Glorified Fanart - A Review of Godzilla vs. The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers

By Brandon T. McClure

Written by Cullen Bunn with art by Freddie Williams III, Godzilla vs. The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers sees Rita Repulsa travel to a parallel universe in the hopes of escaping the Power Rangers. The comic was originally released as five issues beginning in March 2022 before being collected later that year in one soft cover collection. On paper, this is a perfect match. Two legends of Japan (albeit one heavily Americanized) that have never shared the screen together before, now unite on the page. It’s a surefire hit. It’s unfortunate to say, then, that Godzilla vs. The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers is a dull experience that completely squanders its potential.

The story begins when Rita Repulsa, Goldar, Scorpina, and Finster invade a temple in search of a gem called the Multiverse Focus. During a battle with the Power Rangers, Rita and her goons use the gem to travel to a new reality without Power Rangers, with the idea that that world will be easier to rule. As the title suggests, they end up in the middle of the Godzilla universe as Godzilla is in the middle of battling various monsters sent by the Xillians. Rita and her goons team up with the Xillians in order to help them defeat Godzilla, but the Power Rangers show up, Zords in tow, to help the King of the Monsters fight back.

As a “versus” comic, the book is very by the numbers and frankly incredibly dull. Bunn takes no opportunities in the book to deliver anything that hasn’t been seen before. Instead he tells a story that every comic reader has read before. The Power Rangers mistake Godzilla for one of Rita’s monsters, realize that he’s not, then they team up with Godzilla to defeat the villains once and for all. Normally this type of story wouldn’t be such a dull experience, but since one of the title characters is a monster, then the story needs to rely solely on the Power Rangers for any kind of character connection. Shouldn’t be too much of an issue, except Cullen Bunn can’t write the Power Rangers.

Many writers at Boom Studios have taken a shot at the original Power Rangers and delivered brilliant character writing, but Bunn is not one of them. The characters are such an afterthought in this story that you’ll likely not realize that more than one character is talking in a scene. There’s no attempt to differentiate the Rangers from each other, except to color code the word balloons. Each line of generic dialogue reads like it could come from any of them. The villains fare a little better in this sense but you’ll likely still find yourself forgetting whether or not Goldar or Scorpina were the ones talking. But, truthfully, you’ll learn quickly that the dialogue doesn’t matter at all.

If you're a casual fan of both properties, the novelty wears off around the end of issue two. If you're a hardcore fan of both then you'll quickly recognize this as little more than an excuse to draw some fun fan art you might see at a conventions artist alley. Someone had the idea of Godzilla standing next to the DragonZord and thought they could write five issues around that. Sadly, they could not. While the imagery and art are undoubtedly fun and interesting, this wasn’t something that could sustain five issues. Something shorter might have fared better.

Fans will find little more here than cool pin up art. But with a wafer thin plot, and the most uninteresting version of the Power Rangers, there’s just nothing here to make Godzilla vs. The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers memorable. Godzilla stories need human characters for audiences to latch on to, because it’s their journey that makes the story worthwhile. The Power Rangers and Godzilla feel like they belong together which makes a crossover between the two a no brainer. Perhaps with a better writer, this could have been something, but sadly it just comes off as an overly long piece of fanart.

Godzilla vs. The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and Godzilla vs. The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers II are available now on Amazon or your local book and comic book store.

An Unnecessary Evil - A Review of Star Trek: Section 31

By Brandon T. McClure

The 2025 Star Trek season has begun with the release of the first feature film since 2016’s Star Trek Beyond, Star Trek: Section 31, directed by Olatunde Osunsanmi and written by Craig Sweeny. Originally developed as a TV series by Bo Yeon Kim and Erika Lippoldt, Star Trek: Section 31 was announced as a spin-off of Star Trek: Discovery back in 2019. The Michelle Yeoh centered show languished in development hell until Yeoh’s historic Best Actress Oscar win in 2023 for Everything, Everywhere, All At Once. Shortly after that Oscar win, the show was announced to be redeveloped into a movie. So after six years of development, was the wait worth it? The short answer is that this film probably should have stayed in development hell. 

Originally created for the later seasons of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Section 31 has evolved into the “dark side of the Federation.” They were an organization that existed outside of the Federation and mostly operated without anyone in the Federation knowing. Luther Sloan, The representative for Section 31 in DS9, claimed that in order for Starfleet and the Federation to exist, there must be an organization that works in the shadows to protect the idealism that it stands for. The important thing to note about this is that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine’s final say on the matter is that Sloan is wrong. There is no place for Section 31 in the Federation, they’re beyond the need for it. To date, of all the shows, and Star Trek Into Darkness, that have used Section 31, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is the show that has utilized it the best. Alex Kurtzman has seemingly had an unhealthy fascination with the idea of Section 31 for years now. They were the villain of Star Trek Into Darkness, which he co-wrote, and the major villains of season 2 of Star Trek: Discovery, which he was the co-showrunner of. Now Kurtzman’s fascination with Section 31 comes to a point with a film that tries to claim that Section 31 is necessary and, more importantly, cool. This flies in the face of the ideals the franchise presents and creates nothing more than a dangerous message in a time when the ideals of Trek are more important than ever.

The cast of Star Trek: Section 31

In Star Trek: Section 31 Michelle Yeoh returns as Philippa Georgiou, the reformed Empire of the Terran Empire, who was originally from the Mirror Universe. Last seen in Star Trek: Discovery’s third season, she has come from the 32nd century via the Guardian of Forever and placed herself as the owner of a space station outside of Federation space, called the Baraam, in the early part of the 24th century. It’s here where Section 31 agent Alok Sahar (Omari Hardwick) approaches her with a desire to recruit her back into Section 31 with a plan to acquire a macguffin, later revealed to be a doomsday device from the Mirror Universe. What follows is a fairly generic action film that had the Star Trek name slapped on it for branding purposes. This is a film that seems to only exist to capitalize on the star power of its lead actress and has nothing meaningful to add to the decades long franchise.

Indeed, this is the worst thing to come out of the “Latinum Era” of Trek (Or “streaming era”). In fairness, it’s probably not as bad as Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, but that film still has a cast of beloved characters, something that this film lacks. The cast is filled with talented actors in search of chemistry. Star Trek thrives on the chemistry of its loveable misfits who come together to form a family. A crew that boldly goes where no one has gone before. But Star Trek: Section 31’s first failure is its cast of references masquerading as characters.

Of the cast, Sam Richardson’s Quasi comes out the strongest. While the script, from Craig Sweeny, is generic and rather boring, Richardson is able to bring his signature wit to the film and spices up the scenes he’s part of. Trek fan’s will note that he’s playing a Chameloid, a shapeshifting species first seen in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. He’s one of many recognizable alien species that are purely there because the producers want Trek fans to point at the screen and go “I get that reference.” Unfortunately, like every alien species in this movie, there doesn’t seem to be any reason why he’s here. As a Chameloid, he’s able to shapeshift into anyone he wants, but outside of a scene at the end, he doesn’t. It’s almost like they forgot he was a Chameloid until the very end. Making you wonder “what was the point?”

Michelle Yeoh as Philippa Georgiou

Contrary to many popular beliefs, prequels can actually serve important roles in stories. Star Trek: Strange New Worlds for example is able to flesh out characters like Captain Pike, Sam Kirk, or Christine Chappel. In featuring these characters on that show, audiences learn more about them which adds to their initial appearances. In Star Trek: Section 31 Kacey Rohl plays Lt. Rachel Garrett, the future Captain of the Enterprise-C, last seen in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “Yesterday's Enterprise.” Including this character was very exciting since she was a well liked character who didn’t get a lot of screen time in her initial appearance. But viewers may be left scratching their heads with this inclusion. It’s unclear what, if anything, this story is meant to add to her future appearance. She has a fairly serviceable arc here as someone who starts as a stick in the mud Starfleet officer who learns to loosen up, but nothing in this film would change if you remove her from the story or make her an original character. Her inclusion makes you wonder if Sweeny was playing a “mad-libs” style game with character creation. 

Modern Star Trek has been known to bend cannon to fit the story they want to tell. There’s truly nothing wrong with that, because the story should always come before canon. But a small character in Star Trek: Section 31 breaks canon in a way that will have even the most forgiving Star Trek fans calling fowl. Virgil is a member of a race from the planet Cheron, last seen in the Star Trek: The Original Series episode “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.” Here, he’s playing the assistant to Georgiou and only gets a few minutes of screen time. The issue is, in the episode that premiered his race, it’s made clear that the entire race had been wiped out due to a racial war (it’s a pretty good, if not heavy handed episode). So how is he here, almost 100 years after the events of that episode? It’s not that another member of that species could survive, it’s that him being here actively undermines that episode and only serves to, once again, make the audience point at the TV in recognition. It’s a soulless attempt at an easter egg.

The final head scratching easter egg disguised as a character is the aforementioned Alok Sahar, played by Omari Hardwick. He delivers a good performance, as you would expect, but his back story raises more questions. It turns out he’s a human augment from the 20th century’s Eugenics Wars (or the 21st century, depending on what retcon they decide to go with). While he seemingly left Earth with Khan and the others, it’s unclear how he made it all the way to this moment, skipping, both the episode “Space Seed” and the movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. He may not be a very interesting character, but it’s hard not to enjoy Hardwick’s performance, especially if you’re already a fan of his. It’s nothing new but it works. Head scratching back story notwithstanding

Kacey Rohl as Lt. Rachel Garrett

The rest of the characters don’t really need their own paragraph, there’s Humberly González as the Deltan female Melle, who doesn’t get much to do here. It’s worth noting that she does get to use her species’ ability before ultimately dying before the film really gets going. She has a memorable death scene, so that’s something. Then there’s Robert Kazinsky as Zeph, who delivers a fairly fun performance, and was clearly very excited to be in the film. Without any pre-existing Star Trek lore to fill out Zeph’s backstory, the script has nothing for him to do, so he ends up being the most underdeveloped character in the story (yes, even more so then the Delton who dies before Act One is over). Sadly with a combination of a short run time, too many characters, and an over complicated plot, there’s just not enough time for everyone to even get the simplest character development. Craig Sweeny relies on the audience's pre-existing knowledge to fill in the gaps, to no success.

As mentioned before, the main plot of the film revolves around Section 31 trying to get their hands on a doomsday weapon from the Mirror Universe. As such, the film flashes back to the Mirror Universe a few times. Beginning with the first scene of the film, the flashbacks show how Georgiou became emperor of the Terran Empire, created her doomsday device, and most importantly set up the villain of the film, San, played primarily by James Hiroyuki Liao. These flashbacks deliver some of the worst acting performances in the movie. From the first, where the future emperor Georgiou delivers a terribly performed monologue while her parents die in front of her, to the reveal that she still loved San even after becoming one of the most ruthless emperors in Terran history.

Sadly, to put it kindly, Michelle Yeoh is not delivering a compelling performance here. To be clear, she absolutely deserved her Oscar win for Everything, Everywhere, All At Once, and her performance here doesn’t change that. She’s also been better as this character. Kurtzman has stated that Yeoh was the driving force to get this movie made because of how much she loves playing the character. She’s clearly having a good time playing a reformed genocidal dictator who still likes to dance in the grey area. However, the schtick only goes so far when she’s the main character, apparently. What was fun to watch in doses on Star Trek: Discovery has sadly overstayed its welcome. On a somewhat related note, It doesn’t make sense how Section 31 knows she’s been redeemed, since her redemption happened almost 1000 years in the future.

While the best Star Trek films are character driven, this one is plot driven. You’ll find yourself asking why certain things are happening, only to realize that they are happening because the plot needs them to. The characters will also spell out the plot multiple times by way of extended scenes where they gather around in a circle and talk to each other. If you’re a fan of scenes where characters stand in a circle, sometimes around a table, and talk about the plot, then you’re in luck, because there are many. The film also quickly ditches the heist element for a “save the galaxy” plotline with a “one of the main characters has betrayed us” subplot so quickly, you’ll wonder what the point of even setting up a heist in the first place was. The character who betrayed the crew is so obvious to the audience that you’ll find yourself screaming it to the screen and wondering how any of these characters can be so stupid to not figure it out.

That brings us to the final character of the film, Fuzz, played by Sven Ruygrok (Spoilers ahead). He plays a new species called a Nanokin, a microscopic alien who is piloting a Vulcan robot suit. While still being underutilized, he’s genuinely the most interesting new idea in the film. However, Fuzz is so annoying and unlikable that the moment even a whiff that someone had betrayed the team, you’re immediately going to know it was him. It’s too bad too, because there’s a good idea in this character that deserves to be fleshed out at some point. This was just not the film that was going to do it.

The biggest issue with the film is that it doesn’t feel like Star Trek. It was certainly a deliberate choice to purge the film of Star Trek’s recognizable iconography, but it was a bad choice. Star Trek: Discovery received much criticism in the beginning for straying too far from the iconic imagery of the franchise, but it was still able to populate the show with imagery that was familiar. But in this film, there isn’t even so much as a combadge. There’s a tricorder sound effect, sure, but the tricorder’s just look like smartphones. The absence of a combage is also noteworthy because Star Trek: Discovery introduced a special Section 31 combage. This film shares more in common with a low budget Netflix sci-fi film, then Star Trek. It’s not even a generic action film with a Star Trek coat of paint, it’s just got the name attached to it so that Paramount can sell it to Star Trek fans with the hope that they’ll watch it. Fans deserve better. Hell, Michelle Yeoh deserves better.

Section 31 as portrayed in Star Trek: Discovery season two

Star Trek: Section 31 brings to light a problem with the current era of Star Trek. A deliberate choice was made early on to modernize everything so that they wouldn’t have to be restricted by the design aesthetic of the 60s. With few exceptions, this hasn’t been a big issue. For example, the Enterprise in Star Trek: Strange New Worlds still, mostly, looks like the Enterprise from Star Trek: The Original Series, and the crew still wear red, blue, gold uniforms. Even though the newer show is a prequel, fans can accept that it’s the same ship, the only real difference is the budget. With this film being set in the early 24th century, there’s an expectation that the universe should look a certain way. But if you weren’t a Trek fan that hyper fixated on dates (I’m calling myself out with that one), then you wouldn’t know that this takes place almost 100 years after Star Trek: Discovery’s second season. Aesthetically speaking, there’s nothing in the set design or even ship design that differentiates this movie from Star Trek: Discovery’s early seasons. The year Star Trek: Section 31 is set in seems to just be an excuse to use Rachel Garret and even then one has to wonder why that was important. Georgiou is from the 23rd century, so why didn’t she go back to her home century? We couldn’t get one monster maroon?

Not to fixate on the year so much, but it calls into question one of the biggest plot holes in the film. San, the villain of the film and former love interest of Georgiou in case you forgot, faked his death before the events of the first season of Star Trek: Discovery. Those events are in the 2250s, so how is San alive? The film chooses not to explain it, almost like the year it was set was an afterthought. Georgiou is alive because of time travel, so it’s possible that San somehow time traveled, but then his plan doesn’t make sense. He wants to take the Macguffin to the Mirror Universe in order to provoke the Terran Empire to invade the Prime Universe (if this movie is meant to appeal to new audiences, then swing and miss). The problem with the plan is that the Terran Empire doesn’t exist in the way it did in the 23rd century. So the plan wouldn’t work even if he succeeded. The characters don’t know that, but it certainly lowers the stakes for the audience. 

Unfortunately this film is also very poorly directed. Olatunde Osunsanmi directed 14 episodes of Star Trek: Discovery but sadly showcases some of his worst impulses here. The sets are big open circular spaces, since they’re utilizing the Volume, and the camera zooms in to peoples faces at random during exposition, obviously in a poor attempt to add some excitement to the scene. The action sequences are poorly shot and choreographed, to the point that during one climactic battle, two ships just magically swap places. There’s also a planet that just keeps spitting out fire from the ground that takes up most of the movie’s setting. Everything Osunsanmi does here is an effort to hide the very poorly written script by Craig Sweeney. It just also has the unfortunate side effect of making the direction equally as boring.

Michelle Yeoh and Omari Hardwick

Just a few years ago, the future of Star Trek looked bright. But with three shows having been cancelled in 2024 and 2025 starting with one of, if not the worst Star Trek movie, the future doesn’t look as bright. With Paramount’s future uncertain at the moment, Star Trek’s Latinum Age might be heading towards its natural conclusion. It’s truly unfortunate because there’s tons of potential in making standalone Star Trek streaming films, and with this film's poor performance, it might be the only one we ever get. A generic action film that accidentally became the very thing the outrage merchants online claimed Star Trek had become. It truly is just Star Trek in name only. Oh, and the music sucks.

Section 31 is just not a concept that works as a standalone story. They don’t work as a “necessary evil” and they don’t work as lovable misfits trying to make the Federation’s equivalent of the CIA look cool. When Sloan says that the Federation needs Section 31, he’s saying that as the bad guy who is wrong. But Kurtzman and the actors of this film think he was right. They believe that the Federation needs Section 31 to exist. Well, they’re wrong. The Federation doesn’t need them and Star Trek fans don’t either.

Star Trek: Section 31 is streaming now, exclusively on Paramount+

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.

How A Dragon Ball GT Saga Can Help Dragon Ball Super

By Brandon T. McClure

Before series creator Akira Toriyama envisioned a tournament saga, Dragon Ball followed Goku and friends searching for the magical Dragon Balls. When brought together, the Dragon Balls can summon the mystical dragon Shenron who would grant one wish. Since then, the Dragon Balls have been used countless times to grant all kinds of wishes, from unlocking Piccolo’s latent potential, to, most recently, turning the Z fighters into kids. But more times than not the balls have been used to bring characters back from the dead. This specific use has caused the Dragon Ball franchise to develop a stakes issue in recent years. Luckily, the franchise had already dealt with this very issue once before.

Dragon Balls

When Dragon Ball Z was coming to an end in 1996, Toei animation had already developed a new follow up, titled Dragon Ball GT. This series would not be based on material created by Akira Toriyama, although he did provide character designs. Instead Dragon Ball GT was the brainchild of the writers and artists at Toei Animation, the animation company responsible for producing the Dragon Ball anime’s. The show was set after the epilogue of Dragon Ball Z and, in an attempt to recapture the feeling of adventure from the early Dragon Ball episodes, would introduce the Black Star Dragon Balls. These Dragon Balls would summon a massive red version of Shenron, called Ultimate Shenron, and would disperse across the universe after being used, which set off a galactic adventure (a Grand Tour some could say). The series would go on to introduce new villains like Baby, reintroduce old villains like Android 17, and of course introduce the famous Super Saiyan 4 transformation.

Arguably, Dragon Ball GT’s greatest contribution to the franchise was the final arc, dubbed The Shadow Dragon Saga. Due to the Dragon Balls' continued use over the decades, the Dragon Balls began to crack due to the massive amount of dark energy that had been stored in them. When Goku and his friends attempted to summon Shenron, smoke came from the balls and the Black Smoke Dragon rose in Shenron’s place. After refusing to grant any more wishes he split his essence into seven powerful shadow dragons representing the most selfish wishes ever made in the franchise. Goku and his friends had to track down and defeat each dragon before being able to cleanse the Dragon Balls. Now able to summon Shenron, the dragon explains that the Dragon Balls were never intended to be used as frequently as they had been; they were to be revered in a world where their power was unnecessary. At the end of the series, Shenron, Goku, and the Dragon Balls leave the Earth for 100 years in order to purge the balls of all the built-up negative energy. The final episode of Dragon Ball GT, titled "Goodbye, Goku… Until the Day We Meet Again" is often considered the best part of a much maligned series.

While the Shadow Dragon saga was meant as an ending for the franchise and Goku, that doesn’t have to be the case here. It’s not unreasonable to say that Dragon Ball Super has a stakes issue it inherited from Dragon Ball Z. As the rules of the Dragon Balls kept changing (remember when you couldn’t be brought back to life more than once?) they became more of a crutch than a benefit. Toriyama himself seemed to be aware of this since he wrote that Bulma almost exclusively uses the balls to make herself look younger. Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero even explains that she keeps the Balls all the time in order to prevent anyone who isn’t a main character from making any wishes. Sure, that means a supervillain couldn’t find them and wish for immortality, but it also takes the Dragon Balls away from being a serious plot element in the show. No matter what happens in the story, the Dragon Balls will always be there to fix it once the threat has been defeated.

While this problem is very prevalent in Dragon Ball Super, Dragon Ball Z had it as well. Throughout the various arcs of the show, Toriyama had to find ways to take the Dragon Balls off the table or limit their power. Krillin’s death at the hands of Frieza wouldn’t have felt nearly as impactful if he could be wished back with the Dragon Balls, which would have lessened the impact of the show's most iconic moment, Goku’s first Super Saiyan transformation. There are many moments like this in Dragon Ball Z that provided suspense for the audience because they weren’t sure if the Dragon Balls could be used. Fast forward to Dragon Ball Super, and while the battles are epic, there’s no real sense of danger to any of the characters. Shenron’s power has been greatly enhanced and he’s practically part of the family.

Dragon Ball Super: Broly left the door open to see more stories reinvented through Dragon Ball Super. In the original non-canon Dragon Ball Z films, Broly was an evil Saiyan who was motivated to kill Goku due to being stuck next to his pod as a baby. Toriyama was able to take the concept of the Legendary Super Saiyan and reimagine it in a more compelling way, which led to one of the most successful Dragon Ball films of all time. Like those original movies, it’s clear that Dragon Ball GT can no longer be canon, but the Shadow Dragons could be reinterpreted for a future arc within Dragon Ball Super. With two new sets of Dragon Balls introduced in Dragon Ball Super (one in the manga that hasn’t been adapted yet), and a new set introduced in Dragon Ball Daima, the franchise just keeps creating more powerful “get out of jail free” cards.

With, now six, sets of Dragon Balls (counting the Black Star Dragon Balls) known to the franchise, maybe making it harder for Goku and friends to use the Earth's Dragon Balls wouldn’t be such a bad thing. The abuse and overuse of the Dragon Balls are already in the text of the series so there’s no need to change that aspect of the story. Since Toriyama designed the Shadow Dragons himself, it would be easy to reuse the designs. The only difference would be the ending. Instead of Goku and Shenron going off for 100 years, perhaps defeating the Shadow Dragons causes the Z warriors to think twice before using the balls. Or maybe they won’t be able to use them for a certain number of years. Either way, this would be a fun way to take the Dragon Balls off the table for a bit and actually help the franchise bring back some stakes that are not just about which form Goku and Vegeta are going to reach next.

Now, mind you, death isn’t the only way to add stakes to a story but Dragon Ball Super has had a lot of fake-outs when it comes to death specifically, most recently Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero tried to make the audience feel like Piccolo could die at the hands of Cell Max. A move that ultimately felt emotionally hollow. While Master Roshi wasn’t revived with the Dragon Balls in the final arc of Dragon Ball Super, no one really felt he could actually be gone forever, even though his relevance in the series has long passed. All the universes that were destroyed in the final Dragon Ball Super arc were all wished back by the Super Dragon Balls. While it’s nice that those characters weren’t lost forever, a common complaint about the ending of the arc was that this move ultimately made the arc feel hollow. Admittedly, that’s the point of the arc, so whether you agree or disagree with the decision, it’s clear that fans are growing tired of the Dragon Balls being used as a crutch. 

There are five canon sets of Dragon Balls in the franchise now, not including the non-canon Black Star Dragon Balls. The Granolah Arc of the Dragon Ball Super manga makes the claim that any planet where a Namekian had settled could have its own set of Dragon Balls, meaning there could be any number of them out there in the universe. The dragon balls began as hard-to-find mystical orbs that often took a whole season to collect, but now they're so commonplace that Shenron feels like one of the gang. Dragon Ball Daima almost solidifies this by explaining Shenron will grant more wishes to his “regulars.” It makes it easy for Goku and friends to get crazy wishes like bringing back the dead or making yourself look five years younger. Hell, sometimes they just summon Shenron to ask him a question. If something is beyond his power Dende can just upgrade him at will. It’s not the only way to fix this but using a version of the Shadow Dragon Saga in Dragon Ball Super could create a fun way to put some weight behind the Dragon Balls again.

Is a New Harry Potter Show the Right Move for Fans?

By Brandon T. McClure

When Game of Thrones was first adapted into a TV series, Harry Potter fans began wondering about the possibility of a series adaptation of Harry Potter. But a lot has changed in the 13 (going on 14) years since. Now it might not be such a great idea. 

In April 2023, 12 years after the final movie was released and 1 year since the end of the Fantastic Beasts trilogy, Warner Bros. Discovery announced that it had greenlit a series adaptation of J.K. Rowling’s world-famous novels. While there were certainly some excited voices, the temperature of the announcement was lukewarm at best, and due to Rowling's increasing unpopularity, this may prove to be another miscalculation from the struggling film studio.

The first Harry Potter movie came out in 2001 and launched an unbelievable phenomenon the likes of which have only been rivaled by the MCU. Adapted from the 1997 book of the same name Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, this marked the beginning of one of the most successful motion picture franchises of all time. Through 8 films in 10 years, not to mention the seven books, there was an entire generation that grew up with the franchise, characters, and actors. The hold the franchise has on the millennial generation cannot be understated. Warner Bros. was eager to continue the franchise beyond the books through a stage show, theme park experiences, and series of prequel movies, all under the “Wizarding World” brand and overseen by J.K. Rowling herself.

In 2013, Warner Bros. announced that they would be moving forward with a prequel film centered around the fictional author of the in-universe book Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, which would also be the title of the film. Fans were, of course, excited by the prospect of more within the Wizarding World, especially since it was going to explore the American wizarding community in the 1920s. The film would mark the screenwriting debut of J.K. Rowling herself! The film was released in 2016 to fairly good reviews from both critics and audiences (74% and 79% on Rotten Tomatoes respectively) and went on to gross $814 million. Sure it wasn’t the $1.3 billion that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 went on to make, but it would have been silly to expect it to. Warner Bros. had a hit on their hands and immediately greenlit the sequel.

A month before the release of Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them, J.K. Rowling told fans at a Fantastic Beasts event that there are five films planned in this prequel series. Two years later, in 2018, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald was released, but did not receive the same success its predecessor had. With only $654 million at the box office and a Rotten Tomatoes score of 36% (Critics) and 53% (Audience), things were not looking good for the sophomore outing of this prequel series. Then four years later, Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore was released which would signal the end of J.K. Rowling’s prequel series.

In the time between the release of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald and Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore, J.K. Rowling became a very unpopular figure. Beginning in 2018 she began down a “pipeline” that would reveal herself to be deeply, and viciously, transphobic. Millennials are often considered, with few exceptions, to be a mildly progressive generation. The reason for this is cited to be the media that they grew up with. Everything, including Harry Potter, taught lessons of inclusion and acceptance of other people's identities. So it was beyond disheartening when J.K. Rowling began spouting the belief that trans people don’t exist and are just “confused.” A timeline of her descent into transphobia was put together by theweek.com.

Many of the stars of the Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts movies, including Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Eddie Redmayne, and Katherine Waterston (who was written out of the third film likely for speaking out), immediately spoke out in support of trans people’s rights to exist and began to distance themselves from her (which she has taken very poorly). Many Harry Potter fan communities, such as MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron, denounced Rowling’s views and tried to distance themselves from her as best they could. Melissa Anelli, of The Leaky Cauldron, told Variety that the reason why they haven’t updated their podcast was because “Every time we sit down to have a fun conversation about Harry Potter, the conversation becomes angry and depressing, and so we end up not publishing.” She continues by echoing the feelings many millennials have towards the Harry Potter creator: “It’s made it less pure and exciting and fun the way it used to be. All of that now has this layer of, ‘Right, but the person at the center of it all believes a certain faction of the population isn’t real.’” Any ethical consumption of the franchise is made difficult due to the amount of control she has over the franchise.

Her ravings and the poor quality of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald no doubt contributed to the general disinterest of audiences towards Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore. Making only $400 million at the box office, the lowest in the franchise’s history, and reaching only a 46% critics score (in fairness it does have an 83% audience score). After the release of the film, Warner Bros. Discovery decided to abandon their plans for five films and settled for three. However, many reasons can be attributed to the failure of the film. 2022 was still a pandemic year, and audiences might have still been hesitant to go to the theater (even though three films hit $1 billion). The main characters of the prequel franchise were also struggling to connect with audiences in the same meaningful way as those from the original series. Maybe fans just weren’t interested in Newt Scamander. But, regardless, J.K. Rowling had become a rather unpopular figure since she was also the main credited screenwriter (Steve Kloves did return to co-write the third film), and critics agreed that she wasn’t a very good one.

Regardless of how critics and audiences felt about her screenwriting, Warner Bros. Discovery is devoted to keeping her on board for the new series. A spokesperson for HBO told Variety that “[we] are proud to once again tell the story of Harry Potter — the heartwarming books that speak to the power of friendship, resolve and acceptance,” the statement continued. “J.K. Rowling has a right to express her personal views. We will remain focused on the development of the new series, which will only benefit from her involvement.” Variety also notes that her entire online personality has been consumed by her anti-trans rhetoric. Posting over 200 times about her hateful views on X in the past two months. Conversely, she’s only posted about Harry Potter 8 times in that same amount of time. 

Another aspect going against the new series is the fact that there’s no evidence to suggest that the post-millennial generations even care about Harry Potter. Millennials are fiercely devoted to Harry Potter, even willing to continue supporting the franchise despite Rowling’s views. However, a survey from Morning Consult suggests that Gen Z has a very different opinion of the franchise. Many have made fun of millennials for their continued obsession with Harry Potter, and only 14% have identified as fans themselves. Gen Alpha is even less likely to be interested in Harry Potter, and they’re the generation that will be represented in the series. The series could likely win them over, but it’s very clear that the fanbase is very heavily skewed towards millennials.

The new streaming series is going to sport an astronomical cost. The first season of Percy Jackson and the Olympians on Disney+, likely the untitled Harry Potter series contemporary, had a per-episode budget of $12 - $15 million. It’s unlikely the Harry Potter series will be made for less and the budget will only increase every season. If the goal for the series is to adapt a book a season, that’ll be seven seasons. In this current streaming market, shows rarely make it past three seasons. But, even with that said, the series will also air on HBO, rather than solely on Max. This means that the return doesn’t need to be quite as high as a streaming show. As Tylor Starr, Potter fandom expert and co-author of The Unofficial Harry Potter Vegan Cookbook, puts it “There are so many fans who deeply disagree with what Rowling is saying, but still want to engage in the Harry Potter fandom.” But the major question remains: Are millennials enough to get that return and will it attract Gen Z and Gen Alpha?

While the movies cast millennials in the lead roles, this new show will be looking to cast Gen Alpha in the roles of Harry, Ron, and Hermoine. But the landscape has drastically changed since the films came out. “You can’t fault somebody for wanting to do the job. But the internet and the fandom and the politics of it all are probably going to demand that they say something. If you don’t, people are going to automatically assume that you agree with Rowling,” Kat Miller, creative director of MuggleNet and coauthor of The Unofficial Harry Potter Companion says. She was mostly referring to the adult roles, but the same can also be applied to the child roles. Fans are often very outspoken on social media, and the comparisons they’ll likely make to the original film actors could potentially create a toxic environment for these kids. Kids who are 11-12 years old shouldn’t be subjected to that kind of environment.

There’s also the question of whether or not this is necessary. Like Disney remaking their beloved animated films into live-action, is there a demand for a more faithful adaptation of the books? The movies are so beloved by fans that it’s hard to imagine any other actors taking on those roles. Sure the books left many things out, but the consensus of the films is very positive. It’s incredibly unlikely that Warner Bros. Discovery could recapture the magic (pun intended) with this series. The movies are a generation-defining event, and the show will constantly be compared to them for however long it runs. With likely two years before each season’s release (just judging by the current production timeline of these types of shows), it’ll be hard for an audience to grow up with these actors, which was a large reason why the movies connected with audiences in the way that they did.

At the end of the day, who really knows how well this series will do? It’s aiming for a 2026 release and is currently being developed by Succession alums Francesca Gardiner, as showrunner, and Mark Mylod, as director. Casting is underway and a writer's room is being assembled. There is no stopping this series and WBD is determined to keep Rowling involved, despite many fan theories claiming they want to buy her out. The dismal quality of the Fantastic Beasts movies and her hateful personality/identity have clearly done some damage. But it's hard to know just how much until the series comes out. No matter what, HBO and Warner Bros. Discovery have an uphill battle ahead of them with this show.

INTERVIEW / Jim Krieg & The Tomorrowverse

Brandon McClure sits down with DC animation producer and Tomorrowverse creator Jim Krieg! Brandon asks all the questions that are burning in his mind and Jim Krieg takes the time to answer! The Tomorrowverse may be over but there are still lingering questions that are answered here!

For more, check out Brandon's write ups on the Tomorrowverse and stay tuned for more at Atomic Geekdom!

REVIEW / Justice League: Crisis On Infinite Earths - Part Two

The End Of The Tomorrowverse & The Future Of The DC Animated Original Movies

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

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.

Movie Review/ "Wicked"

By Anthony Caruso

Wicked: Part One is everything I hoped it would be and more. As someone who has seen the Broadway show five times, I hold Wicked close to my heart—it’s my favorite musical of all time. My expectations for this movie were sky-high after waiting two decades for it, and not only did it meet those expectations, it exceeded them in every way. This adaptation is a breathtaking masterpiece that had me in tears, feeling full-body chills, and brimming with joy. It’s a magnificent tribute to Act One of the stage show and an extraordinary feel-good crowd-pleaser evocative of old Hollywood, making it my personal pick for movie of the year.

Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande are nothing short of perfect as Elphaba and Glinda. Their portrayals are nuanced and magnetic, bringing warmth, humor, relatability, and heartbreak to their characters. Erivo’s Elphaba is as powerful and empathetic as you’d expect, but Grande as Glinda is a revelation. She delivers an effortlessly charismatic performance that steals the show, blending humor, vulnerability, and dazzling vocal prowess. Her rendition of “Popular” alone had me grinning from ear to ear. Both actresses are sure to earn Oscar nominations, and while Erivo’s powerhouse performance deserves recognition, I wouldn’t be surprised if Grande walks away with Best Supporting Actress. She was born for this role - and I say that as somebody who was initially extremely wary of her casting upon its announcement!

The supporting cast is equally brilliant. Michelle Yeoh’s presence as Madame Morrible and Jeff Goldblum’s whimsical yet menacing Wizard are tantalizing previews of what’s to come in "Part Two". Jonathan Bailey’s portrayal of Fiyero deserves special praise, however. He elevates a character I’ve always liked well enough into someone I adore. Bailey brings a depth, charm, and charisma to Fiyero making his journey deeply compelling.

Oz itself, meanwhile, has never felt so real. The production design, costumes, and practical effects are phenomenal, creating a vibrant, immersive world full of detail and wonder. From the emerald glow of the city to the verdant forests and bustling streets, every frame is brimming with life and authenticity. And the restrained use of CGI is both unexpected and a triumph. Apart from the magical "Animals" and a few scenes toward the end of the movie, most of the sets and props feel tactile, transporting you straight into this magical world. It’s a refreshing throwback to a time when blockbusters relied heavily on practical artistry, further reinforcing the movie’s timeless, Old Hollywood feel.

The musical numbers are the film’s heartbeat, and every single one is pitch-perfect. The choreography is not just fun, but dazzling, while the rearrangements of Stephen Schwartz’s iconic score are fantastic, adapting beautifully to the screen without losing any of their theatrical power. “Defying Gravity” is, of course, the emotional high point, and it had the entire theater in stunned silence before erupting into applause. But the standout numbers don’t stop there! “No One Mourns the Wicked” sets the film’s tone masterfully. “What Is This Feeling?” is delightfully playful. “Dancing Through Life” showcases both stunning choreography and Jonathan Bailey’s charm. “One Short Day” is a visual and auditory feast, brimming with wonderful surprises. Every song feels lovingly translated, retaining its emotional weight and theatricality while embracing the cinematic medium.

Director Jon Chu, alongside writers Winnie Holzman and Dana Fox, has created a film that is both faithful to the Broadway production and innovative in its execution. Chu’s passion for the source material shines through in every frame. He seamlessly blends elements of the stage musical with additional backstory from Gregory Maguire’s novel and entirely new material that enriches the narrative. The film also pays loving homage to the 1939 classic, The Wizard of Oz, from visual motifs to subtle musical cues woven into the score by Stephen Schwartz and John Powell. These references don’t feel forced, but instead enhance the story, bridging the gap between the beloved original film and this contemporary masterpiece, and I'm curious to see how "Part Two" continues to do that, making the stories gel more seamlessly together than even the Broadway show managed to do.

Wicked: Part One captures the magic of classic musicals like The Wizard of Oz while feeling modern and fresh. It’s a rarity in today’s blockbuster landscape: a movie that is colorful, emotionally resonant, extraordinarily timely, and brimming with hope. The production values, storytelling, and performances come together to create something truly special. When the explosive finale culminated in the words “To Be Continued,” the audience in my theater erupted into cheers and applause. There were even spontaneous ovations after several musical numbers throughout - a testament to how much this film resonated with the crowd.

In the end, I feel confident in saying this is not just the best musical adaptation I’ve seen in years, but may very well be the best since The Wizard of Oz. Wicked: Part One is destined to become a classic. It’s sure to be an awards contender, a box-office juggernaut, and an unforgettable experience for fans and newcomers alike. I can’t wait to watch it again multiple times in theaters and revisit it often when it hits home media, and I will eagerly be counting down the long days until the release of "Part Two". Until then, I’ll be reliving this extraordinary experience in my mind and listening to the film's soundtrack on repeat. Whether you’re a fan of the musical or have never seen it before, I urge you to see Wicked: Part One on the biggest screen possible. It’s am absolute triumph in every sense of the word.

Movie Review/ "A Real Pain"

By Anthony Caruso

A Real Pain is a testament to the power of storytelling that seamlessly blends humor, heart, and historical poignancy. Directed by Jesse Eisenberg, who also stars alongside Kieran Culkin, the film is a rich exploration of identity, grief, tradition, and heritage set against the backdrop of Poland—a place steeped in history and resonance for Jewish culture. It’s a striking achievement that manages to be both a personal odyssey and a universal story of connection.

The film follows two cousins - Jesse Eisenberg’s David and Kieran Culkin’s Benji - as they embark on a journey to Poland after a family loss. What begins as a reluctant, quasi-tourist trip soon morphs into a deeper, unexpected confrontation with their own histories, their own personal grief, the lingering echoes of the Holocaust, and how the role the Jewish faith plays in their lives. Eisenberg crafts a screenplay that is both biting and tender, deftly navigating between witty, rapid-fire exchanges and moments of silence that resonate with unspoken pain. It’s this balance between humor and drama that makes A Real Pain truly exceptional. While the humor is sharp and dry, it never feels out of place or disrespectful. Instead, it serves to highlight the contrast between the modern identities of our main characters and the profound legacy of their heritage. The film’s exploration of the Jewish experience—tied to themes of survival, guilt, and resilience—adds layers of meaning that enrich its emotional depth.

The performances in A Real Pain are nothing short of extraordinary. Jesse Eisenberg’s David is a complex figure: intellectual, anxious, and searching for meaning. Eisenberg infuses the character with authenticity and vulnerability, making him relatable yet distinct. Kieran Culkin, on the other hand, shines as Benji, whose more carefree and irreverent personality serves as a counterbalance to Daniel’s introspection. Culkin’s comedic timing is impeccable, but it’s his ability to inject pathos into unexpected moments that cement his performance as one of the film’s standouts. The two of them have incredible chemistry with one another, and it’s easy to believe that the two of them are cousins. The supporting cast, meanwhile, adds further richness to the narrative. Each character contributes to the success of the film and have moments to shine, adding humor, authenticity, and drama to the proceedings.

Visually, the movie is a feast for the eyes. Michał Dymek‘s cinematography showcases Poland in a way that feels both hauntingly beautiful and inviting. Sweeping shots of the country’s cobblestone streets, lush countryside vistas, and somber historical sites juxtapose the film’s lighter moments with its heavier, contemplative ones. This visual storytelling not only enhances the narrative but also adds a layer of richness that invites the viewer to reflect on the passage of time and the permanence of place. The story is also aided by the score, which serves as a subtle yet powerful companion to the story and blends traditional Jewish melodies with modern, emotive compositions. The film’s sound design also plays a crucial role, particularly in scenes set in historical sites, where the ambient noise of footsteps and whispers amplifies the film’s immersive quality.

I could truly go on and on about the themes of identity, loss, and collective memory that the movie delves into. Its examination of the Jewish experience is neither didactic nor overly sentimental, but instead strikes a balance that is both reverent and relatable - even to people, like myself, who are not Jewish. Eisenberg’s direction ensures that these themes are handled with care, using humor to break tension without undermining the film’s more serious moments. It’s the film’s portrayal of grief—not just as an individual burden but as a shared experience that binds people across generations - that is its biggest strength, however; at least as far as I’m concerned. The narrative raises thoughtful questions about what it means to inherit pain and how to honor it without being consumed by it. The result is a film that is deeply personal yet widely resonant, capable of sparking reflection long after the credits roll. It’s truly a triumph on every conceivable level.

In a year full of standout releases, A Real Pain earns its place amongst the best of them. For all of the reasons I laid out above and more, it is sure to be a strong contender during awards season. I highly recommend this film to everyone, and can’t wait to revisit it when it hits streaming.

Movie Review/ "Red One"

By Anthony Caruso

Red One delivers a festive, action-packed romp that breathes new life into the holiday movie genre. While not without its flaws, the film offers enough heart, humor, and inventive storytelling to make it an enjoyable addition to the large stable of Christmas films. Despite mixed reviews and a disappointing box office projection, Red One deserves a second look for those searching for a holiday film that mixes traditional elements with an unconventional twist.

The Red One narrative centers on a unique take on the Christmas mythos, blending action, adventure, and fantasy with a touch of darkness. Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson stars as Callum Drift, one of Santa's E.L.F.s who is tasked with rescuing the famous man with the bag in order to save Christmas from a magical threat. The plot finds its antagonist in the villainous Gryla, a Christmas witch portrayed with icy brilliance by Kiernan Shipka. Her plan is deceptively simple and cleverly understated, presenting a unique twist that doesn’t rely on over-the-top stakes, yet personally affects most people worldwide.

The story surprises with moments that are darker than expected for a holiday movie, lending it an edge that older audiences can appreciate while still maintaining the whimsy that kids love. The blend of classic Christmas motifs with new mythological elements enriches the film’s universe and sets the stage for potential expansions into other holiday tales—a tantalizing possibility that may go unexplored due to poor box office results.

Dwayne Johnson, as expected, plays to his strengths as Callum Drift, bringing his trademark charm and physicality. While Johnson’s persona is beginning to feel a bit familiar, it fits the character well enough to keep audiences entertained. However, it’s Chris Evans and J.K. Simmons who truly shine in their respective roles. Evans brings a surprising depth and comedic touch to his character, making him more than just a sidekick to Johnson’s lead. And while the trailers might have hinted at a modern, gruff reimagining of Santa Claus, Simmons offers a surprisingly traditional, heartfelt take that grounds the story in classic holiday sentiment.

Kiernan Shipka’s Gryla is a standout as well. She portrays her with a compelling mix of menace and allure, making her both a formidable foe and an intriguing character. Her nuanced performance, alongside her character’s deceptively clever plan, brings a refreshing villain to the holiday movie landscape. It's Kristofer Hivju, however, who nearly steals the show as Krampus, playing the part with a mischievous and wild energy that injects humor and unpredictability into the film. His performance adds a delightful layer, making Krampus a memorable supporting character that enhances the movie’s mythology.

The film’s cinematography strikes a balance between the fantastical and the festive. Wide shots of snow-laden landscapes and cozy, twinkling towns blend with dramatic close-ups during tense confrontations. The visual palette is rich with reds, whites, and deep greens, encapsulating the holiday spirit while integrating darker blacks, blues, and purples into the shadowy scenes that signal Gryla’s presence. And though the special effects don’t always hit the mark— some CGI moments are downright bad —they don’t detract from the overall enjoyment. This is, after all, a holiday film, where a little suspension of disbelief goes a long way. The whimsical tone helps the audience overlook these inconsistencies.

The soundtrack features a mix of classic Christmas songs and original score, both of which add warmth and urgency to the film. The music swells appropriately during action sequences and mellows during tender, nostalgic moments, aiding the emotional tone without being overpowering. The makeup team, meanwhile, excels in their portrayal of mythological characters. JK Simmons’ Santa is a blend of traditional looks with a rugged twist, complete with silver-streaked hair and a leather outfit that still feels familiar. The standout, however, is the detailed work on Krampus, making Kristofer Hivju’s character visually captivating. The practical effects on the more fantastical characters shine, contrasting with some of the CGI’s weaker moments.

Red One might not be perfect, but it’s absolutely worth the watch. It’s a film that embraces the magic, warmth, and occasional darkness of the holiday season. Ignore the critics, gather the family, and enjoy this fun, unconventional take on Christmas lore. It might just find its place in your annual holiday movie rotation as I can guarantee you it has mine.

Movie Review/ "Heretic"

By Anthony Caruso

Heretic is a masterstroke of contemporary cinema that effortlessly balances psychological tension with profound thematic exploration. Directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods, the film boldly delves into the complex interplay between belief, control, and personal liberation. With standout performances from its star-studded cast, it's easily one of the most compelling films of 2024.

Hugh Grant delivers one of the most mesmerizing performances of his career as the enigmatic and menacing antagonist. Portraying a charismatic and extraordinarily manipulative religious intellectual, Grant infuses the role with a magnetic presence that blurs the line between charm and menace. He commands attention in every scene, showcasing a layered character whose motivations oscillate between altruism and self-serving manipulation. Sophie Thatcher, meanwhile, plays the determined and introspective Sister Barnes, and serves as the movie's emotional anchor. Her performance is raw, heartfelt, and compelling, proving she’s a star capable of holding her own in the presence of acting heavyweights. Then there's Chloe East, who rounds out the cast as Sister Paxton. East complements Thatcher with equal vigor, perfectly playing Paxton’s transformational journey from quiet follower to someone who begins to question everything she once held sacred. East’s ability to express vulnerability and resolve in equal measure adds depth to the narrative, creating a dynamic and authentic on-screen partnership with Thatcher.

The screenplay deftly weaves suspense with moments of philosophical rumination, resulting in a narrative that grips from start to finish, despite many scenes merely depicting three characters standing around debating religion. The dialogue is sharp, with Grant’s character delivering lines steeped in ambiguity and dark humor that leave audiences pondering their meaning long after the credits roll. The directors skillfully construct an atmosphere thick with tension, using dim lighting, deliberate pacing, and close-up shots that amplify the feelings of claustrophobia our protagonists are feeling. Indeed, the cinematography deserves special mention, as it plays a crucial role in conveying the film’s themes. Stark contrasts between light and shadow mirror the dichotomy between faith and doubt, while sweeping shots of the remote and austere, albeit tight, setting evoke an unsettling sense of isolation that accentuates the characters’ inner turmoil.

At its core, Heretic is more than a suspenseful and dramatic horror movie; it’s a meditation on the impact of religious structures on the human psyche. The film poses thought-provoking questions about the nature of belief: When does faith become a prison? When does it serve as a pathway to freedom? Through its characters’ struggles, the film explores how ideology can both uplift and oppress, shaping lives in profound and often unpredictable ways. The story resists easy answers, encouraging viewers to reflect on the influence of dogma in their own lives. This subtle approach ensures that Heretic never feels didactic, but rather like an intricate mosaic of ideas, inviting interpretation and debate.

As I stated above, Heretic is undoubtedly one of the year’s finest films, distinguished by its powerful performances, intelligent script, and skillful direction. It’s a film that lingers, urging reflection on its themes of power, faith, and self-discovery. It's a movie I would highly recommended for anyone who appreciates cinema that challenges and provokes as much as it entertains. It's truly a testament to the power of excellent storytelling, earning its place as an essential watch and an instant classic. I can't wait to revisit it many times in the years to come.