazy for not trying and lazy for not buying
And I’m lazy for not posting for you.

Lazy for thinking my schedule could hold you.
I’m lazy at blogging and lazy at updating
And I’m lazy for not posting for you.

(Actual content will return. A picture and a song will have to do for tonight.)

Comics I Bought 12 February 2009

Another week, another selection of comics, another delayed review – that Friday just seems to escape from me ... In addition to the books I've been getting in the monthly format, I decided on a whim to buy Neil Gaiman's Batman story; I'm still not sure why, but I've always liked Gaiman so that must have been it. Damn the uncontrollable and impulsive nature of man ...

Batman #686
If you didn't know that this comic was written by Gaiman, then the fact that it concerns people telling stories about a dead Batman – while other people obligingly sit around and listen – lets you know for certain. It is not a traditional Batman story; it's a story about Batman, and his whole history (quite an undertaking). Familiarity with the mythos would be a help but isn't necessary; you just have to know that Batman has been around for a long time and different characters have been represented in different ways. There is an attempt by Andy Kubert to draw in the styles of the different artists of the eras, albeit not 100% successful, but I've always found his faces a little strained and odd looking (but that could be me). As this is the first part of the whole story, it's hard to judge its quality, but it's definitely an interesting start and I want to see how it finishes.

Captain Britain and MI:13 #10
Prologue time in Captain Britain: which means lots of talking, but in the good way. Cornell puts all his pieces in place, while giving some character time to the cast – Dracula talks with Doom (on the Moon!), there is chat in the pub, Blade chills out and loses the sunglasses, Faiza and Black Knight try to communicate. Then we get action to whet our appetite: vampires shot at Britain from the Moon. Only in comic books ...

The book is good, and I can find no fault. The only problem I have is on the 'Previously...' page – the phrase 'a newly-resurrected Captain Britain' does not require the hyphen: adverbs ending in 'ly' do not hyphenate with the verb that it amends to become an adjectival phrase (there is no ambiguity without the hyphen because 'newly Captain Britain' doesn't mean anything). I'm not a grammar fascist, but the poor hyphen gets so abused that I don't like it when it is forced to do work that is not necessary.

Fables #81
In which Mr Dark takes over Fabletown for his own nefarious purposes (with the help of the Mouse and Freddy as 'witherlings' under his control) and Blue passes away even with Flycatcher trying to use magic from Haven. Blue allows himself 'complete and brutal candour' with Rose, which may or may not have any affect. It's a nice mix of the emotion of a much-loved character and the setting up the new enemy in Dark, who vows vengeance on the Fables for perceived offences. Willingham and Buckingham continue the high quality on this book, one I'm glad to keep reading every month because I couldn't wait for the trade.

Incognito #2
This is an excellent fix for Brubaker and Phillips not doing Criminal, even though it is just a sidestep away from the pure noir of Criminal. Zack gets himself into a situation because he's not thinking as smart as he used to, and Black Death gets a visit from his lawyer who tells him in secret that Zack is still alive, even though he's supposed to be dead. This is a lot of fun – Brubaker still controls the narrative and characters expertly but is also more relaxed in the approach, while Phillip still provides the gritty art but with a softer edge more appropriate to the book. Excellent stuff.

Comic Book Artists: Chris Bachalo

[Chris Bachalo Official Website]

This is the second instalment in what I hope will be a fortnightly feature where I highlight some of the artists I like. There is no preference to the order – just what I feel like at the time – and I'll post some art and try to talk about why I like the art. I could go through my old comics and scan images to assist my discussion, but then I'd never get round to posting anything ...

I first saw Chris Bachalo's art in the pages of Shade, The Changing Man, the updating of an old Steve Ditko character by Peter Milligan at what would become the Vertigo imprint. Bachalo had a clean and cartoony style – I loved the lines he drew on noses for some reason – which was very different to the majority of artists working in the mature DC comic book arena at the time. He also had a great design sense – the elaborate borders around the panels were a Bachalo trademark (until Mark Buckingham started using it on Fables).

Along with 50 issues on Shade, Bachalo hit the big time drawing Neil Gaiman's Death: The High Cost of Living, the hugely successful spin-off from Sandman. He also went on to co-create Generation X at Marvel– a very strange choice but the next stage in his evolution. His art became funkier, if that's the correct term, a cartoony dynamism that was a fresh look for Marvel, and he had fun with the superhero comic and what could be done with the design and how the characters could look. I can't say I enjoyed the stories but the unusual art style was always enjoyable.

A variety of other work at Marvel, including a year on The Uncanny X-Men, saw Bachalo move into the creator-owned world with Steampunk, co-created with Joe Kelly and published at DC's Cliffhanger imprint. Bachalo's art evolved again, becoming even more rendered and densely packed with detail, but the decisions of how to tell the story were strange, making the book difficult to read. It was over-designed and overdrawn and made every page an eyestrain and patience tester. The script from Kelly seemed deliberately obtuse and hard to enjoy and care for any of the characters. This combination caused its early cancellation (it was supposed to last 25 issues, but only managed 12).

After this, Bachalo hasn't quite been as annoying with his art, although he has evolved as an artist, experimenting but remembering that he is still supposed to be telling a story (such as the New X-Men issues with Grant Morrison or the Ultimate War mini-series). His sense of design has gotten better – his covers are always eye-catching and play with the notion of what the comic book cover should be. His interior art is always interesting and his camera work is never less than unusual and engaging. I even read The Witching Hour for his art, even though I hated the story [link]. I'll always enjoy Bachalo's art and I hope he does something creator-owned again soon.

Google Image Searches Affects Your Stats: A Case Study

There are two things (among many) I tend not to do on this blog:

1. I try not to edit the content of what I've posted, so that I get a honest expression of what I was feeling at the time and keeping something approaching a 'pure' distillation of me.
2. I don't include phrases or keywords that deliberately aim to get high hits from Google searches – it doesn't interest me and it would clash with my desire to express myself naturally.

Therefore, it was with a heavy heart that I had to edit a previous post for the sole purpose of being able to go through my hit counter logs and actually see who was reading my blog and why.

You see, in this post discussing the reaction to the turn of events in Buffy the Vampire Slayer #12, where Buffy enjoys a night of passion with Satsu, a slayer who admitted loving her, I linked to the Bonus Feature of Chris Sims' weekly reviews which included that issue, using the three words of the dialogue that Buffy says in the Bonus Feature image (scroll to the bottom of his post to see it; you need to see them to understand this post).

The result of this was that, every month, my StatCounter information under 'Came From Referring Link' was overwhelmed with hits from 'images.google.com' linking specifically to that Bonus Feature image – I have no idea how that actually works, by the way, so any explanations would be gratefully received. I know that people might want to get lots of hits from Google searches, but I didn't think it would it work like that ...

I don't get a lot of hits on this blog – I'm not asking for sympathy – so it's quite bizarre to have my stats skewed so strangely. I know that most people who come here do so by strange Google searches (such as 'jonathan ross comic shop' or 'revolver film explain') rather than coming specifically for my blog, and I'm fine with that, so it's more of an academic interest; however, I'd like the stats to be genuine. I'm old-fashioned like that.

I hadn't considered the fact that having those three words and 'Buffy' in the same post would have the affect it did – which goes to show how naïve I am – but it also demonstrates the sordid nature of people on the internet, as if you didn't already know. I can now look forward to having my referral logs being decimated (and I mean it in the traditional sense of word) and I can get back to disappointing people arriving at this blog on my own terms – I'm so self-deprecating, aren't I?

Film Review: Slumdog Millionaire

I saw Slumdog Millionaire before it won all its BAFTAs last night (of which I predicted its main wins – see my post yesterday when I accurately picked seven out of nine of the major awards, even picking the correct film for Kate Winslet's win. I only lost out on the impossible-to-choose Supporting Actress category and the bizarre choice for Man On Wire for Best British film. Bring on the Oscars ...) but didn't get round to reviewing it, so this is probably the best time to share my thoughts.

Slumdog Millionaire is NOT the 'feel-good film of the decade' – you should know that before seeing this film (even if you have seen the poster above everywhere). It looks at the lives of people living in the slums of Mumbai and the hardships they endure that will make you wonder how they survive. The reality of the situations are definitely not feel-good – it is only because the lead characters have suffered so much that the happy ending is so positive (and narratively deserving) because of the horrible events we have witnessed. The ending has to be happy otherwise you'd want to slit your wrists over the unending misery.

The film starts with the police torturing a young man, Jamal (Dev Patel), who is under arrest for alleged cheating on the Indian version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?. When the torture has no affect, the police officer in charge starts to ask him questions about how he knew the answers to the questions on the show – Jamal reveals how he happened to the specific answers due to previous incidents in his life. Starting from the first question, we go through each in sequence and the events in Jamal's life. From his life in the slums, his mother's death, his time at an 'orphanage', and his run-ins with gangsters (due to his brother joining their ranks), Jamal tells his story and the focus of his perseverance – his affection for a girl called Latika (played as an adult by beautiful newcomer Freida Pinto).

The important thing to remember is that this film is a fable – it is not meant to be real. The contrivance of the coincidence that has Jamal able to answer the questions is the stuff of fairy tales. However, the purity of Jamal and his love for Latika means that we have something to hold on during the film. The awful parts of his life are balanced by the humour in the gameshow segments, meaning that you are not constantly subjected to two hours of misery. The film also uses the tension of the gameshow to heighten the drama – the makers, Celador, are part of the production team responsible for the film, so the film can use the real sets and music rather than a pretend version. Simon Beaufoy's script makes everything believable, all the characters, the horrors and the joys.

Danny Boyle has done a magnificent job as director; from Trainspotting through to Sunshine, he has never done a bad job and here he shows his skill with a range of different styles, settings and characters (including three different ages for Jamal, Latika and Jamal's brother). There is even a throwback to Trainspotting's opening scene of Renton running down the high street to the sounds of Lust For Life in a scene where the two brothers are escaping a mob that are attacking the slumdogs. To be able to flash forward and backward in the characters' lives, handle the horrific nature of life in the slums (like the blinding of an orphan because blind singers make more money) and turn to the focussed intensity of the television scenes, it is a wonderful accomplishment (especially in another country of such a different nature to his own) and he deserves the award for best director from the DGA.

Slumdog Millionaire is an excellent film that you will to have a happy ending because you believe in the characters and nobility of the human spirit; but remember: it is not the feel-good film of the decade. You will enjoy the film all the more if you watch it with this in mind. After all, the ending is given away by the title of the film itself. It is also just a very good film, rather than a classic for the ages, but that's quite an accomplishment in itself.

Rating: DAVE

BAFTA predictions 2009

The BAFTAs are here; not as glitzy or desired as the Oscar but slightly more serious and weighty. And, of course, very British (do other awards have a category for a best film by their own country?). They are not an indicator of the Academy Awards, despite their jump to before the Oscars to give them a point. However, this doesn't stop BAFTA from hoping. Predictions are fun, I haven't seen all the films, so let's have a look, shall we?

Best film
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
Milk
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire

And the award goes to: Slumdog Millionaire. British, buzz, feelgood – I can't see it any other way.

Best British film
Hunger
In Bruges
Mamma Mia!
Man On Wire
Slumdog Millionaire

And the award goes to: I don't think that the Slumdog will win in both categories; voter sympathy will go for a smaller film. I think that Hunger will be the choice for 'worthy but small'. Oh, and BAFTA? Mamma Mia! should not be there. Seriously.

Leading actor
Frank Langella – Frost/Nixon
Dev Patel – Slumdog Millionaire
Sean Penn – Milk
Brad Pitt – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Mickey Rourke – The Wrestler

And the award goes to: Depressing though it is to me, I think that Mickey Rourke will get it. I don't want him to, and I don't want to see his dogs on the BAFTA stage, but it is inevitable.

Leading actress
Angelina Jolie – Changeling
Kristen Scott Thomas – I've Loved You So Long
Meryl Streep – Doubt
Kate Winslet – Revolutionary Road
Kate Winslet – The Reader

And the award goes to: Kate Winslet, despite the split vote. The shocker might see it go to Kristen Scott Thomas, but I reckon Kate Winalot will get it for The Reader. And bravo to BAFTA for recognising it as a leading role.

Supporting actor
Robert Downey Jr – Tropic Thunder
Brendan Gleeson – In Bruges
Heath Ledger – The Dark Knight
Brad Pitt – Burn After Reading
Philip Seymour Hoffman – Doubt

And the award goes to: Heath Ledger, even though I'm not sure it's the best performance. It is a great performance, but sympathy wins among actors. Great to see Downey Jr among the nominees, though ...

Supporting actress
Amy Adams – Doubt
Penelope Cruz – Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Freida Pinto – Slumdog Millionaire
Tilda Swinton – Burn After Reading
Marisa Tomei – The Wrestler

And the award goes to: This is a very tough category; I hope that it goes to Marisa Tomei.

Director
Danny Boyle – Slumdog Milllionaire
Stephen Daldry – The Reader
Clint Eastwood – Changeling
David Fincher – The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button
Ron Howard – Frost/Nixon

And the award goes to: Danny Boyle. He doesn't make a bad film and the Slumdog buzz (and the DGA) point to a deserved win.

Original screenplay
Burn After Reading – Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
In Bruges – Martin McDonagh
I've Loved You So Long – Philippe Claudel
Milk – Dustin Lance Black
Changeling – J Michael Straczynski

And the award goes to: Screenplays are very difficult to predict. I think that the British sympathy will go for Martin McDonagh, just because they are more aware of him from his theatre work. And it's great to see a French screenplay in the nominees.

Adapted screenplay
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – Eric Roth
Frost/Nixon – Peter Morgan
The Reader – David Hare
Revolutionary Road – Justin Haythe
Slumdog Millionaire – Simon Beaufoy

And the award goes to: Simon Beaufoy for the Slumdog Millionaire awards train. All the scripts are worthy, but the feeling of goodwill towards this film will win through.

There are other categories, but you don't want to hear my opinions on all of them. I'm in two minds about watching the ceremony tonight – Jonathan Ross is hosting, someone who is neither as funny as he thinks nor as weighty on film as someone who presents The Film Programme should be. I would much prefer Stephen Fry – he did such a fantastic job in the past few years – and Ross is going to be playing it very safe after the suspension. Best of luck to all nominated, even though it isn't really a contest, eh?

Comics I Bought 5 February 2009

I only seem to have a couple of new comics on a weekly basis at the moment – I'm not deliberately cutting down on my purchasing of the monthly floppy pamphlet (with the exception of the Bendis-written Avengers books, which were dropped after the sour taste of the end of Secret Invasion) because of economics, although there is an element involved. With the rise of the trade paperback leading to a more satisfactory reading experience, it is only the books that I REALLY need to read in the monthly instalment that I end up buying. Two very different books this week meet this category.

The Boys #27
Garth Ennis is one of the best storytellers working in comic books at the moment – his understanding of story and what is needed to be told in the panels of a page is immaculate and he is never less that very good. The Boys continues to provide an enjoyable read in a single issue (perhaps due to cutting his teeth at 2000AD) while still being part of a large story. This issue has Mother's Milk progressing with his investigation (in a poignant scene), Hughie is pulled from the G-Wiz undercover operation, and Ennis beautifully mocks the Plastic Paddyism of Saint Patrick's Day in the US. Darick Robertson matches the precise script with his command of facial expressions and emotive moments to produce an excellent comic book. And, although I don't know how long it will last, Dynamite only charge $2.99 for a book with only one non-in-house adverts (and that's on the back of the book).

Buffy the Vampire Slayer #22
This is the first book after the world-changing story of issue 21 (where vampires have become cool and slayers are considered by the world as bad – although it wasn't particularly essayed very well in the book itself) and we get instead a story about Satsu, the girl with whom Buffy slept, being given a lesbian chat by Kennedy (Willow's girlfriend). The ongoing plot is covered by the Vampy Cat, which are being shipped all over the world but turn out to be evil demonic things; however, although the idea is cute, this idea is all there is too them, and the rest of the story suffers from not enough thought going into them (and The Swell was just silly and not in a good way). Steven DeKnight is a television writer, so he has good skills with dialogue in this issue (he has the Buffy-talk down to a tee), but the story doesn't gel together as a complete narrative unit and the reader is left a little frustrated. Nevertheless, this series as a whole is very enjoyable, I think due to the Executive Producer status of Joss Whedon and the fact that this is the next chapter in the Buffy story (rather than the 'fill in previous history' of the majority of the other Buffy books). And, in another note to Marvel and DC, this book is also $2.99, albeit with advertising in the middle of story pages.

There was another book that I bought that came out this week but it is a special purchase that requires its own blog post, and no, it isn't Scott Pilgrim ...

Meme: Final Crisis #7 Superman Song

Dr. K started a meme: What song do you think killed Darkseid? And I've joined in. My choice is based on my belief that, having grown up on a farm in the Mid-West, Clark Kent loved populist country and western music ...


Also, you should read Dr. K's thoughts on Final Crisis – wonderful insight on the crossover event.

From A Library – The OMAC Project

Collecting Countdown To Infinite Crisis, The OMAC Project #1–6, Wonder Woman #219 by Greg Ruck, Jesus Saiz and Cliff Richards

Rucka is a greater writer of espionage/political thrillers – you will know this if you've read Queen & Country – so I wanted to read this series, despite it being part of the build-up to Infinite Crisis. However, excellent though the writing and art are in this trade paperback, the book doesn't work as a single piece of fiction; it is a disjointed narrative that doesn't satisfy. The book is all prequel to Infinite Crisis and is also disrupted by the inclusion of a comic book from the middle of a crossover from other series (the Wonder Woman issue, written by Rucka, who was writing that series at the time, was part of another story with Superman and other books). This is a book with no end and everything included for completeness, even if it doesn't feel like it shouldn't be there.

The story that is told is done so in an enjoyable fashion – different time points in Ted Kord's recent days, jumping back and forth to fill us in on details until the now infamous execution by Max Lord, head of Checkmate, after Ted has discovered the truth about what Lord is up to. Rucka has a good handle on Ted and his interaction with other superheroes, wishing he did it more often. The other character who is the centre of the story is Sasha Bordeaux (from his days on Detective Comics), who is now Max's Knight; Sasha is the viewpoint for the plot and the moral centre of the story. Max is controlling Brother I, created by Batman to monitor heroes after Identity Crisis, and Sasha is trying to make up for what he is doing without getting caught herself. Max uses his meta power to force people to do what he wants them to do, including the murder of the Checkmate royal family to become complete head of Checkmate.

The book is full of intrigue and provides a great view of the superhero world from the perspective of the low-level, non-powered character. Which means it's a great shame that the 'Sacrifice' crossover interrupts the flow – Lord controls Superman, sending him crazy and violent – just so we can have a fight between Superman and Wonder Woman, and the crossover-starting incident of Wonder Woman murdering Max Lord. This sends Brother I into a new phase – the KINGISDEAD protocol – locking down Checkmate and activating the OMACs and turning Sasha into something else (not an OMAC but a nanobyte biological graft) to start the ANNHILATION protocol. This involves turning 1.3 million normal people into OMACs. Sasha and Batman formulate a plan, which gets the numbers down to 200,000 OMACs, but this makes Brother I show the footage of Wonder Woman killing Max to the world – and Infinite Crisis begins when this book is supposed to end. This is so frustrating – Rucka tries to provide a resolution by having our heroes affect a solution to the OMACs, with some fighting and sacrifice, but with the prequel nature of the book, it feels empty and ruins the enjoyment of a well-written book. The book is also well drawn – Saiz's art is very good and is the perfect style for the mixture of the moody noir and superhero action. The heroes feel like real people in their spandex and the characters' emotions are believable. Richards is a bit looser in style but he doesn't distract in between Saiz's work. It's just a shame that all their hard work falls short because they can only lead into Infinite Crisis (and we know how that turned out).

Film Review: The Wrestler

I don't like wrestling. Being British, I associate it with overweight old men in skimpy leotards shouting 'Easy! Easy!' on a Saturday afternoon. I don't doubt that the performers are extremely fit and they work extra hard; however, an entertainment where everything is planned in advance isn't a sport. I just don't see the appeal – there might be some superficial similarity to comics (overly muscled men in spandex playing 'good versus evil' battles) but that doesn't mean I can find anything to enjoy in it. I can't even read the posts by the excellent Paul O'Brien when he wrestling events.

Welcome to my review of a film about wrestling.

Here's the thing: come awards season, I have an overwhelming urge to see the films that are being nominated. It doesn't matter if their subject matter doesn't coincide with my areas of interest – I must see them. The Wrestler has been getting very good reviews (Empire gave it five stars), so that must be a good thing. Right? I remember when I first saw the mentions of the film in notices from festivals and I couldn't believe it existed, let alone that it was getting such good press. And yet I went to see it – I am large; I contain multitudes.

The Wrestler is about Randy 'The Ram' Robinson (Mickey Rourke), a wrestler who had some glory 20 years ago but who is still wrestling on the weekends, while doing a menial job during the week. He is still getting hurt in the ring but he still loves it – he lives for it. He still works out (helped out with steroids), he still shaves his body, he still visits the self-tanning booth, he still gets his overly long hair dyed at the salon – all for small crowds of people in small venues.

After a hardcore wrestling bout (which looks insane – smashing each other with tables and glass, using staple guns on each other, falling on barbed wire), Randy has a heart attack and is told he can't wrestle again. This precipitates a re-evaluation of his life, which he decides is empty. He tries to re-engage with his estranged daughter, he asks out the stripper about whom he feels something, and decides to take on more work at the job (working behind the deli counter at the supermarket). However, the new Randy cannot stop the old Randy from re-emerging ...

As can bee seen from the description of the story, the film isn't a novel narrative – the film is about the performances. Rourke is Randy because they are the same – a man who was on top but has suffered through what he loves doing and you can see it. To call it acting is strange because he's just being himself; nothing wrong with that – many actors just act as themselves for their careers – but I can't see why it's such a good performance that it is getting such accolade. I really hope he doesn't win the Oscar – I'm not saying the Academy always gets the winners right but there is some pedigree throughout its history. And it's not just because Rourke is so ugly – unattractive people can act and win awards, but his face is just so deformed by the plastic surgery he subjected it to, it doesn't look real any more. I couldn't get into the character because I was so disturbed by the plastic immobility – any emotional scenes didn't affect me at all because they don't register; he has more motion in his backside (which you also see when he injects drugs in it). I also didn't feel any empathy for the character – it is supposed to be tragic, but he's a self-absorbed idiot who doesn't deserve anything good after the way he continually acts, showing no genuine emotion for anyone but himself.

The film is directed well – Darren Aronofsky follows Randy around with a hand-held camera to give the film the sensation of a documentary, thus heightening the intensity. He films the wrestling scenes with a proximity that makes you part of the show, thus allowing you to feel the wrestlers pain. Marisa Tomei, as the stripper, is excellent; she shows the raw depression of being an older woman who has to cope with the younger women who her clients prefer. Her character parallels Randy's character but she has self-awareness and feels more genuine (and it's not because she's more attractive with no clothes on). However, she doesn't save the film for me – this movie has been described as a male weepie but I never once felt like crying; the closest emotion was laughter, when a man with a fake limb offered it to Randy to smash over his opponent.

Rating: VID