Star Trek: Legacy Exists. You Just Have To Read It

By Brandon T. McClure

As season three of Star Trek: Picard was coming to an end, showrunner Terry Matalas began talking about how he was using the season to set up a new show titled Star Trek: Legacy. This hypothetical spin off series would follow Seven of Nine as the new Captain of the Enterprise G and her crew, which consisted of various children of the Star Trek: The Next Generation characters. This idea resonated with many Star Trek fans who were watching the show so much that they launched various online campaigns to try and convince Paramount to greenlight Star Trek: Legacy. Since the almost 2 years since Star Trek: Picard season 3 ended, Paramount has cancelled Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Lower Decks, Star Trek: Prodigy, and only produced Star Trek: Section 31 and the upcoming Starfleet Academy. Despite the continued online desire for Star Trek: Legacy, Paramount doesn’t seem interested. But in a surprising twist of fate, Star Trek: Legacy does exist, just not in the way most fans would probably accept.

Comics are an often overlooked piece of media, Star Trek comics even more so. But with that said, IDW Publishing has been going strong with the Star Trek IP since 2007. They’ve published mini-series’ consisting of lost stories set in the Star Trek: The Original Series timeline, Terry Matalas has even written a Borg mini-series that was very reminiscent of his story in Star Trek: Picard season 3, they’ve explored the Mirror Universe of the TNG timeline, and even explored stories set in the Kelvin timeline. But since 2022, IDW Publishing has been publishing an even more special ongoing series set in the perfect spot of the expansive Star Trek timeline.

Simply titled Star Trek, written by Jackson Lanzing and Collin Kelly, collectively known as The Hivemind, along with tons of incredible artists, the series follows Benjamin Sisko having returned from the Celestial Temple because the Prophets believe he’s the only one who can stop a Godkiller. It takes some convincing, but Sisko convinces Starfleet to reinstate him with a ship and a crew and he goes out in search of whoever has decided to kill the gods of the universe. His crew consists of many familiar faces to the Trek timeline, including Data, Beverly Crusher, Scotty, and Tom Paris, as well as newcomers like Ensigns T'Lir and Lily Sato (herself a descendant of Hoshi Sato from Star Trek: Enterprise).

The series has also spawned a spin off called Star Trek: Defiant which is written by Christopher Cantwell and features a crew consisting of Worf, Spock, Ro Laren, B'Elanna and newcomer Nymira, an Orion doctor with a troubling past. This series sees Worf and his crew uncover the shadier elements of the Star Trek universe and sees them act more like bounty hunters than Starfleet officers. Both titles compliment each other while exploring different aspects of the Star Trek universe. They also never stray too far from established canon or themes. In fact, they play with them in a way that should delight old and new fans alike. Characters jump in and out like Harry Kim, Kathryn Janeway, or Shax from Star Trek: Lower Decks. But most excitedly, both series pick up characters and plot elements that the shows left behind due to their episodic nature.

Prior to the “Latinum Era” (or streaming era if you want to be boring about it), Star Trek was primarily an episodic show. There were attempts to move away from this with the final seasons of Star Trek: Deep Space 9 or Star Trek: Enterprise season 3, but the mandate for television was different in the late 80s to the early 00s. Viewers weren’t expected to follow a show week to week, they were expected to tune in and be able to jump into a new adventure without any baggage from the previous week. Serialization was very risky for television and only happened when networks were absolutely certain they had “appointment TV” on their hands. Even as popular as Star Trek: The Next Generation was, the show never went further than a two-parter. But a comic book doesn’t need to worry about that. A comic book can continue to build for 20, 30, or even 40 issues without concern for losing the audience. So Star Trek: Defiant, for example, is in a unique position to bring back characters like Berlinghoff Rasmussen (there’s a deep cut for the Trekkies), or the parasitic aliens from Star Trek: The Next Generation season 1. There’s a very cool revelation about those parasites in the pages of Star Trek: Defiant for example. 

Even the main plot of Star Trek centers around a plot thread from Star Trek: The Next Generation that no show ever picked up. Something that should have been a much bigger deal to the universe: what happened to Kahless II after he was made a puppet emperor of the Klingon Empire. The answer is that he formed the Red Path and went on a killing spree across the cosmos. Something that makes perfect sense when you remember that Klingon mythology states that Klingons killed their gods. Well there are more gods in the universe, and Kahless has a problem with that. This backdrop sets the stage of uniting the edges of the Star Trek universe in a surprising organic way. With deep cuts and obvious references weaving in and out of every issue. At the very least it creates an incredible father/son story between Worf and Alexander.

All these characters returning can only happen in a comic book. When you really sit down to think about it, the Star Trek: Legacy that fans want is frankly impossible. The budget needed to bring back so many characters from these shows would be way too much for Paramount+, especially right now. Not to mention, you’ll never get Avery Brooks back as Captain Sisko, he’s very happy in retirement. But comics don’t have the same budget restriction. That’s not to say there aren’t restrictions on what a comic can do, but the difference between filming a story where Captain Sisko, Worf, Spock, Data, Shax, and whoever else fighting Kahless II and drawing it is astronomical. Not to mention, it’s actually impossible to get Spock and Scotty together. Who among us hasn't wondered if Scotty and Spock reunited after Scotty turned up in the 24th century?

Star Trek and Star Trek: Defiant are set in a kind of “Goldilocks” moment in the Trek timeline. A perfect moment in time between Star Trek: Insurrection and Star Trek: Nemesis when every character is on the table and could conceivably show up. This moment organically allows the writers and artists of these two ongoing comics to pay tribute to every era of Star Trek, and have even managed to throw in references to Star Trek: The Original Series, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, Star Trek: Enterprise, and something special that won’t be spoiled here. From characters, to locations, to surprise cameos, these comics combine these eras in a way that makes it feel more cohesive than the shows can sometimes feel. Due to the very different production budgets of the various eras of Star Trek, the shows can often feel disconnected from each other. While fans can (mostly) accept that Star Trek: Strange New Worlds and Star Trek: The Original Series are set within the same decade for example, it helps to have a story that makes it easier to digest. 

Now, a big question posed by fans is the nature of canon. Whether or not a book, comic, video game or even a show, is canon is hotly debated in internet spaces. But the creator himself, Gene Roddenbery didn’t accept anything in print as canon (he also didn’t accept Star Trek: The Animated Series as canon). So comics, in this case, are considered non-canon (or Beta-Canon) and can be easily contradicted by current or future shows. But he’s dead and, while this won’t change the debate (many consider the entire Latinum Era non-canon), the only canon that matters is the canon that is important to you, the reader/watcher. The Force Center Podcast calls it your “emotional canon.” What this means is, basically, canon is what you decide it is for yourself. If you love a book, even if a show or movie contradicts it, then the only thing that matters is that you get value out of it, so it’s your canon. So who’s to say that a comic book can’t be canon? When your creators care as much about Star Trek as these, then it’s easy to accept this as, not just a love letter to every show and movie, but as canon. Just make sure you’re not a dick about it.

Currently, Star Trek and Star Trek: Defiant are in their second crossover event, titled “Lore War.” This event sees Data’s infamous brother Lore rewrite the Star Trek universe in his image. Jackson Lanzing and Collin Kelly have called it Star Trek’s “Secret Wars,” referencing the reality altering Marvel crossover, many times. Sadly, IDW Publishing has announced that “Lore War” will be the end of Star Trek and Star Trek: Defiant. Both titles will converge into Star Trek: Omega, an oversized one-shot that will serve as a conclusion to both books as the comic’s timeline catches up with the infamous events of Star Trek: Nemesis. As Q states in the final episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, “all good things must come to an end.” These kinds of comic book series are not the kind that can go for years and years, but it’s been almost three years since the launch of the Theseus with Sisko in the big chair, which is as good a run as any series can hope to get.

With 36 issues collected in 4 volumes and counting for Star Trek, and 28 collected in 5 volumes and counting, not to mention the “Day of Blood” and “Lore War” crossover events, there’s plenty here for Star Trek fans to enjoy. Every issue is better than the last and filled with more surprises then you could think was possible. Yes, it’s almost over, but the journey is still there for any old and new Star Trek fan to pick up and enjoy. Like coming to a TV show after the fact (be honest: not many of you reading this watched TOS as it aired), these comics will be there waiting for you to pick them up. If you’re still out there begging Paramount+ to give you Star Trek: Legacy, even though Terry Matalas has moved on, then you’re missing the Star Trek: Legacy that is right under your nose. 

Star Trek and Star Trek: Defiant are the stories that Star Trek fans are demanding. They’re big, bold, fun, and can only be told in a comic book format. Jackson Lanzing, Collin Kelly, Christopher Cantwell, and their wonderful artists, are weaving their story through the canon of Star Trek like the Enterprise D flying through the bowels of a giant Borg Cube. It’s truly one of the best books on the market, not just for Star Trek. But many fans will overlook it because it’s “Beta-canon”, or not know it exists at all because it’s a comic book and not a TV show. Sure, it’s not the Star Trek: Legacy that fans were demanding Terry Matalas and Paramount+ make. It’s better.

BOOK REVIEW/ "The Buffalo Hunter Hunter" by Stephen Graham Jones

By Matt Spaulding

In his most recent novel, The Buffalo Hunter Hunter, Stephen Graham Jones has crafted a chilling vampire story only he could tell. Set in the old west in the Blackfeet Nation, The Buffalo Hunter Hunter is a deeply American tale of Native American culture and pride, and its struggle to survive the encroachment of white settlers.

Jones has become one of my favorite horror authors in the last few years because of his ability to weave captivating narratives full of bone-chilling horror. And, Jones, a Blackfeet Native himself, also brings his culture into all of his work, which is a welcoming thing in the horror genre, which is, historically, painfully white. I’ve said a whole lot over the years that, as a straight, cis-het, white male, I know the story of people like me so well it’s boring. People like me is all I have ever seen in art and it’s so uninteresting to me at this point. Jones’ characters and their views of the world are so interesting and enriching and, dare I say, educational.

This is no less true in this book. Set mostly in the years between roughly 1862 and 1912 (with wrap-arounds at the beginning and end set in 2013), The Buffalo Hunter Hunter is the story of Good Stab, a Blackfeet who, in a tussle with white soldiers, encounters a vampire and ultimately becomes one himself. Good Stab, in the year 1912, comes to the church of Arthur Beaucarne, a Lutheran preacher Good Stab calls “Three Persons” after the Holy Trinity, to “confess” to him, to tell the story of his life. Through Good Stab, we get an incredible, beautifully written, often sad tale of a man desperate to maintain his identity despite what he has become.

Ultimately, that is what the story is about, identity. Good Stab wants to stay Blackfeet, Pikuni in his native language, but he also wants to try to save his people from settlers. We follow the story of Good Stab as he struggles not just with being a vampire, but with a world that is becoming more and more the property of white settlers and less the world of the Native People. Drawing attention to Native culture and its place in the modern world is something Jones has done so well in other novels of his like Mongrels and The Only Good Indians, but the historical nature of this novel really elevates it to another level.

In Good Stab and the vampire that created him, The Cat Man, Jones has also created a type of vampire entirely his own, introducing powers and weaknesses never before seen in vampire lore to great effect. He creates a whole new breed of monster, one that is incredibly cinematic and sparks the imagination. That’s really all I can say without giving it away.

As for Arthur Beaucarne, the second lead character, he is mostly uninteresting, that is until we learn why Good Stab has chosen to tell his story to this specific preacher. It’s an amazing twist. For most of the novel, Beaucarne is the vessel through which we experience Good Stab’s story and little else. Not that he’s a bad character, just a rather plain one. But when the twist comes, suddenly the entire story takes another turn. It’s pretty brilliant on Jone's’ part.

My only complaint with the novel, and it’s a small one, is that I reached a point where I felt like it was too long. The length of a book is a criticism I typically hate, be it to say “it’s too long” or “it’s too short.” But, unfortunately, I have to say it here. And it’s made worse because I honestly don’t know what I would take out of the story to change that. But, around 75% through, I started to feel myself going “I can’t believe there’s so much left.” I didn’t even not enjoy the final 25%. I just couldn’t shake the feeling that it could have been a bit shorter. In the end, though, that didn’t change the fact that I found the book incredible.

The Buffalo Hunter Hunter is a vampire story for the ages and deserves to sit up there with Dracula and Interview With The Vampire as a defining novel of the vampire genre.

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.

AG_LOCKED_FILM_INT_2025_01_Audio

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.

BOOK REVIEW/ "The Haunting of Room 904"

By Matt Spaulding

The Haunting of Room 904 is a tale of generational trauma that is focused on one room in one hotel. It’s an interesting look at how the sins of the past still affect the world decades and decades later.

Olivia Becente is a paranormal investigator with a gift for seeing spirits, a gift that previously belonged to her sister, Naiche. But, a few years back, Naiche died by suicide in the notorious Room 904, a room in which deaths happen every five years. Always a woman. Always in 904. Whether that woman was checked into 904 or not. Spooky, right?

That’s what I was expecting when I went into this book. Unfortunately, I wasn’t greeted with as much horror as I felt I was promised. Though there are certainly horror elements like ghosts and cults and, of course, the curse of the titular room. But this is much less horrific than I was expecting. Instead, this is more of a mystery. What’s going on with the room? Why? How is it tied to the historical Sand Creek Massacre? Why is this random bitchy, vindictive journalist trying to take down our protagonist?

This isn’t to say that the story is bad. It’s just not at all what I was expecting. And maybe it’s because my horror sensibilities are so hardened, but I did find the spooky elements lacking. This may be for someone who is horror-curious rather than die-hards like myself.

I also, unfortunately, did not connect to any of these characters, so I found it hard to care what happened to them. This has nothing to do with the way they are written, I just found them all to be not to my taste. Which is a hard thing to write about now that I’m here trying to do it, because it’s not something concrete. I can just as easily see other people liking them a lot.

But that doesn’t mean Wurth is a bad writer. Indeed, her descriptions are vivid and her mystery was compelling. And, as a fan of horror, I’m a big fan of any writer that’s bringing diversity into the genre. Wurth includes Native American elements that I was super into. I’ve said many times in the past that, as a cis-het white male, I’m SO tired of stories about people exactly like me. I know that story inside and out. There are so many more stories out there that are worth telling, and Wurth is bringing that to the table.

Ultimately, Room 904 fell flat for me. It’s difficult for me to articulate exactly why it did, though, because everything that didn’t work for me is so subjective. As I said before, the horror wasn’t there for me. The characters were not interesting to me. But if you’re not a super horror fan but appreciate it fine, or if you’re horror-curious, then this book is a great launch pad.

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.

MINI SERIES REVIEW/ "Zero Day"

By Anthony Caruso

Zero Day, Netflix's 2025 political thriller miniseries, delivers a gripping narrative that resonates with contemporary societal concerns. Created by Eric Newman, Noah Oppenheim, and Michael Schmidt, and directed by Lesli Linka Glatter, the six-episode series stands out as a compelling addition to the genre.

The series centers on Robert De Niro's George Mullen, a former U.S. president who is called out of retirement to lead an investigation into a catastrophic cyberattack that cripples the nation's infrastructure. As Mullen delves deeper, he confronts complex issues of national security, personal ethics, and the pervasive influence of misinformation. The narrative intricately weaves themes of political intrigue and personal sacrifice, reflecting the precarious balance between civil liberties and national safety.

Robert De Niro's portrayal of George Mullen is both commanding and nuanced, capturing the internal and external struggles of a leader facing unprecedented challenges. The ensemble cast, featuring Lizzy Caplan as Mullen's estranged daughter Alexandra, Jesse Plemons as the dedicated aide Roger Carlson, Joan Allen as former First Lady Sheila Mullen, and Angela Bassett as President Evelyn Mitchell, delivers exceptional performances that enrich the series' depth and emotional resonance. Each actor brings a distinct presence, contributing to the show's dynamic and engaging character interactions.

Zero Day excels in presenting a tense, action-packed narrative that mirrors current global anxieties surrounding cyber warfare and political instability. The series effectively explores the fragility of modern infrastructures and the potential chaos stemming from their disruption. Its timely subject matter and realistic portrayal of a nation in crisis offer a chilling reminder of contemporary vulnerabilities. Its excellent execution provides a thought-provoking experience that challenges viewers to consider the complexities of truth, power, and governance in the digital age.

Zero Day stands as a testament to the potency of well-crafted political thrillers in today's entertainment landscape. Its combination of a stellar cast, timely themes, and engaging plotlines makes it a standout series that prompts reflection on the delicate balance between security and liberty. For viewers seeking a thought-provoking. exhilarating, and downright entertaining experience, Zero Day is a commendable choice.

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.

Doctor Who: Why We May Never Get A New Multi-Doctor Adventure

By Brandon T. McClure

In 2023, Doctor Who celebrated its 60th anniversary with three specials simulcasted around the world through the BBC and Disney+. These specials brought back David Tennant, not as his previous 10th Doctor but as a new 14th Doctor. He reteamed with Catherine Tate’s, Donna Noble, and together they stopped an invasion, went to the edge of the universe, fought Neil Patrick Harris’ The Toymaker and introduced the world to the new 15th Doctor, Ncuti Gatwa. It was a big celebration of the show's 60 years. But for the first time in the show's history, the anniversary was not marked with a multi-Doctor adventure.

Every milestone anniversary that Doctor Who has celebrated has been marked with a multi-Doctor story. These stories are excuses for the creators of the show to bring back former Doctors and have them team up with the current Doctor for an epic adventure. Now, in fairness, Russell T. Davies did use a loophole in the third special, “The Giggle.” Due to some unknown reason, the 14th Doctor was able to “bi-generate” into the 15th Doctor. This controversial decision, allowed both the 14th and 15th Doctor’s to exist at the same time, so he was able to have a multi-Doctor storyline in a way. While he gets away with it on a technicality, it’s not entirely the same thing. 

The first true multi-Doctor story was the 1973 episode, aptly titled “The Three Doctors.” Within the universe of Doctor Who, it’s impossible for the Doctor to cross his own timeline. This is a handy explanation for why he doesn’t meet himself all the time. But for this episode, one Doctor wasn’t going to be good enough. The current Doctor at the time, Jon Pertwee’s 3rd Doctor, teamed up with Patrick Troughton’s 2nd Doctor, and William Hartnell’s 1st Doctor (who was rather ill at the time and couldn’t physically be there). Together, through much bickering, they solved the problem and went on their way.

Patrick Troughton as the 2nd Doctor, Jon Pertwee the 3rd Doctor, and William Hartnell the 1st Doctor

Ten years later, the BBC would air “The Five Doctors”, which saw the aforementioned Doctors, with Richard Hurndall stepping in for William Hartnell who had passed away, team up with the current Doctor at the time, Peter Davidson’s 5th Doctor. Interestingly, while it’s called “The Five Doctors,” Tom Baker’s 4th Doctor does not appear (only in archived footage) due to the actor declining to return, a decision he later regretted.

Richard Hurndall, Peter Davison, Jon Pertwee and Patrick Troughton

Since the show went off the air in 1989, there was no reason for a 30 anniversary celebration in 1993. However, one still happened. Doctor Who was still popular and in 1993, the annual charity telethon, Children In Need, aired a special mini-series titled Doctor Who: Dimensions in Time. This low budget, non-canon, and absurd crossover with the popular soap opera, EastEnders, saw every living Doctor, 3-7, return. The next anniversary special would come in the form of 2003’s Big Finish, the producer of many audio dramas starring former Doctors, audio drama, Zagreus. This story saw versions of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Doctors team up with the 8th Doctor. Big Finish would go on to release many multi-Doctor stories, including ones for the subsequent 50th and 60th anniversaries. But the next major anniversary special came in the form of the 50th anniversary special “The Day of the Doctor.”

Matt Smith (11th Doctor), David Tennant (10th Doctor) and John Hurt (War Doctor)

Serving as Matt Smith’s penultimate episode as the 11th Doctor, the story sees him team up with the returning David Tennant as the 10th Doctor, and the newly revealed John Hurt as the War Doctor, a secret regeneration between 8 and 9 that was unknown to audiences at the time. Interestingly enough, this was the second multi-Doctor adventure that Steven Moffat would write. Of the three modern Doctor Who showrunners, Steven Moffat has written the most classic style multi-Doctor adventures. His only competition is Chris Chibnall, who wrote one of them. The final episode of Chibnall’s tenure on Doctor Who, “The Power of the Doctor,” saw Jodie Whittaker’s 13th Doctor get some advice from many of the classic Doctors, 1st (David Bradley’s second turn in the role), 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th. Chris Chibnall also wrote an episode that introduced a previously unrevealed Doctor, Jo Martin’s the Fugitive Doctor, but this falls under the same loophole that “The Giggle” falls under. Supposedly Russell T. Davies had an idea for the 50th anniversary, but he left the show before he could put his money where his mouth was.

While Steven Moffat was a staff writer under Russell T. Davies’ first turn as showrunner of Doctor Who, Moffat wrote a special called “Time Crash,” where the 10th Doctor met the 5th Doctor (David Tennant’s real life future father-in-law). When Moffat became showrunner, he wrote two multi-Doctor episodes: The aforementioned “Day of the Doctor” 50th anniversary special, and “Twice Upon A Time,” the final episode of Peter Capaldi’s 12th Doctor in which he teamed up with the 1st Doctor, played by David Bradley (His first time playing the actual 1st Doctor). Steven Moffat is pretty positive on multi-Doctor adventures. Considering he’s made three of them, it’s not hard to believe that either. He’s stated a few times how much he likes the differing personalities clashing with each other, finding it fun to write. A sentiment other showrunners don’t seem to share.

Peter Capaldi (12th Doctor) and David Bradley (First Doctor)

When asked about why a multi-Doctor adventure wasn’t in the cards for the 60th anniversary, former and current showrunner, Russell T. Davies stated that “The Power of the Doctor” was the major reason why. “The Power of the Doctor” and the 60th anniversary are only 11 months apart, and it would have been overwhelming as a creator to do it back to back. This makes perfect sense, even if it ignores sixty years of tradition. Now the 20th anniversary of the show's return in 2005 is just around the corner. With the anniversary of the modern version of the show, Davies could have taken the opportunity to reunite the modern Doctors (and the 8th because I’m a fan) in an exciting new multi-Doctor adventure for this generation of fans. It’s alright though, because Davies has already shut down the talk of a multi-Doctor adventure. Citing the same issue as too many anniversaries in a row saying “no. Sorry. I don’t think that’s wise.”

He’s not the only one to show disinterest in a new multi-Doctor crossover, even though he’s created multiple ways for it to happen since returning. While the classic Doctors, including Paul McGann’s 8th Doctor have expressed enthusiasm to a potential return, most of the modern generations Doctors have outright declined this idea. Since his exit from the show, 9th Doctor actor Christopher Eccleston has been very outspoken about the abuse he received on the show and his disinterest (to put it kindly) in returning. He’s since softened this position and returned to the role through Big Finish audio adventures, including an upcoming season where he’ll return with Billie Piper as Rose Tyler, but he is still very against returning to the show. Steven Moffat reportedly approached him for the role of the War Doctor, who became John Hurt, but he obviously declined. Last year he stated his terms to return to the show by saying "Sack Russell T Davies, sack Jane Tranter, sack Phil Collinson, sack Julie Gardner, and I'll come back.” So he’s out.

Having returned twice to Doctor Who, as the 10th Doctor in “The Day of the Doctor,” and recently as the 14th Doctor, it almost seems inevitable that David Tennant would return for another multi-Doctor adventure. At one point, he was very eager to return, even going so far as to assume he would for the 50th anniversary. But when asked if he would return since the 14th Doctor is living on Earth in the same timeline as the 15th Doctor, Russell T. Davies said that he is “retired” from the role. Even though he, stupidly, opened the door for this return, Davies is now growing frustrated by the ask saying that "I think he died. I’m going to start saying that.” These are not David Tennant’s words but Davies seems uninterested in another appearance by the most popular actor to play the Doctor since Tom Baker. Perhaps he’s regretting the bi-generation (as he should).

Being the youngest actor to ever play the Doctor, Matt Smith has been historically uninterested in returning to Doctor Who. Understandably, he was more interested in building his post-Doctor Who career and not looking back. But recently, he’s changed his tune. Last year he was asked if he was open to returning and he said “never say never.” He’s never closed the door entirely, but this was the most he’s expressed interest in a possible return. It’s gotten long enough now that he misses the show.

Like Christopher Eccleston, the 12th Doctor’s Peter Capaldi is also not interested in returning. But for very different reasons. Capaldi, like David Tennant, was a lifelong Doctor Who fan and considered it a dream come true to become the Doctor. But when asked if he would return, he seems to be happy leaving well enough alone, stating that if he never comes back, then his Doctor is still out there, and that “there comes a time when you have to leave things alone.” He also said in 2021, that he feels “the more multi-Doctor stories you have the less effective they are, really,” and that he wouldn’t “really fancy” returning for one. He has no animosity towards returning, he just doesn’t want to diminish his experience.

Then there’s the unfairly maligned 13th Doctor, played by Jodie Whittaker, the first female actress to play the role of the Doctor. Of the modern Doctors, she’s the only one who has answered with an enthusiastic “yes”. Her enthusiasm for returning, and the fact that she’s already returned to do Big Finish dramas, something that Smith and Capaldi haven’t done yet, almost paints a picture that she didn’t want to leave in the first place. Considering the reception she had during her tenure, it’s heartwarming to see her enthusiasm hasn’t dwindled. Interestingly, she’s got the shortest time between leaving the show and returning for Big Finish audio dramas. However, while she’s incredibly enthusiastic about returning, as stated above, her former selves aren’t. Enough have claimed that they don’t want to return at all. So this paints a rather disappointing picture when considering a multi-Doctor special. But maybe a team up with the 13th and 15th Doctor would be enough.

There’s a lot of hurdles to overcome when creating a multi-Doctor story. Big Finish producers talked about the daunting task of doing them when they were developing the 60th anniversary special Once & Future. Even with the benefit of being able to record voices at different times and locations, it’s hard to not turn the story into pure fan-fiction. The same is true when it comes to the show. There are 12 living Doctors (not counting Jo Martin), and getting them all together would be a daunting task, especially with many of the advanced ages of the classic Doctors. Which is why a 20th anniversary celebrating the modern generation of the show would be an ideal compromise. But it wouldn’t be worth it if they all weren’t interested in returning. Especially if Russell T. Davies doesn’t want to write it.

What’s a little strange, is that Davies has actually written in a few ways to make a multi-Doctor story even easier to write. For the Tales of the TARDIS minisodes on the BBC iPlayer, he had the classic Doctors reunite with their companions to reminisce over the adventures they had. Admittedly, it was just an excuse to write a clip show, but he created an in-universe explanation for why the classic Doctors would look so much older then the last time fans saw them. Then he went on to introduce the idea of a bi-generation, a mythological variant of the regeneration trick that allowed multiple actors to play the Doctor. Sure, this explanation would only benefit David Tennant, but Davies decided that “he died.”

While Doctor Who writers, creators, and actors seem uninterested in multi-Doctor stories, fans are incredibly enthusiastic about them. The reason is very simple: Doctor Who is a very long running science fiction show that spans multiple generations. Each Doctor has a generation of fans who grew up with them and consider them “their Doctor.” A multi-Doctor adventure is tailor made for a show like Doctor Who, and personifies the very nature of why anniversaries are so special. Anniversaries are times for looking back at the journey that brought you to that point in your life. For Doctor Who, it gives fans a chance to look back at the past, reminisce with an old friend (Doctor), and look to new horizons. But it didn’t happen for the 60th, and it won’t happen for the 20th, so it looks like we’ll all have to wait for the 70th, if at all. But it’s not worth asking for it if their heart(s) isn’t in it.

BOOK REVIEW + INTERVIEW / Burn to Shine (A Joe Ledger & RTI Novel) by Jonathan Maberry

Matt and Jenny were joined again by one of Atomic Geekdom’s favorite authors Jonathan Maberry to discuss his March 4th, 2025 release of his 4th book to the Joe Ledger and Rogue Team International series - BURN TO SHINE (14th Ledger novel).

Join the conversation in the comments and on social media.

For a recap of our previous coverage of Cave 13 visit our AG Book Club post of the 3rd in the series: Cave 13.

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

AG_JOHNATHAN_MAYBERRY_BURNTOSHINE_16x9_V01_Audio

Burn To Shine by Jonathan Maberry

Release Date: 03/04/2025

Published by St.Martin’s Press/ Macmillan

By Matt Spaulding

** POTIENTIAL SPOILERS AHEAD FOR JOE LEDGER AND ROGUE TEAM INTERNATIONAL Series **

With the latest installment in the Joe Ledger series, Jonathan Maberry has once again crafted a tense, scary, action-packed tale that, this time, really makes the reader take a hard look at the state of the real world as well.

While new readers to Joe Ledger will be able to read, understand and appreciate this novel, it’s also the one in the series that most rewards people who have been with this series from the beginning, and even readers of Maberry’s other, non-Ledger novels including the Pine Deep trilogy that began Maberry’s career. Even I, a Maberry super fan, didn’t catch all the references to other works. It will be fun to reread this some day and try again to catch every little detail.

Detail is the word with Maberry as a writer, and his attention to everything really pays off in this book. The book is peppered with flashbacks to events that lead up to the main plot, but the flashbacks aren’t in chronological order. Maberry has expertly laid them out in a manner that reveals information that is only important to know right then, as it relates to what our characters are finding out in “real time” in the main plot, or to give the reader a hint at what’s next. This means that something that happened “six months ago” can be revealed before something that happened “two years ago” because it’s more important to “right now.” It’s incredibly smart and clever and really helps keep the mystery alive. Especially to someone like me, a “mark” who is not necessarily trying to figure things out in advance, happy to go where the story takes me as it unfolds.

At the heart of Maberry’s writing, though, are his characters. Nothing that unfolds in any of his books would be tense or exciting or scary without being deeply connected to his characters. And that’s especially true here. The title of the book, Burn to Shine, is a reference to an earlier novel, Code Zero, and relates to one of the most dangerous villains in the series, so I knew right from the jump there was plenty of reason to be worried about my favorite heroes. Not that there isn’t always in these books (Joe Ledger and Co. have been through some horrible things along the way), but knowing the origin of the title of the book added to that feeling of unease. And, through the character work on the villains in this story, Maberry builds that feeling of unease pretty much right to the very end. I honestly found myself, close to the end of the novel, wondering just how on Earth everyone was going to escape the various awful situations they all found themselves in, terrified that someone (or someones) wouldn’t escape.

Conspicuously mostly absent from this novel is Mr. Church, the enigmatic leader of Rogue Team International. Church typically has a prominent role in these books, but he takes somewhat of a backseat. However, right in the last few paragraphs something major happens with Church that will leave anyone who reads it ready for the next book, Red Empire, which Maberry has said is mostly about Church and his origin, to be here now instead of next year.

One other thing this novel does really well is address the all-too-real problems of misinformation, conspiracies and radical militia groups. There were parts of the book I found myself getting uncomfortable just from how real it all was. Though this novel is not explicitly political (none of Maberry’s works are), it does address problems that exist in the real world that affect everyone, regardless of their political leanings, that could, sadly, be construed as political. But, misinformation, something that really drives the plot, is something that can come from anywhere and affect anyone, and is undoubtedly being used in real life to nefarious ends, just like in the book.

Burn To Shine is a novel that will make longtime fans of the Joe Ledger books and the rest of Maberry’s works very happy. But it is also a book that can serve very well as a primer for anyone who may read it without ever having read a Jonathan Maberry novel before, and open doors for them they didn’t know were there.

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?!