This is a topical read for me. Vijay’s new movie, Leo, directed by Lokesh is getting released this week. The talk is that the movie is inspired from this graphic novel. So I was curious about this as all people around me are excited about this movie.

This is a simple but punchy revenge story. Quite gory and a short novel. It follows the story of an ordinary person running a coffee shop getting into an extraordinary situation, how he handles it, what happens to his family and what is his mysterious past. Anything more will be a spoiler. The illustrations are vivid and reminded me of Sin City. I felt it was gorgeous in depicting the gory and violence.

If you are a graphic novel fan and want to enjoy a nice thrilling revenge saga, give it a shot, you may like it. ( )

#ThrowbackThursday - Back in the '90s, I used to write comic book reviews for the website of a now-defunct comic book retailer called Rockem Sockem Comics. From the May 1997 edition with a theme of "Offered Again" Comics:

FROM THE BACKLIST

A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (DC Comics/Paradox Press)

My expectations were low when I bought A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE earlier this year. Previous books published under the Paradox Graphic Mystery imprint of DC Comics have been rather generic crime/mystery thrillers lacking in thrills and mystery. Maybe it was those lowered expectations that allowed A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE to blow me away. Or maybe it was the fact that this is a well-written, well-drawn thrill ride. Regardless, this book packs a wallop.

Tom McKenna is just a typical guy. He owns a little diner. He's got a loving family. Then a thwarted hold-up gives him instant fame, and his cozy little world is shattered. Suddenly, mafia hitmen are following Tom around. They seem to think Tom is a man who killed and stole from the mob years before and disappeared. Is this a case of mistaken identity, or does Tom have a secret (and several bodies) buried in his past? And when the mafia men decide to err on the side of vengeance, will Tom and his family survive?

John Wagner spins one heck of an intense yarn. It's better than most of the mafia movie thrillers I've seen in the last five years. I think of movies because Wagner's dialogue and Vince Locke's layouts are so cinematic. This book could easily be transferred to film. Wagner's scripts on the JUDGE DREDD comics just did not prepare me for this level of workmanship. Locke, meanwhile, continues to draw in the raw, sketchy style that won me over in SANDMAN and SANDMAN MYSTERY THEATER.

Only one farfetched twist near the end detracts from -- but does not ruin -- this nearly flawless work. A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE is one of the few books deserving to be called a "graphic novel." Don't miss it!

Grade: A- ( )

I'd seen the Cronenberg movie when it came out, but had no idea it was based on a graphic novel at the time. I have to say I prefer the movie - the novel seems less suspenseful because it spends a long time on flashbacks to Tom's past that the movie wisely compressed, and there's a twist involving Richie that doesn't come off well. Illustrator Vince Locke's artwork isn't anything special, and overall I think Viggo Mortensen did a better job as a quiet badass in the film than his equivalent in the novel did. This is one of those cases of movie being better than the book/graphic novel/whatever. ( )

I read this book pretty much in one sitting, even though I was intending on reading only part of it. It is a very gripping and engaging account. The simple line art matches the gritty style of the story very well. I have not seen the movie that was made of this, but I think I would like to see it out of curiosity. Though I have a feeling it does not live up to this book. I am glad I read the graphic novel first. The book does have a small "suggested for mature readers" warning, and it is for a reason. This is a violent tale, but it is also a tale of a man just trying to move away from his past. Overall, I highly recommend this. ( )

Seldom are there ever two things that we love just the same. I have always loved both movies and books—but books just a little bit more. Movies are what I see when I look out a great window but books are where I am when I walk out the door—the difference between seeing and believing. So I will admit to some satisfaction each time these two loves cast their spells upon the same material only to hear, “the book” as they usually say “was better”. Sometimes they might be close enough to hash out a competitive balance but rare is the case where the movie blows the book out of the water.* This was certainly the case with A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE—virtually everything that bothered me about the book was either eliminated, changed or improved by the movie. Were these words not the expression of my own reaching fingertips, I would consider them sacrilege. I would never sit still for someone else mentioning the movie version of a book while reviewing that book but I feel compelled as if breaking up a fight between siblings. For everyone’s sake, the sibling in the wrong needs to bow before the sibling who got it right.

The main theme of both versions is reinvention: can someone with A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE reinvent and insert themselves into a peaceful life. In this great pulp conceit, the main character ultimately cannot escape being drawn back toward the shadowy landscape of his past. This idea was appealing enough to draw me to the graphic novel in the first place. A perusal of the art work, black and white line drawings that are ungraceful in the right spots and downright brutal where it counts, also raised expectations. However the actual story lets the idea and the artwork down. Some initial intrigue occurs when the people from the main character’s past first show up on the scene but this gradually dissipates as the bad guys are defined only by their brutality and the good guys by their shallowness. Almost like watching an angry drunk get into a fight with a cardboard cutout. Many things bothered me about the story but the three biggest were (1) main character’s wife is only passably upset that her husband has been lying to her for nearly 20 years (2) the main character’s violent acts were done for the benefit of a beloved relative—whom he immediately abandons and ignores for 20 years and (3) the appearance of someone from the main character’s past at the end of the story is so absolutely ludicrous in this context that it almost swerves everything into Batman & Joker territory. Most disappointed I’ve been in a book in a while. So as much as it pains me to write this, the movie was better. Much better. Much, much better.
*Some other movies that were much better than their books:
BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY
SOMEWHERE IN TIME
AMERICAN PSYCHO




( )