This Rotten Week: Predicting Shazam!, Pet Sematary, And The Best Of Enemies Reviews

This Rotten Week: Predicting Shazam!, Pet Sematary, And The Best Of Enemies Reviews

As we make our way into the fourth month of the year, we have a wide variety of features going into wide release. This week we have another big superhero blockbuster, terrifying burial ground, and a civil rights story. Get ready for Shazam!, Pet Sematary, and The Best Of Enemies.

Just remember, I'm not reviewing these movies, but rather predicting where they'll end up on the Tomatometer. Let's take a look at This Rotten Week has to offer.

Most superhero stories are geared toward a young man’s fantasy. Get super powers, overcome obstacles, save the world. It’s a pretty standard formula. And then sometimes you get a story in which the hero IS a kid who can transform into an adult with the super powers. That’s the fantasy cranked up another notch. Such is the case with Shazam! in which young Billy Batson must merely yell out the titular word and become a Superman-like hero. How he explores these new powers (with all of their ups and downs) is the theme of this latest addition to the DC Universe. It looks pretty great.

After stumbling out of the gate, the DC Universe is making something of a comeback. Three of their last four movies - Wonder Woman (93%), Aquaman (65%) and now Shazam! - have scored well with critics. Only the absolute mess of Justice League (40%) sandwiched in there was a stumbling block. Critics are really taking to this latest offering, appreciating the candid nature of the story and the fun-loving tone.

Don’t let the comical misspelling of “Cemetery” fool you. There’s nothing funny about Stephen King’s story of an ancient burial ground that can revive the dead and turn the reanimated bodies into all-encompassing evil. Such is the case with Pet Sematary, in which the Creed family makes the bad mistake of buying a new house that just happens to have serious evil in the backyard.

Stephen King’s classics still hold up as horror fare, evidenced by the remake of IT (85%) two years ago. His storytelling and high concept plots translate well to the big screen and this latest fits the bill as well. Early sentiments are overwhelmingly positive with the Tomatometer sitting at 85% through more than 40 reviews. I don't think it drops all that much over the course of the week but it will just a bit. Pet Sematary looks creepy as hell and critics seem to enjoy the ride.

Based on a true story, Best of Enemies centers around the desegregation movement and the relationship between a Ku Klux Klan leader and an African-American civil rights activist - clashing over a local school system in the early 1970s. From an historical perspective, this flick looks like it hits all of the right notes without ever getting into the nitty-gritty. My fear with this kind of film is, in an effort to make it mass appeal to a large audience, the tone becomes more comedic/melodramatic rather than what was found in reality.

I don't think it looks bad, but rather a movie that doesn't really want to offend anyone. And I think the critics see it for that and the score doesn't quite get to "Fresh" status.

The Rotten Watch went one for two last week with The Beach Bum (Predicted: 47% Actual: 52%) falling within my range of succes. Harmony Korine’s story of Matthew McConaughey doing something like a career-achievement role as a stoner author living through a psychedelic background didn't land with the whole crowd. Moondog and his exploits weren't for everyone, and critics were basically split it right down the middle.

Coming in with some rather high expectations, Dumbo (Predicted: 67% Actual: 50%) ended up being a disappointment for Tim Burton and company. Despite the hype around the live action remake, critics weren't over the moon with the result, mostly agreeing it was a big time missed opportunity considering the source material. It finished right down the middle with both the positive and negative reviews carrying mostly the same theme. Most say it was underwhelming across the board.

Next time around we’ve got After, Hellboy, Little and Missing Link. It’s gonna be a Rotten Week!

Is The DC Universe Officially Dead?

Is The DC Universe Officially Dead?

While we stand on the eve of the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s big history making finale that will bring together more than 10 years and more than 20 movies, a lot of questions still remain about the franchise that has come to be known as the DC Extended Universe. The initial trilogy of Man of Steel, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Justice League were originally meant to set the stage for a larger interconnected film universe, but as DC superhero movies continue to be produced, we’re seeing less and less focus on them as being part of a whole and more focus given to the idea that each movie is a standalone story. Which has led to one final question. Is the DC Universe already dead?

This question became all the more relevant just in the last few days as people attached to the production of both Wonder Woman 1984 and The Suicide Squad, both followups to existing, and hugely successful, DC movies, tried to separate themselves from the idea that they were, in any way, “sequels.”

The Suicide Squad is being called a “total reboot” by one producer and Wonder Woman 1984 is being called the “next iteration,” whatever that means, by another.

Now, let’s be serious, both of these films are sequels. They are stories that will be about (mostly) the same characters that will follow from events that took place in a previous film. Call them what you want, but they are sequels.

However, the fact that Warner Bros. seems nervous about using the word, even for parts of the franchise that have been successful, is telling to say the least. They want the audience to view them as separate films as much as possible.

This is also clear in the rest of the DC slate that we know is on the way. In addition to The Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman 1984, we have Shazam!, a standalone film which, as far as we know, only makes passing references to the fact that other DC heroes exist, Birds of Prey, a film that will include one popular character that we’ve seen before, but will also introduce several new ones, a Batman movie that won’t include Ben Affleck, and thus could very easily not be part of the existing universe at all, a Joker movie that we know for certain is not connected to the version of the character played by Jared Leto in Suicide Squad, and a sequel to Aquaman, a movie that itself made only a brief reference to the fact that it starred the same character who was in Justice League. One wonders if an Aquaman producer will come out of the woodwork to tell us Aquaman 2 is not a sequel.

Other movies that we think might show up eventually, like the Flash movie, have also seemingly moved away from any focus on the connected universe. While it had previously been announced that we were going to get a Flashpoint movie, and that would almost certainly be a film that would include other DC universe characters, the more recent word is that the Flashpoint idea has been scrapped.

If the DC film universe didn’t exist at all, and there was just a Suicide Squad movie franchise and a Wonder Woman movie franchise that were separate from each other, then, of course, we’d be calling these movies sequels. It would be insane not to do so. I can’t help but wonder if part of the reason Warner Bros. is trying to draw a line between the previous films and the next ones is because both Wonder Woman and Suicide Squad were made when the DC Extended Universe was very much part of the future of the franchise, but as these sequels are being made, it’s not.

Justice League gave us a post-credits sequence that teased the formation of the Legion of Doom, yet, as of now, we don’t have any idea when such a movie might happen. There’s been no official announcement of a Justice League sequel or any sort of a clear road map that would indicate that any of the first three existing movies (and the plotlines they teased) are going, well, anywhere.

To that end, we also know that there are apparently no talks about making another Superman movie at this point. That might be the clearest indication of all that drastic changes have been made. The single most popular comic book character in the history of time and space has no project in the works at a time when comic book movies have never been more popular. Add to that the fact that there’s no guarantee the character will have the same actor if and when a movie does happen, and it seems that the character who was the linchpin of the DC universe to this point might be officially gone.

The DC film universe took something of a gamble when it was first rolling out. Rather than take Marvel’s route and give each major Justice League hero their own film first, they went right for the team up, introducing the entire main squad in only the franchise’s second film, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, and following that one up in short order with Justice League. Warner Bros. and DC were all about the continuity before, so the fact that they’re not now shows a major change in plans.

With the success that films like Wonder Woman and Aquaman have seen, it’s far from surprising if the plan is to put the breaks on the entire connected universe thing. While both films are technically part of said universe, they’re still largely standalone stories. Even if you haven’t seen any of the other DC films, you can enjoy them, and people did.

Certainly, we don’t need major crossover events for the larger universe to remain persistent, we don’t even need cameos. At the same time, it’s part of what we’ve come to expect from the cinematic universe. It’s also part of what makes the films so successful. We did’t need to see The Incredible Hulk in the most recent Thor movie, but doing that sells tickets, so you’d think DC and Warner Bros. would be seeding the movies with similar things in order to keep fans excited about the universe.

Instead, it just feels like the plan is to take the few parts of the universe that have been strong hits with fans, Batman, Wonder Woman, Harley Quinn, etc, and continue these franchises on their own. Maybe they technically exist in the same universe, but it doesn’t feel like that fact is ever going to be important again.

At this point, DC has films on the release schedule clear through the end of 2022, and none of them, not even the rumored ones, so much as hint at the film universe being part of the story. So, we have to ask, if these characters are supposed to be part of the same world, but we never see what that means, does it even count?

5 Dinosaur Movies That Are Better Than The Movie Dinosaur (And 5 That Are Worse)

5 Dinosaur Movies That Are Better Than The Movie Dinosaur (And 5 That Are Worse)

There are few things in life that you don’t grow out of; things that retain the same level of unassailable awesomeness no matter how old you are. Dinosaurs are one of those things, and over the years Hollywood has tried to capitalize on the universal appeal of our prehistoric predecessors with all kinds of movies. The results have varied wildly in quality from iconic pieces of film to movies so bad that they make B-movies look like cinematic masterpieces.

A good barometer with which to evaluate the quality of a dinosaur movie is how it relates to the movie that is actually called Dinosaur. Disney’s 2000 animated feature film is an admirable and ambitious entry in the storied studio’s canon, conveying a sense of grandeur and boasting stunning visuals that were ahead of their time while having darker elements than you sometimes see in a Disney movie. However, Dinosaur’s plot and characters are extremely thin and beyond just being pretty to look at, the film can become tedious and very boring. There’s a reason that Dinosaur is something of a forgotten Disney movie.

So Dinosaur is basically fine. Not amazing, but a long way off from terrible. If a dinosaur movie is better than Dinosaur you’ll probably be solidly entertained by it, and if it’s worse (and trust me, there are a lot of bad dinosaur movies), then it could range from somewhat enjoyable to something that demands an asteroid wipe it from existence. With that in mind, here are 5 movies that are better than the movie Dinosaur and 5 that are worse. Let's kick off with the group that shines.

Better-Jurassic Park

Duh and/or hello. Steven Spielberg’s 1993 masterpiece is the best dinosaur movie ever made and probably will remain so when humans join dinosaurs in the dirt. While Dinosaur is populated by one-dimensional characters, Jurassic Park is full of incredible characters, ground-breaking special effects and John Williams’ iconic score. Adapted from Michael Crichton’s novel, Jurassic Park is the tale of a theme park where dinosaurs have been brought back from extinction and the deadly results of scientific and technological advancement in the absence of ethical introspection. This film remains unsurpassed and just as full of wonder and terror a quarter-century after its release.

Better-The Land Before Time

Jurassic Park may be the most successful dinosaur movie franchise, but The Land Before Time is the most prolific, with 14 films to date, the most recent entry coming in 2016. It all started with 1988’s The Land Before Time from executive producer Steven Spielberg and legendary animation director Don Bluth. The story of of young dino friends Littlefoot, Cera, Ducky, Spike and Petrie and their quest to find the Great Valley and reunite with their families has Bluth’s stunning animation, cute and fun characters and deeper, complex themes of loss and separation and prejudice. The nostalgia for this movie is well justified.

Better-The Good Dinosaur

Here’s the thing about Pixar: even one of its less lauded films still manages to be better than a lot of other movies, and The Good Dinosaur is definitely better than Dinosaur. Boasting jaw-dropping animation, The Good Dinosaur tells the story of a world where dinosaurs did not go extinct and they live side by side with early humans. In this case, an Apatosaurus named Arlo who forms an unlikely friendship with a young boy he names Spot. Like Dinosaur, The Good Dinosaur is more style and visual pizazz than narrative substance, but the entertainment value is stronger in the Pixar film, giving it the edge.

Better-Jurassic World

Jurassic World is no Jurassic Park, not by a long shot, but it is a highly entertaining, patently absurd popcorn spectacle. If the sole metric a dinosaur movie was judged on was how awesome its dinosaurs look, Jurassic World would win hands down (despite the film’s dinosaur depictions being more fantasy than paleontology). Jurassic World showed what happened when John Hammond’s dream was finally realized and how a desire for profit and disrespect of nature would cause history to repeat itself. Packed with raptor-training, high-heeled dino escapes and genetic hybrids, Jurassic World is a wild ride befitting the theme park itself.

Better-Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs

When it comes to prehistoric franchises, few have been more successful than Ice Age, and in the third film in the franchise, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, the furry mammals are joined by their bigger and more scaly predecessors. This film is borderline in relation to Dinosaur given the stale story, but what separates it and what gave the franchise such success are its humor and its characters. Unlike the forgettable lemurs in Dinosaur who weren’t particularly funny, Manny, Sid, Diego, Crash, Scrat and Ellie are all a delight and the dinosaurs are a great addition to the story.

Now that we've gone over the good dinosaur movies, let's look at the ones that fail to make a decent impression.

Worse-Prehysteria!

Dinosaurs were extremely hot in 1993, and perhaps the most '90s example of this is the family adventure film Prehysteria! This film tells the story of a museum curator named Rico who steals five dinosaur eggs and then loses those them in a mix up with a farmer named Frank. The farmer’s two kids Monica and Jerry discover the eggs, which naturally hatch. They name the five miniature dinosaurs Elvis, Paula, Jagger, Hammer and Madonna after music stars and have to keep them from the nasty Rico. While it no doubt has some nostalgic and B-movie appeal, the craft and quality is nowhere near Dinosaur.

Worse-Walking With Dinosaurs

You know how Dinosaur’s stunning visuals make up for a lackluster script? Well Walking with Dinosaurs’ technological artistry cannot overcome a genuinely bad script with cringe-worthy dialogue and juvenile jokes. Based on the BBC series, Walking with Dinosaurs follows an underdog Pachyrhinosaurus who rises up to become a hero. The film may boast some of the most accurate dinosaur depictions ever put to film and it is a technical achievement that is over a decade beyond what was done in Dinosaur, but what you’re hearing negatively impacts the experience of the amazing images you’re seeing.

Worse-We’re Back! A Dinosaur’s Story

Produced by Steven Spielberg and starring the voice talents of John Goodman, Jay Leno, Walter Cronkite, Julia Child and Martin Short, We’re Back! Is about Captain New Eyes, who travels back in time to feed dinosaurs cereal that makes them smarter and then convinces them to come to our time to entertain children. But in the future, the dinos and the kids must contend with the Captain’s crazy brother, Professor Screw Eyes. We’re Back! definitely carries some nostalgic sentiment for some, but the animation isn’t as impressive as The Land Before Time or Dinosaur and the story isn’t as strong.

Worse-Carnosaur

The B-movie king, independent film pioneer and Pope of Pop Cinema Roger Corman produced this 1993 attempt to cash in on proximity to Jurassic Park. Carnosaur tells the story of a mad scientist who is using infected chicken eggs to unleash an airborne virus that impregnates women with dinosaur embryos in order to eliminate humanity and allow dinosaurs to repopulate the Earth. Only a security guard and an environmentalist can stop her. With Corman’s trademark B-movie charm, you may find something to like here if that’s your thing, but I mean come on, it’s obviously worse than Dinosaur.

Worse-Tammy and the T-Rex

Long before she was a Bond girl and he was drinking Corona with Vin Diesel, Denise Richards and Paul Walker starred in this 1994 sci-fi comedy, the existence of which beggars belief. Tammy and the T-Rex finds Tammy and her boyfriend Michael in a happy relationship until Tammy’s ex-boyfriend attacks Michael and he winds up in a comatose state. He is declared dead and his brain is used to control a robotic T-Rex. T-Rex Michael seeks vengeance against his attackers and to rekindle his relationship with Tammy, all the while having to escape the evil doctor. Horrible acting, terrible production value, nonsense story: not better than Dinosaur.

As you can undoubtedly see, movies that are better than Dinosaur fit into the upper echelon of dino movies and they are few and far between. There have been countless bad dinosaur movies, many of which have been forgotten to history, just waiting for brave movie fans to dig them up and see how truly strange they were. Dinosaurs always felt like an underutilized movie concept to me outside of the Jurassic franchise, maybe the future will see more big movies get creative with bringing the fascinating creatures back to life on the big screen.

Check out our 2019 release schedule to keep track of all this year's biggest movies and stay tuned to CinemaBlend for all your movie news.

Forrest Gump Is Getting A Bollywood Remake

Forrest Gump Is Getting A Bollywood Remake

Have you ever imagined the iconic line “Run Forrest Run” being said in Hindi, perhaps as the titular character starts off an extravagant musical number? Life really is like a box of chocolates, because an upcoming Forrest Gump movie will be the latest Hollywood hit to be remade by Bollywood.

The 1994 Best Picture winner has caught the eye of Bollywood superstar Aamir Khan, who will take on the Tom Hanks role and co-produce an Indian version of the movie to be titled Lal Singh Chaddha, per Variety. The remake will be developed by both Viacom 18 Motion Pictures and Khan’s production company.

Aamir Khan explained during the press announcement in Mumbai that he has always loved the Forrest Gump script, complementing the Oscar winner’s “life-affirming story” that is a feel good film for the whole family. The superstar hopes to come back from his 2018 commercial failure Thugs of Hindostan, the highest-budget Bollywood film ever, which lost big at the box office after many negative reviews.

The Bollywood star’s movies put together has also made the most at the box office worldwide than any other Indian actor. So it makes sense for Aamir Khan to take on the role famously played by America’s sweetheart, Tom Hanks, of course!

The recent announcement of the Indian Forrest Gump also came with the production’s plans to start filming this October and be released in 2020. It would certainly be interesting to see how Bollywood adapts the film, which has draws on many moments in American history such as Elvis Presley, the Vietnam War, racial desegregation, Watergate and Apple computers. Will the movie take on the events of the American film or draw on elements of Indian history?

The foreign genre is known for its huge song-and-dance numbers and melodrama, and some aspects of Forrest Gump certainly can be translated this way. It’s a larger-than-life story with a mix of romance, drama and comedy, and it would be a blast to see this kind of retelling.

India has remade tons of Hollywood movies in the past including Ms. Doubtfire, Christopher Nolan’s Memento, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, When Harry Met Sally and another Tom Hank’s led movie, Big. The genre certainly seems to be fans of what the industry in America has produced and keeps finding inspiration by them.

Forrest Gump was the highest-grossing movie of 1994 – it made $677 million worldwide, though only made $46,282 in Indian theaters. The movie still holds the top spot for a summer drama release and received high-critical praise. Forrest Gump was nominated for 13 Oscars and won six for Best Picture, Best Actor for Tom Hanks, Best Director for Robert Zemeckis, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing and Best Visual Effects.

It’ll be exciting to see how Lal Singh Chaddha does when it comes out in 2020. Anyone want to delve into a Bollywood Hollywood remakes marathon after this?

Captain Marvel Has Some Tasty Pulp Fiction References

Captain Marvel Has Some Tasty Pulp Fiction References

Samuel L. Jackson has enjoyed a long career in acting, appearing in no less than a hundred movies a year (give or take). He's tallied up quite a number of iconic characters from all corners of pop culture -- such as Mace Windu and Nick Fury. You can see Jackson reprise the latter this weekend in Captain Marvel, and the movie finds the time to plant some easter eggs for one of Jackson's most famous films: Pulp Fiction. One fan believes he spotted two references to the iconic film. Check it out:

Pulp Fiction is a 1994 film written and directed by Quentin Tarantino. Samuel L. Jackson stars as Jules, a contract killer who can talk about French McDonalds just as easily as he blows people's heads off. Pulp Fiction is considered one of the best films ever made, and Jules is one of Jackson's most well-known characters, with lines that can be (and have been) quoted endlessly.

So, it's no surprise that Captain Marvel, which takes place in the same decade as Pulp Fiction, decided to throw in a couple of easter eggs to the Tarantino film. These easter eggs were spotted by a fan on Twitter and it's hard to deny that they are callbacks to Pulp Fiction.

One reference is a shot of young Nick Fury and Agent Coulson driving in their car, which almost perfectly mirrors a similar scene in Pulp Fiction. The framing here is almost the exact same, but if you wanted to play devil's advocate, there are only so many ways to film two people sitting in a car.

The second easter egg is a little out of left field. During Captain Marvel, the Skrull leader Talos appears and for some reason he's drinking a soda. Talos is a funny guy, but it's pretty random in the movie...until you realize it's probably a Pulp Fiction reference. Jackson's character Jules takes a sip from a soda cup that looks near identical to the one Talos uses. Jules was drinking the soda as a power move right before he was about to murder some guys, while Talos was presumably just thirsty.

This isn't the first time the MCU has snuck in a Pulp Fiction reference either. In Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Fury's tombstone has a quote about the righteous man, which is part of a biblical passage that Pulp Fiction's Jules memorably references. Even Star Wars couldn't help referencing Pulp Fiction on Mace Windu's lightsaber.

You might be able to spot more Pulp Fiction and '90s references in Captain Marvel, which is out in theaters right now. Learn as much as you can before your showing with our what we know so far guide. For everything else that Marvel has coming down the pipeline, check out of Marvel movie release guide.

ReelBlend #70: Talking Rocketman, Kingsmen And X-Men With Matthew Vaughn

ReelBlend #70: Talking Rocketman, Kingsmen And X-Men With Matthew Vaughn

Another episode, another week where ReelBlend co-host Jake Hamilton is in England.

This time, Jake’s on his own, covering the new Danny Boyle film Yesterday, but he still found time to join Sean for episode #70 of the ReelBlend podcast.

It’s just two of the guys this week, as Kevin’s on vacation on a remote island somewhere. So Sean and Jake dove into the news of the week, starting with that trailer for Terminator: Dark Fate. Have you seen it yet? It looks like this:

Staying on the theme of old sci-fi properties getting resuscitated, Jake and Sean shift to the story of Sir Ridley Scott entertaining the notion of continuing his Alien franchise now that Fox is over at Disney. Jake’s all for it, while Sean is done with that saga, completely.

Sean saw Aladdin over the Memorial Day weekend, and gives his review of Guy Ritchie’s live-action musical. The guys both saw Netflix’s The Perfection, and they weigh in on that, as well.

But the big get for Episode #70 was a candid conversation with Rocketman producer Matthew Vaughn, who helped get Taron Egerton cast as Elton John and also kind of helped seal the movie’s deal because of the friendship he made with Sir Elton while collaborating with him on Kingsman: The Golden Circle. The prolific producer opens up with ReelBlend about the making of Rocketman, the future of his own Kingsmen universe, and his thoughts on Marvel now owning X-Men and the Fantastic Four.

Give this week’s episode a listen right now!

ReelBlend is a weekly podcast that we do on CinemaBlend. You can download the latest episode (and all of our past episodes) for FREE on our iTunes page! Visit. Subscribe. Like and comment. Review! Apple loves when you have star ratings and reviews, so if you listened, and you liked it (or even if you didn't), let us know. We also are on Spotify. And Google Play. And basically everywhere that you download podcasts. So download us.

Meanwhile, follow the guys on Social Media! We have an official Twitter feed for the show, so follow @ReelBlend. In addition, follow the guys at @Sean_OConnell, @JakesTakesand @KevinMcCarthyTV.

I've Got Two Issues With J.K. Rowling's Comments About Dumbledore And Grindelwald

I've Got Two Issues With J.K. Rowling's Comments About Dumbledore And Grindelwald

J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World began back with the first Harry Potter novel, and has continued to expand in the years since the Boy Who Lived first entranced audiences. Rowling has continued to grow the brand through the Pottermore website, Cursed Child plays, and theme parks. But all eyes are currently fixated on the Fantastic Beasts franchise, which has been planned to span five blockbusters over the next few years. The most recent addition to the property was The Crimes of Grindelwald, which brought Johnny Depp's titular villain and Jude Law's young Albus Dumbledore to theaters.

The relationship between Grindelwald and Dumbledore is one that's expected to be fleshed out in the coming movies, as J.K. Rowling had previously revealed that its at least partly romantic in nature. But The Crimes of Grindelwald didn't get into that at all, at least until Rowling recorded her director's commentary for the home release. In it, she spoke about their relationship, saying:

Their relationship was incredibly intense. It was passionate, and it was a love relationship. But as happens in any relationship, gay or straight or whatever label we want to put on it, one never knows really what the other person is feeling. You can’t know, you can believe you know. So I’m less interested in the sexual side – though I believe there is a sexual dimension to this relationship – than I am in the sense of the emotions they felt for each other, which ultimately is the most fascinating thing about all human relationships.

This quote has sparked some big reactions online and resulted in an endless supply of memes and X-rated twitter responses. There's some anger being directed at J.K. Rowling for reasons she doesn't deserve, although I do have a few issues with these recent revelations. Because there is a way to handle this complex relationship properly.

One problem I have with J.K. Rowling's commentary is that she is telling us about Dumbledore and Grindelwald's relationship after the fact. The two didn't share any real scenes in The Crimes of Grindelwald, which prevented their love/hate dynamic from being properly fleshed out. While she may have wanted to keep that reunion for a later movie, neither of the characters explained their relationship through exposition. In fact, you could have watched the sequel in its entirety without realizing that the hatred between Dumbledore and Grindelwald also comes with feelings of love.

If the two wizard's ill-fated love was so integral to the story, J.K. Rowling should have taken the time to directly address it in The Crimes of Grindelwald. Instead, it was expanded in the film's commentary, after its long run in theaters. In fact, the writer revealed Dumbledore's sexuality in a similar fashion, after the narrative of the original novels wrapped.

Then there's the comments about the intense 'sexual dimension' to Grindelwald and Dumbledore's relationship. While claiming she's less interested in that facet of their dynamic, it was odd that she mentioned sex at all. Harry Potter is not a franchise that focuses on sexuality much. Sure, the kids snog a bit in the novels, but it never gets past that. As such, fans (including myself) were perplexed that Dumbledore and Grindelwald's sex life was addressed so directly. We don't know basically anything about them as a couple thanks to their lack of screen time, and yet the fandom is now aware of how the beloved Headmaster gets down in the magical sheets.

It'll be interesting to see how the story of the Fantastic Beasts franchise continues its life on screen, as J.K. Rowling has quite a few balls in the air, narratively. And with all this controversy surrounding Dumbledore and Grindelwald's past, the iconic writer may have to adjust her approach to their relationship.

It's currently unclear when Fantastic Beasts 3 will arrive in theaters, but CinemaBlend will keep you updated on all the details as they're released. In the meantime, check out our 2019 release list to plan your next trip to the movies.