Movie Review/ "Christmas Eve in Miller's Point"

By Anthony Caruso

Tyler Taormina’s Christmas Eve in Miller’s Point is a masterfully crafted, atmospheric homage to holiday gatherings that thrives not on a central plot, but on the intricacies of familial connections. Unlike other films that weave clear story arcs or focus on a protagonist’s journey, Christmas Eve in Miller’s Point is more akin to a collection of living memories, much like Robert Zemeckis' Here from earlier this month. Yet where Here spans decades, Christmas Eve in Miller’s Point anchors itself firmly within one emotionally-charged night—the titular Christmas Eve—and lets the essence of the Balsono family spill across the screen in a vivid, nostalgic tableau.

The film is, at its heart, a series of vignettes capturing moments that resonate deeply with anyone who has experienced the organized chaos of large family gatherings. Set in the early aughts, Taormina’s vision is both specific and universal. Viewers familiar with traditional Italian-American celebrations will recognize every detail: the boisterous conversations that fill a room like a second layer of wallpaper; the glint of mismatched tchotchkes that have seen decades of holidays; the overflow of homemade food that insists love is best expressed through taste; the Christmas lights shining off the snow; etc. This evocative nostalgia can strike viewers in different ways. For some, it is a portal to cherished memories; for others, like myself, it’s a bittersweet reminder of how traditions shift or fade as families spread out, or as members pass on. Watching this movie felt like looking through a frosted window at my own childhood, marked by joyous chaos and laughter—tinged now with the wistful realization that those moments are no longer my present.

One of the film’s most striking elements is its refusal to follow a traditional plot structure. There are numerous threads within the sprawling Balsono family and beyond: the aging matriarch, whose grown children face the painful decision of possibly moving her into assisted living; Kathleen’s strained relationship with her teenage daughter as she reflects on her own mother’s distance; two police officers patrolling a sleepy town, grappling with unspoken romantic tension; an interracial couple navigating subtle familial dynamics; an uncle who channels his creativity through endless cooking; another who dreams of being a writer; teenagers itching to slip away to their friends' gatherings, seeking independence in a night bound by tradition. These narratives unfold like the disparate notes of a holiday song, harmonious but never converging into a single refrain. 

For some viewers, the lack of resolution to any of the above mentioned plot points might be a sticking point. This isn’t a film where everything wraps up neatly by dawn, nor does it try to force epiphanies or holiday miracles. The struggles depicted—whether domestic, generational, or personal—linger without resolution when the credits role, leaving audiences to ponder what will happen when Christmas morning breaks. For me, this worked seamlessly, underlining the fact that real life doesn’t pause for perfectly timed solutions.

Taormina’s directorial finesse is on full display here, blending warmth and an authentic sense of intimacy with just the right amount of melancholy. Co-writing with Eric Berger, Taormina’s dialogue feels lived-in and familiar, effortlessly pulling viewers into rooms that burst with life or settle into quiet, contemplative moments. Every detail—from the shimmering glow of mismatched Christmas lights to the distant carolers outside—immerses the audience in the ambiance of a holiday night that teeters between celebration and reflection. The film’s aesthetics, meanwhile, lean on a cozy, nostalgic palette that amplifies the sense of being cradled within a snow globe. The cinematography captures close-ups that give viewers the sense of being seated at the table, laughing along with the Balsonos or taking a deep breath to soak in the palpable tension of unresolved family disputes.

My biggest complaint about the film? It feels cleaved into two distinct halves: the family-centric narrative and the subplot involving teenagers sneaking out to meet their friends. While the family scenes are rich with emotional depth and familiarity, resonating more powerfully with audiences who appreciate the nuanced dynamics of multi-generational gatherings, the teenage storyline, while not bad, lacks the same level of engagement. This disparity in tone can make parts of the film feel uneven. Additionally, the film ends rather abruptly - even when you consider the fact this is a movie without a real plot - which didn't quite sit well with me. These complaints are the only things stopping me from giving it five stars out of five, though I realize I'm still grading it way higher than most people probably would. What can I say though? Nostalgia is a powerful tool, and this movie brought back a rush of wonderful childhood memories and feelings for me.

In the end, I know that Christmas Eve in Miller’s Point is not a film for everyone. Those who come in looking for a traditional Christmas tale with clear-cut lessons or storylines may leave unsatisfied. But for those willing to be swept up by a patchwork of memories, grounded in details and steeped in sentiment, this movie is a poignant, comforting piece. It serves as a reminder of the fleeting nature of togetherness and how, even in unresolved moments, there’s beauty in simply being with family, however imperfect they may be. This film may leave you smiling or in a state of melancholic wistfulness —embracing the complexity of Christmas past and present, where love, loss, and laughter weave an unending thread through the years - or, if you're like me, it may leave you feeling both. While I know it won't get as much annual play as classics like Home Alone and Christmas Vacation, this is one I definitely see myself revisiting quite often in the future. While I won't recommend rushing to theaters to see it, I do urge you all to give it a chance when it hits streaming - especially if you're an Italian-American who grew up in New York, like myself, and miss the Christmases of yesteryear. I know, I for one, can't wait to watch it again.

Movie Review/ "The Best Christmas Pageant Ever"

By Anthony Caruso

The Best Christmas Pageant Ever is an adaptation that brings Barbara Robinson’s beloved book to the screen with warmth and good intentions. It’s a sweet, family-friendly film that delivers plenty of holiday spirit, though at times it leans too heavily into its religious themes, making its message feel force-fed rather than naturally conveyed.

At its core, The Best Christmas Pageant Ever is a tale about community, redemption, and the true meaning of Christmas, centered around the unruly and chaotic Herdman children. The story unfolds as they unexpectedly take over the local church’s Christmas pageant, upending traditions and challenging the town’s preconceived notions. The film strikes a wonderful balance of humor and heart that manages to evoke genuine emotion and which, having never read the original story, I can only assume is what made it a classic. The movie shines in its moments of levity and chaos, showcasing how the Herdmans’ unpredictable antics push the townspeople to confront their biases and embrace the essence of compassion and understanding. There’s a lot of charm in watching how the worst kids in town manage to change the people around them, transforming the titular Christmas pageant into something surprisingly moving.

The cast delivers solid performances that bring the story to life. The young actors playing the Herdmans manage to strike a balance between wild mischief and underlying vulnerability, making their characters more endearing than just disruptive. The adult cast, meanwhile - particularly Judy Greer's Grace Bradley, who is tasked with directing the pageant - adds warmth and relatability, embodying the frazzled yet well-meaning spirit of people trying to hold it all together during the holidays.That said, while all of the performances are heartfelt, the film’s predictability limits its emotional impact. The characters’ arcs unfold as expected, offering few surprises to seasoned cinephiles. The narrative leans on well-trodden holiday tropes, which, while comforting, make the film feel more like an echo of other Christmas movies rather than something truly unique.

One of the most noticeable aspects of The Best Christmas Pageant Ever is its approach to the religious themes embedded in the story. While the original book is centered around the nativity story and its significance, the film adaptation takes an extremely overt approach in delivering these messages. For all I know, this may resonate as a faithful depiction of the source material’s intentions, but for me, it came across as somewhat preachy. The film could have benefited from a more subtle hand in addressing its spiritual themes, allowing the message to unfold organically rather than hammering it home. This might have helped widen its appeal to audiences who prefer a more balanced approach to holiday storytelling, because in terms of appeal - given the box office tracking - it appears as though this film has none when it comes to the general public.

Despite these drawbacks, the film excels at creating a cozy holiday atmosphere. From the small-town settings to the heartwarming final act, it’s clear that the filmmakers aimed to deliver a feel-good experience that families could enjoy together. The moments leading up to and during the climactic pageant are especially effective, showcasing how chaos and imperfections can give way to unexpected beauty and meaning. Indeed, the entire movie is an earnest reminder that the spirit of Christmas is about community, empathy, and embracing those who may be different from us.

In the end, The Best Christmas Pageant Ever reinforces the notion that sometimes the best holiday stories are the ones that remind us to find joy and compassion in the most unexpected places. It's one that I'll definitely revisit during future holiday seasons.

Movie Review/ "Venom: The Last Dance"

By Anthony Caruso

Venom: The Last Dance is a film that, for better or worse, perfectly encapsulates the spirit of the Venom series: it’s chaotic, messy, full of CGI battles, ridiculously over-the-top, and filled with some awful humor that misses more than it hits. If you've enjoyed the previous two Venom films, you’ll find more of the same here. But if you were hoping for a leap in quality or a redefined tone, prepare for disappointment. Like the first two installments, this third outing feels like a time capsule in many ways. It's very reminiscent of the type of superhero films that dominated the late nineties and early aughts. It's a CGI-fueled spectacle that's flashy but feels dated and has an incoherent plot that's held together mostly by Eddie Brock and Venom's dynamic, which has certainly been the heart of this trilogy.

There’s no question that The Last Dance doubles down on the franchise’s formula. The plot is convoluted if one can piece it together amid all the explosions and monster fights. The film continues Eddie’s journey with the symbiote, Venom, as they face new threats while the inevitability of a looming confrontation with Knull, the symbiote god teased as a universe-ending big bad, lurks ominously in the background. While this setup has potential, it’s sadly bogged down by a lackluster script that prioritizes action over coherence. The result is an entertaining but bewildering final chapter that doesn’t quite know what to do with the cosmic mythology it introduces.

Visually, the movie suffers from over reliance on CGI that, while certainly expensive, lacks polish. The action scenes are chaotic and occasionally thrilling, but the CGI-heavy battles often feel weightless. It’s as though the filmmakers focused on amping up the spectacle without considering the stakes or emotional impact. Knull’s appearance, teased as the “ultimate villain,” is ultimately underwhelming, coming across more as a bland, computer-generated antagonist than the terrifying presence needed to set up future movies. 

The film’s saving grace, once again, is the undeniable chemistry between Tom Hardy's Eddie Brock and his symbiotic alter ego, Venom. Their bickering, bizarre partnership has been the franchise’s signature, and here, it reaches its emotional zenith as the two embark on what is essentially a road trip. There’s an attempt to bring a sense of closure to their story, and while it’s not as effective as it could have been with a stronger trilogy, there’s genuine emotion in their farewell. By the time the credits roll, fans who've followed their relationship from the beginning may find themselves unexpectedly moved. Hardy’s dedication to both the characters of Eddie and Venom has been commendable. He somehow grounds the absurdity with sincerity, making it easier to invest in the story even as it spirals out of control. 

Perhaps the most curious aspect of The Last Dance is its setup for a future crossover within Sony’s Universe of Marvel Characters. With characters like Madame Web, Morbius, and Kraven now floating around Sony’s playground, it seems inevitable they’re building toward some type of team-up event. While logic suggests this will be a mess of epic proportions, it’s hard not to feel a tinge of excitement at the prospect of watching these antiheroes unite to face a common foe. (I mean come on; they're building up Knull as a universe-ending threat for that exact reason, right?) Whether this crossover would be good is another question entirely (though let's face it, it likely wouldn’t be), but there’s undeniable potential for a “so bad it’s good” type of movie, especially if Sony embraces the campy charm that has permeated the "Venom" series.

Ultimately, Venom: The Last Dance won’t change anyone’s mind about the franchise. It’s a far cry from the polished early days of Disney's successful Marvel Cinematic Universe, but it has a certain charm and guilty-pleasure appeal that’s difficult to dismiss entirely. The movie is flawed, to be sure, but it’s still an entertaining romp through Eddie and Venom’s bizarre world. If you’re a fan of the first two Venom films, you’ll likely find something to enjoy here. And while it may not be the best superhero movie of the year, it’s a fun watch for those who’ve grown attached to this unlikely duo. Plus, it's nowhere near as bad as the outings for Madame Web and The Crow have been; and I still enjoyed it more than Deadpool & Wolverine, which was nothing but fan service and didn't even attempt to have a story outside of its multiversal cameos. This is a film I’ll revisit on streaming now and then—not because it’s a cinematic masterpiece, but because it has its own unique brand of chaotic fun.

Movie Review/ "Your Monster"

By Anthony Caruso

Your Monster is the kind of indie gem that quietly sneaks up on you. The trailers may not have sold the film’s unique charm well, but this modern-day twist on "Beauty and the Beast" is much more than meets the eye. With strong performances from its leads, a quirky yet heartfelt story, and a clear message about embracing one’s inner strength, Your Monster emerges as one of the most pleasant surprises of the year. It’s a charming, offbeat, and emotionally resonant film that’s destined to gain a cult following as time goes on.

At its core, Your Monster is a story about self-acceptance, rage, and standing up for oneself, cleverly wrapped in the framework of a dark fantasy-romance. While it draws clear inspiration from "Beauty and the Beast", it’s not a simple rehash. Instead, the film uses the fantastical elements to explore themes of inner turmoil, personal growth, and the complexities of human relationships in a fresh and contemporary way.

The premise follows Melissa Barrera’s character, a young woman struggling to assert herself in both her personal and professional life. Enter Tommy Dewey as the titular “Monster,” a mysterious and brooding figure who may appear grotesque on the outside but is charming and empathetic beneath his monstrous exterior. What follows is a story not only about their unusual bond but also about how Barrera’s character finds the strength to face her inner demons and external obstacles, using the monster (which is literally just named Monster) as both a literal and figurative manifestation of the rage she’s been holding back.

Melissa Barrera is the heart of this film. Her portrayal is nuanced, delivering a character who is relatable, vulnerable, and strong. Throughout the film, she navigates her character’s emotional journey with grace and intensity, making you root for her every step of the way. Barrera has already proven herself as a talented actress, but "Your Monster" shows her at her absolute best - and funniest! She handles both the grounded, human moments and the more fantastical elements with equal ease. It's Tommy Dewey who is the film’s biggest surprise, however. Known for his comedic work in shows like Casual, Dewey channels his sense of comedic timing into his character as he physically transforms into a whole new type of character. Under heavy monster makeup, he manages to bring incredible warmth, wit, and depth to the role. His character could have easily been a one-dimensional "Beast" archetype, but Dewey gives the monster an endearing quality that makes the audience care deeply about him. His chemistry with Barrera is also fantastic, making their unusual relationship both believable and compelling.

One of the film’s strongest elements is how it uses the fantasy genre to explore real-world issues. Your Monster isn’t just a love story, but a tale about embracing the darker sides of yourself and using them as a source of power. The monster, in many ways, is a metaphor for the inner rage Barrera’s character has repressed, and by confronting it, she can take control of her life. The film deals with themes of self-worth, personal agency, and resilience, all while remaining entertaining and visually striking.

While the film’s low-budget indie roots are apparent, that’s part of its charm. The production design gives the film a gothic, fairy-tale atmosphere that feels both whimsical and eerie, while the New York City setting makes it feel particularly modern and contemporary. The monster makeup and practical effects are impressive, adding to the film’s fairy tale aesthetic without ever feeling overly polished or having to rely on CGI. This lends the movie a raw, grounded quality that enhances its emotional impact.

Your Monster may not have had a huge marketing push or the mainstream appeal of a major tentpole feature, but it’s precisely this underdog status that will likely endear it to a dedicated audience. It has all the hallmarks of a film destined to become a cult classic. The film’s humor, heart, and offbeat charm, combined with the stellar performances from its cast, make it stand out in an otherwise crowded movie landscape. This one is truly a must-watch for anyone seeking something a little different, and it’s sure to earn a much wider audience and the acclaim it deserves when it eventually hits streaming.

Movie Review/ "Rumours"

By Anthony Caruso

Rumours is one of those films that leaves you bewildered, yet strangely entertained, unsure whether you're laughing at the absurdity of it all or marveling at the audacity of its premise. It’s a weird movie, but it’s also an immensely enjoyable one. Directed with sharp wit and biting satire, Rumours is a wonderfully twisted commentary on global leadership, illustrating how, at the end of the day, the G7 world leaders are just as cliquey, immature, and childlike as the rest of us.

The atmosphere of Rumours is chaotic and electric, striking a balance between farce and tension. The film is set in a world on the brink of collapse—natural disasters, economic meltdowns, global unrest—and yet the focus remains on the petty squabbles, ridiculous antics, and interpersonal, dramatic relationships of the world’s most powerful leaders. There’s a constant sense of impending doom, but it’s undercut by the bizarre and humorous behavior of the G7, who seem more concerned with impressing one another than with saving the world. This juxtaposition creates an eerie, almost surreal atmosphere where the stakes are simultaneously high and laughably low. The apocalypse looms large, but it often feels like an afterthought to the childish games of our cast of leaders. The world is burning, but they're engaging in their own high school drama masquerading as global politics.

The ensemble cast is fantastic, with each actor bringing a distinct energy to their portrayal of a global leader. The performances here are what make the film as enjoyable as it is, with the actors fully leaning into the absurdity of their characters while also delivering moments of surprising emotional depth. Charles Dance plays the surprisingly underutilized aging President of the United States with a hilarious English accent for some reason, which is called out but never explained, while Cate Blanchett plays the aloof and horny Chancellor of Germany. Roy Dupuis' scandal-ridden Prime Minister of Canada has the most heroic and largest role of the bunch, while Rolando Ravello's Prime Minister of Italy is the surprisingly gentle soul and heart of the film - as well as the biggest source of comic relief. Nikki Amuka-Bird's Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the "straight man" character of the movie and is the role with the most gravitas, but even she's fun in her own right - as are Denis Ménochet's President of France and Takehiro Hira's Prime Minister of Japan. There's not a weak link amongst the bunch, and their chemistry is out of this world - sufficiently real and awkward. It's truly a hilarious pleasure watching them try to navigate a dangerous landscape with only one another, sans any security or staff. 

The screenplay by Gavin Maddin, Evan Johnson, and Galen Johnson - the same trio that directed the movie as well - is sharp, witty, and at times, downright ridiculous, but all in the best possible way. The dialogue crackles with tension, humor, and clever political commentary. The political satire is biting but nuanced, poking fun at the pomp and circumstance of global diplomacy while also making a poignant statement about the dangers of ego, narcissism, and incompetence in positions of power. There's also something to be said about the fact that no matter how ridiculous our world leaders are, people still turn to them for reassurance during times of crisis.

Our trio of directors does a phenomenal job in steering this wild, satirical ship. It’s a difficult task to balance apocalyptic stakes with over-the-top comedy, but they manage it with precision - downplaying the apocalyptic side of things, and merely giving us hints as to what's happening, which makes the movie stronger. The pacing is brisk, and the film never lingers too long on any one moment, keeping the energy high and the tension palpable. The direction enhances the farcical nature of the story, allowing it to slip into complete absurdity at points which is a wonderful dig at the state of world politics nowadays.

Visually, Rumours is striking. The cinematography is stylish, yet less than polished. There’s an almost dreamlike quality to some of the shots, particularly during the scenes where the film’s apocalyptic undertones creep to the surface. The camera work amplifies the relationships between the leaders, using tight close-ups and rapid cuts to heighten their sense of paranoia as the danger they're in begins to mount. The cinematography allows the absurdity to shine through, with playful framing and exaggerated angles that underscore the childishness of these leaders of the free world. It’s a visually engaging film that feels both stylish and purposeful, adding to the overall surreal tone of the story.

In the end, Rumours will definitely not be a film for everyone—its bizarre tone and offbeat humor may leave some viewers scratching their heads, as it did my friend who I saw this with tonight—but for those who appreciate a biting political satire with a large dose of sometimes nonsensical absurdity, Rumours is a must-watch. It’s a reminder that, at the end of the day, even world leaders are just as petty and childish as the rest of us—just with a bit more power at their fingertips.

Movie Review/ "Apartment 7A"

By Anthony Caruso

Apartment 7A is a psychological thriller that, while intriguing, ultimately struggles to blend its horror elements effectively. Indeed, for a prequel to one of the most iconic horror films of all time, the lack of horror present in this film is both surprising and disappointing. Don't get me wrong - the film offers a decent viewing experience, but it falls short of creating the kind of suspense and dread one might expect, particularly for fans of Rosemary’s Baby. And despite its ambitious goals, it often feels more like a made-for-TV film than the atmospheric horror movie it strives to be.

The acting is undoubtedly the highlight of "Apartment 7A". Dianne Wiest and Kevin McNally as the neighbors from Hell, the Castevets, deliver strong, unnerving performances that are sufficiently eerie. However, it’s Julia Garner as our protagonist, Terry Gionoffrio, who is the real standout of the movie. She turns in a terrifically nuanced and sympathetic performance, and her portrayal of a character under psychological duress who is being gaslit and manipulated is truly compelling. She adds a real sense of gravitas to the film, which is what the story desperately needs but, sadly, is lacking for the most part. The supporting cast also does a fine job of what's required of them, even during moments when the movie falters. That said, none of them are unable to elevate this movie to a level of quality above "fine".

Visually, the film has moments of excellence. The cinematography is slick and often atmospheric, even if it often looks cheap. Arnau Valls Colomer can build uneasy tension via simple camera tricks, as he lingers just a little too long on mundane objects, and moves just slowly enough to keep you on edge. However, despite these all-too-quick flashes of brilliance, the film fails to capitalize on its more unsettling imagery and atmosphere. The pacing issues, particularly in the first half, work against any tension being built, and by the time the supernatural elements come into play, it feels like too little, too late.

While intriguing, the story lacks the punch one might expect from a psychological horror film. The narrative is slow to start, and when it finally kicks into gear, it shifts focus between the psychological drama and the supernatural horror without fully committing to either. The demonic pregnancy plot, which is meant to be the film’s horror centerpiece, feels underwhelming and is one of its weaker points. It lacks the terror and atmosphere needed to make a lasting impact. Oddly enough, the most memorable parts of the film are the musical theater scenes. These moments, filled with energy and creativity, almost seem to belong to a different movie. They bring an unexpected charm that contrasts starkly with the darker elements. However, they also contribute to the film's tonal inconsistency, as it never quite decides whether it wants to be a tense horror film or something lighter and more surreal.

Where Apartment 7A does shine is in its connection to Rosemary’s Baby. The film’s ending ties directly into the original in a way that will please fans of the 1968 classic, offering clever nods and references throughout. But while these Easter eggs are fun for diehard fans, they aren’t enough to elevate the film to the greatness it seems to be striving for.

Prequels are always a challenge, and while Apartment 7A has its moments of intrigue, it falls short of living up to its potential. It’s an entertaining enough film, but it lacks the scares, focus, and tension to stand on its own apart from Roman Polanski's "Rosemary's Baby". Will I watch it again? Perhaps one day. But more than anything, it left me wanting to revisit Polanski’s most iconic film starring Mia Farrow.

Movie Review/ Beetlejuice Beetlejuice

By Anthony Caruso

"The juice is loose!"

Given how successful the original "Beetlejuice" was, how much of a following it's garnered over the past three decades, and what a Halloween staple the film and the titular character have become, it's incredible to me that it's taken thirty-six years for a sequel to be made! But, we live in incredible times. Now here we are in the year 2024 and Tim Burton, Michael Keaton, Winona Ryder, and Catherine O'Hara have finally all returned for the first official follow-up to the beloved 1988 film. As an enormous fan of the original, my expectations for this movie couldn't have been higher, and I'm extraordinarily happy to report that not only were they met, they were exceeded. "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice" was absolutely worth the wait! It's not only a worthy successor to the original film, but it's an amazingly fun film in its own right!

Let me get my one nitpick with this movie out of the way first: it is a busy movie. There is a lot going on here. There are so many subplots that it feels simultaneously overstuffed and undercooked. Given its under two-hour runtime, it's to be expected that not every subplot would feel properly serviced or needed. Indeed, given how fast this film flew by, I wish it had been longer so that every thread introduced here was given the attention it deserved. That said, all of these seemingly disparate threads coalesce beautifully into such a wonderful third-act finale that’s exciting, side-splittingly funny, and incredibly zany that I imagine many, like myself, will walk out of the film extremely forgiving of how stuffed it is.

It's clear that Tim Burton loved making this movie. It's the most Burton movie we've received from the unique filmmaker in years, and his dark humor and morbid sensibilities are on full display here, as is his abundance of creativity. Part of what makes this movie so great, and what makes it feel like such a natural follow-up to the original, is that the majority of effects, sets (which look as though they've been painstakingly recreated), and costumes are done practically when possible. This feels like a movie ripped right out of the eighties, and it's all the better for it! Burton also stayed true to the original film in terms of crafting this story. Picking up in real-time, every original character is exactly where you would expect them to be nearly forty years later. Even Adam and Barbara Maitland, who were so essential to the original movie but are missing here, are referenced and we're given an explanation as to what happened to the lovable ghosts. And, despite Jeffrey Jones not as Charles Deetz due to the actor's personal legal issues, the character is still essential to the plot, and his presence is felt throughout. Of course, the fact that Danny Elfman returns to score the film helps make it feel like a natural extension of the first movie as well. In fact, the man does something I didn't think possible, he makes the iconic "Beetlejuice" theme somehow more epic! The whole score, and the accompanying soundtrack, is a banger though, and it's one I'll be listening to on repeat for a while. The movie does for Richard Harris' "MacArthur Park" what "Beetlejuice" did for Harry Belafonte's "Banana Boat (Day-O)" in one of its best sequences!

Michael Keaton once again dons the black-and-white pinstriped suit as Betelgeuse, the lecherous demon, and he slips right back into the role without missing a beat. He's as disgusting, slick, and fast-talking as ever, and he has even more tricks up his sleeves this time. While some may say it's Batman, I have always argued that Betelgeuse is Keaton's definitive role, and this movie goes a long way to proving my point. The man was born to play the trickster demon, whose backstory we delve into here. And that story is appropriately gruesome. Going into the movie, I was afraid that Burton was going to make the demon more of an antihero this time around, but that's not the case. He's still, without a doubt, a bad guy, even if he can be manipulated into helping the cause of good. That goes a long way toward keeping him so fun and exciting to watch. In addition, Burton shows an incredible amount of self-restraint with the character. Given his enduring popularity, it would have been easy to have him in every scene of this film. But he's used as sparingly here as in the original, which makes him more effective whenever he does pop up. Like "Beetlejuice", "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice" left me wanting more of the demon himself, which is the biggest compliment I can give the film.

Keaton's not the only returning cast member though! Winona Ryder is back as Lydia Deetz, who is still living with ample amounts of trauma following her encounter with Betelgeuse as a teenager. She's channeled that trauma into hosting a hit paranormal talk show, while also becoming a highly over-protective parent. Ryder is fantastic, and she gets far more to do with Keaton this time around. Suffice it to say, their repartee is easily the best part of the movie. It's Catherine O'Hara's Delia Deetz who very nearly steals the show though. O'Hara is a comedic treasure, and she absolutely chews the scenery throughout the film’s brisk runtime. It's wonderful we get so much of her this time around, including in the bureaucratic afterlife! I felt it impossible to tear my eyes from her whenever she was on screen, even when she was sharing it with Keaton's over-the-top demon. In the intervening years since the original movie, Delia has made a fortune via her weird, modernist art, and it's only made her more insufferable, which is a boon for audiences watching the movie! I will say, the relationship between Delia and Lydia is one of the most unexpected aspects of this film, and also one of the most heartwarming; the two have come a long way with their relationship since 1988!

The returning cast is joined by Jenna Ortega, who is perfectly cast as Lydia's daughter, Astrid. Justin Theroux plays Lydia's entertainment manager and love interest, Rory, who is just as slimy (in his own way) as the demon that's stalking her. And Willem Dafoe plays the dead B-List actor who’s become a detective in the afterlife, Wolf Jackson. Dafoe's character in particular is so damn fun, and feels inspired by the beloved Beetlejuice cartoon in particular. So does the final new character, Monica Bellucci's soul-sucking witch, Delores, who in life was Betelgeuse's wife. Bellucci has such a presence here! She’s gorgeous with her pale skin, black dress, and stapled body parts, which pull themselves together in a wonderful sequence set to The Bee Gees' "Tragedy", while her powers are demonstrated in a truly intimidating way. Unfortunately, it's her character who gets the short end of the stick in the movie. Indeed, her character and entire subplot could have been lifted out of here completely and the movie would barely have changed. I do wonder whether Burton should have done that and saved her to be the main focus of a potential third movie. Nevertheless, she's memorable with the little she is given to do here. And though he gets no dialogue, and I'm unsure of who plays him, I must shout out the character of Bob, one of Betelgeuse's shrunken-head employees who is sure to become a fan-favorite given his oddly adorable, silent demeanor, and his bigger-than-expected supporting role.

Is "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice" as perfect as the iconic original? No, but it nearly is. I would rank it a smidge beneath that film, but only just. Regardless, I cannot wait to watch the two back-to-back for many years to come in what's sure to be a wonderfully fun double-feature. "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice" is not just a legacy sequel done right, but one of the best legacy sequels in years. It leans hard into nostalgia and engages in just the right amount of fan service without overdoing it. At the same time, it carves out its own identity and is a wonderful stand-alone movie on its own. And though a sequel to the original movie, it pays a lot of respect to the animated cartoon and Broadway show as well, which fans of the entire franchise are sure to enjoy! Don't walk, but rush to see this film on the biggest screen possible. I guarantee you that there is no better way to kick off Spooky Season this year. I, for one, look forward to seeing it on the big screen at least one more time before we're able to summon it at home whenever we want by speaking the title aloud three times.

The Massive-Verse Coming To The Big Screen?

By Brandon T. McClure

In 2021, Kyle Higgins and Marcelo Costa began publishing Radiant Black for Image Comics, which launched what became known as The Massive-Verse. Consisting of books like Rogue Sun, Inferno Girl Red, and Dead Lucky, the Massive-Verse has carved out a successful corner of the world of comic books with no sign of slowing down. At this year's San Diego Comic Con, Kyle Higgins revealed a very exciting new project in the works, the Massive-Verse is taking a leap to the big screen. 

One of the most recent entries in the Massive-Verse comes in the form of No/One by Kyle Higgins, Brian Buccellato, and artist Geraldo Borges. This ten issue limited series has been a unique entry in the Massive-Verse due to its multi-media approach to storytelling. The series follows the aftermath of an event in Pittsburgh known as the Accountability Murders where a man going by the name Richard Roe began killing corrupt people in power. These people had been doxed by a keyboard vigilante known as No/One, whose goal was to bring their corruption to light. He signed off his initial message with “No one is above the law, and I am No/One.” The mystery surrounding No/One is at the center of the series, as well as the identity of a new killer, claiming to be the original Richard Roe. No/One’s centers on the theme of accountability and how every act, big or small, has ripple effects. Plus a little bit of The Purge mixed in.

No/One Preview Issue #1 - Artist: Geraldo Borges / Colorist: Mark Englert

No/One was paired with a in universe true-crime podcast called Who Is No/One, which was hosted by characters in the book played by Rachael Leigh Cook and Patton Oswalt as well as guest stars from the likes of Todd Stashwick, Yuri Lowenthaall, and Loren Lester as No/One. Each episode of the podcast picked up after the end of each issue, and discussed the aftermath of the comic books events. It created a very engaging and unique reading experience but the ending of the book still left many lingering questions. Most notably the question at the heart of the comic, “Who is No/One and why did he do this?”

During the “Enter The Massive-Verse” panel at San Diego Comic Con 2024, No/One interrupted Kyle Higgins with a video proclaiming that “I am No/One and this is my story.” This video was followed by the reveal that an in-universe feature length documentary is in the works. The documentary, titled I Am No/One, will recap the events of the comic and podcast and shed new light on those same events as well as act as a sequel to the series, and seemingly answer the question at the heart of No/One once and for all. I Am No/One will be directed by Kyle Higgins and is looking to start filming sometime next year. Seemingly, the cast is already set as Higgins stated he cast the podcast with an eye towards this documentary, but it’s unclear at this time how many are due to return.

For this ambitious project, director Kyle Higgins will utilize “sit down interviews, phone and drone footage, news coverage, and first-person GoPro and helmet videography from the “NO/ONE” operation itself” according to The Wrap. This may be Higgins first time directing a feature length film, but this isn’t the first time he’s done something like this. Higgins has directed many short films that have tied into his comics, most notably The League (tie-in to C.O.W.L.), Versus (animated short film from Radiant Black), and Power Rangers: Shattered Grid (promo for the comic event of the same name). He loves to experiment with multi-media stories, such as Bear McCreary’s comic/album The Singularity, so I Am No/One is the logical next step.

Massive-Verse / Radiant Black

At this time, there is no official word yet on how this documentary will be distributed but it is being produced by Black Market Narrative, ZQ Entertainment, producers Ara Keshishian, Petr Jakl, Stuart Manashil and Steven Schneider (Insidious, Late Night with the Devil, and Paranormal Activity), and, of course, Kyle Higgins and Brian Buccellato. As far as distribution goes, it’s likely this will be a streaming release, possibly on the Black Market Narrative YouTube channel, since there may not be a large enough audience for No/One to warrant a theater release. The Massive-Verse may be popular but an in-universe true crime documentary may be a tough sell to general audiences. But it’s hard to rule anything out at this moment since it’s still a ways away from release. Even if it’s incredibly niche to a general public, it’s still incredibly exciting for Massive-Verse fans. Especially for the fans who were hungry for more after the end of No/One

The collected edition of No/One is due out in November, and will no doubt find new readers looking for this kind of biting political commentary. But No/One has a very particular structure when paired with the podcast, so It’ll be interesting to see how the creators include the podcast without the benefit of a monthly publishing schedule. Likewise, the documentary may also struggle. While it’s exciting now, I Am No/One will likely be out two years after the book wrapped up. It’s not unreasonable to wonder if the hype surrounding this multimedia story will sustain that long. But Massive-Verse fans are in it for the long haul and will no doubt show up when the documentary drops.

The Massive-Verse started as one comic but has grown into one of the most exciting comic book universes on the market. It’s a truly exciting time in the Massive-Verse, as Radiant Black’s “The Catalyst War” event wraps up, a card game on the horizon, the return of C.O.W.L., an audio drama based on the first volume of Radiant Black due out this Fall, and the I Am No/One in-universe documentary. It’s an embarrassment of riches coming from one of the most exciting comic book universes the industry has ever seen.

MOVIE REVIEW/ AfrAID

By Anthony Caruso

Wow! Blumhouse has had quite the streak this year! Three films released in 2024 - Night Swim, Imaginary, and now AfrAId - and all three have been complete duds. It's a shame considering the fact that Blumhouse used to be a huge powerhouse in the horror space. Now, however, when their company logo pops up, I always end up giving an involuntary shudder and expecting the worst. 

The basic premise of AfrAId is promising enough: a family is chosen to test a new smart home AI called AIA, which ends up become self-aware and dangerously begins to interfere with and manipulate their lives. While it's definitely not an “original” idea, it's normally a solid enough idea that it usually spawns entertaining films. Not AfrAId, however. Despite the kernels of an interesting story about the dangers of artificial intelligence that are buried within Chris Weitz's muddled screenplay, and despite some interesting setup, AfrAId never takes off or lives up to the promise of its premise's potential. Especially not when it comes to its story, its characters, or its direction. Indeed, Chris Weitz - who also directed this film - ends up delivering to audiences what amounts to a Lifetime Original Movie. He tries to nicely gift wrap the dangers of AI in a story about a struggling, if loving, family. Not only does it look cheap, as though it has the budget of a made-for-TV movie, but it's also just boring on top of being bad. There never appear to be any real stakes, nor do you care enough about the film's characters to actually give a damn about what happens to them!

The cast of this movie is trying their best, and is actually quite charming, but they're never quite able to elevate the material they're given. They are unable to deliver memorable enough performances where I could say that the acting was good at the very least. That's a shame, because avid filmgoers will know that this cast is comprised of very good actors! John Chu has really come into his own over the past few years, demonstrating that he's more than just a go-to for stoner comedies but is somebody that’s actually capable of delivering true dramatics. Katherine Waterston is underrated and undervalued in a lot of ways, mainly due to the material she's been given in recent years like the bland Harry Potter spinoff films, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Unfortunately, the two, who play husband and wife here, have next to zero chemistry, and their characters seem intent on making the dumbest decisions possible at every turn. Meanwhile, after a star-making leading man performance in Late Night With the Devil, it was absolutely jarring to see David Datsmalchian in such a one-note supporting role as one of the supposed creators of the villainous AI. Speaking of AIA, though, the strongest performer in this film is actually Havana Rose Liu who not only voices her to perfection, but plays Melody - the flirty and mysterious "advance employee" at the tech company that invented her.

Between the cast, which seems to be simultaneously bored with the material while trying their best, and Weitz's uninspired direction and a story, AfrAId is a movie that is made of a bunch of disparate, jarring components that never coalesces into a coherent or satisfying whole. It's also a movie that, at an extremely short eighty-four minutes including credits, feels far longer than it actually is. And while the ending is interesting, and will leave you with a squeamish feeling in the pit of your stomach due to its real world implications, it's not earned at any point over the course of the entire film leading up to it.

In a lot of ways, this was Blumhouse trying to remake their very successful film, "M3GAN", while discarding everything that made that movie work - including its iconic AI doll - and doubling down and expanding upon its flaws. And though "AfrAId" isn't the worst film of the year - it's no "Borderlands", "The Crow", "Madame Web", or even "Night Swim" - it comes pretty damn close to being it. There's nothing salvageable about this movie, and it's not even interesting or fun enough in a "so bad it's good" type of way; it's just bad and boring, which is an even worse sin. Even for fellow A-List members, I wouldn't recommend rushing to see this one, nor would I recommend watching this one when it hits streaming. It's just not worth your time, and is merely another swing and a miss for a once great horror production company.

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

By Brandon T. McClure

For 17 years, Warner Bros. Animation and DC Entertainment have been releasing successful direct-to-video animated films through an imprint known as DC Animated Original Movies. These films were based on some of DC’s most iconic characters and comics. In 2020 they released Superman: Man of Tomorrow, a new adaptation of Superman’s origins that launched what would become known as the Tomorrowverse. Meant as a fresh start for the line of movies, the Tomorrowverse laid the groundwork for a new and unique take on DC’s most iconic characters. But after only four years, the Tomorrowverse is coming to an end, and it’s possible this may signal the end of the DC Animated Original Movies.

In 2007, Warner Bros. and DC Entertainment launched the DC Animated Original Movies line with the launch of Superman: Doomsday, a trimmed-down adaptation of The Death of Superman and The Return of Superman. The goal of this new line of films was to appeal to a more adult audience, often getting “PG-13” (and sometimes “R”) ratings and allowing for more faithful adaptations. With this new line of films animators, writers, and directors, could adapt comic storylines more faithfully than live-action films and shows, and represent the various art styles of the adapted comics. Many popular films came from this line including Justice League: Doom (which saw the return of many cast members of the Justice League animated show), All-Star Superman, Superman vs. The Elite, and many more. Save for a few exceptions, each film was a standalone movie, unconnected to any larger storyline. But that changed in 2013 with the release of Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox and the start of the DCAMU.

Bruce Timm has been working exclusively with DC Animation since 1993 and was one of the major producers of the DC Animated Original Movies. He wanted to take a step back to focus on Green Lantern: The Animated Series, so James Tucker came on board to produce the next film, Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox, and effectively took over from Timm. Tucker had been a part of DC Animation for many years at this point but suddenly found himself in charge of a new DC Universe. According to Tucker, Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox, based on the popular comic event Flashpoint, was initially going to be a standalone film but they learned pretty late into production that the “higher-ups” were interested in using the film to launch a series of interconnected films. This series would be dubbed the DCAMU and would go on to release 15 films, and 2 Constantine specials (one posthumously released in 2022 not produced by Tucker), including Justice League: War, Son of Batman, Death of Superman, Wonder Woman: Bloodlines, and more.

Constantine: The House of Mysteries - MAX

It’s important to note that the DCAMU, like many universe designations (Arrowverse, DCAU, etc.) is a fan name that only applies to a particular set of films. Between 2013 and 2020, Warner Bros. Animation released 23 direct-to-video animated films through the DC Animated Original Moves line, but only 16 (including the Constantine special), were part of the DCAMU. Batman: Assault On Arkham, Justice League: Gods and Monsters, Batman: The Killing Joke, and others were all released during the period of time that the DCAMU was running, but were not considered a part of the universe. The DCAMU had a distinct art style and saw most of their voice actors return throughout the entire run, which helped differentiate itself from the other films in the DC Animated Original Movies line.

The DCAMU ended up being a blessing for James Tucker in more ways than one. Before it, Warner Bros. was releasing three unique animated films every year, each by the same team of animators. Since the animation styles were often very different between films, the team would have to start from scratch each time. Creating a “house style” for a franchise allowed them to reuse character assets, which had the added benefit of cutting down on budget and time, and increasing the amount of films that could be released in a year. By 2018, they were releasing four films a year, which generally had one film be a standalone feature and the other three be part of the DCAMU. Probably the most important benefit of the DCAMU was that James Tucker was able to use the franchise as a way of introducing other characters. WB has always been hesitant to greenlight any movie that didn’t have “Batman” or “Justice League” in the title (This is a problem across DC as a whole). For reference, the DC Animated Original Movies have released 20 movies with “Batman” in the title, the most out of any character. With a franchise like the DCAMU, Tucker was able to introduce characters and spin them off into other films. This is how the likes of Justice League Dark, Suicide Squad: Hell To Pay, and Teen Titans: The Judas Contract were able to get made. In an interview with the Word Balloon podcast, after Justice League Dark: Apokolips War was released, he mentioned that it was important for him to showcase other characters, even though it was always a struggle to get them made.

Justice League Dark: Apokolips - MAX

Sometime before 2019 (the timeline is unclear, but likely 2017 or 2018), Tucker was told that the DCAMU would be coming to an end with the, already greenlit, Justice League Dark: Apokolips War. To this day, he claims he doesn’t know why the films ended and there has been no official word from WB. Critics and fans have thrown out ideas for why the DCAMU ended but most just say it was because “they were bad”, which is a ridiculous statement considering their Rotten Tomatoes scores were often within the “fresh” threshold. One theory suggested that the films ended because James Tucker stepped down, but he made it clear that it was not his plan to end. He likely used the ending as an excuse to step down and not the other way around. What’s more likely is that the sales weren’t what WB was interested in seeing. Only two of the nine films released between 2017 and 2020 grossed over $4 million in sales. 

To put this in perspective, the DC Animated Original Movies were relatively inexpensive to make. Each one would cost roughly $2 million or less, so $4 million is a profit for them. These films are also easy to market and repackage for continuous sales over long periods of time. What’s more, Warner Bros. streaming service, MAX (formerly HBO Max), could stream these movies till David Zazlov (head of WBD) wants to save some more taxes. So these films aren’t unprofitable or not successful, but there has been a significant downward trend. The most successful film they’ve ever made was Batman: Under the Red Hood in 2010, which made $12 million according to the-numbers.com. While some Batman films have gotten close to that number, the entries of the DCAMU never made it above $6 million and began to plummet in sales. The highest-grossing film was Son of Batman with $7 million in 2014 and the lowest-grossing entry was Wonder Woman: Bloodlines in 2019 with only $1.7 million. The hope with any film franchise is that there would be growth in sales, but if audiences were voting with their wallets, then it was pretty clear that interest in the DCAMU was waning.

Justice League: Warworld - MAX

Even so, James Tucker was just as surprised as anyone that the DCAMU was ending. He didn’t have a plan for one and was hoping that he could continue for many more years. He had hoped to one day get to do another Teen Titans film, but those desires had to be put aside. He had already gotten WB to greenlight a new Justice League Dark film and now had to find a way to turn that film into a universe-ending epic. Justice League Dark: Apokolips War starts after Darkseid has already taken over the world and many of Earth's heroes and villains have died. Constantine gets a team together for one last-ditch effort to destroy Darkseid and in the process frees the Justice League and the remaining heroes. But so much had already been lost in the battle so Constantine convinces Flash that the only way to fix everything is to reset the universe in the same way that he did during the Flashpoint (the events of Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox). It’s revealed in Constantine: House of Mystery (a short film released after the end of the DCAMU in 2022) that Constantine used his magic to help Flash, which made it so Darkseid couldn’t find the Earth in the new universe that would be created. Darkseid had been an ever-looming threat in the DCAMU, and this plan would allow the new universe a fighting chance, but it opened up Earth to a new, more dangerous enemy.

Regardless of why WB ended the DCAMU, plans began for a new universe that would be dubbed the Tomorrowverse. Named after the first film in the franchise, Superman: Man of Tomorrow, the Tomorrowverse began months after Justice League Dark: Apokolipse War. This new universe was spearheaded by Butch Lukic, Jim Krieg (who wrote Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox), and Kimberly S. Moreau. There was one big difference between the DCAMU and the Tomorrowverse that fans didn’t know, and that was it was always going to end. Butch Lukic told Cinemablend, in January of 2024, that “it was just preplanned. [It was] five, six years ago where we laid out 10 movies that we were gonna do. Because we were basically given 10 movies only, and then you’re out, you’re done.” This marks a stark contrast to the development of the DCAMU, which had no set ending until WB decided it was time.

During an interview with ComicBookMovie.com, Jim Krieg and Butch Lukic discussed what it was like to pitch the Tomorrowverse. “Butch and I had this idea that we would have a long time to build to Crisis,” Krieg said and added “I remember [Butch] and I talking to Sam Register (president of WB Animation) and saying, ‘Maybe we can have twenty films and then end in Crisis?’ I think he said, ‘How about three?’” Judging by this, Sam Register and WB Animation weren’t all that interested in another long-running universe. Krieg and his team went into the pitch meeting with the idea that they could have, at least, as many films as the DCAMU. Krieg told  ScreenRant that “we would have been happy to do 20. But when you want to do 20, and someone offers you 10, you'd say yes anyway," Krieg and his team were insistent and had big plans, but ten movies were all they could get. Butch lamented in the ComicBookMovie.com interview that he “originally wanted to keep doing a slow build with movies like [Batman:] The Long Halloween and [Superman:] Man of Tomorrow. I wanted to take as long as possible and once we gave them our pitch, they said they wanted Crisis involved and they wanted it done in ten movies. That’s why we had to fast-track some of these stories and build it towards this.” Through every interview, it’s clear that everyone is happy with how the Tomorrowverse has played out, but they had to condense 20 movies into 10.

Batman: The Long Halloween

Many of the criticisms that have been lobbied towards the Tomorrowverse make more sense with the realization that they only had ten films to work with. One of the issues that the series was plagued with was the quick-moving and eclectic way the story unfolded. It makes it very difficult for audiences to engage and get emotionally invested in characters and character arcs if the story isn’t properly unfolded. This is not to say that the Tomorrowverse doesn’t work. Many of these films are very good, despite the limitations (except Justice League: Warworld). Batman: The Long Halloween is a near-perfect adaptation of the comic it’s based on and Legion of Superheroes is a great story centered around Supergirl and her journey in the 31st century. The Tomorrowverse, while short, has been very good at utilizing characters outside of Batman and Superman. Characters like Green Lantern and the Justice Society don’t often get the same attention that DC’s heavy hitters do in animation, so it’s been great to have a franchise attempt to change that. As standalone films, they’re all strong features with good voice casts and expressive animation. The connections and the universe-building have just been the Tomorrowverse’s weakness. But, that said, Justice League: Crisis On Infinite Earths could make it all come together in the end as one complete ten-movie arc. It just feels like it’s ending before it even got to start.

Justice League: Crisis on Infinite Earths - Part 1

Justice League: Crisis On Infinite Earths is not the first time WB has adapted Marv Wolfman and George Perez’s seminal event. Famously, the Arrowverse aired a five-part adaptation on the CW that crossed over all their shows at the time (which ended up being the beginning of the end for them) in 2019. But Butch Lukic revealed to ScreenRant, that they’d been working on the animated version since before that by saying “we already were figuring out that we were going to do Crisis before they even were filming anything on their Crisis.” This lines up with what has been revealed about the timeline of when they were told how many films they would get and a particularly weird trend within WB at the time.

It appears that there was a point in WB’s history that saw many DC departments interested in adapting Crisis On Infinite Earths. From TV to animation, to movies, everyone was racing to get theirs made, and the Arrowverse was just the one to make it to the finish line. Before James Gunn and Peter Safran became the head of DC Studios, a man named Walter Hamada was the head of DC Films. After he exited the company in 2022 (in the wake of Batgirl’s tax write-off), The Hollywood Reporter found out that he had been mapping out a new trajectory for his DC films that would culminate in a big-screen adaptation of Crisis on Infinite Earths. Hamada was so confident in this plan that one of the filmed endings to The Flash (the movie) saw Barry receiving a call from Ben Affleck’s Batman that would reveal they were now on separate Earths. Sadly, the changing of the guard at DC meant that this plan was scrapped and a new ending was filmed (this is why the George Clooney ending exists).

While Krieg and his team may have known that an animated Crisis film would be the end of the Tomorrowverse back in 2019, fans did not. But rumors began swirling of the animated Crisis adaptation in 2021 when Journalist Matías Lértora tweeted “An animated TRILOGY adaptation of CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS is coming” and “It is expected that all the DC animated Universes will come together.” Finally, at the 2023 San Diego Comic-Con, it was revealed that 2024 will see two ambitious releases from the DC Animated Original Movies line, Watchmen, based on the Alan Morre and Dave Gibbons comic, and the rumored Justice League: Crisis On Infinite Earths. Only later was it revealed that Justice League: Crisis On Infinite Earths would be a three-part ending to the Tomorrowverse. No new information has been released about Watchmen at the time of this writing.

Justice League: Crisis on Infinite Earths - Part 2

The first part of Justice League: Crisis On Infinite Earths is out now (with part two out in April) and follows Flash as he travels through time and universes to try and stop an Anti-Matter wave that is destroying the multiverse with the help of the Justice League and alternate universe heroes. Matt Ryan’s Constantine makes a surprise appearance in the film to connect the Tomorrowverse to the DCAMU, which was alluded to in the aforementioned Constantine: House of Mystery. It seems that when Constantine and Flash changed the universe, they hid it from Darkseid but opened it up to a new threat, likely the Anti-Monitor, the villain of the original comic. While the first part of the rumor turned out to be true, it remains to be seen if the second part is. So far, no familiar heroes from other DC animated universes have popped up but Krieg and Lukic said to stay tuned. Indeed a rumor came about that suggested that Kevin Conroy had reprised his role as Batman for one last time in a future installment. 

One of the more fun aspects of animated shows crossing over is the opportunity to utilize the unique animation styles of the various shows (see any Teen Titans Go! crossover for examples). It’s now been confirmed that Will Friedle will reprise his role as Terry McGinnis/Batman from the wildly popular animated show Batman Beyond, in Justice League: Crisis On Infinite Earths - Part Two, but he will appear in the animation of the Tomorrowverse. It appears that, rather than having different universes represented by different animation styles, in order to celebrate the animated history of DC, the creators opted to keep it simple. It was likely more of a budget choice than a style choice, honestly. Besides, Justice League: Crisis on Infinite Earths needs to act as an ending to the Tomorrowverse first and foremost. While multiverse stories can be a fun way to celebrate the storied history of a property, they need to serve the story of the main characters they’re following. The allure of nostalgia is strong and this is something that multiverse stories often struggle with (see The Flash for examples).

When asked about the future, Krieg said that "whatever happened afterward would be someone else; a couple of producers would do another universe, which turned out to be the James Gunn-verse." It’s unclear what he means by this, however, when James Gunn was asked on Threads if Justice League: Crisis On Infinite Earths has anything to do with the start of his new DCU, Gunn simply said “They do not.” Considering the timing of his hiring and when these films would have been in production, it is very unlikely that he had anything to do with this. But there’s also the case of his plans for the DCU throughout all mediums. In his original announcement, Gunn stated “It's one of our jobs to make sure the DCU is connected in film, television, gaming, and animation. That the characters are consistent, played by the same actors, and it works within one story.” Gunn said this after implying that the disconnected nature of the various DC projects was diminishing the brand and many shows were canceled in the wake of his hiring. The question of what exactly he means has come up far more times than not. Does he mean that there will be entries in the DCU that are video games or animated films? Or does he mean that all future video games, animated films, and so on will be part of the DCU? The distinction is an important one, but not one that has been made.

To be clear, DC Animation isn’t going anywhere. Harley Quinn: The Animated Series is still a hugely popular MAX show, with a Kite Man spin-off on the way, and it’s just been announced that Gunn will produce a big-screen animated adaptation of Daniel Warren Johnson and Juan Gedeon's comic

The Jurassic League. They’re just now being developed by DC Studios, along with everything else DC-related. Gunn seems like he wants to keep the door open for unconnected stories, like The Batman Part II, but wants to make it clear to audiences that they are “Elseworlds” stories and not part of his DCU. So while there will be video games, animated shows, and movies connected to his DCU, that’s not all there will be. So there is still room for something like the DC Animated Original Movies, even though there might be a significant downsizing in the amount of films made. 

The DC Animated Original Movies are not huge releases for Warner Bros. and with studios insisting that physical media should die out, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that the line of films could be ending (whatever happened to that Milestone movie announced in 2021?). David Zaslav has come into Warner Bros. to clean house (and probably sell it for parts) and has become a ruthless player in the studio system. Not only has he canceled shows, but erased shows and movies to never be seen again. All in the name of tax breaks. Nothing stops him from looking at the measly $2.6 million that Injustice made in sales (the previous six movies didn’t do much better) and deciding that the entire line of films isn’t worth the money anymore.

While it’s undeniably sad that the Tomorrowverse is coming to an end, the future of the DC Animated Original Movies remains unknown. No films have been announced for 2025, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any, some could be announced at this years San Diego Comic-Con as is tradition. As for this year, two animated Justice League: Crisis On Infinite Earths films and a Watchmen animated film (possibly two) are still on the schedule and Warner Bros. Animation is  hard at work on Creature Commandos, the first part of James Gunn’s new DCU, which is likely out at the end of the year. So that begs the question, is the future of the DC Animated Original Movies, to end with Watchmen? Or will they continue under the watchful eye of James Gunn to either be part of the DCU or somewhere in his multiverse? Or will they just continue as is until David Zaslav notices they exist and comes barging into their offices with a flamethrower to burn it all down? Only time will tell.

MOVIE REVIEW / Kali Karate: The 2nd Beginning

By Anita Wills

From The Blair Witch Project to Best in Show, independent filmmakers have excelled in the genre of Mockumentary film for quite some time. Sean Russel Herman’s experimental mockumentary film Kali Karate: The 2nd Beginning is complete chaos, in a good way. In his feature debut, Herman tells the story of Sensai Houston, a very bizarre martial arts enthusiast who manages to ruin the lives of everyone around him while on his journey to get his ex wife back. 

Not only did Herman write, direct, produce and edit the film, he also took on the lead role as Sensai Houston, a character he created himself that came from his own personal passion for martial arts and comedy. Fans of the Eric Andre Show will appreciate the film’s determination to make the audience uncomfortable and as well as question their own moral compass for laughing. 

Kali Karate is overflowing with different editing and cinematography styles, as well as a comic book transition drawn just for the film. On top of that, there is impressive stunt work and an original “rap” score. That being said, there is little room for the comedy to breathe. Many jokes fell flat due to the fact that there was not enough time to process them before the next one. Several small characters were introduced, but never reached any character development that helped move the story along. 

What really carried the film was the comedic chemistry between Sensai Houston and his roommate Shu played by comedic genius Shu Lan Tuan, as well as the gorgeous but sparse HBO Boxing’s 24/7 inspired shots which was interesting to see in a mockumentary film. 

The artsy dark comedy leaves you wondering, is Kali Karate a love letter to filmmaking, an overflowing introduction of Herman’s talents, or a farewell eulogy to the comedic avant garde?   

Kali Karate: The 2nd Beginning is available on Apple TV, Amazon Prime, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play Movies. 

Is A Post-Harrison Ford Indiana Jones Possible?

By Brandon T. McClure

With Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny in theaters, the journey of Indiana Jones has come to an end. This is not just an emotional conclusion for Indiana Jones but also for Harrison Ford. The 80-year-old actor is ready to hang up the hat and whip for good and he’s been very clear about that in every interview for this film. But, like every new entry in a long-running franchise, most people are asking one question: What’s next?

Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) in Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.

The journey to make this fifth installment in the Indiana Jones franchise began shortly after the release of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Steven Spielberg had been feeling burnt out on Indiana Jones after Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and only returned to direct the third installment to fulfill the trilogy. But, originally Paramount and George Lucas intended there to be five films in the franchise. After trying for years to return to the world of Indiana Jones, Lucas finally convinced Spielberg to return for a fourth installment. There was interest to return for the fifth film, but Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford couldn’t agree on what that story would be. When Lucas sold Lucasfilm to Disney, the new president of Lucasfilm, Kathleen Kennedy, wanted to get that fifth film off the ground. When it became clear that Steven Spielberg’s heart wasn’t in returning to the iconic world he began, the decision was made to continue with a new director. James Mangold, director of films like Logan and Ford v. Ferrari was chosen to bring Indiana Jone’s journey to an emotional end.

Even though this is marketed as the end of the journey that began in 1981, many fans are wondering if there could be more stories left to tell. These days it's old hat to envision a large shared franchise of interconnected multi-media properties and it can be nice to have a definitive ending and not something that goes on forever. Indiana Jones isn’t Star Wars and it doesn’t need to be. There are plenty of books and video games to keep Indiana Jones fans satiated. There’s also an argument to be made that Indiana Jones is a character that can’t be recast.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was the last adventure with Indiana Jones in his prime because the next time audiences saw this character, he was in his 60s (Actually Indy was only 58 while Ford was 66). Because of this, many hardcore Indiana Jones fans may feel like there are no more stories coming with Indiana in his prime. Unless you were to recast the role like James Bond. Indiana Jones may have started life as a James Bond inspiration, but the character doesn’t share the one thing that has made Bond such a lasting icon: his recasting. At this point in the franchise, recasting Indiana Jones would be difficult if not downright impossible

Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) in Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.

A few months ago, rumors began circulating that Lucasfilm was interested in developing a Disney+ original series set in the world of Indiana Jones. The proposed series was going to be a prequel about Indiana’s mentor, Abner Ravenwood. Abner is a character that every fan is familiar with but has never been seen onscreen due to his death prior to the events of Raiders of the Lost Ark. However, it now appears that Lucasfilm is restructuring to focus solely on Star Wars properties. Once again, rumors suggest that this series is no longer moving forward and with the cancellation of Willow, it appears that there’s no interest from Disney to allow Lucasfilm to develop anything outside of their biggest money maker once Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is released.

This rumored Abner Ravenwood series wasn’t even the first time Lucasfilm seemed interested in developing a spin-off without Indiana Jones. Before Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, rumors were rampant about future plans for Shia Labeouf’s Mutt Williams’ character. It’s entirely possible, had that character, and movie, been better received (Although it was one of the highest-grossing films of 2008 and currently holds a respectable 77% on Rotten Tomatoes) there would have been a spin-off adventure with the character. Mutt Williams was introduced in the fourth film as the son of Indiana and Marion Ravenwood, which seemed like the perfect character to take over the hat and whip. After the film, Lebeouf said “I feel like I dropped the ball on the legacy that people loved and cherished” which ended up ruining his relationship with Spielberg. While no official plans seemed to be in the works for an “Adventure of Mutt Williams” film, this seemed to squash the idea altogether.

Fans have wanted one specific Indiana Jones spin-off for decades, however. One that would center on Indiana’s one-time side-kick in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Short Round. Played by now Oscar-winning actor Ke Huy Quan, the character has been a beloved member of the franchise for years now. While the film wasn’t as well received at the time, it’s been reevaluated and admired as a misunderstood classic. Quan’s turn in Everything Everywhere All At Once has brought the actor back in a big way. He’s even a starring role in the Disney+ series American Born Chinese. Quan, himself has said he’s love to return exclaiming “Are you kidding me? I love Short Round… it would be amazing to revisit that character.” While many, rightly, feel that Quan should focus on new projects, rather than returning to a franchise he was a part of when he was 10, the actor is obviously keen to reprise the role.

The Indiana Jones franchise doesn’t need to be a franchise that spans 30 interconnected films with an Avengers-style team-up at the end to defeat Hitler. But if John Wick can get a spin-off called Ballerina, there’s room for one spin-off in the Indiana Jones franchise. That’s all fans have ever wanted, just one spin-off. One movie or show to play in the world without relying on Harrison Ford. Especially now that Ke Huy Quan is on top, Disney may want to strike while the iron is hot and greenlight a Short Round series.

There are many comics, books and video games that star Indiana Jones, including one coming before the end of the decade (we hope), so there are plenty of stories for fans to explore if they want more. It’s not necessary for the franchise to continue now that Harrison Ford is hanging up the fedora, but it could be fun to explore new places and perspectives of the world that fans love. It doesn’t need to be a Star Wars-like juggernaut mult-media franchise or a massive shared universe like the MCU. All fans have ever wanted was one more adventure. What’s so wrong about that?

SOPHIA'S SECOND LOOK: Drop Dead Fred

By Sophia Anita Reyes ( @sophia_toto_girlpower )

I recently rewatched Drop Dead Fred, the 1991 dark comedy/fantasy film for the first time since I was about 11 years old. I am unsure why I had such fond happy memories of this misunderstood box office flop. After watching the film as a 34 year old woman, I was in an immobile physical state of shock. I sat there for about 10 mins alternating from sobbing my eyes out, to staring at the wall with my mouth wide open thinking “What the hell did I just watch?” and “What are these feelings I am feeling?!” 

Drop Dead Fred is about a grown woman named Elizabth whose agent of chaos, childhood imaginary friend Fred, comes back to help her take control of her life. Her life that is very much in the hands of her ultra dominant, power tripping mother who Fred likes to call “the Mega bitch”, and her manipulative weasel like fiancé. The film has many flashbacks of the destruction and ruin that Fred and Elizabth caused, which drove her mother to insanity. 

Drop Dead Fred (Rik Mayall) and Elizabeth “Lizzie” (Phoebe Cates) in Drop Dead Fred.

I have this gut feeling that there is one important question that no one asked on set or during production, not the producers, the actors, or even the director. The question is, who is this movie for? Is it for kids? The whole family? Or the scariest answer.. is it for me? After I was able to come out of my immobile state of shock, I realized that the film is a grotesque but beautiful guide on how to love your younger self by battling your childhood trauma. That’s when I also realized that yes, this film is for me, someone who has had trouble challenging authority since a young age and staying away from manipulative weasels. Along with being a movie that will completely just fuck with your un-dealt emotions, it is kind of a cinematic masterpiece in itself. The story progression, character development, set design, special effects makeup, et cetera, are all flawless. There are no holes in this film, no dull moments. The most powerful scene is at the very end when Elizabeth becomes so overwhelmed with her trauma that she passes out and takes a trip into her imagination and back to her childhood home with Fred, where it is time to face her biggest fears.

Elizabeth “Lizzie” (Phoebe Cates) and Drop Dead Fred (Rik Mayall) in Drop Dead Fred.

The inside of the immaculate house is enormous and dark. Menacing shadows looming everywhere and furniture with edges so sharp they look like they could cut you. Elizabeth uses her imagination to navigate the intimidating home. Standing there as a grown woman she puts her hands on her temples, shuts her eyes. Suddenly a giant beautiful tree grows in the middle of the foyer. This particular moment really gutted me. Seeing a grown woman confidently tap into her imagination to solve a problem was a shocking sight to see. Using your imagination is what children do, not adults. We grew up, we are not allowed to be silly or fantastical anymore. Fred and Elizabeth climb the tree, but unfortunately her mother is waiting at the top of the stairs, guarding Elizabeth's childhood bedroom door, not allowing them to pass. 

Elizabeth fearlessly screams “I’m not afraid of you!” in her mother’s face and after hearing this, the mother bursts into epic flames. At this point, my face is soaked with tears, how could this film get under my skin any deeper than it already has? Well you just wait. 

 In the beginning of the film, Elizabeth's mother has had enough of her tiny daughter’s rebellion and duct tapes Fred back into his jack in the box so he can never escape again. When grown up Elizabth opens the bedroom door that her mother was guarding, she finds her childhood self duct taped to the bed. Elizabeth tears the duct tape away and gives her younger self a big hug, telling her “we don’t have to be afraid anymore”. The duct tape represents the constricting restraint that the mother had over Elizabeth, and the tearing represents Elizabeth using her voice and taking the power back.  Do you understand now why I was in such a state of vulnerability and shock?

Drop Dead Fred (Rik Mayall) and Elizabeth’s mother Polly (Marsha Mason) in Drop Dead Fred.

To be honest, I’m not surprised that his film was a giant flop. No one understood it, but most importantly, no one cared to try and understand it. If they did, they would see that it is a beautifully dark film that challenges its audience to be vulnerable, and to not be ashamed of using your imagination. 

INTERVIEW / Actor & Recording Artist - Jovan Armand

We have a very special episode this week with a very special guest. Kyle and Dave are joined by one of the stars of the recently released Shazam: Fury of the Gods, Jovan Armand. Jovan joins us to talk about the new movie, how he was cast in the original film, and what got him into acting. He also talks about his new song that he recorded and is available NOW!

Interview can also be found on your favorite podcast app at Atomic Geekdom @atomicgeekdom

MOVIE REVIEW / Cocaine Bear

By DeeDee Baldwin

** This article contains mild spoilers. **

There is a scene at the beginning of director Elizabeth Banks’ Cocaine Bear when a hiker’s bitten-off lower leg is flung into frame, and the viewer thinks, “Should I be laughing at this?” It’s the first of many such moments to come.

Horror-comedy is, of course, nothing new. Cocaine Bear follows in the bloody footsteps of cult classics like the Evil Dead series, Tucker and Dale vs Evil, and even, in some respects, Fargo. “What is it in the human condition,” asks author Bruce G. Hallenbeck in Comedy-Horror Films: A Chronological History, 1914-2008, “that makes us want to laugh at the darkness around us?” If we laugh in horror at a woman’s foot sticking out of a woodchipper or at a man’s dismembered body falling from a tree, is something wrong with us?

Sari (Keri Russell) in Cocaine Bear.

Not at all. "The common misconception about laughter is that laughter is, for the most part, a response to humor," researcher Diana Mahony told ABC’s Joseph Brownstein in 2008. Rather, laughter is more like “a steam gauge, where a buildup of feelings prompts an outburst.” This is why some people smile or laugh at funerals or when they’re around a friend who is crying. They aren’t sadistic, and they don’t suffer from antisocial personality disorder. In the perceived absence of other outlets—especially because so many people are extremely uncomfortable crying around others—laughter might be all they have left. Most of us have watched horror movies, even ones that are meant to be totally serious, and laughed at an intense death scene. Did young people in your movie theater laugh when Boromir wept in Fellowship of the Ring or when Katniss sobbed and screamed at her sister’s cat in Mockingjay – Part 2? Intense emotions like grief and fear can be too overwhelming for some people to process. The more effectively such intensity is conveyed, the more likely you are to hear giggles in your theater.

But laughter in movies like Cocaine Bear or Tucker and Dale isn’t only an outlet for big feelings. It is the intended response. There is obvious humor like Margo Martindale’s “dusty beaver,” the billboard advertising a glory hole, and the coked-out bear collapsing, exhausted, on top of a man. There is an ambulance sequence that ratchets up both tension and absurdity until the viewer is simultaneously hiding her eyes and laughing like a valve releasing steam. In one wry scene, a character mentions his two friends (both dead, unknown to him), and Banks cuts to a shot of their corpses that looks like a macabre Halloween yard display. 

Stache (Aaron Holiday) and Jr. (O’Shea Jackson) in Cocaine Bear.

While most of the movie’s deaths are comedic in their horror, not all are played for laughs. One character’s death is quiet, dignified, and poignant – and it is well-earned. For another towards the end, Banks goes all-in on the gore, but there’s more schadenfreude than humor in it.

Cocaine Bear is a comedy in the most classical definition of the term: a humorous take on flawed humans—Aristotle’s “inferior people”—and their foibles, with the requisite happy ending. It is also a morality play in which each of our heroes must fall and be redeemed. I use the term “heroes” lightly; one of them is, after all, a hired gun for a drug lord. Children learn not to skip school and do drugs, and career criminals ride off with a cute little dog. If it took some decapitations, stray body parts from legs to fingers, and a disemboweling, isn’t the most important thing that we’re all better humans in the end? Dante would say yes.

Oh, and I’m forgetting the most important part of this comedic, horrific morality play: it will leave you cheering for a coked-up bear family. And that’s the best part of all.

A New Dawn For DC

By Brandon T. McClure

The new Co-CEO of DC Studios, James Gunn promised to tell audiences what his plans are for this new era of DC in January of 2023. True to his word, on the last day of January, Gunn revealed part of the first chapter of his and Peter Safran’s new plan. This new plan is separated into chapters with the first one titled “Gods and Monsters” and looks to revitalize the DC slate with a combination of prestige television shows, animated television shows, and of course big budget blockbuster films. This new first chapter for DC’s cinematic universe is the most ambitious one yet and potentially the most exciting.

To kick things off, James Gunn talked about the remaining DC films that are releasing in 2023. Gunn and Safran had inherited four films that are meant to release this year, Shazam: Fury of the Gods, The Flash, Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom, and finally Blue Beatle. These films can be considered a prelude to the upcoming chapter one but Gunn was clear that they do fit in with his new vision. The Flash was always meant to reboot the DC film franchise anyway. The actors from these movies are also likely to return, especially Momoa who Safran stated is working on Aquaman 3. Gunn also put to rest the rumors that Jason Momoa would be playing Lobo.

While many characters are being recast, many are not. Gunn made it clear that The Flash would not lead to a complete reboot. The door is open for the likes of Zachary Levi, Gal Gadot, and even Ezra Miller to return. In the case of Miller, the new heads of DC Studios are willing to keep conversations open with the actor while they go through their recovery. Miller became a very controversial figure lately, so it makes sense that they would be more cautious with them going forward.

The Flash (Ezra Miller) and Supergirl (Sasha Calle) in The Flash.

Then Gunn began to talk about what the initial projects of his first chapter are going to be. He started with a new animated series called Creature Commandos. This new animated series will be written by Gunn and will feature Amanda Waller creating a team of supernatural heroes which include Frankenstein, the Bride of Frankenstein, Rick Flag Sr, Doctor Phosphorus, Weasel, and more. When it comes to the cast of this series, the hope is to cast actors who will be able to play the same characters in live-action. Marvel attempted the same thing with What If…? but had to settle for sound-a-likes for some parts. Gunn made it clear that the hope is that the actors will remain consistent through film, television, animation, and video games.

Film, TV, and animation connected is old hat at this point. While Marvel hasn’t committed to connecting their animated shows, including the upcoming Spider-Man: Freshman Year, they are slowly developing a multimedia franchise through theatrical and streaming distribution. Connecting video games is the big question mark here. When Insomniac was developing Spider-Man for the PlayStation 4, they were not required to make sure that it was the same Spider-Man that Tom Holland played. So the question of how much these video games will connect remain. It’s possible that the output of games that Gunn wants to connect to his new franchise would be separate from “Elseworlds” games. Because DC Studios is now controlling everything DC-related, video games would just be developed through their vision and not necessarily connected to their shared universe.

James Gunn mentioned that his goal for the new DC cinematic universe was to make sure that anything not a part of the same universe, is specifically labeled as an Elseworlds. Movie franchises like The Batman and Joker were explicitly mentioned, as well as Teen Titans Go. It’s interesting that he specifically felt that Teen Titans Go needed to be mentioned since it’s very unlikely audiences think the show takes place in the same world as Peacemaker. But with so many DC shows ending, such as Doom Patrol and the entire Arrowverse, perhaps there will be fewer shows developed that will take place outside of the new “aligned continuity” that James Gunn and Peter Safran are developing. 

While they may have inherited the Elseworlds films and shows, they seem to be willing to embrace them. This could attract filmmakers uninterested in being part of a shared universe and allow them to develop moves outside of “Gods and Monsters”. Gunn and Safran are already willing to have two different actors play Batman so who’s to say how far that will go. The sky is, potentially, the limit. The same is true for the relatively popular DC original animated films that WB has been putting out for over a decade. Unlike the previous regime, everything now falls under DC Studios. This includes shows and direct to BluRay animated movies. With Gunn and Safran overseeing everything in a way that Walter Hamada was not, only time will tell how long these films continue. They don’t make a lot of money for the company and it may not be worth it to keep them up after a while.

The rest of Gunn’s plan includes a new Superman film called Superman: Legacy, a series based on Viola Davis’ Amanda Waller called Waller, a horror film centered around Swamp Thing, and many more. These projects are already exciting, and when they are paired with a live-action Green Lantern TV series centered around John Stewart and Hal Jordan, titled Lanterns, and a movie based on Tom Kings Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow mini-series, it’s clear this is a line-up of projects developed by a long time fan of comic books. James Gunn clearly reads comic books and keeps up with them. His inclusion as the head of DC Studios is every comic book fan's dream. He has the power to read a comic book and immediately green-lights a movie based on that same comic. 

Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) in Suicide Squad.

The Brave and the Bold is another movie that was announced. This film will introduce the new Batman of this continuity. Robin has been absent from Batman adaptations since 1997’s Batman and Robin and it’s time to change that. This film will introduce Damian Wayne, the biological son of Batman and the current Robin in the comics. While that is certainly exciting for fans of Grant Morrison’s seminal run on Batman, Safran went on to say that this film will also introduce characters from the Bat-Family. Batman adaptations have kept him alone for decades and it’s wonderful that there will be a Batman film that will touch on the thing that has made his comic book counterpart so endearing, his family. It’s too early to say which of his family will turn up, but at this point, they’re all on the table.

Back in the early days of Marvel Studios, there was a story group that helped develop the franchise and doctor scripts. This story group was disbanded after the very public falling out that happened when Edgar Wright left Ant-Man. Similar to those old Marvel Studios days, Gunn and Safran brought on writers to help develop chapter one including Drew Goddard (The Martian), Jeremy Slater (Moon Knight), Christina Hobson (The Flash), Christal Henry (Watchmen 2019), and Tom King (Mister Miracle). Gunn indicated that some of these writers would continue working on projects, including Henry, who is co-showrunning Waller with Jeremy Carver, who was the creator behind the recently canceled Doom Patrol series.

Damian Wayne from Grant Morrison’s Batman (illustrated by Andy Kubert).

Something that was very important for Gunn and Safran to reiterate was that the goal of all these projects is to make sure that story comes first. Gunn called out other superhero films as not having third acts written by the time they’re shooting. A problem that many fans have picked up on through the years. In Gunn’s new regime, he vows to not let this be the case. It’s telling that only Superman: Legacy has a release date in this regard. Not committing to a release date, allows them to take their time and not put pressure on writers to finish the script in time to make a date that’s only two years away. Gunn was not pulling any punches during his interviews, clearly calling out Marvel when he made his story comments. 

Gunn might have ruffled some feathers, however. Not only did he throw thinly veiled comments towards Marvel, but also the previous regime. “As everyone here probably knows, the history of DC is pretty messed up, it was fucked up,” he said. While Walter Hamada made sure that the films he produced were the visions of the filmmakers, Gunn feels that DC was just handing out IP to anyone who would smile at them. He specifically mentions Birds of Prey and Black Adam but also his own The Suicide Squad. “No one was minding the mint, they were just giving away IP like they were party favors to any creators that smiled at them,” he said. Many of the films he’s referring to are well-liked and the filmmakers put a lot of effort into making them work, so it might not have been the smartest move to throw shade their way. This is especially apparent when referring to the canceled Batgirl film as something that would “hurt the DC brand.” While that’s a little hard to believe, perhaps it’s time to let the filmmakers, who worked hard on the movie, move on.

It’s unclear what kind of shows could be coming next from DC, but Gunn mentioned the Arrowverse as part of the “messed up” history of DC. Frankly, this was an unfair jab at a series of shows that created a beloved universe for many years. But with that coming to an end, and Superman & Lois only having one or two more seasons left (according to Gunn and Safran), there are not many DC shows left (Harley Quinn remains the lone survivor from the DC Universe days) Clearly, prestige TV shows are going to be very important to Chapter 1 going forward, but could we see more unrelated shows? Besides the Penguin series, it sounds like DC shows won’t be as frequent as they used to be. Perhaps it’s fitting the Arrowverse is ending, since it could mark the end of an era of DC television, the likes of which we might not see again. For every Pennyworth: The Origins of Batman’s Butler, there was a Doom Patrol, so it wasn’t all bad, after all, many of the Arrowverse stars are iconic. Time will tell when the next Elsworlds TV series will be, but the frequency will be drastically reduced.

Robotman (Brendan Fraser), Negative Man (MattBomer), Crazy Jane (Diane Guerrero), Cyborg (Joivan Wade), Elasti-Girl (April Bowlby) and Chief (Timothy Dalton) in Doom Patrol.

Something that should be apparent at this point is that Gunn is taking all the lessons he learned from the Guardians of the Galaxy films and incorporating them on a bigger scale. Marvel, for all their success, remains somewhat controversial with some of their choices of creative talent. Not in the way that they’re bad or problematic, but their insistence to hire inexperienced writers to develop their shows and sometimes movies have begun to weigh on their fanbase. This looks to be something Gunn isn’t too keen to repeat. While the creative teams behind most of the projects have not been revealed, the creative talent for Waller indicates that Gunn is looking to hire experienced creatives and not first-time showrunners.

This desire is one of the ways he’s hoping to avoid superhero fatigue, which he believes to be a real thing. Recently, studios have been more interested in making release dates that are set before creative teams have been assembled. It’s something that Marvel has become pretty adept at, but Gunn, who is primarily a writer, wants to be sure that no movie will be made before a screenplay is finished. “I’ve seen it happen again and again — it’s a mess, it’s the primary reason for the deterioration in the quality of films today, versus 20-30 years ago,” he said referring to studios being more concerned with hitting release dates. Gunn and Safran believe that if more care was put into the writing process, then they can avoid superhero fatigue, or as Safran put it “bad movie fatigue.”

This “Gods and Monsters” lineup is a dream come true for comic book fans no doubt, but it’s also DC’s last shot. This will be the third time they have set up the pieces to build a shared universe and if this doesn’t work then it’ll be very difficult to convince the general audience to care. As it stands, DC Studios already has an uphill battle ahead of them. With each regime change, the hill gets higher. Gunn and Safran are clearly very passionate about this lineup of films and believe that this is going to be the winning formula. Time will tell if that’s true, but there are a lot of big promises being made that could very well prove to be empty.

Here’s a list of the titles:

Creature Commandoes

Waller

Superman: Legacy

Lanterns

The Authority

Paradise Lost

The Brave and the Bold

Booster Gold

Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow

Swamp Thing

DC Has Found Their Kevin Feige’s

By Brandon T. McClure

For a number of months now, there have been numerous reports about how Warner Bros. Discovery head David Zaslav was looking for a “Kevin Feige-like” figure to spearhead a new direction for the DC films. The thinking was that, despite their success, DC has been floundering without a singular voice guiding a specific direction, in the vein of Marvel Studios. THR has recently reported that that figure has finally been found in the form of James Gunn and Peter Safran. The two of them will work together as co-CEOs at DC Studios, effectively replacing former head Walter Hamada who departed the company earlier this month.

Reports of this search have been going on since the early days of the merger with WarnerMedia and Discovery. Initially, it was reported that Zaslav was looking at offering the job to the likes of Joker director Todd Phillips and even Kevin Feige himself. No formal offer was made to either man but it looked like Zaslav was barking up the wrong tree with, at least Feige. It’s difficult to imagine anyone pulling Kevin Feige away from Marvel Studios at this point or in the near future. While Joker made lots of money for WarnerMedia (Or was it TimeWarner at the time?), Phillips isn’t a comic book fan and he didn’t seem like the right fit. So the search continued. 

Fast forward a number of months when it was revealed that Walter Hamada was given the offer to stay on board the new company. Hamada, for all his faults, oversaw very successful DC films including Aquaman and Shazam. Walter Hamada had a very filmmaker-first attitude when it came to the DC films he produced. He was adamant that every DC film would be able to stand on its own as the sole vision of the director. This was a deliberate contrast to how Marvel Studios produced their films. His strategy seemed very chaotic, however, with Michael Keaton returning and replacing Ben Affleck as Batman, a film centered on Static Shock, multiple Superman projects, and many spin-off shows for HBO Max that were in various stages of pre-production. Hamada was very interested in making big-budget shows and movies for HBO Max, which Zaslav is reportedly very opposed to. When Zaslav canceled Batgirl during its post-production, Hamada decided it was time to leave the company and he declined the offer. It’s possible more of his projects were canceled than the public knows at this point (Does anyone know what happened to Static Shock?). He had his strengths, but he had also been a controversial figure in the eyes of the public thanks to his actions during the abuse investigation of the 2017 film Justice League, so perhaps his leaving was for the best.

The search appeared to be over at last when a report came out that producer Dan Lin was being considered for the role. Once again, no formal offer was made but it appeared that Warner Bros. Discovery was putting all they had into getting him onboard. Lin had a relationship with Warner Bros. after producing many films for them, including The Lego Movie and Godzilla vs. Kong. However, he has many projects in the works right now through his production company Rideback, such as Lilo & Stitch with Disney and the long-awaited third Sherlock Holmes film. In order to take on this role in DC Studios, Lin would have to leave Rideback and any projects he was associated with as well as a first-look deal with Universal Studios. By all accounts, he seems like a good man, a decent producer, and a fan of DC Comics, but it wasn’t meant to be. He denied the offer when it came, likely due to the controversial cuts David Zaslav had been making throughout the company.

After an extensive search, Warner Bros. Discovery finally announced that James Gunn and Peter Safran had signed a deal to be Co-CEOs of DC Studios, which appears to be a new division within Warner Bros. Discovery and in the same vein as Marvel Studios. Most people will know James Gunn as the director of Guardians of the Galaxy and The Suicide Squad, but may be unfamiliar with Peter Safran. Safran has been a producer on many Warner Bros. franchises, including the Conjuring movies and DC films, including Peacemaker and The Suicide Squad, which he did with James Gunn. In fact, Gunn and Safran’s working relationship goes even further as THR reports that Safran began his time in the film industry as a manager where James Gunn was one of his clients. 

It appears that Zaslav turned his attention to building a structure at DC Studios similar to how Pixar is run, rather than Marvel Studios. A notion corroborated by THR themselves when they say “Even though Zaslav talked about finding a Kevin Feige-style executive, over the summer the team started looking at emulating the Pixar model, in which you have producers and filmmakers working as executives. That has never been tried in the live-action space”. This could be an experiment that pays off and, if it does, could lead to an industry shift where more creative voices are put behind the scenes. Gunn, for his part, will focus more on the creative side of everything while Safran will focus on the business and production side. The two of them will oversee all of DC’s film, television, and animation endeavors, which likely means picking up the pieces that hurricane Zaslav has left them with. 

“We look forward to collaborating with the most talented writers, directors, and actors in the world to create an integrated, multilayered universe that still allows for the individual expression of the artists involved.” Gunn and Safran said in a joint statement. Since so many fans have resonated with DC’s filmmaker-first approach to their films, it sounds as though Gunn and Safran want to keep that intact while also honing in on the chaotic approach left by Hamada. While Zaslav likes to boast a new ten-year plan for DC films, Gunn and Safran’s contract is only for four years, with the likely option to sign a new contract when it’s up. For reference, Hamada was only at Warner Bros. for four years as well, so there’s certainly a lot that can be done in that time. During this time, Gunn will be exclusive to DC, which puts to bed any speculation of him directing a Marvel film after Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. While he obviously has Peacemaker season 2 in the works, he will be able to also direct other DC films while he’s operating as co-CEO, something that has only been done at Pixar.

Up until now, the post-production of upcoming DC films like Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom, Shazam: Fury of the Gods, and The Flash have been overseen by the heads of Warner’s film division Micheal De Luca and Pamela Abdy. But effective November 1st, Gunn and Safran will take over those duties and every future DC film with the exception of Joker: Folie à Deux and possibly The Batman, due to them existing in separate universes. It’s unclear at this time who will produce the sequel to The Batman and its spin-off shows on HBO Max but De Luca and Abdy will produce the upcoming sequel to Joker. That all said, Gunn and Safran will work directly with De Luca and Abdy, and other various department heads while answering directly to David Zaslav himself. By all accounts, the two of them are kind people, who know how to make good movies and are fans of the source material, so this sounds like news that should be celebrated. While this is just speculation, it would be nice if this meant the remaining DC projects in development were safe from being unceremoniously canceled by Zaslav's need to recoup his dept.

Kevin Feige is a tough act to follow. Studios have been trying to replicate what he’s done for more than a decade now to no success. Warner’s has gone through many people trying to find their own, such as Zack Snyder, Geoff Johns, and the aforementioned Walter Hamada but none have found the secret sauce that makes Feige’s approach so successful. Truthfully, DC’s most successful when they aren’t trying to replicate what Marvel has done. DC’s films have found financial and critical success despite the constant changes behind the scenes. Time will tell what a more consistent voice will do for the films. A Pixar-type structure for a live-action studio is an interesting idea, one that could pave the way for more creative voices behind the scenes of major studios. While the news is surprising, considering Gunn has never expressed interest in being in this position, it’s great to have good news come out of Warner Bros. Discovery for once.

Warner’s Schroedinger Superman is Let Out of the Box

By Brandon T. McClure

A new report from The Hollywood Reporter recently stated that a Superman film starring Henry Cavill is in early development at Warner Bros. Discovery. This tracks with a very early insider report from the early days of the merger that stated a Superman film starring Cavill was a top priority for the incoming head of the company, David Zaslav. Since the 2017 release of Justice League, fans have been unsure of what the future held for the Man of Steel, but his appearance in Black Adam (complete with head), this new report from THR, and an announcement video from Cavill himself suggest the future is finally bright for the Man of Tomorrow.

For a while, it was unclear if Henry Cavill was still Superman in the DCEU or whatever Warners calls their DC film continuity these days. The character of Superman appeared in Shazam and Peacemaker but his face was obscured both times, Suggesting that Warner’s wasn’t sure if they were interested in moving forward with Cavill as Superman. While Cavill was clearly interested in returning to the role, the studio just dragged its feet for many years about it. Cavill always stated that if they wanted him, he would be there, indicating that there was no bad blood between him and the company. Cavill’s Superman clearly existed in the film universe, but because they were unwilling to make a call on it one way or the other, he also didn’t 

At one point it was revealed that Cavill himself had approached Warner Bros. head of DC Films, Walter Hamada with directors who were interested in developing a Superman movie. Back in 2019, Christopher McQuarrie (Mission: Impossible - Fallout) was asked about his involvement with the now-defunct Green Lantern film. He claimed “[i]t tied into the Superman movie that Cavill and I were proposing” and that Warner’s wasn’t interested. Most recently, during the press for Black Adam, Dwayne Johnson mentioned that the “old regime” (most likely talking about Hamada) were actively blocking attempts to bring Cavill back to the role. It wasn’t until September of this year that they got the green light to include him.

It’s unclear what Hamada had against bringing Cavill back, but he put two alternate Superman projects into development. As part of an overall deal with J.J. Abrams's Bad Robot company, Ta-Nehisi Coates was brought in to write a script for a 1940s set Superman film that would introduce a black version of Clark Kent. The other project was through a deal with Michael B. Jordan’s production company, Outlier Society Productions, to develop an HBO Max series based around the Superman of Earth 2, Val-Zod. Jordan was potentially interested in starring in that particular project. These two projects were part of Hamada’s Multiverse strategy which already delivered films like Joker and The Batman to critical acclaim. Now that Hamada has left the company, perhaps we’ll never truly know why he was so desperately opposed to Cavill’s return. 

These projects went quiet amid the chaos of the merger of WarnerMedia and Discovery. The deal WarnerMedia signed with Bad Robot was in 2019 and no projects have come out of that thus far even though rumors of various Justice League Dark shows have surrounded the deal. Shortly after Batgirl was canceled by Zaslav, an insider report hit the internet suggesting that Coates had turned in his first draft of his Superman project and Zaslav was requiring rewrites. These rewrites were reportedly to change the setting to the modern day and make the film about a white Clark Kent instead of the originally intended black version. Speculation around this report suggested that Zaslav could be interested in turning Coates’ script into a new Henry Cavill-led Superman film. However, the same THR article that spoke of “Man of Steel 2” also suggested that Coates’ Superman film is separate and still in active development. Where that leaves the Val-Zod series is anyone's guess at this point. 

2017 was the last time Henry Cavill was seen in the Superman suit (Zack Snyder’s Justice League notwithstanding), and it’s good that he’s finally able to return to the role that he clearly loved so much. The cinematographer for Black Adam recently told news outlets that a headless Superman was originally going to make an appearance in the film’s post-credits scene, in the vein of Shazam. Who knows how that would have gone over with audiences since they were already getting tired of the runaround from his previous two “appearances”. Every time a new regime shift happens at Warner Bros. they claim to have a “10-year plan” in place for the DC films. Unlike the last regime, part of that new plan appears to involve Henry Cavill as Superman. For five years, fans have wondered what the deal with Superman was and can rest comfortably knowing they have their answer.

Indominous Rex: The Perfect Jurassic Antagonist

By Brandon T. McClure

One of the opening scenes of Jurassic Park III has Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neil) giving a lecture to a group of people about the new discoveries that fossilized remains have revealed about raptors. He takes a question about the point of paleontology since there are two islands that hold real living dinosaurs. Grant responds to this young man by saying “what John Hammond and InGen did at Jurassic Park is create genetically engineered theme park monsters. Nothing more and nothing less.” This line would prove to be the entire thesis on which Jurassic World would be based. A thesis perfectly encapsulated by one dinosaur: Indominous Rex.

Since scientists are constantly discovering new things about the animals that lived 65 million years ago, the science that the Jurassic franchise is based on is wildly out of date. Jurassic Park is a technical marvel that continues to age like a fine wine every year, but paleo communities are constantly pointing out the various inaccuracies and it’s only gotten worse as the franchise continued well into the 21st century. By the time Jurassic World was developed, the many scientific theories about the creatures had become irrefutable, so then why don’t the dinosaurs of Jurassic World reflect the new scientific evidence? Why didn’t the Jurassic franchise update with the times? The reasons for this are at the very heart of what the Indominous Rex represents. 

Indominous Rex in Jurassic World

John Hammond's vision of what Jurassic Park could be was a wonderful place filled with majestic creatures that haven’t been seen in millions of years. That park failed, but you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Now that Jurassic World was open for ten years, visiting a dinosaur had become like visiting an elephant at the local zoo. In order to keep visitors interested, Simon Masrani (Irrfan Khan), the owner of the park, requested a new dinosaur be built from scratch. A completely unnatural scientific creation that would be bigger and scarier than anything the natural prehistoric world could reveal. The Indominous Rex was designed by splicing together a Tyrannosaurus Rex, a Velociraptor, multiple other dinosaurs, and various modern animals that gave it unpredictable genetic traits, such as the ability to camouflage. Indominous Rex is not a dinosaur, she’s a “theme park monster”. She’s the bastardization of John Hammond's vision and the very idea of Jurassic Park taken to its most extreme.

 Jurassic World reminds the audience that it’s a thematic feature of the franchise that the dinosaurs don’t look “scientifically accurate.” Dr. Henry Wu (BD Wong) spells it out in a heated exchange with Masrani by simply saying “nothing in Jurassic World is natural”. Thanks to the gaps in the genetic codes that needed to be filled, the animals would never look the exact way they did 65 million years ago. A concept that was also explored in the TellTale point and click adventure game, Jurassic Park: The Game. In a way, every dinosaur on the island is some kind of hybrid, it’s just far less pronounced. For example, Blue is revealed to be genetically defective in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, which is why she’s more responsive than other raptors.

Dr. Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum), Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) in Jurassic World: Dominion

As Dr. Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum) says in Jurassic Park, “your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.” At the time Dr. Malcom was talking about reviving dangerous super predators that haven’t been alive for millions of years, but now that line could apply to the scientists of Jurassic World. The new park could plan for any eventuality, they had multiple contingency plans in case the known dinosaurs got loose. The Indominous Rex was an unknown dinosaur, capable of abilities that were unpredictable. A genetically cloned dinosaur has millions of years of genetic coding that allows them to inherently know how to act and live. The Indominous, however, had none of that and had to discover it on her own. She had no genetic evolution encoded in her DNA and therefore had no concept of her place in the world.

The confusion in the Indominous Rex’s genetic code makes her far more dangerous than other dinosaurs. She doesn’t kill to hunt like a normal predator, she kills “for sport”. Everyone who ran and designed Jurassic World was so high on their own success that they felt they could handle anything. They knew they could design a dinosaur from scratch but, once again, they failed to ask if they should. Creation is a dangerous power that is incredibly unpredictable. They abused that power, and it fought back. In one single night, everything that was so carefully controlled and built was destroyed and returned to nature. Life will always find a way.

The Indominous Rex is the natural final step to the underlying theme laid out in Jurassic Park. She’s an unholy creature. Everything about her is trying to make the audience's skin crawl. Her skin is unnaturally white and her roar is strategically designed to make the audience uncomfortable. Her head is reminiscent of a skull and her jaw can open unnaturally wide. The Indominous may have been built from the genetic structure of real animals, but nothing about her is right. She is the antithesis of nature and the very thing the Jurassic franchise warns against. In another world, the Indominous Rex would have been a concept saved for Jurassic World: Dominion. Now that the hybrid dinosaur concept has been exploited three times (counting Jurassic World: Camp Cretaceous), audiences are rather disinterested in the idea. The Jurassic franchise has always needed a “villain” dinosaur and they developed the perfect one far too soon. She truly was a “theme park monster.”

OPINION / Return of the Summer Blockbuster…sort of

By Patrick Nagy

It’s Memorial Day Weekend in the United States. A time we remember the soldiers of wars and battles past. It’s also is a time that feels like the kickoff of summer and since 1975, it’s the time of the Blockbuster! Technically the first Summer Blockbuster film Jaws was released on June 20th, but two years later Star Wars set the stage for what would be the launchpad for the big summer movie releases. Rambo: First Blood Part II, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, X-Men Days of Future Past, Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End, Mission Impossible, Men in Black III, The Hangover II, Beverly Hills Cop II, Back to the Future III, Return of the Jedi…if it was a sequel to a success or featured a mega action star, it would be out Memorial Day Weekend.

Jaws

This year is a little different though. After two years of a pandemic, vast technology improvements, and just a basic shift on how entertainment is thought of and produced, the Summer Blockbuster is coming home. To your home that is. Sure there is still a push to get people back to theaters like the current release of the long awaited Top Gun: Maverick, but some of the most anticipated releases are from the streaming services. 

Disney+ comes out swinging with the unexpectedly adult humored Chip `N Dales Rescue Rangers full length film and the expanse of the Skywalker Star Wars timeline with Ewan McGregor starring in the Obi-Wan Kenobi limited series.

Chip `N Dales Rescue Rangers - Disney+

Paramount+ pushed up the streaming date of Sonic the Hedgehog 2 having only released less than two months ago in theaters.

HBO Max followed suit by releasing Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore hoping to find new life for the Harry Potter prequel after a disappointing theater run.

Netflix probably has the most anticipated return with the fourth season of their wildly popular Stranger Things franchise. Sticking with the batch release method, binge watchers should rejoice this three day weekend.

Dustin (Gaten Matarazzo), Mike (Finn Wolfhard) and Max (Sadie Sink) in Stranger Things S4

The point is, things are changing. In some ways entertainment is changing for the better, and in other ways not so much. Is this the last gasp of the super event movie theater summer Blockbuster we all come to love over the past 47 years? Is it the end of waiting in line for tickets to see that one big event movie opening day? The end of cheering, screaming, and applauding in sold out showings for our favorite characters on bigger than life screens while we sip on incredibly huge sodas while downing popcorn, and Junior Mints?

I sure hope not.

Television and films are better than ever, and I’m grateful for the convenience of streaming high definition images onto my large screen in the comfort of my living room, but next year when things are hopefully a little safer, I hope to go to the theater of rabid fans to see the next anticipated Summer Blockbuster. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 perhaps?! 

Disney Marvel - Guardians of the Galaxy