Pages

Tuesday, November 24, 2020

Brahms: The Boy II’s Katie Holmes Admits She Gets Scared Filming Scary Movies

Brahms: The Boy II’s Katie Holmes Admits She Gets Scared Filming Scary Movies
Katie holmes in Guillermo Del Toro scary movie

Following 2017’s Logan Lucky, Katie Holmes is headed back to the big screen for STX Films’ upcoming movie Brahms: The Boy II. The actress plays the mother of a boy who befriends a doll he calls Brahms after moving into a creepy mansion. She’s no stranger to horror film work, but ahead of the release of this project, Katie Holmes admitted she gets scared filming scary movies.


In particular, Brahms: The Boy II was frightening at times. It was not because of the script or its creepy mansion setting, but because of the fact a doll plays a prominent role in the horror flick.



This was pretty terrifying to make when we were working with the doll. It was a lot. I was scared. I love dolls; I have a conflict because I have so many, growing up with a lot of baby dolls I never thought of a doll being creepy and now I have to rethink everything.





Brahms: The Boy II isn’t Katie Holmes’ first horror project by a long shot. She’s been in movies like Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, Teaching Mrs. Tingle, and Disturbing Behavior. However, some of these aren’t even straight horror flicks and it’s been a while since she dipped into the horror well.


She said she took on this role because it was a mom character and her child and how it “was such a universal fear for every parent” to want to protect their kid from danger and badness.


While filming the role, however, she said she got a little bit jumpy when asking whether or not she believes in supernatural forces. She said:





Well, when we were making this there were a couple of times I would be in my bed and start to fall asleep and like my pillow would fall, but I was like [creeped out].



When asked during the CinemaCon 2019 panel which horror movies influenced her most over the years, the actress cited a lot of classic films like The Shining, Rosemary’s Baby, Halloween, and Scream. So although she said it’s “hard” for her “to watch them,” she has at least seen some of the big horror movie moments of the past several decades.


Brahms: The Boy II is a sequel to the 2016 film The Boy, also produced by STX, which started its feature length career with another horror film, The Gift. This new iteration will return to the Heelshire Mansion to tell a brand new story. You’ll be able to see it for yourself on July 26, 2019 – the same week as Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.




In the meantime, Katie Holmes better start preparing herself for the premiere now given the rough time she seems to have with scary moments, although, as long as no one hands her a doll at the premiere I assume she'll be fine.

Why DC Is Making An Aquaman Spinoff About The Trench, According To The Producer

Why DC Is Making An Aquaman Spinoff About The Trench, According To The Producer
A creature of The Trench

DC's live-action universe has had plenty of peaks and valleys, although the massive property seems to be on the upswing lately. Warner Bros. is currently surfing on the massive success of James Wan's Aquaman, which cleaned up at the box office, on top of being a critical success. We'll have to wait a few years for the film's sequel to arrive in 2022, but there's another underwater adventure in development by the studio: the spinoff The Trench.


The Trench sequence was one of the most visually fascinating aspects of Aquaman, as James Wan's horror roots briefly reached the surface of the aquatic blockbuster. So fans were delightfully surprised when Warner Bros. green-lit a spinoff for the dark sea setting. Producer Peter Safran recently spoke to the decision to dive deeper into into The Trench with a spinoff, revealing:



We always, even from the early concept art days, loved the idea of a Trench movie. Then, when audiences embraced it in the movie itself the way they did, particularly that ant farm shot where the camera follows the Trench [creatures] following Arthur and Mera down into the deep, we just knew that we had something very special there and we knew what that movie should be. And consequently, I suspect that that’s one that will come out significantly before Aquaman 2.






Audiences may have been surprised, but it seems like the the groundwork for The Trench movie was being laid during the release of Aquaman. It ended up being audience engagement that made the spinoff truly become a reality. And as a reward to the fandom, they'll get another movie set in Aquaman's world before the film's actual sequel arrives in theaters.


Peter Safran's comments to THR illuminate the thought process going on at Warner Bros. regarding the future of the DC live-action universe. DC seems to be taking a much different approach than the competition over at Marvel Studios. Rather than revealing entire slates of movie scheduling, Warner Bros. can adjust its programming based on fan reception and box office performance. It feels like there's an exciting momentum in the shared universe, in stark juxtaposition to its state after the disappointing performance of Justice League.


The Trench is a mysterious part of the lore established in Aquaman. They're amphibious monsters who separated from the Atlantean Kingdom years ago. They attacked Mera and Arthur on their journey, before eventually joining their cause in an epic underwater battle against King Orm. It should be interesting to see how The Trench is expanded, and where in the overall timeline the spinoff will be set.





But perhaps the most important question is whether or not the great Julie Andrews will be back to play Karathen in either The Trench or Aquaman 2. Her inclusion in the first film was a delightful surprise, and she brought a ton of power to the behemoth creature.


Aquaman is available for digital download now, and you can purchase a physical copy on March 26th. In the meantime, check out our 2019 release list to plan your next trip to the movies.

Sinemia Has A New Plan With No Restrictions

Sinemia Has A New Plan With No Restrictions
Who Framed Roger Rabbit Roger sitting next to Eddie as they hide out at the movies

Movie subscription services have come a long way since MoviePass was the first, and only, game in town, allowing it to make whatever bold choices and/or mistakes that were felt needed in order to survive. With each new competitor like AMC Stubs’ A-List or Sinemia entering the ring, what’s being offered and the going rate for said services are subject to the slightest wind of change. And the winds are a’blowing again, as Sinemia has just announced yet another new plan in their arsenal, one that makes a promise in two simple words: “Always Unlimited.”


Clocking in at $14.99 a month, the Always Unlimited plan from Sinemia offers the subscribers that sign up one 2D movie a day. In addition to that wonderful foundation of worth, this subscription also does not restrict audience members to specific showtimes, and allows tickets to be purchased as far out as 30 days in advance. And as usual, Sinemia offers service to any movie theater, which may lure some folks away from theater specific subscriptions if they feel the offerings currently being provided are too expensive or not worth signing up for in the first place.


Previously, Sinemia only offered tiered plans that offered 1-3 movies a month to their subscribers; with monthly costs depending on format and number of persons on the plan. But in the last few months, the service provider looks to be getting more and more experimental with what it’s offering the public. This was seen in last month’s announcement of the Sinemia Limitless plan, which saw moviegoers paying a flat fee for a “limitless moviegoing experience.” Now, it looks like Sinemia users are going to have another option that’ll allow their experience at the movies to be even more convenient.




The competition isn’t sleeping on such recent developments either, as MoviePass recently announced that it was bringing back its own unlimited plan as well. Titled MoviePass Uncapped, that plan is normally offered for $19.95 a month, with unlimited 2D movies in a month. However, the caveat of no repeat viewings is integrated into this option, much like all other MoviePass tiers of subscription.


While it’s not specified in Sinemia’s big unveiling of the Always Unlimited plan, it looks like that clause about no repeated viewings of the same film might not be present. So if you’re looking to test your bladder strength with multiple showings of Avengers: Endgame, you might be able to do just that during its opening weekend.


Movie subscription services are still a market of volatility, with some potentially huge shifts still to come in the next year or so. While there’s no clear path to victory for any one playing the game, Sinemia is definitely making a bold move forward that could pay off. We’ll see how this pans out in the near future, but for now, our eyes will be peeled as to how existing providers adapt to this change, and whether or not this competing plan can gain some market share at the hands of Always Unlimited.




If you’re curious as to what Sinemia is offering with their plans, both old and new, you can visit its official website to research accordingly.

Bird Box Is Getting A Sequel, But Not On Netflix

Bird Box Is Getting A Sequel, But Not On Netflix
bird box netflix

Lots of movies have debuted on Netflix in the past several years, but not many inspired the kind of response that Bird Box did when it hit the streaming service right before Christmas last year. In just a few days, the post-apocalyptic film managed to set a massive viewing record for Netflix, with fans of the movie creating hundreds of memes dedicated to the film...which then led many others to watch the movie just to see what all the fuss was about. Of course, lots of people even took to blindfolding themselves to take on the so called "Bird Box challenge," with Netflix and public officials having to issue a statement that people, you know, just not do that, especially while driving.


With all the attention the movie, which stars Sandra Bullock as a woman trying to survive with her children in a world where people see their worst fears and then die, got, many people are wondering when we might get a follow up to the terrifying adventure. Fortunately, the answer is October 1, but, instead of coming by way of another Netflix movie, this new tale will be a sequel novel from Josh Malerman, who wrote the book of the same title that Bird Box was based on.


Josh Malerman's follow up to Bird Box is titled Malorie, and will, as indicated by the title, continue the story of Sandra Bullock's fierce, determined character as she continues to fight for survival. So, why did Malerman, who began working on Bird Box in 2006 and published his novel in 2014, decide to write a sequel? Here's what he had to say:






In the time between Bird Box coming out and the time since I’ve been writing Malorie, I’ve been asked a ton of times: people want to know what happened with Boy and Girl. But as much as I care about Boy and Girl, this isn’t their story. The Bird Box world is Malorie’s story, and I wanted to know more about her. I wanted to get to know her even better. At the end of the movie, I turned to my girl Allison and said, 'I want to know what happens next!' and she’s like, 'Well, you know, you could make that happen,' so it really was this warm feeling.



In his interview with Esquire, Josh Malerman revealed that some of his "warm feeling" has led to a story that will tell fans a lot more about Malorie and the creatures who have helped to decimate the population. The sequel will also pick up in a similar location to where the first story ended, with Malorie, her kids and a group of survivors "trying to make things work," but Malerman promises that the new story won't open "with them in paradise" so you can bet that there will be lots of challenges still ahead for Malorie and everyone she comes into contact with along the way.


Unfortunately, Malerman didn't have anything to say about plans for Netflix to adapt this new tale for streaming, but considering how wild people went for Bird Box, it's probably a pretty safe bet that those at the service will at least be paying attention to the reception that Malorie gets once it's released on October 1.




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.



 

Blogger news

Blogroll

About