MOVIE REVIEW: How To Train Your Dragon (2025)

By Brandon T. McClure

Released in 2010, the original How to Train Your Dragon launched a new and more confident era for Dreamworks Animation. With a new theme park in tow, Universal Studios has now remade the classic adventure of Hiccup and Toothless, this time for a live-action audience. While it feels like Universal has adopted at the end of its life cycle, they are no doubt hoping to cash in on Disney’s trend that has plagued much of the 21st century. Directed by the original’s co-director, Dean Deblois, How To Train Your Dragon, sports the tagline “the legend becomes real” but falls short of the original's greatness. While there is fun to be had, the film can’t get away from the cynical nature of the very style it’s cashing in on.

Once again, audiences are introduced to Hiccup, the scrawniest Viking in Berk. His desire to prove himself leads to him taking down a Night Fury, the most dreaded dragon the Vikings of Berk have ever faced. At this point, you know the story. Hiccup couldn’t kill the Dragon and the two form an unlikely bond that allows Hiccup to learn more about Dragons and change his world for the better. All the while his stubborn father has to be dragged kicking and screaming away from his Ahab-like hatred for Dragons in order to finally see his son. If you’ve seen the animated version, then there’s nothing on a macro scale that’s entirely new. But there’s a lot of tiny changes that both add and subtract to the overall theme of the film.

Much criticism has been lobbied at Disney for making unnecessary changes to their animated films when remaking them into live-action. Truthfully, it’s a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. If you keep the film exactly as it is, then it feels unnecessary, but if you change little things, then it still feels unnecessary. At the same time, with little changes they to try and trick the audience into thinking they’re watching a different version. For example, it’s never explained in the original Beauty and the Beast how the village that Belle lives in could forget about a castle right next door to them. The live-action version explains it by saying it was part of the curse that befell the inhabitants of that castle. No one who watched the original film ever had that question in mind, however, and having it answered doesn’t change the movie for the worse. It just feels like an unnecessary detail that was added for the sake of it. How To Train Your Dragon is no different, but there is one change that does help this live-action film stand-out from its animated counterpart in a positive way. That is the character arc of Astrid. 

Hiccup (Mason Thames) and Astrid (Nico Parker) in How to Train Your Dragon

While the original film sees Astrid as the object of Hiccup’s affection, she doesn’t get much of a character arc in the film. She’s strong and dogmatic in her desire to be the best dragon hunter in Berk, but she serves the story as an extension of Hiccup and only comes into her own in the sequels. Here, director Dean Deblois attempts to give Astrid more motivation and character throughout the story. Since the cast of the new film is far more diverse than the original, Deblois feels the need to explain where all these Vikings came from, in a long monologue from Gerard Butler’s Stoic. In this film, the Vikings came from far and wide to settle in Berk with the hopes of defeating the dragons at the very source of where they came from. This iteration of Astrid, who is from one of these far off viking clans, feels like Hiccup has had everything handed to him as the son of the chief and resents him due to her family not being as privileged as the other Vikings on Berk. However, while it’s great to give Astrid more of a character, following it to its natural conclusion robs Hiccup of the climax of his.

In the original film, HIccup leads the other viking children into battle with The Red Death (the Queen on the island) while riding Stormfly with Astrid. He barks out orders to the other children as Stoic looks up in awe at his son as he finally sees Hiccup as the chief he will one day become. In the live-action version, Hiccups and Astrid's roles in the scene are reversed. While Hiccup and Astrid are still riding Stormfly into the battle, it’s Astrid who is leading the charge. A seemingly small change but does stop Hiccup's character arc in its tracks in favor of Astrids. In some ways it’s refreshing that Dean Deblois committed to following Astrids new character arc to its natural conclusion but it will be a change that will likely be debated in fandom circles for years to come.

Outside of that, much of the film plays out the same way as the original with very little cut out or changed. In fact, many of the actors feel like they’re trying to copy the performances of their animated counterparts and other times they feel like they’re deliberately trying to avoid copying them. This creates an identity crisis for the film in both design and performance. This has the unfortunate issue of making the film far less charming and even less funny than the original. Almost every single joke is left in the script, but the deliveries rob them of their charm. Hiccup is a far more depressing main character then he was in the original. To be fair though, if you took out Jay Baruchel’s charming performance, then the character probably reads just as sad. But there does seem to be a concerted effort to take out the inherent charm of the original Dreamworks classic in order to be taken more seriously as a film. Sadly, it has the opposite effect.

One of the biggest unfortunate side effects of the shift to live-action is that change in cinematographer. One of the reasons why the animated How To Train Your Dragon looks so striking and impressive all these years later is because Roger Deakins consulted on all three films. This was revolutionary for the time because it gave the film a far more cinematic look that truly changed the game. Now for the live-action film, Bill Pope steps into the cinematographer seat. Pope is an incredibly prolific cinematographer who has worked on films such as The Matrix, Chang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, and Baby Driver, but he’s not Roger Deakins. Without Deakins' eye, the film feels flat and lifeless as all the color has been stripped from Berk.

The cast is a mixed bag. Nico Parker and Gerard Butler are the strongest in the cast by miles. Parker is wonderful as Astrid and perfectly captures America Ferrera’s performance while merging the new aspects of the character introduced in this film. Butler, the only returning cast member from the animated film, is a veteran of this story so it should be no surprise at how well he’s able to bring Stoic from animation to live-action. He hits most of the same beats, this time without much of the humor, and still manages to capture what the animators were able to bring to his vocal performance. Mason Thames as Hiccup often feels miscast but still plays a decent enough Hiccup that proves he’ll likely be better in the sequel. The rest of the main cast is fine. They get similar moments to their animated counterparts, and Snotlout gets a new subplot that’s, frankly useless. Finally, Nick Frost is the weakest link in the cast. His Gobber, originally played by Craig Ferguson is a boring and pale imitation of Stoic’s loveable friend and sidekick.

Ruffnut (Bronwyn James), Tuffnut (Harry Trevaldwyn), Snotlout (Gabriel Howell), and Fishlegs (Julian Dennison) in How to Train Your Dragon

John Powell, who scored the original trilogy, returns to score the live-action film. The animated score can be argued as one of the best film soundtracks ever composed, and now that Powell has a bigger budget, he’s able to make an even grander version of the original. It frankly makes the entire film worth it. All the themes are present and in the exact same places but bigger and more grand this time around. Powell even sneaks in a track from How To Train Your Dragon 2 that eagle eared listeners will delight in. The only mark against it is that he makes a truly baffling change to the iconic “Test Drive” that will leave many fans scratching their heads. 

Speaking of scratching their heads, fans will likely forget about this scene until the very end, but a (once again baffling) change to the story happens after the test drive scene. See, in the original, Hiccup learns much about the true nature of dragons, such as their weaknesses through his relationship with Toothless. The final thing he learns is that dragons aren’t fireproof on the inside of their bodies, through a cute little encounter with a couple of Terrible Terrors. This scene leads to Hiccup being able to defeat the Red Death by igniting a fire inside her that forces her to crash and explode. This scene is removed from the film but the way that Hiccup defeats the Red Death is not changed. It may seem like a small change on paper but audiences will be left wondering how Hiccup knew that would work in this new version of the story. This highlights one of the issues with these live-action remakes. While a change could seem small in the moment, it has the potential to dramatically change the outcome of the film and if you don’t follow that change to a new conclusion, but rather force the story to reach the same conclusion, then you end up hurting the film rather than helping it.

A more apt analogy of this idea would be if you were remaking a murder mystery. The audience already knows the outcome of the story so you decide to change all the clues so they point to a different murderer. The only problem is that the reveal in the original is so good and fans will be expecting to see that moment play out again, so at the last moment you reveal the murder to be the same person it was in the original. Except this time, it doesn’t make any sense because you robbed the audience of all the set up that was necessary for everything to pay off and didn’t follow the new clues set up to their natural conclusion. This is a much grander example than a bunch of animated films being made into live-action, but it gets the point across. 

If you’re a longtime fan of the How To Train Your Dragon franchise, then you’ll delight in seeing the same scenes play out in live-action. As remakes go, it could have gone way worse. It’s honestly one of the better attempts at this trend and the financial success of the film means that Universal Studios will likely be looking at Dreamworks' library to see what else they can try and remake. But you’ll never be able to shake off the idea that it feels unnecessary. While director Dean Deblois clearly has immense love for the story he helped bring to life 15 years ago, even he can’t wipe away the stench of a cash grab. He referred to this film as a “second draft” and if it is, then it’s an unnecessary one. The original is a classic that will be remembered for decades, and this will simply be a footnote in its memory.

MOVIE REVIEW & INTERVIEW / Netflix HAVOC with Luis Guzmán

After a drug deal gone wrong, a bruised detective must fight his way through a criminal underworld to rescue a politician's estranged son, while unravelling a deep web of corruption and conspiracy that ensnares his entire city. 

Join Jenny as she reviews Netflix’s new release HAVOC and sits down to chat with the one-and-only Luis Guzmán about his role in the film.

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

By Jenny Robinson

HAVOC premiered on Netflix April 25th, 2025. I made myself a cocktail, sat down and got ready for a fun shoot’em up flick. Less than five minutes in I was yelling at the television “WHAT THE ABSOLUTE F! JUST HAPPENED?!?” It holds nothing back in the intro and proves to be one of the most exciting chase scenes I’ve seen in years. 10 minutes in, I had already lost count of how many bullets were shot and cars destroyed.
It’s fast and A LOT!

Written and directed by Gareth Evans, the tone and grittiness of the film leans into his talent and world building for chaos and (of course) havoc. His portfolio for action and interesting crime (Gangs of London and The Raid to name a few) helps bring this world to life. Each character balances a fine line between unscrupulousness and agreeableness. You find yourself liking some of the not-so-good guys and then really despising the ones that fall over that line. Walker (Tom Hardy) is a prime example of the first one. You shouldn’t like him, yet you still cheer for him every moment as the story is unfolding. He’s paired perfectly with Vincent (Timothy Olyphant) who also exudes confidence, whether justified or not.

Timothy Olyphant in HAVOC

Supporting cast secures this film as a perfect movie night. Forest Whitaker’s Beumount is a complex crooked politician, criminal and father. His son Charlie (Justin Cornwell) and this girlfriend Mia (Quelin Sepulveda) bite off more than they can chew. And Mia’s uncle Raul (Luis Guzmán) round out the team of those not-so-good guys that you find yourself relating to and routing for.

The gangs in this movie have endless bullets but also complexity. Lead by a grieving mother (Yann Yann Yeo), justice blurs the line with vengeance and compliments Whitaker’s. And Michelle Waterson plays an absolute badass assassin that every fight scene had me on the edge of my seat.

Luis Guzmán in HAVOC

This movie is non-stop. In addition to the opening chase scene, we see a guy folded through a door, an epic butcher knife fight, interesting use of a spear gun, battles on 2nd story glass floors and so much more. Seriously - someone please do a bullet/body count. I am guessing 20K bullets and at least 120 deaths, and that’s a conservative count. But despite that, it didn’t feel gratuitous, it felt more like a crazy dance.

Michelle Waterson in HAVOC

Corrupt cops and family love stories. Foreign gangs and redemption. Survival and surrender.

The perfect recipe for an awesome movie night.

I would like to thank Luis Guzmán for taking time out of his schedule to chat with us. Stellar actor and guest. We’re excited to help promote his (and his son Cemi Guzmán’s) Tribeca 2025 Festival short “A West Side Story Story” about a Puerto Rican director who struggles to hold together her “cultural authentic” version of West Side Story. (Premiers June 8th, 2025).

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

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

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

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

By Jenny Robinson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOVIE REVIEW/ "Novocaine"

By Anthony Caruso

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOVIE REVIEW/ "Mickey 17"

By Anthony Caruso

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

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

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

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

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

MOVIE REVIEW/ "Riff Raff"

By Anthony Caruso

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

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

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

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

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

MOVIE REVIEW/ "Captain America: Brave New World"

By Anthony Caruso

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Brandon T. McClure

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

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

The cast of Star Trek: Section 31

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

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

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

Michelle Yeoh as Philippa Georgiou

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

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

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

Kacey Rohl as Lt. Rachel Garrett

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 31 as portrayed in Star Trek: Discovery season two

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

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

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

Michelle Yeoh and Omari Hardwick

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

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

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

Movie Review/ "The Monkey"

By Anthony Caruso

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

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

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

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

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

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

Movie Review/ "Love Me"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Movie Review/ "The Brutalist"

By Anthony Caruso

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

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

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

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

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

Movie Review/ "You're Cordially Invited"

By Anthony Caruso

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

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

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

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

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

Movie Review/ "Companion"

By Anthony Caruso

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Movie Review/ "Dog Man"

By Anthony Caruso

"Part Dog. Part Man. All Hero."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Movie Review/ "Presence"

By Anthony Caruso

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Movie Review/ "Wolf Man"

By Anthony Caruso

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Movie Review/ "Flight Risk"

By Anthony Caruso

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Movie Review/ "Hot Frosty"

By Anthony Caruso

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

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

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

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

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

Movie Review/ "Wicked"

By Anthony Caruso

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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