Last month's Agent X was the final issue by Gail Simone and Udon, following reports of disagreements with editor Andrew Lis.  Of course, Lis then proceeds to leave the book as editor anyway.  So we now have a new editor, a fill-in creative team, and the virtual certainty of cancellation within six months.  Welcome to the Land of the Walking Cancelled, population 2.

What this means in practice is two fill-in issues by Buddy Scalera and Mitchell Bretweiser.  Younger readers, or newcomers to comics, may not be familiar with fill-in issues.  They've rather gone out of fashion.  These days, if there isn't an issue ready for publishing, Marvel just don't publish one.  But until a few years ago, if there wasn't a comic ready, an inventory story would appear anyway.

Inventory stories were, as a general rule, mediocre.  The necessary limits on inventory stories make it extremely hard for any creator to raise them above merely competent.  The problem is that you can't actually change anything, nor can you do anything to interfere with the ongoing storylines, and in fact, since your story might be appearing at any point in the next couple of years, it's really best to avoid any reference at all to what's happening in the series.

This issue may well have been commissioned expressly to run in this slot, but it certainly reads like a fill-in story.  No supporting cast, no reference to anything in terms of the storylines, and a simple two-part concept.  Agent X is hired to kill an invisible man.  This is hard, because the man's invisible.  And he also claims to be innocent, though since we're not told what he was accused of in the first place, that doesn't quite advance matters.

And it's competent.  It's got a jarring style change from the Simone/Udon issues, in that the comedy is toned down somewhat, the tone is darker, and the sadism of the lead character is infinitely more pronounced.  If it's trying to keep in line with the usual tone of the series, then it's missed by a mile.  But in fairness, it is within the spectrum of legitimate interpretations of the character.  It's a question of emphasis.  This isn't an interpretation that remotely interests me, because it really does rely on you finding sadism inherently funny.

But, you know, it's alright.  It's competent.  It fills the pages, it isn't embarrassing.  It's a fill-in issue.

Rating: C+

back | continue