Category: 2003

Startling Stories: The Thing – Night Falls On Yancy Street (2003) #2

St02

Dorkin’s pacing is still excellent this issue, maybe even more than in the last one. And I guess this issue is somewhat better, even if Haspiel’s artwork fails to impress (he does a lot of superhero stuff in the second half and most of it falls flat). What’s troubling is Dorkin’s characterization of Ben.

The series, regardless of it being a Startling Stories title or having an indie creative team, seems to be shaping up to being about Ben cheating on Alicia. Dorkin comments on it, then handles it like Ben’s an adolescent. The series is set during the period when Johnny was dating Crystal, which I think was in the seventies. In other words, Dorkin has a wide timeline to work with and chooses the temporal setting for a reason.

Then he handles it like a Saturday morning cartoon.

Still, the series is getting better, thought not particularly good.

Startling Stories: The Thing – Night Falls On Yancy Street (2003) #1

St01

I’m not particularly literate in Fantastic Four, but even I have read this comic before. It’s Ben Grimm all upset about being the Thing so he hoofs it back to Yancy Street so he feels better about himself.

It’s pretty much every Thing comic stereotype thrown into an issue, with the possible exception of a new love interest (after Ben storms out on Alicia… she was being nice to him again).

The only other difference is it’s from Evan Dorkin and Dean Haspiel, which I guess is to give it an indie edge. Given Ben’s a talking wall, I’m not sure how anyone could draw him without some kind of indie sensibility and the Haspiel artwork is lovely.

As for Dorkin, I’m as unimpressed as I usually am with his writing. He overwrites the narration (in a misguided Stan Lee homage?), his observations are trite but it is paced well.

The Courtyard (2003) #2

C2

Ah, I misremembered. I thought this issue ended with an insanely graphic scene. It doesn’t, it’s all implied… which means on the second reading (or whatever) it’s a lot less intense.

There are three or four double-page spreads here, so I guess Burrows does get to do some work. It’s good he gets to do them, even if they’re gross, because the rest of the issue is pretty boring. It’s mostly scene work, but he’s stuck with the two panels a page and it really doesn’t work for someone walking up a flight of stairs.

The Lovecraft reference—the Cthulhu name-dropping—is clearer in the end, but it comes during an early Photoshop (changing color-tones—I hope Burrows got paid for each page, even though the last three are identical illustrations) and it really doesn’t matter.

I hope Moore bought himself something nice with his Courtyard paycheck.

The Courtyard (2003) #1

C1

Not having read Alan Moore’s original short story… I have to wonder if Antony Johnston added all the racial slurs to make The Courtyard seem more “authentic.”

I’ve read the comic before (so I remember the big reveal)—I did not remember, however, the titular courtyard doesn’t even show up until the second issue—but it was probably before I’d read Moore talk about comic book writing. Besides the center spread, Jacen Burrows splits every page into two long panels. Johnston includes the text; again, whether it’s his or Moore’s is unclear.

Burrows’s artwork is good, but The Courtyard doesn’t really give him a chance to do anything. His panels are mostly static, even when he’s got an actual scene, he’s still in the same two panel format (Watchmen it ain’t).

It’s also unclear how Moore weighted the original text; the Lovecraft stuff, for example, could have been more prevalent.

Open Range (2003, Kevin Costner)

Because I’m a cynic, I have to point out the following–in order to revive the Western, that most American of genres (sort of), Costner had to film Open Range in Canada.

It’s hard to think of a more traditional Western than Open Range. But the way Costner films it, it’s nouveau-Technicolor–the sky impossibly blue, the prairie impossibly green. There’s a subtle thread running through Range about progress and participating in it and not participating in it… but the film’s not about that collision.

Instead, it’s a straightforward Western–some drama, some action, some comedy. There’s even Costner putting in an unexpected Waterworld reference, as Michael Jeter swings around.

Most of the film takes place over a day and a half. It’s not real time, but there’s a deliberate pace and Costner’s able to keep every plot development significant. It makes the film speed through its two hours and twenty minutes. The first act, with this delicate introduction to Costner, Robert Duvall, Diego Luna and Abraham Benrubi, is exceptional filmic storytelling.

The acting’s all great. Costner and Annette Bening have their gentle romance–the most un-Western thing about the film is Costner casting someone his age as his love interest. Then there’s Costner and Duvall’s friendship–these two awkward, asocial men bonding–it’s all very thoughtful and very special. Luna’s good as their sidekick.

Plus, James Russo is fantastic as the corrupt marshal.

Open Range is a quietly spectacular film; it’s tragic Costner’s not recognized for it.

4/4★★★★

CREDITS

Directed by Kevin Costner; screenplay by Craig Storper, based on a novel by Lauran Paine; director of photography, J. Michael Muro; edited by Michael J. Duthie and Miklos Wright; music by Michael Kamen; production designer, Gae S. Buckley; produced by David Valdes, Costner and Jake Eberts; released by Touchstone Pictures.

Starring Robert Duvall (Boss Spearman), Kevin Costner (Charley Waite), Annette Bening (Sue Barlow), Michael Gambon (Denton Baxter), Michael Jeter (Percy), Diego Luna (Button), James Russo (Sheriff Poole), Abraham Benrubi (Mose), Dean McDermott (Doc Barlow) and Kim Coates (Butler).

RELATED

Red (2003) #2

R2

Did Ellis really spend an entire issue on quickly killing four assassins and a couple conversations? Now I remember why I avoid most of Ellis’s work–his pacing is absolutely atrocious.

He has an idea here with Red–what if the CIA reactivated their best assassin and he came after them. But Ellis doesn’t have any more story following that idea. The first issue had a vague Bush looks like a chimp joke, but nothing else as far as a point.

Hammer’s art is getting really boring. The idea of cartoonish spies being really violent–it’s like Queen and Country in color and not good. The lengthy talking heads scene is just painful.

I’m trying to think if there’s anything I liked about the issue–I didn’t even like the end because it’s got a stupid cliffhanger. Red might be the perfect example of why three issue limited series are a really bad idea.

Red (2003) #1

R1

I’m curious what Warren Ellis’s script for this issue looks like… it must be really short. Maybe he draws on the pages, thumbnails, sketches, something. Because he can’t be writing much on them. This issue has almost no dialogue after the first five or six pages.

So it’s all up to Cully Hammer and he does a decent job of it. He’s got to infuse the story with humor but also with horrific violence. He gets the humor part down, the horrific violence not so much. In fact, the action sequence closing the issue is a bit of a bore. The one or two panel emphases on protagonist killing someone–three in this issue’s present action–are supposed to mean something. There are similar flashback panels to show how the protagonist is devastated after being a CIA assassin. It doesn’t work.

But it’s nearly okay. Maybe if the exposition weren’t so forced.

The Walking Dead (2003) #3

Twd3

I think it might be me. I think I might not be suited for Walking Dead. I mean, it’s all very competently done and it’s sort of interesting if wholly unoriginal (the best friend really after Rick’s wife was no surprise, Moore’s art gave the character that body language from his first panel)–I just don’t care.

Kirkman’s characters are really, really boring. It’s like he goes out of his way to make them unoriginal–except maybe the little guy who warns Rick about his best friend, that character is interesting… since the evil friend is probably going to end up killing him.

I also don’t like the kids. They’re really annoying.

I’m sticking it through for a few more, to see if it picks up. Hopefully Kirkman will start killing off supporting cast members so I can remember their names. Also, some zombie attacks might liven the book up a bit.

The Walking Dead (2003) #2

Twd2

Wow, talk about cutting back on the drama quotient.

This issue is mostly spent on expository dialogue explaining the zombie plague to Rick. It shocks him a little but it’s all okay because he finds his family at the end. Unfortunately, as much as I love the celebratory emotional scene, Kirkman didn’t really make it mean anything. It’s not like Rick had a long, hard journey. The most traumatic thing was apparently having to jump from one building to another. Not even zombie related.

I’m rather unsold on the whole thing so far. Kirkman’s slight Southern dialect makes the characters sound forced, not real.

I don’t even know the Asian kid’s name. It’d probably be inappropriate to nickname him Short Round.

Speaking of names, we never get to find out what Rick names the horse he rides into Atlanta. It seems like a rather important detail and Kirkman skips it.

The Walking Dead (2003) #1

Twd1

I’ve been hearing about Walking Dead for a long time and have always meant to read it. Not sure what pressed me this time (possibly the impending television show).

My initial reaction? I’ve seen most of all this before. The opening, either from Day of the Triffids or 28 Days Later, is something I’ve seen. The dad and kid, seen them before. The race stuff, seen it before.

However, I haven’t seen such a hopeful protagonist. Kirkman sets up Rick–one issue down and I already know the protagonist’s name and refer to him by it, two points to Kirkman there–as insanely positive. He’s walking through a zombie apocalypse and he thinks his wife and kid are going to be a-okay.

I’m not sure if Kirkman intends it… but that kind of naive positivity in a protagonist is endearing–though it doesn’t fit with him being a cop.