I Wasn't A Horror Fan But These Movies Have Won Me Over To The Genre

I Wasn't A Horror Fan But These Movies Have Won Me Over To The Genre

Being uninterested in horror was never about being scared of the dark. It was because bloody gore, unnecessarily grotesque creatures and one-dimensional scream queens seemed to rule the genre. It was the jump scares, me yelling at the television screen, asking them to (PLEASE) “find the damn light switch! It’s literally right behind you!” before shaking my head, burying it out of the view of the screen. It happens every time! They literally never learn. It’s stressful y’all. Don’t get me wrong, this is fun every once in a while but I’ve never been an opening-night-ticket-buying horror fan or one that really followed or cared about what was going on with the genre. (Like I would never have guessed there was anywhere close to 11 Halloween movies if my life depended on it.) Cut to today, in which I find myself absolutely geeking out about what the genre has to offer.

I don’t think this is about my own personal growth as a movie fan. I probably could have gone my whole life without seeing bugs infest a decapitated child (if you know, you know). There have been some really amazing entries in the horror genre that have successfully banded together and surrendered me into loving the genre. This horror newbie now has a lot of ground to cover and missed gems, franchises and remakes to start paying attention to, but let’s start with the movies that were my “gateway drugs” in a sense into the genre.

First up is 2017’s Get Out – yes, cliché maybe. The thing about Jordan Peele’s debut into horror is it wasn’t just a must see for the genre, it was a phenomenon that dominated a lot of different conversations about politics, race, Hollywood industry & diversity and was so many things in of itself; a comedy and “social thriller” so I ended up getting around to it. The movie showed me that horror wasn’t just about shock value, it could actually say something profound about the world we live in and in an incredibly smart way that has enticed discussion and theories were still talking about two years later.

Peele is all about intentional filmmaking: which we movie fans absolutely love to pick apart. I love the kind of movies that you can notice something new about with each viewing and you want to jump right back in again and watch immediately after the credits roll. Get Out filled a bit of a hole we forgot was possible to dig up in the movie-watching experience. There’s something beautiful about not having it all spelled out to you on-screen. Something that unravels a conversation much deeper than “Oh, it was pretty good! What did you think?” out of us.

So Get Out felt like a bit of a once-in-a-lifetime kind of horror spectacle but then I found myself intrigued by the idea of checking out A Quiet Place one weekend with a friend. To be honest, some of this was based on my interest in seeing Hollywood’s power couple John Krasinski and Emily Blunt finally share the screen. I’m still thanking myself for experiencing this movie in the theater because what a crazy experience. Krasinski (who was also the film’s director) did something special when he played around with silence. I found myself carefully chewing my popcorn and holding off on blurting expletives in service of the environment created so masterfully in A Quiet Place.

There are a ton of reasons why I love A Quiet Place such as the way it disguises itself as an incredibly loving family drama. Without having the genre on its side, it would not have played as well. It taught me a bit about why horror filmmaking can be such a cool and interesting type of movie. It’s all about manipulating the senses and being able to take hold of the audience so well that they are actually able to feel the fear the characters are experiencing. It doesn’t have to be about grossing me out or having a “gotcha moment” with a jump scare. Thus, my horror movie geek out continued.

There were a couple of other recent movies that cemented my interest into giving the genre a real shot. While I’m still confused to this day about what exactly went on in last year’s Annihilation, I loved how weird it was, and the “girl gang” cast featuring Natalie Portman and Tessa Thompson. As a sci-fi fan the title spoke to me and the twists that leaned into the “horror” elements added to it and complemented the other, along with delivering a really intriguing message to contemplate.

While I initially ran into the other direction of the Happy Death Day franchise because there was an antagonist with a knife and mask and seemingly some more “2D” teens to unpack (the perfect recipe for typical lazy horror), it delighted me with its subversion of this cliche. Unlike most “horror” with its general description, the movies are made to portray teens as a college-set lighthearted movie would, it gave the main characters their own agency in the situation instead of simply surviving the masked killer. I certainly wouldn’t call the sequel of the “horror” genre but it’s definitely worth checking out!

Then came my “big girl” reintroduction into horror: Hereditary. While all my other picks so far genre-bend in their own rights, Ari Aster’s debut film is straight-up horror and wow was I blown away by what this film had to offer. A couple years ago, I wouldn’t have even given this title the time of day, but after these other movies paved the way into opening my mind to the genre, me, the ex-horror-hater was able to enjoy this very scary, gory, disturbing horror flick thanks to some newfound intrigue into the genre. I already need to see this again. Who am I? What have I become?!

I think horror is having a big-time resurgence and golden age right now as Jordan Peele’s Us  unmistakably strikes a chord with audiences (as shown by its huge opening weekend box office record), and remakes for Pet Sematary, Child’s Play and It soon making their way into theaters. In addition, the Hereditary filmmaker continues with Midsommar, while James Gunn mixes superheroes and horror for his executive-produced Brightburn. I’m ready for them all.

The Russo Brothers Had To Lie To Avengers: Endgame Actors For The Final Scenes

The Russo Brothers Had To Lie To Avengers: Endgame Actors For The Final Scenes

Spoilers ahead for Avengers: Endgame. If you haven't seen it, look away.

Avengers: Endgame has been in theaters for nearly two weeks, and moviegoers haven't stopped discussing and dissecting every frame of The Russo Brothers' masterful blockbuster. The co-directors managed to do the impossible, crafting a complicated emotional story that had a a ton of connections to the greater MCU. And it's a story that included the epic death and funeral of Tony Stark.

Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man has been the heart and soul of the MCU since its inception, and the character went out in a truly epic way. The final moments of Avengers: Endgame showed Tony Stark's funeral, complete with some surprise cameos. But it turns out that The Russo Brothers had to lie to the talent in order to keep the secrets of Tony's fate under wraps. As Joe Russo recently explained:

90 percent of those actors showed up and they had no idea what they were doing. They thought they were there for the wedding, so we had to tell them 'Here's what's happening in the story...' because again, we're just trying to protect information. People that don't have information, it makes it easier for them to not spill the beans accidentally.

Marvel Studios is known for its secrecy, and stakes were especially high for Avengers: Endgame. The blockbuster was the cumulation of 22 movies, so The Russo Brothers went to great length to keep the film's spoilers under wraps. Even from the cast.

Tony Stark's death was an emotionally devastating aspect of Endgame, and the OG MCU hero was given the respect he deserved after wielding the new Infinity Gauntlet, and snapping past-Thanos and his forces out of existence. The Russo Brothers added the "I am Iron Man" line very late into the film's process, while the funeral scene was exactly what moviegoers needed in the moment.

Related: The Russo Brothers Suggest How Long Avengers: Endgame Spoilers Should Be Protected

The funeral was a who's who of MCU characters, but that also meant a ton of actors who had the potential to spoil Tony's fate. In their same conversation with EW Radio, Anthony Russo spoke to the excitement of filming with such a great ensemble, while also be worried about Endgame's contents being kept under wraps. As he tell it,

It was an interesting day because getting all of those actors together at one level is very celebratory and joyful but it was for a difficult reason in this scene. And also, the story point in the scene was one of the biggest secrets in the movie so we had to be very, very quiet about it.

Talk about a twist. It must have been quite the pivot in emotions going from a wedding to a funeral, but The Russo Brothers had to do everything they could to guard the secrets of their Avengers movies. And it's an effort that has paid off, as both Infinity War and Endgame delivered countless plot twists, and made an insane amount of money at the box office.

It should be interesting to see how the MCU continues on without Tony Stark. Spider-Man: Far From Home looks it'll address just that, and is set to arrive shortly.

Avengers: Endgame is out now, and Spider-Man: Far From Home will hit theaters on July 2nd. In the meantime, check out out our 2019 release list to plan your next trip to the movies.

Casino Royale’s Eva Green Doesn’t Think Bond Should Be A Woman

Casino Royale’s Eva Green Doesn’t Think Bond Should Be A Woman

With Daniel Craig’s tenure as James Bond soon coming to an end with the 2020 release of Bond 25, Hollywood has been having an ongoing conversation about who should replace the actor as the next 007. As movies are seeing success enlisting female heroines for popular franchises, some have even challenged that the character should be taken on by a woman next. Don’t count former Bond Girl Eva Green in on this idea. Here’s what she said:

I’m for women, but I really think James Bond should remain a man. It doesn’t make sense for him to be a woman. Women can play different types of characters, be in action movies and be superheroes, but James Bond should always be a man and not be Jane Bond. There is history with the character that should continue. He should be played by a man.

Eva Green’s recent comments to Vanity Fair aren’t in bias to her husband's famous role; she has a powerful point here. James Bond is inherently a male character with a long history as such. To gender-swap the character isn’t necessarily a great move for inclusivity or female empowerment, because it ignores much of the roots of Ian Fleming’s literary character and has women potentially playing second fiddle to Bond’s legacy-- instead of finding their own place in the action genre.

Eva Green isn’t the first to challenge the idea of “Jane Bond”. Longtime James Bond producer Barbara Broccoli recently echoed the actress’ statement with the words “We don't have to turn male characters into women. Let's just create more female characters”, along with Rachel Weisz who questioned “Why not create your own story rather than jumping onto the shoulders and being compared to all those other male predecessors?”

Just as women may certainly be enraged to learn Wonder Woman, who is a character deeply rooted in the feminine was going to be played by a man next, people may look similarly on characters such as James Bond. Though I’d argue this certainly doesn’t apply to all gender-swap situations. The Ocean’s franchise isn’t particularly rooted in having to be “male”, so changing it up with a female-led team Ocean’s Eight was a fun way for the series to continue.

Eva Green moved on to discuss the iconic “Bond Girl”, a character that the actress is proud to be a part of evolving with her portrayal of Vesper in 2006’s Casino Royale. She is passionate about the females depicted alongside James Bond to continue developing away from the “bimbos” of the past and becoming “intelligent and sassy and fascinating” onscreen characters.

While Green will not star in Bond 25, the filmmakers are reportedly eyeing Lupita Nyong’o to be the next Bond Girl in the upcoming film helmed by Cary Fukunaga. Daniel Craig’s James Bond will return to theaters on April 8, 2020.

Aladdin Reviews Are In, Here's What The Critics Think

Aladdin Reviews Are In, Here's What The Critics Think

Disney has had repeated success remaking it's animated hits and the newest entry in the series is Aladdin. Like Beauty and the Beast before it, this version of Aladdin is a largely faithful adaptation right down to being a full musical like its animated counterpart. For the most part, audiences seem be getting behind the new version of the popular tale, but there are some notable exceptions.

Our own Eric Eisenberg is one of those exceptions. While Eric admitted the soundtrack to the new Aladdin is top notch, in the end, the movie fell victim to the sin of following its source material too closely, thus lacking any creativity of its own. Eric gave the film two and a half stars, saying...

The new Aladdin does have a fun energy and charm – not to mention one of the best soundtracks of any Disney musical ever – but all of these positives are simply borrowed, and there is a very real and notable limit to its creative energy.

The lukewarm to negative reviews are in the minority, the Rotten Tomatoes score for Aladdin is currently in the high 70s, but they are there. ScreenCrush gives the movie points for effort, saying that Will Smith works hard, perhaps too hard, to make his Genie work. In the end, however, the new Aladdin doesn't surpass the original in any way...

But there’s still nothing that this Aladdin does better — or as well — as the original. Even the parts pulled directly from the 1992 Aladdin by Ron Clements and John Musker, like the songs, have lost something in translation.

Aladdin is one of the movies that came out during what's called the Disney Renaissance. The studio's animation division, that had been nearly shuttered only a few years before, was riding high on a series of successes. Parents taking their kids to see the new Aladdin saw the original on the big screen as kids themselves. It seems some reviews don't think those adults are going to find the same magic here.

The decision to have Guy Ritchie, the man behind movies like Snatch and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, direct the live-action Aladdin always seemed like an odd choice. The Associated Press largely throws what doesn't work about Aladdin at his feet, saying...

It’s pretty clear after watching the new live-action Aladdin that doubts about Will Smith’s casting as the Genie are overblown. It’s the guy behind the camera who should be doubted. And stuffed into a small lamp forever.

If you've seen the 1992 animated movie then you know the story. Aladdin is a homeless beggar on the streets of fictional middle eastern Agrabah. He gets enlisted by the Sultan's villainous vizier Jafar to obtain a magic lamp, but ends up unleashing the Genie trapped inside himself. Aladdin then uses the Genie's magic to transform himself into a prince in order to try and impress the princess he's fallen in love with.

However, while some find the new movie weak, for the most part, critics are giving the new film, passing, if not stellar grades. Variety finds the melding of live-action and CGI to be a task uniquely suited to a stylish director like Guy Ritchie...

Where the director really shines is in melding practical elements with virtual ones. Whether making Smith’s computer-enhanced and cerulean-skinned Genie look natural sharing the screen with Aladdin or swooping the camera along magic carpet rides through virtual sets, Ritchie’s style embraces the kind of expressionism needed to pull off such a fanciful tale.

One of the hardest jobs that the new Aladdin had to accomplish was making the Genie work. Robin Williams' version of the character from 1992 wasn't just great, it was iconic. It became one of the great animation performances of all time. How in the blue hell does Will Smith try to take on a role like that, still make it feel like Disney's Genie, while somehow avoiding a comparison that is not going to go well?

Many reviews think that Will Smith did a good job, or at least a good enough, job, in that regard. THR says Smith infused the role with his own personality and made it work, even if the CGI maybe doesn't work all the time...

Smith, faced with the impossible task of living up to Robin Williams' iconic voice performance, easily makes the role his own. His infectious personality shines throughout, and he even manages to infuse his martini-swilling Genie with moving emotional moments.

The Genie does also get a bit more to do in this version of the film. He spends a large part of the story "disguised" as human in order to actually play a part in the story beyond simply being the source of magic when needed.

The top performances in the new Aladdin however, clearly belong to the two human lead characters. Mena Massoud who plays the title character and Naomi Scott's Jasmine are getting generally positive reviews for their performances. As the New York Post puts it..

Massoud and Scott make a live-action “Aladdin” succeed on a different level than a cartoon can — as a teary romance. “A Whole New World” is more moving than the original.

The one way that the new Aladdin does make significant changes to the original animated movie is in the way it handles Princess Jasmine. She has a lot more agency in the new film, and even gets her own song, an original tune written for the film called "Speechless." If we're being honest, many reviews don't think the song is all that good, however nobody is blaming Naomi Scott's performance for that.

In the final analysis, it seems quite clear that if what you want from the new live-action Aladdin is a slightly modified version of the movie you already, know and love, then you will likely enjoy the new movie. If, however, you are looking for a movie that tries to do something creative with the popular property, you'll find the film lacking.

Based on the success of the Beauty and the Beast remake from a couple of years ago, it seems like moviegoers are perfectly happy with just getting the same story over again and so the new Aladdin may be about to make a billion dollars.

The new Aladdin hits theaters Friday.

David Harbour Admits The Hellboy Reboot Had ‘Major Problems’

David Harbour Admits The Hellboy Reboot Had ‘Major Problems’

Dark Horse Comics character Hellboy finally returned to the big screen last month after over a decade away, only rather than being played by Ron Perlman again, Stranger Things’ David Harbour donned the red makeup and sawed-off horns for this reboot. While its predecessors were met with mostly positive critical reception, the new Hellboy movie earned a lot of negative reviews, and it also ended up being a box office bomb, making only $40 million worldwide off a $50 million budget.

It had been reported shortly before Hellboy’s release that there was behind-the-scenes drama during the production, and now David Harbour has admitted that the reboot had “major problems,” namely because it was dealing with the old ‘too many cooks in the kitchen’ problem. In Harbour’s words:

We did our best, but there's so many voices that go into these things and they're not always going to work out. I did what I could do and I feel proud of what I did, but ultimately I'm not in control of a lot of those things.

Making a movie is a complicated endeavor that requires a lot of people doing various tasks, but when it comes to planning out how said movie is supposed to unfold, having too many people piping in on what should happen can definitely cause issues. This wouldn’t be the first time a blockbuster, particularly a superhero movie, has dealt with such a problem, and going off David Harbour’s comment, this was the primary reason Hellboy failed to impress.

David Harbour didn’t provide specific details how how these “many voices” dragged Hellboy down, but in the previous report about the troubled production, it was said director Neil Marshall frequently clashed with producers Lawrence Gordon and Lloyd Levin, which “boiled over” when the producers replaced Marshall’s cinematographer. No official reasoning was provided on this firing, but it was apparently a “group decision” and not, as Marshall supposedly believed, a message that he wasn’t truly in charge.

Other issues that reportedly popped up during Hellboy included Lloyd Levin repeatedly interrupting Neil Marshall to give different directions, David Harbour walking off set numerous times after refusing to deliver extra takes Marshall wanted, multiple script re-writes and, perhaps most weirdly of all, disagreements over the design of a “surreal tree.” So yeah, even though Harbour didn’t comment on the full scope of Hellboy’s problems, clearly this wasn’t a smooth creative process.

That said, David Harbour also told Digital Spy and other outlets at MCM Comic-Con in London that he also thinks the movie was unfairly compared to the Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise. As he sees it, due to what Marvel has been delivering, moviegoers have been expecting a certain “flavor” with their superhero movies, like chocolate. Harbour continued:

So everybody goes chocolate is delicious and these guys make the best chocolate. So as you judge the movies, it's like, 'Well it's not as chocolatey as this, this does not taste like chocolate at all'. And I sort of want a world where there's more flavors than just comparisons to chocolate. So in that way when Hellboy is viewed on the chocolate spectrum, it does very poorly. That being said, it also has major problems.

David Harbour then said that if one were to watch Hellboy as a rental or while on an airplane, they’d think “Oh that was fun” because it is a fun movie, but ultimately, the reboot was “unfairly bludgeoned” because it was compared to Marvel’s offerings. Whether you agree with that sentiment or not, one thing is certain: Hellboy will not go down in film history as a well-received superhero movie. It ranks at just 16% on Rotten Tomatoes and earned a C grade on CinemaScore.

With critical reception like that, it’s extremely unlikely that Hellboy will get a sequel. Maybe it’s time to finally adapt the Mike Mignola-created property as a TV series? Regardless, this doesn’t mark the end of David Harbour’s comic book movie journey, as he’s lined up to appear in Black Widow. So even though Harbour felt that Hellboy shouldn’t have been judged the same way a MCU movie would be, he’ll soon get to leave his mark on that very franchise.

Let us know what you thought of Hellboy in the comments below, and for the David Harbour fans reading, you can see him reprising Chief Jim Hopper when Stranger Things Season 3 premiers on Netflix July 4. As for what is hitting theaters later this year, check out our 2019 release schedule.

Hobbs And Shaw Just Re-Wrapped After Filming Some Major New Scenes

Hobbs And Shaw Just Re-Wrapped After Filming Some Major New Scenes

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson posts so many "wrap" photos he could stack them under a Christmas tree. (I'll see myself out.) He just wrapped Jumanji 3 and now he has announced another wrap for Hobbs & Shaw.

That Fast and Furious franchise spinoff is coming out August 2, not even three months from now, so it would be strange to see it just wrap filming this week. Dwayne Johnson previously shared an emotional wrap video in mid-February, when initial filming was complete. But it's common to head back to set for reshoots and "additional photography," and it looks like Hobbs & Shaw did just that for a few key scenes -- including a massive showdown with Idris Elba's criminal mastermind Brixton Lore.

Here's The Rock's first of three posts on re-wrapping Hobbs & Shaw, with this one teasing the fight ahead as the "Biggest showdown the FAST & FURIOUS franchise has ever seen":

After that, The Rock -- aka Pig Daddy? -- showed off his ride before filming one last scene for the movie.

Finally, he shared an official this-is-it production wrap post, sharing this photo to tease "a fun final touch for our movie":

Nice! Hobbs & Shaw takes place two years after The Fate of the Furious. Dwayne Johnson's "ice cold can of whup-ass" Luke Hobbs has to team up with "champagne problem" Jason Statham's Deckard Shaw to take down Idris Elba's former MI6 agent Brixton, who is now a "super-human" terrorist (aka "Black Superman"). Vanessa Kirby co-stars as MI6 field agent Hattie Shaw, who happens to be Deckard's sister, with Helen Mirren as Magdalene Shaw.

The official title of this thing is Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw, but that still sounds like a variety show to me. Hobbs & Shaw opens its can of whup-ass in theaters on August 2, as one of the many movies worth keeping track of in 2019.

Avengers: Endgame’s Directors Admit To Adding Extra Footage To Trailers

Avengers: Endgame’s Directors Admit To Adding Extra Footage To Trailers

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is one of the biggest franchises in film history, with a shopping 21 movies dropped in the decade and change since Iron Man arrived on the scene. Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame are the cumulation of those blockbusters, as The Russo Brothers balanced the large ensemble cast for a set of movies with equal parts action and heart.

Aside from the scheduling and storytelling challenges that come with handling such a behemoth pair of movies, The Russo Brothers had to deal with another challenge: how do you market the films without giving away too much? Endgame has only released very brief clips, and once Infinity War hit theaters, there were some shots from the trailer that were noticeably missing from the final cut. Now the brothers have admitted to padding trailers with extra footage, with Joe Russo saying:

We talked about all scales of marketing. The thing that’s most important to us is that we preserve the surprise of the narrative. When I was a kid and saw The Empire Strikes Back at 11am on the day it opened…It so profoundly moved me because I didn’t know a damn thing about the story I was going to watch. We’re trying to replicate that experience.

Tricky move, Russos! In an attempt to keep the secrets of the third and fourth Avengers movies, their marketing material included some footage to throw the fandom off. As such, audiences can have the full experience in theaters, and the blockbusters can have the maximum emotional impact.

Joe Russo's comments to Empire Magazine confirm a long standing fan theory about Infinity War and Endgame. Specifically, the the trailers include footage that serve as red herrings to the film's true contents. Just look at Infinity War's massive trailer. One of the most iconic shots from the marketing shows the Avengers running toward their enemy in the Battle of Wakanda, including The Hulk. But the big green guy was almost completely absent from the final cut, as he refused to resurface after getting beaten by Thanos in the opening scene.

Eventually Bruce Banner donned the Hulkbuster armor to fight against Thanos' forces, and it was obvious that the Infinity War trailer was selling a false bill of goods. This allowed for the subplot surrounding Bruce Banner and The Hulk's dysfunctional relationship was one of the many surprises that the blockbuster brought to theaters.

It should be interesting to see how the Avengers: Endgame trailers ultimately relate to the film's final product. The marketing material for the blockbuster has been pretty sparse, as Marvel Studios was focusing on the release of Captain Marvel. The public still doesn't have an inkling regarding what the film's main plot will entail, as things have been kept purposefully vague in the trailers. Instead, the footage sets up the tone of the movie, and just how bleak things are in the wake of Thanos' finger snap of death.

All will be revealed when Avengers: Endgame arrives in theaters on April 26th. In the meantime, check out our 2019 release list to plan your next trip to the movies.