Month: September 2025

Because it is hard: For All Mankind and dreams of space

Lately, I’ve been dreaming of the stars. 

I’ve been feverishly catching up with the four seasons to date of Apple TV’s For All Mankind, after putting it off for ages. One of the things that appeals to me about it is the insistence in this space exploration epic of dreaming big, daring big, in a way that our somehow smaller world doesn’t feel like it does any more. 

I’m a sucker for alternate histories, and For All Mankind paints a compellingly fascinating picture where the Soviets landing on the Moon before America does has a ripple effect on global history.

It’s a world where there’s no Watergate, 9/11 attack or assassination of John Lennon. Instead, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul were both killed!

It’s a world where Presidents Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart and Al Gore all end up in the mix of history with Reagan and Nixon. Oh, and there’s no public internet or social media, which actually might not be a bad thing when you think about it. 

This alternate reality also proves itself to be somewhat more progressive than the real one, although not without its speed bumps. After Russia lands a woman on the Moon, a spooked NASA assembles a crew of women astronauts to one-up their rivals, decades before women actually went into space. For All Mankind also dips into race and sexual equality – in this world, the Equal Rights Amendment passes, one of the top astronauts is a Black woman (an excellent Krys Marshall), and gay equality unspools in startlingly different ways than it has here.

The real-world President Kennedy’s famous quote – “We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard” – sums up the vibe of For All Mankind, of the hopeful engineers still beavering away in real-life space programs, and in a hundred other wide-eyed speculative fictions about man in space. It shows a world where striving to do the hard thing fundamentally changes the course of history. 

Like many of us, I’m drawn to the idea of man out amongst the stars, even if in reality it seems as far away as ever. I read Kim Stanley Robinson’s terrific Mars trilogy a few years back, and recently just devoured the excellent non-fiction Space Race: The Epic Battle Between America and the Soviet Union for Dominion of Space by Deborah Cadbury, which sheds a lot of light on the early years of the space programme and particularly the terrible price Soviet citizens paid to try and stay in the game. 

There’s a lot of dark, bleak science fiction out there, of course, and there’s certainly a place for it, but at the moment, give me some optimism things might get better. Good science fiction, at its best, gives us something to dream about – as in the endearingly dorky future of Star Trek, or the colourful chaos of Guardians of the Galaxy. I like watching aliens eat people’s faces as much as anyone but also, I like the idea of boldly going where no one has gone before.

Idealism seems pretty passé in 2025, where even lofty talk of utopian futures is usually tempered with a healthy dose of talk of vengeance on your enemies and crushing dissent. In a world that feels like it’s getting a little more unhinged by the week, I like to imagine missions to Mars and cruising amongst the asteroids.  

We haven’t been to the moon since 1972, before many people today were even born, and only four men who walked on the moon are still alive. In amongst all the stunning incompetence of American politics at the moment, it looks like another mission may finally come soon, more than 50 years later — which would be something to see, wouldn’t it? 

For All Mankind isn’t a rose-coloured look at the future – its alternate history is drenched in plenty of blood and horror, terrorism and distrust, where man (spoilers ahead!) does make it to the Moon and even Mars but constantly comes up against the same conflicts that keep screwing us all up on Earth. But through it all, even at the worst moments, there is the desire to dream big, and do big, hard things. 

For All Mankind does get a bit goofy and far-fetched the further ahead into its alt-history it goes, with some of the more daring episodes approaching Star Trek levels. Some of the characters become annoyingly soap opera-ish over time. Lead actors Marshall, Joel Kinneman and Wrenn Schmidt are generally terrific, even as their characters get slathered in awkward makeup as decades pass on the show, but some of the other actors play with a broad bluntness that verges on the cartoonish. 

None of that really matters, though, when the space race kicks in and For All Mankind’s vision of a different, more adventurous world kicks in — when the doing hard things is just what’s expected. Go hard, go big, just go there.

You know it’s bad when they start going after the court jesters

…I really don’t write much about America these days, and the way the place I called home for 35 or so years no longer makes sense to me.

I don’t have the spleen to be filled with outrage 24 hours a day any more, only a deep kind of sadness and the quote from the R.E.M. song (via the Linklater classic Slacker, of course) perpetually pinballing around my brain: “to withdraw in disgust is not the same as apathy.” I find my peace in a bit of grim distance from following every dismal development, and appreciating all the other ways life is still pretty darned good away from the bad news machine. 

But this week, when they really started going after the court jesters, it made me feel like things are even a little more apocalyptic than the current end times vibe.

For decades, the late-night TV show hosts, the Carsons and Lettermans and Lenos and kindred spirit Saturday Night Live, they were the court jesters on the American political scene. They would mock mercilessly Ford, Reagan, Bushes and Clintons and the like, for their real failings and their merely human missteps. They were a central part of the culture, with entire books written about their doings and in-fighting,  or one of my favourite TV shows being set entirely in the world of late night.

I caught the very tail end of Johnny Carson’s everyman years, and was a faithful watcher of David Letterman in his heyday, of SNL many years ago. I’ve watched a fair bit of Colbert and The Daily Show although I honestly don’t think I’ve watched more than a few minutes of Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyers or Jimmy Fallon, the current crop of hosts.

Dave could make fun of George H.W. Bush vomiting at a state dinner or Johnny could dress up as a fumbling Ronald Reagan. It was taken as a kind of point of pride that in America where the right to free speech is the very first amendment to the Constitution that you could mock the dear leader of the day, without fear of being forced off the airwaves by a carefully orchestrated tsunami of outrage. 

Let’s be clear – they weren’t always actually that funny, to be honest. Political humour of the day has a perhaps 25 percent hit rate that fades quickly over time, and Jay Leno’s Lewinsky ‘jokes’ had a shelf life of about .005 nanoseconds.

Letterman and Conan and the like were always a lot funnier when they followed their own weird muses rather than the headlines, but that wasn’t the point – the point was that they could make lame jokes about the man in the White House and the American political scene without fears the President himself would start screeching for their cancellation or calling the very idea of criticism against him “illegal.” 

The center did not hold, and the culture now revolves around a million very different siloed off entertainments and satirists than it once did when Johnny, Dave and Jay strode around on network television, the very height of celebrity in a world where nobody knew what an influencer was. Their time is fading, not entirely due to the current US administration, but they’re sure helping shove the stragglers out the door.

Instead of court jesters, we’re getting satire only tailored to existing beliefs or dizzyingly insular memes as the world drowns in a sea of doomscrolling and performative outage. In all the old sci-fi films, we imagined the end coming in a million ways, but few of them imagined a culture subsiding into the sea as we were all off inhaling TikToks and YouTube videos whilst sucking on cherry vapes with an Ozempic chaser.

I’ve got absolutely no good ideas, no hot takes about where all this goes from here.

But when you clear out the court jesters, it usually turns all you can hear is the king chortling to himself, self-satisfied, in a court where the only other sound is his laughter being echoed right back to him by a room full of sycophants. 

The Evil Dead and the evolution of Ash, from shy boy to demon slayer

I love the original Evil Dead trilogy and its splattery slapstick charms, so you’d better bet I was down for a marathon of the whole shebang at the legendary Hollywood Avondale this weekend, featuring an introduction by producer and honorary New Zealander Rob Tapert.

Tapert was right there, along with his mates director Sam Raimi and star Bruce Campbell in the Tennessee woods when the extremely low-fi 1981 original was shot, and has since gone on to be a producer of many great flicks in the years since – and also created a little character called Xena The Warrior Princess and married a Kiwi named Lucy Lawless, so he’s got some serious Kiwi bona fides.

Watching five hours of Evil Dead flicks on a rainy, windy Saturday night is my idea of a good time. Evil Dead (1981), Evil Dead II (1986) and Army Of Darkness (1992) form a trilogy which starts off as a group of young folks facing evil in a cabin in the woods and ends up with an army of skeletons battling knights in armor while a blustery guy with a robot hand eggs them on. 

I recommend a strong stomach and plenty of caffeine if you’re going to mainline all three movies at once, but it’s also fascinating to watch how different they are – the original is more straight existential horror, while the second almost remakes it but with a much more comic eye, while the third almost abandons horror and gore entirely for a straight out slapstick parody of all those old Ray Harryhausen flicks with sword-fighting skeletons. In these days of carefully plotted cinematic universes and decade-long “phases,” the Evil Dead trilogy is a monument to just making up shit as you go along. 

The only constant through it all is Ash, swaggeringly portrayed by Bruce Campbell. Images of Ash with a shotgun in one hand and his chainsaw taking the place of his other hand are iconic in comic horror, and his adventures have continued long after the original trilogy in plenty of comic books and videogames – and the surprisingly great 2015-2018 Ash Vs Evil Dead series that gave us everything and more the long-promised Evil Dead IV could have. 

Continuity is not a strong suit in the Dead trilogy – the success of the dimestore-cheap production of Evil Dead led Raimi and company to make a sequel, but it’s kind of bolted together with what Tapert called a “condensed” recap of the original in the first 10 minutes or so that reimagines the movie and streamlines it, then picks it all up again with Ash still battling those demons in the woods. 

And yet, watching the whole trilogy is also like watching Campbell and Ash find their way into a character. The catchphrase-shouting arrogant Ash we all “think” of when we think of Evil Dead only really comes into focus halfway through Evil Dead II, and becomes his most ideal self in Army Of Darkness.

When we first meet Campbell in Evil Dead, he’s a bland non-entity sitting in the back seat of the car heading to that infamous cabin in the woods, a sidekick to his more extroverted pal Scotty. You think Scotty’s going to be the big hero but then it’s quiet background Ash who ends up the “final girl.” It’s always a shock rewatching Evil Dead to see an almost shy Ash at first, who barely cracks a joke and who becomes the series’ focus only by his lucky knack for surviving the demonic chaos that consumes his friends. 

How did Ash go from shy boy in backseat to the alpha male in Army Of Darkness spitting out lines like “Gimme some sugar, baby” and “Yo, she-bitch! Let’s go!” The endearingly choppy nature of storytelling in the Evil Dead trilogy ignores rather than tries to fill in the contradictions of how Ash became, well, Ash, but in my own mental backstory I like to paper in the cracks of it all to be a tale of how Ash survives the incredible trauma of having his girlfriends, best pals and total strangers literally torn to pieces in front of him, of having to chop off his own demon-possessed hand and horrors that would drive anyone bonkers. 

In my head canon, Ash was the shy college boy when all the Deadite doings started – he’s actually repeatedly rather a coward in the climax of the original Evil Dead – but when the evil never stopped, he forces himself to become what he thinks of as a hero. Trauma remakes Ash, body and soul.

By the time Army of Darkness rolls around Ash is stranded in the year 1300 surrounded by “primitives,” and has completely reinvented his own personality to be the hero he probably saw in lots of late-night zombie movies. You can’t imagine Evil Dead 1981 Ash lecturing crowds of peasants about his superiority like Army of Darkness Ash does. He spouts bull-headed cliches and romances the pretty girl and stomps around with his “boomstick” but it’s all a bit of an act, really. He’s putting on the Ash, savior of humanity act to survive. 

That’s my theory, anyway. It could also be that the Evil Dead trilogy, as wildly entertaining and inspirational to creative folks as it is, is also just a slapdash bag of gags, gore and grit stapled together from film to film with no real deep concerns about how the cliffhanger end of Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness literally don’t mesh together at all, or whatever happened to Ash’s friends in the car in the first movie who’ve been erased from history by the second. I thought as I watched all three movies back to back that if they’d come out in this social media age of endless fanboy dissection, every clickbait website in the cosmos would be bashing out hate essays about the canon “mess ups” and “Evil Dead contradictions EXPLAINED!!!” videos. 

But whether or not it all makes a lick of sense or not, I do love how Bruce Campbell turned the gawky background guy in the back seat into a towering icon of horror movie heroism. As he’d put it – it’s pretty groovy. 

Always looking for that good line

Art by Darwyn Cooke

You can’t beat a good line. 

One thing I’ve grown to appreciate more and more these last, lo, 40+ years of my comic book obsessions, is the elegance of a good line of artwork.

I’ve watched comics go through phases from the powerful dynamism of John Byrne or Neal Adams to the over-etched details of the Image Comics house style to today’s computer-augmented slick comics art style. Some I like, some I don’t. (I can rarely pick up a Marvel Comic from the mid-1990s without an involuntary shudder at the sub-Liefeldian scratchiness of it all.)

Harvey Kurtzman

But a good line – well, that’s timeless. 

In my own feeble comic book scribblings it’s taken me a long time to learn that less can mean more – like many, back in the 1990s I quickly became enamoured of the Image comics “lots and lots of lines” school of art for a while there, and while I love the artists who can do amazing intricate detail – I’m thinking of Barry Windsor-Smith here, or the remarkable Gerhard’s impossibly grandiose cross-hatched background work on Dave Sim’s Cerebus – I also can now see the beauty in a single few flowing and infinite lines.

It took me a while to realise you don’t need to fill every millimetre of a panel with artwork. 

Will Eisner

I favour a little minimalism now, whether it’s old or new – the retro cool of Darwyn Cooke, the masterful hand of Will Eisner, Jeff Smith’s dynamic humour in Bone, the cool and elegant indie hipness of Daniel Clowes or Adrian Tomine, the chunky power of Harvey Kurtzman war comics, Frank Miller’s noir slashing brutalism in Sin City (before his artwork got too abstract for its own good), the gorgeous lines swished together with a lot of chiaroscuro shadows in Sean Phillips’ latest excellent crime thriller joint with Ed Brubaker, The Knives. 

There’s something to be said in just considering the lines in artwork, the way a skilled artist can fluidly widen or shrink his line with a dash of the brush, or sketch out a world of emotion in a few quick strokes. I like to sometimes just marvel at the arc and curve of a good line, and the talent involved in making it bend just so.

Sean Phillips
Jeff Smith
Adrian Tomine
Daniel Clowes

And oddly, perhaps in my kind of second (or third) childhood, I’ve become a big fan of “kiddie comics” the last few years and seeing with a new eye the astounding talent that you find in Carl Barks, John Stanley’s Little Lulu, Al Wiseman‘s Dennis the Menace, even Hot Stuff and Richie Rich. 

And heck, Archie comics, which have always been looked down a bit by comics snobs, have some of the crispest linework and designs in the business, especially when they were drafted by dazzling Dan DeCarlo. I grabbed a handsome art book of his Archie and other work recently and can pore over it endlessly, admiring all those beautiful, beautiful lines. There’s so much a brush can do, eh?

Dan DeCarlo
Dan DeCarlo
Dan DeCarlo
Ernie Colon – I think

Comic art can take a million different forms and that’s cool – I can still handle a Jim Lee Batman drawing with all those fiddly little lines delineated for every muscle in Bruce Wayne’s face, but sometimes, you just want to soak up a good, bold line. 

Sean Phillips

The Toxic Avenger, still the world’s most disgusting superhero

For a series that literally stinks of radioactive ooze, the Toxic Avenger sure has had a long half-life. 

The Toxic Avenger movies are often objectively terrible films, working hard to be as nasty and dumb as they can be, and yet the franchise has somehow lasted more than 40 years and now is reborn in a moderately big-budget Hollywood movie.

I first came across 1984’s The Toxic Avenger at a high-school late-night party devoted to cheesy movies like Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes and Night of the Lepus. It’s an airhorn blast of crude comedy and gore, the story of a screeching nerd who’s bullied relentlessly and falls into a vat of toxic waste, transforming him into the Toxic Avenger, “New Jersey’s first superhero.” Armed with a janitor’s mop, he dispatches crowds of bad guys in nastily inventive ways, with splattery violence and slapstick lowbrow humour all crashing together into a swampy mess. 

Within the first 10 minutes of The Toxic Avenger a bunch of thugs run down an innocent teenager on a bike in sick, lingering detail, played for comedy, and you know what kind of trash-flick you’re in for. It feels like the only proper way to watch these movies is on a battered VHS tape in your Mom’s basement, hopped up on Nerds candy and Jolt cola. 

Troma, the studio behind Toxie, made its calling card its splattery punk-rock ethos B-movie horror comedies, calculated to outrage and offend.

 And yet, there’s a bit of ugly charm to some of the Toxic Avenger series if you’re in the right twisted frame of mind. It’s got this “let’s put on a show” amateur enthusiasm that evokes the days I’d spend as a pre-teenager hacking together terrible comedy cassette tapes with pals, or scribbling my early comic books. It’s the appeal of doing something, anything, even if it isn’t very good.

The first movie is so in-your-face with its offensiveness and broad comedy that it’s curiously watchable, but the three sequels spewed out from 1989 to 2000 are generally a case of diminishing returns (and they’re also all way too long – 87 minutes is the scientifically correct length for this kind of movie, not nearly two hours).

Toxic Avenger Part II takes our hero to Japan for some amusingly silly equal opportunity offensiveness, while in the proudly inept Toxic Avenger Part III: The Last Temptation of Toxie, our hero battles Satan himself. Both of these movies – shot at the same time and even oddly duplicating a few scenes – are choppily directed, terribly acted and gleefully stupid, although the sleazy sheer malice of the first movie fades away for a bumbling sloppiness. I gather Troma was trying to “mainstream” Toxie a bit – heck, there was even a short-lived Saturday morning cartoon and a Marvel comic book of this most un-mainstream saga. 

Ultimately, the twistedness all comes roaring back with 2000’s Citizen Toxie: The Toxic Avenger IV which is easily the grossest, most offensive movie of the franchise, ramping everything up to 11. A mad story that claims to be the only “real sequel,” it’s about Toxie and his evil alternate universe doppelgänger, and overflows with bodily fluids, gratuitous nudity, rape, rancid racial stereotypes and gore, to the point where the satire gets pretty lost in the sheer ugliness. Maybe I’m a snowflake, but lingeringly gross scenes showing a school shooting in a classroom of mentally disabled students or riffing on racist hate crimes just go too damned far. I get what they’re going for, but not sure I want to go there. Citizen Toxie is definitely an experience, but also an endurance test for most people. 

After the nihilistic stench of Citizen Toxie it’s strange indeed to see the character “redeemed” in a way with the new moderately gentler, family-focused reboot.

It’s strange to contrast director Mason Blair’s The Toxic Avenger 2025 with its predecessors. It’s far more of an actual movie, for one thing, with decent special effects and recognisable stars like Peter Dinklage, Kevin Bacon and Elijah Wood. It’s got gore and a few raunchy bits but held up against the sleazy originals, it feels positively tame. While it follows a similar arc – bullied Winston Gooze (Dinklage) is transformed into a working-class deformed hero taking on corrupt businessmen – it’s all slicker and less eccentric. 

There’s a core sense of sadism to much of the Troma Avenger years that simply doesn’t fly for many viewers in 2025. It’s funny to me that apparently the new Toxic Avenger, which was first released in 2023 but only now hitting cinemas, couldn’t find a distributor because it was “unreleasable” due to violence. Honestly, it’s about 1/10th as offensive and gross as Citizen Toxie. Times change. 

Toxic 2025 is still a pretty good time, although ultimately it’s far more conventional and lacks the outsider-art reek of the original movies. In the first four Toxic Avenger movies, everyone is pretty loathsome, even our hero (the incredibly unappealing performance by Mitch Cohen as the nerdy pre-Toxie in the first movie honestly makes you want to root for the bullies). It’s a world that feels tangibly rotten, with cackling moronic extras, gibbering villains and bumbling anti-heroes. 

Dinklage’s excellent performance here fills you with actual sympathy for his Toxie, and his relationship with his bullied son (a great Jacob Tremblay) gives the movie some serious heart, while Bacon and Wood have a lot of fun playing the sneering bad guys. There’s righteous vengeance and over-the-top villains (my favourite was the endlessly parkouring thug), but also a bit of a moral about acceptance. 

I can’t say I would ever feel the urge to rewatch anything but the first and most recent Toxic Avenger movies, to be honest, but I am oddly captivated by the strange longevity of Toxie’s warped world, where everything is shit, even the superheroes. The original Toxic Avenger series doesn’t have a serious bone in its body, mocking everything from the blind and disabled to the very concept of heroism. The new movie ends with a father bonding with his defiantly different son, on a kind of elegant note of optimism despite all the chaos that came before. 

As nice as all that feels – and it doesn’t leave you feeling like you want to wash your hands afterwards like the Troma movies do – it’s also not very Toxic, I guess. Then again, the world is a toxic enough place these days as it is, isn’t it? Perhaps a gentler Toxic Avenger is the hero we need.