You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
1.44k reviews by:
emberology
I managed to get addicted to the CW show, and although I knew the comic version would be different, I thought it would be fun to get some zombie action. Well, this really isn't like the show. That one has a great pace, great actors, a fresh take on the topic, and interesting plot development.
The art here is fine (albeit a bit flat and two-dimensional), but there's a lot going on otherwise. It's like all possible monsters suddenly jump at you from the bushes yelling "Surprise!", not giving enough time to calmly get used to the whole idea of a town full of supernatural beings. At the same time, first nothing much is happening except the scene is set and everybody are introduced, and when things start to get interesting everything happens too quickly. The crush, the realization of the nature of his job, the save-the-world-with-me aspect...
The comic also makes the zombie thing too fluffy for my taste. There's an element of freshness, like with the show, but the latter isn't as lollipop pink. I don't have major problems with the comic, though. I was entertained and I might as well check the next volume to see how things develop, but I won't go out of my way to find it. The show is definitely still on my watchlist: simple fun but not one-dimensional. The comic is more like a stale Buffy wannabe.
The art here is fine (albeit a bit flat and two-dimensional), but there's a lot going on otherwise. It's like all possible monsters suddenly jump at you from the bushes yelling "Surprise!", not giving enough time to calmly get used to the whole idea of a town full of supernatural beings. At the same time, first nothing much is happening except the scene is set and everybody are introduced, and when things start to get interesting everything happens too quickly. The crush, the realization of the nature of his job, the save-the-world-with-me aspect...
The comic also makes the zombie thing too fluffy for my taste. There's an element of freshness, like with the show, but the latter isn't as lollipop pink. I don't have major problems with the comic, though. I was entertained and I might as well check the next volume to see how things develop, but I won't go out of my way to find it. The show is definitely still on my watchlist: simple fun but not one-dimensional. The comic is more like a stale Buffy wannabe.
A few years back I found the HBO show and immediately fell in love. The snarky and (literally) rotten Crypt Keeper introducing and concluding every episode, the gruesome twists of the stories, the unashamedly uncensored content, all the familiar names that were involved either behind or in front of the camera etc. How about an episode directed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, William Friedkin, or John Frankenheimer? Or seeing Judd Nelson giving a dubious steak recipe to Christopher Reeve (co-starring who else but Meat Loaf)? Or watching how Roger Daltrey plots to kill Steve Buscemi (this particular episode has an amazing body horror moment, by the way)? There are so many great and surreal episodes, though, that I've already forgotten half of them and it would be exhausting to list all of them here. Fortunately the whole show is available in Youtube, so go check it out!
Anyway, when I familiarized myself with comics and 1950s horror comics in particular, I started to contemplate whether I should see if the comic version would be as fun as the show. In a lot of ways it is. People seem to resort to killing pretty easily to get rid of unwanted individuals, and obviously that creates all kinds of situations, where often the bad guys end up dying in various gruesome ways.
There are many similar elements, like the Crypt Keeper (according to the show, the lovely spawn of a two-faced sideshow freak and a 4000-year-old mummy) referring to the readers as "kiddies", the lame but fun puns (a dead guy who narrates the tale is a "ghost writer", a woman who rots at the end "would have been a rotten actress anyway" etc.), and the twists at the end of the stories. The different point of views work great in a comic format, for example in the story where we see everything from a man's point of view who seems to scare everyone he comes to contact with, and at the end we see why.
The differences in the comic aren't negative, though. The voice-overs of the hosts wouldn't work in the show, but here they move the story smoothly forward, giving an atmosphere of a bedtime story of sorts. There are gruesome moments but the violence usually happens off stage. We see the minced meat, but not the actual grinding. It adds more drama and tension when the reader waits for the revelation. The only things I didn't care for, though, were the Crypt Keeper's appearance (an old man looking like an aged rocker instead of a skeletal corpse) and the guest hosts. Those are just minor quibbles, though, so I can get over them.
The stories might occasionally be a little clichéd and the 1950s mindset is guaranteed to cause some giggles, but that's part of the fun. Tales from the Crypt doesn't quite fall to the "so bad that it's good" category, because this is a genuinely good series, but there is a quirky tone throughout that can only be found from the older horror comics. The formula of each tale (introduction, story begins, story ends with a twist, conclusion) might be boring after a while, but these are so addictive that once you get absorbed in the world, you can't get enough. The anthology format also allows you to have a bit of a nibble every now and then, if you don't feel like reading that much at one time. The artwork is mostly great as well, especially when the colouring is spot on.
Anyway, when I familiarized myself with comics and 1950s horror comics in particular, I started to contemplate whether I should see if the comic version would be as fun as the show. In a lot of ways it is. People seem to resort to killing pretty easily to get rid of unwanted individuals, and obviously that creates all kinds of situations, where often the bad guys end up dying in various gruesome ways.
There are many similar elements, like the Crypt Keeper (according to the show, the lovely spawn of a two-faced sideshow freak and a 4000-year-old mummy) referring to the readers as "kiddies", the lame but fun puns (a dead guy who narrates the tale is a "ghost writer", a woman who rots at the end "would have been a rotten actress anyway" etc.), and the twists at the end of the stories. The different point of views work great in a comic format, for example in the story where we see everything from a man's point of view who seems to scare everyone he comes to contact with, and at the end we see why.
The differences in the comic aren't negative, though. The voice-overs of the hosts wouldn't work in the show, but here they move the story smoothly forward, giving an atmosphere of a bedtime story of sorts. There are gruesome moments but the violence usually happens off stage. We see the minced meat, but not the actual grinding. It adds more drama and tension when the reader waits for the revelation. The only things I didn't care for, though, were the Crypt Keeper's appearance (an old man looking like an aged rocker instead of a skeletal corpse) and the guest hosts. Those are just minor quibbles, though, so I can get over them.
The stories might occasionally be a little clichéd and the 1950s mindset is guaranteed to cause some giggles, but that's part of the fun. Tales from the Crypt doesn't quite fall to the "so bad that it's good" category, because this is a genuinely good series, but there is a quirky tone throughout that can only be found from the older horror comics. The formula of each tale (introduction, story begins, story ends with a twist, conclusion) might be boring after a while, but these are so addictive that once you get absorbed in the world, you can't get enough. The anthology format also allows you to have a bit of a nibble every now and then, if you don't feel like reading that much at one time. The artwork is mostly great as well, especially when the colouring is spot on.
Anyone who browses my GR shelves won't fail to notice my love of classic cinema. The 250 Quintessential Noir Films -list in iCheckMovies is currently my life blood, so obviously I shrieked from joy when a blogger I follow recommended a film noir-inspired comic (she was actually used as a model for one of the characters, which is pretty neat). When the protagonist wakes up in a bath tub after a hard night of partying and finds a dead starlet in the living room, there's no doubt that you're in for a fun ride.
It was immediately clear that the authors have captured the genre's tone with incredible precision. A research assistant helped in maintaining the authenticity of 1940s L.A. with its twinkling lights, orange sunsets, and seedy back alleys, but reading the afterwords of each issue there's no doubt that the authors' enthusiasm for classic films and listening to 40s music while working helped a great deal as well.
Reading the comic is like following a movie: the voice-over à la Sunset Boulevard (1950), the rhythm of the text, and dialogue make up a very addicting mixture. When you combine all that with excellent art that plays with light and shadows like the best film noirs do, you get perfection. The art also has varying styles: some scenes depict vague memories as hazy forms surrounded by cigarette smoke, and some have the protagonist juxtaposed with a b&w background. These lend the story a sense of mystery and ambiguity, especially since the story appears to have a lot of subtlety. Because of that this will definitely handle multiple reads in the future.
On the other hand, the characters are believable in their noir surroundings. There are the usual archetypes of noir and hard-boiled fiction, but they don't feel at all clichéd or worn out. They might have been if the protanogist had been a private detective, but because he's a screenwriter the story immediately has more appeal. Some of the peripheral characters remind you of real people: the German expatriate director, the Montgomery Clift -look-a-like Tyler Graves etc. Even a few very real people make an appearance: Clark Gable's entrance came hilariously out of nowhere, Humphrey Bogart seems to pop up everywhere you go, and Bette Davis is mentioned as almost stabbing a creep with a nail file (makes total sense).
The articles at the end of each issue are also worth the read, despite that some of the topics have been dealt with millions of times before: Peg Entwistle, Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle, Lana Turner vs. Johnny Stompanato, Jean Spangler, James Stewart, and Our Gang are all sharp peeks to the world of Tinseltown. For once I read the reader letters as well. Lots of great film and tv recommendations, and all coming from people who are passionate about old films.
It was immediately clear that the authors have captured the genre's tone with incredible precision. A research assistant helped in maintaining the authenticity of 1940s L.A. with its twinkling lights, orange sunsets, and seedy back alleys, but reading the afterwords of each issue there's no doubt that the authors' enthusiasm for classic films and listening to 40s music while working helped a great deal as well.
Reading the comic is like following a movie: the voice-over à la Sunset Boulevard (1950), the rhythm of the text, and dialogue make up a very addicting mixture. When you combine all that with excellent art that plays with light and shadows like the best film noirs do, you get perfection. The art also has varying styles: some scenes depict vague memories as hazy forms surrounded by cigarette smoke, and some have the protagonist juxtaposed with a b&w background. These lend the story a sense of mystery and ambiguity, especially since the story appears to have a lot of subtlety. Because of that this will definitely handle multiple reads in the future.
On the other hand, the characters are believable in their noir surroundings. There are the usual archetypes of noir and hard-boiled fiction, but they don't feel at all clichéd or worn out. They might have been if the protanogist had been a private detective, but because he's a screenwriter the story immediately has more appeal. Some of the peripheral characters remind you of real people: the German expatriate director, the Montgomery Clift -look-a-like Tyler Graves etc. Even a few very real people make an appearance: Clark Gable's entrance came hilariously out of nowhere, Humphrey Bogart seems to pop up everywhere you go, and Bette Davis is mentioned as almost stabbing a creep with a nail file (makes total sense).
The articles at the end of each issue are also worth the read, despite that some of the topics have been dealt with millions of times before: Peg Entwistle, Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle, Lana Turner vs. Johnny Stompanato, Jean Spangler, James Stewart, and Our Gang are all sharp peeks to the world of Tinseltown. For once I read the reader letters as well. Lots of great film and tv recommendations, and all coming from people who are passionate about old films.
The Mammoth Book of Best Horror Comics
Matt Hollingsworth, Michael T. Gilbert, Serena Valentino, John Stanley, Frank Brunner, Vince Locke, Steve Oliff, Howie Anderson, Ferran Sostres, Pete Von Sholly, Stuart Kerr, Jack Katz, Matt Fox, Tim Sale, Stephen Sennitt, Lou Cameron, Don Heck, Robert Martin, Dave Hitchcock, Chuck Regan, Rudy Palais, Steve Niles, Tom Sutton, Socar Myles, Maelo Cintron, Ben Templesmith, Jerry Grandenetti, A.C. Hollingsworth, James Fletcher, Arthur Suydam, Jay Disbrow, Jack Abel, Mike Ploog, Pete Morisi, Gerald Altman, Jack Cole, Edward Fedory, Roy Thomas, Mike Hoffman, Peter Normanton, Augustine Funnell, Bruce Jones, Joe Gill, Otto Binder, Rand Holmes, Grant Margetts, Bill Benulis, John D'Agostino, Foo Swee Chin, John Coulthart, Michael Wm. Kaluta
The decision to publish even the colour comics in black and white was probably not the best. I thought it was my eyes only, but apparently not. I doubt a magnifying glass would have helped much, especially in Dunwich Horror.
I was mostly interested in the older ones, but even they weren't exactly the best horror comics of the era. The later comics on the other hand were too bare-breasts-in-your-face-to-divert-you-from-the-ridiculous-story.
Worth the read for the pre-1960s section I guess, but not particularly impressive as a whole.
I was mostly interested in the older ones, but even they weren't exactly the best horror comics of the era. The later comics on the other hand were too bare-breasts-in-your-face-to-divert-you-from-the-ridiculous-story.
Worth the read for the pre-1960s section I guess, but not particularly impressive as a whole.
Well put together and succinct stories that showcase Eisner's innovative style. The changes in point of view and the overall inventiveness regarding the plot lines are impressive, not to mention the beautiful line work and striking colours. I'm actually completely in awe with the visuals of the 1940s and 1950s comics, and when you add up Eisner's style of story telling, it all comes together to near perfection. I also loved that Eisner doesn't just settle into the one urban setting, but takes the reader into the shadowy streets of Istanbul among other things.
Of course, there's the racism that no one can ignore, but unfortunately that kind of backwardness can be expected from the time period. I have issues with the female characters as well, since they seem to be there only to exemplify the Spirit's amazing qualities. For example, in the story where we meet Satin for the first time, she seems to scream independence and awesomeness. Apparently, Spirit is such a dapper hunk, that Satin soon forgets to be sensible and refuses to kill the Spirit. Obviously it won't do that the Spirit is killed, but the way the conclusion is reached is absolutely ridiculous. In my opinion a femme fatale is not a femme fatale if she's enslaved by men's charms.
Despite the problems, this is an entertaining read and the Spirit is definitely interesting as a character. Eisner seemed to have such passion for the comic book form that it shows in his stories, and I can imagine they can handle multiple reads as well. The outlandish main characters (an alien agent, a flying man, a toy machine gun etc.) demonstrate that Eisner also had a certain playfulness, and that you can expect almost anything from him. Out of all the villains the Octopus appears to be the most intriguing (at least based on this selection). Only his gloves are clearly visible, so because he doesn't show his real face, he's probably able to infiltrate all areas of the society and to reach his tentacles effectively into the life of crime.
For a great view on Eisner's work I strongly recommend this essay.
Of course, there's the racism that no one can ignore, but unfortunately that kind of backwardness can be expected from the time period. I have issues with the female characters as well, since they seem to be there only to exemplify the Spirit's amazing qualities. For example, in the story where we meet Satin for the first time, she seems to scream independence and awesomeness. Apparently, Spirit is such a dapper hunk, that Satin soon forgets to be sensible and refuses to kill the Spirit. Obviously it won't do that the Spirit is killed, but the way the conclusion is reached is absolutely ridiculous. In my opinion a femme fatale is not a femme fatale if she's enslaved by men's charms.
Despite the problems, this is an entertaining read and the Spirit is definitely interesting as a character. Eisner seemed to have such passion for the comic book form that it shows in his stories, and I can imagine they can handle multiple reads as well. The outlandish main characters (an alien agent, a flying man, a toy machine gun etc.) demonstrate that Eisner also had a certain playfulness, and that you can expect almost anything from him. Out of all the villains the Octopus appears to be the most intriguing (at least based on this selection). Only his gloves are clearly visible, so because he doesn't show his real face, he's probably able to infiltrate all areas of the society and to reach his tentacles effectively into the life of crime.
For a great view on Eisner's work I strongly recommend this essay.
Kiki was a gorgeous woman, and considering the artists she was consorting with, I was expecting a more experimental style. Sure, this is a biography, and I did like some of the more detailed backgrounds, but maybe a bit more unusual approach art-wise would have made Kiki's world a bit more multifaceted. The relationship between artists and their muses could also have been explored a bit more. The whole thing just fell flat for me, even though it wasn't bad per se.