Documentary Review: So Much Damage: How Image Comics Changed the World (2017)

Original Run: November 20th, 2017
Directed by: Jon Erwin
Written by: Michael Avila
Music by: Paul Terry

Syfy, 5 Episodes, 15 Minutes (per episode)

Review:

This is the second documentary I have seen on Image Comics but this isn’t just a rehash of what was already covered in the slightly superior The Image Revolution.

This one was broken out into five 15 minute web episodes and put out by Syfy, who used to be the much cooler Sci-Fi Channel before they changed their channel’s spelling into something stupid.

Anyway, like The Image Revolution this documentary interviews all the key players and gets their stories. But what I like most about this is how it spends a good deal of time talking more about modern Image Comics and not just the revolution of 1991. As cool as that revolt was, modern Image has grown into something that I don’t feel any of the founding members could have fathomed back then.

It’s always fun to hear these guys talk about themselves, their experiences and the creation of Image, as it was a really exciting thing for me to experience as a fan in 1991. It was and still is the coolest thing that happened in the comic book industry in my lifetime.

So this certainly stirs up nostalgia but that doesn’t mean that this survives on that alone. It’s informative, has a good pace and is well organized and presented.

Younger comic book fans today will probably find some value in this, even though it’s made to attract the older fans who remember all of this like it was yesterday.

Rating: 7.5/10
Pairs well with: The Image Revolution and Chris Claremont’s X-Men.

 

Film Review: The Predator (2018)

Also known as: Predator 4 (informal title)
Release Date: September 7th, 2018 (TIFF)
Directed by: Shane Black
Written by: Shane Black, Fred Dekker
Based on: characters by Jim Thomas, John Thomas
Music by: Henry Jackman
Cast: Boyd Holbrook, Trevante Rhodes, Jacob Tremblay, Keegan-Michael Key, Olivia Munn, Thomas Jane, Alfie Allen, Sterling K. Brown, Jake Busey, Yvonne Strahovski

TSG Entertainment, Davis Entertainment, 20th Century Fox, 107 Minutes

Review:

“Fuck me in the face with an aardvark.” – Baxley

I’m always game for a new Predator movie and as long as they aren’t mixing it up with xenomorphs from the Alien franchise, the results are usually pretty good.

I didn’t get to see this in the theater a few months back, as life was busy as shit. I wanted to but then a lot of the negative comments I read and heard about the film kind of snuffed out the motivation I had to see it on the big screen.

I guess I’m the odd man out though, because I didn’t think that this was terrible. While it is worse than the three previous Predator films, it is still better than both of the AvP movies.

Ultimately, I want Predator films to just be mindless fun with a lot of badassery mixed in. This film has that but it could have used a bit more of the badassery element, as the Predators came off as weak and there was more drama and comedy than actual ass kicking.

However, the action scenes were pretty good. Although the flow of the film was a bit messy and the motivations of the Predators and the humans were fairly confusing.

There’s a whole bunch of science-y shit about Predators stealing human DNA and making themselves adapt to human conditions so they can steal our planet as their own once we all die from global warming. I don’t know, that’s all pretty stupid and the film didn’t need some genetic plot twist with environmental alarmism tossed in but Hollywood’s gonna Hollywood.

Anyway, I’m not a fan of larger Predators, which is something they’ve done in the last two films. In Predators, it was just done to show that there are different types of Predator tribes but here, it was a genetic manipulation thing. I guess the large Predators in Predators could have also been genetically modified but when each of these movies has had different creative teams with lots of years between each release, its like each film, other than Predator 2, is trying to be some sort of reboot for a new trilogy that never actually happens. And that is exactly what this is, it’s the first part of a trilogy or multi-part story where there probably won’t be another sequel for another decade and then it’ll be another soft reboot.

And frankly, I don’t want a sequel to this film, I’d just prefer a badass Predator movie regardless of whether or not it has direct ties to previous films. Although, a true sequel to the first film that involves Schwarzenegger would be the best possible scenario, in my opinion. But I’d also check back in with the Adrian Brody character from Predators, as well.

This film had a lot of issues and I could fixate on things like Olivia Munn seeing a Predator ship leaving her behind, at least a mile or so away and then it crashes after traveling for a few more minutes but suddenly she arrives on foot to help kill off the alien. Or I could just try really hard to ignore that type of stuff and focus on the fact that this was pretty fun, even with its flaws.

Rating: 7.25/10
Pairs well with: PredatorPredator 2 and Predators.

Comic Review: Batgirl: Year One

Published: September 3rd, 2000 – December 31st, 2000
Written by: Scott Beatty, Chuck Dixon
Art by: Javier Pulido, Robert Campanella

DC Comics, 203 Pages

Review:

Batgirl: Year One has been paired up in a trade paperback format with Robin: Year One in some releases and for good reason.

Mainly, this is done by the same creative team and it has a similar tone, art style and narrative structure.

This was released a year before Robin: Year One and is equally as good, if not a wee bit better. Reason being, this has a threat that feels larger, a plot that’s more cohesive over the multiple issues, as well as more characters that come into the story in ways that really help to flesh out Barbara Gordon’s origin.

Scott Beatty and Chuck Dixon wrote a body of work that is close to being a masterpiece and is one of the best Batgirl stories ever produced, hands down.

Just like with Robin: Year One, which I already reviewed, I absolutely love the art of Javier Pulido and Robert Campanella. It has a pristine look while also looking retro for the time where this is set. It has a similar feel to Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale’s Batman epics, also from the same time period, and it even kind of channels elements from Batman: The Animated Series, which was still very fresh in people’s minds in 2000.

If you know Barbara Gordon, this book just feels right. Contrary to a lot of her more modern stories, this is the Batgirl I want to read about. I have loved this character since first experiencing her on the ’60s Batman TV show. While that was campy as hell, Barbara always resonated with me and I always loved when she showed up alongside the Dynamic Duo.

Batgirl: Year One is a classic in my opinion. It isn’t something that I hear a lot of people reflect on but it was a real high point in the careers of all the creators involved and for the character.

Rating: 9.25/10
Pairs well with: Robin: Year One, as well as the Batman related books by Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale.

Film Review: The Evil of Frankenstein (1964)

Also known as: Frankenstein’s Monster (Sweden)
Release Date: May 8th, 1964 (US)
Directed by: Freddie Francis
Written by: John Elder
Based on: Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
Music by: Don Banks
Cast: Peter Cushing, Sandor Eles, Peter Woodthorpe, Katy Wild, Duncan Lamont, Kiwi Kingston

Hammer Film Productions, Universal Pictures, The Rank Organisation, 84 Minutes

Review:

“I realized long ago that the only way to prove my theories was to make something in my laboratory that actually lived. I never told you, Hans… I succeeded once.” – Baron Frankenstein

Continuity?! Who the hell needs bloody continuity?!

This is the third film in Hammer’s long running Frankenstein film series but it completely overlooks the solid second film and only builds off of what happened in the first one. So I guess it’s like an alternate “part two”.

While that’s pretty common in horror franchises these days, it’s a little strange that they ignored the second film, which I thought was pretty good and had a really satisfying ending that set up a formula for future sequels.

In this chapter, Peter Cushing’s Baron Frankenstein searches for his creation from the first picture. He ends up finding the monster frozen in ice. The monster is then defrosted and brought back to life.

The film goes back and shows the creation of the monster but these flashbacks are new scenes and different from how they appeared in the original picture. So really, this kind of omits the context of the first film in a similar way to how Evil Dead 2 retells the events of The Evil Dead in its own condensed way.

Despite all that confusion, as I’m a stickler for continuity, I still like this chapter in the franchise. But if Peter Cushing is playing Baron Frankenstein, I’m probably going to like the film. Luckily, none of them are really bad.

This one was distributed in the United States by Universal Pictures, which gave the Hammer team the ability to make the monster look more like Universal’s classic design from the Boris Karloff movies. Weirdly, they made the creature’s head way too boxy in their attempt at creating the look of the Karloff creature. For most people it probably looks bad but it is at least a memorable version of the monster unlike the versions we got in parts two, four and five.

While this one isn’t directed by Hammer’s maestro behind the camera, Terence Fisher, it still has the same sort of spirit and tone. Freddie Francis did an acceptable job in place of the great Fisher.

The Evil of Frankenstein is a pretty strong outing by Hammer, even though it’s not one of the best in their long filmography. I still enjoy it for what it is and it kept the series interesting and fresh. And as always, Cushing was dynamite.

Rating: 7/10
Pairs well with: other Hammer Frankenstein films, as well as the Hammer Dracula and Mummy series.

Comic Review: Web of Venom: Venom Unleashed

Published: January 9th, 2019
Written by: Ryan Stegman
Art by: Juan Gedeon, Kyle Hotz, Ryan Stegman (cover)

Marvel Comics, 33 Pages

Review:

I’ve been really enjoying all of the Donny Cates Venom stuff between the ongoing series and the other Web of Venom one-shots. This one wasn’t written by Cates, however, but it was written by Venom artist Ryan Stegman.

Considering that Stegman knows Venom just as much as Cates, at this point, makes this a pretty interesting and unique take on the modern Venom world.

The story shows the Venom symbiote take the form of a dog in an effort to protect Eddie Brock. Recently, Venom went through some heavy shit and he can no longer communicate to Brock in the same way. He’s damaged but he still has loyalty to Brock.

Also, this continues to add more depth to the return of Carnage, who we saw working his way back into Venom’s story back in the previous Web of Venom one-shot.

Stegman got to take a break from the art, apart from the cover, but Juan Gedeon and Kyle Hotz’s art was more than satisfactory.

Overall, this was a quick, fun read and it served to enrich the current Venom mythos.

But now I’m tired of waiting for the big Carnage return. I want that sinister bastard back because when used the right way, he makes Venom stories more interesting. In the hands of Donny Cates, I’m sure we’re in for some really great issues coming up.

Rating: 8/10
Pairs well with: the recent Donny Cates Venom series and its Web of Venom spinoffs.

Maxim Is Bullshit

*The Bullshit Series started on an older blog but I wanted to bring these articles back here, as I have new installments for the series that I want to release over time. The series focuses on things that I think are bullshit… like filet mignon, Zubaz pants, the Pro Bowl and diets.

*Written in 2014.

Let me start by saying that I really like looking at Mila Kunis and pretty much every other girl that Maxim throws on its cover to perk up dude’s peens and get them to buy a copy at the newsstand. Hot celebrity chicks wearing next to nothing will always turn the head of men in heat. For the record, men are always in heat; it’s the nature of the beast that is us but at least some of us aren’t pathetic dick-driven saps.

This is why I have never actually bought an issue of Maxim. Well, that and the absurdity of their headlines, which completely make me shake my head in disbelief. That is actually what this whole damn article is about.

Do the editors of Maxim think that men are women? I only ask this because at its core, on a content level, Maxim is essentially Cosmopolitan for people with dicks. I’m sorry but I have a dick and I’m not buying into this charade. To be blunt, I wouldn’t be surprised if Maxim was some attempt to further emasculate men by pretending that they’re trying to give the illusion of building them up.

To make my point clearer, let’s looks at some of the headlines from their covers:

“Is Your Girl Cheating?”
“Share The Love Bro!: How To Steal Your Best-Friend’s Girl”
“Can We Get That To Go (Waitress Sex)”
“I Do The Bridesmaid: Get Great Wedding Sex”
“She Wants To Cheat: Sex Secrets Of The Hotel Bar”
“Eat. Lay. Love. The Good Sex Diet”
“How To Scam Hot Chicks Even If You’re Too Timid To Even Buy Actual Pornography”
“Tongue Twist Her: How To Kiss Her Where It Counts”
“Love Lessons: Sex Tips You Can’t Live Without”
“5,000 Women Want You.. To Know What They Want In Bed”
“Become A God: In Bed, At Work, Behind The Wheel”
“Cheat And Don’t Get Caught: Women Tell You How”
“Touch Her Right Here: 10 Hot Spots For One-Stroke Seduction”
“Unleash Her Inner Nympho”
“Sex Unlimited!: Make Any Girl Seduce You!”

That’s just 15 headlines from random covers. They’ve been putting this shit out monthly for over 15 years. Not to mention that it has 16 editions in 75 countries. Maxim sells over two million magazines per month!

While reading those headlines, many of which I’ve seen on newsstands, I felt like my masculinity was shriveling up and dying just from glancing at those words. I mean, who writes that shit? More importantly, who reads it? Certainly not men. Well, possibly human beings with penises but not actual men.

Have we been reduced to insecure little bitches that cower in the face of sex? Are we gossipy woman-like creatures who need to thumb through the latest sex article because we’re fearful that our significant other is a loose trollop? Are we really all pigs that want to fuck our best friend’s girl? What does Maxim think a man is, exactly? And if they are this far gone on the understanding of masculinity, is it possible that they also don’t understand femininity?

Here’s reality though. You see, if Maxim’s tips and tricks were working, wouldn’t there be an extra two million dudes per month turning their game up – becoming superstar pimps leaving their mark on the hearts and uteruses of females everywhere?

Maxim is in the business of selling magazines. Sex sells. Maxim sells sex. People buy it. The formula is simple.

But as far as taking any of it seriously, get your shit together. Maxim isn’t here to help you and they really don’t care if they do. They sell a tried and true formula that works while desperate males continue to buy into it in an effort to quell their insecurities.

With the rise of feminism, women have become much more secure and have taken charge of their own destinies. That’s great. On the flipside however, men are seemingly reduced to the housewives of yesteryear, sitting in a bookstore café, nibbling on biscotti, reading Maxim – trying to get love tips to please their women, just as women used to do forty or fifty years ago. The roles have reversed and these men are just lost.

Well fellas, I’d hate to be the one to break it to you, but you aren’t going to find yourself in the pages of Maxim.

Getting back to the hot ladies in the magazine, yes.. I like to look at them. However, in this day and age, porn is free and at least people are naked and fucking.

Film Review: The Hills Have Eyes, Part 2 (1984)

Release Date: June, 1984 (Mystfest – Italy)
Directed by: Wes Craven
Written by: Wes Craven
Music by: Harry Manfredini
Cast: Tamara Stafford, Kevin Spirtas, John Bloom, Michael Berryman, Penny Johnson, Janus Blythe, John Laughlin, Willard E. Pugh, Peter Frechette, Robert Houston

Castle Hill Productions, Hills Two Corporation, 90 Minutes

Review:

“Sue, it ain’t natural to be in a place without a disco.” – Foster

I’m not a fan of Wes Craven, despite many in the horror community probably wanting to take off my head for such a statement. I’ve explained why in reviews of other Craven films, so I won’t rehash all of that again.

I also don’t really like The Hills Have Eyes.

So it probably goes without saying that I’m not a fan of this sequel.

While this is worse than the first one which was just kind of okay, this film actually is more interesting.

We check back in with two of the characters from the previous movie, one of them, a girl that left the inbred psychos of the desert, returns with some friends on some sort of dirt bike camping excursion. It seems silly that she would ever go back there for any reason but hey, it’s best not to think too hard about this movie.

This plays a bit more like a slasher than the previous film and while I like that formula, it goes to show that maybe Wes Craven completely dialed it in for this sequel, as he wasn’t necessarily creating anything new and was instead, trying to make his own Friday the 13th, even though his original A Nightmare On Elm Street movie was better than any Friday the 13th film.

The crazy inbred family returns and they aren’t too pleased to see that their little sister (or whatever she is) has come back and is looking pretty normal, living a normal life with normal friends that fuck and do drugs.

The action is okay but the film is pretty dull, overall. I like the premise of the film but it’s not executed in a way that it really matters and thus, this is pretty forgettable.

There isn’t much that’s memorable about this other than Michael Berryman getting a rematch with the dog from the first movie and a moderately interesting bit where the kids try to use a mine shaft to their advantage.

Also, the score to the film is really bad and it just sounds like Wes is deliberately ripping off Friday the 13th in the poorest and most generic way possible.

Willard E. Pugh, who I love in Robocop 2, was kind of funny in his scenes here but other than Pugh and Berryman, there really isn’t anyone of note in this picture.

A poor sequel to a film that really didn’t deserve one, done by a guy who already eclipsed the thing he was trying to ripoff. Maybe this was just done for a paycheck.

Rating: 4.75/10
Pairs well with: other early Wes Craven works, as well as other cannibal killer movies.