Pages

Monday, November 23, 2020

How Linda Cardellini Got A Funny Scooby-Doo Reference Into The Curse Of La Llorona

How Linda Cardellini Got A Funny Scooby-Doo Reference Into The Curse Of La Llorona
Linda Cardellini in The Curse of La Llorona

As Warner Bros.’ The Curse of La Llorona works its way to theaters this weekend, fans of The Conjuring universe will be scouring the backgrounds of scene looking for references and Easter Eggs to the larger story at hand. (And they are there, trust us.) But while paying attention to the background details in director Michael Chaves’ horror-thriller, we spotted a different reference that made us laugh, and we had to ask the cast about it.


The Curse of La Llorona takes place in the 1970s, where a social worker (Linda Cardellini) who is concerned about the welfare of some small children begins to investigate the mother’s claims that they are haunted by La Llorona. More on that myth in a moment, but in the background of a scene, kids are watching Scooby-Doo on a TV set. Makes sense. The animated show was huge in the 1970s. But there’s also a subtle gag there in that Linda Cardellini also played Velma in two live-action Scooby-Doo movies, and she told us it was her idea to get that animated reference in. She tells CinemaBlend:



Actually, it was a discussion too, when we were talking about it. And I was like… because it was a different Hanna-Barbera cartoon that we had in one version, and I was like, ‘What if they’re watching Scooby-Doo?’ And we just had a laugh about it. It was sort of like a little Easter Egg, I think.





These self-aware nods are hilarious to film lovers. Going into the movie, it’s fun to know that Linda Cardellini established her range on a popular family comedy like Scooby-Doo before switching gears, time and again, to show exactly what she is capable of as an actress. Sure she played Velma. But since then, Cardellini has impressed critics and crowds with roles in Brokeback Mountain, E.R., Mad Men, the Avengers movies, and most recently on the Netflix drama Bloodline.


As she elaborated in the Scooby-Doo nod, she explained how that movie helped her switch gears and challenger herself as an actress. Cardellini told us:



That was, to me, I had just come off of Freaks and Geeks, and so doing something like Scooby-Doo seemed like a crazy departure, playing Velma. And [this] was like, I had just come off of Daddy’s Home and then I decided to do this film. I just love that about acting, so it was fun for me.





Audiences will see a new side of Linda Cardellini in The Curse of La Llorona, as she plays a caring social worker who gets pulled into a terrifying mystery. She also, as a result, has to protect her own children from the threat of La Llorona, and Cardellini displays a ferocious Mama Bear side that we hadn’t seen from her before. Here she is discussing the movie, and Scooby-Doo:


Check out The Curse of La Llorona when it hits theater screens starting this Thursday.

Thor's Hammer Vs Aquaman's Trident: What's The More Powerful Weapon?

Thor's Hammer Vs Aquaman's Trident: What's The More Powerful Weapon?
Has Thor's hammer met his match with Aquaman's trident?

*There are some spoilers for various Marvel and DC movies throughout this story, particularly the recently released Avengers-oriented flick. *


When you picture Thor and Aquaman, the first thing that comes to mind could be their origins in mythology. It could be how they are both the most powerful long-haired and bearded titans of their respective cinematic universes. Or it could be how they are both played by actors who are seemingly too ripped to be human.


Honestly, though, when it comes to Thor and Aquaman, let’s face it: what you really care about is that epic hammer and that sweet, sweet trident.




The Marvel Cinematic Universe’s God of Thunder, played by Chris Hemsworth, and the Atlantean king of the DC Extended Universe, completely reinvented by Jason Momoa, may have powers of great strength, yet still take great pride in their trusted weaponry. We can’t help but wonder, however, what is more powerful: Mjölnir or the Trident of Neptune?


Of course, in Thor: Ragnarok, Thor’s sister Hela (Cate Blanchett) destroyed Mjölnir out of spite and, and while it made a brief return in Avengers: Endgame, at the conclusion Captain America had to return it to 2013-era Thor in order to correct the alternate timelines. So, Thor’s proudly rocking Stormbreaker for now.


Still, for the purposes of comparing these two heroes, we figured Thor’s hammer would be the definitive weapon to focus on rather than splitting focus.




Depending on whether you are more of a DC fan or a Marvel fan, you might already have chosen which you prefer between Thor’s hammer and Aquaman’s trident based on personal alliances. Regardless, both have proven to be worthy assets to their respective owners. But which is the more powerful weapon?


Thor’s Hammer


The origin of Thor’s hammer dates back centuries before Thor’s first appearance in Marvel comics in 1962.


Mjölnir, whose name is said to be derived from a Proto-Germanic word meaning “grind,” is an object of Norse mythology, depicted as one of the most powerful and cowering weapons in existence. For instance, one strike with this bad boy and you can say goodbye to Mt. Everest.




Yet, the destructive power of Thor’s hammer barely scratches the surface. It is a weapon of great complexity and some pretty high standards.


As deemed by Odin, Thor’s father and the king of Asgard played by Anthony Hopkins, only those who are worthy of Mjölnir’s power can be given the strength to wield it. With that in mind, what makes someone worthy of Thor’s hammer?


In the comics, Thor describes those worthy of wielding Mjölnir as being pure of heart and noble of mind. This explains why he was unable to retrieve the hammer while exiled on Earth in his 2010 solo origin movie. He was a narcissistic jerk.




Once his time on Earth as a powerless simpleton proved effective in grounding his ego a bit, Thor managed to prove himself and he Mjölnir were reunited, reinstilling him with his thunderous power.


A weapon as selective as Thor’s hammer must really come in handy. For one, Thor never has to worry about Mjölnir falling into the wrong hands. Any sinister adversaries he comes into conflict with will most definitely not be seen as worthy.


Additionally, let’s say that Thor is somehow incapacitated and unable to grasp Mjölnir at a particularly pressing moment in battle. Any allies of his who, hopefully, fall under the qualifications of being of pure of heart and noble of mind to the extent that Mjölnir will accept can take Thor’s hammer and let it rip.




This, of course, was hinted at in Avengers: Age of Ultron, when Captain America (Chris Evans) came shockingly close to lifting Thor’s hammer, visibly triggering triggering the god’s anxiety, not to mention how Vision (Paul Bettany) revealed his worthiness minutes after his creation. It was later confirmed that Cap had the power in him all along when he took charge of Mjölnir in the thunderous climax of Avengers: Endgame.


However, you would be surprised by how many other characters Thor’s hammer has deemed worthy throughout the comics’ history. Some of them barely made the cut.


Superman, during a DC-Marvel comics crossover event, wielded Thor’s hammer, but only for as long as Mjölnir determined that he really needed it. Bruce Banner’s Hulk has managed to lift it, as did his even grounchier alter ego Red Hulk, along with a few X-Men.




Even Deadpool got his hands on it before. Hmmm, maybe Mjölnir’s standards are not as high as we thought.


When it comes to the unworthy who have felt the wrath of Thor’s hammer, that list is longer. Thor has taken on the likes of his adopted brother Loki and planet-eating Galactus in the comics. He has even managed to defeat fellow heroes such as Iron Man or the Fantastic Four’s The Thing. Clearly, his weapon is powerful.


Yet, even some unworthy folk proved to not be completely vulnerable to Thor’s hammer. Fellow mythological god Hercules took on Thor and won, as did Doctor Strange and Scarlet Witch. In one of the funnier comic book defeats I could find, Hulk managed to outsmart Thor by causing him to knock himself out with Mjölnir.




You may need to be pure of heart and noble of mind to wield it, but even Thor’s hammer is not impervious to motivation and a little cleverness. Still, it levels mountains, so there’s that.


Aquaman’s Trident


According to its mythological origin, Aquaman (nèe Arthur Curry) is not the original wielder of the Trident of Neptune, nor is the original wielder even the sole original. In fact, that is only its name in Roman mythology. In Greek texts, the trident belongs to Poseidon.


DC’s interpretation of the myth borrows from the Roman equivalent, which depicts the trident as created by three Cyclopes (so, three one-eyed monsters) who forged impenetrable adamantine with Neptune’s own essence into a shape resembling a fishing spear. The three prongs are said to represent the three different kinds of bodies of water: seas, streams and rivers.




Aquaman’s trident serves as a symbol of his authority over the seven seas, as well as a few other fun purposes.


With its triple-pronged head and indestructibility, Aquaman’s trident appears to be a weapon of great effectiveness in battle. That would be considered an undeniable assumption. Aquaman has used the trident to slay sea monsters and wound his greatest enemies, such as archnemesis Black Manta or the powerful DC villain, Darkseid.


The Trident of Neptune is capable of much more than violence, however… even if it used for that purpose most often.




Aquaman's trident allows the wielder complete control over the seven seas, power to manipulate water, which allows him to create whirlpools, tidal waves, and even part the seas a la Moses in The Ten Commandments. If you are in the mood for another biblical reference, Aquaman could also flood the entire Earth with it if he wanted to.


Aquaman’s trident is not exclusive to waterbending, however. It possesses a vast array of magical abilities, including changing the appearance of people or objects, or making them disappear altogether. That may be a neat trick, but when he really wants to make an impression, he can use the trident to conjuring bolts of lightning and manipulating thunder.


Waaaaaiiiiittttt! Aquaman has the power of lightning and thunder? Looks like you’ve met your match, Thor.




Speaking of which…


Hammer Vs. Trident


It’s main event time. Which comic book hero weapon is most powerful: Thor’s hammer or Aquaman’s trident?


As for similarities, both Mjölnir and the Trident of Neptune have proven to be of great imperviousness, except for that time Thor’s sister, Hela, crushed the hammer in one hand. However, we have yet to see Aquaman’s trident suffer a similar fate in future films, so whether it upstages Mjölnir in indestructibility is still up in the air.




Both weapons also possess the benefit of only allowing chosen champions to wield it. Thor’s hammer is the sentient one that is literally impossible to lift if not deemed worthy, though. I would have to award points to Mjölnir for encompassing the better security feature, but also take some back for letting Deadpool take advantage.


Thor’s hammer also allows him to fly, strike gargantuan blows against enemies, conjure bolts of lightning, and, as I have said before but cannot stop saying, level whole mountains for Odin’s sake!


The question is, however, which weapon is more powerful. Admittedly, Thor’s hammer has nothing on the ability to change the shape of matter, creating tidal waves and hurricanes, and manipulating, not just lightning, but also Thor’s bread and butter: thunder.




Thor may be the God of Thunder, but with the Trident of Neptune in his hands, Aquaman is literally the perfect storm.


By the power invested in me by CinemaBlend, I dub Aquaman’s trident the victorious weapon. Admittedly, it's close.

Looks Like Some Theaters Are Warning Moviegoers About Avengers: Endgame’s Credits

Looks Like Some Theaters Are Warning Moviegoers About Avengers: Endgame’s Credits
Nebula and War Machine in Avengers: Endgame

Warning: SPOILERS for Avengers: Endgame are ahead!


If there’s one thing the Marvel Cinematic Universe is known best for, it’s giving audiences a little something extra after the main story is finished. The superhero franchise didn’t create post-credits scenes, but it certainly popularized them, as nearly all the MCU movies feature at least one extra scene either in the middle of the credits or after they’ve finished rolling. But then Avengers: Endgame had to go and break the streak.


Yes, as a first in MCU history, once the actual Avengers: Endgame story concluded, there wasn’t any additional footage for audiences to chew on, and evidently some theaters are now making sure that audiences are aware of this ahead of time. Said theaters are posting a message on the silver screen ahead of time to inform people that they will not be treated to a post-credits scene in Endgame.




Why are these theaters doing this? As the title of the Reddit post showing this message indicates, it’s so that the movie theater employees have an easier time cleaning up the theater. Needless to say that picking up fallen popcorn and mopping up spilled drinks are easier endeavors when there are fewer patrons staying in their seats.


While I still see a scattering of people leaving the theater once a Marvel movie has wrapped up the main story, for the most part Marvel has trained moviegoers to stay in their seats until the credits are finished. That’s not to say that one can’t stay to watch all of the credits just because (a lot of people put time and sweat into making movies, after all), but for the sake of saving time and making theater employees’ jobs easier, that no post-credits scene message certainly comes in handy.


Of course, as those of you who’ve seen Avengers: Endgame already know, just because the movie doesn’t have a post-credits scene doesn’t mean that there isn’t an extra surprise to enjoy. Once the credits finish rolling, the sound of a hammer striking metal can be heard, harkening back to when Tony Stark was building his suit of armor in Iron Man. Given that Endgame marked the end of the Infinity Saga and ended up being the final chapter of Tony’s story, it’s fitting that we hear something that reminds us of the movie that kicked off the MCU.




As for why Avengers: Endgame didn’t include a post-credits scene, directors Joe and Anthony Russo explained how because this movie marked the end of a 22-movie saga, they didn’t want to tease anything about the future and instead focused firmly on honoring the past, which Endgame does in spades. Oh, and there’s also the fact that the Russos currently don’t have any more Marvel projects lined up, so they aren’t in the loop about what’s to come.


One thing is definitely clear: Avengers: Endgame’s theatrical run is not ending anytime soon. With its second weekend over, the latest MCU movie has collected nearly $2.2 billion worldwide, making it the second highest-grossing movie of all time and knocking Titanic down to third place. Endgame has also been doing quite well on the critical front, ranking at 95% on Rotten Tomatoes and earning an A+ on CinemaScore.


If you haven’t already, be sure to read CinemaBlend’s review of Avengers: Endgame, and stay tuned for more coverage about the movie in the coming weeks. For now, you can browse through our 2019 release schedule to learn what other highly-anticipated movies are on the way this year.



How Much Dumbo Made On Its Opening Night

How Much Dumbo Made On Its Opening Night
CGI elephant in live-action Dumbo

Disney is about to fly high with its own brand of live-action nostalgia this year with four of its kind, including remakes for Aladdin, The Lion King and a sequel to Maleficent. Tim Burton’s take on the 1941 classic, Dumbo is starting things off, and it's kicked off its box office run with a debut of $2.6 million during Thursday night screenings starting at 6pm.


While these early numbers are on the low side compared to where Disney live-action films have previously soared on opening night, per Deadline, the circus-set flick has been tracking between $40 and $60 million for its debut weekend. Dumbo’s $2.6 million is just ahead of the live-action Cinderella’s $2.3 million evening entrance back in 2015, which went on to open at $67.5 million. Dumbo has already made double of last year’s Christopher Robin and Alice Through the Looking Glass, both of which took $1.5 million on their Thursday nights.


This debut is behind the early earnings of The Jungle Book, which made $4.2 million on preview night before a huge $103.2 million opening, and Tim Burton’s other Disney reimagining, 2010’s Alice In Wonderland, which stole away $116.1 million in its first weekend. No other live-action Disney flick has touched Beauty and the Beast’s Thursday night preview record of $16.3 million before dancing into a magical $174 million opening weekend.




Dumbo comes up against Jordan Peele’s buzzy horror film Us, which opened at No. 1 last weekend at $94.6 million and even topped Dumbo last night by making $4.5 million on Thursday alone. The two titles benefit from targeting different audiences, and the Disney flick will be the first new family film to open in two weeks.


Box Office Mojo believes Dumbo will soar over Us this weekend for the top spot, perhaps as audiences are ready to recover from the terrifying doppelganger home-invasion thriller. Us is said to take the second spot and Captain Marvel is expected to still make bank as well. Dumbo has the benefit of opening next to the Matthew McConaughey-led stoner comedy, The Beach Bum, which has suffered brutal reviews thus far and made just $200K last night in Thursday night previews.


Globally, Dumbo should do well for itself too, as it is tracking to make $140 million during its first weekend opening in foreign markets, including China. It certainly helps that the movie starring the adorable circus elephant has received positive praise from critics. CinemaBlend’s own Jessica Rawden gave the movie 3 out of 5 stars in her review and the film has a green-splat of 52% on Rotten Tomatoes, so the consensus isn’t exactly glowing.




Dumbo marks Tim Burton’s first movie since 2016’s Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children and a continued collaboration with Danny DeVito and Michael Keaton after Batman Returns. The film now in theaters also stars Eva Green, Colin Farrell, Alan Arkin, Nico Parker and Finley Hobbins.

Sunday, November 22, 2020

If Marvel Retconned X-Men For The MCU, I Wouldn't Shed A Tear

If Marvel Retconned X-Men For The MCU, I Wouldn't Shed A Tear
X-Men: Apocalypse poster

It's a wild time in the X-Men franchise. Fox's second attempt at a movie centered on Phoenix in due in June, and The New Mutants is presumably coming at some point as well. The larger news, however, is that Disney will soon be getting control of the mutants via the Disney-Fox merger, and there's been endless speculation about how the Marvel Cinematic Universe could incorporate the characters. It's either taking the existing lineup of characters and folding them them in, or scrapping the entire franchise and starting from scratch with a reboot.


Truth be told, if Marvel retconned the X-Men franchise to incorporate it into the MCU, I wouldn't shed a single tear. In fact, it's my preferred strategy for the merger at this stage, as incorporating the current characters in with Phase 4 and beyond would be a big mistake. Why? It comes down to a recent revelation I had after seeing the powdery blue new look that Jennifer Lawrence is sporting in Dark Phoenix:


This particular makeup job is arguably representational of the X-Men franchise at large over the years. It started off as one thing, constantly changed over the years, and has varied drastically in quality. Sometimes the franchise is looking good, like Mystique in X-Men: First Class. Then there's the other times where it's been less than good, and it's more like her latest appearance.





There's been good X-Men films, and there's been horrifically bad ones - and it's a level of inconsistency that we thankfully haven't seen in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Even the Rotten Tomatoes score of Thor: The Dark World is higher than X-Men: The Last Stand, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and X-Men: Apocalypse. It's gotten to a point where, as an audience, we've come to expect the quality of an upcoming film is a dice roll at best, and that's a problem when it comes to merging the brands.


This is particularly true for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which is in the process of saying goodbye to several heroes integral to its success throughout the past decade. It will be a big enough task for Marvel Studios to lay new groundwork and attempt to replicate its success over another decade, and adding the currently existing X-Men franchise to canon would make that so much harder. Hard enough, at least, that one has to sit back and wonder if it's really worth doing at all.


Admittedly bringing the X-Men into the Marvel Universe would potentially net the franchise some solid talent. James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Sophie Turner, and Evan Peters would all make for great additions provided they're on board. That's a big if, though, because let's not forget, Dark Phoenix takes place decades before the events going in the contemporary MCU.





So, either Marvel could age up the characters in makeup, which seems unlikely, or they could continue the continuity with a new set of actors, such as the original X-Men cast. The latter doesn't seem likely, though, given the bulk original X-Men's cast is approaching or beyond 50. Plus, let's remember that, no offense to the rest of the cast, the two main people most fans would want to return are now dead in the X-Men timeline. For years many have begged for Hugh Jackman's Wolverine to appear in an Marvel Cinematic Universe feature, but it's just not a realistic dream to hold anymore. Bringing Jackman back to play the character now would create another plot inconsistency in the X-Men timeline, and kind of shit on the emotional weight and awesomeness of Logan - which also saw the death of the other aforementioned beloved hero: Patrick Stewart's Professor X. There was once a time where this was a great dream to have and fight for, but those days are long gone.


The remaining character in the X-Men continuity seemingly worth keeping around is Deadpool. I count myself among those who want to see his integration happen, but also worry that keeping the X-Men out or rebooting the team for the Marvel Cinematic Universe would keep him from ever being included. The hope is that the Merc With The Mouth's nature could help him in this arena. He's pretty far-removed from the franchise as is, and his fourth-wall breaking abilities make it easy enough for him to outwardly address the elephant in the room in a comedic way rather than having to create some elaborate plot to explain the situation.


Beyond the chance to potentially succeed doing something incredibly challenging, there doesn't seem to be much reason for the Marvel Cinematic Universe to absorb the current X-Men continuity. Doing so would only put the burden of its uneven and sometimes incomprehensible story lines into a universe that's been so well constructed, and basically the gold standard for a shared universe. What's so bad about starting fresh and introducing a rebooted batch of mutants that can carry us into the next decade and beyond? This is especially true when Marvel has story lines like Avengers vs. X-Men, which, while polarizing within the comic book world, would still be an absolute blast to see on the big screen. Plus imagine a future Avengers lineup that includes characters like Cyclops or Storm, or even a new Wolverine. Sure, there may never be another actor to play the character as well as Hugh Jackman, but we'll never know until Hollywood tries someone else.





Do you feel the same way, or do you think there is good reason why the X-Men movies franchise should exist as canon in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? You can feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section, and vote in our poll below. Dark Phoenix is due out in theaters June 7th, and New Mutants will be released August 2nd - and it's possible we'll have a much better idea of what the future holds for the X-Men then. Check out the latest international trailer in the meantime, and read what the director had to say about the film's delay.

How The Child's Play Reboot is A 'Greek Tragedy' For Chucky

How The Child's Play Reboot is A 'Greek Tragedy' For Chucky
Chucky

This summer, movie fans will be reunited with a beloved toy-based franchise: Childs' Play, which coincidentally comes out on the same day as Toy Story 4. The horror movie reboot will be changing a few key traits of the murderous Chucky, such as making him a twisted AI, but this brings some depth to the character, according to director Lars Klevberg. In fact, the director sees this reboot as a Greek tragedy for what Chucky goes through in the film.


If you are a fan of the original Child's Play movies, then you've likely noticed that the reboot has gone off script a bit. Rather than having Chucky be a serial killer who used voodoo to transfer his soul into the body of a doll, the reboot's version is an AI that goes bad.


It's certainly less complicated and maybe less fun, but this gave the reboot a chance to make a more sympathetic Chucky who changes over the course of the film. Director Lars Klevberg told Collider that in this way, the story becomes more tragic for Chucky.





When I read the script, one of the first things I recognized was that Chucky was a great character in terms of that he changed. He had his motivations, and it came through his interaction with humans. His way of becoming sympathetic – that was something I really wanted to look into. I viewed the story as a Greek tragedy [for] Chucky… So Chucky having different emotions in this film was important to me.



The jury is still out on whether the story is as tragic for the people that Chucky is definitely murdering.


However, despite the fact that Chucky will become close friends with a knife before the end of the movie, the character will go through numerous changes to reach that point. Whereas in the original films he was always crazy, the new Child's Play will show how the AI reaches its murderous conclusions.





[Chucky’s] motivation is understandable from his point of view but also to us. We can understand why he’s behaving like that. If you understand the antagonist and his motivations, then you can identify with him. That’s why Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein is one of my key inspirations… [How Chucky questions] his purpose once he starts to understand from us human beings.



The Child's Play series has always undergone changes from movie to movie. The original was a straight-up horror film before later sequels become more comedy-driven. Making Chucky more sympathetic sounds like it could round him out as a villain and while the end result (him trying to murder everyone) is probably the same, it might make for a better ride.


The Child's Play reboot is all set to hit theaters on June 21. For everything else hitting theaters, check out our 2019 movie release guide.



Is Shazam! OK For Kids? Here's What The Director Says

Is Shazam! OK For Kids? Here's What The Director Says
Zachary Levi as Shazam charging av phone via lightning fingers

It's clear from the trailers that Shazam! is a somewhat different superhero movie than we are used to seeing. It looks a lot funnier and many of the main roles are played by young kids. But if kids are the stars of Shazam! does that mean Shazam! is also a movie for kids? A fan recently asked director David F. Sandberg this question, and he replied that parents worried about too much violence shouldn't need to worry too much, as Shazam! is no worse than a classic blockbuster...



I’d say the type of violence and scares are comparable to Jurassic Park so if they can handle that it should be fine.



A fan on Twitter was all set to bring a pair of young children, ages four and nine, to see Shazam!, but had recently heard the film was much scarier in some scenes than the trailers we'd seen had implied. David F. Sandberg does seem to confirm that here are some potentially scary bits of the movie that certainly aren't like anything we've seen in the film's promotion so far, but if your kid can get through Jurassic Park ok, then they shouldn't have much problem with Shazam!.




With superhero movies being so popular there are certainly a legion of young viewers who would like to see their favorite superheroes on the big screen. And while, with the exception of the Deadpool movies and Logan, the vast majority of audiences would have little problem with any of them, there have certainly been some that could be too intense for some younger viewers. Shazam! certainly looks ok for those young kids. It probably mostly is.


Shazam! is rated PG-13, which is the standard rating for every superhero movie under the sun. It's become such a popular and well used rating that at this point it can cover quite a lot of ground. There's a lot of violence or language that might be too much for the PG rating but not technically bad enough to justify the R. This means that parents might find some PG-13 movies acceptable for younger kids, and others not so much.


Jurassic Park certainly had its intense moments. The T. Rex sequence as well as the one where the two child characters attempt to hid from a pack of hungry raptors, are certainly moments that ratchet up the tension and you can easily see some kids not doing well with those moments. Heck, there are probably some adults that get anxious in those moments.




Since two of the main characters in Shazam! are kids, though one takes the form of Zachary Levi much of the time, there probably will be moments where children are in similar jeopardy in this movie.


The early reaction to Shazam! has been overwhelmingly positive. That means even more people will likely want to see the movie. It looks like most of them will be able to enjoy it.

 

Blogger news

Blogroll

About