"I WANTED TO PORTRAY VERY, VERY DARK SUBJECT MATTER..."

I wanted to portray very, very dark subject matter and a deceptively complex story in the brightest colours and simplest lines possible to leave the readers reeling.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_millar.html

Cont'd "...and a deceptively complex story in the brightest colors and simplest 

lines possible to leave the readers reeling"

Mark Milar

I wanted to portray very, very dark subject matter and a deceptively complex story in the brightest colours and simplest lines possible to leave the readers reeling. Mark Millar
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/markmillar248660.html

I wanted to portray very, very dark subject matter and a deceptively complex story in the brightest colours and simplest lines possible to leave the readers reeling.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/markmillar248660.html

I wanted to portray very, very dark subject matter and a deceptively complex story in the brightest colours and simplest lines possible to leave the readers reeling.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_millar.html

I wanted to portray very, very dark subject matter and a deceptively complex story in the brightest colours and simplest lines possible to leave the readers reeling. Mark Millar
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/markmillar248660.html

Again, I'm hardly on the cutting edge of culture, but since when as that ever stopped me having my say?

Don't worry, this is only a short article.

The man himself, Mark Millar.

Recently, off the back of us talking about the Captain America film of the same name, a good friend lent me the Marvel Civil War graphic novel. I read it, and as much as I enjoyed it (and I did enjoy it) something about it I found troubling. Not that it cost me any sleep, but in some way that's hard to explain I felt like there was something unpleasant starting me in the face. It got me to thinking about the book's writer, Mark Millar, whose work has had astounding influence over the modern comic industry, and whose works have inspired a number of blockbuster superhero films- including the soon to be released Logan, Kickass, Kingsman, and Wanted.

So here's the thing. While many writers and artists may have had a hand in bringing realistic sensibilities into mainstream comics (and I stress the distinction of mainstream), including the divisive Frank Miller and Alan Moore, it is Millar whose bought in the unease of contemporary American politics. That in itself isn't a problem, but unlike his peers, Millar seems less interested in exploring the issues he pulls into frame, or offering any sort of insight, than he is simply dredging some serious real-world issues, simply for the thrill of bringing his characters into conflict. 

I hear the make-up sex is fantastic.

Take Civil War as the prime example; it's a story born from the still glowing ashes of 9/11, yet it offers no real condemnation, it simply acts as a means for bringing heroes against heroes. It feels wrong to invoke something real like 9/11 simply as a plot device, and on top of that it paints it's major cast (with perhaps the exception of Spiderman) as pretty unsympathetic- everybody makes their own personal 'deal with the devil'. And, if indeed that was the point Millar was making, which I doubt, at best it's nihilistic and at its worse, ignorant. Hell, it's saying pretty much the same thing as Team America, except without anywhere near the satire or self-awareness.

I won't deny Millar has his finger on the pulse of what sells comics, and there can be no denying his writing is solid, but he reminds me of Quentin Tarantino's more recent output, in as much as I feel like he's simply serving up the darker underbelly of the world simply for the sake of giving it a damn good leer, rather than to expose any uncomfortable truths (watching the Hateful Eight is akin to watching a bucket filled with scorpions, waiting to see which order they sting each other in- there may be death, but you won't learn anything from it). Compare that to, say, Paul Verhovan, whose work is often hideously violent, but while Verhovan flirts with the notions of evil, and our society's obsession with sex and violence, you feel like he's always making a valid point. Tarantino (and Millar in same fashion) feel less like flirting with the insidious, and much more like a back street blowjob with it; and by way of that analogy, it left me feeling sordid. Sure, I'd had my fun reading Civil War, but afterwards I felt hollow, and after it was done I realised how much simply wasn't there; cheap thrills had taken the place of anything deeper or more rewarding.

Grisly, but is it more than its surface brutality?

There's an argument to be made that, if I'd followed the entire Civil War arc and spin-off comics, then perhaps I'd have been rewarded with some epiphany, that the greater subtext would make itself apparent, but I doubt it. I've read Kickass, and that was similarly grimy, while Kickass 2 was so leery and spiteful I sold both that and Kickass because I'd done with it. Sure, Maillar's bang-on with his dissection of a warped media-obsessed society, and the malicious under-culture of desensitized modern youths, but ever rape and child murder felt like a Daily Mail headline that offered no reward beyond the grim details, and it sat very jarringly with what I guessed was an attempt at humour. Conversely, both the Kickass and Civil War films offered far more than their comic source material. And, as if to solidify my every point, when asked if Mark Millar enjoyed Kickass on it's release, he answered flippantly “yeah, but they turned my comic into a chick-flick”.

In short; I'm glad Millar is out there somewhere writing comics. Without him, better writers would be less inspired. Millar's influential legacy will, in the fullness of time, be far greater than his own work, because what started with him will be taken on by people with far more to say about the world around them, than those who simply thrive on it's unpleasantness like crows on the dung heap.

Because that's what every comedic story needs; a rape scene.

“THE WORLD IS NOT THE SAME AS IT WAS, CHARLES...”

“...Mutants... they're gone now.”

Logan  

Maybe you've heard (ha!) but there seems to be a new Wolverine film coming out... 
Or is there?

 

I'm guessing that vest's not the result of a messy hotdog-eating contest.

Enigmatically named 'Logan', the film seemingly follows in the footsteps of other single-name franchise-finishers by changing tact and reaching for something a little more serious. You have only to see the moody black-and-white photography of the press releases, or catch the first few sombre chords of Johnny Cash's 'Hurt' in the trailer, to know that Logan is aspiring to be a different beast entirely. Just how different remains to be seen, because we all know that looks can be deceiving (Prometheus- I'm talking to you!), but what we do know is Fox have finally allowed Jackman's feral character to push past the constraints of the usual 12a superhero fodder. A higher age rating alone is nothing to be particularly excited about, gore and violence won't necessarily make for a better film. However, of all the superhero films in an over-saturated market, it's the character of the Wolverine who feels like he could truly shine in a more mature film; whose always felt like he's holding something back for the family-audience. Wolverine is, after all, when push comes to shove, a berserk and unstoppable killer, complete with razor-sharp claws.

Let's take a look at what we know about Logan. As you're probably aware, I'm not much into speculation, so the following is based on facts alone.

The Setting:

Any link with the image below? You tell me...

Set in a bleak dystopian future where mutants are seemingly now on the verge of extinction, the films sees the remaining mutants persecuted by a highly militarised global corporation led by Nathaniel Essex. It appears that most of the X-Men have already perished, with only Logan and Charles Xavier leftover, living an impoverished existence while in hiding. Logan himself is no longer the near-invincible Wolverine of previous adventures, his body now ravaged with age and insurmountable wounds, while Xavier is now a frail old man attempting to cope with his dilapidating Alzheimer's. So far, so dark.

“Nature made me a freak. Man made me a weapon. And God made it last too long.”

Logan

In The Making:

 

Armed or unarmed?

This will be the character's third solo film after 'X-Men Origins' and 'The Wolverine', and Hugh Jackman's final portrayal after having played this part for seventeen years (Christ, finding that out that made me feel old). James Mangold, the director of 'The Wolverine', one of the more highly regarded of the X-men cannon, returns to direct this final installment, itself only a "loose continuation" of the previous two films- seeing how it's set in an alternative timeline established by 'Days Of Future Past' and 'Apocalypse' (which still allows the studio to take the remaining X-men films in yet a different direction to the dead-end presented in this setting).

Logan's failing health finally means we, as an audience, don't have to keep overlooking this (strikingly handsome) man is no longer as young as he once was. Stewart will also finally be playing the part much closer to his own age, and it's worth noting a prosthetic needed to be used to make the sprietly-looking Stewart look “believably” haggard (nobody would ever believe he's actually 76).

While in no small part 'Logan' takes it's inspiration from Mark Millar's 'Old Man Logan' comic run, the project has it's roots in a more innocuous and innocent observation made by Hugh Jackman himself, who, when asked what his next Wolverine film would be about, light heatedly referred to the character being a grumpy old man, a self referential swipe at his own age. Little did Jackman know that Old Man Logan was actually 'a thing' and the nerdier corners of the internet went into melt-down. And much to his credit, Jackman is a man who listens to his fans.

Comic Mythos:

Not your average pensioner.

Mark Millar's 'Old Man Logan' series sees the titular character, now decrepit and defeated, rising to the task of one final, bloody adventure in a post-apocalyptic future. Although the source material has been thankfully toned-down from the garish grotesqueness of Millar's imaginings (including but not exclusive to gigantic dinosaur carcasses, a world carved up between super-villains, and incestuous hill-billy Hulks), the overall conceit remains unchanged: Logan is now a shell of his old self, and the world around him has turned bad...

In all likelihood Laura, the girl protected by Logan during the film, is the cinematic incarnation of the comic character X-23, a female clone of Wolverine. Judging by the trailer, Laura is pursued by the military, including the Essex corporations' relentless head of security Pierce.

“She's like you... she's very much like you...”

Charles Xavier 

Scowling villain? Check.

 

Pierce is also a character ripped straight from the pages of the comics, although his portrayal here is obviously a little more gritty. In the comics he was a mutant-hating cyborg, and among his affiliations were the Reavers, a group dedicated to the destruction of mutants (a match forged in Hell). In the film 'Logan', both the Reavers and Pierce seem to be the muscle for the 'sinister' Essex Corporation.

Nathaniel Essex in the world of the X-Men is the alias of one of the most dangerous of their enemies, Mister Sinister- himself a powerful mutant with a penchant for genetic experimentation. The comics draw him as a sort of cyber-goth Eddie Izzard, yet how he translates to film, and who will go on to play him (assuming he makes an actual appearance) remains to be confirmed. Some believe  English thesp Richard E. Grant will play the role.

Liev Schriber expressed an interest in returning to the role of Victor Creed, aka Sabourtooth. Creed is Logan's half-brother and fellow mutant, a role Liev first portrayed in Wolverine Origins. Liev was a stand-out highlight in what was otherwise a mess of a film, although how (if at all) his portrayal links with the Sabourtooth seen in the first X-men film has never been made clear. It would be nice to see Liev bring the character back so the Logan/Creed relationship/rivalry can finally be bought to a (likely bloody) ending.

To add to the growing list of confusing cast changes and character reboots within the X-Men movie-universe, Stephen Merchent will be portraying the underground-dwelling mutant Caliban, who has previously been played by someone else. Again, what relation the two portrayals have to do with each other has not yet been made clear, and could well be another case of “don't think too hard on this and move along”. In the new film, Caliban appears to be, at least in some way, helping Logan and Xavier keep a low profile.

This does not look like it's going to end well...

So, with the rest of you, I now wait with bated breath for the release date of 'Logan' in March, and for the first time in over ten years I'm actually pretty excited for an X-men film, if this still qualifies as such? Let's hope Jackman, Mangold and company don't disappoint.

KICK-ASS 2; Carlisle's Final Word

"If I was even thinking about a Kick-Ass sequel, I had to get serious." 

Dave Lizewski.

Will they kiss-and-makeup?

Synopsis;

Bumbling but well-meaning superhero Kick-Ass joins forces with like minded have-a-go-superheros to make the streets a a safer place. However, Hit-Girl (Kick-Ass' infinitely more capable crime-fighting partner) succumbs to the pressure of her new guardian to hang up the cape and lead the life of a normal fifteen year old girl. But trouble is looming on the horizon in the form of super-villain The Motherfucker- an enemy from Kick-Ass and Hit-Girl's shared past, and one who is intent on a very violent revenge...

Script Logic; 1/2

Well, the script sort of makes sense- given the context of superheros and the constraints of comedy. While the film does well to avoid the original comic's more-offensive moments (such as a gang-rape, child executions and a tortured dog) in many ways it does take a swipe at plot threads so well established in the original film- in particular the main character's relationship with Katie Deauxma. Here, Katie has been rewritten as something of a bitch, possibly to better fit with the continuity of the comic sequel (the first comic and first film had wildly different endings). That's is a real shame, seeing as that same relationship was so well-established and affectionately played-out- while Kick Ass' new 'fling' with fellow vigilante Night-Bitch is a hollow one-note affair by comparison. All that work and chemistry completely gone to waste...

Despite this, perhaps the script's worst failing is the lack of any wit. The one-liners are dead-on-arrival and the comedy in-general is far more juvenile; nowhere near as smart, sassy or subversive (or deliberate) as it's predecessor. Without that particular ace-in-the-hole, all we're left with is a sub-par action movie, and a reliance on cranking-up the grossness and violence...

Pace; 1/2

It has to be said that at least the pace is never slow- if anything, it's too rushed! The film's tendency is to wedge too much into the running time, which means that whole sub-plots, character arcs and set pieces struggle to make any impact; individually these are all sound 'ideas' that simply fail to take flight because of a lack of substantial screen-time allowing an audience to properly invest in these characters and their individual struggles. Instead the film relies on a certain amount of good-will generated by the previous film rather than working out it's own failings. One or two stories well told is better than a dozen botched attempts.

Acting; 2/2

Nobody really drops the ball here; Aaron Taylor-Johnson does what he can with his scenes and a scatty story arc, Christopher Mintz-Plasse makes an amusingly volatile villain (and epitomizes everything wrong with the worst kind of teenage fan-boy), and Chloe Grace Moretz makes a very welcome return as Hit-Girl (who is clearly the script's most favored character). However, the real stand-out performances in this film belong to the criminally underrated John Leguizamo and (dare I admit this) Jim Carrey. The first plays a pivotal role as the villain's first body guard, a sympathetic crook whose murder acts as that character's tipping point from 'pathetic snot-nosed nerd' into a very warped antagonist, and the second puts in  a scene-stealing and unrecognisable turn as psychopath-turned-born-again-christian superhero Colonel Stars & Stripes (shame he ruined any kudos by bad-mouthing the movie in relation to the Sandy Hook tragedy- see my note on the subject for more details).

Aesthetic; 1/2

While the costumes and sets all remain fittingly-glossy, the fight scenes- such a highlight of inventive insanity the first time around, here are all flat and lifeless. I watched this film only the other day and I struggle to remember any of them- nothing as outlandish or stand-out as 'that' corridor scene, or Kick-Ass' first failed outing and subsequent beating at the hands of two car-jackers. Even the film's climax, a mass-battle between hundreds of masked heroes and villains, fails to make an impact.

A clash of titans, something that the film intentionally build towards, Hit-Girl vs. the bulging and brutal Mother Russia (Motherfuckers most dangerous ally) is also depressingly mundane and unimaginative. I'll admit, seeing a teenager slicing up a bunch of criminals is never going to be as eye-popping as seeing a child do the very same thing, but even overlooking this fact there's no excusing just how uninspiring the fight sequences are. Only one moment featuring a lawn mower even comes close to anything in the first Kick Ass...

On a similar note, in this film the violence is far more leery and mean-spirited, which I appreciate may be more in keeping with the source material (myself, I'm not really a fan of the comic), but it's strikingly at odds with the overall warmth of the original... This is especially true in relation to the 'prison murder scene'...

Originality & Intention; 0/2

The original Kick-Ass film, despite the language and violence, was a charming film with a big heart and a mischievous sense of humor. By comparison, this is a leery, immature and spiteful film which feels more like the bad fan fiction of a teenager with a few 'issues'. This film is the product of a creative team who just aren't as driven, talented or witty as those responsible for the first Kick-Ass; failing to build on the foundations of the first film, they have instead turned-in a lack-luster sequel that fails to properly appreciate (or understand) what a gift the first film actually was.

Final Score; 5/10 

It's not that Kick-Ass 2 simply fails to live up to the first film, it's that Kick-Ass 2 is just a shoddy film, full-stop.