Dark Phoenix Director Explains Why The Hellfire Club Wasn’t Included

Dark Phoenix Director Explains Why The Hellfire Club Wasn’t Included

Superhero movies are everywhere, but there was a time when the genre seemed like a serious gamble for studios. Before shared universes became commonplace, 20th Century Fox (RIP) brought X-Men to theaters back in 2000. The property hasn't been far from theaters in the nearly two decades since, although it will all come to an end with Dark Phoenix.

Dark Phoenix is the franchise's final run in theaters, and the second attempt at adapting the titular comic book story. On the page, the Hellfire Club is an integral part of the plot, manipulating Jean and the dark power that lives inside her. But they won't be in the upcoming blockbuster, and director/writer Simon Kinberg explained this choice, saying:

I think if I had four hours to tell this story I would've included the Hellfire Club, I might've included Lilandra. Because I wanted it to be so focused on Jean and I wanted to really tell a character story a little differently than we have in the past in the X-Men. In the past it's been a little more horizontal, meaning there was a breadth of character, there was a bunch of characters. In this one I wanted to go a little more vertical, I wanted to go deep with our main characters, and especially with Jean.

Simon Kinberg has been a long-time producer in the X-Men franchise, so he clearly knows the mutants and their adversaries very well. And while he may have liked to include the Hellfire Club and cosmic character Lilandra in Dark Phoenix, the full story is simply too dense for one movie. Instead, he pivoted his focus onto the psyche of Sophie Turner's Jean Grey, giving the title character the chance to carry the movie.

Related: Why Dark Phoenix Reshot Its Original Ending, According To Simon Kinberg

From the looks of Dark Phoenix's trailers, Sansa Stark is going to be given the true focus of the movie, with Sophie Turner getting the chance to show off a different side of her acting abilities. This should hopefully streamline the narrative, while also allowing the other mutants to split in their allegiances in the wake of Jean's dark power. Even if that means comic book characters ended up on the cutting room floor.

In his same conversation with Digital Spy, Simon Kinberg went on to explain how The Hellfire Club's inclusion may have weighed down Dark Phoenix. As he put it:

So while I loved the Hellfire characters and their role in the Dark Phoenix saga in the comics, and I loved the Lilandra storyline in the comics, all of those felt like they were going to start to compete with the main story of Jean and her emotional crack-up and the break-up of the X-Men family. And I didn't want to draw away from that main emotional through-line.

Simon Kinberg may be making his directorial debut with Dark Phoenix, but he's been working on the franchise since the very beginning. As such, he's seen all the peaks and valleys of the X-Men movies over the years. This no doubt helped his creative process with the upcoming blockbuster, as well as his decision to exclude certain comic book characters.

Members of the Hellfire Club have already appeared in an earlier installment in the franchise, so adding them to Dark Phoenix would make the timeline a bit more confusing and convoluted. Sebastian Shaw and Emma Frost were antagonists in X-Men: First Class, and that's a timeline that is still being utilized in Dark Phoenix. The characters have a relationship with the Hellfire Club, especially Professor X, Mystique, and Magneto.

While Lilandra hasn't been adapted to live-action, there were many thought that Jessica Chastain would be playing the character in Dark Phoenix. Chastain's role still hasn't been revealed, although the trailers show her manipulating Jean to give into her new dark persona. Only time will tell who she ends up playing, and how similar to Lilandra the character ends up being.

All will be revealed when Dark Phoenix arrives in theaters on June 7th. In the meantime, check out our 2019 release list to plan your next trip to the movies.

Toy Story 4 Might Be Pixar’s Last Sequel For Years

Toy Story 4 Might Be Pixar’s Last Sequel For Years

Beginning with the original Toy Story, Pixar has created many of the most popular animated films of the last 25 years. Considering the studio's third film was Toy Story 2, it was clear from the beginning that Pixar was more than willing to build franchises out of their successful properties, but in recent years the number of sequels has increased significantly. However, it seems that may be all about to change.

Over the last four years, Pixar has released five movies and four of them have been sequels. Beginning with 2016's Finding Dory, we've seen Cars 3, Incredibles 2 and Toy Story 4, which is set to open next month. Only Lee Unkrich's Day of the Dead inspired Coco broke up the parade of sequels.

We know that the next movie coming following Toy Story 4 is an original project, the suburban fantasy movie Onward, but after that it's all a mystery. However, Toy Story 4 producer Mark Nielsen recently told THR that going forward, everything on the way is an original concept.

It’s all original films after this one right now.

Nielsen credits Pete Docter, the new head of Pixar Animation Studios following the departure of John Lasseter, for the fact that so many original concepts are on the way. Apparently Docter has been loading up the development side of Pixar since he took over, and he's been doing it with a lot of new people. Those new people obviously have their own ideas, and so they're not falling back on previous Pixar success.

This is almost certainly good news for Pixar as well as for fans of the studio. Pixar has been home to some of the most unique and original ideas in movie making, nevermind animation. Between the release of Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3 Pixar had an incredible run of originality and quality that included Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Cars, Ratatouille, WALL-E and Up. That's one hell of a decade.

We've seen far more sequels over the last few years, and there's little argument that many of them have been good, but it would be hard to argue that any of them are better than the original entry in the series.

With the exception of Onward, which is set to release in less than a year in March of 2020, we have no idea what Pixar currently has in the pipleline. We do, however, know that there are at least four films that have reached a point that Disney plans to release them. Disney's most recent release calendar lists four "Untitled Pixar" movies between 2020 and 2022.

The first is only set to release three months after Onward, which means that it has to be almost as far along in development. 2021 will see a single Pixar release for the summer. Then, 2022 returns to the same schedule as next year, with two movies being released in close proximity, with one in March and another in the mid-June, window that Pixar has been holding onto for years.

For a studio that's largely been focused on no more than one movie a year, seeing five movies come out in three years is a lot. However, if that's what's on the schedule then it almost certainly means that Pixar has the projects in the pipeline to support it and the studio is confident that won't change. When Mark Nielsen says that all the movies after Toy Story 4 are original concepts, he must be talking, at the very least, about the five films that are currently scheduled for release. He could also be aware of projects beyond that depending on how confident Pixar is regarding which projects will move forward.

While so much of blockbuster film making, of which Pixar should always be considered a part, especially among the various Disney studios, is all about franchises and sequels, it's great to see Pixar taking the time to focus on original concepts. It's where the studio has always shined brightest.

Beyond that, you need original ideas if you're ever going to create the next big franchise. You have to have a great idea that people love first before you can start making sequels to it and all franchises get tired after awhile, so you need to refresh the pool of possibilities with entirely new ideas from time to time.

If something like Onward, or one of the other upcoming projects, becomes so well loved that Pixar considers a sequel, that's fine, but it only happens if you have the successful original idea to start with.

Of course, the downside of this news is that, if you were hoping for a sequel to your favorite existing Pixar movie, it apparently won't be coming in the short term if no sequels are on the schedule. If you've always wanted a Ratatouille 2 (and who hasn't?), you'll have to keep waiting.

Although, just because no sequels are being produced for the big screen, it doesn't mean that the existing Pixar franchises are being ignored. Monsters Inc. is getting its own animated series on Disney+ and the possibility for other projects to be produced specifically for the platform is certainly there. We know we'll be getting a short film about Bo Peep that will explain her pre-Toy Story 4 situation also on Disney+, so even after Toy Story 4 hits screens, we're still not done with that franchise, even if we never see a Toy Story 5.

We'll also receive a series of shorts on Disney+ featuring new Toy Story 4 character Forky.

With the addition of DIsney+ to the standard theatrical release schedule the opportunities for Pixar have never been greater. This should give the studio the ability to continue to create more movies and shows with the characters that we already love while also creating new stories for us to discover.

With Toy Story 4 coming out next month, we'll soon be setting our sights on all this brand new material. With two Pixar movies coming out over the next 13 moths, we'll probably be learning a lot more about both of them very soon. We'll likely get a trailer for Onward alongside Toy Story 4 and maybe we'll at least learn what the second film of 2020 will actually be called.

To 3D Or Not To 3D: Buy The Right Avengers: Endgame Ticket

To 3D Or Not To 3D: Buy The Right Avengers: Endgame Ticket

Avengers: Endgame hit theaters last weekend, and by now a lot of us have caught it at least once. If you are thinking about a second viewing, there are options to trade up from a regular screen and try IMAX, 3D screenings, DLX screenings and more. While I can't give you all of the nitty gritty details about every single one of the viewing options out there, I can capably answer whether or not it's better to 3D or not to 3D.

Please note this isn't a traditional review for Avengers: Endgame. If you are looking around for our review, you can head over to our detailed, yet spoiler-free review. This column is all about watching in 3D and the mileage you'll get compared to a regular screening of Marvel's biggest event movie so far.

So, if you haven't already, throw on some comfy clothes, grab some popcorn and make sure you have your 3D glasses handy as we figure out together whether or not it's worth shelling out some extra moolah for a 3D ticket. You'll be helping the movie hit $2 billion at this point, after all.

Avengers: Endgame is exactly the type of movie you'd expect to get a 3D conversion. It's an action movie with lots of eye-popping digital effects and it had a giant budget to play with, so there are no concerns about skimping on the 3D here. If you are a fan of 3D, this is likely exactly the type of movie you would see in 3D, other than something specifically shot for 3D, like Avatar or the upcoming Gemini Man. Barring those, this is a high tier candidate for seeing a movie in 3D. That said, while the 3D conversion is pretty admirable, there are scenes in this movie that don't really beg for 3D effects, so I'm dropping this to a 4--still a strong score.

In terms of planning and effort, obviously, as noted prior, Avengers: Endgame was conceived as an action movie and not a 3D feast for the eyes first. Despite that, care was absolutely taken with the 3D; if anything it just means that certain scenes didn't lend themselves as much as other scenes to a 3D narrative. A scene with Hawkeye chasing bad guys (really too vague to be a spoiler) who break through glass windows may stand out in 3D while a few seconds later a showdown with the same character has much less noticeable 3D value. This seems like it has more to do with a lack of planning specifically for 3D than a lack of effort. So, I'd say very good here, but not great.

Again, while I could argue not every scene in Avengers: Endgame has great "Before the Window" value, aka, the ability for objects to come off the screen, the stuff that works really works. In particular, anytime there's a heavily reliant CGI scene -- like the space scene teased in the trailer -- the 3D also pops. In particular, there's also a scene where Tony Stark is working in his home and the camera is at an angle from above on a stairwell. There's a pole that jumps out onscreen that gives real spacial dimension. Small details like that stand out without ever feeling goofy.

Real backgrounds don't lend themselves to 3D depth as much as animated or CGI backgrounds do. While there are a few scenes that work particularly well in the "Beyond the Window" category, I wouldn't say this is anywhere close to Avengers: Endgame's 3D strength. Backgrounds are not consistently blurry or anything, but Endgame is often a stark and not a lush movie; it's just not really exciting to make 3D walls or cars parked on the street in the background stand out.

Brightness score is a tough one, because certain scenes in Avengers: Endgame are notably dark. However, despite this, I never felt as if my 3D experience was too dark due to the format or the 3D glasses. Plus, a lot of scenes in Endgame both lend themselves to 3D and are really bright in 3D. So, I’m going to give this category a 5, but know that the movie is not the same consistent level of brightness throughout and please factor that in.

While we don't want blur while watching a 3D movie with glasses on, consistent blur when taking the glasses off, you know to wipe the tears off your face during particularly sentimental scenes or whatever, is a good thing. I periodically took my glasses off during Avengers: Endgame, not to cry (OK maybe to cry), and I found the blur factor to be consistent and to be prevalent over most of the screen, giving the movie a satisfying level of depth and consideration. Do not try watching this movie with your glasses off.

Having seen Avengers: Endgame once before, this was actually the category I was most dreading. There's a lot of action in this film, and scenes with a lot of movement typically have the most trouble in this category as action in 3D can often make people queasy. Avengers: Endgame is unlike some of the earlier Marvel movies in this respect, as its action, even during scenes with a lot of characters moving at once, is very smooth and engaging in 3D. There is one scene early on in the movie that did feel too jiggly for a hot second, but it was during a quick moment of action and it was the only time I noticed this being an issue during the whole film. If we gave half scores in this column, I might bump it to a 4.5 because of that, but that's not enough of an issue for me to grade a 4 in this category, so 5 baby!

While not perfect, I really did enjoy Avengers: Endgame in 3D and would see it again in 3D if someone wanted to go with me to another viewing. I should note I also saw the film on a Superscreen DLX (similar to IMAX but a little smaller), which meant I had a bigger screen than some 3D moviegoers, and your experience could vary a little because of that.

Ultimately though, if you like 3D, there really should be nothing stopping you from seeing this in 3D, particularly given the myriad screenings as well as the quality of the 3D conversion. While I wouldn't say you 100% absolutely must see this movie in 3D, I wouldn't shy away from recommending it, either. I will say, no matter what option you choose, see it on the biggest screen possible. It's the endgame, after all.

Matthew Vaughn Warns Kingsman Fans That His Prequel Is Going To Be ‘Very, Very Different’

Matthew Vaughn Warns Kingsman Fans That His Prequel Is Going To Be ‘Very, Very Different’

Spy franchises are a dime a dozen. There are the top dogs in James Bond and the Mission: Impossible series. There are the ones that poke their heads up every couple of years, like the Bourne series. But few of them are anything like the Kingsman series that was created by graphic artist Mark Millar (who wrote the comic The Secret Service) and Layer Cake director Matthew Vaughn.

Vaughn started working early on with Guy Ritchie, producing both Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels before beginning to direct his own films. He helmed a killer X-Men movie, produced a brilliant fantasy epic in Stardust, and has been busy lately producing Rocketman for his frequent collaborator, Taron Egerton.

At the same time, Matthew Vaughn has been dedicated to developing his Kingsman series, which has two chapters so far and will likely cap off its trilogy with \ between Eggsy (Taron Egerton) and Harry (Colin Firth). Before that happens, Vaughn is making a Kingsmen prequel set during World War I, and while appearing on the ReelBlend podcast, Vaughn talked about how different this new one will be from The Secret Service and The Golden Circle. Vaughn said:

When we came up with Kingsman sitting in that pub with Mark Miller seven years ago, it was very much a thing of two fanboys getting drunk, lamenting about what's happened to spy movies. And then the more I'd gotten involved in it, the more I just felt … was I planning a universe? No, but a universe sort of [developed]. It's been like the Big Bang, that all these other ideas are coming. I don’t know where they come from, but I'm excited. Because the prequel is so different. For me, it was a whole new muscle to go off and develop, and I hope the public likes it. I don't know. I mean, I'm very proud of it already. But it’s very, very different. So some people will -- the people who hated Kingsman would probably love it, and all the people who love Kingsman might go, ‘What the hell has he gone and done?’ But hopefully people will like it. … It's different in every which way but loose, apart from an ape.

The Kingsmen movies amplify what is expected from a James Bond movie, ratcheting up the sexual innuendos, the high-tech weaponry, and the comical villains. They do it all with a tongue planted firmly in a cheek, to the point where The Golden Circle concluded with robotic dogs programmed to kill Elton John. Yeah, it got kind of nuts.

So far, we know that the Kingsman prequel stars Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes as early versions of the legendary spies. They will be joined by an incredible ensemble, from Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Gemma Arterton to Charles Dance, Daniel Bruhl, Matthew Goode and Djimon Hounsou (to name just a few).

Because it’s set during World War I, that automatically makes this movie different from the two existing Kingsmen movies. When we pushed him for more details, he just emphasized how “different” this is going to be.

From there, Matthew Vaughn expects to head back to his existing Kingsmen timeline with Taron Egerton and Colin Firth, because as he tells CinemaBlend:

The thing about Kingsman, it's like any film. It always comes down to heart and the relationship between two people. Eggsy and Harry’s relationship needs to be concluded. It’s been set up for… the end of the last one was, you know, they've been sort of torn apart due to marriage. And now it’s their last hurrah together and then we'll see what happens.

That’s a great tease. You can listen to our entire conversation with Matthew Vaughn about Rocketman, the X-Men, the Kingsmen franchise, and more on the latest ReelBlend episode:

Rocketman is in theaters as we speak, while Matthew Vaughn’s Kingsman prequel is expected to reach multiplexes on February 14.

Brightburn Reviews Are In, Here’s What The Critics Think

Brightburn Reviews Are In, Here’s What The Critics Think

The last several years have been good to superhero movies and horror movies, as those genres have delivered many cinematic offerings that have been met with critical and/or commercial success. This weekend, the two genres are being merged together for Brightburn, the twisted, R-rated story during by David Yarovesky and produced by James Gunn that shows what would happen if a Superman-like figure became a force for evil, using superpowers like super strength, flight and heat vision to wreak havoc on humanity.

With Brightburn only days away from release, reviews for the movie have started coming in, and it looks like it’s fallen into mixed territory, with some appreciating the story and others being underwhelmed by it. CinemaBlend’s own Eric Eisenberg gave Brightburn 4 out of 5 stars in his review, saying that it’s not filled with “big, complex contemplations,” but nonetheless succeeds in delivering a number of “fantastic shudder/scream-inducing sequences” and boasting a great cast.

Brightburn is ultimately a fine example of high-concept storytelling: taking an easily digestible idea, and exploring it to its full potential in compelling and entertaining fashion.

io9’s Germain Lussier wasn’t as kind towards Brightburn, writing in his review that although he would have watched a sequel right after Brightburn concluded, overall it’s a “poorly told story.” While Brightburn works within the horror genre structure in how it shows the young Brandon Beyer giving in to his dark impulses and some of the later payoffs and reveals are “satisfying,” the movie as a whole suffered from poor execution, which Lussier speculates might have been fixed had James Gunn directed.

Alas, Brightburn is a competent movie crafted out of incredible ideas. It’s gross, interesting, scary, and has fascinating mythology, all of which would be so much better if nearly all of it wasn’t delivered in such an obtuse way. Still, this is a story worth telling with characters we’d love to see again. Maybe next time, though, with a bit more care taken as to how the story is presented.

Back on the more positive end of the spectrum, Witney Seibold from IGN awarded Brightburn a 7.1 out of 10 score. Seibold noted that many of us have similarly deconstructed Superman, which might make the movie feel “weirdly familiar,” and that rather than providing dark commentary on how power corrupts, Brightburn plays out like a standard slasher, making for a “perfectly entertaining” experience.

… A wickedly fun little horror flick with enough gore and superhero lore to keep fans of both satisfied.

Conversely, The Wrap’s Robert Abele was disappointed by Brightburn, saying that its idea of showing an evil Superman isn’t enough to sustain an entire movie and will not please “either horror aficionados or even a caped-crusader fandom hungry for variations on the theme.” The main character is unremarkable and there's little weight to the actions his parents take when trying to stop his rampage.

But while we can perhaps be grateful that the superficiality of “Brightburn” probably kept it from opting to exploit elements of disturbed-kid narratives that have been all too common in our more tragic news stories, what remains is still never terribly entertaining as either popcorn or a bent take on superhero myths.

Chris Evangelista from Slashfilm was more receptive towards Brightburn, stamping a 7.5 out of 10 score on it and calling it a “bleak, brutal subversion of the Superman mythos” that works. As mentioned earlier, this isn’t a story where redemption is on the table, and Evangelista notes that there a “nihilistic streak” that reminded him of the Rob Zombie Halloween remake. While Elizabeth Banks’ part is “disappointingly underwritten,” it’s David Yarovesky’s direction that keeps Brightburn “flying high.”

Nasty is indeed the name of the game here – Brightburn is cold and unflinching, fully committed to unsettling its audience. It’s the type of movie that will make you thank your lucky stars that superheroes don’t really exist.

The AV Club’s Jesse Hassenger was among those underwhelmed by Brightburn, giving it a C- grade. In Hassenger’s opinion, the movie doesn’t have a “modicum of wit or insight on its human side,” resulting in Brandon’s parents being terribly predictable, and Brandon himself fails to be interesting. Ultimately, Hassenger saw Brightburn primarily as a dunk on Zack Snyder’s depiction of Superman in the DC Extended Universe.

For such a specific, clever-on-paper idea, Brightburn follows a shockingly predictable turn of events, possibly because it has few reference points beyond other pop-culture stories.

Finally, William Bibbiani from Bloody Disgusting bestowed Brightburn a 3.5 out of 5 score, calling it a “exceedingly clever genre mash-up,” albeit a gross one, both literally and figuratively. The movie also doesn’t feel quite “genuine,” and it’s Brandon’s parents that infuse a sense of humanity in the proceedings, but Bibbiani concludes that after watching Brightburn, you’ll be left wanting more, signifying franchise potential.

The film is, in the end, mostly just an ambitious slasher movie about a monster modeled loosely on Superman, and on that level it’s certainly a success. David Yarovesky makes an impressive impression with a film that walks a fine line between wry pop culture commentary and genuine terror, the cast is great and – perhaps most important of all – it leaves you wanting more. Much more. Sequels and sequels after sequels.

These are just some of the reviews out for Brightburn, so feel free to venture into other corners of the internet find out what other critics are saying. Overall, it sounds like Brightburn won’t be everybody’s cup of tea, but there are at least a scattering of moments for comic book and/or horror fans to enjoy.

Brightburn’s main cast includes Jackson A. Dunn, Elizabeth Banks, David Denman, Matt Jones, Meredith Hagner, Steve Agee and Becky Wahlstrom. The movie is already playing in various territories worldwide, but it’ll have some competition this weekend in the form of Disney’s live action Aladdin remake and the Olivia Wilde-directed Booksmart.

You can judge Brightburn for yourself starting this Friday, May 24, and stay tuned to CinemaBlend for more coverage on the movie. In the meantime, you can plan your visits to the theater for the rest of the year accordingly by checking out our 2019 release schedule.

Stephen King's Reaction To Seeing It: Chapter 2

Stephen King's Reaction To Seeing It: Chapter 2

The work of Stephen King is as popular now for cinematic adaptation as it has ever been. However, without question, the best of the recent films based on his work was IT. Now the movie that will complete the story, It Chapter 2 is set to arrive later this year. However, King himself has apparently already seen the film, and he's getting fans hyped by telling them it's terrific. King recently tweeted...

Looking forward to IT Chapter 2? You should be. I've seen it, and it's terrific. The trailer is coming Thursday, at noon. You'll float.

This will almost certainly get fans excited, for the trailer if nothing else.King says the trailer is set to drop at noon. As he's based in Maine we can assume that's noon eastern time.

The fact is that we fully expect Stephen King to only have good things to say about It: Chapter 2. If something went completely haywire and he hated the movie he would likely stay quiet.

Of course, at the same time, King also had pretty complementary things to say about The Dark Tower before it came out, and that it didn't turn out nearly as well. He also went absolutely crazy over how good he thought the recent remake of Pet Sematary was and a lot of people wouldn't agree with him on that one either.

Of course, it seems highly unlikely that the same thing will happen here. The same team behind the camera that brought us the first chapter of IT is also making the new installment. That movie was a smash hit that brought in $700 million globally and became the highest grossing R-rated horror movie ever made.

From what some of us at CinemaBlend have already seen, it looks like the sequel is exactly what fans of the original are looking for.

The first part of IT followed half of Stephen King's novel, which followed a group of young kids as they dealt with a supernatural evil that took the form of a clown. The sequel will follow the same group after they've entered adulthood, though we know the younger versions of the characters will also appear in the new film.

While the novel jumps back in forth between time periods, the movie took the approach of splitting the story in two and telling the tale chronologically. It made the first movie a complete story that didn;t even necessarily need the follow up if the first movie wasn't a hit, but of course, it was.

James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain, and Bill Hader are among those joining the film as the grown up versions of the Loser's Club.

While we can't necessarily take Stephen King at his word, we'll be able to judge for ourselves if It: Chapter 2 looks great when the new trailer hits in a couple of days. The movie hits theaters in September.

Watch Brie Larson Lose Her Mind Over Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge

Watch Brie Larson Lose Her Mind Over Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge

Brie Larson may be best known for playing Captain Marvel in the MCU, but the Oscar-winning actress is also a huge fan of Disney’s other major franchise: Star Wars. So the actress was as excited as all the rest of the Star Wars fans for the opening of Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge at Disneyland and she wasn’t afraid to show it. Check out Brie Larson losing her mind over Galaxy’s Edge in the video below:

Brie Larson clearly wasn’t worried about remaining buttoned up for the cameras around her, and completely geeked out being at Galaxy’s Edge and immersed in the a galaxy far, far away. The actress was all smiles, looking totally thrilled and living in the moment within the park. And if her face weren’t so recognizable she’d be indistinguishable from any other lucky fan visiting Disney’s newest feat of Imagineering magic.

Part of the beauty of Disney’s theme parks is that whether you’re a kid on the first visit or an adult going to an attraction like Galaxy’s Edge for the first time, the experience is the same. You are overwhelmed by the moment and have your head (and camera) on a swivel, looking all around to take everything in, delighting in the sights and sounds and with an ear-to-ear smile that can’t be wiped off your face.

That is exactly what we see from Brie Larson here at Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge and as good of an actress as she is, her enthusiasm here is no act.

This video from THR writer Ryan Parker’s Twitter account seems to have been taken during the Dedication Ceremony for the new land that took place last week. The ceremony was held in front of the Millennium Falcon in the Black Spire Outpost on the planet Batuu and was attended by a group of Disney and Star Wars luminaries like no other.

At the dedication of the park were Disney CEO and Chairman Bob Iger, the creator George Lucas, Lando Calrissian actor Billy Dee Williams, Luke Skywalker actor Mark Hamill and appropriately, Han Solo himself, Harrison Ford. Even Chewbacca showed up in the cockpit of the Millennium Falcon and the ceremony ended with a fireworks display.

Seeing all of those people who played such beloved characters standing in front of the Millennium Falcon had to be a truly surreal experience. How could you not geek out if you’re a Star Wars fan?

Brie Larson wasn’t the only famous name to get a chance to experience Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge though. Star Wars: The Last Jedi director Rian Johnson also got to go and called the park “freakin unbelievable” and even praised the taste of the green milk.

CinemaBlend’s own Dirk Libbey also got to visit Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge and he was thrilled with the massive park’s level of immersion, although he did have some qualms with the Millennium Falcon ride. Dirk also said that building your own lightsaber at Galaxy’s Edge is worth the ridiculous amount of Galactic Credits it will cost you.

You can judge for yourself because Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge is now open and apparently the lines aren’t too bad. If you can’t make it there yet, you can still visit a galaxy far, far away this year when Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker opens in theaters on December 20.