One's a Zombie. One's a Demon. They Fight Crime!

My affection for Gaiman's interpretation of Lucifer and the consequent Vertigo series by Mike Carey, which featured the titular being on existential quests through the cosmos, isn't something that can warrant much doubt. The erstwhile hell lord's new television program, which I shall at least surely sample, doesn't really appear to take much from those comics beyond the protagonist. It looks to be some form of supernatural procedural show.

But last year also saw televisin adapt an epic Vertigo fantasy I adored into an almost unrecognisable form. That was "iZombie", and it turned out to be enjoyable by itself. Like the new "Lucifer" show, it took a sardonic protagonist away from most of its source's uncanny trappings into a somewhat more grounded setting with a focus on solving crimes amidst ambient weirdness and commendable character work. 

It doesn't sound eminently appealing as a pitch, but "iZombie" was one of my favourite comic book shows anyway. I don't know whether "Lucifer" will reach that level, but it shouldn't be too far below.

Bonus Question!

Best existential quest through the cosmos? I don't know, but it probably has something to do with the Silver Surfer. 

Dark Side Style

Obviously, the new "Star Wars" stuff was going to enter my life. That galaxy was one of my early loves, and the movie is something I shall doubtless see. That was never in question, but despite my assiduous affection for the franchise and my more recent experiences with the fresh comics and other stories that have been created in advance of the imminent movie, I hadn't really thought about the actual film. But something I just heard did catch my attention.

For some reason, I like Adam Driver. I've surely touched on this before. I was aware that he was connected with the franchise in some way. I probably assumed that he was playing a sort of scoundrel in the tradition of Han Solo, for that's rather close to the types of roles he's generally assigned. But now I know that he's playing an aspirant Sith. Though it might not seem like the most natural fit, it feels good anyway. And it provides a kind of antagonist that hasn't really been prominent in the films before.

The Sith aesthetic often conveyed a sense of arcane mysticism and sorcerous debauchery, but much of that was explored more in other media. Most of the order's representatives in the movies didn't always appear to be enjoying their status. Palpatine certainly did at the end of "Revenge", but those scenes of mad laughter and lightning unleashed came after ages of hiding his delightful malevolence behind a facade of staid political ideals.

But this new guy clearly wants to be there. Apparently, he's trying to be the next Darth Vader. Even Anakin didn't want to be Darth Vader!

Now the films have a prime villain who embraces the dark side by choice instead of chance, and he's blatantly proud of it. Vader wore a helmet despite discomfort because he needed it to live. Driver's Kylo Ren, a reasonably attractive and healthy young man, apparently just donned his mask because it felt like the dark side thing to do. Sith swag! That's what the world needs. 

Bonus Question!

Best mad emperor? Nero. Somewhat like Palpatine with less subtlety and more perversion. Presumably, he was Sith too. 

Fantastish

“Fantastic Four” is the first film I can remember during which I actually walked out.
But it was just to use the washroom.
In fairness, I did get there in time for the start of the show, which isn’t eminently common for me. 

I think that that balanced things out in the end.

Josh Trank’s take on the quartet reminded me of Burton on Batman. Like the older auteur’s rendition of the Dark Knight’s legend, this film seemed to be made by an individual who was more interested in doing his own thing than he was on maintaining especial resonance with the source material from which the story took its trappings. Obviously, this is apart from the liberties that tend to get taken in most adaptations. Even particularly faithful translations like “Watchmen” and “Iron Man” change all kinds of things from the page for the screen. I don’t have a problem with that. An adaptation’s its own thing. I didn’t have a problem with this either, though. But I almost feel as though things might have felt cleaner if Trank made his own science fiction tale while someone with a greater passion for Marvel’s First Family took that franchise on. But this is coming from a guy who prefers the products of Joel Schumacher’s fervent adoration of Batman over the respectable Tim Burton movies that happened to feature a comic character about whom the maker was ambivalent. The difference in directorial attachment is not explicitly tied to my taste here, but it might serve to reinforce it.

Though it might not be the "Fantastic Four" film I would have chosen, I felt no aversion, and there were some things I definitely liked. Many of them were at the beginning. Victor shone especially brightly in his introduction. The hair might have helped. He was also listening to my favourite Vivaldi song at the time. You know the one. It’s probably yours too.

His eventual form looked slightly odd before he threw on that cloak. Like a Halloween version of the Silver Surfer. Which . . . They’re going to want to introduce that guy at some stage, aren’t they? It might be hard to distinguish now. But I did hear that an earlier writer’s treatment of the film chose to make Victor into a composite of his comic self and the Surfer. Abandoned idea. Still seems like a vaguely interesting coincidence. “Vaguely interesting” is probably a decent way to describe the overall film, though.

I did like what they took from the Ultimate version of the team. A lot of that was at the beginning. The beginning of the series was where that book seemed strongest too. Pretty solid cast. I can’t really recall when I developed an affection for Miles Teller. I’m not terribly aware of my original reasons for it either. Maybe he's picking up a bit of the slack from Shia as the younger Stevens brother drifts into a more esoteric existence. But I was most excited to see his interpretation of Reed Richards. Jamie Bell's Ben Grimm had a deviant touch of merit. And I did like the retention of the eyes in his Thing form. I distinctly recall a conversation in an early issue of “Ultimate Fantastic Four” wherein Johnny pointed that out to Ben after his transformation. I still miss Chris Evans’s portrayal of Torch, though. He always excelled at those types of characters, and I think that his acquisition of the Captain America role marked a transition away from that.

The final scene did serve to highlight the sense of heart that I liked about the film’s opening. It also included a joke about “Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza Place”, which doesn’t seem like something that happens much in mass media. But it’s a Ryan Reynolds reference, and that dude loves superheroes. He wants to play all of them. Thus it seems appropriate for his presence to be felt here despite his total lack of involvement. Ooh. He would make a decent Johnny Storm, though. But Jordan was fine. If I had to complain about something, it’d be the hair, which he shared with Evans’s version. I really think that Reynolds could have been the one to capture the Torch’s follicular flare.

Bonus Question!

Michael B. Jordan vrsus Michael Jordan? 

I don't know. One can fly on fire, but the other's got mad hops. Strangely, the latter's the only one with actual experience in fighting aliens at this point. Maybe he can teach the younger Mike about that in advance of the extraterrestrial threats that inevitably enter the lives of all who are associated with the Fantastic Four. 

Dink Pix

I saw "Pixels". I do things like that.

I'm not entirely sure that I had enough awareness before to know with great certainty that it was a live film, but I'm alright to go in with a bit of mystery. There were some nice surprises among the cast too. Kevin James is never unwelcome in cinema, and such appearances seem to be growing commoner. I remember when their rarity seemed to warrant appreciation by itself.

Apart from Sandler, Dinklage was the only other name on the cast list in my head, and my knowledge of that mainly came from complaints of people who expressed shock at the man's presence in a film of perceived mediocrity. But this isn't even the worst Dinklage film I've seen. In fairness, it's not the best either. That spot's comfortably filled by "Days of Future Past", which featured him in the role of a villain in the Seventies. In this one, the antagonist he portrays just acts as though he were in the Seventies. 

Bonus Question! 

Pac-Man versus Q*bert? I think that they might actually get along quite well. Pac-Man has a decent look for a solar deity, and Q likes to hang around pyramids, which means that he probably has some familiarity with gods of dubious humanity who like to consume ghosts. 

Cats and Cheese! Dragons and Hair!

The new "Dragonball" movie was playing at a local cinema recently, and there was this lazy cat god who got dragged in to save the world through judicious use of culinary bribes. He happened to be an alien cat god. I suppose that that adds efficacy to the whole food strategy. You've got the classic trope of feline gluttony in concert with the eager sense of discovery that comes from an extraterrestrial being's first exposure to new sensory experiences. But it did feel weird when one of his featured discoveries was cheese. I don't know. It just seemed incongruous for a cat to be unaware of cheese. A cat god at that. I mean . . . I suppose that he wasn't actually a god of cats. A deity with duties that relate to cats and their myriad interests. He was just a god who happened to be a cat. Still. Bit of oddness.

But do you know what didn't seem incongruous at all? The fact that the protagonist's new ultimate form was distinguished primarily by blue hair. If Strong Bad has taught the world anything about anime, it is the utter importance of blue hair, a thing that must be had.

Bonus Question!

Best Strong Bad anime lesson apart from blue hair? Shiny eyes.

Bond on Bond

I saw "Spy". Good times. But I did wonder why Jude Law suppressed his English accent. It seems like an odd thing to do for someone who's essentially playing a parody of James Bond. Peter Serafinowicz, playing a different version of the same archetype, gave a  vocal performance that carried extra doses of strangeness to my ear. In additon to being British, he's a dude who's known for his naturally glorious voice. The man even followed in the James Earl Jones tradition of providing the speech for a Sith Lord with another's body. But his own tones are set aside in service of some generically foreign thing.

Whatever. The guys were still great. No real detractions. It just felt slightly wasteful.

I think that Statham kept his natural voice, though. But isn't he least known for his elocution?

Bonus Question!

Best bond? Gleipnir.

Shot Foot

New "Terminator" movie. I just . . . That foot thing. All of the technology that goes into robots to allow them to pass as humans . . . He can't even give a token attempt at mimicking pain, that basic component of the living experience, when he gets shot in the foot? That's what reveals his automation? That stoic facade without the barest acknowledgement of a bullet in the foot. Or like . . . Acknowledgement of anything at all.

Whatever.

It was still a fair film. I've never paid the closest attention to the franchise, but I'd probably place it second or third. Obviously, the first sequel is an unimpeachable classic, and the Christian Bale one is at least nice conceptually. And it has Christian Bale. Ooh! And that Russian kid. And I think that it might have been part of that push for that Sam Worthington fellow? But that guy never really jumped out at me. That's not really a point in either column. Maybe it was part of a Russian kid push too, though. It was right after "Star Trek".

Oh, and J.K. Simmons is great. That's not too surprising. But his character happens to be the calmest, most reasonable guy around, which is somewhat less typical.

Anyway, this securely gets my acclaim for the best Jennifer Lawrence performance in a time travel adventure since "Days of Future Past". In fairness, my greater fondness for the "X­-Men" film doubtlessly has more to do with my preference for the franchise than it does with the actual presence of Jennifer Lawrence, who happens to be inconspicuously absent here. 

Bonus Question! 

Best Worthington? Warren III. 

Ted Talk

I managed to see “Ted 2” as it seemed to be preparing for its theatrical exit. It was down the hall on the right. That’s often a sign.

Do you remember “Bicentennial Man”? My memories of going to see it with my father are quite fond, though I’m not sure that it was widely acclaimed among the general populace. It was one of those Robin Williams films that didn’t really take particular pains to hold especially close to what a random person might seek from Robin Williams. Anyway, “Ted 2” is basically like “Bicentennial Man”. But instead of being a Robin Williams movie that doesn’t always explicitly feel like one, it’s a Seth MacFarlane thing that definitively delivers on what one would expect from that.

Bonus Question! 

Best Ted? Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of these Unites States! 

A Siesta for Saga

I believe that I've documented my experiences with Brian Vaughan's "Saga" around here to some degree in the past. Like many readers, I'm left with a mood of excited curiosity when I reach the story's regular hiatus points, though I tend to arrive at those points later than others. That's because it's generally passed from the fore of my mind before its resumption. I've had similar experiences with half seasons of television shows in the past.

Anyway, I was tardy to the party again, but I came upon the urge to read more of Vaughan's cosmic opus before the end of his recent batch. I basically caught up right on time to be ready for the final issue of this run, which was just released. This feels new to me. I doubt that my satisfaction with the actual comic will, though. 

Bonus Question! 

Why is Windows skipping from version 8 to 10?

Because 9 was eaten! By 7!  

Or the correct version of that joke! 

A Sum of Sams and a Mess of Maxes

Though I never really had any great investment in it, "Spawn" was a franchise that drifted around my periphery. My childhood began in the Nineties. It seemed inevitable. But I only read an actual comic with the character quite recently. I picked it up out of vague curiosity after I heard that the series was bringing back the character who originally bore the title. 

It's alright. Whatever. I've read a few issues since. The current arc began with a heavy emphasis on Sam and Twitch, two police officers. I was already somewhat aware of their ancillary status in the franchise, but whenever I heard their names, I was reminded of "Sam and Max", another property that dwelt around the fringes of my childhood. These characters also happened to be lawmen. They were anthropomorphic animals, but that did nothing to weaken their dedication to serve and protect. I suppose that it didn't do anything to heighten it either. My firmest memory of it seems to be related to my brother's recital of the cartoon's theme song, which I can't even recall terribly well at all. I do remember that the latter name was sometimes replaced with “Mark” in the mouth of my sibling, a reference to the brother of our neighbour Sam. Another level for the tune to work on.

Anyway, my reading of "Spawn" revealed that the given name of the man who bears the nickname "Twitch" is actually "Max". Does that not serve to provide my customary confusion between the two duos with a little extra dose of vindication? 

I don't know. Maybe it doesn't. Probably. But it feels like that anyway.

Bonus Question!

Best Sam? Hain. 

Theme Parks of Past and Future

I was obviously going to see "Jurassic World". I've seen the first on several occasions, including random cinema viewings, though I did miss its recent wide revival. The second still holds a pretty special place in my heart, which isn't hurt by its focus on Jeff Goldblum and the fact that it's the basis for a fairly clear and early memory of good times at the movies. My aversion to the third one was apparently strong enough to inadvertently associate it with a distastefully weird stage of my life instead of the era in which it was actually released. I honestly just discovered that it actually came out in 2001 after "World" hit screens. In fairness, my antipathy could only have been heightened by the lack of Ian Malcolm, who represented the franchise most vividly in my mind. There's even a part in the third movie where the woman who planned the expedition is chastised for excluding that chaos theorist and his intimate knowledge of the featured island, which only made his absence feel more apparent.

I didn't expect him to be in this one, however, and Chris Pratt would have been enough of a draw on the acting side if I'd needed one. But I didn't. It's a new "Jurassic Park" film, and it's not the third one.

But the particular source of my most pleasant surprise lay elsewhere. The Pratt plot was a fairly standard action movie thing, which brought no complaints from me, but I was especially drawn to the kids' adventure through a wonderfully realised theme park that rapidly descended into a state of panic and peril. The emphasis on that atmosphere was welcome in an entry of a franchise that only touched on it briefly in its initial installment despite its very name. At the least, the delivery of that ambience matched its transmission during some of the strongest moments of "Tomorrowland", though it differed in execution, partially by dint of decreased idealism in its execution. It didn't feel like a pristine portrait or a cynical caricature. It felt like a candid photograph, casually conveying all aspects of the scene with reasonable neutrality. 

The juvenile perspective also felt fresh and distinct from that of the children in the first two movies. Thinking about it now, I wonder if the scarcity of youth in the third one may have made it even blander for me.

Oh. And there's also the theme song. That was on point here. Ever awesome. 

Bonus Question!

Best T. Rex? Marc Bolan. 

Dooming Faces

"Secret Wars"! Still pretty good. I didn't seriously think that I'd enjoy it to this extent, but it's a story that's being told quite well. I mean . . .

I'd never seek to impugn the kills of the author Hickman, but the degree of pleasure I derive from his work has varied. Apart from that, there's still a way in which significant chunks of the tale's core concepts fail to smell too fragrant to me at first sniff, but recently Marvel has seemed to put out a fair amount of comics that are far better in execution than they'd feel in a pitch. "All­-New X-­Men"? The idea of a temporally displaced team from the past in the present day didn't really grab me, but the writing, done with Bendis's customary aplomb, did much to make it a favoured title for me.

My first distinct impression of Hickman came from his run on "Fantastic Four", which may have been endeared to me further by the art of Bryan Hitch. At varying levels of consciousness, his stuff still tends to remind me of his work on "The Ulimates", which was coming out around the time of my initial dive into the world of comics. It also happened to be written very well. For that matter, it also seemed like a fairly weak concept to me at the beginning, taking place in a glorified alternate universe. But the early books in that "Ultimate" universe, including Bendis's Spider­-Man one upon which that reality was built, were attached to incredible creative teams. An earlier example of that kind of disparity between idea and implementation that typifies a lot of recent Marvel work for me.

Anyway. Hickman.

That "Fantastic Four" stuff was pleasant, but his "Avengers" work, which did a lot of in the way of preparation for "Secret Wars", didn't always do much to grab me.

But now I'm feeling closer to his world again.

However, I am now becoming acutely aware of the general irrelevance of the preceding paragraphs to the point I had in mind for this entry, which concerns the depiction of Doctor Doom in the third issue of the main "Secret Wars" title. That guy tends to hide behind his iconic metal mask, claiming that his disfigured visage is too hideous to be seen by the world. A very operatic conceit. But his face has been drawn in the past. The version of his origin to which I was first introduced featured a panel of his demeanour's damage, which turned out to be nothing but a fairly rakish scar. I mean . . . Prince Zuko would feel lucky to trade blemishes with him. 

But Doom's a vain one. And eccentric. He fixated on this fairly minor imperfection, which magnified it in his mind. This situation might have been exacerbated further by a basic knowledge of his responsibility for the accident that caused it, which he consciously attributes to his foe Reed Richards. In any case, this led to the acquisition of his mask, an accessory that doesn't really do much to disguise his monstrosity from others. The ones who revile him tend to do so for less superficial reasons. Instead, it can seem to serve more to hide that face from its owner.

But Hickman's new series features a sequence in which Doom exposes himself after a lament about the apparent inability of his new cosmic powers to fix his mangled form. In fairness, what he reveals in this scene does look quite horrific.

But this is a guy who's become close enough to omnipotence to rebuild a universe. Is he really unable to restore himself? Or was the cocktail of vanity, insanity, insecurity, and the recent infusion of extra magical might potent enough to cause the unconscious manifestation of the face he feared? 

Bonus Question! 

Best Face? Ron Wood.

Of Glitches Good and Ill

I first tried to watch “Howl’s Moving Castle” some years ago. I rented it from a video store of independence and solid repute. But the damned disc skipped in the middle. I never got around to trying again.

But a local bar recently held a free Studio Ghibli festival, and that film was screened as part of the deal. Great times. But then it broke down around the same place. Fortunately, the problem was solved through the valiant working of some technological magic, and I managed to enjoy 

the rest of the film. It’s a good one, and it even features Christian Bale’s Batman voice before its appearance in his Batman movies.

The same bar later hosted a "Reboot" marathon, which happened to be followed in the ensuing week by the official announcement of the show's revival. Ominous! 

Bonus Question! 

Best boot? Italy's quite nice. Especially so at this time of year.

Revenant Remakes

I almost wonder if the bile some people have for remakes might be partially due to the often extraneous implications of the term. When you remake a house, you tear the thing down to build a new thing in its place. That’s not really the case for artistic remakes. Those are closer in spirit to building a similar structure across the street. Or an architectural revival. It's not ever as though any bricks are being stolen. They could just share a constitution. The painters may have even taken a look at the inspiration's swatches. 

To me, remakes often just seem like broad adaptations that happen to use the same medium. And I tend towards a general acceptance of that breadth in adaptations of any kind. The source is there for what it is, leaving all kinds of room for interpretation in its spirit.

I think that an ideal remake is the new house across the street that's haunted by some of the old one's ghosts.

Bonus Question!

Last movie you saw? The new "Poltergeist". But I only remembered that after I finished this whole thing about remakes and haunted houses. 

Show on the 11th of June - Linsmore Tavern

Hot Apollo's closing a solid night of music at The Linsmore on the 11th of June. That's this Thursday!

Place is at 1298 Danforth Avenue. Right by Greenwood Station.

The night's first band shall take the stage around 8:00, and we'll be on at 11:00. Just like the news! Speaking of that, a reminder may be left here about the heart of rock-and-roll and the fact that it is indeed still beating. Come by on Thursday and check its pulse. It'll be throbbing.

Reviving Villainy

I just read Magneto’s first “Secret Wars” issue. It might have been among my favourites in the series. Great art. And Namor. That’s always good.

But the big bad name of the actual event is Doctor Doom. Like Magneto and Namor, his villainy has generally been imbued with streaks of idiosyncratic nobility. Like the former, he was targeted in the early years of the last decade by the attempt of an acclaimed author to override those sympathetic elements through acts of freshly fiendish depravity beyond any apparent redemption. In Doom’s case, the story arc, written by Mark Waid, was even called “Unthinkable”. It started with his pitiless sacrifice of an early love to demonic forces in exchange for magical power, and it went on to include sorcerous control over the young daughter of his rival Reed Richards. That kind of wicked thing. Oh. And the daughter was called Valeria, named by Doom after that aforementioned sacrifice.

Magneto’s descent into deeper darkness was the work of eccentric iconoclast Grant Morrison, focusing on the mutant mastermind’s mad bid to eradicate humanity. Magneto’s the dude whose character was lightened fairly early through the revelation of his survival of the Holocaust. He was on the Jewish side of things. As a child. In Germany. A bit of an odd choice for the perpetrator of new genocide.

Apparently, editors thought so, for the man behind those acts was revealed to be an impostor immediately after Morrison left the series, and the true Magneto emerged again to another stint on the heroic side of things, which has been going relatively well to this day. With some bumps. It happens. Doom seemed to recover too. He even worked with the Fantastic Four quite recently, bonding sincerely with the same child he’d previously exploited. Their connection managed to endure even after she succeeded in her endeavours to cure some ailment that threatened him. He somehow managed to accomplish this refreshment of morality without actually losing responsibility for his crimes. He didn’t seem to need editorial absolution to reclaim his histrionic hints of haughty heroism. Despite Stalin’s claims about morbid statistics, apparently one death isn’t necessarily more tragic than millions. And the child lived at least. Unlike the swathes of New York citizens who got thrown in ovens by the false Magneto.

So . . . Yeah. I suppose that I can see why official revision may have been less crucial for the dude with the metal face than it was for the one with the metal powers. And the latter’s had a steadier history of altruism. He's placed there with greater firmness, and that's in effect currently. Currently, Doom is . . . Well, Doom’s ruling over the fractured remnants of countless universes under the title of “God Emperor”. “Doctor” really has lost a fair amount of cachet in recent years.

Incidentally, this is the costume Doom wore when he was working with the Fantastic Four, and it's been made his default for his recent inclusion in the "Marvel Heroes" video game. Appreciation for his good side seems quite resilient after all.

Bonus Question!

Magneto! How does he work?

Mysteriously.

Furiosyeah

The new “Mad Max” is out. Fantastic. Unlike previous classic films I postponed for ages, including one of Mad Mel’s “Lethal Weapon” movies, the road warrior’s other cinematic appearances never seemed to pop back up in the theatre for me. I just gradually caught up alone.

I actually just sat down with “Thunderdome” a short while ago. I can’t imagine that I’d have any trouble with “Fury Road” if I hadn’t, but I maintain the soundness of my decisions on the matter regardless. The series just improved continually. I can’t say that Charlize Theron is an obvious replacement for Tina Turner or anything, but she does her own thing, and she does it well. Quite well. Tom Hardy’s always a fine performer too, and his titular character happened to seem quite eager to part with his old Bane mask, which did occur in due course.

Bonus Question!

Handsomest Hardy?

Despite my general willingness to appreciate the man on the whole, I've not generally been able to adequately grasp the intensity with which some admire Tom's bare visage, though I readily admit that I don't tend to be the finest judge of beauty when it comes to any face that does not appear in my looking glass with regularity. He's obviously not unattractive, but I've never thought that his face was what set him apart. I recall being confused by a scene from that spy romance with Chris Pine in which the female lead's friend salivates over head shots of the two men. The Pine part made a bit of sense, but I'd think that Hardy's hard body would be his advantage from a visual standpoint. After all of that work he put in to mould his musculature to that of the many mighty men he's portrayed? I think that his character might have been acclaimed for his superior sartorial skills too. But he was judged to be a match for Pine with nothing but a facial photograph.

Anyway, I personally think that he was quite comely in that old "Star Trek" movie from the Nineties. The one that steadfastly refused to do any favours for his career. I never actually saw it. Incidentally, I did think that Hoult's "Fury Road" character bore a touch of physical resemblance to Tom's "Trek" creature. Hardy looked quite good here too, though. His guy in "Inception" is probably up there too. I don't really remember. And I probably wouldn't know even if I did.

The Scab of Continuity

Marvel's new "Secret Wars" series is coming out now, bearing some thematic similarities to the DC "Crisis on Infinite Earths". The resemblance hasn't hurt chatter about the potential of "Wars" to reboot Marvel's universe as "Crisis" did for its company. Marvel hasn't historically done stuff like that, whereas DC has done so on several occasions since that seminal "Crisis".

Dealing with continuity in a fictional universe of this grand breadth can  be like having a scab. DC seems to do so with compulsive fervour, constantly picking at it and generating new messiness in the process. Marvel, with its more consistent adherence to the idea of a sliding time scale and a willingness to overlook occasional bits of slight oddness instead of shuffling the cosmos around trifles, is content to let the scab sit and do its own thing, which generally brings less in the way of blemishes.

Bonus Question!

Best crisis? Personality.

Rarity and Mediocrity

I remember discussing Kevin James movies with an old friend and coming to the conclusion that their rarity obviated any considerations of mediocrity. You know? Dwayne Johnson’s always delightful, but a season that contains the glory of “Furious 7” alongside something like “San Andreas”, which has nothing particular beside its lead to draw me in any especial way, can actually result in the skipping of one after distinct appreciation of the other. This doesn’t generally seem to be the case with Kevin James, though, and the perceived infrequency of his cinematic appearances bolstered the highlight status of “The Zookeeper” in my mind. I was thinking about this as I enjoyed the “Paul Blart” sequel a few days ago.

Then I heard that the titular mall cop would also be appearing in the imminent “Pixels”, which I was probably going to see anyway. Two Kevin James movies in such proximity? Absurd and delightful! Let’s do this.

Bonus Question!

Best zoo workers? The Mighty Boosh.

Oedipal Automaton

The Ultron of the comics, built by Hank Pym, was often characterised by forms of father issues in relation to his creator. Though Pym’s own psyche was frequently explored within the panels of various series, I don’t believe that the chain of parental issues, which continued from Ultron in the other direction through the Vision, a rebellious invention of the villain, ever went back up along his way. Hank’s heritage was never really explored.

That’s why the cinematic universe’s placement of Tony Stark in the role of Ultron’s architect makes a bit of extra sense to me. This is a dude who already has father issues. His second movie was partially built around them. I can see how a robot programmed by a guy like that could end up with some Oedipal motivations.

His voice plays into that kind of psyche nicely too. As such personalities tend to rate their worthiness above that of their fathers even as they ignore flaws they may share with them, it seems appropriate for James Spader's Ultron to attempt to sound maturer than his creator in the midst of an arrogant swagger that matches Stark's.

The fact that he can also deliver archetypal comic villain lines is pretty great too. Seriously. He even does that thing of beginning a speech to the assembled heroes by speaking the team's name. So classic.

Bonus Question!

Quicksilver versus Quicksilver?

I probably caught some glimpse of Whedon's speedster around the release of "Days of Future Past", and I recall thinking that his version seemed less compelling from an aesthetic standpoint at least. As I watched the portrayal, however, I had no complaints, and the largely fabricated accent added a touch of extra flavour, though I'd give the larger share of the twins' style points to the female half of the duo. Scarlet Witch struts like a real chaos mage, and she deserves it. Even when Quicksilver isn't hitting the heights of mythic costumery, his is a solid look. His general design has never drifted too far from its original conception in the pages of the earliest "X-Men" books, and it was even recreated without any significant change for his Ultimate appearance, which is a rare feat that's even more notable in light of the attire's age. His sister has had a less steady relationship with fashion, which is why it's nice to see her make her cinematic debut with sartorial surety.

Anyway, I'd still give the win to Fox's Peter over this film's Pietro, and that can stand even if it is due in substantial part to an outfit that looks like the love child of Ramona Flowers's laundry hamper and a can of silver spray paint.