So if you came across this site, you may be interested in what I’m doing now. It’s a project I’m calling The Revision and it’s a deep dive into movies based on comics that focus on women or girls. And here’s the twist: None of these are about superheroes.

The introduction post has some more information. The first post is about two of the Blondie movies. It will run weekly on Tuesdays.

There will be extra content (more movies, TV shows and things that didn’t fit into the main scope) on my Patreon.

I hope you join me in this journey. We’re going to have fun.

Comics are cool and hip, right? Well, maybe not that superhero stuff necessarily, but those “literary” graphic novels that tend to get featured in the New York Times and such. Those and the people who make them are worth writing an indie romantic drama/comedy around, certainly.

I am kidding here, partially — but writer/director James C. Strouse’s generically-titled People Places Things seems to take that conceit. While I give Strouse credit for some of his details, much of the “graphic novelist” elements seem like a cute motif in the larger story. While they add some unique touches, they do little to elevate the movie much beyond where you’d expect it to be.

The extended title sequence features blue-pencil comic art illustrating how graphic novelist Will Henry (Jemaine Clement, better known as half of Flight of the Conchords) met his current partner and mother of their twins, Charlie (Stephanie Allynne). As openings go, it’s intriguing but not necessarily insightful. Artist Gray Williams, who provided the art, illustrates these scenes in a typical indie comics way (think Adrian Tomine) — clean and a bit cute. It does little to tell us anything about who Will and Charlie are, however.

We first meet them in the flesh at their twins’ birthday party. Will catches Charlie cheating on him with “off-Broadway monologist” Gary (Michael Chernus). It’s an abrupt introduction to these characters — especially to Charlie — and sets up the meandering tone the movie often has.

When the story picks up a year later, Will is in bad shape, drifting through weekends with his (admittedly adorable) twin daughters (played by sisters Gia and Aundrea Gadsby) and the class he teaches on cartooning at School of Visual Arts. When a student, Kat (the amazing Jessica Williams) sets him up with her mother, Diane (Regina Hall),Will begins to question the direction of his life is taking. Or something. I think that’s what we’re supposed to think.

While Will should be an oblivious manchild, Clement brings such sweetness, wit and charm to the role it’s hard not to root for him. His initial scenes with Diane have a playful antagonism that show someone who’s smart but cautious with who he lets in. Even though the movie does have a few non-surprising scenes, like where Will fails to get his daughters to school on time — his gentle but deep love toward his girls is honest and heartfelt. Will is not without his faults but he’s man who is trying to do the best he can for his daughters and himself.

And that’s really the major flaw of the movie — as appealing of a leading man as Clement makes (and no doubt, he’s already a star, but he’s wonderful in this), Will has no real journey. And the major issue is with the character of Charlie.

While some of Charlie’s fears and complaints are understandable — she gave up her own ambitions for Will’s career and after becoming a mother — her character is written in a shrill, unlikable way (and introducing her while she’s cheating on the father of her daughters does her no favors). Allynne does what she can with the role, but Charlie feels unfortunately selfish and flightly because the movie requires her to be. I never really felt like I understood her motivations of what Will saw in her, other than they shared a history. (It doesn’t help that Clement and Allynne have little chemistry.)

But let’s get back to the comics stuff, which is what interested me in this movie in the first place.

While Will’s career as a graphic novelist is somewhat integral to the plot, it also too much like window-dressing. Will could’ve been any sort of artist — a writer, a musician, an actor. The “comics” aspect does come across way too much as a bid for hipness, especially when it comes to a somewhat forced conversation about the relevance of comics as American literature with Diane. I have fears that “graphic novelist” will quickly become the creative occupation of choice for protagonists of indie movies.

The movie does get some comic things right, though — Will teaches as SVA and certainly, many comic artists do. I’m not particularly sure why we’re supposed to look down on Will for living in Astoria (I know people who make comics who live there happily) and I kind of want to complain there aren’t enough women in Will’s class (although the bit about a male student sharing his comic about learning to masturbate felt pretty on-point, complete with Will’s eye-rolling exhaustion about it).

The shining star in this movie is Kat (and if there’s any justice in the world, Jessica Williams will be a huge star). She’s a 19-year-old black woman who wants to make comics and hangs out (or works — it’s not entirely clear) in a poorly-disguised Bergen Street Comics. She’s working on a comic with her life with her mother (and the men her mother dates) and from what we see of it, it’s pretty awesome. Will recognizes it’s awesome too, and he shares his work-in-progress with Kat. They have an intriguing, complicated relationship that feels built on mutual respect rather than romance, In fact, when Will misreads Kat’s intentions initially, she shuts him down so fast. It’s refreshing to a younger woman and an older man connect on a level that’s not sexual at all.

I loved that the movie recognized that it’s young women who are the future of comics, and choose to represent this with a woman of color. There was not nearly enough of Kat in this movie.

If you watch the trailer, you’ll know what to expect with People Places Things. It’s by no means a bad movie, but it’s slight and “cute” is probably the strongest word you can come up with for it. It’s definitely cute. It’s definitely a pleasant way to spend 90 minutes. But sadly, the more interesting elements get lost in movie that decides to hit the most obvious beats that the appealing cast can’t overcome. There is a good movie about these characters (especially about Will and Kat) but this movie just isn’t it.

(People Places Things is in theaters and on Video On Demand starting Aug. 14.)

It’s 1982 in Sweden and everyone keeps telling Bobo that “punk is dead.” Bobo knows different. Punk isn’t a genre of music. It’s a feeling you have in your heart.

Lucas Moodysson’s We Are the Best!, based on his wife’s, Coco Moodysson, semi-autobiographical comic, Never Goodnight, is the punk-rock movie you didn’t know you wanted but absolutely needed. It’s one of the few movies that gives absolutely respect to the inner life of girls. There is nothing here that makes fun of them. They are treated as the absolute forces of nature that they are.

Tamara Drewe (2010)

Stephen Frears’ Tamara Drewe is based on Posy Simmonds’ serialized graphic novel of the same name, and while it’s been a while since I’ve read it, it has the same mood that I remember. It’s full of mostly unlikable but sympathetic characters.

Gemma Atherton as Tamara herself, at least for me, is the easiest for me to relate to. She’s a late bloomer who finds her power and sexuality later and is happy to use it to her advantage. But she also gets angry (justifiably!) when people underestimate her. She’s a troublemaker but she’s earned it.

But all of the characters are imperfect and fun to watch — the cast of this movie is amazing. I especially loved Tamsin Greig’s Beth (but then, Black Books forever!). These are all complicated, troubled people. While their choices aren’t always good ones (or almost, never good ones), they understandable within the context.

The overall plot is meandering and dramatic and mostly deals with the intricate relationships between people. Last-minute drama both feels out of place and appropriate.

Unless you knew the source material (and Simmonds did base her book on Thomas Hardy’s Far from the Madding Crowd), there’s not much here that would indicate this started its life as comic. Frears’ direction is open and honest, and the cinematography, with its lovely, lushcolors, points to a larger feeling and mood. It’s maybe a bit longer than it needs to be and absolutely begins to drag toward the end (I think cutting Simmonds’ book down to the essentials would’ve served this movie more) but still entertaining and a delight.

The comic and the movie seem to compliment each other, though, while being their own things. They make good companions but it’s OK to consume one without the other.

However, I want to see more Simmonds material adapted to film (I know Gemma Bovery is in the works, or was). She has a unique and powerful voice and a good sense of people and storytelling. Her work is uniquely suited to film and she absolutely deserves it.

Dredd (2012)

I put an impromptu call out for comics based on British comics and I said “that weren’t the Dredd movies.”

But you know, you take what you can get. And many people I trust responded with “It’s good!” So I decided to watch Peter Travis’ Dredd.

I am a huge fan of dystopian fiction, but I’ve never read the Judge Dredd comics. But regardless, I really loved this more than I expected.

Everything is smoggy and daylit — different from the neon cities of Blade Runner and does provide a great modern update. Most of the movie takes place in the interior of an apartment building, giving it a great “haunted house movie” kind of feel.

We never actually get to know Dredd (Karl Urban), but who cares? The movie is more about the young Judge Anderson (Olivia Thirlby) and evil Ma-Ma (Lena Headey). I adore how the rape threat is brought up but minimized (and Ma-Ma shuts it down when she can) and there’s no romance tossed in. The women in this movie are allowed to be who they are. These women are given intelligence and agency in a movie where they didn’t need to be. That’s pretty awesome.

It’s a super stylish and while it has some of that turquoise/orange thing, it’s dirtier and weirder. it’s immediately about this world. It’s not as gory as it could be, thankfully — there’s some blood, but the movie never dwells on it. It’s still a big dumb action movie, but a surprising and satisfying one.

It’s a movie that’s smarter than you expect while still fulfilling the parts that want a dumb action movie. It’s not intelligent cinema, but it’s more fun than expected. It defies clichés and delivers. I think more people need to watch it.

Neither of the comics that these two movies are based on are exactly “comic books” but close enough for me. Neither of them are what I’d call “good” either, but they’re both pretty much fun. This is not a Near Miss post, but it’s also because I was in that kind of mood.

My Name is Modesty (2003)

Yes, there have been two other adaptations of Peter O’Donnell and Jim Holdaway’s Modesty Blaise — a movie in 1966 and a TV pilot in 1982. People just keep trying with this property and failing. Which is kind of baffling since it’s such rich source material.

This one doesn’t work much better. It went straight to video. Even with “Quentin Tarantino Presents” before the title, it’s probably not something that anyone would bother with, unless they were interested in Modesty Blaise. It feels a lot like a TV pilot (and, more or less, has the production values of one).

Alexandra Staden as Modesty does bring smarts and glamor to the role. She’s believable as someone who’d hold her own against thugs both physically and mentally (Staden is tall and thin, so the physical part isn’t necessarily the most realistic, but she does a good job of selling it). She and lead baddie Miklos (played by Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, who apparently is on Game of Thrones for those of who you care) do have a surprising chemistry.

Still, the movie is pretty static — most of the plot takes place inside of a casino, with flashbacks as Modesty narrates her history. It’s an origin story of the worst kind. There was no attempt to seamlessly integrate these scenes. Even at less than 80 minutes, it feels padded.

It does have a good amount of stylishness and playfulness, though. The lack of budget is obvious, but the filmmakers used limited sets and costume changes to good effect. The action is entertaining enough, and both the leads are fun to watch. There are worse ways to spend a little bit more than an hour, as long as you don’t go into it expecting too much.

(And I would’ve loved to have seen a Modesty Blaise TV series starring Staden. That’s also not the DVD art that is everywhere, but that promises much more than the movie delivers.)

St. Trinian’s (2007)

Things this movie has: Rupert Everett in drag (because of course!); Gemma Atherton as a sexpot student; Russell Brand, as you know, Russell Brand; Colin Firth (because of course!); a pair of blonde twins that like blowing stuff up; makeover montages (because of course!); and ridiculous heist scenes! Oh, and Stephen Fry shows up.

This is a zany, kinetic, incredibly silly piece of film. Is it good? Well, a movie like this is beyond good and bad. It’s entertainment and sometimes that’s all you need.

St. Trinian’s follows the rather long tradition of films based on the work of Ronald Searle. It’s a pretty loose adaptation, but I think it’s fair to the spirit of his work.

Our lead, Annabelle Fritton (played by Talulah Riley) starts out as the typical nerdy girl out of her depth before the St. Trinian’s students decide to make her one of their own. Despite her makeover, this doesn’t follow the typical “misfit is made over into a popular beauty queen” mode of a lot of teen movies. Rather, if anything, they take relatively normal Annabelle and turn her into more of a misfit.

The plot is the usual “we have to save our school!” nonsense, but involves selling liquor they manufacture on school grounds and stealing a painting to sell on the black market. But the plot is almost secondary to the setpieces — it’s fairly episodic as they go from pranks to deranged field hockey games to cheating on quiz shows.

The result is actually surprise — it’s all ridiculous, sure, but it’s delightful to watch these girls behave badly and get away with it. They’re not like the heroines of most teen movies and that’s part of what makes this movie great. They may not be initially likeable, but you’re rooting for them by the end.

(There is also a sequel. But do we have it in the U.S.? Of course not.)

Based on Jacques Tardi’s comic series of the same name, this movie is absolutely ridiculous and charming. I did not expect to have this much fun.

Adèle is a 25-year-old journalist/novelist from early 20th century France who travels the world in pursuit of stories. Allegedly. She’s more in pursuit of her own ends — currently, a mummy of an ancient Egyptian doctor who should provide the key to saving her catatonic sister. Back in Paris, there’s some trouble with a professor who can revive the dead and a pterodactyl. I really hope, at this point, you are thinking “This sounds like the best movie ever.” It’s not quite that, no, but it’s delightful all the same.

When you get down to it, the plot doesn’t make that much sense. It pulls from both “Adèle and the Beast” (or “Pterror Over Paris” as it’s called in the Fantagraphics edition) and “Mummies on Parade” although with liberties. While Adèle’s motivation to save her sister is definitely heartfelt, it’s more of just a plot device to put her in crazy situations.

Most of the fun is watching Bourgoin. This movie is firmly on her shoulders and she’s clearly enjoying herself. While she’s absolutely gorgeous, she also doesn’t seem to mind looking silly on occasion (Adèle dons various costumes in several failed attempts to break someone out of jail). She easily transitions from high comedy to quieter moments. She’s charismatic and playful in the role.

The special effects look fairly cheesy — despite being computer generated, they have a stop-motion look, but it works for the sort of movie this is. Other than some brief, non-titillating nudity when Adèle takes a bath and an off-screen decapitation, this could almost be a kid’s movie (and honestly, no worse — and in some ways, more tame — than Raiders of the Lost Arc, for example). I doubt the costumes or sets are overly authentic, but they’re beautiful and do go far in creating the world this story takes place.

I also really appreciated there was no tacked-on romance. While Andrej (Nicolas Giraud) has a sweet, harmless obsession with her and does prove to be helpful, Adèle isn’t interested, mostly because she has better things to do at the time. That was refreshing.

This is supposed to the be the first of a trilogy, but we’ll see. The ending is either cruel or open-ended on that account, but I’m not worried about Adèle’s ability to get out of whatever situation she finds herself in. She’s a smart, resourceful and clever woman. I have the comics but I wouldn’t mind seeing more of her on screen.

(This seems to be out everywhere except for the U.S. … but if you’re resourceful, you can find it pretty easily and cheaply. And legally.)

I liked the movie. It had a great, manic energy and it just kept moving forward without any hesitation. There really wasn’t a wasted moment nor was there any time to stop and get bored. Or honestly, really think. Director Edgar Wright did a beautiful job of capturing the giddy spirit of the comic. It’s a pretty seamless, joyful adaptation and the video game and manga-inspired touches are playful. The whole production design is perfect and spot-on.

But I guess my problems with Scott Pilgrim vs. The World are the same problems I have with the comic. Mostly, Scott Pilgrim himself.

I did enjoy Bryan Lee O’Malley’s comic. I think it captures a certain period of life very well. But I think that’s also its flaw. The older I get, the less I’m interested in the drama of young twentysomethings. I did love the final volume of Scott Pligrim and I think O’Malley brought it all together in a very satisfying manner, but I think it took too long to get there.

In some ways, the abbreviated pace of the movie works a bit better for me — it edits down the comic to its essential parts. And as annoying as he can be, I think Michael Cera was perfect for the role of Scott. Mostly because Scott is annoying. When his friends in the movie make fun of his naiveté and idiocy, it’s believable to me whereas it was less so in the comic (I know Scott’s friends in the comic treated him much the same way, but I often felt there was too much implicit approval with regard to Scott’s behavior and we were supposed to be cheering him on. I realize it’s personal, but I’ve known guys who were like Scott at this age, and well, they weren’t people I wanted to celebrate).

In the movie, Scott’s relationship, however chaste it is, with Knives is given a slightly more distasteful overtone. Scott’s too weak to be predatory, but he does come across as more unintentionally opportunistic. Likewise, all the supporting characters, especially Anna Kendrick as Scott’s sister Stacey and Kieran Culkin as Scott’s gay roommate Wallace, provide the voices of reason and are two of the more interesting parts of the movie.

I don’t think the movie quite did Ramona justice, though. Even in the comic, it did take a while for readers to learn much about her, but here, she mostly remains a mystery. Mary Elizabeth Winstead does play her with some pathos, but there’s not much to work with. I can understand what Scott sees in her — she’s cool and cute — but as for what she sees in Scott, I really don’t know (but unlike the comic, the movie only takes place over a handful of days, rather than a year, so it’s still a very young relationship).

If nothing else, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is incredibly entertaining. All in all, I think this movie is fated to play in dorm rooms for the next decade or so, and definitely shows what it feels like to be young in the early part of the 21st century. And it does have something to say about relationships and their baggage (although I think the movie does sacrifice a lot of the deeper issues of the comic for the sake of fun, which is understandable, but doesn’t make it as meaningful as it could’ve been).

It’s also wonderful in that it reveals what else comics have to offer other than “superheroes” or “serious autobiographical.” Whether or not that will have a lasting impact, I don’t know. Ultimately, I like this movie for what it is, and what it represents. I had fun, even if, in the end, I still feel a little ambivalent about the plot overall.

I’m currently on a documentary kick and Netflix does have a few streaming that focus on comics or comic book culture. I figured this would be good for a laugh. Or at least a way to waste a few hours.

Comic Book Confidential
Even though this documentary was made in 1988, it still feels very relevant now. The primary focus is on alternative comics — works and creators outside the superhero genre, although those are definitely acknowledged — and I think that’s a side of comics that rarely gets enough attention historically. Yes, we all know about the rise of DC and Marvel, the stories of superheroes, all of that, but these underground creators contributed more than I think most people realize to the look and feel of comics today.

I was delighted to see how many of them are still working today — creators like Lynda Barry and Charles Burns are featured here, along with Jaime Hernandez and Art Spielgman. I also think the sight of an awesomely long-haired Frank Miller at the end being all self-important is quite incredible.

But really, if you want to know the history of comics and side of that history that doesn’t get nearly enough attention, this is a good place to start. I have no idea why more people haven’t told me to watch this documentary before. Nor do I have any idea why I haven’t watched it until now.

Starz Inside: Comic Books Unbound
This is from 2008, and already seems a bit dated (in contrast to Comic Book Confidential, which doesn’t), especially since it was made before the economy tanked and Spider-Man got rebooted and the manga market took a downturn. And it definitely shies away from any criticism of the movies covered here, even when it’s probably deserved.

But it’s actually a pretty decent overview of the history of comic book movies. While there’s plenty of typical studio talking heads, it does feature interesting creators like Paul Pope and Mike Mignola as well as director Richard Donner. The overall tone here is completely flattering, even when they touch on some of the goofy live-action projects Marvel did in the ’80s and ’90s (but no mention of the TV movies for Nick Fury or Generation X, even though the Spider-Man and The Hulk series got passing mentions. I think some things are better off forgotten). But case in point: There was no acknowledgment that Marvel is still making bad movies (Daredevil? Elektra? I somewhat like Elektra, but I’m not going to tell you it’s good).

Still, I like that they do pay some attention to non-superhero comic book movies like The Road to Perdition and A History of Violence as well as American Splendor. And although the “looking into the future” predictions aren’t quite accurate now, I still think it’s clear that comic book movies are big business. I was surprised by this. I wasn’t expecting too much from it, but underneath the breathless tone of “these movies are awesome!” there is something of substance here.

Confessions of a Superhero
This 2007 documentary isn’t so much about comic books, except in the most abstract of ways. Rather, it’s about four people who dress up as superheros (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and The Hulk) and let tourists take photos of them for tips.

Christopher Dennis loves Superman a little too much — he has an overcrowded apartment full of merchandise and memorabilia and rarely takes the costume off. Maxwell Allen has inflated claims of his past as a supposed mob enforcer (as well as his resemblance to George Clooney) and seems to take being Batman a little too personally.

On the other hand, Jennifer Wenger, who dresses as Wonder Woman, and Joe McQueen, who dresses as The Hulk, both seem to understand this is just a way to make money in between acting jobs.

Wenger comes across the best of all four — she’s the most down-to-earth and genuinely sweet. McQueen also seems to understand his limitations and has overcome hardship (he was homeless for a while).

The other two? They both have obvious problems. Dennis claims to be the son of Sandy Dennis, but her family says he’s not. His obsession with Superman comes across as a compulsion (and his apartment is nearly something out of Hoarders). Allen is charming enough, until his outlandish stories begin to pile up (he claims to be great at various martial arts, but one scene in a martial arts studio would say otherwise. Perhaps not surprisingly, both seem to think dressing up as superheroes will provide them with their big breaks.

It’s a little painful in parts and it’s more about these four lives than any deeper message. But there’s still something sad and fascinating about how people are delighted and happy to pay money to get their photos taken with someone — anyone — dressed as their favorite heroes. There’s some power there.

Maybe this time next year, I’ll have the Comic-Con documentary that Joss Whedon, Harry Knowles and Morgan Spurlock are making this year. I suppose we’ll see how that turns out.

“God, just think — we’ll never see Dennis again. No, really, think about that. It’s actually totally depressing.”
–Enid, Ghost World

That’s right. It’s back after a very long absence (and yes, I know this is going up early Sunday, but I got started watching the movies late). Tonight, we have a pair from 2001 that both deal with what it was like to be a young woman right at the turn of the century. Or something. It does make sense.

I graduated from high school in the very late ’90s, which put me in college just as the new pop revolution was occurring. Even when we made fun of them, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, the Backstreet Boys and *NSYNC were omnipresent. We watched TRL even if it was just to mock it. We may have acted like we were so much cooler than this music, but we all knew it.

Josie and the Pussycats (2001) really wants to be subversive. It really wants to criticize the pop culture of the time — the blatant consumerism, the Millennials’ tendency to buy first, think later (see also, The Merchants of Cool, an episode of Frontline from the same year). I wanted to like it and I definitely liked things about it, but I don’t think it quite worked.

I am operating under the assumption that other than the key characters, this bears very little resemblance to the comic that shares its name. Our three leads are likable — Josie is played by Rachael Leigh Cook, who I don’t think we get to see enough of; Rosario Dawson is her awesome self as Valerie; and Tara Reid plays the ditzy Melody (cue sarcastic comments about how Reid is basically playing herself).

The Pussycats make it big, after a chance meeting with a sleezy record producer Wyatt (is there any other type in movies?) played by the always game Alan Cumming. His employer is the hilarious Parker Posey. In case you haven’t noticed so far, it’s really the quality of the casting that carries this movie. With others in these roles, it would be far less interesting.

And as it is, it’s not particularly interesting, honestly. Once you get the joke — Pop music has subliminal messages! That tells teenagers to buy stuff they don’t need! — it’s pretty easy to get bored. And considering you’ll get the joke about 20 minutes into it (if not sooner), that’s kind of a long time to be bored.

Then there’s the product placement. Look, I’m pretty much a fan of blatant product placement (I personally think Lady Gaga’s use of it in the “Telephone” video is hilarious) but this beats you over the head with it. There’s a fine line between “Ha ha, we know how goofy it is to have products in movies!” and “This is a commercial.” And this movie kind of crossed that line for me.Yes, a plane with a Target-branded interior is initially funny, but once there are hotel rooms covered in Revlon logos and a McDonald’s-themed bathroom, the joke becomes less and less funny. No matter how knowingly it’s done, it begins to feel like it’s just trying to sell you things, which is the very concept this movie claims it’s against.

It’s kind of cute and kind of funny (and I think the beer I drank while watching it helped on those accounts) but in the end, it’s not much better than disposable culture it’s mocking (and I couldn’t help but notice that Revlon’s Street Wear brand, which was featured prominently in a couple of scenes, is no more, as is MTV’s TRL. And what happened to Carson Daly anyway?

On the opposite end of the spectrum, but also from the same year, is Ghost World. Based on Daniel Clowes’ comic, the movie’s teenage girls are untouched by current pop culture and basically go as far to outright reject it.

We first meet Enid (Thora Birch) as she’s graduating from high school (well, almost — she’s told she still needs to take an art class). She’s the sort that’s too smart for her own good. To me, it’s not so much that she believes no one is worth her time as much as it is she just sees through all the pretense everyone else has. She doesn’t much care what anyone else thinks, or at least that’s what she wants everyone to believe. But Enid, undoubtedly, loves being herself.

As the summer progresses, she finds conflict with her best friend Becky (played Scarlett Johansson, before she was getting all sexed-up to be Black Widow), who wants to move on with her life and grow into adulthood, and friendship with an older, music-obsessed loner named Seymour.

I like this movie. But then that should come as a shock to absolutely no one (in fact, several coworkers have said to me “You’ve seen Ghost World” as if it’s a statement of fact rather than a question when they had no way of knowing otherwise). It’s the sort of story about teenage girls that doesn’t get told. Enid never got any sort of makeover or “taming.” Nor did she end up with a boy. She just got to be herself. She captured the sort of listlessness that comes with not quite being sure who you need to be, and director Terry Zwigoff lets her shine, and lets this be her story.

I do feel like the movie didn’t quite know what to do with Seymour in the end. His fate maybe isn’t cruel, but it does feel a little undeserved.

Still, that’s a pretty small complaint about the movie overall. I like the comic too (although it’s been a good while since I’ve read it) but in some ways, I think I prefer the movie more.

(I’ve never really watched Lost before, which is because I have an awesome tendency to start watching shows right before they end. I blame Netflix’s “watch now” feature for this. I will likely be caught up for the new season, if I can manage to see all of Season 5 before then.)

I am delighted to see all sorts of comic book people in the credits, beyond J.J. Abrams (who is more just a fan/sympathizer at this point). Maybe that’s a post for another time, though. Something about how TV and comics are very much related, at least more so than movies (I think comic books and theater are more related, but well, that’s completely a post for another time).

Basically, this is saying if you don’t hear from me for a while, you know what I’m doing. I’m keeping a Lost diary at my LiveJournal, if you’re interested.