2 posts tagged “comics”

X-Men Forever #1

Having just received (via subscription) and devoured Chris Claremont and Tom Grummett’s X-Men Forever #1, I have no choice but to review it.

Let’s start with my initial reaction to the cover: It’s gorgeous.  It’s classic.  It’s Claremont all the way.  Mr. Grummett’s obvious familiarity with Claremont’s previous run on the X-Men property has already served this title well.  Naturally, as with any of Claremont’s work, even the cover raises questions.  For example, why is Sabretooth on the cover and why must I always suffer through the existence of the world’s most pathetic mutant, Gambit?  Ah well.

Inside the book? Even better.  Even more classic, even more iconic and even more X-Men.  After more than fifteen years writing the X-Men followed by more than fifteen years NOT writing the X-Men, Claremont is still on the mutant ball.  The splash page offers everything you want.  It’s a glorious and thought-provoking image not seen since the team first donned piped blue-gray pleather thanks to enormous ticket sales in the theater.  It makes one ask “What the @#&*?!?”  One immediately realizes that this is a classic Marvel comics move—the semiredux.  Let me just say, I couldn’t be happier about that.

If you remember Giant Sized X-Men #1, you’ll find this book nostalgic and exciting.  It revisits the themes of that amazing story and sets the stage for the classic Claremont-esque style beautifully.

“What’s this Claremont-esque style?” some may ask?  It’s a perfect fusion of conflicts.  The action reflects the tension within the team which mirrors the struggle between the team and its foes, both mutant and societal.  This layering is sure to leave those readers more interested in the character than their powers waiting breathlessly for the next issue.  Every comic is sure to resolve on issue and raise a dozen new questions.

Where’s the tenacious love triangle going now?  Where has Wolverine disappeared to, and whose trail is he on?  Will the ever-moral Nightcrawler resolve the good with the fight? Can Xavier rebuild the family and hold it together?  What is Nick Fury really up to?
 
Of course, I’m not your average reader.  I’m the kind of reader who has been dying to see Claremont X-Men for as long as there hasn’t been any.  I was born in 73, and grew up reading these comics.  I remember Chris Claremont’s run on the X-Men as the golden years, a time when character drove the story and powers supported those characters rather than defined them.

Which brings me back to Tom Grummett’s terrific art.  It’s just as classic, just as appropriate and just as illustrative as any of the incredible artists who worked with Claremont in the 80s and 90s.

With all due respect to Fraction and the Land/Leisten team, this book is so much better than the current Uncanny stuff it isn’t even funny.  The story is richer, denser (another Claremont trait: you get a lot of story and character development in your 32 pages) more visually supported and, frankly, more interesting to the adult reader’s mind.

The only things this book leaves me wanting are a time-travel machine (to skip two weeks to #2) and more money (to buy all the other titles that are now looking more interesting in a “phoenix rising” Marvel Comics era).

Buy it.  Twice.

I give X-Men Forever #1 4 out of 4 colors, 5 out of 5 stars and 100% on the Great Comics of Our Time Scale.

Welcome back, Chris.  It’s good to have you home.

The Incredible Hulk (2008)
Rating: 8 of 10

    Ok, so I thought the Hulk (2003) was pretty good.  It used comic panels for scene cuts and montages.  It co-starred Jennifer Connelly, my all-time favorite actress ever since Labyrinth.  It was cheesy, sure, but so are the comics, at least in the main.   The rewrite of the Hulk's origin was pretty flimsy, what with the atomic dad and all.  The special effects were great, in spite of a few minor flubs.  The design philosophy of the Hulk himself was just bad, though.  He was too slow, which was obviously a failed effort to portray his enormity.  Overall, the whole thing came across like an old-school comic film: poorly.  Mind you, I do own the DVD.

    The remake was justified.  Miss Connelly was sadly replaced by the over-rated Liv Tyler, which is just a damn shame.  Betsy was given a much better role this time around, and deserved more art than little Liv has to offer.  Good Dr. Banner, played in the last film by Eric Bana, was this time portrayed with some actual character by dear old Ed Norton.  He looks much more the scrawny scientist part and brought some direly needed pathos to the role, as is his wont.  I've heard some people declare with ill-deserved authority that the Hulk shouldn't have pathos, to which I can only reply, "Read more comics."

    The visual effects are stunning, the character design of both the Hulk and arch-foe Abomination actually worked, and the combats were orchestrated with expert technique.  Ang Lee totally flubbed that on the previous incarnation, which was rather a surprise.   This Hulk is smaller, more like the  raging greenskin of the seventies and eighties, which I frankly prefer.  One of the great points about the Hulk was always his ability to conquer larger, seemingly stronger enemies with brutal will alone.  Sure, he's big and strong, but biggest and strongest is frankly Superman territory.

    While the plot and character development are much as one would expect, it really shouldn't be any other way.  Hulk, after all, smash.  I'm not one to throw a spoiler, but there's a bit at the end that's exciting to those of us who watch Marvel Studios with ever-growing anticipation, and this time it slipped in before the credits.  There's also a lovely little scene in the wrap-up that should really thrill old-school Hulk readers who understand the unending search for mastery.

    And I should also point out that Lou Ferrigno is looking good!

    All in all, I would certainly recommend this one be seen in the theater.  After all, it's no good to shrink the Incredible Hulk down to your little TV, even if it is a 70" Bravia.

    For the points breakdown, I have to admit one star was lost with Jennifer Connelly.  Yes, I like her that much.  The other point was dropped for ambiguity.  While it didn't bother me much, it seemed like more distinction was needed in the origin.  Many viewers will wonder whether this is a remake or a sequel.  Call it a remake.  Please.  The 2003 version was passable, but it has no place on the same continent as this one.  Just dump it in the bin with X3 and Daredevil.  

    'Nuff said.