The writer is sitting in his room, reading comic books. His face contorts and he seems panicked. He stares at the clock and realises that he has to write a post.”Okay, it’s still Saturday, right?” he asks the ginger dog at his feet. She doesn’t answer, as dogs are wont to do.
He searches for the laptop and finds it sitting downstairs on the blue sofa, with the other computers, charging. He picks it up and heads back upstairs to his room. He reclines on his bed, turns the machine on, and begins to type, altering the truth to make for a better story, but keeping it close to the reality of a boring man’s life.
Why not start with something different? Anyway, onto the main event, a quick run-down of Spider-Men #1 and #2.
Spider-Men is the first cross-over event between the Ultimate Marvel Universe and the standard 616 Marvel Universe. Written Brian Michael Bendis and with art by Sara Pichelli, it details Peter Parker being transported into the Ultimate Universe and meeting his counterpart, Miles Morales. The standard miscommunication occurs and, perhaps inevitably, there is a fight between the two. Peter then meets Nick Fury and deduces that he is in an alternate universe. Peter and Miles climb into a helicopter, and Peter asks him if he is dead in this Universe. They are interrupted before Miles can answer, and Issue #2 ends with a bazooka aimed at the two Spider-Men.
While the book’s plot is, at least so far, slight, Bendis’ focus on characterisation shines through. His Peter Parker is a classical take on Spider-Man. He quips, hits bad guys, is hated by the public, and is clever enough to deduce what’s going on. I can’t really attest to whether this is his current characterisation in his on-going titles, but it definitely matches with the Spider-Man I remember from the cartoon and the 80s books. This is a Spider-Man who isn’t bogged down by angst, but one who lightens the mood considerably. The book is actually fun, a big change from the grimdark of current titles.
Miles, unfortunately, takes a back seat in this cross-over. Bendis seems more concerned with Peter. Fair enough, there is a movie to consider, and people would be confused about a black Spider-Man. The book’s clearly written for newcomers to Marvel, likely those brought in by the movie. This is not really a bad thing, it’s fairly organic. Peter doesn’t know anything about the Ultimate Universe, so it makes sense for the audience to learn things as he learns them. However, I would prefer to see more of Miles. He’s an interesting character in his own right, a child without training, who stumbled into superheroics, and who is still trying to work out the finer details. He’s more reserved than Peter, not quite as quick-witted, and far less talented. He seems a little star-struck in these first two issues, so I hope he takes a larger role in the next three.
Sara Pichelli’s art is universally great, perfectly conveying emotion and action. She has a great amount of talent, and while not J. H. Williams III, her consistently great art and punctuality make her one of the best artists in current comics. Her action scenes are always a joy to watch, and she draws makes a standard shot of Spider-Man swinging seem energetic.
However, the villain of the piece is really… dull. I’m not going to say who it is, but I will say they could be replaced by any other villain and the book would be the same.
The Good: Great art and characterisation, Bendis’ dialogue is mostly smart and quippy, and Pichelli can draw.
The Bad: Standard plot (Spider-Man stops crime, meets villain, fights super-hero, finds out hero is good…) and a boring villain. Not enough Miles Morales.
I saw Submarine last night.
It’s a funny, albeit bizarre, romantic comedy that isn’t terribly romantic. Not a lot of plot going on, it’s more of a character study of Oliver Tate and his world. There are a lot of similarities to The Catcher In The Rye, but the movie deliberately acknowledges this, using symbolism from the book and outright discussing it at one point.
I’d recommend it if it weren’t for this site being predominantley American. It’s a very British movie and, unlike Shaun of the Dead, it wouldn’t translate well culturally. Lots of Briticisms.
- Intensely witty. Most of the comedy isn’t derived from antics or vulgarity, like American Pie, but from wordplay and the self importance of a teenage narration. The social awkwardness of Oliver makes for some hilarious scenes.
LLOYD “[Depression] feels like you’re underwater.”
OLIVER “Is that why you became a marine biologist?”
- Well shot. It’s very aesthetically pleasing, evoking a sense of the 1980s effortlessly through visuals alone. The visual imagery tells us a lot about Oliver and Jordana’s relationship without explicitly stating anything. The scene in which they ride on a bike through a disused funfair with a firework attached to it (the bike) conveys the excitement and the eventual doom of their relationship.
- Transition from humor to drama. It never feels unnatural, everything feels like it connects together. The comic moments fit perfectly with the dramatic e.g. SPOILER ALERT! Jordana’s mum having a brain tumor and her supposedly last Christmas dinner. END SPOILER ALERT! This shows Ayoade to be quite a skilful first time director.
- Characterisation. We get a real sense who each of the main characters are. Oliver is socially awkward, cowardly and bordering on psychopathy; Jordana is directionless, self-destructive and hates romance; Chips is the sort of misogynistic teenage arse who inhabits every classroom… I’ll not spoil the others, but they all have hidden depths.
- The Soundtrack. This is a case of love it or hate it. The score is by Arctic Monkeys’s Alex Turner and conveys the bittersweet nature of teenage life, but occassionally veers into twee. I personally like it, but I can understand if you hate it.
- The imagery occassionally borders on twee and/or amateurish, for example the “Super 8 footage of memory” and Oliver walking from the shallow end to the deep end of the swimming pool. Of course, this can be interpreted as Oliver’s narration being that of a teenager, but I felt it to be a flaw in an otherwise excellent film.
- Graham. He just happens to be the weakest character in the film, though the performance is excellent and amusing, the script fails to explain his attractiveness adequately, bar for housewives who buy into VHS Philosophy. He comes off as unrealistic in an otherwise realistic film.
- The Title Cards, while they worked for comedic parts of the movie and showed the hyperbolic viewpoint of Oliver, undermined some of the drama. This is, admittedly, a minor flaw, it’s a case of a tonal shift that doesn’t work once.
8/10. A great movie, that could have been a classic if it weren’t for some minor flaws.