How Marvel Is Looking At Carol Danvers’ 23-Year Absence After Captain Marvel, According To Kevin Feige

How Marvel Is Looking At Carol Danvers’ 23-Year Absence After Captain Marvel, According To Kevin Feige

SPOILER ALERT: The following article contains spoilers for Captain Marvel. If you have not yet seen the film, read on at your own risk.

The adventure featured in Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck’s Captain Marvel answers a lot of questions fans had going into the blockbuster, but there is still one lingering that doesn’t have a specific conclusion: where Carol Danvers has been in the years between 1995 and 2018. We know that she left to help the Skrulls find a new homeworld, and do her part to end the Kree-Skrull, but everything else is pretty vague.

It’s an arena that may or may not be a part of Captain Marvel’s future in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as time will tell how filmmakers choose to engage with the story. As of now, though Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige is looking at it one way, and he told me about it during an interview earlier this month. Talking about the 23-year gap, the executive/filmmaker said,

Once people see the movie, the answer is a part of it. She's been dealing with this unjust war, as it's referred to at one point in the movie, between the Kree and the Skrulls - she's vowed to help them find a home, she's vowed to come after the Supreme Intelligence. So how long that took and how hard that was, it could certainly be one answer to that question.

How long does it take to peacefully transplant a society and sort out a centuries-long conflict? It’s really impossible to say, especially because you have to add in the fact that one of the most powerful beings in the universe is trying to achieve both goals. This in mind, it’s possible that she is still fighting the good fight when she receives Nick Fury’s signal following Thanos’ snap, or maybe she was able to wrap things up in a span of five years and has been instead dealing with a whole lot of other stuff instead.

As I said, this whole situation remains an open-ended question, but one thing that Kevin Feige revealed is that Carol Danvers’ adventures in space have done a significant job changing her perspective – as we will see during her next appearance in Avengers: Endgame. While she leaves Earth in 1995 with a much stronger cognizance of her own humanity, visiting other worlds and experiencing other cultures and societies in the time since has apparently given her an awareness of the variety of life in the universe, and it gives her a different angle on things post-Decimation that members of the Avengers won’t have. Feige explained,

There's no full flash back to the last 23 years [in Avengers: Endgame]… I don't want to say anything about Endgame, but I will say, as established in this movie, she very much takes responsibility for places that are not Earth - in large part because Earth has Fury and the Avengers.

This absolutely tracks. If Carol Danvers feels that the Earth is safe and in good hands under the protection of Nick Fury and the Avengers, she’s not going to put her (literal) energy towards enforcing that already powerful shield. Instead, she will be looking out for those that don’t have defenders, perhaps even those who we haven’t yet seen introduced in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Captain Marvel, of course, is now playing in theaters everywhere, and we have less than two months to wait before her big comeback – with Avengers: Endgame set to be released around the globe on April 26th. Stay tuned here on CinemaBlend for a lot more from my interview with Kevin Feige, as there’s still a lot left to mine from our great conversation!

Turns Out Justin Timberlake Was Considered For Rocketman's Elton John

Turns Out Justin Timberlake Was Considered For Rocketman's Elton John

This weekend’s Rocketman stars Taron Egerton as music legend Elton John in the musical fantasy film from director Dexter Fletcher. Egerton has already drawn rave reviews for his performance and how he completely becomes Elton John, right down to doing all the singing in the film. It sounds like it was a role Egerton was born to play and it would be hard to imagine anyone else in it. However, Taron Egerton wasn’t the only actor who could have played the flamboyant superstar.

It turns out that Justin Timberlake was once considered for Rocketman’s Elton John; the reason being that he already portrayed Elton John in the music video for Elton John’s 2001 song “This Train Don’t Stop There Anymore.” That performance is why JT was among the names Elton John was looking at to play him in the film, but as Elton John’s husband and Rocketman producer David Furnish explained, the idea never got far:

But we never formerly approached Justin because we weren't ever at a stage where it was the right time to approach him. But he did an amazing job in the video. He put on a prosthetic nose, and it turned out to have been some really interesting acting work as well.

The video for “This Train Don’t Stop There Anymore” stars Justin Timberlake as Elton John at the height of his popularity in the 1970s and shows Elton John going through hair and makeup, making his ways through throngs of adoring fans and going to a lavish party. The former NSYNC singer wears a prosthetic nose in the video and looks nothing like the JT we are used to seeing.

Justin Timberlake’s appearance in that video is what inspired Elton John to consider him as a candidate to play him in Rocketman. The video was an inadvertent proof of concept for the casting and good enough that David Furnish and Elton John thought Justin Timberlake could portray Elton in a full feature. But as David Furnish told The Hollywood Reporter, despite thinking of him for the Rocketman role, they never actually approached Justin Timberlake about it.

So although Justin Timberlake was the first name on Elton John’s list to play him, JT was never offered the role in Rocketman. The reason for that seems to be that when the idea came up, it wasn’t the right time to reach out to Justin Timberlake. It’s not entirely clear what that means, but it sounds like the development of the film simply wasn’t far enough along where it would make sense to start any sort of casting.

Still, it provides another fascinatingly curious casting ‘what-if?’ much like what would Bohemian Rhapsody have looked like with Sacha Baron Cohen and not Rami Malek as Freddie Mercury. You can get an idea of how Justin Timberlake might have been in Rocketman in the video for “This Train Don’t Stop There Anymore” below:

This music video and the obvious fact that Justin Timberlake has the requisite singing chops made him an obvious candidate to play Elton John in Rocketman, but he wasn’t the only name considered. Taron Egerton was offered the role only after actor Tom Hardy, who was first attached, dropped out.

Despite these interesting bits of ‘what-if?’ casting, it seems that the right person got the role. The reactions to Rocketman are hugely positive with a large amount of the praise going to Taron Egerton’s performance, where he proves you don’t have to be a former boybander to know how to sing.

Rocketman takes flight in theaters this weekend. Check out our 2019 Release Schedule to see all of the biggest movies you can look forward to this summer.

Why Star Wars: Episode IX Is Called The Rise Of Skywalker, According To JJ Abrams

Why Star Wars: Episode IX Is Called The Rise Of Skywalker, According To JJ Abrams

After years of speculation, the debate over what Star Wars: Episode IX would be called finally ended. At the end of the trailer that debuted at Star Wars Celebration earlier today, the official title was revealed: The Rise of Skywalker.

Given how important the Skywalker family has been to the Star Wars franchise and that this movie marks the end of the Skywalker Saga, Episode IX being called The Rise of Skywalker is rather fitting. Nevertheless, this has now prompted speculation about any specific meaning behind this title choice, and while director J.J. Abrams isn’t willing to delve into spoiler territory just yet, he did provide a broader, yet still fascinating explanation for why The Rise of Skywalker was selected, saying:

The title feels like it’s the right title for this movie, and I know that it’s provocative and asks a bunch of questions. But I think when you see the movie, you’ll see how it’s intended, what it means. But in the flow of titles, this movie had a very weird responsibility. It had to be the end of not just three movies, but nine movies, and the idea of having to incorporate the stories that have come before strangely is the story of the movie. Which is to say it’s the characters in the film inheriting everything that’s come before in previous generations, whether it’s sins of the father, whether it’s the wisdom that they’ve acquired. And the question is this new generation, are they up to the task, can they stand up to what they have to? And so in a way, I feel like we coming into this movie have inherited a lot, and the question is can we do it? And that question we ask ourselves every day.

J.J. Abrams delivered this response to ET Online after being asked who the Skywalker is that the title is referring to. The most obvious answer is it’s Luke, as Mark Hamill is reprising the character, but others have wondered if it’s Rey, thus retconning the reveal of her parentage in The Last Jedi, or perhaps even a title, with Force users being called Skywalkers instead of Jedi going forward. Alas, on this subject, Abrams kept quiet.

But speaking with regard to the entire Star Wars franchise, J.J. Abrams made some good points. Although the overall Star Wars film series is continuing with the trilogies respectively being worked on by The Last Jedi director Rian Johnson and Game of Thrones showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss (not to mention the likes of The Mandalorian and more keeping things going on the small screen), The Rise of Skywalker is wrapping up an era that began over 40 years ago with A New Hope. It doesn’t have to just wrap up the narrative of this sequel trilogy, it also has to tie in the previous two trilogies.

So even though Rey, Finn, Poe Dameron and the rest of the main characters who have headlined this latest Star Wars trilogy will still be running the show, things and events from before their time will factor into The Rise of Skywalker’s story. That includes, as arguably the biggest Episode IX surprise from today, the return of Emperor Palpatine. His sinister laugh was heard at the end of the preview, and if Ian McDiarmid appearing on stage after the trailer screened at Star Wars Celebration wasn’t proof enough, it was confirmed later that the actor is indeed reprising the Sith Lord, though it remains to be seen if Darth Sidious has somehow returned to life or if we’ll be seeing him through flashbacks, holograms, as a Force ghost, etc.

As J.J. Abrams indicated, rather than Disney and Lucasfilm eventually revealing more clear-cut reasoning behind selecting The Rise of Skywalker as the title, it’s likely that’ll be an answer saved for the film itself, as was the case with The Last Jedi. Ideally Episode IX will do a satisfiable job of closing out this long era of Star Wars history, especially since this will be the last Star Wars movie we’ll see for a little bit. At the very least, it sounds like that sense of legacy will be properly felt.

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker opens in theaters on December 20, so keep checking back with CinemaBlend for continuing coverage. Don’t forget to also look through our 2019 release schedule to learn what other movies are coming out later this year.

Bond 25 Explosion Causes Crew Injury

Bond 25 Explosion Causes Crew Injury

After dealing with numerous obstacles and delays, Bond 25 is finally on the calendar, and cameras began rolling on Daniel Craig’s final outing as James Bond at the end of April. However, the production has been a little bumpy so far. First Craig injured his ankle, requiring him to get a minor ankle surgery.

Now it’s been announced that that a Bond 25 crew member suffered an injury during a controlled explosion. Here’s the official statement on the matter:

Thankfully it doesn’t sound like this injury the crew member is anything life-threatening, and those who were on the set came out unscathed. The Sun reports that the crew was testing out a stunt involving a fireball in a laboratory when the accident occurred, which resulted part of the roof and numerous wall panels in the complex were taken out. The crew member was crushed by part of the set as he stood on a ramp outside. A source that spoke to the outlet described the event as “utter chaos.”

Making a movie is no easy feat, and inevitably complications will arise. Still, the fact that two people have been injured during the course of filming Bond 25 is concerning. Fingers crossed there isn’t a third instance on the horizon. The last thing this movie needs is to be labeled as “cursed.”

Judging from the available information, it doesn’t sound like this latest Bond 25 fiasco will result in filming being delayed. In the case of Daniel Craig’s ankle injury, production was temporarily halted, but it was later announced that as Craig rehabilitated for two weeks post-surgery, production would continue. That information was revealed on May 22, so Craig is either back on the Bond 25 set or will be back relatively soon.

It’s ben a long road to getting Bond 25 off the ground, from numerous script rewrites (Fleabag’s Phoebe Waller-Bridge has worked on the latest drafts), a new distribution deal and the uncertainty about whether or not Daniel Craig would play James Bond for a fifth time. Bond 25 was also originally supposed to be directed by Danny Boyle, but he departed due to creative differences and Cary Funkanaga was tapped to replace him.

No specific Bond 25 plot details have been revealed yet, but the movie will feature quite a few familiar faces. Joining Daniel Craig’s 007 again are Ralph Fiennes as M, Naomie Harris as Eve Moneypenny, Rory Kinnear as Bill Tanner, Ben Whishaw as Q, Léa Seydoux as Dr. Madeleine Swann and Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter. The newcomers include Ana de Armas as Palmoa, Lashana Lynch as Nomi, David Dencik as Waldo and Rami Malek as the unidentified main villain, as well as Billy Magnussen and Dali Benssalah in undisclosed roles.

Bond 25 is still scheduled for release on April 8, 2020, so stay tuned to CinemaBlend for more updates on how it’s coming along. If you’re curious about what movies are coming out later this year, you can find that information in our 2019 release schedule.

Netflix’s Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile Reviews Are Up, See What Critics Are Saying

Netflix’s Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile Reviews Are Up, See What Critics Are Saying

Seemingly out of nowhere, there's been a resurgence and fascination over infamous serial killer Ted Bundy. And Netflix has been primarily responsible for bringing new Bundy-related content to the masses. This started with the docu-series Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, but become more noticeable when the streaming service also acquired the distribution rights to the new drama Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile.

Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile stars the always shirtless Zac Efron as Ted Bundy, and was at the center of some controversy long before it was made available to the masses. But now the movie is available for streaming on Netflix, so the public can judge Efron's run as the serial killer themselves. That's just what critics have done, and the movie's been getting a mixed bag of reviews.

The New York Times' Jeannette Catsoulis criticized the movie's tone and overall message. There are some scenes which have some comedy, which she believes is a disservice to both Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile and the real life history of the case. As she tells it:

Scenes like these strike an unfortunate comedic note that undercuts the seriousness of Berlinger’s point: that devils may come disguised as angels. In documentaries like his stunning Paradise Lost trilogy, he has repeatedly interrogated our flawed ability to accurately identify monsters, chipping away at our biases to expose their fragility. Yet while Bundy’s well-documented charisma is on full blast here, we only fleetingly feel its chill. And by leaving most of his heinous acts off screen, Berlinger (who also has a Bundy documentary, Conversations With a Killer, on Netflix) is apparently relying on unwitting audiences being as devastated by his guilt as poor Liz.

But not all of the film's reviews fares quite so poorly, as NPR's Andrew Lapin praising the performance, and duality of Ted Bundy's charm and insidious truth. He said:

But Extremely Wicked is doing something clever nonetheless, maybe best exemplified by a scene of Bundy escaping the courthouse in broad daylight. It's shot with a boisterous kind of thrill, like the famous scene of Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train where we actually root for the evil psychopath to pull a cigarette lighter out of a storm drain. Perspective can be a slippery thing, and hindsight will not save us. Is that guy you see onscreen good or bad, if all you see is him, and not the horrible things you know he has done?

The duality of Ted Bundy's charm in Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile does seem to be a point of contention for some critics. IGN's Rafael Motamayor thought that not focusing on his mental issues and serial killer ways was a misstep, saying:

The filmmakers clearly attempted to portray Ted Bundy in the way Liz and the rest of the world saw him-- in the way he fooled everyone. Unfortunately, leaving the condemnation of his character to an undertone that we're meant to guess at doesn't effectively portray the twisted juxtaposition of a charming, but clearly homicidal man. During its first half, the film seems particularly interested in exploring the idea that Ted was actually innocent all along -- that he was framed for his crimes. It's a bold choice, and one that has to be navigated elegantly. But the script doesn't give nearly enough focus to the women Bundy fooled to justify this particular direction, nor does it give closure to Liz's narrative, which keeps her in the dark for the entire film. This exploration ends right as we begin to get close to any hint of character growth.

This issue seem to be a common criticism with Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile, and is one shared by Rolling Stone's Peter Travers. He also took umbrage with Bundy's real side being largely absent, and being forced to share the perspective of his wife Elizabeth and the country at the time of Bundy's trial.

So why doesn’t the movie work, despite Efron giving it his all and then some? It’s one thing for Elizabeth to show a blind eye to the real Bundy. It’s another to ask audiences to share her delusion. The film describes Bundy’s violent acts, but never truly depicts them. In one scene, a visit to the pound, a dog shrinks in horror in the presence of Bundy. What took Elizabeth so long? There are psychological depths the film should be plumbing, but they go unexplored.

While there are some critics who had an issue with the perspective shown in Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile, Vulture's Emily Yoshida believes the movie is lacking any point of view at all. She wrote:

Perspective is an issue that dogs Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile, even more so than its ungainly title. The narrative feature from veteran documentarian Joe Berlinger seems as though it’s setting out to be the story of serial killer Ted Bundy told through the eyes of his girlfriend, Liz Kloepfer (Lily Collins.) It’s a good premise, and an interesting idea to delve into the “charming sociopath” profile that Bundy exemplified through the eyes of the person who was perhaps most charmed. But Berlinger’s film gets sucked into the gravity of sensational events that are already a matter of public record, and spends so much time meticulously recreating them that the perspective is diluted. It isn’t long before the film seems to lose any perspective at all.

Still, Zac Efron's performance seems to be a high point for Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile, despite the casting causing a stir ahead of the film's release. As Us Magazine's Mara Reinstein praised:

In perhaps the most inspired casting choice of the year, the onetime teen heartthrob is taking on serial killer Ted Bundy in Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile – yes, the same monster who savagely killed at least 30 young women in a span of 10 years. It’s easy to think Efron is playing against type, but not really: Bundy, in fact, is still notorious 30 years after his death-by-electric chair because he presented himself as a good-looking and well-spoken charmer. Efron takes the opportunity and runs with it. He’s never been better.

You can judge for yourself, as Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile is now streaming on Netflix. In the meantime, be sure to check out our 2019 release list to plan your next trip to the movies.

Shazam! Reviews Are In, Here's What Critics Are Saying

Shazam! Reviews Are In, Here's What Critics Are Saying

Charge up your weekend with the power of fresh Shazam! reviews. Critics are now free to move about the internet cabin, posting their full thoughts on DC's latest movie. Previous to this point, we saw some positive soundbite reactions on social media, but this is where you get the full context -- and often some scores/grades.

CinemaBlend's Sean O'Connell gave the film 4 out of 5 stars. He raved about the casting of Zachary Levi as Shazam! but did mention the smaller scale compared to past DCEU movies, including lower stakes with Shazam!'s villain, Dr. Thaddeus Sivana (Mark Strong):

Like Aquaman and Wonder Woman before it, Shazam! benefits tremendously from being allowed to operate outside of the DC Universe, while also acknowledging that it exists alongside movies like Man of Steel and Justice League. In comparison to those efforts, however, Shazam! can actually feel small. The stakes of the plot are relatively low, with Sivana being a threat to our hero but less of a danger to the world at large. Where Aquaman was intentionally epic in scope, Shazam! always maintains the feel of a neighborhood story, for better and for worse.

IGN's Jim Vejvoda noted that Wonder Woman and Aquaman bore the heavy weight of expectations, which was not a burden Shazam! had to carry. So it was able to be as carefree as a child and just have fun:

Shazam! is a DC’s most joyful and sweet movie since the days of Christopher Reeve’s Superman, a funny yet earnest coming-of-age story about a boy who learns that, well, with great power comes great responsibility. So obviously, Shazam! doesn’t reinvent the superhero movie, but it’s an undeniably fun time that left me wanting more big-screen adventures with these charming characters.

USA Today's Brian Truitt said Shazam! was probably the closest DC film yet to one of Marvel's projects, complete with a Spider-Man-esque lesson on "with great power comes great responsibility":

But, really, the high-flying showdowns and the holiday-themed action-packed finale (which is highly satisfying, though it goes on a bit too long) are secondary. "Shazam!” works because of its emphasis on friendship and family: Mrs. Vasquez has a bumper sticker that reads “I’m a foster mom: What’s your superpower?” that sums up the film's overall warm-hug vibe.

Hugh Armitage of DigitalSpy gave Shazam! four out of five stars, calling the "delightful" film DC's slickest and funniest movie yet. However, he echoed the note that the finale goes on a bit too long:

Best known for his horror movies, director David F Sandberg nevertheless brings flawless comic timing to Shazam!, while the movie also delivers a likeable message about the value of family, friendship and teamwork. Our greatest criticism is that the finale drags on longer than it needs to, but Shazam! is so much fun that it's a minor complaint.

Hoai-Tran Bui of /FILM gave Shazam! 8.5 stars out of 10, echoing the pacing issues, but also praising the pleasant surprise that Shazam! is more like a kid adventure than a superhero origin movie:

A raucous, charming kid adventure that is a delight to behold from start to finish, Shazam! feels like a throwback both to ’80s comedies and to the superhero movies of the early 2000s, with abundant callbacks to both genres. But rather than playing like an appeal to nostalgia, Shazam! is more of a spiritual throwback that captures the sincerity and silliness inherent in the superhero genre, while delivering a heartfelt story about the power of found families.

Lindsey Bahr of the Associated Press gave the movie 3.5/4 stars, pointing out some of the flaws while emphasizing that they don't detract from the overall experience:

OK, so it’s basically Big with superheroes and villains instead of businesspeople and girlfriends, but director David F. Sandberg has infused his film with so much heart and charm that it hardly matters. Even the deficiencies, like the sluggish beginning and the random, ridiculous villains, fade away under a haze of goodwill because unlike so many big spectacle action pics with sequels in mind, Shazam! actually sticks the landing.

Todd Gilchrist of Birth.Movies.Death was more critical, saying DC's movie needed more adult guidance:

Conversely, I’m not sure if Shazam! is the exact superhero movie that a kid would make for him or herself, or it’s a perfect encapsulation of studio groupthink trying to anticipate what that imaginary kid wants. Unfocused, noisy and way, way too chatty, director David Sandberg’s adaptation of the DC character supplies plenty of routine superhero theatrics and “when I grow up” wish fulfillment, but its eagerness to explore the notion of family at the expense of real character development - and the seeming absence of adult guidance both on and off screen - delivers far too little in the way of true inspiration.

However, he also wrote it was almost disappointing that Shazam! won’t be crossing over with Justice League in the near future, since the character brings a childlike sense of wonder and fun to the DCEU.

Overall, the reviews still sound quite positive. Since the embargo for Shazam! just dropped, we'll have to wait a bit to see the full picture on Rotten Tomatoes, but it's currently at 97% from 32 reviews. The CinemaScore from moviegoers won't show up until opening night.

In terms of how much Shazam! might make after its April 5 opening? Well, you know projections are often wrong. Many thought Captain Marvel was going to open to "only" $100 million and it made a lot more than that on its way toward The Billion Dollar Club.

At this point, early tracking suggests Shazam! will open anywhere from $40 million to $50 million in the first weekend of April. It's not expected to reach the lofty heights of the DCEU's Aquaman, but the reviews have been positive and it looks like a good time. What more do you want? Besides a lot of money so they can justify more movies?

Shazam! opens in theaters April 5 as one of the many movies heading to the big screen that month, and in the rest of 2019.

7 Clues That Tease Us' Twist Ending

7 Clues That Tease Us' Twist Ending

Spoiler Warning: SERIOUSLY. Major spoilers for the ending of Us follows. If you haven't seen the movie, I don't know why you clicked this, but get the heck out an come back when you've seen the movie.

Get Out was no fluke. Jordan Peele's follow up, Us, brings the exact same amount of skill and craftsmanship to create an engaging and deeply layered story once you dig into it. Audiences turned out in droves to see the film during its first weekend, which means that millions of people witnessed a twist ending that knocks the entire movie off its axis. If you were watching carefully, there were plenty of clues peppered throughout the story that led to the twist ending.

The film is told from the perspective of Adelaide (Lupita Nyong’o), who is confronted by murderous doppelgängers of herself and her family. However, Adelaide first encountered her double, Red, (also Nyong’o) when she was just a little girl in a meeting that would change both of their lives forever.

Still with us? OK. The twist is that the Adelaide we have been following is in actuality her double, who attacked the real Adelaide and switched places with her as a child. It's a bombshell that makes you reexamine the entire movie, but Jordan Peele is a smart writer. He hid several clues that, while they don't necessarily stick out in the moment, become obvious red flags once you learn the truth of the twist. Here are seven clues that help reveal Us' twist ending.

Adelaide Wouldn't Speak As A Child Because She Literally Couldn't

After young Adelaide meets her double -- or "Tethered" -- in the funhouse, we learn that she has not spoken a word since then. A therapist believes that she has PTSD, which the audience believes because meeting an exact clone of yourself is traumatic as hell. But, as we learn through the film, none of the Tethered can speak. They can only grunt like animals. Adelaide wasn't speaking because she had PTSD, it was because she literally never learned how to talk. She assumedly had to start from scratch and learn English. Adelaide even says early in the film that she has an issue with talking, which seemed like an excuse not to talk to her annoying friend, but it was more true than it seemed and was a clue for what came later on.

She Was Afraid To Go To The Beach

As an audience, we assume that a lot of Adelaide's fears are because of what she saw in that funhouse, but that's only partly true. Adelaide has a clear phobia of returning to Santa Cruz beach, which is understandable; Not many people want to return to the sight of a traumatic event. However, the real reason she is afraid is because she knows that she's a fake and that it's tempting fate to return to the scene of her crime. She doesn't want to go anywhere near that place and risk her past coming back to bite her and her family.

She Couldn't Snap To The Beat Of "I Got 5 On It"

The Wilson family shares a cute scene on the drive to the beach where they listen to the song "I Got 5 on it." The son, Jason, has never heard the song before and Adelaide tries to get him into it by snapping along with the rhythm. The problem is that her snapping is all over the place and is off-beat with the song. Later, Red reveals that the Tethered are perfect physical clones, but that they lack a soul. People have been quick to point out the connection between music and soul, which would explain why Adelaide can't stay on beat. However, Adelaide was also a ballerina, which you kind of need rhythm to do well, so maybe it's not quite the same as following the beat of a song?

Jason Could Have Been Lured To Merlin's Forest

Merlin's Forest, the funhouse right on the Santa Cruz beach, is a direct doorway into the home of the Tethered. It was the reason that Adelaide was afraid to go back to the beach and it was the reason she was so freaked when Jason wandered off for a few minutes. The Tethered know everything that their doubles do on the surface, so Adelaide knew that it was risky to return so close to the entrance. What was stopping Jason from getting lured to the funhouse and stolen away just like she did to the original Adelaide so long ago? And he was going directly to Merlin's Forest before he was distracted by that Tethered on the beach (who I guess couldn't wait to get started?).

She Takes To The Violence Very Quickly

Once the home invasion element of Us kicks in and lives are on the line, Adelaide does not seem to hesitate in the least about killing. True, there's no time to waste when your children are in danger, and the rest of her family seems pretty desensitized to the violence they experience. That's commentary for another time, but Adelaide's indulgence in murder seems to go beyond survival. It's ruthless to watch, like when she beats one of the twins to death and is almost nonchalant about it. She's cold in a way that mirrors the Tethered, which makes sense because she is one of them. She also lets out a deep, guttural Tethered-like laugh when she kills Red.

She Was Constantly Worried That Red Would Return

Adelaide never seemed entirely on board with the Wilson family vacation, and one can hardly blame her knowing what was waiting for her in the sewers. Right before shit hits the fan, Adelaide confesses to her husband Gabe (Winston Duke) about the "mirror girl" and how after she ran away, she felt like that girl was waiting for her moment to return. It's an illuminating conversation that takes on an entirely different context after the twist ending. Adelaide knows that Red is coming because she stole her life and that's not something that someone can just forgive. She was also the only person who was picking up on the weird "coincidences" of things synching up. Red's return was always on the horizon and it was clearly on Adelaide's mind.

Red Was The Only Tethered Who Spoke

I previously mentioned that Adelaide couldn't speak because she was a Tethered and didn't know how. The exact opposite was true for Red. Red was the only Tethered who could speak because she was the only one who was actually human. The fact that everyone else in a red jumpsuit is growling should have been a strong indication that there was something different about Red. Even how she talks is a clue to her origins. It's very strained, as if she hasn't actually spoken to someone in years. That's probably true. None of the other Tethered could hold a conversation with her so eventually she likely stopped talking altogether. It's an ultimately tragic life that blurs the line, making it unclear who the real villain is in this movie.

Us is a film that warrants several rewatches. Peele just seems to have a talent for crafting stories that reveal more details the more you watch. Whether it's easter eggs or well hidden clues about the plot, there's always something new to learn. Peele left all the pieces about the twist ending right there in the movie and it's amazing how it all fits together without tipping its hand too much. It's highly likely that there are other clues to Adelaide's true nature, and that's just another great excuse to go see this movie.