This week I have been waist-deep in the Edmonton International Fringe Festival, North America’s largest fringe festival. It’s one of my favourite times of the year, when I get to put on shows and go to see other performances, eat my favourite street foods, and see people I only see during the third week in August. I have seen some good shows, but I have been using my down time to sample a few other pop culture morsels as well.

Batman: Monsters

Batman: Monsters is a bit of a mixed bag. It’s a collection of three unrelated stories from the Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight series from the late 1990s, an anthology series set in Batman’s early crime-fighting career. The stories are thematically very loosely tied together by the fact that in each story, Batman goes up against three different, monstrous foes. Each story succeeds and fails in different ways, leaving the collection uneven but still worth a read.

The first story, “Werewolf,” collects issues 71-73, written by James Robinson and art by John Watkiss. While investigating a murder that an eyewitness swears was committed by a werewolf, Batman goes to London to see how two similar murders there might impact his case. His investigation takes him into London’s underground, where he deals with gangsters that seem inspired by Monty Python’s Piranha Brothers as well as an occultist society led by a beautiful woman named Raven. It’s drawn in broad strokes and is a little rough around the edges, and Robinson appears to lose track of some of the plot threads between the second and third chapter, but it’s worth reading because of Watkiss’ art. While his Batman appears to lose his nose in his cowl in a couple of panels, Watkiss’ thick brushstrokes are not something I’m used to reading in a Batman book, and he uses extreme high and low angles, close-ups and detail panels to create tension, confusion or action as the scene demands.

The second story, “Infected,” is the reason I picked the book up in the first place. It collects issues 83-84, written by Warren Ellis and art by John McCrea. Ellis, for those who don’t know, is one of my favourite comics writers, and McCrea’s art has always tickled me since I discovered his work on titles like Hitman and The Demon. Together the two men put together a story that feels like an idea that Ellis came up with for his StormWatch series, abandoned and then brought back for this Batman story: genetically and biologically engineered soldiers who carry a virus that will transform anyone who gets infected into soldiers like them. It’s got Warren Ellis trademarks like cinematic “widescreen” panels that stretch all the way across the page, futurism hijacked by bureaucrats and characters that speak in telegraphic English, but putting that in a Batman book makes for an intriguing read. He also has a good read on a Year One-era take on the Caped Crusader, who still makes mistakes and talks to himself in dialogue boxes that would make Frank Miller proud. And McCrea makes the soldiers truly monstrous, giving them real heft and viciousness so that they really pose a threat to a young Batman. This was, unsurprisingly, my favourite story in the collection.

The final story, “Clay,” is from issues 89-90, and was written by Alan Grant with art by Quique Alcatena. “Clay” is the story of Batman’s first meeting with Matt Hagen, better known as the first Clayface. I found it to be the weakest story in terms of plot and dialogue; Grant’s a writer I generally enjoy but I found some of his turns of phrase a little awkward, and the story seemed like a one-issue story padded out to two. However, I will not complain about having two issues of Quique Alcatena art. His characters are clean and well-formed, especially his Batman, who has a powerful physique, long billowing cape and elongated cowl. His art elevates a run-of-the-mill script to something visually compelling and worth revisiting.

* * * * *

I was intrigued by more than just Batman grotesques this week, though. There’s one more choice selection from the past week.

Movies: I caught Richard Linklater’s Boyhood on Tuesday, which in case you haven’t heard much about, is the story of one boy’s life from age six to age 18 that was shot with the same cast over a period of 12 years. It’s like nothing I’d ever seen before, and when it was over, I only had one nitpick about the entire film, which I won’t share because I don’t want to prejudice any potential viewers. It is unheard of for a movie to run over two hours and 40 minutes and only give me one thing to get stuck in my craw. It’s not fast-paced or full of twists, and 164 minutes might sound like a long time, but I’ve seen shorter movies that felt far longer. I am not sure if everyone will like it, but so far it’s my favourite movie of the year. I don’t know if it’s possible for another movie to dethrone it. I don’t want to say too much about it, other than, “Go see it. Be open. Be willing to be surprised.”

* * * * *

That’s about it for me this time, folks. Until next week, I would really suggest going to see Boyhood, unless you live in Edmonton, in which case I know of a couple of Fringe shows you could check out before Sunday, wink wink. I’ll see you in seven days.