The Most Anticipated Movies of 2017

A couple of quick primers for this list. First, many years ago I started breaking it down into two parts, one in January and the other in July, so that I could highlight more films and so that I didn’t stick my neck out for a movie that comes out in November, only to have that movie turn out to be a embarrassing disaster. So, for the sake of this list, “Part 1” includes the first six months of the year. Second, a trailer is vital to my anticipation level. I hate that the film industry feels like we NEED six trailers for every movie, each giving away more and more of the plot or atmosphere. But I am one who thinks you can tell a lot from a two-minute trailer, just in terms of feel and, sometimes, general quality. So if it doesn’t have a trailer, it isn’t eligible for this list. Third, as always, the first half of the year is usually pretty weak in comparison to the back half and thus, if something here turns out poorly, I’m want to blame its inclusion on the lack of options.

HONORABLE MENTION: All of the 2016 Movies That Inexplicably Come Out in 2017

I’m cheating a bit here as I am want to do on these lists. While limited release is the bane of my existence, it does make January more palatable. A Monster Calls, Hidden Figures, Patriot’s Day, and The Founder all receive wide releases in January after actually debuting in 2016 and I have various levels of excitement for all of them (not to mention even smaller movies like Silence and Paterson).

10. The Mummy (June 9) – Tom Cruise, Sofia Boutella, Russell Crowe

“Anticipate” might be a strong word for this one but “Top 8 Most Anticipated Movies of 2017 Plus 2 More That Might Be Okay” doesn’t have the best ring to it. For The Mummy, I’m most interested in two things: One, can this be a solid launching point for a full reboot of the old Universal monster movies? And two, will Tom Cruise actually become a mummy in order to win the approval of his viewers? Fingers crossed on both fronts!

9. The Circle (April 28) – Emma Watson, John Boyega, Tom Hanks

I read this book a couple years ago and I thought it was really good…up until the last 100 pages or so when I couldn’t wait for it to end. That said, I think the material is very cinematic and it should make a better movie than it did a book. This is a big year for Emma Watson (see below) and I’m very excited to see her and Boyega play off of one another.

8. Life (March 24) – Jake Gyllenhaal, Ryan Reynolds, Rebecca Ferguson

Highbrow sci-fi with a big budget is right up my alley and the trailer for Life provides a great glimpse into the film without giving too much away. This could definitely go wrong fast but if Daniel Espinosa can keep the action moving while playing to the intelligence of the audience, I think this could be a big hit.

7. Beauty and the Beast (March 17) – Emma Watson, Luke Evans, Dan Stevens

I’m still not sure we need a shot-for-shot live action remake of a classic that’s not even 30 years old but then again, every viewing of the trailer gets me a little more hyped. That score…so good. I’m really looking forward to this one, I just hope the trailer is designed for nostalgia and in the end, Beauty and the Beast follows the path of Cinerella and The Jungle Book by differentiating itself somewhat from the animated feature. We’ll see!

6. Kong: Skull Island (March 10) – Samuel L. Jackson, Brie Larson, Tom Hiddleston

I feel like Kong is the movie on this list that has the biggest chance of disappointing. It feels like there’s a lot riding on this one and King Kong hasn’t been a truly viable onscreen star in 80 years. (No offense to Peter Jackson’s King Kong which I quite liked at the time but has virtually no cultural cache 12 years down the line.) The success of Godzilla a few years ago, however, has me hoping we can see a similar renaissance for Kong.  

5. The Lego Batman Movie (February 10) – Will Arnett, Michael Cera, Ralph Fiennes

I didn’t know how badly I needed a Lego Batman movie with Will Arnett and Michael Cera in my life until it was announced and then it was kind of all I could think about for few weeks. I’m not sure what there is to NOT love about this even if Lord and Miller are too busy preparing a Star Wars movie to direct this one. Hoping we get at least three Arrested Development jokes hidden in here to play off the reunion of Arnett and Cera.

4. Alien: Covenant (May 19) – Katherine Waterston, Michael Fassbender, James Franco

If Kong is the riskiest bet on this list, I’d say Alien follows close behind. The foundation is there, I think the story is there, and it has the tools to be a GREAT sci-fi blockbuster. The trailer gives the appearance that Ridley Scott is taking this franchise back to its horror roots and after Prometheus (a seriously flawed movie that I quite enjoyed), I’d say that’s a huge step in the right direction. But are we getting “Engaged Ridley Scott” (The Martian) or “Totally Checked Out Ridley Scott” (every other movie he’s made for the last decade)? And can Katherine Waterston carry a movie? Big questions, to be sure, but there’s also a HUGE payoff here if they get it right.  

3. The Fate of the Furious (April 14) – Vin Diesel, The Rock, Charlize Theron

Guys. Dom has lost it. He LITERALLY turned his back on family, the one thing he swore he’d NEVER do. His moral compass is out of whack! How are Hobbs and the gang going to get their boy back in the fold?! And more importantly, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO USE DODGE CHARGERS TO PULL A SUBMARINE THROUGH ARCTIC ICE?! So many questions. I’ve been sitting up at night, mulling over how Dom could betray his family and his cinematic family. April cannot get here fast enough. We’ve got to get some answers.

2. Logan (March 3) – Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Boyd Holbrook

This is it, my friends. I know I’m setting myself up for failure. I know I’ve been hurt in the past. But I’ve convinced myself this our time. We are FINALLY getting the Wolverine movie that we, and Hugh Jackman, deserve. Just in time for Jackman to ride off into the sunset and hand the claws over to a new generation! I love this trailer. I could watch it a hundred times and my anticipation would not be diminished. Logan is the perfect story to tell in a Wolverine movie and by all accounts, this is the right approach for the material. Please don’t hurt me again, sir.

1. Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 (May 5) – Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista

I didn’t really know what to expect from Guardians back in 2014. I was excited, I loved the look and the cast, but having no knowledge of the source material, it seemed like a strange property and I wasn’t certain it would find an audience. Great prognosticating there, Brian. We all know the rest, Guardians was a smash hit both with audiences and critics, and it was also, I think, the most fun I’d had in a theater in a decade. Not sure how Volume 2 can top that but I AM MORE THAN WILLING TO GIVE IT THE CHANCE!!! Seriously, that trailer is fantastic and there is no way adding Kurt Russell AND Sylvester Stallone to the cast could possibly hurt. Let’s just skip to May and do this thing right now.

2016 TV Pilots Primer

Fall is upon us, dear friends, and that means football, changing weather (just kidding, I live in Texas, today it was 99 degrees), and, of course, TV pilots. As an ardent supporter of TV in general and an irredeemable completest, there was a time when I looked forward to the pilot season with great fervor, a task to complete involving a medium I quite enjoy. That time seems a bygone age. Each year, due to a combination of a horribly inefficient system, a failure to understand the reality of what ratings look like in the current environment, and a staggering number of TV options across a vast cable landscape, the product of the pilot process gets a little worse. Among the 25 plus shows debuted by the five networks, only nine shows from 2014’s pilot season received a second season, which includes The Mysteries of Laura, a show that I hold directly responsible for the election mess we’re in right now for having made America dumber by its very existence. 2015 also managed only nine successes, including Supergirl which had to switch networks. Combine these factors and you wind up with a collection of new pilots that almost all seem doomed for failure which will, in turn, lead to an even more watered down selection of shows this time next year. We are undoubtedly living in the darkest timeline. But, still, I persist and I invite you to join me in the torment, if for no other reason than it’s so terribly cold here and I long for your company.

NOTE: At the time of this writing, both of the FX shows (Atlanta, which is excellent, and Better Things, which I haven’t seen yet) have already debuted so they are not included. Likewise, I skipped the Amazon offerings, partly because some have debuted and partly because the Amazon format is still in flux and doesn’t quite fit in this space yet, at least in my mind.

PLEASE BE GOOD. PLEASE BE GOOD. PLEASE BE GOOD.

Once upon a time this section might’ve been titled, “The good shows I think will be good and hopefully do good with the viewers and critics so they can stay on the air.” But I’ve been broken and thus, I simply cross my fingers and hope for okay-ness.

The Good Place (NBC, September 19)

There’s a lot to like about this one, including Kristen Bell, a Fargo-invigorated Ted Danson, and creator/showrunner Michael Schur. Of course, these are all reasons why it could also get the axe six weeks in. Bell probably isn’t a star, Danson probably doesn’t bring in any friends of Becker, and every show Schur has ever been involved with struggles in the ratings. I *think* NBC wants to be in the Schur business after missing on Brooklyn 9-9 but I’m not totally convinced The Good Place will get the time it needs to find an audience.

Designated Survivor (ABC, September 21)

I think TV is a better place when Keifer Sutherland is appearing weekly. Sure, I’d rather he just take down ISIS or something as Jack Bauer but I can’t blame him for wanting to do something else. I don’t have a whole lot of faith in Survivor being all that good but I’m pulling for its success. Also here’s hoping Kal Penn’s character dies quickly because even in the trailer he. Is. TERRIBLE.

Luke Cage (Netflix, September 30)

This is easily the safest bet of the entire pilot season. Netflix’s leadership gets it, Luke Cage already has a strong following thanks to the comics and his appearance on Jessica Jones, and the full season drop allows for a cultural moment that most of these shows can only dream of. Mike Colter is excellent in the titular role, too, and I think he’s about to seize the day with this one.

Son of Zorn (FOX, September 25)

Basically the 180 opposite of Luke Cage in that there’s almost no way this makes it through a full season. Personally, I think the trailer is great and I’m all in on the concept. But it’s way too micro to make it in prime time on network TV. The only hope is that the critics embrace Zorn and FOX feels pressure to keep it around as part of an unseen-but-brilliant comedy block with Last Man on Earth.

Westworld (HBO, October 2)

The bad news is, the production of Westworld has been a long-gestating mess. The good news is, the production of Westworld has been a long-gestating mess and HBO continues to stand by it. HBO doesn’t tend to dump bad money after good and they’ve been very steadfast about this one, the origins of which reside in a fun-if-forgotten movie of the same name.

IT’S NOT YOU, IT’S ME

This section is reserved for the shows I think have a chance to be a hit with either viewers, critics, or both but don’t appeal to me personally.

This Is Us (NBC, September 20)

I’m not totally opposed to This Is Us and I think, if it’s given time to mature, it could fill the Parenthood void left in so many people’s hearts. I just happen to not be one of those people. This has great bones (a solid if unproven cast, creators and writers I appreciate, etc.) but the trailer is just so pander-y that my eyes involuntarily start rolling.

Insecure (HBO, October 9)

I acknowledge up front that the following assessment is completely unfair and I feel bad about it. But I was interested in Insecure until I heard someone in the know describe it as, “Girls for African-Americans” and I…I just don’t hate anything as much as I hate Girls and now that’s all I can think about Insecure comes up and I can’t shake it. I’m sorry, okay?

Channel Zero (SYFY, September 27)

I love the idea of anthology series so much. Pretty much sight unseen, I’ll back any anthology series the networks want to throw at us. It’s a great medium. I want less than nothing to do with CreepyPasta, however, and thus, I’m not sure I’ll even make it through one episode of Channel Zero even though, in principle, I’m all for it.

Pitch (FOX, September 22)

I like the talent involved here and of all the, “Woman makes it to a men’s professional sports league” concepts over the years, this one (a young pitcher who throws a screwball/knuckle-ball) makes the most sense. But Pitch also looks to be extremely over produced and I’m not sure I can handle all of the “I don’t like her because she’s a girl” and “You don’t think I can do it because I’m a girl” statements that are bound to fill up the dialogue of the first few episodes.

The Exorcist (FOX, September 23)

Anyone who listens to our shows knows how squeamish I am about horror movies, demons and witchcraft especially. So it should come as no surprise that a show based on the greatest horror movie of all-time (which I think is actually a decent idea) is not my cup of tea.

THIS CAN’T BE GOOD. BUT MAYBE…

The shows that probably can’t be good because of one factor or another (bad casting, bad formatting, inevitable network interference) but that have something going for them that MIGHT shine through.

Lethal Weapon (FOX, September 21)

I don’t actually think Lethal Weapon can be good, based on the casting and the horrible “look how much cool attitude we have” trailer. But I also don’t think it’s a bad idea, at least in theory. TV is better when cop shows are prevalent on the networks and we’re currently low on quality cop shows. So, yeah, this one probably isn’t a quality cop show but I’m open to the idea that perhaps it should exist.

American Housewife (ABC, October 11)

I honestly can’t imagine that I am personally going to love American Housewife. The format kinda bums me out but I really, really like Katy Mixon and I think she’s the perfect face for this show. American Housewife needs to tap into the energy of The Goldbergs and Modern Family in order to be successful but it seems like ABC is trying to push it more toward a CBS-style show instead. If it can weather the early storm, this could work. I’m rooting for it, anyway. 

No Tomorrow (CW, October 4)

The tagline (“A risk-adverse quality-control assessor who falls for a free-spirited thrill seeker only to find out he lives his life this way because he believes the apocalypse is coming”) is terrible. The trailer…is…not…so…bad… I don’t know, maybe I’m just tainted by Jane the Virgin which thoroughly surprised me with its goodness but No Tomorrow has a little charm to it that MIGHT make it fun. 

Falling Water (USA, October 13)

USA has been quietly making shows that range from “decent to good” for quite some time but now Mr. Robot has pushed the network into a grander position (and rightly so). Falling Water wants to build upon (or at least draw from) that newfound prestige but to me, it looks too convoluted to work without perfect execution. “Perfect execution” is virtually impossible in this situation, though, so I think this fails in spite of its interesting premise. 

Aftermath (SYFY, September 27)

If Aftermath was being housed by, say, AMC, I’d be much higher on its possibilities. I’m a known mark for all things post-apocalyptic and this certainly fits the bill. But, as much as I like the direction SYFY is trying to take, the network is still a dumping ground for decent ideas filled out by weaker actors and weaker still effects. The short trailer for Aftermath leads me to believe it’ll be just another in a long chain of SYFY shows that have a decent, multi-level run that I’ll never stick with.

Timeless (NBC, October 3)

Okay, this can’t be good, you guys. It just can’t. There’s no way. Not a chance. And yet…people I trust have been weirdly excited about it? And people who have seen the pilot has been relatively kind about it? And I like both Abigail Spencer and Malcolm Barrett? So…maybe Timeless actually can be decent?

Speechless (ABC, September 21)

I had this one much lower on the list initially based on the HORRENDOUS TV spots and the fact that (*whispers*) I really do not like Minnie Driver. But the full trailer shows the heart of the show that might possibly break through all of the cringing that will undoubtedly swallow up the first two acts of the pilot. If Speechless gets decent ratings early, it’s not impossible to suggest that it finds its way through the course of a whole season and comes out strong for season two.

NOPE.

These offerings almost certainly cannot be good and will not take away more than one hour of my life.

Frequency (CW, October 5)

Of all the movies that came out in 2000, the Jim Caviezel-Dennis Quaid starrer Frequency would’ve been pretty low on my list of films to be rebooted into a series in 2016. (This would, indeed, be a very specific list you would’ve ostensibly asked me to create in 2000.) It’s nothing against Frequency, a movie I remember fondly if distantly. It just seems an odd project to reboot and even if this is successful initially, I don’t see how it manages to squeeze out a long run with any staying power.

Conviction (ABC, October 3)

“What if Scandal was whiter and didn’t have Shonda Rhimes writing and producing?” That seems to be the tag line for Conviction. I love Hayley Atwell and unfortunately I think she’s significantly better than what she is about to be put through. It’s possible that Conviction finds its way at some point but I’m not sure how I’ll even be able to stomach the pilot.

Eyewitness (USA, October 16)

Eyewitness has a well-regarded source material but everything about it screams, “Super generic cable crime drama.” From the rehashed cast on down to the bland color palette of the trailer, everything about this seems bored.

Van Helsing (SYFY, September 23)

Can we please, as a society, stop trying to make Van Helsing a thing? It didn’t work for Hugh Jackman, it didn’t work for Daniel Radcliffe, and it won’t work for SYFY. Oh, this time it’s based around a female descendant of Van Helsing? *Yawn* Stop it. Stop it now.

Man with a Plan (CBS, October 24)

I have had numerous conversations with my friends (this is an actual true statement, I’m not making it up) concerning which person from the cast of Friends we’d most like to hang out with. I argue FERVENTLY for Matt LeBlanc every time. I love the guy. That said I don’t need to see Matt LeBlanc in a CBS sitcom, especially one that features the tagline, “A dad finds out that parenting is harder than he thought after his wife goes back to work and he’s left at home to take care of the kids.” Quite the hot, fresh take from CBS, right?

I AM ACTIVELY ROOTING FOR YOUR FAILURE

Now You See Me sequels notwithstanding, I generally try not to fill my heart with hate toward movies or TV shows before I’ve seen them. Well, I tried and failed with these little gems. Also, it should be noted that I thought CBS was making strides in the last couple of years toward appealing to viewers who are not in their 50s but nope, I was wrong.

Divorce (HBO, October 9)

I considered putting Divorce in the “It’s Not You, It’s Me” category since I’m clearly not the target audience for this thing. But you know what, I can’t think of many things worse than watching Sara Jessica Parker and Thomas Hayden Church, equally insufferable, go through a divorce.

MacGyver (CBS, September 23)

This looks like the most CBS drama-y show of all time. Like, MacGyver might just be a greatest hits of scenes from CBS dramas past cut together into one giant eye punch. Also, how dare you try to reinvent MacGyver, CBS, when we already have MacGruber. This means war.

Notorious (ABC, September 22)

Here’s a good rule to live by: if your show or movie depends on Piper Perabo in order to succeed, then guess what, your show or movie doesn’t need to exist. (With apologies to Ms. Perabo who, I’m sure, is a great person.) I honestly couldn’t even finish the trailer for this one.

Pure Genius (CBS, October 27)

This is basically just an incredibly generic version of House. And that’s good, because the part of House that most people seemed to like was definitely not its edgy, moody, mean spirited title character, right? My goodness, what an awful trailer. Also, we should probably stop casting Dermot Mulroney in any TV show and while we’re at it, let’s include Dylan McDermott in that as well.

Bull (CBS, September 20)

“Hey you wanna watch a show about the early career of Dr. Phil?” “Nope.”

The Great Indoors (CBS, October 27)

There comes a time in every TV actor’s life when he has to ask himself, “Do I want to keep chasing this dream of creating quality shows that broader audiences won’t watch or do I want to get paid by CBS?” That’s the spot Joel McHale has found himself in, apparently. I like McHale and I think he’s better than CBS sitcoms but I definitely KNOW he’s better than THIS CBS sitcom. If you can sit through the trailer for The Great Indoors and feign excitement then we probably can’t be friends.

Kevin Can Wait (CBS, September 17)

This has to stop. The long national nightmare that is the proliferation of Kevin James’s career continues to wreak havoc on our society and honestly, the damage it’s doing to all of us is incalculable. Think of all the transgressions Kevin James has committed against us. Paul Blart. The Zookeeper. Pixels. Grown Ups. Here Comes the Boom. James supporters will cite King of Queens as a quality entry and to those people I say, FOR SHAME! SHAME! That show is AWFUL and would be widely recognized for its awfulness were it not for the presence of actually funny comedians in the cast, like Jerry Stiller and Patton Oswalt. We will stop you, Kevin James. Somehow, someway, we WILL stop you. To arms! To arms!

Ranking The Star Trek Movies

(Note: I wrote this piece using the term Trekker then was advised to switch it to Trekkie. ” I thought that was the accepted vernacular these days. I had a couple of Trekkies inform me that they preferred Trekkies so I Find/Replaced all that I could. You’ll have to forgive me if I missed a couple. Also please pick a name and stick with it.)

This year, Star Trek celebrates 50 years in the culture zeitgeist with the release of its thirteenth film and the production of its sixth TV series. That’s quite an accomplishment for the small budgeted, relatively short-lived Wagon Train to the Stars Gene Roddenberry first developed in 1966. But beyond the movies and the TV shows, Star Trek has inspired a rabid fanbase unrivaled by any of its contemporaries, save for (perhaps) Star Wars. The books, the conventions, the fan films…Trekkies are crazy and crazy devoted to this universe.

I am not a Trekkie. Star Trek is one of the rare cultural entities that has not been taken over by my completeist mentality. I have seen all of the Star Trek movies many, many times and have partaken in perhaps half of the TV episodes over all (most of the original series, all of Next Generation, some of Deep Space Nine, very little of Voyager or Enterprise). But Star Trek has never spoken into my life the way Star Wars has. I do, however, have a great appreciation for the level of commitment Trekkies have for this property.

There are pros and cons to that dedication, however. On the one hand, it is that obsession that has kept Star Trek relevant for 50 years. On the other, Trekkies’ zeal for that which they love makes it incredibly difficult to gain access to their elite club of nerds (I use this term affectionately). Yes, within any fanbase, you’re bound to find a percentage of the membership that scoffs at the minimal knowledge of some of their counterparts. But whereas the average Star Wars nerd takes a “The More, The Merrier” stance on growing fandom, Trekkies seem to crave exclusivity. It’s as if, upon finishing your first Star Trek experience, you’re given a rigid set of rules by which you must live your life and if you’re not keen on learning the Klingon language or reading endless fan fiction or agreeing on the proper way to clean a mythical Transporter screen, then you’re out of the club. There is a line where a fanbase crosses over from “committed” to “obnoxious” and serious Trekkies run up against that line far too often.

This becomes abundantly clear when discussing the Star Trek films with a Trekkie. One of the things I noticed in “researching” this piece is how vastly different the average filmgoer and even the average film critic feel about these movies compared to the average Trekkie. For a Trekkie, Star Trek movies must align themselves perfectly with a pre-established canon and timeline and if they deviate even slightly, then it’s not enough to call out those deficiencies; instead, you must declare the movie worthless and shun its very existence. For the rest of us, these movies can just be entertaining regardless of how they line up with an obscure reference from Deep Space Nine. I’m not bashing this way of life; rather, I’m just pointing out these differences in approach so that we can acknowledge up front that my ranking of Star Trek movies is likely to be different (and perhaps vastly different) from that of a Trekkie and hopefully we can avoid an intergalactic fight. In the words of Spock, “May the Force be with you.” (Just kidding, that was mean.)

12. The Final Frontier (1989) – Original Cast

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 21%, Domestic Gross: $52M

As mentioned in the intro, there’s bound to be some disagreement here between myself and serious Trekkies. But I truly can’t imagine a list such as this that doesn’t begin (or end, if you’re going from first to worst which is, by the way, the wrong way to do this) with Final Frontier. There is not one minute of this movie that makes sense, let alone works in any sort of cinematic fashion. It is basically a 107 minute excuse for William Shatner (director) to explore his God complex. Most Star Trek movies are at least watchable, even if they’re not “good”; not so much with this one.

11. The Motion Picture (1979) – Original Cast

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 47%, Domestic Gross: $82M

The best thing you can say about The Motion Picture is that it’s easily forgotten. If the Star Trek movies were first produced in, say, the late 90’s, Paramount would greenlight a reboot a few years later and title it Star Trek while pretending that the first movie never happened. It is boring, it is nonsensical, it is basically just an episode of the original show stretched out into movie format and, as the years go by, fewer and fewer people remember that it ever happened. (In hindsight it’s kind of amazing that SO MUCH Star Trek came down the chute after this thing flopped so miserably. Good job, Trekkies.)

10. Insurrection (1998) – Next Generation Cast

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 55%, Domestic Gross: $70M

The “TV episode stretched into a full length movie” concept is a common complaint down in the bottom of the Star Trek movie rankings. As a random episode of Next Generation, Insurrection would be fine. But add an extra hour to the run time and suddenly you’re twiddling your thumbs, checking your watch, reaching for your smart phone that didn’t exist in 1998, etc. The first two times I attempted to watch Insurrection, I fell asleep. I have since made it through the movie, thankfully, but only thanks to sheer willpower and those little orange pills that Jesse Spano took in that very special episode of Saved By the Bell. It’s very boring, is what I’m saying. (As one Trekkie I consulted with pointed out, however: F. Murray Abraham is pretty dope no matter what.)

9. Nemesis (2002) – Next Generation Cast

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 37%, Domestic Gross: $43M

I don’t hate Nemesis like many people seem to, if for no other reason than it introduced us to Tom Hardy. But it is easily the laziest of the Star Trek movies. By this point, Next Generation had been off the air for eight years, the cast was ready to go on to…basically nothing, except for Patrick Stewart but still they were all pretty much done with this thing, and the story mostly feels like running out a ground ball. Moreover, there’s this big reveal of Tom Hardy and how he’s Picard’s clone and I was super confused because I didn’t think he looked anything like Patrick Stewart other than the fact that he was bald and most of the movie hinges on this point. So that’s not the best.

8. The Voyage Home (1986) – Original Cast

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 85%, Domestic Gross: $109M

Okay, I know that the average Trekkie thinks of Voyage Home in much higher regard than I do, but hear me out. When I was a kid, I loved this movie. The whales were super dope and it was unquestionably the best of the Star Trek movies to me. And then I didn’t watch it for 20 years, during which time the movie aged HORRIBLY. It is the most 80’s movie of 1986 to the point that I would think adults who saw it in 1986 came out saying, “Man, that was pretty heavy on the references to 1986.” There’s not one thing that happens in Voyage Home that isn’t directly influenced by 1986 and to me, that makes it borderline painful to watch 30 years later. Initially, I actually had Voyage Home a couple spots lower but I didn’t want Trekkies to try to fight me (yet).

7. The Search for Spock (1984) – Original Cast

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 78%, Domestic Gross: $76M

I think of Search for Spock as the median Star Trek movie. It’s fine, it’s watchable, the events actually matter to the canon, and we get some serious Klingons which is nice (and I could be wrong but I think this is the introduction to the new look Klingons, which actually look like terrifying space warriors instead of dudes with wrinkly noses). The stuff involving Kirk and his son has some value and, of course, the Genesis Project provides a convenient way in which to bring Spock back from the dead. But overall, it’s a fairly middling movie and Puberty Spock is EASILY the worst of the Spocks.

6. Generations (1994) – Next Generation Cast

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 48%, Domestic Gross: $75M

When you become a (semi) professional movie critic, one of the things you discover is that sometimes you really liked a movie that came out BEFORE you became a (semi) professional movie critic but other professional critics REALLY did not like that movie and it shocks you. Like, I get that adult movie critics didn’t care for Rookie of the Year the same way I did at 10 years old. But Star Trek Generations? What’s wrong with Star Trek Generations? I still don’t know. I watched it recently and, while it’s fairly messy from a narrative standpoint, I think it’s an enjoyable flick and feels very Star Trek-y to me. It works (mostly) as a hand-off from the original cast to the newbies and in doing so, makes it clear that the franchise is in good hands while giving Kirk a very Shatnerlike send off.

5. Into Darkness (2013) – New Cast

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 86%, Domestic Gross: $228M

If we must fight, dear Trekkies, I am now ready for the battle. Choose your weapon. (You probably chose that super cool Klingon axe thing but, surprise, I picked a Romulan Warbird and blew you away with a photon torpedo, idiot.) I know that some Trekkies HATE this movie the way I hate Dwyane Wade. I’ve heard some respectable Trekkies refer to it as, “the worst Star Trek movie ever including the fan-made movies.” But, from my observations, this hate is derived almost exclusively from the handling of the Star Trek canon, the behaviors of the characters, and the (admittedly poor) introduction of Khan. That’s all well and good, you do your thing, Trekkies. As a non-Trekkie, however, I don’t care about that stuff and I find Into Darkness to be a fun, if flawed, action movie. I don’t think it will age as well as some other Star Trek movies have and if I make this list again in 20 years, there’s a decent chance it drops down a few pegs. But for now, my qualms with Into Darkness are minor and don’t keep me from enjoying it purely as an action movie.

4. The Undiscovered Country (1991) – Original Cast

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 83%, Domestic Gross: $74M

I feel like Undiscovered Country is both the most forgotten and underrated of all the Star Trek movies. Rarely in a Star Trek conversation (of which I have been a part of more times than I care to admit) does someone mention this one, let alone praise its many virtues. For me, Undiscovered Country is a perfect close to the original cast chapter of the Star Trek universe. The crew comment on their respective aging, they’ve seen through their mission of unifying the Federation of Planets, and the plot hinges on the events of the preceding films in the series. Undiscovered Country is a tidy bow on the entire 25 year Star Trek run and it’s also a blast to watch, an underrated element of any Star Trek movie. Also, Christopher Plummer as a Shakespeare-quoting Klingon is kind of the best.

3. Star Trek (2009) – New Cast

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 95%, Domestic Gross: $257M

I don’t think Star Trek is the best of the Star Trek movies (duh, since it sits at number three on this list) but it is probably my favorite and definitely the one I would take with me to a desert island if I was only allowed to bring one Star Trek movie (I’m assuming this is a very specific desert island). There are flaws within it (time travel is always a risky maneuver) but I love what JJ Abrams did with the cast, the characters, and the direction in which he pointed the…ship (*insert gif of David Caruso putting on sunglasses*). Hardcore Trekkies may quibble with the character elements most of all but to me, Abrams went out of his way to respect the original canon while simultaneously giving the new franchise permission, as it were, to boldly go into new territory. Star Trek is fun, it’s energetic, and it makes this universe so easy to embrace for a new generation of would-be Trekkies.

2. First Contact (1996) – Next Generation Cast

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 93%, Domestic Gross: $92M

I know I’ve spent most of this list talking about how “fun” is an important part of the Star Trek universe that often gets overlooked but here’s where we have to take a slight turn: the top two Star Trek movies are the top two Star Trek movies because, for the most part, they set aside the fun and get super serious. First Contact is actually very dark. And that fits, because while Klingons and Romulans and Ferengi look cool and are, at times, menacing in their own right, The Borg are legitimately terrifying and moreover, they once enslaved Picard himself. First Contact has weight to it that most of the other Star Trek movies lack and it works so well for this particular story. In addition, the look of First Contact is on a whole other level from all the previous movies in the franchise. It is cleaner, sharper, and shot with more sophistication (of course advanced technologies help with this quite a bit) than any of non-Abrams movies. It’s sort of the manifestation of everything Next Generation built toward for seven seasons and I love it.

1. The Wrath of Khan (1982) – Original Cast

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 88%, Domestic Gross: $78M

There are very few franchises that have an indisputable champion. Star Wars? You can have a serious debate between A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back. Bond? I personally think Skyfall takes the cake but ask five Bond fans and you’ll probably get five different answers. Avengers, X-Men, and on down the line, there will be very plausible disagreements between fans. But Star Trek? Star Trek has a clear-cut “best” and it’s Wrath of Khan. Khan is such a perfect embodiment of what the original series was all about but cranked up on steroids. The stakes are high, the battles are fierce, and Khan is such an incredible villain. Marvel would KILL to have a Khan in their universe and JJ was so obsessed with him that he almost (or perhaps did, depending on your position) scuttled his own movie trying so hard to make Khan awesome and menacing. It’s the perfect Star Trek movie but it’s also a fantastic piece of science fiction that, I think, holds up on its own better than any of its brothers.