Watchmen

I'm a comic geek. I gather that's pretty obvious by now. However, I'm not some rabid loyalist to any particular character or group. Marvel, DC, Image, Dark Horse, whatever. I really don't care as long as the story's good. I skirt the edges normally, looking for the unusual and unconventional. Ever hear of Blacksad? Probably not, right?

I guess the popularity of Watchmen was what actually kept me away from it. I've avoided the book for a long time, partially because everyone keeps raving about it. But, with a movie coming up, which looks really good, I finally succumbed and read the thing.

Damn.

I know Alan Moore's seen by a lot of folks out there as God, at least in terms of brilliant comic writing (and if you've seen his pictures, he kinda looks like God, or Rasputin. Take your pick.), but really, his work here is incredible. The world he creates and the characters that populate them are complex and fascinating, and the imagery in each panel is just staggering. The plot is both intricate and insanely over the top, but the effects of it are real-world horrifying.

And everything about that book is deliberate, even the use of bleedingly bright colors for all the illustrations in the book. Even Gibbon's illustration style was deliberately geared to make the comic look like a comic, but the thing didn't read like one. For a while, Watchmen was alone out there. It was pushing comics to its edge, and it did that wonderfully.

Comic books became so much smarter with Watchmen, which deservedly got the nod of critics as a genuine piece of literature. And now it's getting a movie, which has me chomping at the bit to see it.


However, I can't see it covering everything that the book did. More imporatantly, I don't think it should. To try and recreate the intricate works that are in the book on film would be a ridiculously difficult venture. All I hope is that they do a good movie, something that would satisfy everyone's joneses for a moderately intelligent action movie.

Then pick up the book and read the rest.

Quantum of Solace

A lot has been made about the new James Bond being more...emotional than the others. Really? Daniel Craig twitches an eyebrow and suddenly he's a crybaby? Really?

I don't think so.

I've heard differing opinions about Quantum of Solace, with a group generally hating the new turn Bond has taken, preferring the world of ridiculous gadgets, dry one-liners, and outlandish villains and sets. I, if it isn't obvious yet, belong to those who applaud the new direction.

Bond, at least the way Flemming wrote him, was a cruel featured, cold-hearted sonofabitch whose gadgets were usually limited to a bible hiding a gun in it. I grew up on that Bond, the one who, interestingly enough, is more like the Daniel Craig Bond. He kicked ass, with no need for silliness or gadgetry. Instead, Bond relied on his head, his gut, and his fists.

In my opinion, that Bond rocked.

And Quantum of Solace, despite the typically goofy title, actually delivers more of that kind of, well, literary, Bond. There were homages to the older films, too. Strawberry Fields (yes, that was Agent Fields' name) was covered in oil, in reference to Goldfinger's gold-plated victim.

If there is a quibble, it's that the action sequences were over-edited, reducing them to an almost incomprehensible mash of images. But tight plotting (though not as tight as Casino Royale) saves the film, as does the sight of a vulnerable Bond.

Bond's seeming emotional detachment becomes an entire sub-plot and back story, something that explains why he is such a lovable bastard. The reset of the franchise decided to take things back to basics, but at the same time, retain as much of the Bond formula as they could without getting silly. The result is a more believable Bond, devoid of any cliche or kitcsh. And it works. Get used to it folks, this Bond's here to stay.

And I, for one, am glad.