Star Trek Recap

I have been working on getting through every Star Trek series and movie. It has been a long road, but I am at the end. By the time this is posted, I will be close to finishing the final season of "Star Trek: Discovery," which is still airing. In essence, I have finally caught up. 

Star Trek: Enterprise

This is my least favorite "Trek." It was the hardest to get through, and I got the least out of it. This series takes place before the United Federation of Planets, but there was a Star Fleet. This is the first Enterprise that ever flew through the stars, and a lot of the show is "here is how this thing came to be." Stupid stuff, too, like the term "red alert" when the ship is under attack. 

There were a few interesting characters, but Commander Tucker (Conor Trinneer) was the only one I really cared about. Earth is attacked at one point in the series, and his sister is killed. He loses his way to grief, and his journey back is the show's best storyline. 

Star Trek/Star Trek Into Darkness/Star Trek Beyond

I have much to discuss, so I will combine the recent movies. I like the movies, even if the two sequels never live up to the first one. The first one does a great job of introducing different versions of Kurk, Spock, and the rest of the crew; this is set in a timeline different from the shows. My biggest gripe with "Into Darkness" is that the big reveal was obvious. "Beyond" was a ton of fun, but the story was never as interesting as the first one. There has been talk of a fourth or even a new movie series for many years. I'd like to see what they do with the franchise next. 

Star Trek: Discovery (Seasons 1-4)

The initial idea behind "Discovery" was an anthology show. It would start in the same period as the original series and would move ahead in time with each season. What it became was one of the best "Trek" series. It was hard for me to get into the show. Michael Burnham, played by Sonequa Martin-Green, is a tough character to get behind. She is abrasive and humorless, but over that first season, she becomes a more likable character in her interactions with the other crew members on Discovery.

After season two (which heavily features characters from "Star Trek: Strange New Worlds"), the show makes a massive time jump into the future where Star Fleet is fractured after a cataclysmic event. This was where the show was at its best. It no longer had to deal with the technology limitations of what the original series had (no holodeck, for instance) and could become its own thing. I am very much looking forward to finishing the series. 

Star Trek: Lower Decks (Seasons 1-4)

"Star Trek," but a 30-minute cartoon! I was not that impressed with the first season of this show. When I got to season two, I loved it. The show is hilarious and balances reverence for the series with a skewering of its many tropes. The show follows a ship called the USS Cerritos, a ship not at the forefront of space exploration; the show's first episode is called Second Contact because this ship and her crew are not tasked with making first contact with alien species. The main focus is the lower-deck crew, the crew members tasked with the menial work and don't go on away missions. The show is a ton of fun, and in the four seasons (a final season is set to air later this year), it has become a love letter to everything "Star Trek" stands for: exploration and making a family on the ship.

Star Trek: Picard (Seasons 1-3)

I wish this series was better. It is basically Picard, Seven of Nine (from my favorite series, "Voyager,"), and a bunch of random people going on an adventure. Season three might be the strongest season, but it leans hard into nostalgia (and not just because the entire cast of "The Next Generation" is in it) for me to call it a good season. It was watchable, and I didn't dread getting through its ten episodes. 

The second season was borderline unwatchable for me. It involved two of my least favorite villains from "The Next Generation:" Q and The Borg. Whenever Q showed up, it would either be a fun or incredibly annoying episode (mostly irritating, in my opinion), and I found most Borg stories boring. Those stories always unfolded the same way: The crew would be in dire straights, and all hope seemed lost until some magic moment when they figured something out and beat the Borg. 

Overall, the show was a good send-off for the Next Gen crew. 

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (Season 1-2)

My biggest complaint about some of the other series is that they are focused on the past, but this show handles that really well. This follows Captain Pike (Anson Mount), who captained the Enterprise before Kirk (he's actually the captain in the "Star Trek" pilot). The show never feels limited by being set in "Trek's" past. 

A lot of that has to do with how much fun the show is. Where a lot of the new shows tend to feel a bit darker and deal with heavier issues, "Strange New Worlds" feels like the original series in that it sticks to Enterprise, goes to a planet, and solves problem-type storytelling. There are elements of serialized storytelling, but overall, the show is episodic. Season three has been announced, and I look forward to watching it this week-to-week when it comes out. 

Movie Review: Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes

I have never seen the original "Planet of the Apes" movies (something I am currently working on fixing), but I have loved all the recent prequel movies. They are some of the most technically impressive films of the past decades. And on top of all that, they have a story that is more than simply references to the original. It has been seven years since the last chapter of this story.

"Kindom of the Planet of the Apes" jumps "generations" from where "War" left off and the apes have broken up into clans. When his clan is attacked, Noa (Owen Teague) teams up with a human named Mae (Freya Allen) to rescue them.

"Kingdom" makes some narratively interesting choices that I enjoyed. Moving the timeline ahead by 300 years allows the movie not to be beholden to the events of "War" while still reckoning with the events of the previous movies. Ceaser's teachings have become forgotten by some and corrupted by others. Proximas Ceaser (Kevin Duran) is the perfect example of this. Ceaser (played by Andy Serkis) had two beliefs: "Apes Together Strong" and "Ape Not Kill Ape." Proximas only knows "Apes Strong." He sees that as Apes need to amass power. This is why he is kidnapping other apes to get them to help open a vault where humans left powerful weapons. He will do whatever it takes to get in there, even if it means killing apes. 

My main issue is that you aren't rooting for these characters as much as you were for Ceaser. I do not think the writing does enough to give the viewer a reason to care for any of the apes. Noa and his friends are not fully fleshed-out characters, so you do not have an emotional investment in their struggles. In "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes," Ceaser developed into a character the audience could root for and they were given many reasons to do so. I just did not feel that with Noa. It could change in the next movies, but one movie in, I am not feeling a connection to the characters. 

This is a franchise that has no business being as good as it is. It is a prequel series to a series from the 60s and 70s of varying quality. The first three of this prequel series were compelling art pieces and revitalized the Planet of the Apes franchise. While 'Kingdom' didn't quite reach the heights of the previous three movies, I still found it an enjoyable addition to the franchise. 

7/10

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence/action

2h 24min

Movie Review: The Fall Guy

A Four Quadrant movie appeals to everyone, specifically men and women over 25 and men and women under 25. Basically, it can safely be recommended to everyone. "The Fall Guy" is one of those movies. 

Stuntman Colt Stevens (Ryan Gosling) is asked to find the missing lead actor of a film. 

As Jody, the director and love interest, Emily Blunt shares incredible onscreen chemistry with Ryan Gosling's Colt Stevens. Their time together, though limited, underscores the importance of strong onscreen chemistry in a movie. If it were not for these two, it would be a boring movie with incredible stunts. 

This movie is a love letter to practical stunts and stunt performers. Numerous action set pieces are jaw-dropping spectacles that showcase what these unsung heroes do every day on set: falling from great heights, jumping vehicles, getting set on fire, or simply fighting hand-to-hand. This movie highlights what makes stunts so crucial. 

It boggles my mind that this movie underperformed at the box office. It has everything it needs to be a hit: it is funny, has two great leads, thrilling action, and is a ton of fun. When I left the theater, I realized that I had been on a run of good but not fun movies. "The Fall Guy" is worth seeing in a theater, and you really should see it if you have the chance. 

8/10

Rated PG-13 for action and violence, drug content and some strong language.

2hrs. 6mins

Summer Movie Preview

May

The Fall Guy (May 3)

When the movie's star is kidnapped, it is up to his stuntman (Ryan Gosling) to find him. Gosling is having a moment. Between "Barbie," his Oscar performance, and his "Bevis and Butthead" skit on SNL a few weeks ago, he is everywhere. The movie looks hilarious and is a solid way to start the summer. 

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes (May 10)

The recent Planet of the Apes movies have been either great or incredible. The last one, "War for the Planet of the Apes," came out in 2017, which feels like forever ago, so I am excited to see what the next chapter holds. 

IF (May 17)

I know only a little about this movie, other than it was written/directed by John Krasinski, stars Ryan Reynolds, and involves imaginary friends. It could be a lot of fun. 

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (May 24)

As a massive fan of "Mad Max: Fury Road," this is a no-brainer. This one will follow Furiosa's (Ana Taylor-Joy) life before the events of "Fury Road" (where Charlize Theron played her). 

June

Bad Boys: Ride or Die (Jun 7)

What interests me the most is that this movie is Will Smith's first big movie since the infamous "Oscar Slap." Has he done enough to rehabilitate his image in the last 18 months for audiences to make this a hit? The other "Bad Boys" movies have been good, and there is a fan base out there, so we will see if that helps. 

Inside Out 2 (Jun 14)

When I was at "The Fall Guy" the other day, I saw the first full trailer for this, and it looks incredible. Disney's decision to release animated movies on Disney+ and not in theaters ("Encanto" and "Turning Red" being the two most prominent examples) has been devastating. In the last few years, the box office for Disney/Pixar movies has been depressing. With this being a known quantity, I hope this marks a turnaround for these movies. 

The Bikeriders (Jun 21)

Austin Butler, Jodie Comer, and Tom Hardy—let me put this another way for you ordinary people who are not as wholly immersed in movies/TV as I am: Elvis and Villanelle from Killing Eve and one of the greatest actors working today. These three stars are in a movie about a motorcycle club, and it looks intense. 

A Quiet Place: Day One (Jun 28)

"A Quiet Place" is the movie that made me a horror fan. It forced me to overcome my fear (pun intended) of watching horror movies, and now they are my go-to when I want to put something on. I am cautiously optimistic. I am not sure how much we need a prequel to the first movie, but if it is as half as good as the first two, it's going to be a good movie. 

Horizon: An American Saga-Part 1 (Jun 28)

This is on here for one reason. Part 1 and Part 2 are coming out this summer, and both are starring and primarily financed by Kevin Costner. It will be interesting to see if audiences still want to see Westerns. I am guessing this will appeal most to the "Yellowstone" fandom (of which I am not one). Part 2 comes out on Aug 16. 

July

MaXXXine (Jul 5)

Ty West's unlikely horror trilogy, which started with "X" and continued with "Pearl," will conclude with "MaXXine." The other two are pretty great horror movies, and I look forward to seeing how this all wraps up. 

Fly Me to the Moon (Jul 12)

I am a huge fan of Josh Hartnett (and not just because we are related. He is my grandma's sister's grandson if I remember correctly). He is a great actor who had a ton of success in the 90s but has stuck to smaller movies in the last 20 years. He is in a career resurgence as of late: a small role in last year's "Oppenheimer," and in a great episode of the most recent season of "Black Mirror." Here, he stars alongside Scarlett Johansson in a movie about NASA and the moon landing. It could be a great movie. 

Twisters (Jul 19)

One of the first CDs I bought through Colombia House—and I am dating myself here—was the soundtrack for "Twister." Yeah, I just admitted that. I have not revisited the movie recently, but I plan on it before seeing this sequel. This looks like an old-fashioned, fun disaster movie that needs to be seen on the big screen. 

Deadpool & Wolverine (Jul 26)

This is the only Marvel movie coming out this year. You might not realize how big of a deal that is. Over the past decade, we have had a deluge of Marvel movies. In the past few years, the movies have not been great. We have had a break from Marvel for the past few months, and I think that "Deadpool & Wolverine" is just the movie to reintroduce the MCU to the public. This movie will be incredible if even half the rumored cameos are true. 

August

Harold and the Purple Crayon (Aug 2)

I have heard nothing about this movie, and I have yet to see a trailer, even though there is one. I didn't even know it existed until I saw a poster at the theater a few months ago. It is only on this list because my goal was to have at least one movie every week in the summer. It stars Zachry Levi, and I think he is pretty great. 

Trap (Aug 9)

I will give M. Night Shyamalan credit for this; he believes in his movies. For the past few years, he has been financing his movies. I have not been a fan of them, but they do okay at the box office. I have no idea what this one is about, but given his track record, it will be interesting. 

Borderlands (Aug 9)

Last week, I rambled about video game adaptations. This is another movie adaptation of a video game, and it will be a train wreck. I will probably see it anyway. 

Alien: Romulus (Aug 16)

From this trailer, it looks like the "Alien" franchise is returning to its roots: horror. It has so much that it feels like the original: closterphobic and scary. That alone is enough to get me into the theater. 

Random Rambling: Video Game Adaptations

There are a lot of different things that have become successful movie adaptations. Books and comics are the big two, but some plays or even toys/games have had decent adaptations (I think the "Battleship" movie is an absolute blast to watch, even if it is not even close to a good movie.) "Barbie" set the bar high for what a movie based on a toy could be. One piece of media that has been incredibly hard to adapt is video games. There are no great video game movies; 2019's "Detective Pikachu" and 2020's "Sonic The Hedgehog" are enjoyable but don't reach the level of "great."

There are many reasons why most video game movies are terrible. The most obvious is that when you sit down to play a video game, you are an active part of the storytelling; the player has some control over how they approach a level or mission, for example. I just finished the latest 'Assassin's Creed" game, "Assassin's Creed: Mirage," and there are multiple points where you get to decide how you are going to get to your target; will you sneak in with the crowd or hire mercenaries to fight off the guards so you can sneak into the building? In a movie, you cannot recapture that. My experience playing a game might not match with someone else's. How do you relay those different experiences in a movie? What if I hated the part of the game that you chose to include in the movie? I could go on and on. While you can say the same thing about book adaptations, there is something singularly hard about putting a video game into a different medium because of how the user interacts with the material. 

Another significant barrier is that the story takes place over an extended period. It took me about 11 hours to finish "Assassin's Creed: Mirage." While some of that time was spent on various side quests and dying because I made a dumb choice, it still amounts to a story that unfolds over a long time. How do you tell a story that takes the player 11 hours to experience in a two-hour movie? You really can't. This brings me to the crux of this Random Rambling: video games should only be adapted as television shows. 

HBO’s “The Last of Us' and Prime's 'Fallout' exemplify successful video game adaptations. These shows have accomplished what movies often struggle with—they prioritize the 'why.' Why this story? Why tell it in this way? They use the game as a jumping-off point to tell a compelling story. Instead of attempting to recreate the game, they have chosen a few elements and crafted a story from there. 

Let's look at moments from "The Last of Us" and the "Uncharted" movie lifted directly from the games that, I think, perfectly illustrate what I have been rambling about for over 500 words now. In 2022's "Uncharted," starring Tom Holland and Mark Wahlberg, we get a recreation of a major action scene from "Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception." Nathan Drake (Tom Holland) is on a cargo plane and, after an action scene, is dangling from a long line of tethered crates. Playing this in the game is a ton of fun. You are dodging falling debris, shooting bad guys, and trying to climb back into the plane. In the movie, it's a fun action scene, but it loses a lot when you are not in control of Nathan. 

Compare that to a moment from "The Last of Us." Joel (Pedro Pascal) and Ellie (Bella Ramsey) have been on the road for a long time. They have made it from Boston to Salt Lake City, where the doctors are working on the cure. In a small moment before the big finale, Ellie finds some giraffes that have gotten loose from the zoo and show them to Joel. It is a quiet moment before the game/season ends. It's not a massive action set piece; nothing important is revealed during this scene. It is purely a character moment for the two main characters.

This gets back to the "why." If you choose to adapt something, it cannot be for just the moments of action. Nothing matters if you are not invested in the characters. A TV show's length allows the characters to develop and the audience to care about them so that we are invested in their fates when the action happens. That is what the movies have been missing; a reason to care. 

Random Rambling: 24 Years of “Survivor”

I promised a review of Civil War, but it was a very long week, and that movie deserves more than a half-assed review. So, instead, I have something I have been thinking about lately. I have watched every single season of "Survivor." That is 23 years or 46 seasons. But in the past few years, it has felt like more of an obligation than a show I want to watch. 

I never watch it on Wednesday when it airs, and when I do watch it (sometimes not until the following Wednesday), it is usually a show I put on in the background while I do something else. The show has become a very low priority, and part of me feels guilty that I am not the fan I was before. 

I was glued to the TV when it premiered and watched it live through college and even grad school. I have dedicated untold hours to the show between watching it, reading recaps, or listening to podcasts talking about it. 

Part of this is that last year, they moved to 90-minute episodes. It just makes the show too long. There are still moments from the show I enjoy, such as the challenges and Tribal Councils, but a lot of the show feels a bit like filler. Host Jeff Probst said that the move to 90-minute episodes was to give us more time with the players at camps, but more often than not, it is not that compelling and, honestly, makes me dislike the players more. 

In a world where there are incredible TV shows (seriously, if you haven't watched "Shogun" yet, you still have time before the finale on Tuesday), where does a show like "Survivor" fit? Right now, it is still a good background show and still gets good enough ratings to justify more seasons (reality shows are cheaper to produce than scripted shows). The fanbase is still there, but I don't know if I am in that group anymore. 

Spring Break Movie Break Down: Part 2

The Last Repair Shop:

This was the Oscar winner for Best Documentary Short Film, and you can watch it on YouTube. In just 39 minutes, it told a more compelling story than some of the feature-length movies I have seen. The heartwarming stories of the people who repair every instrument for students in Los Angeles schools mesh well with the students they are helping. 

Women Talking: I had seen this a few years ago and loved it. My parents hadn't seen it, so this was an easy choice when we were looking for something to watch on Prime. The movie's plot is only women in a barn loft talking, but it has some of the most tense dialogue scenes ever filmed. The stakes (a group of Mennonite women discussing if they should stay and fight the oppressive males in charge, leave, or do nothing) are high, and the conversations they have are loaded and heavy. It is one of the few movies I can think of that I feel safe recommending to anyone. It's that good. 

Arthur The King:

I have always been a sucker for movies with dogs, but since adopting my own, I might have to stop watching them. "Arthur The King" is about an extreme race runner and his team who find that a stray dog starts following them as they race. The movie is enjoyable enough, but I am not sure I would have wanted to see it were it not for the dog factor. 

The Boys in the Boat:

Honestly, I would not have watched this if I had not been with my parents. The movie is okay, and the story is inspiring, but it feels like any other sports movie you have seen. 

Girls State:

A few years ago, I watched "Boys State," a documentary about a program put on by The American Legion where, for a week, high school juniors form a government. It gives them an understanding of how government works. "Girls State" is that, but for the girls. The only thing new about this is the differences between the two programs. Girls State has a much smaller budget; the participants are not allowed to go anywhere alone and seem to spend less time than the boys engaged in civic activities/discussions. Both are on AppleTV+ and are worth watching. 

Monkey Man:

Dev Patel became famous when he starred in "Slumdog Millionaire" and has had an interesting career. He has found great success in smaller movies and has been great in the ones I have seen. Now, he is trying to write and direct movies as well. This is an excellent first effort at both. Patel plays a man looking to get revenge on the people who played a part in his mother's death. The fight scenes are a lot of fun and heavily inspired by the "John Wick" movies. I look forward to seeing what Patel does next. 

The First Omen:

I recently watched The Omen, the original with Gregory Peck, and was blown away by it. I was wondering how this prequel was going to work, but it was great. It feels very much like a prequel, full of classic horror elements that don't get too graphic. It feels like a throwback, and I liked it.

Spring Break Movie Break Down: Part 1

Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire: I have enjoyed the recent Legendary Monster movies. However, after "Godzilla Minus One" last year, their faults have become magnified. The biggest of those are the human characters. In this movie, the only purpose they serve is as deliverers of exposition: mostly pointless exposition. We know Kong is lonely when we see his response to what he thinks is another one of his kind, which turns out to be the noise a weird frog-like creature makes. 

The Unknown Country: I have repeatedly said that Lily Gladstone was the best part of Killers of the Flower Moon. The streaming service MUBI has a few of her other movies up right now. "The Unknown Country" follows her as Tana as she drives to Texas after her grandmother's death. This is one of those "slice of life" movies where the plot is secondary to watching these small moments she has with the people she meets along the way. 

Cocktail: Every month, the Criterion Channel puts up different collections of movies. This past month was Razzie Winners. The Razzies are given out just before the Oscars for the Worst of the Year. "Cocktail" was made when Tom Crusie was still a rising star, so I assumed it would be a good movie and that the Razzies were wrong, but they were not. My one takeaway from this was that nothing makes sense in this movie. 

Elevator Game: I love horror movies. That is why I subscribe to Shudder. Every time I launch the app, I hope to find some hidden gem horror movie. This is not one of them. The acting is terrible, and the story is threadbare. It is based on a viral challenge where you can travel to another world if you follow a sequence in an elevator. The movie and the challenge are dumb.  

Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour (Taylor's Version): Love her, hate her, or think she is a deep-state agent, you have to respect her hustle. Watching this three-and-a-half-hour concert movie made me appreciate her and her career. She created this awe-inspiring show with fireworks, colossal set pieces, and incredible visuals. While watching it, I looked up the Eras Tour date, and the fact that she could do this two or three nights in a row might be the most impressive thing about her. 

Movie Review: Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire

I am legally obligated to say that the first movie I saw in the theater was "Ghostbusters." I may have been a newborn, but I was there, so it counts. I guess you could blame my parents for my movie addiction. That movie is perfect and is one of those films that is untouchable. A pivot was made when the 2016 remake flopped, and it was terrible. Why remake the movie when you can make sequels? That started with "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" in 2021 and continues with "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire."

The new and old Ghostbusters must join forces when an ancient evil is unleashed.

I will start with what works. The new cast is excellent. The focus is on Pheobe (Mckenna Grace), the granddaughter of Egon Spangler (played by Harold Ramis in the original movies). Pheobe is all in on being a Ghostbuster, but when her mom and fellow Ghostbuster remove her from the team, she finds herself looking for a purpose. Grace (an alumnus of "The Haunting of Hill House") shows how important being a Ghostbuster is to her and how heartbroken she gets when she is no longer on the team.

The movie works best when it is focused on the new Ghostbusters. It pains me to say this, but the movie comes to a screeching halt when the original cast is on screen. The attempt to recapture the magic fails, and their mere presence overshadows the potential greatness of the new cast.

Every time I saw the trailer for "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire," I said to myself, "Please don't suck," over and over. It managed to clear that very low bar. I had more fun with this movie than I thought I would, but it could have been better. It could have been a step forward and looked to the franchise's future, but it chose to be beholden to the past.

6/10

Rated PG-13 for supernatural action/violence, language and suggestive references.

1hr 55min

TV Review: Shogun

As this website proves, I watch many movies/TV shows; too many by some standards. I will review damn near any movie, but to get me to review a TV show is more challenging. While fun, entertaining, or even great, many of the shows I watch are not worth spending my precious free time writing about. So when I tell you that FX/Hulu's "Shōgun" is one of the best things I have ever seen, it means something.

Based on James Clavell's book of the same name, "Shōgun" follows pirate John Blackthorn (Cosmo Jarvis) as he finds himself captured and a pawn in a power struggle among the lords of a region in Japan.

This is easily the best show I have watched in the last five to ten years. First and foremost, it is a compelling story that is well told. The first episode gives a clear picture of the world, and it never gets so messy that it is hard to follow. Jarvis is an audience surrogate, so as he learns about the culture, the audience does, helping ease us into the complex world shown on screen.

It is also a beautiful show. The sets are incredible and feel lived in. You can tell this was shot on location and not on some soundstage (even if it is, it doesn't look like it). This makes the show feel epic and is something that many shows try to emulate (I'm looking at you, most Disney+ shows) but fail more often than not.

I have heard many comparisons to "Game of Thrones," and rightfully so. It is a large, sweeping, epic story with fantastic world-building and a large cast. This is a special show, and I am excited to watch it every week. I can only hope that since it is based on a single book (over one thousand pages long), it will not suffer the same fate as "Game of Thrones," where it limps toward a conclusion. About half the season has aired, and it remains as compelling as it was when it began.

2024 Oscar Recap

Best Supporting Actress: Da'vine Joy Randolph

I may not have been the biggest fan of "The Holdovers," but I have no problem with Randolph winning the Oscar. Her role as Mary Lamb, the cook, is one of the movie's high points.

Best Animated Feature-The Boy and the Heron

Would I have loved to see "Across The Spider-Verse" win? Yeah, but "The Boy and The Heron" is a movie by one of the greatest animators in history. It is about a creator looking at his work and how it can progress without him. It's basically Hayao Miyazaki contemplating his legacy in what will likely be his last movie.

Best Original Screenplay-Anatomy of a Fall

It was my favorite movie of the year-I have watched it three times in four months. I've preordered the Criterion release and will probably watch it on the day it arrives. If you still need to watch it, fix that.

Best Supporting Actor-Robert Downey Jr.

This was one of the few categories where they all deserved it. Downey's career has been rocky, and he was a pariah in the industry for a while. I am glad that he got help, got better, and became the star he is today.

Best Visual Effects-Godzilla Minus One

This movie was nominated for one Oscar, and it won! Its budget was a fraction of the other movies, and what they achieved with it was stunning. I highly recommend it, even if you have no interest in Godzilla.

Best Sound-Zone of Interest

I might not have liked the movie, but what they did with sound was incredible. You never see anything happening in Auswitch; you hear it, which is more powerful.

Ryan Gosling singing "I'm Just Ken."

This is why I watched the Oscars (on Hulu, but still). I love Gosling. He committed to the role of Ken and is a big enough star that he could not have sung the song at the Oscars, but he (and a few of the other Kens from the movie) did rehearsals and knocked it out of the park. It might not have won, but this was the performance of the night.

Best Actor-Cillian Murphy

Honestly, this was his award to lose. I would have been thrilled if Jeffery Wright had won; the man deserves one. Murphy has always been more of a supporting character in his career (and great at it), but he was great as Oppenheimer, and it is a role that would change his career whether he won an Oscar or not.

Best Director-Christopher Nolan

Nolan is one of the few directors I would call an auteur (someone with a distinct style and creative control over their movies). He is a director whose new movies I will rush to the theater to see.

Best Actress-Emma Stone

Don't get me wrong—I loved what Stone did in "Poor Things," but Lily Gladstone should have won. She was the heart and soul of that movie, and her performance was stunning. If she wasn't going to win, Sandra Huler should have won "Anatomy of a Fall." That movie was outstanding, and she was fantastic in it.

Which brings me to...

Best Picture-Oppenheimer

Is Oppenheimer good...yes. It is a great movie. I wish I liked it more. By now, my friends and family know what I would have picked for Best Picture; "Anatomy of a Fall." Hollywood just loves a biopic too much for "Oppenheimer" to lose this one.

Movie Review: The Promised Land

Set in the mid-1700s, "A Promised Land" is the story of Ludvig Kahlen (Mads Mikkelsen), who is determined to make the barren Dutch shrubland a place where crops can grow. Along the way, he must deal with outlaws and the ruthless landowner who has sole rule in the area.

In this movie, he brings a quiet dignity to this role. He is forced to deal with disrespect and doubt from everyone. Mickkelson's subtle facial expressions show that even as Kahlen stands stoically and is disrespected, he wants to respond but can't. He is a man who came from nothing and wants a title, land, and respect, and he is willing to put up with a lot to get it.

Mikkelson makes every movie he is in better. Some of his best work is in these smaller Danish movies. Honestly, the man should be a massive star in America. He has found some success(three incredible seasons as the titular "Hannibal," for one), but not as much as he deserves. A few years ago, I watched him in a movie called "Another Round," about a group of men who decide to be constantly buzzed/drunk to see how it affects their lives, one I highly recommend.

8/10

Rated R for bloody violence, language, some sexuality, and brief nudity

2hrs 7mins

Movie Review: Dune: Part 2

If you have gone to an AMC in the past few years, you will have seen the famous Nicole Kidman ad, in which she talks about the power of movies. "We come to this place for magic," Kidman says as the ad starts, and sadly, very few movies have risen to meet her lofty words. "Dune: Part 2" is one of those few.

Paul Atredies (Timothée Chalamet) must unite with the Fremen to get revenge for his father's death. That is a gross oversimplification, but with the complex, interwoven storylines, it just felt like the only coherent one I could write.

This movie is a masterpiece. It takes an 896-page novel and (between this movie and part one) boils it down to 5 hours and 20 minutes, and it feels complete (as someone who didn't read the book). Everything that needs to be explained is explained; the rest is easily inferred or illustrated with visuals. A case in point is the energy shields that are used during fighting. There is no need to explain how they work (David Lynch's "Dune" did); you just understand how things like swords can penetrate the shield, but other objects cannot.

Chalamet brings a quiet intensity to the role of Paul (sometimes literally quiet in how often he is whispering). In the first movie, Paul loses his father and is forced to flee with his mother after averting their would-be execution. He has to earn the trust of the Fremen to raise an army to avenge his father's death. In "Dune: Part Two," we get to see Paul go through a lot to earn the Fremen's trust and become a messiah to many members of the Fremen people.

When my friend and I left the theater, he said this could become this generation's "Lord of the Rings," I can see that. "Dune" is a movie made with great care, adapting a book considered unfilmable by an ambitious director, in this case, Denis Villeneuve. It is a movie over two and a half hours, but I never felt it. I hope that Villeneuve can write/direct the second book in the Dune series, "Dune Messiah."

9/10

Rated PG-13 for sequences of strong violence, some suggestive material, and brief strong language.

2hrs. 46min

Oscar Nominated Live-Action Short Films

Every year, the Oscar-nominated shorts get special releases in theaters. Many years ago, I could see all of them (animated, live-action, and documentary) at these special screenings. Considering I was in college, I had the time to spend all afternoon in a theater. This year, I was able to go see the live-action short nominees. This is the order in which they were shown, not a ranking.

The After (8/10)

David Oyelowo stars as a man who leaves his job and becomes a ride-share driver after experiencing a horrific tragedy. This was quite the one to start with. The inciting incident was devastating because it came completely out of nowhere. Oyelowo delivers such a powerful performance in this 19-minute story. It is on Netflix and is worth watching; just be prepared.

Red, White, and Blue (8/10)

This one is tough to write about, and not because it is about a woman having to go out of state for an abortion. There is a lot more going on, and when you come to the end of the 23 minutes and see everything in context, this becomes one of the most powerful films I have ever seen.

Knight of Fortune (8/10)

After seeing the first two movies, this one was a welcome respite. Karl (Leif Andrée) cannot bring himself to face the loss of his wife. Karl meets a man named Torben (Jens Jørn Spottag), and the two men form a weird friendship, which is what Karl needs to help him. I know that makes it sound as emotionally devastating as the first two. Still, this one has a lot of humor, and much of that comes from the interactions between the two men.

Invincible (6/10)

This is the only one I didn't really like. It recounts the last 48 hours in the life of Marc (Léokim Beaumier-Lépine), a 14-year-old in juvenile detention. My issue with the movie is that we are given very little reason to root for Marc. We see him with his family on a weekend visit; everything else is Marc self-sabotaging his future, which is not interesting to watch.

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar (8/10)

Wes Anderson is one of my go-to directors. He has such a distinctive style in his movies that I love. He and Netflix teamed up to make short films based on some of Roald Dahl's short stories. "The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar" stars Benedict Cumberbatch as the titular Henry. It is weird, it is fun, and it is heart-warming. I don't even want to tell you more than that. There are four on Netflix, and if they are all as good as this one, I hope they do more. This was the perfect movie to end on.

Movie Review: Perfect Days

Hirayama (Koji Yakusha) is a janitor who travels around Tokyo cleaning public toilets. At a very basic level, that is all that "Perfect Days" is about. And at just over two hours, there is not enough plot to fill that time.

Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy this movie. I thought that Yakusha did a great job playing this role. He is very subdued and barely speaks for the first hour or so. Hairayama is a man who is meticulous, takes pride in what he does, and finds joy in the small moments of everyday life. He may have a job cleaning public toilets, but he makes sure he leaves them pristine. Takashi (Tokio Emoto), another janitor who works with him, asks him why he works so hard on cleaning when they are just going to get dirty again. He even comments on the fact that Hairayama brings his own cleaning supplies. These moments tell you all you need to know about Hairayama.

And that is why I don't think the movie has enough plot to support the runtime. In the first 10-15 minutes, you know who Hairayama is and can move on to the meat of the story. Instead, the movie spends another hour hammering home this point before we see any real disruption to his routine.

There are plenty of beautiful moments and, to be honest, toilets in the movie. If the movie was 90 minutes, it would be a fantastic movie with great performances and stunning visuals.

6/10

Rated PG for some language, partial nudity, and smoking.

2h. 3m.

Movie Review: Madame Web

I wouldn't say I like trashing movies. I want to enjoy every movie I watch. When I start a movie, I go into it, rating it a 6 out of 10, and it goes up or down as the movie goes on. In fact, a movie that is so bad it's good will get a higher rating than a lousy movie. Take, for instance, 2012's "Battleship." The movie is complete trash, but I have an absolute blast every time I watch it. For me, the worst thing a movie can do is be bad but not fun. Which brings me to "Madame Web."

Cassandra Web (Dakota Johnson) is a paramedic who begins to experience moments of clairvoyance. When her visions show a masked man killing three girls, she does everything she can to protect them while uncovering secrets from her past.

This is another attempt for Sony to make a Spider-Man movie that doesn't have the web-slinger in it. They come very close: Ben Parker (Adam Scott), the man who becomes beloved Uncle Ben, is there, and his sister is pregnant. The child has a name, but they go to great lengths to not say it: just say the name "Peter" movie! It's not like it'll make things worse! There are many spider people in it; the three girls will eventually become superheroes with spidery names.

I do not blame the actors for how bad this movie is. The movie fails on a script level. The actors are doing the best they can with terrible dialogue, clunky exposition, and weak character development. No actor could salvage this dud of a script.

At this point, Sony (who owns the rights to Spider-Man and all his villains) needs to give up on creating their own series of movies. The only successful movies they have made have been the Spider-Man movies in conjunction with Marvel or "Venom," which was great because of Tom Hardy's commitment to the role. The other movies, including a Venom sequel, have been bad or complete garbage. It is time for Sony to admit that they haven't made a truly great "Spider-Man" movie since 2002's "Spider-Man 2" and work with Marvel to make good Spider-Man movies.

Then again, maybe "Kraven," which comes out in August, will be a masterpiece, but history tells a different story.

3/10

Rated PG-13 for violence/action and language.

1h 57m

Mini-Review: No Dogs or Italians Allowed

One thing I am trying to do this year, it's not a resolution or anything, is to watch more foreign-language movies. I have watched a handful this year and recently watched one I just had to talk about.

"No Dogs or Italians Allowed" is a stop-motion animated movie about director Alain Ughetto's grandfather, who immigrated from Italy to France in the early 1900s.

First of all, this movie is gorgeous. The sets are meticulously crafted and detailed. Any single frame of this movie could be hung up in an art museum. The story is just as beautiful. It is told from Ughetto's grandmother's perspective. She talks directly to Ughetto, and it sets up quickly that this is her telling him the story. They lived in the Alps and moved to France for a chance at a better life, even though Italians were discriminated against in France at that time. It is a story of hardship, loss, and making a life in the face of overwhelming odds and bigotry.

The combination of the powerful story with the incredible animation makes this one of the easiest movies to recommend. It's also barely over an hour and three bucks to rent.

9/10

1hr. 10min.

No Dogs or Italians Allowed is available to rent on Amazon.

TV Review: Mr. & Mrs. Smith

The term "Dad Show" is a term I have been hearing a lot lately. It refers to a show that isn't too complicated or well-reviewed, not necessarily super popular or taking big risks. It's a show that you could easily watch with your dad. Amazon is home to a ton of these (Recher, Jack Ryan, Bosch). Another one I would add to that list is "Mr. & Mrs. Smith."

Jane (Maya Erskin) and John (Donald Glover) Smith are two spies recruited by a mysterious organization to pose as a couple and complete missions together.

The key to this show is the chemistry between Erskin and Glover. If you don't buy into that, the show will not work. They are both effortlessly charming, and their chemistry works well on screen. The show is very funny, and the action is solid. It is an easy show to watch and easy to get through at only eight episodes.

After I finished the series, I revisited the 2005 movie starring Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. It is fun, but the key difference is they don't know they are both spies until the final act. I liked that this show did away with that and that there was an opportunity to watch this relationship grow as they risked their lives to complete a mission. One of the criticisms I have heard is that the show fast-tracks the relationship between John and Jane, and I get it, but if it took until season 2 for "A Breakup" (each episode title is a relationship milestone), then I think the show would have suffered.

A Rory Story

My dog, Rory, and I were walking down Hertel Ave in Buffalo at around 6:30 AM this past weekend. Two people were walking towards us, clearly still out from the night before (the last call here is 4 AM), and I heard one of them ask, "Can I pet your dog?"

It is a question that you tend to get asked with a dog as cute as mine. I mean, look at him!

I gave my standard response, "You can try...he's a bit of a chicken." She reached down to pet him, and he ran behind me (as he does). She even sat on the sidewalk (did I mention they were still out from the night before?). I gave her a treat to see if that would work, but it did not. He ran back and forth behind me, pretending he wanted to get close and then bolting at the last second. "How do you train him like that?" she asked. I assume she wanted to know how I would get him to stop being a chicken. It is something I don't have an answer for.

That aspect of his personality is why I rarely have encounters like this. During the week, we are out walking at 5:30 AM, so the likelihood of us seeing anyone is slim. It's just us and the occasional deer and rabbits...so, so many rabbits. On the weekends, we are out of the house between 6-6:30 just to minimize contact with other dogs. He has improved, but when I first got him, there was a lot of growling and lunging at other dogs we passed on our walks. These reactions are why I time our walks for the safest time in our area.

Last weekend, we were on the final leg of our walk, and a man and his off-leash dog were coming down the sidewalk near us. His dog ran up to us, and Rory was a champ. He didn't growl and responded great. The man apologized, saying his dog was off leash because you don't usually see other dogs at this time of morning. I said it was the same reason we were out this early: just after 7AM. Had this been two years ago, that interaction would have been a disaster.

The first summer I got him, my neighbors did this little get-together I was invited to. He and I went for a bit and spent the entire time hiding behind me. What I have come to realize is that I am his safe place. It is why he hides behind me when someone tries to pet him, or we are in a group he has never met, which I take as a point of pride. It is something I earned.

The rescue organization I got him from allows you to keep the dog for a few hours to see how things go. When I was left alone with Virgil (his name at the time), it took him a long time to warm up to me. I followed him around the house, and he avoided me and spent a lot of time just sniffing and getting used to what was going to become his home. Eventually, he decided I was safe and curled up in my lap on the floor. Once you get to know him, he is one of the most affectionate dogs. I have hundreds of pictures of him lying on the couch with me.

When he lunges or growls at someone and their dog, I wish I could tell them everything I have just written about above. Instead, it just makes my anxiety rise, and I look like the owner of a mean dog.

He is not an aggressive dog, he is not a mean dog, he's not even a reactive dog. I have read many articles and first-hand accounts of reactive dogs, and he doesn't fit the criteria. He's just Rory. It's not bad enough that I need to hire a trainer, and he has shown fantastic progress with not jumping at runners, walkers, and people on bicycles. He has gotten much better at not jumping on visitors to our house. He still growls and barks at dogs and small children (he’s a weird one) who walk by our front window, but even that has shown some improvement. It has been a lot of work on my end, but it is infinitely more manageable than it used to be.

I like to say this: he's not mean, just picky with who he likes.

Star Trek Update

After my Week of Unplesent Movies, I needed a pallet cleanser post. It has been a while since I talked about my journey through the "Star Trek" series, and this seems like the perfect opportunity to write an update. I have gotten through "The Next Generation," "Deep Space Nine," and "Voyager" series. In the past few weeks, I started watching "Enterprise" (there is nothing worth mentioning with that series just yet, so it will remain absent from this post).

"The Next Generation"

"Next Gen" set itself apart from the original series in that everything felt bigger. The ship felt like a place where people lived and worked. There were families and children, and not everyone on board Enterprise" was an officer in Star Fleet. Overall, I really liked the series. I will admit that there were a lot of stinker episodes (as happens in a long-running show), but all the ones heralded as classics lived up to the hype.

I also watched all the "Next Gen" movies, and much like the original series movies, the quality varies wildly. The first two, "Generations" and "First Contact," are solid "Star Trek" stories. The last two, "Insurrection" and "Nemesis," are not good.

"Deep Space Nine"

Before I get too deep into this, I need to say this. I liked "Deep Space Nine." I think it was hampered by the conceit that DS9 was a space station, not a starship. That sense of exploration that I love in "Star Trek" was missing. What kept me watching, besides the fact that I am watching all the "Treks," was the characters.

Odo, the shapeshifting constable of DS9 (played beautifully by Rene Auberjonois), had an incredible arch in the show. At one point, the major villains are other members of Odo's race. He is caught between two worlds and has to deal with his love for the people he calls his family and his loyalty to his species.

"Voyager"

I must be honest; this whole post was to justify talking about "Star Trek: Voyager." It is, hands down, my favorite "Trek." Captain Kathrine Janeway (Kate Mulgrew) and the crew of Voyager are pulled to the far side of the galaxy, 75 years away from their friends, family, and Starfleet.

There are not many hills I would die on, but Janeway is the best Star Trek captain is one of them. Her crew is in an impossible situation, but she holds them together. Some of them are former members of The Maquis, a terrorist organization (it's a bit more complicated than that). Still, she takes them onto Voyager and makes them part of her crew. Part of it is by necessity since they are so far from home. Many of them become confidants of Janeway as she gets everyone home.

This show is incredible. That last season was one of the most consistently great things I have ever watched. Even knowing they would get home in the end, the final seventh season was an engaging, thrilling, emotional rollercoaster. If I were to rewatch a "Star Trek" series, this would be it. Sure, there are a few bad episodes (recently, I have seen articles about two of the most divisive episodes of "Tuvix" and "Threshold"). However, the show shakes off the stench of those and still represents the best that "Star Trek" can be.