Samuel L Jackson Picks His Favorite Scene He’s Ever Been In

Samuel L Jackson Picks His Favorite Scene He’s Ever Been In

Samuel L. Jackson has been known by too many iconic names on the big screen to count between his six roles with Quentin Tarantino, time as Jedi Mace Windu in the Star Wars prequels, Frozone in Incredibles, MCU regular, Nick Fury. We all have our favorite Jackson moment, but there is one so astonishing that even the actor himself can’t argue against. When asked about his favorite scene, here’s what he said:

I guess it would be actually the ultimate scene that everybody turns out to love so much, and it’s the diner scene in Pulp Fiction. Everybody loved the killing ones, but the diner scene, just because there’s so much going on when John [Travolta] and I are sitting there having that conversation prior to what happened, and the bullets not killing us, and he’s making this decision about walking the earth just to see what’s going on. So by the time Tim [Roth] gets there and I have an opportunity to do that speech again, the same speech that I’ve been killing people with, and make it make sense in a whole ’nother kind of way, and, one, it’s just the biggest threat you’ve ever heard in your life. And the next, the dude’s like sitting there making a revelation about who he is and where his place is in the world, and who he actually is. He said, ‘I’d love to be the shepherd, and that would be great.’ They said that they didn’t know how the movie was supposed to end until I did that scene. But they had no idea that that’s what all that shit meant until I did it.

I mean there’s really no other answer. That closing scene in Pulp Fiction is classic and showcases the 70-year-old actor's best work. In the 1994 Tarantino film, Samuel L. Jackson plays Jules Winnfield, a contract killer who has memorized the Bible passage Ezekiel 25:17 and recites it to his targets before killing them.

After surviving a couple hundred bullets flying at him and John Travolta’s Vincent Vega, Jules tells Vincent that he takes their survival as a sign for him to turn away from his life of crime, just before a couple of robbers stick up the diner and Jules is faced with another excuse to recite his iconic speech. This time it goes a little bit differently and finds a much deeper meaning. Check it out:

It’s good every time! It’s no wonder Samuel L. Jackson brought up this scene as the favorite of his during a recent interview with Esquire. As he tells the magazine, the speech gives the audience meaning to the lines he says throughout the movie along with the character, as Jules breaks it down for Tim Roth’s character, changes his ways and doesn’t pull the trigger. Jackson also points out that his performance in the scene informed the filmmakers about how they were going to end Pulp Fiction and it really wraps up the film perfectly.

The scene has stuck with the actor so much that he once recited the lines from the passage word-for-word on The Graham Norton Show from memory and it was incredible. It’s clear the iconic role has stuck with Samuel L. Jackson just as much as it has for audiences. Pulp Fiction is regarded as one of the best films ever made and Jackson undoubtedly contributed to its status.

Samuel L. Jackson is certainly one of the most prolific and influential actors of our time at 70 years old and he is still hard at work, making movies. He currently stars in Captain Marvel in his biggest performance as Nick Fury yet. Much like Pulp Fiction, the Marvel film is set in the ‘90s and the filmmakers couldn’t even help but sprinkle in some references to it.

Godzilla 2: What We Know So Far About King Of The Monsters

Godzilla 2: What We Know So Far About King Of The Monsters

Godzilla has been a pop culture icon for decades, but when it comes to fully American productions centered around the monster, there have only been two undertakings. The first, in 1998, did not fare well either critically or commercially, thus eliminating any plans to spawn a series. Fortunately, the 2014 reboot was better received, ranking at 74% on Rotten Tomatoes and collecting nearly $530 million worldwide. With a performance like that, it's understandable that shortly after the movie's release, a sequel was ordered: Godzilla 2, officially titled Godzilla: King of the Monsters. Godzilla has led multiple movies in Japan, but this marks the first time in the United States that the giant reptile's adventures will continue past one movie.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters (which was shot in Atlanta, Georgia) is finally upon us, and there's a fair amount of information to chew on concerning the sequel if you can't get out to see it right away, or aren't sure if you want to continue this journey with the Titans. That's why we've created this handy guide so you can browse through what's been announced about the blockbuster, from when it's coming out to who's working on it both on and off camera to how it will connect to a grander shared universe filled with other giant and powerful monsters.

What Have We Seen From Godzilla: King Of The Monsters?

Luckily, we've had plenty of trailers and teasers for the new blockbuster at this point, which show off some of the crazy destruction, massive action sequences and intense Titan fights that we'll be treated to on the big screen. As you can see above, the final trailer shows us just how bad things are, and how much we need Godzilla to help protect us against some of the other Titans.

What Is The Godzilla: King Of The Monsters Release Date?

Thankfully for Godzilla fans, the scheduling changes for Godzilla: King of the Monsters haven't been too drastic. It was originally supposed to come out on June 8, 2018, but after Legendary Entertainment moved production of Kong: Skull Island from Universal to Warner Bros., the giant ape was deemed to be the priority. Godzilla: King of the Monsters was subsequently moved to March 22, 2019. Now it's set for release on May 31, 2019, putting it up against Rocketman and Ma that opening weekend. As far as overall May competition goes, there's a lot packed in, including Detective Pikachu, John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum and Aladdin. But, when you're opening in the first summer movie month, thats expected.

What Is The Godzilla: King Of The Monsters Rating?

Godzilla: King of the Monsters finally got its official rating from the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) a few weeks back. And, it did get the rating that was expected, which is the same one that Godzilla did: PG-13. The 2014 blockbuster was rated that way for "intense sequences of destruction, mayhem and creature violence," and Godzilla: King of the Monsters will feature the same elements. So, this is a movie that can also be enjoyed by younger fans...but not too young. PG-13 is right in the sweet spot. Plus, that's what fellow MonsterVerse (more on that later) entry Kong: Skull Island was rated, too.

Who Is The Godzilla: King Of The Monsters Director?

Gareth Edwards' directing credits include End Day and Monster, but Godzilla was the blockbuster that earned him widespread recognition. The original plan was for him to return for Godzilla: King of the Monsters after helming Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. However, in May 2016, it was announced that Edwards would no longer direct the sequel, as he wanted to step back from overseeing big productions and focus on smaller-scale projects. It wasn't until January 2017 that his replacement was hired: Michael Dougherty, the man who directed Trick 'r Treat and Krampus. But that isn't the only way he's involved in the sequel...

Who Are The Godzilla: King Of The Monsters Writers?

Months before Michael Dougherty had been tapped to direct Godzilla: King of the Monsters, he had already been brought aboard to co-write the flick with Zach Shields. They succeed Godzilla screenwriter, Max Borenstein, who was originally supposed to return, but later dropped out. Dougherty's notable writing credits include X2: X-Men United and Superman Returns, while Zach Shields has previously worked with Dougherty on Krampus. Given the horror background these two have, there's a distinct chance that Godzilla: King of the Monsters will have scarier elements, though not to the point that the movie will rest comfortably in the horror genre. To be fair, watching a giant fire-breathing monster destroy cities is scary enough, but perhaps there will be added suspense to make Godzilla: King of the Monsters more captivating. A good sequel retains what made the first movie work so well, but also incorporates new material to keep things fresh.

What Is Godzilla: King Of The Monsters About?

Well, we're in big trouble now. After the events of 2014's Godzilla, even more of the Titans began to wake up and come out of their hiding places, leaving massive destruction in their wake. At the start of Godzilla: King of the Monsters, 17 of these dangerous beasts have come forward (with more expected to surface soon), with those who work at the crypto-zoological agency Monarch realizing that they're moving as a pack and following a leader.

That leader just so happens to the the three-headed monster King Ghidorah, ancient nemesis of Godzilla. We need to take out Ghidorah to get the rest of the awakened Titans to stop their reigns of terror, and, guess who seems like the best hope for that?

After defeating the MUTOs (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organisms) that were the "real" villains of the first film, Godzilla rested in the rubble from his giant battle for a bit and then returned to the sea. Unfortunately, humanity isn't having much luck fighting back against these nearly indestructible creatures, so we hatch a plan to locate Godzilla's ocean-floor hiding place, wake him up and get him to, once again, fight the good fight against his fellow Titans as we do everything we can to help out.

Though, I have to say, bothering a creature like Godzilla seems like a bad idea that could easily wipe out a chunk of a country's military force and /or population should he wake up on the wrong side of his monster bed.

Who Are The New Godzilla: King Of The Monsters Characters?

The first actor who was cast for Godzilla: King of the Monsters was Millie Bobby Brown. She's best known for her breakout role as Eleven, nicknamed "El," on the Netflix series Stranger Things. In the show, she plays a telekinetic girl who was kept in a government laboratory, experimented on, and who was soon revealed to be able to make contact with the alternate dimension unofficially known as the "Upside Down." So yeah, Brown is well-versed in the realms of sci-fi and horror.

Brown will play Madison Russell, and be one of the central characters in Godzilla: King of the Monsters, along with two other newcomers: Kyle Chandler and Vera Farmiga, who will play her parents Dr. Mark Russell and Dr. Emma Russell, who are both working to stop the Titans. Aside from the obvious danger involved in living under the conditions found in the film, there will be other familial strife for the Russell's. Chandler recently revealed that one of the reasons his character hates the Titans is that "they caused havoc with my family," and it seems like a great loss came from that havoc.

The other new cast members include Ziyi Zhang (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) as Dr. Ilene Chen, Bradley Whitford (The West Wing, Get Out) as Dr. Rick Stanton, Charles Dance (Game of Thrones) as Jonah Alan, Thomas Middleditch (Silicon Valley) as Sam Coleman, Aisha Hinds (9-1-1) as Colonel Diane Foster, O'Shea Jackson Jr. (Straight Outta Compton) as Chief Warrant Officer Barnes and Anthony Ramos (A Star Is Born) as Staff Sergeant Martinez. As you can probably tell from all the doctors and military personnel in that lineup, all of these new characters seem to be actively helping Monarch stop the Titans.

Who Are The Returning Godzilla Characters?

So far, only three of the actors who appeared in 2014's Godzilla have been confirmed to return for the sequel. Aaron Taylor-Johnson said back in 2015 that he was unsure if he'd be back, and that it would depend on whether director Gareth Edwards stuck around or not. Seeing as how Edwards did not return to the Godzilla fold, we can probably expect that Taylor-Johnson won't be around, even in a small capacity. That will likely also leave out any appearance by Elizabeth Olsen's Elle Brody (we've certainly not seen either of them in any of the trailers), but it turns out that Ken Watanabe's Dr. Ishiro Serizawa will be back.

Ishiro was the main representative from Monarch, the organization that studies Earth's monsters. Given how Monarch is the main connective thread of the MonsterVerse (more on that in the next section). Not only does Ishiro have experience studying Godzilla, but he can hopefully provide insight on the new monsters that emerge. Hopefully, Ishiro will become what Nick Fury and Phil Coulson are / were to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. He's not the focus, but he's integral to shedding light on these mysterious beings.

The other returning characters / actors are Sally Hawkins (The Shape of Water) as Dr. Vivienne Graham and David Strathairn (The Blacklist, Billions) as Admiral William Stenz. While it would have been nice to see how the Brody family was faring after everything they went through in the first film, their story was wrapped up pretty well, so it was never necessary for them to show up again. It makes a lot of sense then, that the action of Godzilla: King of the Monsters would find another family to focus on amid all the Titan uproar, and the film is doing just that.

How Does The MonsterVerse Fit Into Godzilla: King Of The Monsters?

When 2014's Godzilla came out, it was a self-contained story that left room for a sequel later down the line. That's standard for many blockbusters, especially ones based on existing intellectual property. But with the rising popularity of cinematic universes, thanks to Marvel, Warner Bros. decided they wanted in on the action. Legendary Entertainment had already acquired the rights to creatures like Mothra, Rodan and King Ghidorah after Godzilla was released, and in September 2015, it was announced that Kong: Skull Island would be developed at Warner Bros. instead of Universal.

The following month, it was confirmed that the giant ape lives in the same world as the fire-breathing reptile, which has been dubbed the MonsterVerse. Kong: Skull Island takes place in the early 1970s, four decades before the present day Godzilla events. However, there are several references to Monarch, which isn't surprising since it was only two decades earlier that those nuclear weapons were dropped on Godzilla.

So, what does all this mean for Godzilla: King of the Monsters? Well, whatever happens in the sequel, you can count on Godzilla not dying. The following year, on March 13, he's going up against Kong in Godzilla vs. Kong. This will be the first time these two have clashed in an American setting and Michael Dougherty, who directed King of the Monsters and also co-wrote Godzilla vs. Kong, has described the film as a “potential underdog fight,” which will see a much more mature King Kong needing to use all his primate intelligence and skills to defend himself from the massive lizard.

It stands to reason that Godzilla: King of the Monsters' ending will pave the way for this epic battle. Who knows, maybe Kong himself might make a cameo appearance. There already seems to be a major connection brewing between Kong: Skull Island and King of the Monsters that will explain how these creatures remained hidden for so long. Then there's that Skull Island after-credits scene, which teased every monster we know we're going to see in this film. It does make sense that a major tease for the next film in the MonsterVerse would come at some point during King of the Monsters, we just don't know what it might be right now.

You can head out to see Godzilla: King of the Monsters right now!

Sounds Like Sylvester Stallone Might Not Be Done With Rocky After All

Sounds Like Sylvester Stallone Might Not Be Done With Rocky After All

Sylvester Stallone seemed to retire as Rocky after Creed II, but maybe he's already rethinking that idea. Sly is at Cannes promoting Rambo V: Last Blood, and talking about his career to date. The conversation turned to Rocky Balboa, and it was noted that Stallone had said he had no immediate plans to continue with Creed. Why not? Well, that's apparently when he dropped this new idea:

I have a great idea for Rocky. He finds this fella in the country illegally and it becomes a whole thing. It’s like the magician who lost his tricks. You’ve seen everything, but what can be different? Throw him out of the country, he’s in another world.

I can't say I follow exactly where he's going with that, but if Sylvester Stallone says he has another great idea in him for Rocky, hop to it. It worked well for at least two Creed spinoff-sequels, and maybe even a third with or without Rocky. It's possible his comments to the audience, during a career retrospective talk with Didier Allouch (via Deadline), suggested a new fighter for Rocky to train in a new spinoff. No idea, but it's something to keep an eye on if Stallone wasn't just riffing and he really meant it.

Sylvester Stallone also compared the very different heroes of his two R franchises:

Rambo deals with the dark side of nature that most people live with. Rocky is different, he’s more the optimist, there’s optimism and pessimism in these two characters.

Sylvester Stallone's Rambo V: Last Blood title suggests an ending for that franchise too, but you never know. He may come up with a new idea after that movie comes out this September.

Sly already has a 40 Years Of Rocky documentary coming out, so Rocky is still very much in the spotlight after all of these years. Stallone is even still meeting new Rocky fans -- some as young as 9 -- so the franchise still has some life in it, as long as Sly has more stories to tell. But if Creed II really was the end of Rocky's story, well that's a fine ending as well. It just sounds like Sly isn't quite sure he's done.

Sylvester Stallone has a lot going on beyond Rocky and Rambo, including whatever is happening with The Expendables 4, plus his idea for where Cobra could go next. He even took time recently to weigh in on the new plans for Cliffhanger. And he also has Escape Plan: The Extractors coming to Digital/DVD/Blu-ray on July 2.

Rambo 5 opens in theaters September 20. Stay tuned for any Rocky updates if the thoughts pass from Sylvester Stallone's mind onto actual paper for a script.

Brahms: The Boy II’s Katie Holmes Admits She Gets Scared Filming Scary Movies

Brahms: The Boy II’s Katie Holmes Admits She Gets Scared Filming Scary Movies

Following 2017’s Logan Lucky, Katie Holmes is headed back to the big screen for STX Films’ upcoming movie Brahms: The Boy II. The actress plays the mother of a boy who befriends a doll he calls Brahms after moving into a creepy mansion. She’s no stranger to horror film work, but ahead of the release of this project, Katie Holmes admitted she gets scared filming scary movies.

In particular, Brahms: The Boy II was frightening at times. It was not because of the script or its creepy mansion setting, but because of the fact a doll plays a prominent role in the horror flick.

This was pretty terrifying to make when we were working with the doll. It was a lot. I was scared. I love dolls; I have a conflict because I have so many, growing up with a lot of baby dolls I never thought of a doll being creepy and now I have to rethink everything.

Brahms: The Boy II isn’t Katie Holmes’ first horror project by a long shot. She’s been in movies like Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, Teaching Mrs. Tingle, and Disturbing Behavior. However, some of these aren’t even straight horror flicks and it’s been a while since she dipped into the horror well.

She said she took on this role because it was a mom character and her child and how it “was such a universal fear for every parent” to want to protect their kid from danger and badness.

While filming the role, however, she said she got a little bit jumpy when asking whether or not she believes in supernatural forces. She said:

Well, when we were making this there were a couple of times I would be in my bed and start to fall asleep and like my pillow would fall, but I was like [creeped out].

When asked during the CinemaCon 2019 panel which horror movies influenced her most over the years, the actress cited a lot of classic films like The Shining, Rosemary’s Baby, Halloween, and Scream. So although she said it’s “hard” for her “to watch them,” she has at least seen some of the big horror movie moments of the past several decades.

Brahms: The Boy II is a sequel to the 2016 film The Boy, also produced by STX, which started its feature length career with another horror film, The Gift. This new iteration will return to the Heelshire Mansion to tell a brand new story. You’ll be able to see it for yourself on July 26, 2019 – the same week as Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.

In the meantime, Katie Holmes better start preparing herself for the premiere now given the rough time she seems to have with scary moments, although, as long as no one hands her a doll at the premiere I assume she'll be fine.

Why DC Is Making An Aquaman Spinoff About The Trench, According To The Producer

Why DC Is Making An Aquaman Spinoff About The Trench, According To The Producer

DC's live-action universe has had plenty of peaks and valleys, although the massive property seems to be on the upswing lately. Warner Bros. is currently surfing on the massive success of James Wan's Aquaman, which cleaned up at the box office, on top of being a critical success. We'll have to wait a few years for the film's sequel to arrive in 2022, but there's another underwater adventure in development by the studio: the spinoff The Trench.

The Trench sequence was one of the most visually fascinating aspects of Aquaman, as James Wan's horror roots briefly reached the surface of the aquatic blockbuster. So fans were delightfully surprised when Warner Bros. green-lit a spinoff for the dark sea setting. Producer Peter Safran recently spoke to the decision to dive deeper into into The Trench with a spinoff, revealing:

We always, even from the early concept art days, loved the idea of a Trench movie. Then, when audiences embraced it in the movie itself the way they did, particularly that ant farm shot where the camera follows the Trench [creatures] following Arthur and Mera down into the deep, we just knew that we had something very special there and we knew what that movie should be. And consequently, I suspect that that’s one that will come out significantly before Aquaman 2.

Audiences may have been surprised, but it seems like the the groundwork for The Trench movie was being laid during the release of Aquaman. It ended up being audience engagement that made the spinoff truly become a reality. And as a reward to the fandom, they'll get another movie set in Aquaman's world before the film's actual sequel arrives in theaters.

Peter Safran's comments to THR illuminate the thought process going on at Warner Bros. regarding the future of the DC live-action universe. DC seems to be taking a much different approach than the competition over at Marvel Studios. Rather than revealing entire slates of movie scheduling, Warner Bros. can adjust its programming based on fan reception and box office performance. It feels like there's an exciting momentum in the shared universe, in stark juxtaposition to its state after the disappointing performance of Justice League.

The Trench is a mysterious part of the lore established in Aquaman. They're amphibious monsters who separated from the Atlantean Kingdom years ago. They attacked Mera and Arthur on their journey, before eventually joining their cause in an epic underwater battle against King Orm. It should be interesting to see how The Trench is expanded, and where in the overall timeline the spinoff will be set.

But perhaps the most important question is whether or not the great Julie Andrews will be back to play Karathen in either The Trench or Aquaman 2. Her inclusion in the first film was a delightful surprise, and she brought a ton of power to the behemoth creature.

Aquaman is available for digital download now, and you can purchase a physical copy on March 26th. In the meantime, check out our 2019 release list to plan your next trip to the movies.

Sinemia Has A New Plan With No Restrictions

Sinemia Has A New Plan With No Restrictions

Movie subscription services have come a long way since MoviePass was the first, and only, game in town, allowing it to make whatever bold choices and/or mistakes that were felt needed in order to survive. With each new competitor like AMC Stubs’ A-List or Sinemia entering the ring, what’s being offered and the going rate for said services are subject to the slightest wind of change. And the winds are a’blowing again, as Sinemia has just announced yet another new plan in their arsenal, one that makes a promise in two simple words: “Always Unlimited.”

Clocking in at $14.99 a month, the Always Unlimited plan from Sinemia offers the subscribers that sign up one 2D movie a day. In addition to that wonderful foundation of worth, this subscription also does not restrict audience members to specific showtimes, and allows tickets to be purchased as far out as 30 days in advance. And as usual, Sinemia offers service to any movie theater, which may lure some folks away from theater specific subscriptions if they feel the offerings currently being provided are too expensive or not worth signing up for in the first place.

Previously, Sinemia only offered tiered plans that offered 1-3 movies a month to their subscribers; with monthly costs depending on format and number of persons on the plan. But in the last few months, the service provider looks to be getting more and more experimental with what it’s offering the public. This was seen in last month’s announcement of the Sinemia Limitless plan, which saw moviegoers paying a flat fee for a “limitless moviegoing experience.” Now, it looks like Sinemia users are going to have another option that’ll allow their experience at the movies to be even more convenient.

The competition isn’t sleeping on such recent developments either, as MoviePass recently announced that it was bringing back its own unlimited plan as well. Titled MoviePass Uncapped, that plan is normally offered for $19.95 a month, with unlimited 2D movies in a month. However, the caveat of no repeat viewings is integrated into this option, much like all other MoviePass tiers of subscription.

While it’s not specified in Sinemia’s big unveiling of the Always Unlimited plan, it looks like that clause about no repeated viewings of the same film might not be present. So if you’re looking to test your bladder strength with multiple showings of Avengers: Endgame, you might be able to do just that during its opening weekend.

Movie subscription services are still a market of volatility, with some potentially huge shifts still to come in the next year or so. While there’s no clear path to victory for any one playing the game, Sinemia is definitely making a bold move forward that could pay off. We’ll see how this pans out in the near future, but for now, our eyes will be peeled as to how existing providers adapt to this change, and whether or not this competing plan can gain some market share at the hands of Always Unlimited.

If you’re curious as to what Sinemia is offering with their plans, both old and new, you can visit its official website to research accordingly.

Bird Box Is Getting A Sequel, But Not On Netflix

Bird Box Is Getting A Sequel, But Not On Netflix

Lots of movies have debuted on Netflix in the past several years, but not many inspired the kind of response that Bird Box did when it hit the streaming service right before Christmas last year. In just a few days, the post-apocalyptic film managed to set a massive viewing record for Netflix, with fans of the movie creating hundreds of memes dedicated to the film...which then led many others to watch the movie just to see what all the fuss was about. Of course, lots of people even took to blindfolding themselves to take on the so called "Bird Box challenge," with Netflix and public officials having to issue a statement that people, you know, just not do that, especially while driving.

With all the attention the movie, which stars Sandra Bullock as a woman trying to survive with her children in a world where people see their worst fears and then die, got, many people are wondering when we might get a follow up to the terrifying adventure. Fortunately, the answer is October 1, but, instead of coming by way of another Netflix movie, this new tale will be a sequel novel from Josh Malerman, who wrote the book of the same title that Bird Box was based on.

Josh Malerman's follow up to Bird Box is titled Malorie, and will, as indicated by the title, continue the story of Sandra Bullock's fierce, determined character as she continues to fight for survival. So, why did Malerman, who began working on Bird Box in 2006 and published his novel in 2014, decide to write a sequel? Here's what he had to say:

In the time between Bird Box coming out and the time since I’ve been writing Malorie, I’ve been asked a ton of times: people want to know what happened with Boy and Girl. But as much as I care about Boy and Girl, this isn’t their story. The Bird Box world is Malorie’s story, and I wanted to know more about her. I wanted to get to know her even better. At the end of the movie, I turned to my girl Allison and said, 'I want to know what happens next!' and she’s like, 'Well, you know, you could make that happen,' so it really was this warm feeling.

In his interview with Esquire, Josh Malerman revealed that some of his "warm feeling" has led to a story that will tell fans a lot more about Malorie and the creatures who have helped to decimate the population. The sequel will also pick up in a similar location to where the first story ended, with Malorie, her kids and a group of survivors "trying to make things work," but Malerman promises that the new story won't open "with them in paradise" so you can bet that there will be lots of challenges still ahead for Malorie and everyone she comes into contact with along the way.

Unfortunately, Malerman didn't have anything to say about plans for Netflix to adapt this new tale for streaming, but considering how wild people went for Bird Box, it's probably a pretty safe bet that those at the service will at least be paying attention to the reception that Malorie gets once it's released on October 1.

How Linda Cardellini Got A Funny Scooby-Doo Reference Into The Curse Of La Llorona

How Linda Cardellini Got A Funny Scooby-Doo Reference Into The Curse Of La Llorona

As Warner Bros.’ The Curse of La Llorona works its way to theaters this weekend, fans of The Conjuring universe will be scouring the backgrounds of scene looking for references and Easter Eggs to the larger story at hand. (And they are there, trust us.) But while paying attention to the background details in director Michael Chaves’ horror-thriller, we spotted a different reference that made us laugh, and we had to ask the cast about it.

The Curse of La Llorona takes place in the 1970s, where a social worker (Linda Cardellini) who is concerned about the welfare of some small children begins to investigate the mother’s claims that they are haunted by La Llorona. More on that myth in a moment, but in the background of a scene, kids are watching Scooby-Doo on a TV set. Makes sense. The animated show was huge in the 1970s. But there’s also a subtle gag there in that Linda Cardellini also played Velma in two live-action Scooby-Doo movies, and she told us it was her idea to get that animated reference in. She tells CinemaBlend:

Actually, it was a discussion too, when we were talking about it. And I was like… because it was a different Hanna-Barbera cartoon that we had in one version, and I was like, ‘What if they’re watching Scooby-Doo?’ And we just had a laugh about it. It was sort of like a little Easter Egg, I think.

These self-aware nods are hilarious to film lovers. Going into the movie, it’s fun to know that Linda Cardellini established her range on a popular family comedy like Scooby-Doo before switching gears, time and again, to show exactly what she is capable of as an actress. Sure she played Velma. But since then, Cardellini has impressed critics and crowds with roles in Brokeback Mountain, E.R., Mad Men, the Avengers movies, and most recently on the Netflix drama Bloodline.

As she elaborated in the Scooby-Doo nod, she explained how that movie helped her switch gears and challenger herself as an actress. Cardellini told us:

That was, to me, I had just come off of Freaks and Geeks, and so doing something like Scooby-Doo seemed like a crazy departure, playing Velma. And [this] was like, I had just come off of Daddy’s Home and then I decided to do this film. I just love that about acting, so it was fun for me.

Audiences will see a new side of Linda Cardellini in The Curse of La Llorona, as she plays a caring social worker who gets pulled into a terrifying mystery. She also, as a result, has to protect her own children from the threat of La Llorona, and Cardellini displays a ferocious Mama Bear side that we hadn’t seen from her before. Here she is discussing the movie, and Scooby-Doo:

Check out The Curse of La Llorona when it hits theater screens starting this Thursday.

Thor's Hammer Vs Aquaman's Trident: What's The More Powerful Weapon?

Thor's Hammer Vs Aquaman's Trident: What's The More Powerful Weapon?

*There are some spoilers for various Marvel and DC movies throughout this story, particularly the recently released Avengers-oriented flick. *

When you picture Thor and Aquaman, the first thing that comes to mind could be their origins in mythology. It could be how they are both the most powerful long-haired and bearded titans of their respective cinematic universes. Or it could be how they are both played by actors who are seemingly too ripped to be human.

Honestly, though, when it comes to Thor and Aquaman, let’s face it: what you really care about is that epic hammer and that sweet, sweet trident.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe’s God of Thunder, played by Chris Hemsworth, and the Atlantean king of the DC Extended Universe, completely reinvented by Jason Momoa, may have powers of great strength, yet still take great pride in their trusted weaponry. We can’t help but wonder, however, what is more powerful: Mjölnir or the Trident of Neptune?

Of course, in Thor: Ragnarok, Thor’s sister Hela (Cate Blanchett) destroyed Mjölnir out of spite and, and while it made a brief return in Avengers: Endgame, at the conclusion Captain America had to return it to 2013-era Thor in order to correct the alternate timelines. So, Thor’s proudly rocking Stormbreaker for now.

Still, for the purposes of comparing these two heroes, we figured Thor’s hammer would be the definitive weapon to focus on rather than splitting focus.

Depending on whether you are more of a DC fan or a Marvel fan, you might already have chosen which you prefer between Thor’s hammer and Aquaman’s trident based on personal alliances. Regardless, both have proven to be worthy assets to their respective owners. But which is the more powerful weapon?

Thor’s Hammer

The origin of Thor’s hammer dates back centuries before Thor’s first appearance in Marvel comics in 1962.

Mjölnir, whose name is said to be derived from a Proto-Germanic word meaning “grind,” is an object of Norse mythology, depicted as one of the most powerful and cowering weapons in existence. For instance, one strike with this bad boy and you can say goodbye to Mt. Everest.

Yet, the destructive power of Thor’s hammer barely scratches the surface. It is a weapon of great complexity and some pretty high standards.

As deemed by Odin, Thor’s father and the king of Asgard played by Anthony Hopkins, only those who are worthy of Mjölnir’s power can be given the strength to wield it. With that in mind, what makes someone worthy of Thor’s hammer?

In the comics, Thor describes those worthy of wielding Mjölnir as being pure of heart and noble of mind. This explains why he was unable to retrieve the hammer while exiled on Earth in his 2010 solo origin movie. He was a narcissistic jerk.

Once his time on Earth as a powerless simpleton proved effective in grounding his ego a bit, Thor managed to prove himself and he Mjölnir were reunited, reinstilling him with his thunderous power.

A weapon as selective as Thor’s hammer must really come in handy. For one, Thor never has to worry about Mjölnir falling into the wrong hands. Any sinister adversaries he comes into conflict with will most definitely not be seen as worthy.

Additionally, let’s say that Thor is somehow incapacitated and unable to grasp Mjölnir at a particularly pressing moment in battle. Any allies of his who, hopefully, fall under the qualifications of being of pure of heart and noble of mind to the extent that Mjölnir will accept can take Thor’s hammer and let it rip.

This, of course, was hinted at in Avengers: Age of Ultron, when Captain America (Chris Evans) came shockingly close to lifting Thor’s hammer, visibly triggering triggering the god’s anxiety, not to mention how Vision (Paul Bettany) revealed his worthiness minutes after his creation. It was later confirmed that Cap had the power in him all along when he took charge of Mjölnir in the thunderous climax of Avengers: Endgame.

However, you would be surprised by how many other characters Thor’s hammer has deemed worthy throughout the comics’ history. Some of them barely made the cut.

Superman, during a DC-Marvel comics crossover event, wielded Thor’s hammer, but only for as long as Mjölnir determined that he really needed it. Bruce Banner’s Hulk has managed to lift it, as did his even grounchier alter ego Red Hulk, along with a few X-Men.

Even Deadpool got his hands on it before. Hmmm, maybe Mjölnir’s standards are not as high as we thought.

When it comes to the unworthy who have felt the wrath of Thor’s hammer, that list is longer. Thor has taken on the likes of his adopted brother Loki and planet-eating Galactus in the comics. He has even managed to defeat fellow heroes such as Iron Man or the Fantastic Four’s The Thing. Clearly, his weapon is powerful.

Yet, even some unworthy folk proved to not be completely vulnerable to Thor’s hammer. Fellow mythological god Hercules took on Thor and won, as did Doctor Strange and Scarlet Witch. In one of the funnier comic book defeats I could find, Hulk managed to outsmart Thor by causing him to knock himself out with Mjölnir.

You may need to be pure of heart and noble of mind to wield it, but even Thor’s hammer is not impervious to motivation and a little cleverness. Still, it levels mountains, so there’s that.

Aquaman’s Trident

According to its mythological origin, Aquaman (nèe Arthur Curry) is not the original wielder of the Trident of Neptune, nor is the original wielder even the sole original. In fact, that is only its name in Roman mythology. In Greek texts, the trident belongs to Poseidon.

DC’s interpretation of the myth borrows from the Roman equivalent, which depicts the trident as created by three Cyclopes (so, three one-eyed monsters) who forged impenetrable adamantine with Neptune’s own essence into a shape resembling a fishing spear. The three prongs are said to represent the three different kinds of bodies of water: seas, streams and rivers.

Aquaman’s trident serves as a symbol of his authority over the seven seas, as well as a few other fun purposes.

With its triple-pronged head and indestructibility, Aquaman’s trident appears to be a weapon of great effectiveness in battle. That would be considered an undeniable assumption. Aquaman has used the trident to slay sea monsters and wound his greatest enemies, such as archnemesis Black Manta or the powerful DC villain, Darkseid.

The Trident of Neptune is capable of much more than violence, however… even if it used for that purpose most often.

Aquaman's trident allows the wielder complete control over the seven seas, power to manipulate water, which allows him to create whirlpools, tidal waves, and even part the seas a la Moses in The Ten Commandments. If you are in the mood for another biblical reference, Aquaman could also flood the entire Earth with it if he wanted to.

Aquaman’s trident is not exclusive to waterbending, however. It possesses a vast array of magical abilities, including changing the appearance of people or objects, or making them disappear altogether. That may be a neat trick, but when he really wants to make an impression, he can use the trident to conjuring bolts of lightning and manipulating thunder.

Waaaaaiiiiittttt! Aquaman has the power of lightning and thunder? Looks like you’ve met your match, Thor.

Speaking of which…

Hammer Vs. Trident

It’s main event time. Which comic book hero weapon is most powerful: Thor’s hammer or Aquaman’s trident?

As for similarities, both Mjölnir and the Trident of Neptune have proven to be of great imperviousness, except for that time Thor’s sister, Hela, crushed the hammer in one hand. However, we have yet to see Aquaman’s trident suffer a similar fate in future films, so whether it upstages Mjölnir in indestructibility is still up in the air.

Both weapons also possess the benefit of only allowing chosen champions to wield it. Thor’s hammer is the sentient one that is literally impossible to lift if not deemed worthy, though. I would have to award points to Mjölnir for encompassing the better security feature, but also take some back for letting Deadpool take advantage.

Thor’s hammer also allows him to fly, strike gargantuan blows against enemies, conjure bolts of lightning, and, as I have said before but cannot stop saying, level whole mountains for Odin’s sake!

The question is, however, which weapon is more powerful. Admittedly, Thor’s hammer has nothing on the ability to change the shape of matter, creating tidal waves and hurricanes, and manipulating, not just lightning, but also Thor’s bread and butter: thunder.

Thor may be the God of Thunder, but with the Trident of Neptune in his hands, Aquaman is literally the perfect storm.

By the power invested in me by CinemaBlend, I dub Aquaman’s trident the victorious weapon. Admittedly, it's close.

Looks Like Some Theaters Are Warning Moviegoers About Avengers: Endgame’s Credits

Looks Like Some Theaters Are Warning Moviegoers About Avengers: Endgame’s Credits

Warning: SPOILERS for Avengers: Endgame are ahead!

If there’s one thing the Marvel Cinematic Universe is known best for, it’s giving audiences a little something extra after the main story is finished. The superhero franchise didn’t create post-credits scenes, but it certainly popularized them, as nearly all the MCU movies feature at least one extra scene either in the middle of the credits or after they’ve finished rolling. But then Avengers: Endgame had to go and break the streak.

Yes, as a first in MCU history, once the actual Avengers: Endgame story concluded, there wasn’t any additional footage for audiences to chew on, and evidently some theaters are now making sure that audiences are aware of this ahead of time. Said theaters are posting a message on the silver screen ahead of time to inform people that they will not be treated to a post-credits scene in Endgame.

Why are these theaters doing this? As the title of the Reddit post showing this message indicates, it’s so that the movie theater employees have an easier time cleaning up the theater. Needless to say that picking up fallen popcorn and mopping up spilled drinks are easier endeavors when there are fewer patrons staying in their seats.

While I still see a scattering of people leaving the theater once a Marvel movie has wrapped up the main story, for the most part Marvel has trained moviegoers to stay in their seats until the credits are finished. That’s not to say that one can’t stay to watch all of the credits just because (a lot of people put time and sweat into making movies, after all), but for the sake of saving time and making theater employees’ jobs easier, that no post-credits scene message certainly comes in handy.

Of course, as those of you who’ve seen Avengers: Endgame already know, just because the movie doesn’t have a post-credits scene doesn’t mean that there isn’t an extra surprise to enjoy. Once the credits finish rolling, the sound of a hammer striking metal can be heard, harkening back to when Tony Stark was building his suit of armor in Iron Man. Given that Endgame marked the end of the Infinity Saga and ended up being the final chapter of Tony’s story, it’s fitting that we hear something that reminds us of the movie that kicked off the MCU.

As for why Avengers: Endgame didn’t include a post-credits scene, directors Joe and Anthony Russo explained how because this movie marked the end of a 22-movie saga, they didn’t want to tease anything about the future and instead focused firmly on honoring the past, which Endgame does in spades. Oh, and there’s also the fact that the Russos currently don’t have any more Marvel projects lined up, so they aren’t in the loop about what’s to come.

One thing is definitely clear: Avengers: Endgame’s theatrical run is not ending anytime soon. With its second weekend over, the latest MCU movie has collected nearly $2.2 billion worldwide, making it the second highest-grossing movie of all time and knocking Titanic down to third place. Endgame has also been doing quite well on the critical front, ranking at 95% on Rotten Tomatoes and earning an A+ on CinemaScore.

If you haven’t already, be sure to read CinemaBlend’s review of Avengers: Endgame, and stay tuned for more coverage about the movie in the coming weeks. For now, you can browse through our 2019 release schedule to learn what other highly-anticipated movies are on the way this year.

How Much Dumbo Made On Its Opening Night

How Much Dumbo Made On Its Opening Night

Disney is about to fly high with its own brand of live-action nostalgia this year with four of its kind, including remakes for Aladdin, The Lion King and a sequel to Maleficent. Tim Burton’s take on the 1941 classic, Dumbo is starting things off, and it's kicked off its box office run with a debut of $2.6 million during Thursday night screenings starting at 6pm.

While these early numbers are on the low side compared to where Disney live-action films have previously soared on opening night, per Deadline, the circus-set flick has been tracking between $40 and $60 million for its debut weekend. Dumbo’s $2.6 million is just ahead of the live-action Cinderella’s $2.3 million evening entrance back in 2015, which went on to open at $67.5 million. Dumbo has already made double of last year’s Christopher Robin and Alice Through the Looking Glass, both of which took $1.5 million on their Thursday nights.

This debut is behind the early earnings of The Jungle Book, which made $4.2 million on preview night before a huge $103.2 million opening, and Tim Burton’s other Disney reimagining, 2010’s Alice In Wonderland, which stole away $116.1 million in its first weekend. No other live-action Disney flick has touched Beauty and the Beast’s Thursday night preview record of $16.3 million before dancing into a magical $174 million opening weekend.

Dumbo comes up against Jordan Peele’s buzzy horror film Us, which opened at No. 1 last weekend at $94.6 million and even topped Dumbo last night by making $4.5 million on Thursday alone. The two titles benefit from targeting different audiences, and the Disney flick will be the first new family film to open in two weeks.

Box Office Mojo believes Dumbo will soar over Us this weekend for the top spot, perhaps as audiences are ready to recover from the terrifying doppelganger home-invasion thriller. Us is said to take the second spot and Captain Marvel is expected to still make bank as well. Dumbo has the benefit of opening next to the Matthew McConaughey-led stoner comedy, The Beach Bum, which has suffered brutal reviews thus far and made just $200K last night in Thursday night previews.

Globally, Dumbo should do well for itself too, as it is tracking to make $140 million during its first weekend opening in foreign markets, including China. It certainly helps that the movie starring the adorable circus elephant has received positive praise from critics. CinemaBlend’s own Jessica Rawden gave the movie 3 out of 5 stars in her review and the film has a green-splat of 52% on Rotten Tomatoes, so the consensus isn’t exactly glowing.

Dumbo marks Tim Burton’s first movie since 2016’s Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children and a continued collaboration with Danny DeVito and Michael Keaton after Batman Returns. The film now in theaters also stars Eva Green, Colin Farrell, Alan Arkin, Nico Parker and Finley Hobbins.

If Marvel Retconned X-Men For The MCU, I Wouldn't Shed A Tear

If Marvel Retconned X-Men For The MCU, I Wouldn't Shed A Tear

It's a wild time in the X-Men franchise. Fox's second attempt at a movie centered on Phoenix in due in June, and The New Mutants is presumably coming at some point as well. The larger news, however, is that Disney will soon be getting control of the mutants via the Disney-Fox merger, and there's been endless speculation about how the Marvel Cinematic Universe could incorporate the characters. It's either taking the existing lineup of characters and folding them them in, or scrapping the entire franchise and starting from scratch with a reboot.

Truth be told, if Marvel retconned the X-Men franchise to incorporate it into the MCU, I wouldn't shed a single tear. In fact, it's my preferred strategy for the merger at this stage, as incorporating the current characters in with Phase 4 and beyond would be a big mistake. Why? It comes down to a recent revelation I had after seeing the powdery blue new look that Jennifer Lawrence is sporting in Dark Phoenix:

This particular makeup job is arguably representational of the X-Men franchise at large over the years. It started off as one thing, constantly changed over the years, and has varied drastically in quality. Sometimes the franchise is looking good, like Mystique in X-Men: First Class. Then there's the other times where it's been less than good, and it's more like her latest appearance.

There's been good X-Men films, and there's been horrifically bad ones - and it's a level of inconsistency that we thankfully haven't seen in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Even the Rotten Tomatoes score of Thor: The Dark World is higher than X-Men: The Last Stand, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and X-Men: Apocalypse. It's gotten to a point where, as an audience, we've come to expect the quality of an upcoming film is a dice roll at best, and that's a problem when it comes to merging the brands.

This is particularly true for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which is in the process of saying goodbye to several heroes integral to its success throughout the past decade. It will be a big enough task for Marvel Studios to lay new groundwork and attempt to replicate its success over another decade, and adding the currently existing X-Men franchise to canon would make that so much harder. Hard enough, at least, that one has to sit back and wonder if it's really worth doing at all.

Admittedly bringing the X-Men into the Marvel Universe would potentially net the franchise some solid talent. James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Sophie Turner, and Evan Peters would all make for great additions provided they're on board. That's a big if, though, because let's not forget, Dark Phoenix takes place decades before the events going in the contemporary MCU.

So, either Marvel could age up the characters in makeup, which seems unlikely, or they could continue the continuity with a new set of actors, such as the original X-Men cast. The latter doesn't seem likely, though, given the bulk original X-Men's cast is approaching or beyond 50. Plus, let's remember that, no offense to the rest of the cast, the two main people most fans would want to return are now dead in the X-Men timeline. For years many have begged for Hugh Jackman's Wolverine to appear in an Marvel Cinematic Universe feature, but it's just not a realistic dream to hold anymore. Bringing Jackman back to play the character now would create another plot inconsistency in the X-Men timeline, and kind of shit on the emotional weight and awesomeness of Logan - which also saw the death of the other aforementioned beloved hero: Patrick Stewart's Professor X. There was once a time where this was a great dream to have and fight for, but those days are long gone.

The remaining character in the X-Men continuity seemingly worth keeping around is Deadpool. I count myself among those who want to see his integration happen, but also worry that keeping the X-Men out or rebooting the team for the Marvel Cinematic Universe would keep him from ever being included. The hope is that the Merc With The Mouth's nature could help him in this arena. He's pretty far-removed from the franchise as is, and his fourth-wall breaking abilities make it easy enough for him to outwardly address the elephant in the room in a comedic way rather than having to create some elaborate plot to explain the situation.

Beyond the chance to potentially succeed doing something incredibly challenging, there doesn't seem to be much reason for the Marvel Cinematic Universe to absorb the current X-Men continuity. Doing so would only put the burden of its uneven and sometimes incomprehensible story lines into a universe that's been so well constructed, and basically the gold standard for a shared universe. What's so bad about starting fresh and introducing a rebooted batch of mutants that can carry us into the next decade and beyond? This is especially true when Marvel has story lines like Avengers vs. X-Men, which, while polarizing within the comic book world, would still be an absolute blast to see on the big screen. Plus imagine a future Avengers lineup that includes characters like Cyclops or Storm, or even a new Wolverine. Sure, there may never be another actor to play the character as well as Hugh Jackman, but we'll never know until Hollywood tries someone else.

Do you feel the same way, or do you think there is good reason why the X-Men movies franchise should exist as canon in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? You can feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section, and vote in our poll below. Dark Phoenix is due out in theaters June 7th, and New Mutants will be released August 2nd - and it's possible we'll have a much better idea of what the future holds for the X-Men then. Check out the latest international trailer in the meantime, and read what the director had to say about the film's delay.

How The Child's Play Reboot is A 'Greek Tragedy' For Chucky

How The Child's Play Reboot is A 'Greek Tragedy' For Chucky

This summer, movie fans will be reunited with a beloved toy-based franchise: Childs' Play, which coincidentally comes out on the same day as Toy Story 4. The horror movie reboot will be changing a few key traits of the murderous Chucky, such as making him a twisted AI, but this brings some depth to the character, according to director Lars Klevberg. In fact, the director sees this reboot as a Greek tragedy for what Chucky goes through in the film.

If you are a fan of the original Child's Play movies, then you've likely noticed that the reboot has gone off script a bit. Rather than having Chucky be a serial killer who used voodoo to transfer his soul into the body of a doll, the reboot's version is an AI that goes bad.

It's certainly less complicated and maybe less fun, but this gave the reboot a chance to make a more sympathetic Chucky who changes over the course of the film. Director Lars Klevberg told Collider that in this way, the story becomes more tragic for Chucky.

When I read the script, one of the first things I recognized was that Chucky was a great character in terms of that he changed. He had his motivations, and it came through his interaction with humans. His way of becoming sympathetic – that was something I really wanted to look into. I viewed the story as a Greek tragedy [for] Chucky… So Chucky having different emotions in this film was important to me.

The jury is still out on whether the story is as tragic for the people that Chucky is definitely murdering.

However, despite the fact that Chucky will become close friends with a knife before the end of the movie, the character will go through numerous changes to reach that point. Whereas in the original films he was always crazy, the new Child's Play will show how the AI reaches its murderous conclusions.

[Chucky’s] motivation is understandable from his point of view but also to us. We can understand why he’s behaving like that. If you understand the antagonist and his motivations, then you can identify with him. That’s why Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein is one of my key inspirations… [How Chucky questions] his purpose once he starts to understand from us human beings.

The Child's Play series has always undergone changes from movie to movie. The original was a straight-up horror film before later sequels become more comedy-driven. Making Chucky more sympathetic sounds like it could round him out as a villain and while the end result (him trying to murder everyone) is probably the same, it might make for a better ride.

The Child's Play reboot is all set to hit theaters on June 21. For everything else hitting theaters, check out our 2019 movie release guide.

Is Shazam! OK For Kids? Here's What The Director Says

Is Shazam! OK For Kids? Here's What The Director Says

It's clear from the trailers that Shazam! is a somewhat different superhero movie than we are used to seeing. It looks a lot funnier and many of the main roles are played by young kids. But if kids are the stars of Shazam! does that mean Shazam! is also a movie for kids? A fan recently asked director David F. Sandberg this question, and he replied that parents worried about too much violence shouldn't need to worry too much, as Shazam! is no worse than a classic blockbuster...

I’d say the type of violence and scares are comparable to Jurassic Park so if they can handle that it should be fine.

A fan on Twitter was all set to bring a pair of young children, ages four and nine, to see Shazam!, but had recently heard the film was much scarier in some scenes than the trailers we'd seen had implied. David F. Sandberg does seem to confirm that here are some potentially scary bits of the movie that certainly aren't like anything we've seen in the film's promotion so far, but if your kid can get through Jurassic Park ok, then they shouldn't have much problem with Shazam!.

With superhero movies being so popular there are certainly a legion of young viewers who would like to see their favorite superheroes on the big screen. And while, with the exception of the Deadpool movies and Logan, the vast majority of audiences would have little problem with any of them, there have certainly been some that could be too intense for some younger viewers. Shazam! certainly looks ok for those young kids. It probably mostly is.

Shazam! is rated PG-13, which is the standard rating for every superhero movie under the sun. It's become such a popular and well used rating that at this point it can cover quite a lot of ground. There's a lot of violence or language that might be too much for the PG rating but not technically bad enough to justify the R. This means that parents might find some PG-13 movies acceptable for younger kids, and others not so much.

Jurassic Park certainly had its intense moments. The T. Rex sequence as well as the one where the two child characters attempt to hid from a pack of hungry raptors, are certainly moments that ratchet up the tension and you can easily see some kids not doing well with those moments. Heck, there are probably some adults that get anxious in those moments.

Since two of the main characters in Shazam! are kids, though one takes the form of Zachary Levi much of the time, there probably will be moments where children are in similar jeopardy in this movie.

The early reaction to Shazam! has been overwhelmingly positive. That means even more people will likely want to see the movie. It looks like most of them will be able to enjoy it.

Shazam!’s Director Is Totally Reading The Early Reviews

Shazam!’s Director Is Totally Reading The Early Reviews

On Thursday night, early viewers of DC’s Shazam! were given the go-ahead to share their early reactions of the film ahead of its April release… and the reviews are glowing! Critics are raving about the upcoming superhero flick for being a delightful, humorous and lovable addition to the DCEU.

Looks like Shazam’s director David F. Sandberg was lurking around Twitter just as fans started to sing their praises. The filmmaker recently took to Instagram to share some of the positive reactions to the film. Take a look:

David F. Sandberg captioned the slideshow of radiant reception with “my evening” – probably amidst celebration and sighs of relief to see his film out in the world and embraced with open arms.

Since most of us have yet to see Shazam!, the Twitter blurbs offer some hype for the coming blockbuster. Early comparisons are to 1978’s Superman, The Goonies, Harry Potter, Big and Home Alone. There have also been reports that it’s the best DCEU movie yet, while being family-friendly and heartful. The main cast of Zachary Levi and Jack Dylan Grazer were additionally given a pat on the back as well.

The Instagram post ends with the filmmaker hitting F5, a.k.a. the refresh button, to probably bask on more positive takes on Shazam! We can imagine David F. Sandberg is on cloud nine after all of those nice words about a project he has been developing for some time and many fans are getting ready to buy their tickets!

Shazam! is certainly David F. Sandberg’s biggest directorial project to date, as he has helmed just two other feature length films prior: horror films Lights Out and Annabelle: Creation. The hero also isn’t exactly as popular as say Batman or Superman. The DCEU hasn’t always been seen in a positive light, so it was certainly wasn't a surefire winner when the filmmaker took it on.

The upcoming movie looks like it delivers on humor and action, per the footage we’ve seen thus far. And these early reactions certainly give moviegoers more confidence to check it out. Shazam! follows a 14-year-old foster kid, Billy Batson (Asher Angel) who is chosen to become an adult superhero (Zachary Levi) and has fun with his new powers alongside his friend Freddy Freeman (Jack Dylan Grazer), until a formidable villain, Dr. Sivana (Mark Strong) comes into the picture.

Shazam! will hit theaters on April 5, in between Marvel’s releases of Captain Marvel and Avengers: Endgame. Early tracking has Shazam! opening at $50 million but as the release draws closer, we’ll have a better idea of how much of a success it will be. Last time DC released a superhero flick it made over one billion worldwide (Aquaman), so who knows? This early positive buzz certainly can only help the movie at the box office.

Julianne Moore Was Fired From Can You Ever Forgive Me And It's Still 'Painful'

Julianne Moore Was Fired From Can You Ever Forgive Me And It's Still 'Painful'

Oh, sweet rejection! We’ve all faced it at one point in our lives, and actors are certainly no stranger to it in the cutthroat business of Hollywood. Even with the status and acclaim Oscar winner Julianne Moore has achieved in her over 30 years as an actress, she is not untouchable to it either.

During a recent visit to What Happens Live with Andy Cohen, Julianne Moore was asked why she left the film Can You Ever Forgive Me? which was a buzzy award season title. Here’s her blunt response:

I didn’t leave that movie, I was fired. Yeah, yeah, Nicole [Holofcener] fired me. ... I think she didn’t like what I was doing. We hadn't [started filming yet], we'd just been rehearsing and pre-production and stuff. And I think that her idea of where the character was was different than my idea of where the character was, and so she fired me. I haven't [seen the movie] yet, because it's still kind of painful. I love Melissa McCarthy, I worship her, I think she's fantastic, so I'm sure she's great.

Wow! It’s hard to wrap our heads around such a phenomenal actress being fired from a role. However, every director has a vision, and if the way Julianne Moore played the part didn’t match up with that, it certainly happens! Melissa McCarthy was later cast instead in the true story of best-selling biographer Lee Israel, who decides to forge letters from famous deceased authors and playwrights.

Julianne Moore admitted that she took the firing pretty hard, continuing with these words:

The only other time I was fired was when I was working at a yogurt stand when I was 15. So, yeah it felt bad.

The 58-year-old actress has been enjoying over 40 years without career rejection (after already nabbing a role anyway), so her pain surrounding the situation is understandable. That’s without mentioning the high praise the movie received throughout award season.

Can You Ever Forgive Me? also earned three nominations at the Oscars, including a Best Actress nod for Melissa McCarthy (in Moore’s former role), Richard E. Grant for Best Supporting Actor, and a nod for Best Adapted Screenplay.

Julianne Moore signed on to the project back in 2015 when the screenplay writer, Nicole Holofcener, was also going to direct the film as well. Soon after Moore was fired, Marielle Heller took Holofcener’s place as director and Melissa McCarthy was cast. Chris O’Dowd was also previously attached to play Richard E. Grant’s role of Jack Hook; here’s what O'Dowd told the BBC in February about it:

What a heartbreak… We were ready to go, it was myself and Julianne Moore, and we had moved to New York, and maybe two days before we started filming, there was some creative differences that I wasn't really involved in. I was surprised, that the film wasn't going ahead at the last minute.

At the end of the day, Chris O’Dowd feels like it was meant to be for Richard E. Grant, and thought he did a wonderful job, but does note “I would've preferred if it was me!” The actors above all else seemed bummed because it was a project they were excited to be a part of. McCarthy and Grant delivered some incredible performances and Moore and O’Dowd will certainly have more chances to dazzle on screen.

Rambo: Last Blood Trailer Has Sylvester Stallone Going Full Home Alone

Rambo: Last Blood Trailer Has Sylvester Stallone Going Full Home Alone

John Rambo has survived war, become war, and ultimately released himself from the bonds of war over the course of the four films we’ve already seen in the Rambo franchise. Now, with Rambo: Last Blood heading our way, the formidable warrior is about to embark on what should be his last mission; and you can get your first look at the battle field in the first trailer released for the film.

In what promises to be his big swan song, Sylvester Stallone’s John Rambo has retired to the family ranch that he returned to at the end of the previous film, Rambo. But just as he was ready to give up the ways of violence, a new crisis springs him into action.

In Rambo: Last Blood, the stakes are at their most personal, as John is waging war against a drug cartel that’s kidnapped the sister of one of his friends. And it’s going to spur him to become his most dangerous self, complete with a house full of booby traps that’d qualify Kevin McCallister for a spot on The Expendables.

Seriously though, take a look at the modifications that Rambo makes to his farmhouse in Rambo: Last Blood. Crossbows outfitted with trip wires, a tunnel system that has a pitchfork just waiting to meet some guy’s chest, and enough vantage points to give Rambo his best shot every shot are all part of Rambo: Last Blood’s house of horrors. All that’s missing are some explosive Micro Machines and mini wrecking balls made out of paint cans, and you’ve got an R-rated version of Home Alone that’s ready for you, the mature adult, to enjoy in theaters.

It’s not all about wanton violence though, as John Rambo is in quite a reflective mood in Rambo: Last Blood’s trailer. With his past weighing on him, and that world of death making him into the grizzled veteran that he is, Rambo looks mostly content with his new life. But he's ready to pay his past debts as they come due.

And while these debts don’t take American Express, they can surely be paid by rifles, crossbows, and pitchfork traps. If Rambo: Last Blood really is the final entry in the John Rambo saga, then rest assured, it looks like he’s going to close that book with his most chaotic chapter yet.

And looking at the film’s first teaser poster shown below, that theory only seems to be supported by the amount of smoke and flames obscuring John Rambo from frame:

Sylvester Stallone has done pretty interesting work when it comes to revisiting or even saying goodbye to his most iconic roles of movie making history. If his work on Rambo: Last Blood is as good as it has been on films like the Creed series, then you can pretty much count us in for an opening night seat. Though unless Rambo takes the big train to the sky at the end of this film, we’ll still be inclined to believe that Stallone will change his mind, as he’s been known to do now and again.

Rambo: Last Blood closes old wounds on September 20th.

Turns Out Charlize Theron Was Actually Approached To Play Wonder Woman’s Mom

Turns Out Charlize Theron Was Actually Approached To Play Wonder Woman’s Mom

Back before Charlize Theron was a well-known action heroine and Patty Jenkins broke the glass ceiling when she directed Wonder Woman, the pair worked together for the 2003 crime drama Monster-- and it won the actress an Oscar. So naturally, when Jenkins was tasked with casting the Amazons in the DC epic she took the opportunity to try to work with her again. At first, however she didn’t understand right away that she wasn’t being asked to play the iconic hero herself. Check out what Theron said:

This is a great example of how Hollywood slaps you in the face when you start aging. So somebody had said to me ‘There’s action on this thing Wonder Woman, we just want to make you aware of it.’ And I was like ‘I’m just not familiar with it, what does Wonder Woman do?’ And this person said ‘No, it’s for Wonder Woman’s mom.’ It’s fine, it’s the defining moment where I crossed over. And I wasn’t fully aware of it.

Well this is awkward. While Charlize Theron was on recently on Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen promoting her romantic comedy Long Shot, she was asked about a previous report that she turned down a role on the DCEU origin story. The actress revealed that she assumed she’d been asked to play the lead… and why wouldn’t she? Theron has pulled off playing a badass action star countless times in films such as Mad Max: Fury Road and Atomic Blonde.

Theron didn’t turn down the role of Hippolyta because she was offended of the casting offer. Here’s what she said years ago of the Wonder Woman role that could have been:

We're friends. I think the world of her. We have a mutual respect for each other. She did come to me, and at the time I was either working on something or I don't know. There was a reason I couldn't do it.

The actress has been consistently swamped with film projects for years so this isn’t an answer that’s difficult to wrap our heads around, though it would have been a treat to see her take on the role of Diana’s mother and the Queen of the Amazons. When the rumors surfaced, many imagined she was asked about Robin Wright’s role of General Antiope. Theron could certainly have pulled off Hippolyta as well, though it now belongs to Connie Nielson. Take a look:

Maybe there’s still time for Charlize Theron to join the franchise? Patty Jenkins does have plans to complete Diana Prince’s story arc with a third Wonder Woman movie at some point. The actress will have a chance to play a comic book character in an upcoming Netflix adaptation of Image Comics’ The Old Guard, which was penned by Wonder Woman writer Greg Rucka. It's perhaps a better place for the actress since she may not be ready to move over to playing moms just yet and she certainly shouldn't have to be.

Could Clint Eastwood's Next Movie Land Over At Disney/Fox?

Could Clint Eastwood's Next Movie Land Over At Disney/Fox?

Disney is still figuring things out when it comes to the new Fox studio that the company now owns. There were many projects in various stages of development, and it's likely that not all of them will continue moving forward. However, one project that looks like it may have a chance at life is The Ballad of Richard Jewell and Clint Eastwood is looking at directing.

The Ballad of Richard Jewell was already a project under consideration under the previous 20th Century Fox administration. It now belongs to the new Disney/Fox and Clint Eastwood has been in talks with the new studio about helming the film.

Not every Fox project is doing as well under the new guard. Wes Ball's Mouse Guard, which was very near going into active production, was just stopped by Disney/Fox. The project may get picked up elsewhere, but the new company is already making the call to close down projects it doesn't want. This project, especially if Clint Eastwood does agree to direct, looks to be one Disney/Fox wants to move forward with.

The Ballad of Richard Jewell is based on a Vanity Fair news article of the same name about Richard Jewell, who was a security guard during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics who recognized a suspicious package, which turned out to be a bomb, and saved many people in the process. However, after the events were over Jewell was looked at as a possible suspect. This information became public and Jewell's life was turned upside down. While he was eventually exonerated, his life, and health, were never the same and he died of heart failure at the age of 44.

The Ballad of Richard Jewell is a project that's been around for a while. The script was written by Billy Ray, who previous wrote Captain Philips. Several years ago, Jonah Hill was attached to star as Richard Jewell and Leonardo DiCaprio was considering coming on board to play Jewell's lawyer and friend. Paul Greengrass had considered taking on directing the project, but it never went anywhere. Deadline reports that Eastwood would be looking to put together his own cast with an eye toward beginning production as early as this summer.

Richard Jewell feels like just the sort of character that would be of interest to Clint Eastwood. Many of his recent directorial projects have been stories based on real people. Sully, 15:17 to Paris, American Sniper, and even Eastwood's most recent film, The Mule, in which he also starred, were all based on real people. Clearly, there's an interest in dramatizing these real events and the story surrounding Richard Jewell is one that certainly lends itself to drama.

If The Ballad of Richard Jewell does go into production this summer we could see it as early as the first half of 2020. Although, on paper, this one could have the potential to be an awards contender, which would likely give it a late 2020 release.