How Captain America Holds Back Thanos In Avengers: Infinity War

How Captain America Holds Back Thanos In Avengers: Infinity War

Some SPOILERS for Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame to follow.

In Avengers: Infinity War, Thanos beats the brakes off of the Hulk in hand-to-hand combat and, with an assist from Peter Quill, defeats the Guardians of the Galaxy and members of the Avengers in the battle on Titan. Yet, towards the end of the film, in a scene from the trailers that at the time seemed to herald his death, Captain America holds back Thanos’ gauntleted hand.

Not to take anything away from Steve Rogers, but no amount of Super Soldier Serum should have made him able to physically withstand Thanos to that degree, especially after the feats we had already seen the Mad Titan pull off. But there is an explanation for how Captain America holds Thanos back in Avengers: Infinity War, as screenwriter Christopher Markus explained:

I think in that moment, Thanos is impressed by Steve's will. He's like, 'I can't believe this guy who apparently has no powers is trying this.' He's almost like, 'Really? Really?'

Steve Rogers is giving his all in that moment, and he has always shown an ability to punch above his weight and ‘do this all day’, but that does not account for what happens in this moment in Infinity War. Instead, holding back Thanos is more the result of Thanos not going all out than Cap being any sort of physical match for him.

As Christopher Markus told The Hollywood Reporter, in that moment, Thanos is impressed by the display of will and courage from Captain America. The fact that a puny human, devoid of any cosmic-level powers would challenge him in such a way catches Thanos off guard and that results in him kind of taking things slowly and pondering Cap for a moment.

You can see this in Josh Brolin’s Thanos performance too. When Cap first holds back Thanos, the Mad Titan appears surprised and curious. He is impressed with Captain America’s strength of will, and given his conversation with Tony Stark on Titan, we know that Thanos appreciates and respects those who put up a good fight against him.

Eventually Thanos gets over being flabbergasted by Cap and tires of him. He then actually exerts some force and easily overpowers Cap before knocking him out. So, as strong as he is, it was never a case of Captain America truly matching Thanos in a game of strength. But just the mere fact that Cap’s will impressed Thanos, he of “the hardest choices require the strongest wills,” says a lot about Steve Rogers.

Cap’s resistance against Thanos is also not an instance of the Infinity Gauntlet in some way sensing Cap is worthy to wield it and tempering its power. The Infinity Gauntlet is not Mjolnir, which evaluates a person and judges them worthy or not. As we saw in Avengers: Endgame, you either can withstand its power or you can’t.

You can see Cap’s rematch with Thanos in Avengers: Endgame, now playing. Check out our 2019 Release Schedule to keep track of summer’s biggest movies and stay tuned to CinemaBlend for all the latest news from the MCU.

To 3D Or Not To 3D: Buy The Right Aladdin Ticket

To 3D Or Not To 3D: Buy The Right Aladdin Ticket

A whole new world awaits fans of Aladdin, as the Guy Ritchie directed remake is now in theaters. Disney’s latest live-action pet project has taken the story of Agrabah’s favorite street rat with a friend of infinite cosmic powers, and turned it into a spectacular musical of proportions it’s never known before. Which means it’s a good time to throw in a 3D conversion for good measure, asking that time tested question: to 3D, or not to 3D?

If you’re curious how we felt about the movie itself, you can read our Aladdin review and find out. Otherwise, it’s time to find out if this round of Disney magic is worth the extra 3D ticket money, or if you’re better off saving that money for a bus out to the Cave of Wonders. Let’s see if Aladdin’s 3D is a diamond in the rough worth mining.

With a magical genie that can conjure any and everything your heart desires, Aladdin feels like the sort of movie that would be a perfect fit for 3D magic. As a live-action adaptation of a Disney movie, the business model basically builds the possibility right in at the ground floor, so seeing a film such as this take advantage of a 3D double dip isn’t surprising. In fact, it’s expected, with the intention of making the action all the more immersive in the best case scenario.

For a film that should easily lend itself to a high level of 3D spectacle, Aladdin doesn’t do as good of a job as it should in conveying the third dimensional thrills it could have. The quotient of eye popping thrills isn’t near as impressive as the depth of picture draw in the film’s backgrounds. And even in terms of the depths that Aladdin engages in, there’s still some holding back in that regard. Not to mention, there’s some problems with the brightness, and a couple pieces that mess with the audience’s eyes. In short, there’s something missing from each of Aladdin’s key 3D factors.

When Aladdin chooses to use its ability to poke through the 3D window, it can be beautiful to look at. So if the movie had taken more opportunities to push through the window that separates the viewer from the material, it would have been more on par with a satisfactory 3D experience. That's not what happens in Aladdin though, as the only moments that really jump out at the audience are some sequences with Will Smith's Genie. And even then, those shots are rare enough that the third dimensional enhancements aren't being used to their full potential.

The same problems that plague items projecting out of the screen also hamper the depths of Aladdin's picture. Though, it's not as bad when it comes to this particular factor, as there's crisp separations between characters and environments, as well as each other. But past that spatial reasoning, the depth of the backgrounds only goes so far, as there's never a feeling of infinite distance hiding behind any particular scene.

Between proper maintenance of an individual theater's equipment, and the tinting of the glasses used in a 3D showing, a colorful film like Aladdin has the potential to be washed out and dimmed in its appearance. While your mileage may vary because of those factors, this film was seen in a trusted 3D projection theater, and it still fell short. The film's subdued, yet vibrant color palette is dimmed out a little too much. Though on the bright side, nighttime scenes aren't washed out to the point where they're unwatchable. You can see this film clearly, but the colors are diminished in the process.

The blur of a 3D image can dictate how well the depth and projection of a 3D picture is created. And in the case of Aladdin, there's a decent level of blurred imagery that occupies the screen. So should your eyes get tired from the dimness of the screen, or the hectic motions that some of the film's cuts induce, you'll be able to see a good level of blur once you remove your glasses. There are moments where 2D anchor points seem to dominate the scene, but subtle levels of blur to come into view, making things a little more 3D friendly.

As if the dimness of the picture wasn't enough to stimy the audience's eyes in Aladdin, there is a mixture of frequent and quick cuts in a scene that mess with the 3D effects being presented on the screen. Not to mention, some of the Genie's special magical effects and transporting effects flash by so fast, it barely has time to register in 3D, leaving the eyes confused. By the end of this experience, there was a fair amount of eyestrain experienced by the viewer.

Aladdin is an ok 3D experience, but definitely not required by any stretch of the imagination. The end product isn't as exciting or thrilling as it should be, leaving the audience watching the same old world from the same old point of view. If you're going to see this film in 3D, seek out a theater you trust to maintain their experience at the correct level of enjoyment. But even then, you're probably better off going to a premium format experience.

Be sure to visit our full To 3D Or Not To 3D Archive.

Looks Like The Candyman Reboot Is Taking The Character To New Places

Looks Like The Candyman Reboot Is Taking The Character To New Places

1992’s Candyman was a tale about folk legends returning in the modern world, as Tony Todd’s legendary boogeyman had been seen in the crumbling slums of Chicago’s Cabrini-Green projects. So when a reboot was announced, with Us mastermind Jordan Peele as a co-writer and producer, people were wondering just how this new take would differ from the previous version. While there isn't any specific knowledge of how much things will change this go around, it sounds like whatever is planned is being kept underwraps because of how fresh and new it's going to be.

According to recent reports, the magic word of “gentrification” has now been thrown into the Candyman mix, as it looks like he’s back in his old stomping grounds. And rather than operate as merely a reboot of the iconic character, director Nia DaCosta, who has a deeply rooted love of the character much like Peele himself, has reinforced that that this new film is a “spiritual sequel” to the original film; with a strategy she's not ready to reveal yet.

However, Nia DaCosta's hand was forced just a little bit, as she had to go on the record as stating that the previously cast Yahya Abdul-Mateen II isn’t quite the new face of Candyman himself. When discussing the film with Collider, the director clarified that point thusly:

Well, it’s been slightly misreported. I can’t say what’s happening in the film because we want it to be a surprise, but he’s not replacing Tony Todd. That’s been reported, and I was just like, ‘I don’t know what to say about this. This is not right.’

So whatever is happening with this new Candyman film, it sounds like not only is it something so off the beaten path that it needs secrecy. But it’s so secret that we don’t even know what Abdul-Mateen II ‘s exact role will be. Fresh off of his role as Black Manta in James Wan’s Aquaman, the moment that Yahya Abdul-Mateen II was announced as being connected to Candyman, it felt pretty natural that he’d be the new inhabitant of the Clive Barker created character. But now, with DaCosta making these recent remarks, it sounds like there’s room for Tony Todd to return as of yet.

Much like the talk surrounding Peter Weller and a potential return to the Robocop franchise, Todd seems to quite possibly be in the mix for this modern refresh. While the actor has previously talked about how a potential reboot would be a welcomed, if not bittersweet, prospect, the labeling of this new Candyman film as a pseudo-sequel just might have been the ticket to get Tony Todd onboard. Fans are eager to see him slip back on the fur coat that made him the intimidating force that made the rounds through two additional sequels.

Seeing Tony Todd potentially come back as Candyman would only be beat by the prospect of seeing him also return to the Final Destination franchise – a series that also looks to be undergoing a reboot of sorts in the near future. It’s all speculation at this point, but with Candyman’s new lease on life being able to hook into the previous history of the character, should it choose to, is something all too exciting not to push for.

Candyman brings sweets to the sweet once again on June 12, 2020. However, that’s over a year away, and 2019 still has plenty of delights to send your way in the coming year. So visit our release schedule, and get a load of what’s headed your way.

Why Zatanna Needs To Be The Next DC Extended Universe Star

Why Zatanna Needs To Be The Next DC Extended Universe Star

DC has hit strides as of late in making some movies that are successful both critically and financially, but there's still a way to go before they hit MCU status. Part of that road includes finding new franchises to kick off, and new heroes to rally behind as ideas with others collapse. I think DC's resident magician Zatanna is the perfect heroine for DC to rally behind as it looks to the future. Here are some reasons why.

Female Superheroes Are In

Female superheroes are a hot commodity in superhero films right now, and those who don't believe that need only refer to the stellar box office numbers of Captain Marvel as evidence. DC has a good thing going with Wonder Woman and has Birds of Prey in the pipeline, but there's no rule that says it needs to cap the amount of female-led films in development.

The climate is right for audiences to embrace a Zatanna film, and if DC does right by the character, there's a potential to deliver a good number of films from the magician heroine given her numerous villains and adventures she's had over the years. That's the kind of security the studio should be looking for, especially now that it's more focused on individual characters and not ensemble features.

The World Needs More Big Budget Magician Movies

There's nothing like a big budget magic film, but unfortunately there's not many of them to enjoy. Sure, we've been blessed to live in a timeline where someone adapted the Harry Potter series, but there's a big difference between wizards and stage magicians. Of course, Zatanna is a mixture of both, but it's fair to say her powers definitely look closer to stage magic than not.

Stage magic can look cool on the big screen, as evidenced by the Now You See Me heist films. Other movies like The Prestige show the allure of a magic movie that flirts with the supernatural. Granted, Zatanna would go deep into the world of the supernatural, with enemies like Brother Night and other demons gunning for her. Still, her side gig as a professional stage magician will allow for some high budget magic scenes that will mystify even those who know it's all Hollywood effects.

She Works Well With Just About Anyone

One of Zatanna's strongest attributes is her ability to be a team player, and she's teamed up with quite a few heroes over the years. Batman, Constantine, Black Canary, the Justice League, she's been a part of several heroes journeys in one way or another. Part of this is due to her versatility and the other bit is just her general likability and ability to get along well with others.

Obviously DC isn't too worried about combining film franchises, but should some minds be changed down the stretch, Zatanna is a great hero to have in the fold. Her character can work seamlessly into just about any adventure, and she can make a cameo appearance in any currently existing DC franchise without it feeling forced or out of place. DC could even tease her ahead of making a movie by having her appear in The Batman or Birds of Prey.

She's One Of DC's Most Unique Heroes

DC has a lot of heroes they've kept out of the movies, and it's a shame so many haven't had a chance to shine. This is especially true with Zatanna, who is arguably one of DC's most unique superheroes. She's a stage magician and one of the world's greatest magic users, what's not to love?

Folks could argue there are DC heroes more unique than Zatanna and they'd be right, although not in regards to selecting a hero who could shoulder their own film. I don't think a Doctor Fate standalone film is right for Hollywood, and we'll all be surprised if Animal Man ends up getting a cameo, let alone a movie to showcase all that weirdness. Outside of Blue Beetle, there's really isn't another hero who could carry a film like Zatanna.

Unknown Characters Often Lower Expectations

The more history a mainstream audience has with a hero, the higher the expectation. It's why folks are so critical of every rumored choice for the next Batman, and probably why Hollywood has struggled for decades to make a critically successful Superman film. Unless you're Brandon Routh, who's never had anyone diss Superman Returns to his face, you're probably aware the hero has struggled at the cinema.

Conversely, look at the tremendous run Guardians of the Galaxy had at the box office. In mainstream audiences' eyes, these heroes were nobodies, but now Star Lord, Gamora, Groot and the gang are household names and some of the most beloved characters of the MCU. Would they have been as big of a hit had it been the second or third time someone tried to reboot the franchise? We'll never know, but there's something to be said for unknown heroes in movies.

Vegas, Baby

A movie about a superhero magician is the perfect excuse to work the City of Sin, Las Vegas, into the DC Extended Universe. Imagine Zatanna flying through the main strip in a heated battle against The Royal Flush Gang. The neon flashing lights drenching everybody in different colors as fists and spells fly. It already looks so fantastic in my mind, and the right director could make it look even better on the big screen.

Let's also face facts, neither DC or Marvel is going to get a lot of organic opportunities to use Las Vegas as a back drop for a hero movie. Zatanna is the answer to that, as magic acts are one of the biggest things folks associate with Vegas. Plus, if the movie is a hit, just think of how long the hero would live on in the city as a legend. I can see her face on slot machines now!

I'm of the opinion that Zatanna is DC's best option for an awesome superhero franchise, but that's just one man's opinion. Others are free to share their thoughts on Zatanna, what a movie about her could focus on and/or what DC should be focusing on instead in the comments below. For more on what's happening with DC Movies, be sure to check out that hilarious and fake Aquaman 2 trailer that was released on April Fools Day.

Toy Story 4 Already Revealed An Awesome Disney Easter Egg

Toy Story 4 Already Revealed An Awesome Disney Easter Egg

Yesterday, Toy Story 4 presented devotees of the series with another glimpse of the magic that the third sequel in the series is looking to offer. And like clockwork, there's already a huge easter egg that's been plucked out of that recent round of footage, as you'll see below. If you've been wondering what Boo from Monsters Inc. has been up to, it looks like you're about to find out.

Looking in the top right corner of this screengrab from the latest trailer for Toy Story 4, Boo seems to be present while Bonnie is hard at work crafting Forky. It's the sort of moment you can miss if you blink at the wrong time, but even in the slightly out of focus frame, it looks just like the little girl who won the world over in Pixar's 2001 effort. Strangely enough, this theory is bolstered even more by two other occurrences in the Toy Story universe.

Apparently, this isn't the first time Boo has popped up in Toy Story history, as Toy Story 3 also was believed to have Boo attending Sunnyside Daycare alongside little Bonnie. This easter egg was shown during the first time the toys saw gentle Butterfly Room in effect. Seen playing with a blue cat toy and a girl dressed as a sunflower, the connection between Toy Story and Boo started to come into focus. Or did it?

We all know that Pixar loves to use easter eggs to tie their films together, be they past or present. And the Toy Story saga isn't the first time that Boo has found a connection to a character from the series. In Monster's Inc., Boo had her own Jessie doll she tried to show to Sully before he left for good. So if anything, the studio is being consistent with the connection between these two particular worlds, with Boo returning yet again for Toy Story 4.

Of course, there's a chance that this theory from Twitter could turn out to to be, indeed, just something that folks thought they saw as a fact. But with all the evidence in front of us, it looks like Boo is indeed going to be in Toy Story 4. Should the film confirm that fact, it'll be yet another moment of Disney/Pixar history for the ages.

Toy Story 4 will come out and play in theaters on June 21st. But you don't have to wait that long for your next cinematic rodeo, with the 2019 release schedule already packed with plenty of adventure between now and then. And if you're really heated about the debate over whether or not that's really Boo in the trailer for Woody, Buzz, and the gang's latest adventure, we have a poll that we'd like you to take below to help settle the matter.

Taron Egerton Hopes Rocketman Makes Even Half Of Bohemian Rhapsody’s Money

Taron Egerton Hopes Rocketman Makes Even Half Of Bohemian Rhapsody’s Money

Rocketman is not Bohemian Rhapsody. Taron Egerton is aware of it. There are easy comparisons, of course, in that Egerton is playing Elton John in a music biopic the same way Rami Malek played Freddie Mercury. They even have director Dexter Fletcher in common, since Fletcher stepped in to finish Bohemian Rhapsody after Bryan Singer was fired.

Since Bohemian Rhapsody made a mind-boggling $903,175,016 at the box office, off a projected production budget just over $50 million, it's a ridiculously high bar for the next music biopic to face.

Taron Egerton was candid about the comparisons, just hoping for the best:

I'm at peace with however much money it makes. But I hope it does really, really well. If it made half of [Bohemian Rhapsody], it would be terrific for my career.

True. As Taron Egerton suggested in his quote to THR, half of Bohemian Rhapsody's record-breaking money is still about half a billion dollars worldwide, a success by any metric for a film of this size. The 29-year-old actor is clearly keen to advance his career. He's known to many as Eggsy from the Kingsman movies, and also the titular Eddie the Eagle. He also has some singing experience from the movie Sing. And he was the lead of the notorious 2018 bomb Robin Hood.

All it takes is one movie to launch your career -- just ask Rami Malek, who was best known from Mr. Robot before being shot to fame, picking up a Best Actor Oscar for Freddie Mercury, and now playing a Bond villain.

Rocketman will inevitably be judged next to Best Picture-nominated Bohemian Rhapsody, but they aren't exactly apples to apples. For one thing, Rocketman is Rated R, vs. Bohemian Rhapsody at PG-13. They are also telling their stories in very different ways. Rocketman has a lot of sex and drugs -- and that sex is between men, with Taron Egerton's Elton having sex scenes with Richard Madden's John Reid.

Apparently that's one reason why Rocketman stalled at Universal. Producer Matthew Vaughn recalled a conversation with studio chairman Donna Langley:

I rang her up and she's like, 'You definitely want to make it an R-rated film and you're going to make it for over $35 million?' And I said, 'Yes.' And she said, 'Good luck.'

Despite reports that Paramount asked director Dexter Fletcher to tone down the film -- to make it more marketable in a huge box office like China, which usually bans any gay scenes -- the filmmakers say Rocketman still depicts Elton John coming to terms with his sexuality and also shows his issues with substance abuse.

Another difference between Bohemian Rhapsody and Rocketman is Elton John is still with us (unlike Freddie Mercury) and was able to be there for the film and give his blessing. He praised Taron Egerton's performance to THR, saying the film made him forget it was Taron up there, he thought he was watching himself. "That's the highest compliment I can tell you."

Rocketman is opening in theaters on May 31, which puts it squarely up against Godzilla: King of the Monsters. It's going to have to grab onto the rest of the audience and hope to leg out from there. Early tracking put Rocketman's opening weekend around $20 million.

If Rocketman gets good reviews -- from fans even more than critics -- it could theoretically enjoy success on a level next to Bohemian Rhapsody, which just kept quietly making money week after week until we all turned around and it was knocking on the door of $1 billion worldwide. Most of that money came from overseas, though -- especially Japan, which just went crazy for Queen -- and it's much less likely that Rocketman will be embraced by the foreign box office in the same way. But we'll see. Keep up with all of the 2019 movies ahead with our handy release schedule.

Why 'Lord Of War' Starring Nicolas Cage Bought 3,000 Real Guns Instead Of Props

Why 'Lord Of War' Starring Nicolas Cage Bought 3,000 Real Guns Instead Of Props

There are a lot of guns in the In the 2005 movie Lord of War. And we mean a lot of guns. The underrated crime drama is loosely based on real events and real-life arms dealers and smugglers, and it follows Yuri Orlov (Nicolas Cage), an illegal arms dealer who amalgamates a great deal of business — and quite a bit of trouble along the way — as he sells high-power rifles, machine guns and other weapons to war-driven countries from the '80s through the early '00s. If you are making a movie about a guy who sells a lot of guns, you're gonna need a whole lot of guns. It's basically a given.

Oftentimes, however, the guns you see in the movies are just props. Fakes. There are exceptions to be found throughout the movie business, obviously, but it's generally known that the guns you see in the movies may not always be the real deal. However, when it comes to Lord of War, those weapons were not the result of movie magic. Instead, writer-director Andrew Niccol went ahead and bought a whopping 3000 Kalashnikov automatic rifles.

But here's the kicker: the movie team didn't purchase these high power rifles simply to make the flick a bit more authentic or realistic. Instead, the filmmakers behind Lord of War discovered that it would ultimately be cheaper to buy real guns instead of fakes. Yes, really.

In an interview with The New York Daily News (via The New Zealand Herald), Andrew Niccol — who is also known as the screenwriter of The Truman Show and the director of In Time, Gattaca, The Host (2013) and, most recently, Netflix's Anon — explained how it was easier to acquire real guns and sell them back after filming. Also, Niccol realized that it wasn't quite as easy to make a profit off of weapons as his lead character made it seem.

In a way, my film is a how-to about becoming an arms dealer. During the making of it, I needed guns in the Czech Republic, and it was cheaper to use real guns than replicas. I bought 3000 Kalashnikovs and then sold them back at a loss. I wouldn't make a very good arms dealer.

Meanwhile, Andrew Niccol was apparently not entirely keen on selling the guns back into circulation. Yet, because the budget of his movie was fairly small, he wasn't able to destroy them. Or, at least, not all of them. As the writer-director explained, there were a few guns that he was able to dispose of.

In South Africa, we did cut some guns in half to stop them from getting into circulation. The fact that it was so easy to buy guns was disturbing. We also got some tanks, and the guy said, 'I need them back by December because I'm selling them to Libya.'

Furthermore, while the movie itself does showcase an array of guns and results in a fun and engaging film about crime and weaponry, Lord of War isn't necessarily a celebration of gun culture. Or, at least, it doesn't sound like Andrew Niccol is a fan of the illegal arms culture, which could be why he destroyed some of what the Lord of War team purchased for the film.

Also starring Ethan Hawke, Bridget Moynahan and Jared Leto, Lord of War was met with modest reviews by critics when it was released in 2005. However, in the time since its release, the crime drama has gone on to receive high praise from audiences — particularly with its 7.6 rating on IMDb. Though the movie isn't perfect, it is a thoughtful and compelling examination of the gun trade, particularly in the years before and after 9/11, and it is certainly worth a watch if you haven't had a chance to see it yet.

Additionally, if you do get a chance to check out Lord of War, you should definitely take note of the guns found on display throughout the film — though it would be hard not to, given the movie's subject matter. Because they are the real deal, folks. Those guns aren't make-believe. And that most certainly adds to the film's heightened realism.

Lord of War is currently available streaming on Netflix or you can pickup your own copy -- in 4K even -- on Amazon.