The Death of Spider-Gwen?

By Brandon T. McClure (Cover Art by Mark Brooks)

In 2013 Marvel Comics Introduced Marcus Johnson, a previously unknown S.H.I.E.L.D. agent that was revealed to be using an alias because his real name was Nick Fury Jr. Revealed to be the son of the original Nick Fury, Nick Fury Jr. was modeled to look like Samuel L. Jackson who played Nick Fury in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), and the Ultimate Universe Nick Fury. Marvel decided to do this to try and synergize their comics with the far more popular films, but it wasn’t the first time they did this and it wouldn’t be the last. The latest example of this synergistic mindset is Gwen Stacy aka Spider-Gwen aka Spider-Woman aka Ghost-Spider. A character that Marvel has struggled with for almost a decade because of her popularity outside of the realm of comic books.

Spider-Gwen first appeared in the second issue of the 2014 mini-series Edge of Spider-Verse, which was released in the lead up to the massive Spider-Man event, Spider-Verse. This issue was massively popular and sold out at comic shops almost immediately. It received more than five reprints, tons of variants, and is the only issue from that series to spin off into an ongoing series. The point of Edge of Spider-Verse, wasn’t just to set up the Spider-Verse event, it was also to introduce new Spider characters into Marvel's multiverse. Edge of Spider-Verse #2, written by Jason Latour with art by Robbi Rodriguez, introduced readers to a version of Gwen Stacy living on Earth-65 where she became Spider-Woman and Peter Parker became the Lizard. Her costume was immediately iconic and she would go on to have nine solo titles, appear in multiple crossovers, and multiversal team-up titles, and very quickly make the jump to the small and big screen. She was so popular that Marvel commissioned an entire line of “Gwen-Verse” variant covers that lead to the creation of Gwenpoole (no relation).

Earth-65 is populated by unique takes on familiar Marvel heroes and villains, such as the lovable Bodega Bandit. On her Earth, Gwen went up against Matt Murdock, Kingpin of crime in this universe, a Trump inspired M.O.D.O.K., named M.O.D.A.A.K. (Mental Organism Designed As America's King), and more familiar villains such as The Punisher and The Vulture. Gwen even teamed up with Earth-65’s Captain America, Samantha Wilson. Other heroes weren’t explored but a 13 year old Reed Richards, who’s no less a genius, was introduced. Gwen would even get her own Venom suit after losing her powers to Earth-65’s version of Cindy Moon. But her most iconic trait is that she plays drums for The Mary Janes, a band where Mary Jane Watson (who became Carnage once) is the lead singer with a hit single called “Face It Tiger”. All of these stories were told by Jason Latour, the character's co-creator. Earth-65 started to look a lot less special after he left.

After Jason Latour, who would later be accused of sexual misconduct, left the title, the character fell to Seanan McGuire who would have Gwen hop back and forth between Earth-65 and Earth-616, the main Marvel universe where all their comics are set. In the two series that McGuire wrote, Gwen would go up against Earth-616 threats like The Jackel, a villain historically obsessed with Gwen Stacy. But the new series did set up new antagonists for Gwen in her home dimension in the form of Sue and Johnny Storm. The siblings were celebrities who were captured by Dr. Doom, only to return to New York City as superpowered heroes. It’s heavily implied that Sue is the new Dr. Doom and she demands that Gwen leave Earth-65 permanently. This story has never been followed up on, and was possibly ignored by the time of her next solo title. Not to say that Seanan McGuire didn’t do good work on the two Spider-Gwen titles she worked on. She was restricted by Marvel editorial in what she could do and only had a total of twenty issues that ended at the start of the COVD-19 pandemic.  

Spider-Gwen’s popularity led her to be adapted into many shows, which, along with her film appearances, began to reveal a problem with how Marvel was handling this once popular character. In 2018, Marvel released a multi-media series called Marvel Rising. This series focused on teenage heroes and introduced Gwen Stacy as Ghost-Spider. Since Spider-Gwen would begin interacting with the larger Marvel universe, she could not be called Spider-Woman (there were already three female heroes with that name), even though that was the name she went by in her home universe. She could also not be called Spider-Gwen by the other characters she interacted with because that was the title of the comic book and not her codename. That same year, Marvel launched a new ongoing series titled Ghost-Spider to try and get that name to stick. Considering the current ongoing series is called All-New Spider-Gwen: Ghost-Spider, it’s safe to assume that it still hasn’t stuck. If two heroes can hold the moniker of Spider-Man, then two heroes can be called Spider-Woman.

2018 was a big year for Spider-Gwen as she also appeared in the Academy Award winning film, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse directed by Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey, and Rodney Rothman and written by Phil Lord and Rodney Rothman. This film saw multiple Spider people from across the multiverse, including Peter B. Parker, Spider-Man Noir, Penny Parker, Spider-Ham, and Spider-Gwen, team up with Miles Morales to stop the Kingpin from destroying the multiverse. This film plays with the idea of Gwen and Miles forming a romantic bond, something that Marvel tried to capitalize on by crossing Gwen over into Miles’ comic book series. This was the start of what would eventually lead to Spider-Gwen’s downfall. Marvel Comics felt that the popularity of Spider-Gwen came from her crossover appeal. It’s the same reason why Marvel Comics revisits the Spider-Verse storyline every couple of years. In the case of Spider-Gwen, they began to chase what made the movie popular.

Marvel Comics has a habit of trying to align their comic book characters with the ones in the films. It makes a certain amount of sense when you think about it because movies make millions or even billions of dollars and are seen by millions of people. By contrast, comic books are read by thousands. How do you get movie viewers to become comic book readers? Comics can feel impenetrable to the general audience so if someone wanted to pick up an Avengers comic and the team didn't look like the one on the big screen, they might decide to skip it. This mentality is the only reason why Brian Michael Bendis and Mark Bagley launched Avengers Assemble in 2012, or why Marvel just released The New Avengers by Sam Humphries and Ton Lima, which was originally announced as Thunderbolts*. It even happened to Blade after the film came out in 1998. Marvel loves synergy. They feel like it will help ease the general public into becoming comic book readers despite most evidence pointing to the contrary. It’s not to say that it doesn’t happen, but it hasn’t happened in a way that significantly moves the needle. So in order to make it easier for Spider-Gwen to crossover with the other spider heroes of New York City, Marvel has removed her from Earth-65 and placed her on Earth-616. 

There’s potentially another reason for this move, just to play devil's advocate. For ten years, Marvel published a line of comics called The Ultimate Universe. What started as an immensely popular line of comics that lead to the creation of Miles Morales, began to dwindle in popularity. It came to an end with Secret Wars, an event created by Jonathan Hickman that forced every Marvel comic to be either cancelled or placed on hold. At the end of the event, the Ultimate Universe was gone and some heroes and villains had been folded into Earth-616 such as Miles Morales and The Maker (an evil version of Reed Richards). Publishing a series set in an alternate reality probably creates some confusion with readers and considering it was the only series like that post-Secret Wars, it was probably causing a headache for Marvel publishing. It probably made sense to fold her into Earth-616 because Miles regained his popularity when it happened to him.

Recently Marvel Comics launched All-New Spider-Gwen: Ghost Spider, the ninth solo title for the character, written by Stephanie Phillips with art by Paolo Villanelli. The new series reveals that Gwen has made Earth-616 her new permanent home. Gwen has now permanently left Earth-65, the villains, the heroes, and the friends behind in favor of the all too familiar cast of Earth-616. She is no longer a unique spider in a world that can be explored and expanded upon indefinitely. She’s now just another spider hero in a world with far too many spider heroes. The hard part for fans was how slow it happened. It was inevitable, but it started small. Just one off crossovers at first, then she was going to school in Earth-616 with Peter Parker as her professor, then she teamed up with Loki to rewrite the universe, and now Ghost-Spider has moved in. It’s not to say that the character can’t flourish under the watchful eye of a talented writer like Stephanie Phillips, it’s just hard to watch a character lose all they’re potential in favor of the Marvel synergy that comes for everyone, even Tony Stark (they were writing him like RDJ for about 10 years. No one was happy about it).

In fairness the series had a hard time maintaining the momentum of her debut issue. The ongoing series was fast tracked to come out before Secret Wars but was then cancelled after five issues, then returned after Secret Wars. But while the new series went for 34 issues, the book struggled in sales and then Marvel decided to make things confusing by trying to make “Ghost-Spider” happen. There’s a reason why whenever The Amazing Spider-Man gets a reboot it doesn’t change its title. Changing the title of a series confuses longtime and new readers. Nine solo titles in ten years is a hard sell for readers. Eventually they stop trying. But Marvel is constantly chasing the first issue bump in sales. Basically they noticed that new number ones make more money, so they try to capitalize on that whenever they can. Spider-Gwen became a shell of the character that fans first fell in love with and every subsequent series took her away from her world and the stories fans were invested in. Or perhaps she was never meant to have this popularity and should have stayed within the pages of Edge of Spider-Verse #2.

Her popularity doesn’t seem to ever translate to her comics. Spider-Gwen has a flourishing merchandise line for girls of all ages. Her iconic design persists through popular culture and has broken through to the mainstream. It sometimes feels like she’s passed Jessica Drew, Spider-Woman, as the most iconic female Spider hero. Hot Topic is littered with jackets, sweaters, shirts, skirts, bras, and more sporting the white, pink and black of Spider-Gwen. But does this translate to comic book sales? Sadly no. Spider-Gwen may not actually be a popular comic book character but is instead a popular design or brand. Her merchandise sales are likely the only reason why Marvel keeps publishing her comic and keeping her on Earth-616 is the only way they could think to boost her popularity. But in doing so, she’s basically become nothing more than a brand ambassador for Marvel and not a character with a rich comic book history. Just a Frankenstein monster of a character kept alive through the power of merchandise. A cynical way of looking at it for sure.

Rather than exploring a rich new world of possibilities Marvel has chosen to ignore all of that in favor of easy crossover with other spider heroes. It's almost like they’re ashamed that she's from another universe and would rather everyone forget that. Perhaps her new title will ignite her popularity again, and Spider-Man: Beyond The Spider-Verse is just around the corner which will see Hayley Steinfeld reprise her role as the most popular version of the character. But the potential she once had is gone. Her supporting cast is gone in favor of Peter Parker and his gang. Her world is gone. Now fans have to watch as a character who burst on to the scene with excitement dies a slow and painful death into obscurity, overshadowed by the more popular spider heroes. Her life on Earth-616 just isn't as interesting as what could have been on Earth-65.

MARVEL & FoX-Men

By Brandon T. McClure

In a comedically long announcement, Marvel Studios announced the cast of the upcoming Avengers: Doomsday. The next Avengers film will see new and old heroes face Robert Downey Jr. 's miscast Doctor Doom. Yet, they won’t be alone. Almost half the cast is made up of actors who haven’t been in a Marvel movie in a decade. Indeed, the X-Men are finally going to make their MCU debut, just not in the way that fans were expecting, and certainly not in the way they should be. It seems that Kevin Feige can now realize a nearly 20 year old dream and all it took was Disney buying 20th Century Fox. The cast from 2000s X-Men and 2003s X2: X-Men United are back (plus Kelsey Grammer from X3: X-Men United).

Since Disney purchased 20th Century Fox in 2019, fans have been wondering when the Fantastic Four and the X-Men will make their MCU enternance. While the Fantastic Four have made that debut this year, news of the X-Men has been sparse. The internet is littered with fan theories and rumors ranging from the mundane to the ridiculous. This question has obviously been on the mind of everyone at Marvel Studios as well. Many fans felt that the X-Men were too big of a property to introduce in the same way that every character or team has been previously introduced. How do you explain their long absence when they have such an expanded history? This is the same scrutiny that the Eternals fell into back in 2001. If they have been around so long, why didn’t they help defeat Thanos?

Eternals is likely why the multiverse approach was taken. For example, Fantastic Four: First Steps is set in an alternate timeline to get away from the “Thanos” question. While comic book audiences are accustomed to not questioning why past events didn’t include newly introduced heroes, the same cannot be said for film audiences. The MCU has trained general audiences to accept “silly” ideas or concepts that comic book audiences have been accepting for decades, but this was a hurdle they couldn’t get over. So the multiverse was needed. While Namor (Tenoch Huerta) in Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, and Ms. Marvel (Iman Vilani) in Ms. Marvel were introduced as MCU mutants, major characters like Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and Beast (Kelsey Grammer) were relegated to the multiverse with Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and The Marvels. However, this highlights a growing concern within Marvel Studios.

Rather than recasting the X-Men, Marvel Studios has chosen to bring back the original actors who burst onto the screen clad in black leather. A team that people don't even remember fondly and constantly talk about how misguided the films were. Marvel Studios is looking for the instant gratification of feeling like they're the biggest franchise in the world again. They know that the secret ingredient to making a quick billion dollar hit is to add aging former Marvel stars like in Spider-Man: No Way Home and the aforementioned Deadpool & Wolverine. The sad thing is that it's going to work. Avengers: Doomsday will be the biggest movie in the world regardless of how good it is because of all the returning actors that are known and unknown. The only film that will be bigger is Avengers: Secret Wars which comes out the following year.

Interestingly, this seems to be the realization of a major dream of Kevin Feiges. Having been part of the production of almost every Marvel film from X-Men to the formation of Marvel Studios, Feige probably has a lot of affection for the casts of these earlier films. In an alternate take for the post-credits scene of Iron Man, Nick Fury alludes to the X-Men and Spider-Man, which seems to imply that Feige, at some point, thought that he could connect all the Marvel films being produced by different studios under one universe. Rights issues don’t work that way and since Marvel sold the rights to various heroes, including the X-Men and Spider-Man in the 90s, Feige had to settle and build the Avengers with what he had. The rest is history, as they say.

Deadpool & Wolverine was supposedly meant to be a farewell of sorts to the pre-MCU era of Marvel films. Faced with the destruction of his entire universe, Wade Wilson aka Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds), is sent to the wasteland, the TVA’s dumping grounds (This makes sense if you’ve seen Loki). Here he meets dozens of heroes and villains from across the Marvel multiverse such as Chris Evans as the Human Torch, Wesley Snipes as Blade, and Dafne Keen as X-23. Channing Tatum is also there as a version of Gambit that only exists in an ambitious cast photo from a Comic Con long past. Wade has to find a version of Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) to replace the one that died in Logan so that his universe can be saved. Sadly the film ultimately collapses under the weight of its references and only continues to muddy the already complicated X-Men timeline (is it the same timeline from the end of The Marvels? Because Beast should be dead). No one believed that it would be the promised “farewell” since everyone figured most, if not all these characters would show up in Avengers: Secret Wars. Frankly, they should have committed to the film serving as an ending to those characters and used the goodwill to move on.

There’s been a trend in the 21st century of older actors returning to roles many many years after their initial time as the character. Star Trek: Picard, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, Terminator: Dark Fate, Top Gun: Maverick and so on and so on. There’s value to seeing older actors reprise these roles because it has destigmatized age and allowed older audiences to realize that there is no such thing as aging out of something. But, this trend has become so successful that it has begun to overshadow new and upcoming talent; creating an environment where younger audiences don’t have heroes of their own and are forced to relate to the heroes of a bygone age. Rather than giving a new generation an X-Men team to relate to, Marvel Studios has decided to give older fans their X-Men back. Although, it’s arguable over whether or not these older fans even want to see “their “ X-Men back. At a time when the MCU should be focusing on new heroes, they’ve doubled down on old ones which speaks more to how they’ve done a poor job cultivating a new generation of heroes (where are the Young Avengers Feige??)

That original X-Men cast are getting quite old at this point with none of the announced returning cast members younger than 51. Fans have always enjoyed seeing returning actors in outfits they didn’t wear when they were initially cast. Patrick Stewart in the yellow hover chair, Hugh Jackman in the yellow and blue, and Kelsey Grammer as a CGI Beast that looked closer to his comic book counterpart then he did in X-Men: The Last Stand. The internet got very excited when the announcement of these returning actors dropped. Curiously so. Is the excitement just so 60 year old Alan Cumming will look closer to his comic book counterpart? Or perhaps fans are excited to see James Marsden (51 and looking good by the way) in blue spandex, Ian McKellen (87) with a slightly different looking helmet, or Rebecca Romijn (52) in a white sleeveless dress with a belt made of skulls? Should Marvel Studios go all in on nostalgia and put them in black spandex again? Is that really all it takes for people to get excited? Or do fans want to see new actors take on these roles with a new director that actually likes the X-Men (this is a snipe against Bryan Singer, not the Russo Brothers). It’s too late to stop the juggernaut (heh) of Avengers: Doomsday. But the smell of desperation is all over it. A new cast of X-Men should have been the priority, and not whatever this is.

Recently Kevin Feige has confirmed that Avengers: Secret Wars will lead to a soft reboot by saying there are plans to “reset singular timelines” and promised that classic superheroes will begin to get recast. “X-Men is where that will happen” he said to a crowd of journalists. So there are plans to recast the X-Men as he also confirmed that Jake Schreier, director of Thunderbolts* will be directing whatever they’ll call the first X-Men film produced by Marvel Studios. But you can’t help but wonder if this is a little late for Marvel. Perhaps they’ve overthought it and in response to the questions posed by Eternals (why didn’t they fight Thanos?) and their desire to regain their notoriety in pop culture, they’ve dug themselves deeper into a hole of unoriginality and nostalgia. Avengers: Doomsday and Avengers: Secret Wars feel like desperate pleas for an audience's affection where Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame felt like a victory lap.

Can How To Train Your Dragon 2 Fix A Problem With The Animated Version

By Brandon T. McClure

Universal Studios has gotten into the live-action remake game with this year's How to Train Your Dragon. Directed by the original's co-director Dean Deblois, Universal is hoping that How To Train Your Dragon will revitalize interest in their animated franchise. Especially now that there's a theme park attached to it. They have loftier goals than that, as they announced that How To Train Your Dragon 2 will be making the jump to live-action as well. Unlike the original, there’s actually room for improvement when adapting this annimated film for a new audience, notably with the film's villain.

The original How to Train Your Dragon is a rather simple, yet effective film about a boy who learns to stand up to his father and forge his own path by freeing his people and the dragons they swore to kill from a never-ending cycle of violence. The closest thing the film has to an antagonist is Hiccup's dad, Stoic and the Red Death, the Queen Dragon. They both serve thematic and physical barriers for Hiccup to overcome that ultimately proves that Hiccup and Toothless are unstoppable together. Strengthening their bond and paving the way for a better future for everyone. To put it simply, the first film isn’t structured with a villain in mind. But both sequels have a primary antagonist that the heroes have to beat in order to protect their way of life.

The strongest aspect of How To Train Your Dragon 2 is the relationship between Hiccup, Stoic, and Hiccup's long lost mother. The reveal of the film is that Hiccup's mother did not die in a dragon attack, but was rather taken. She spent years amongst the dragons learning about their true nature. On the other side of that coin was the movie's villain, Drago Bludvist. This was a dragon tamer with only one goal, to unite all the viking clans under him through strength and fear. Drago spent years subjugating dragons so that they would do his bidding, thanks to a king dragon, known as the Bewilderbeast. While Djimon Hounsou delivers an excellent vocal performance, there’s not much in the script as far as character.

While Valca, Hiccup's mom, shows Hiccup the end of the path he’s on, Drago shows Hiccup the path he could have taken. While not explicitly stated in the film, Drago wears a cloak made of Night Fury skin. It’s a dark detail for a kids movie and so it is relegated to subtext. What is also in the subtext is that Drago may be responsible for wiping out the Night Fury species. Valka suggests that Toothless is likely the last of his kind afterall. Centering a film on a dark reflection of Hiccup, one that wiped out the Night Fury’s rather than befriending them, is an excellent starting point for a villain of this franchise. Yet, it’s a PG rated film at the end of the day, so all of Drago’s character and motivation is brought down to mere subtext. His name may send Stoic into fits of fear, but he has no depth. This is where Dean Deblois can put his money where his mouth is.

Since it’s unlikely that How To Train Your Dragon 2 won’t be a remake of the original, and it’s equally unlikely that Dean Deblois won’t return to direct the sequel, there’s a good chance that the film will adhere closely to its source material, like in How To Train Your Dragon. Speaking with THR, Deblois mentioned he considered the original animated film to be a first draft and wanted to use the live-action film to fix what he considered to be mistakes. He used this opportunity to expand Astrid’s character in the first film and will likely continue that new trajectory she’s on in the sequel. Nevertheless, if Astrid is anything to go by, then Drago could benefit from this same direction. With the animated film rated PG and the live-action film most likely aiming for PG-13, there is room to expand on the darker subtext of Drago’s character and enhance his role. Perhaps even going so far as to make the audience fear him as much as Stoic does. This adventure could be even more personal for Hiccup and Toothless due to Drago’s proposed history with the Night Fury’s. Bring the subtext into the text.

The biggest problem with live-action remakes of beloved animated films is that audiences know that they’re only made for money. Sure, Dean Deblois may have passion for the world he co-created, but studios are only interested in the bottom line. While that is true for all movies, it feels more egregious with this current trend. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean there aren't interesting things that can be done. If How To Train Your Dragon 2 is going to adhere close to its animated predecessor then meaningfully developing Drago is an easy way to help it stand out, and perhaps even surpass the original. 

Are The Alien Vs. Predator Films Canon?

By Brandon T. McClure

At one point it was assumed that the Alien and Predator franchises were in fact one franchise. Thanks to comics and video games, Alien vs. Predator was a massive juggernaut, but it didn’t jump to the big screen until 2004 with the release of AVP: Alien vs. Predator. It was official that both of 20th Century Fox’s massively popular horror franchises were now one. But as of now, there hasn’t been another crossover film since 2007 with Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem. Both franchises have continued beyond yet the AVP films have felt like a simple blip in the timeline, rather than a massive sea change. This has led many to wonder if the AVP films are still canon.

While 1990’s Predator 2 would be the first on-screen hint at a potential connective universe, the first crossover actually happened a few months prior in 1989 in the pages of Dark Horse Presents, an anthology comic book published by Dark Horse Comics that featured three consecutive stories written by Randy Stradley with art by Phill Norwood. The final of the three stories revealed that it was a prelude to a comic simply titled Alien vs. Predator and included Chris Warner (who was the artist on Dark Horse’ Predator comics). This series was the beginning of the Machiko Noguchi saga which followed a young girl rescued from a colony overrun with Xemomorphs and then trained by Predators to become one of them. The success of this comic would lead to dozens more and eventually a thriving video game franchise that lasted from 1993 to 2010.

Machiko Noguchi - Dark Horse Comics

Due to the success of the comics and video games, fans were eager to see a big screen version. 20th Century Fox began pursuing a film version by commissioning a script by Peter Briggs, who would go on to write the first Hellboy movie, in 1991. In response, Ridley Scott, who was at one point interested in directing Alien 3 reportedly turned it down because he didn’t like the idea of Alien vs Predator. Rumors also seem to imply that Fox’s desire for a crossover was one of the many reasons that led to Sigourney Weaver demanding her character, Ripley, be killed off in Alien 3. Despite all this, the film would sit in development hell for more than a decade before Paul W.S. Anderson came on board to see the film reach the finish line in 2004. While AVP: Alien vs. Predator was a success for both franchises, Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem was not and derailed any future crossover plans.

AVP: Alien vs Predator (2004)

Since Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem, directed by Colin and Greg Strause, failed with both critics and audiences (12% and 30% on Rotten Tomatoes respectively), 20th Century Fox decided not to move forward with a third film that would have seen the franchise move into the far future. Instead the studio moved forward with new entries in each respective franchise. This manifested due to the financially disappointing releases of Predators (2010) and the divisive Prometheus (2012). In the minds of 20th Century Fox (before Disney bought them), and more specifically, Ridley Scott, the Alien and Predator franchises had a divorce and were no longer considered to be a connected franchise. Unfortunately, Ridley Scott was not interested in any crossover potential. He elected to return to the Alien franchise (after much coaxing) with a prequel to Alien that would become Prometheus. The film's promise was to explain where the fabled “Space Jockey” came from and by extension the origins of the Xenomorphs. Regrettably, Scott wasn’t interested in telling that story either and opted to make a yet far grander tale of the origin of humanity that may or may not also serve as an origin to the Xenomorphs. While he would attempt to course correct this with Alien: Covenant, telling what many believe to be the origin of the Xenomorph, the story that both films tell is one that makes any connection to the Predator films all but impossible.

David (Michael Fassbender) in his lab - Alien: Covenant

This disconnecting of two franchises only went one direction and was not true for Predator. AVP has a long history of referencing its sister horror franchise that goes back to the aforementioned 1990s film Predator 2 and a cancelled third AVP film wasn’t going to stop them. While Predators doesn’t have any references to Alien, The Predator has a very interesting one. Located in Project Stargazer is the spear that Scar (the surviving predator from AVP) gave to Lex (Sanaa Lathan) to help her fight her way out of the pyramid. It’s not even subtle as the camera lingers on it for quite some time. Predator: Killer of Killers may also have a reference in the form of bone tails from Aliens that form a cape for the Grendel King. But the most overt reference is yet to come in Predator: Badlands. Elle Fanning’s character Thia is a Weyland/Yutani android. A reference on this scale has never been seen before in this franchise. This proves one thing about the canonicity of the AVP films: They are only canon to the Predator franchise.

Thia (Elle Fanning) in Predator: Badlands

But is that true?

There’s a few reasons why it would be hard to fit Alien vs. Predator films into the cannon of the Alien franchise. Interestingly, both AVP: Alien vs. Predator and Aliens vs. Predator introduced the founders of the mega corporation Weyland/Yutani before Prometheus did the same thing. As fans, connections can be found, but there’s some pretty heavy mental gymnastics that need to happen. Shortly after the release of Prometheus, Dark Horse Comics published a massive crossover called Fire & Stone. This series spanned four mini-series titled Prometheus: Fire & Stone, Predator: Fire & Stone, Aliens: Fire & Stone, and Alien vs. Predator: Fire & Stone. The goal was to reconnect the two franchises through the lens of Prometheus, or at least try. It was a valiant effort and features some great horror moments as the Predator goes up against the new elements of Alien lore introduced in Prometheus. Ultimately it did not land with readers in any meaningful way though. So on the surface it looks like Predator cannot connect with the Alien franchise as Prometheus and Alien: Covenant seem to stand in the way.

Thematically speaking, it’s almost impossible to imagine the two connecting now anyway. Like most horror movies, the Alien franchise used to have some light at the end of the tunnel. Both Alien and Aliens end in a hopeful way for Ripley. Even Alien: Resurrection doesn’t portray the franchise as a hopeless universe. Alien 3 was the outlier until Prometheus. But thanks to Ridley Scott's prequel duology, the Alien franchise is now a universe devoid of hope. Something that Alien: Romulus builds on, built from the very ground up to be about the futility of mankind. Our very creators sought to wipe us out after sending a “savior” who was killed (Jesus was an Engineer, Google it). The Alien exists to punish mankind in an ever repeating cycle that you can’t escape from. It’s in the very DNA of the Alien universe. Conversely, the Predator franchise is more action than horror. Often relying on heroes beating the Predators and going home (unless you’re the sore loser clan from Predator: Killer of Killers). Sometimes the Predators may even respect you and treat you with honor. It’s hard to imagine the two being able to connect.

Interestingly, AVP: Alien vs. Predator details that the Predators have a long history on Earth. They were worshiped like gods and taught ancient people how to build pyramids. It doesn’t seem likely that this would be the case where Jesus was an 8 foot pale alien and the first “facehugger” was born from a woman in the year 2093. Again, maybe there’s some mental gymnastics that can be done without retconning any film. There’s enough subtext in both Prometheus and Alien: Covenant to suggest that David didn’t create the Alien, he recreated it. Ridley Scott wasn’t interested in telling the origin of the Alien, and perhaps he didn’t. Instead detailed the story of a madman stumbling onto something that the Engineers tried to lock away centuries ago. Also, while slightly racist to humanity's ancestors, a Predator clan could have positioned themselves as gods while others were more interested in hunting humans for sport. So now what once seemed like two disconnected franchises, now appear to be connected again.

There’s even renewed interest in a crossover as both Fede Alverez (director of Alien: Romulus) and Dan Trachtenberg (director of Prey and Predator: Badlands) have both talked about their willingness.. It’s not hard to believe that Trachtenberg would be willing considering the references to Alien that he’s included in both 2025 Predator films. There was even interest from 20th Century Fox before being swallowed by Disney, as it was revealed that there was a completed anime series based on Alien vs. Predator. This series will likely never see the light of day, but one could hope that some good samaritan at the Disney vault will get it out there to the fans eager to see it. When discussing the new Predator movies and the sequel to Alien: Romulus, 20th Century Studios President Steve Asbell, said that a crossover is likely to happen but will only happen organically from both. With the Predator franchise jumping into the far future with Predator: Badlands, could that be the first step in setting up this epic rematch?

If you’re a strict canon junkie, then it’s clearly not possible that the AVP films are connected to both franchises. As the Alien franchise continued, it grew further away from its sister franchise, while Predator continued in a grand tradition of references. It makes far more sense that the films are canon only to Predator. The relationship has always been one sided and it only makes sense for Predator to get the films in the divorce. But a reconciliation could be on the horizon and at the end of the day, canon is what you, the audience, deem it to be.

MOVIE REVIEW & INTERVIEW / Locked (a film by David Yarovesky)

From producer Sam Raimi, this horror-thriller follows a petty thief (Bill Skarsgård) who breaks into the wrong car and becomes prey to its vengeful owner (Anthony Hopkins). Eddie faces a deadly game of survival, where escape is an illusion, and justice shifts into high gear.

Jenny sits down with the director of Locked, David Yarovesky to chat about horror icons, closed spaces and embracing the inspiring challenges of independent movies. Join the conversation in the comments and on social media.

For audio, please check out the Atomic Geekdom Podcast to listen in.

By Jenny Robinson

We are in a splendid time for indie movies right now. When movies like Anora can take home the Oscar, and historic art house theaters are becoming the hot spot for entertainment.

Locked (released in theaters March 21st, 2025 ) hasn’t seen a lot of hype on socials despite having two of the most acclaimed horror actors today. So far it has been a quiet backseat thriller, hidden behind the hype of the larger budget Steven Soderbergh Black Bag and the family friendly live-action, Snow White. Regardless of the constantly unpredictable market, this movie has the potential to out shine them all.

The direction style of Yarovesky works seamlessly with this story. Many times, as a theatergoer, I felt as if I was apart of this horror, a spectator on the outside, looking in. This feeling is driven home by how each camera and angle is applied. It holds our hand in how we view both inside and outside of the Dolus (the weaponized luxury SUV), by adding a layer of claustrophobic anxiety.

Bill Skarsgård’s portrayal of the central character Eddie, allows the audience to both feel annoyed with and identify you’re also on his side . Even his pink hoodie has costume design importance. A hoodie is synonymous in security cam footages to burglars and thieves. Having his shirt be pink to soften away from the black, makes him feel more amateur, a screw up. Every scene is master class in acting for a character full of stubbornness, determination, and atonement.

The movie brings you in full force, once William’s (Sir Anthony Hopkins) voice is audible in the car. Flashbacks of Hopkin’s calm, soothing and unsettling voice from his vast portfolio of films, took this role up an impressive notch. The way he can deliver lines that make you feel both empathy for the antagonist and fear is an example of his excellence.

The scenes when both of them are together, are exemplary, with the plot blurred between necessity, remorse, justice, revenge, all told through a clever lens torture. Where the rich can eat the poor, but the less advantage has street smarts the privileged could never understand.

This movie was one hell of a ride. Open the door, and see it on a big screen.

MOVIE REVIEW/ "Novocaine"

By Anthony Caruso

Novocaine is a thrilling action-comedy that delivers a unique blend of humor, over-the-top violence, and charismatic performances. Directed by Dan Berk and Robert Olsen, the film offers a fresh take on the action genre, reminiscent of superhero narratives but with a distinctive twist.

The story centers on Nathan Caine, a mild-mannered bank executive with congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), a rare disorder that prevents him from feeling physical pain. Nathan leads a cautious life, avoiding any potential harm due to his condition. His monotonous existence takes a turn when his colleague, Sherry, expresses romantic interest, introducing him to new experiences and emotions. Their budding relationship faces a dire challenge when a group of bank robbers, led by the enigmatic Simon, takes Sherry hostage during a heist. Nathan must harness his unique condition to rescue her, embarking on a perilous journey filled with action and self-discovery.

Jack Quaid shines as Nathan Caine, bringing a blend of vulnerability and determination to the role. His portrayal captures the nuances of a man disconnected from physical sensations yet deeply in touch with his emotions. Amber Midthunder, meanwhile, delivers a captivating performance as Sherry, balancing strength and sensitivity, making her chemistry with Quaid both believable and engaging. Plus, she's sexy as hell!

Then there's Ray Nicholson, who stands out as Simon, the film's antagonist. His portrayal adds complexity to the character, making him more than a typical villain. Nicholson's performance brings a certain charm to Simon, creating a dynamic where audiences might find themselves conflicted about who to root for. 

The film excels in its action sequences, creatively utilizing Nathan's inability to feel pain. This unique trait leads to inventive fight scenes where Nathan endures extreme physical punishment, often resulting in over-the-top and grotesque scenarios played for laughs. The choreography leans into the absurdity of his condition, providing a fresh perspective on action tropes. One standout sequence is a high-octane car chase that combines thrilling stunts with comedic elements, showcasing the film's ability to balance tension and humor effectively.

Novocaine successfully balances a playful tone with its action-packed narrative. The directors, Berk and Olsen, maintain a pace that keeps audiences engaged, blending elements of superhero storytelling with a grounded, character-driven plot. The film doesn't shy away from the grotesque aspects of Nathan's condition, but it presents them in a manner that aligns with the film's comedic undertone.

When you boil it down, Novocaine hits all the beats audiences love: a captivating romantic subplot, exhilarating action set pieces, and well-developed characters. It's a legitimately fun and hilarious movie that offers a fresh perspective on the action-comedy genre and one that I think is worth seeing in theaters. I highly recommend it and can't wait to watch it again myself!

MOVIE REVIEW/ "Mickey 17"

By Anthony Caruso

Bong Joon-ho's Mickey 17 is a cinematic marvel that masterfully intertwines dark comedy and science fiction, delivering a narrative both timely and emotionally resonant. Based on Edward Ashton's novel "Mickey7," the film explores themes of identity, exploitation, and survival, set against the backdrop of a dystopian future.

The story follows Mickey Barnes, an "Expendable" crew member on a mission to colonize the icy planet Niflheim. Tasked with perilous assignments, Mickey is cloned and "reprinted" after each death, embodying the expendability of lower-class workers in a capitalist society. Pattinson's portrayal of Mickey is both sincere and scrappy, capturing the character's resilience and vulnerability. Not only that though! His dual performance as multiple iterations of Mickey showcases his versatility as an actor, for he brings distinct nuances to each clone. This duality adds depth to the narrative, emphasizing the psychological toll of Mickey's existence.

The supporting cast enhances the film's satirical edge. Mark Ruffalo and Toni Collette deliver standout performances as over-the-top figures reminiscent of Trump-era excess, embodying the grotesque nature of unchecked power and greed. Their portrayals add a layer of dark humor, highlighting the absurdity of their characters' moral corruption. And, in my opinion, they steal every scene they're in. Then there's Naomi Ackie, who shines as Nasha Barridge, a security agent and Mickey's romantic interest. Ackie brings warmth and complexity to her role. Meanwhile, Anamaria Vartolomei's character - Kai - is a fun addition to the movie, though she feels underutilized, and leaves the audience yearning for more of her presence and backstory. (She's also so beautiful, it's nearly criminal how distracting she is whenever she's on-screen!) Steven Yeun rounds out our main cast, delivering a compelling performance as a completely awful character who is sure to draw your ire. His portrayal adds tension to the narrative, reflecting the complexities of human nature in survival scenarios, and is sure to be a revelation to those who only know him as the kind-hearted Glenn on The Walking Dead.

Visually, Mickey 17 is stunning. The set design immerses viewers in a meticulously crafted dystopian world, while the sound mixing and musical score enhance the film's atmospheric tension. The special effects are seamless, bringing the alien environment and its inhabitants to life. Indeed, the film's design of the "Creepers" is noteworthy. Initially presented as alien and repulsive, they gradually reveal endearing qualities and become - dare I say - "cute", challenging viewers' preconceived notions and evoking empathy. This transformation underscores Bong's talent for subverting expectations and humanizing the other.

Despite its many strengths, the film's pacing falters in the final act. At 137 minutes, certain scenes feel protracted, and a more concise runtime could have heightened the narrative's impact. Nevertheless, Mickey 17 is a thought-provoking and emotionally charged film that showcases Bong Joon-ho's directorial prowess. Its timely themes and stellar performances make it a must-see, particularly on the big screen where its visual and auditory elements can be fully appreciated. Despite minor pacing issues, the film stands as a testament to the power of science fiction to reflect and critique societal issues.

MOVIE REVIEW/ "Riff Raff"

By Anthony Caruso

Riff Raff, directed by Dito Montiel, is a darkly comedic crime thriller that blends family dysfunction, past transgressions, and the complexities of redemption. Set against the backdrop of the holiday season, the film delivers a unique mix of humor and tension, making it a standout indie comedy of 2025.

The story follows Vincent a reformed ex-contractor who has built a peaceful life in a secluded Maine cabin with his wife, Sandy, and stepson, D.J. Their tranquility is shattered when Vincent’s estranged son, Rocco, unexpectedly arrives with his pregnant girlfriend, Marina, and his chaotic mother, Ruth. As tensions rise and long-buried secrets begin to surface, the family is forced to confront the ghosts of their past.

The film boasts an all-star cast, each delivering performances that elevate the material. Ed Harris is compelling as Vincent, portraying a man desperately seeking redemption while wrestling with his past mistakes. Jennifer Coolidge steals scenes as Ruth, injecting the film with her signature comedic timing while adding surprising emotional depth. Gabrielle Union serves as the film’s emotional anchor, grounding the chaos with a resilient and compassionate performance. Lewis Pullman shines as the troubled Rocco, whose journey to reconnect with his father is layered with both tension and vulnerability. And of course, there's Bill Murray, as the mysterious hitman Lefty, brings his signature deadpan humor to the role, balancing menace and absurdity with ease. Pete Davidson is also a revelation here in a more subdued turn, playing Lonnie, adding an understated but effective presence to the mix. Meanwhile, Miles J. Harvey delivers a strong performance as D.J., offering an outsider’s perspective on the family’s dysfunction.

Dito Montiel masterfully balances dark humor with genuine emotional moments, ensuring the story remains engaging throughout. The holiday setting provides an ironic contrast to the family’s escalating turmoil, heightening the absurdity while maintaining a strong emotional core. The film’s pacing keeps viewers hooked, with well-timed reveals and character developments that build to a satisfying climax.

Riff Raff stands out as a uniquely entertaining film that skillfully intertwines the chaos of a dysfunctional family with the intrigue of old gangster narratives. The stellar ensemble cast fires on all cylinders, making it an engaging and hilarious experience. The holiday setting adds an extra layer of charm, making this a film worth revisiting. With its all-star cast and sharp writing, it’s a great time at the theater and a film I can’t wait to watch again when it hits streaming.

MOVIE REVIEW/ "Captain America: Brave New World"

By Anthony Caruso

Captain America: Brave New World, directed by Julius Onah, is the latest installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It features Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson, the new Captain America. The film attempts to explore themes of legacy, political intrigue, and personal identity but ultimately delivers a lackluster experience that fails to resonate.

The narrative follows Sam Wilson grappling with the mantle of Captain America amidst a politically charged environment. President Thaddeus Ross, portrayed by Harrison Ford, introduces complex dynamics as both an ally and antagonist. While the premise holds potential for a deep exploration of contemporary issues, the film skims the surface, offering a disjointed storyline that lacks coherence and depth. 

Anthony Mackie's portrayal of Sam Wilson is earnest but falls short of capturing the gravitas associated with the Captain America persona because Mackie is just not a good actor; earnestness does not equal talented. His performance is hindered by a script that provides little room for character development, rendering his journey unconvincing and emotionally flat. Harrison Ford's role as President Ross, while initially promising, devolves into over-the-top theatrics that undermine the character's credibility. The anticipated transformation into Red Hulk is underutilized, serving more as a marketing hook than a pivotal plot element. And then there's Carl Lumbly's portrayal of Isaiah Bradley, who stands out as a missed opportunity. His character's rich backstory and emotional depth could have provided a compelling narrative, yet the film sidelines him in favor of less engaging plotlines and even less engaging and likable characters. The inclusion of other characters - such as Sebastian Stan's Bucky - feels perfunctory, serving more as fan service than contributing meaningfully to the story. 

The film's visual effects are notably subpar, with CGI sequences that appear rushed and unpolished. Action scenes, though abundant, lack innovation and fail to deliver the excitement expected from a blockbuster of this scale. The costume design, particularly for Captain America himself, is unappealing, with comparisons drawn to Ant-Man's helmet, detracting from the iconic image of the character. 

The screenplay, meanwhile, is riddled with clichés and contrived dialogue, offering little in terms of originality or emotional resonance. Director Julius Onah's approach seems unfocused, attempting to juggle multiple subplots without providing adequate attention to any, resulting in a fragmented narrative. The film aspires to be both a sequel to The Incredible Hulk and a standalone Captain America story but fails to excel in either domain, leading to an unsatisfactory amalgamation that doesn't honor the legacy of either of its predecessors. 

While the film hints at addressing significant themes such as race, national identity, and global politics, it lacks the nuance and depth required to engage with these topics meaningfully. The potential to provide insightful commentary is overshadowed by a superficial treatment that leaves these critical issues under-explored and unresolved. And the post-credits scene, traditionally a platform for exciting teases of future developments, falls flat, offering a moment that is both forgettable and inconsequential. It fails to generate anticipation or provide meaningful context for upcoming installments, marking a low point in the MCU's history of post-credits sequences.

Captain America: Brave New World epitomizes mediocrity within the superhero genre. It is neither overtly bad nor notably good, settling into a forgettable middle ground that contributes to the growing sentiment of superhero fatigue among audiences. The MCU's tendency to prioritize quantity over quality is evident here, as the film offers little beyond its commercial intent, lacking the creative spark that once defined the franchise. With upcoming projects like Thunderbolts* and Fantastic Four, Marvel Studios faces the critical task of reinvigorating its storytelling to recapture both critical acclaim and audience interest. As it stands, Captain America: Brave New World is a film that fails to leave a lasting impression and does little to advance the legacy of its titular hero. It's also a movie that, in short, I will never revisit again.

Movie Review/ "The Monkey"

By Anthony Caruso

Directed by Osgood Perkins, The Monkey is a 2025 horror-comedy adapted from Stephen King's 1980 short story of the same name. The film follows twin brothers Hal and Bill Shelburn, portrayed by Theo James, who discover a cursed toy monkey that brings death to those around it. As they attempt to rid themselves of the sinister artifact, a series of horrifying and darkly comedic events unfold. With a stellar cast and a blend of horror and humor, The Monkey stands out as a must-see film of the year.

Following the success of Longlegs in 2024, Osgood Perkins cements his reputation as a visionary horror director with The Monkey. Unlike many in the genre, Perkins embraces the notion that horror can be both terrifying and fun. His direction skillfully balances genuine scares with moments of levity, creating a film that is as entertaining as it is unsettling. Perkins' unique approach ensures that The Monkey delivers thrills without taking itself too seriously, a refreshing take in modern horror cinema.

Theo James delivers an exceptional performance, taking on dual roles as both Hal and Bill Shelburn. He masterfully distinguishes the charismatic Hal from the more subdued and eerie Bill, showcasing his versatility as an actor. Tatiana Maslany shines in her supporting role as Lois Shelburn, the twins' mother, bringing humor and depth to her character. Meanwhile, Colin O'Brien, portraying Hal's son Petey, offers a standout performance that hints at a promising future in acting. The supporting cast, including Rohan Campbell, Adam Scott, and Perkins himself in a cameo, contribute to the film's dynamic ensemble, each bringing their unique flair to the story.

The design of the titular toy monkey is both simple and deeply unsettling. Its presence on screen evokes a sense of dread, making audiences hold their breath with each appearance. The monkey's unnerving design is sure to become iconic in horror memorabilia, compelling fans to seek out replicas and merchandise. I for one rushed out of the theater the moment the film ended to buy the $45.00 popcorn bucket, I loved it so much.

The film's cinematography is visually stunning, filled with memorable imagery that enhances the storytelling. Nico Aguilar's work behind the camera captures the eerie atmosphere perfectly, while the score complements the film's tone, heightening both the horror and comedic elements. The technical aspects of The Monkey work in harmony to create an immersive viewing experience.

The Monkey is a triumph in every sense, offering a blend of horror and comedy that is both refreshing and engaging. It's a film that invites multiple viewings, with layers that reveal themselves upon each watch. As one of the best adaptations of Stephen King's work, it captures the essence of the original story while infusing it with a modern sensibility. Whether you're a horror aficionado or a casual moviegoer, The Monkey is a film that demands to be seen. Don't miss the opportunity to experience this thrilling ride in theaters. It's outrageously funny, legitimately scary, spectacularly gory, endlessly entertaining, and incredibly re-watchable. I for one will be making a point to see this one in theaters at least one more time, and watching it often when it hits digital and streaming platforms.

Movie Review/ "Love Me"

Love Me is an ambitious sci-fi romance that attempts to explore the complexities of love and human connection in a world where humankind has gone extinct. While the concept is undeniably intriguing, the film ultimately struggles under the weight of its ambitions, never fully delivering on the emotional or philosophical depth it promises.

Set in a future where humans have been wiped out by an unspecified extinction event, the film follows two artificial intelligences: a weather buoy named "Me", voiced by Kristen Stewart, and a satellite named "Iam", voiced by Steven Yeun. As the last sentient beings left on and near Earth, they attempt to make sense of love by absorbing human digital history and recreating human interactions through avatars. What follows is a slow, often meditative journey into what it means to feel, to connect, and to exist in the absence of purpose.

The strongest aspect of Love Me is its concept which, while not unique, is nevertheless consistently intriguing. The idea of two AIs trying to decipher love through the remnants of human existence is thought-provoking and, at times, eerily poignant. The film's visuals—ranging from beautifully desolate landscapes to abstract representations of digital consciousness—are striking and create an immersive atmosphere.

Steven Yeun delivers a fantastic vocal performance, imbuing Iam with a warmth and curiosity that makes him the most engaging aspect of the film. He brings depth and charisma to a character that could have easily felt sterile. The film also benefits from a melancholic, ambient score that enhances its dreamlike tone.

All that said, for a film that clocks in at just ninety minutes, Love Me drags more than it should and feels far longer than it actually is. The pacing is sluggish, with long stretches where very little actually happens. While some of this is intentional—meant to reflect the isolation and existential searching of its characters—it often feels meandering rather than profound.

Perhaps the biggest issue with the film, however, is that it never fully capitalizes on its premise. It hints at grand ideas about love, memory, and existence, but it never digs deep enough to leave a lasting impact. It wants to be WALL-E for adults, but it lacks the charm, heart, and narrative drive that made WALL-E such a standout.

Kristen Stewart’s performance doesn’t help matters. While some may argue that her detached, monotone delivery fits the role of an AI, it ultimately makes Me a dull and uninspiring character. The contrast between Stewart’s lifeless performance and Yeun’s emotional one only emphasizes the disparity in engagement. I continue to remain baffled to this day as to how Stewart has any sort of acting career whatsoever. 

Love Me is not a bad movie, but it’s not a particularly compelling one, either. It presents an interesting idea but never quite figures out how to make that idea resonate in a meaningful way. If you’re a fan of high-concept sci-fi, it’s worth a watch when it hits streaming, but there’s no need to rush to the theater for this one. Just be prepared that once you do watch it, like me, you probably won’t ever feel the urge to revisit it again afterward.

Movie Review/ "The Brutalist"

By Anthony Caruso

Brady Corbet's The Brutalist is an epic period drama that delves into the life of László Tóth, a Hungarian-born Jewish architect and Holocaust survivor, portrayed by Adrien Brody. The film chronicles Tóth's journey as he emigrates to the United States in 1947, aiming to rebuild his legacy amidst the birth of modern America. His life takes a pivotal turn upon meeting the enigmatic and affluent Harrison Lee Van Buren, played by Guy Pearce, whose patronage profoundly impacts Tóth's career and personal life.

Adrien Brody delivers a masterful performance as László Tóth, capturing the nuanced struggles of an immigrant artist striving to leave his mark in a new world. His portrayal is both poignant and powerful, embodying the resilience and vulnerability of a man haunted by his past while ambitiously looking toward the future. Brody's depth and commitment to the role have garnered critical acclaim, positioning him as a strong contender for the Best Actor category in the upcoming Oscar Awards. Guy Pearce's portrayal of Harrison Lee Van Buren, meanwhile, is equally compelling. He brings a sophisticated yet sinister presence to the screen, embodying a complex character whose relationship with Tóth evolves from supportive patronage to a darker, more possessive dynamic. 

Brady Corbet's direction is ambitious, utilizing the obscure VistaVision format to create a visual style that matches the film's epic narrative. The cinematography is both timeless and unconventional, with striking imagery that enhances the storytelling. The film's visual grandeur complements its exploration of themes such as creative vision, personal sacrifice, and the complex dynamics between artist and patron. And the film's incredible score, courtesy of Daniel Blumberg, enhances the movie's grandeur and themes. 

With a runtime of three hours and thirty-five minutes, The Brutalist is undeniably lengthy - to the point I've put off going to see this movie until now because its length just seemed arduous to me. However, the film's pacing and narrative depth make the duration feel justified. The inclusion of an intermission is a thoughtful touch, allowing audiences to absorb the first half before delving into the latter half. Despite its length, many viewers find that the story's richness and the compelling performances make the time fly by; they certainly did for me. 

In short, The Brutalist is nothing short of a cinematic masterpiece, offering a profound, visually stunning, and timely exploration of an architect's quest for identity and purpose in post-war America. While its extended runtime may be daunting to some, the film's depth and artistry provide a rewarding and immersive experience that is well worth the investment. I can't recommend this one enough!

Movie Review/ "You're Cordially Invited"

By Anthony Caruso

Nicholas Stoller's You're Cordially Invited is a romantic comedy that explores the chaos ensuing from a double-booked wedding venue. The film features Will Ferrell as Jim, the protective father of bride Jenni, and Reese Witherspoon as Margot, a wedding planner and sister to the other bride, Neve.

The narrative centers on two weddings inadvertently scheduled at the same remote island venue in Georgia. As both parties arrive, tensions rise, leading to a series of comedic confrontations and mishaps. The families must navigate their differences and the logistical nightmare to ensure their respective ceremonies proceed.

Will Ferrell and Reese Witherspoon deliver performances consistent with their established comedic personas. Ferrell embodies the overprotective father with his trademark humor, while Witherspoon portrays the ambitious and meticulous wedding planner. Their chemistry adds a dynamic layer to the film, though it doesn't venture beyond familiar territory.

The film leans heavily on traditional romantic comedy tropes, resulting in a narrative that feels predictable. Despite this, the script offers moments of genuine humor, and certain scenes stand out for their comedic timing. However, the reliance on clichés may leave some viewers desiring more originality.

That said, while You're Cordially Invited doesn't break new ground in the romantic comedy genre, it provides a light-hearted and entertaining experience. The film's strength lies in its cast's chemistry and the humorous situations arising from the central premise. It's a pleasant watch that may not leave a lasting impression but is likely to elicit smiles during its runtime even if you'll never feel the need to revisit it again in the future.

Movie Review/ "Companion"

By Anthony Caruso

Drew Hancock's Companion is a darkly humorous and thought-provoking sci-fi thriller that delves into themes of artificial intelligence, autonomy, and the commodification of relationships. The film stars Sophie Thatcher as Iris, an advanced companion robot, and Jack Quaid as Josh, her owner and boyfriend.

The narrative follows Iris and Josh as they join friends for a weekend retreat at a remote lake house. The gathering takes a sinister turn when Iris, initially perceived as a human, is revealed to be an AI companion. This revelation sets off a chain of events that challenge the dynamics of control, autonomy, and the essence of humanity.

Sophie Thatcher delivers a compelling performance as Iris, capturing the nuanced transition from programmed subservience to self-awareness and independence. Her portrayal effectively conveys the internal struggle of an AI grappling with newfound autonomy. Jack Quaid embodies Josh with a blend of charm and underlying control, reflecting societal attitudes toward possession and objectification. Their on-screen chemistry brings depth to the complex relationship between creator and creation.

Companion serves as a timely commentary on the objectification of women and the ethical implications of AI in personal relationships. The film critiques a culture that views companions—be they human or artificial—as entities to be controlled and customized, echoing contemporary discussions about consent and agency. This narrative is particularly resonant in an era where technology increasingly intersects with intimate aspects of human life.

Hancock's direction is visually engaging, with the secluded lake house setting providing an eerie backdrop that enhances the film's suspenseful atmosphere. The cinematography effectively captures the isolation and tension among the characters, while the integration of futuristic technology feels grounded and plausible, lending credibility to the near-future setting.

The film's first act unfolds at a deliberate pace, establishing character relationships and setting the stage for the central conflict. While some viewers may find this portion slow - I did - it serves to build tension and investment in the characters. Once the plot's central revelations emerge, however, the narrative momentum accelerates, delivering a gripping and engaging experience.

As of January 31, 2025, Companion stands out as a remarkable entry in the year's film landscape. I highly recommend it for those seeking a sci-fi thriller that challenges societal norms and explores the complexities of the relationship between artificial intelligence and humans, as well as a timely story (especially for the Trump era) about the autonomy of women.

Movie Review/ "Dog Man"

By Anthony Caruso

"Part Dog. Part Man. All Hero."

DreamWorks Animation's Dog Man brings Dav Pilkey's beloved graphic novel series to life in a vibrant and heartfelt adaptation. Directed by Peter Hastings, the film offers a blend of humor, action, and emotional depth that caters to audiences of all ages.

At its core, Dog Man is a family-friendly movie that transcends age barriers. The narrative follows the titular character, a half-dog, half-human police officer, as he navigates the challenges of his unique existence while combating the mischievous Petey the Cat. The film is peppered with laugh-out-loud moments, yet it doesn't shy away from poignant themes of identity, friendship, and redemption. Indeed, the film effectively balances humor with valuable life lessons, making it an engaging watch for children and adults alike. 

A standout aspect of the film is its portrayal of Dog Man himself. The animators have meticulously captured the endearing traits of a loyal and protective canine, infusing the character with mannerisms that resonate with dog lovers. This authenticity makes Dog Man not just a cartoonish figure but a relatable and lovable protagonist. Additionally, the dynamic between Dog Man and Petey is another highlight. Their interactions encapsulate the classic rivalry between dogs and cats but with added depth. The introduction of Li'l Petey, a good-hearted kitten accidentally created by Petey, adds a layer of complexity, portraying the duo in quasi-parental roles. This relationship mirrors that of divorced parents co-parenting a child, adding emotional weight to their exchanges. 

Visually, Dog Man is a treat. The animation style is both fun and visually stunning, with creative action sequences that captivate the audience. The film's score complements the animation, enhancing the overall viewing experience. That said, while the film excels in many areas, it exhibits a hyperactive pacing, characteristic of contemporary children's animated films. The story often progresses through rapid montages, which, while engaging, can feel a bit overwhelming. 

The film presents Dog Man's origin story with a blend of humor and tragedy. The fusion of Officer Knight and his dog Greg into Dog Man is portrayed in a lighthearted manner, yet from an adult perspective, it carries a tragic undertone. Throughout the movie, Dog Man's reflections on his past lives add depth to his character, highlighting themes of loss and identity, and is sure to make adults who overthink things - like me - supremely uncomfortable in a lot of ways.

Given its strengths, Dog Man has the potential to spawn sequels and even inspire theme park attractions - or at the very least appearances from the lovably adorable canine officer. I, for one, hope it does, for Dog Man is a delightful film that offers a mix of humor, action, and emotional depth. Despite its minor flaws, it stands as a testament to DreamWorks' ability to craft stories that resonate with both children and adults. It's a movie that leaves a lasting impression and is well worth watching again. I know I'll be revisiting!

Side Note: How cool is DreamWorks' new opening introduction?!

Movie Review/ "Presence"

By Anthony Caruso

Presence is a wonderfully haunting, deeply emotional film that defies its marketing as a horror movie. Instead, it unfolds as a slow-burn psychological thriller—a poignant ghost story about grief, longing, and the struggles of a fractured family. It may not deliver traditional scares, but it offers something more profound: a raw, beautifully sad meditation on human connection and loss.

Despite being marketed as a horror film, Presence leans more heavily into psychological and emotional territory. There are no jump scares or overtly frightening moments, but that’s by design. The film instead presents what feels like a more grounded and realistic interpretation of a haunting. If ghosts exist—and count me as someone who believes they do—this depiction rings true. The supernatural elements are subtle, almost understated, but they’re powerful in their quiet inevitability, weaving seamlessly into the family’s story of heartbreak and longing.

One of the film’s standout choices is telling the story from the titular Presence's point of view. While last year’s In a Violent Nature employed a similar technique, Presence makes it its own by keeping the ghost closely tethered to the human characters. This approach provides a rich, emotional narrative with tangible connections to our protagonists. By staying intimately connected to the family, the film creates a dynamic and engaging story filled with dialogue, character development, and raw emotional moments that keep the audience invested.

The cast delivers phenomenal performances across the board, bringing nuance and depth to a family that is struggling to stay together. Each character feels authentic, flawed, and deeply human, making it impossible not to empathize with their pain and longing. The screenplay is equally impressive, weaving a story that is both engaging and heartbreaking. It’s a beautifully sad portrayal of a family growing apart, unable to express their love for one another, and it resonates on a deeply emotional level.

Visually, Presence is a triumph. The cinematography is stunning, with every frame feeling deliberate and cinematic. The film’s use of light and shadow enhances its eerie, melancholic atmosphere without resorting to the usual horror tropes. The score, too, is worth mentioning—a hauntingly beautiful accompaniment that underscores the film’s themes of grief and acceptance.

At a crisp runtime, Presence never overstays its welcome. Its pacing is deliberate, but the slow build feels entirely justified, giving the characters and story the time they need to unfold naturally. The result is a film that, while undeniably heavy in subject matter, remains highly watchable and impactful.

While Presence may not be the horror film some audiences were expecting, it succeeds brilliantly on its own terms. It’s an intelligent, emotionally resonant film that offers a fresh take on ghost stories—one that’s more about the living than the dead. I highly recommend for those who enjoy thoughtful, emotionally driven cinema. It's a fantastic film that proves you don’t need jump scares or gore to make a ghost story memorable.

Movie Review/ "Wolf Man"

By Anthony Caruso

Leigh Whannell’s Wolf Man is a masterful, slow-burn thriller that revitalizes the classic Universal Monster for a new era. Much like his modern reimagining of The Invisible Man, Whannell trades supernatural elements for a grounded, contemporary twist. Instead of potions or curses, the “wolf” here emerges from an incurable illness, and this recontextualization works brilliantly. With stunning direction, visceral body horror, and a thoughtful exploration of humanity and monstrosity, Wolf Man solidifies Whannell as one of the foremost auteurs of modern horror.

The performances are top-notch, with Christopher Abbott delivering a gut-wrenching portrayal of a man grappling with the terrifying transformation of his body and mind. The film demands a lot from its lead, balancing moments of vulnerability, rage, and despair, and Abbott is up to the task. His slow descent into his condition is hauntingly realistic, made even more unsettling by the supporting cast’s reactions, which mirror the audience’s unease.

Sam Jaeger’s portrayal of the Wolf Man, meanwhile, is another highlight. While his design may stir debate among fans, Jaeger’s physicality and the emotive nuances he brings to the creature lend it an air of tragic humanity. The makeup design might lack the lush, fur-heavy appearance of previous iterations, but its stripped-down, sinewy look serves this story’s tone. In shadowy or dimly lit scenes, the Wolf Man is absolutely terrifying—though in brightly lit moments, the design falters slightly, exposing a lack of fine detail. Even so, it remains a faithful nod to the original film's aesthetic, with a modern twist that is more grounded than fantastical. Indeed, the design of Jaeger's Wolf Man in particular is much better looking than Abbott's turns out to be in the end.

Whannell’s direction is nothing short of stunning. From the first frame, it’s clear he has a meticulous eye for detail, building tension through stark lighting, clever transitions, and innovative sound design. The way the film shifts between the Wolf Man’s perspective and that of the humans around him is a stroke of genius. The sound design, in particular, deserves praise for immersing viewers in the heightened senses and animalistic instincts of the titular creature, amplifying the horror and disorientation of his plight. The cinematography and lighting play a significant role in creating the film’s moody, suspenseful atmosphere. Whannell knows when to keep things in the shadows, allowing our imaginations to fill in the gaps, and when to reveal just enough to make us squirm. The body horror sequences are visceral and deeply uncomfortable, capturing the physical and psychological toll of the transformation with unflinching intensity.

At its heart, Wolf Man is about the loss of control—over one’s body, mind, and fate. The film explores themes of illness, identity, and alienation with intelligence and nuance, grounding the horror in real-world fears. This makes the story all the more compelling and relatable, even as it ventures into the supernatural-adjacent territory.

While Wolf Man doesn’t quite reach the heights of Whannell’s The Invisible Man, which I’d deem a masterpiece, it’s still a fantastic film in its own right. The trailers didn’t do it justice—this is a gripping, gorgeously crafted thriller that balances horror with pathos and delivers a fresh take on an iconic character. Blumhouse desperately needed a win after a rough 2024, and Wolf Man delivers in spades. It’s a fantastic way to kick off 2025, and I’m already looking forward to revisiting this one every Halloween season. Leigh Whannell has proven yet again that he’s a master of modern horror, and I sincerely hope this film’s success paves the way for his reimaginings of the rest of the Universal Monsters. Imagine what he could do with Count Dracula or Frankenstein's Monster!

In short, Wolf Man is a triumph of atmosphere, storytelling, and innovation—an intelligent and thrilling reimagining of a classic tale that feels both timeless and urgently relevant. Don’t miss it.

Movie Review/ "Flight Risk"

By Anthony Caruso

Flight Risk is the kind of action movie that delivers exactly what you expect—no more, no less. It’s a solid, albeit formulaic, entry into the genre, elevated by its stellar cast and some gorgeous direction by Mel Gibson. While it doesn’t break any new ground, it’s a fun, engaging ride that fans of action thrillers will appreciate, even if it’s unlikely to linger in your memory for long.

The standout element of Flight Risk is its small but mighty cast, which breathes life into what could otherwise have been a paint-by-numbers action plot. The distractingly beautiful Michelle Dockery is a revelation in the lead role, combining grit, vulnerability, and charisma in a way that keeps you invested. She commands the screen with every scene, proving she has the chops to carry an action film on her own. It’s hard not to imagine her as a leading lady in more high-profile projects after this.

Topher Grace and Mark Wahlberg are both equally as strong, though the script doesn’t give them quite as much to work with. Nevertheless, each actor brings their A-game, with the former bringing his trademark, quick wit to the role while the latter brought his tough guy Boston persona. 

Mel Gibson’s direction is another highlight, showcasing his ability to stage thrilling action sequences and inject energy into even the slower moments. The overhead shots of the Alaskan wilderness are breathtaking, adding a layer of visual splendor that contrasts nicely with the tense, claustrophobic moments inside the plane. Gibson’s use of perspective and pacing ensures that the film remains engaging, even when the story veers into cliché territory.

Indeed, the plot of Flight Risk is serviceable but heavily reliant on genre tropes. From the morally conflicted protagonist to the overly simplistic villains, the narrative doesn’t offer much in the way of originality. It leans hard into stereotypes, which can sometimes feel tired and uninspired. While the pacing is solid, the story’s predictability undermines its impact, and the script could have benefited from a few unexpected twists or deeper character development.

One of the film’s weakest points is its uneven use of CGI, which ranges from passable to laughably bad. While the action sequences are well-choreographed, some of the visual effects—particularly those involving the plane—pull you out of the moment. It’s a shame, as the practical effects and stunt work are solid, but the subpar CGI detracts from the overall experience.

Ultimately, Flight Risk isn’t a must-see theatrical experience, but it’s a perfectly entertaining action flick that works well as a streaming option. It’s the kind of movie you might not seek out but wouldn’t mind stumbling upon during a lazy afternoon. It’s not a film I’d personally go out of my way to revisit, but if it came on TV, I wouldn’t change the channel. It might not soar to great heights, but it’s a smooth enough ride for what it sets out to be.

Movie Review/ "Hot Frosty"

By Anthony Caruso

Hot Frosty is an entertaining, albeit ill-conceived, adult twist on the beloved tale of Frosty the Snowman. While the concept may sound absurd—and it is—the execution balances irreverent humor with a surprising amount of heart, making it an oddball holiday film that, while divisive, manages to stand out among Netflix's more lackluster Christmas offerings.

The story follows the widow Kathy Barrett, owner and operator of Kathy's Kafé in downtown Hope Springs, New York, who inadvertently brings a muscular snowman to life via a red scarf that she was "destined" for. The plot spirals into an outrageous series of events, complete with raunchy escapades, heartfelt family moments, and a quirky romance. And while the premise is undeniably bizarre, the film leans into its absurdity, blending over-the-top humor with moments of genuine sentimentality. The juxtaposition between raunchy jokes and heartfelt themes gives "Hot Frosty" an odd but endearing charm.

Lacey Chabert, making her jump to Netflix from Hallmark, is as genuinely earnest as ever in the lead role of Kathy Barrett. And while she's not enough to elevate the movie, her charm is enough to prevent it from spiraling into downright "bad" territory. And then there's Dustin Milligan as our titular "Hot Frosty" - a.k.a. Jack Snowman. While he's mainly there to serve as eye candy, he's boyishly goofy in a natural way that will have you believe Chabert's character would fall so quickly for him. The rest of the ensemble is fine enough, with one of my favorite additions being Craig Robinson as Sheriff Nathaniel Hunter; what I appreciated about his performance, in particular, is that Robinson appears to be the only member of the cast who knows exactly the type of absurd movie they're starring in.

The humor in Hot Frosty is a mixed bag, leaning heavily into adult jokes and outrageous scenarios that won’t land for everyone. The raunchy elements push the boundaries of what one might expect from a Christmas movie, with some jokes feeling unnecessarily crude or out of place. However, for those willing to embrace the film’s irreverent tone, there are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments, particularly in our "Hot Frosty's" interactions with the townspeople and his attempts to adapt to modern life.

Hot Frosty is a wild ride that won’t be for everyone. The adult twist on a childhood classic may alienate purists and those seeking a more traditional holiday movie. However, for viewers open to a raunchy, unconventional Christmas film with a surprising amount of heart, it’s an entertaining watch that’s worth a try. At the very least, it's a film that earns its place as a guilty pleasure holiday romp.