Shazam! Star Zachary Levi Doesn’t Know What’s Next For The DC Hero

Shazam! Star Zachary Levi Doesn’t Know What’s Next For The DC Hero
Zachary Levi is Shazam

What the hell did you guys do to Shazam!? Despite David F. Sandberg turning in a winning origin story for the teenage DC hero, one that mixed humor and horror with the right dash of family heart, Shazam! stalled out at the box office with $137 million domestically. I think Avengers: Endgame earned that much in a single day last week.


Shazam! didn’t exactly catch fire with audiences, which explains why the movie’s star, Zachary Levi, is unsure about the fate of a possible sequel. During a fan panel at Fan Expo Dallas, Levi was asked about a next chapter for Shazam, and he told the audience (via ComicBook.com):



I see him wherever my bosses tell me to take him. That's above my pay grade, bro. Like, literally, I ... And I'm totally fine with that, too. You know, I'm still being introduced to the character that I played and to the world that he inhabits. You know, there are Geoff Johns and Walter Hamada, and all the people at DC, who are very smart and very talented. And they are putting together, I think, some very cool things and journeys for all of these characters, Shazam included, Captain Marvel included.





That sounds like a textbook answer when an actor is asked a question about a sequel that might be in doubt. Shazam! isn’t posting the types of numbers that guarantee a follow-up story. Sure, it’s going better overseas, posting a grand total of $358 million. But it’s the lowest grossing film in the DCEU to date, sitting far below the disaster that is Justice League, so that’s not a vote of confidence in a Shazam! sequel, no matter how good the reviews were.


Which is disappointing, because almost everything in the DCEU is getting a sequel at this point. Jason Momoa recently proclaimed that the story for Aquaman 2 is locked. We’re waiting patiently for Patty Jenkins and Gal Gadot to deliver Wonder Woman 1984. And James Gunn is about to deliver a second Suicide Squad.


There are even some very cool places that another Shazam! movie could go. The post-credits scene teased the arrival of Mister Mind and the Monster Society of Evil. And there have been plans to bring The Rock’s villain Black Adam into the fold for some time now. But if there isn’t a sequel, none of this will happen.




Maybe DC and Warner Bros. look at Shazam! as a successful soft launch for a character who didn’t exactly have household name recognition? The reviews were solid for the movie – it sits at 90% Fresh with critics on Rotten Tomatoes, with an 87% Fresh from audiences. And Levi largely got raves for his portrayal of the titular character.


We’ll see if a second Shazam! ever gets added to DC’s release slate, but for the time being, Levi himself seems to be in the dark. To stay up to date on all of the happenings in the DCEU, bookmark CinemaBlend’s DC Portal Page for this cinematic universe, and visit it often.

Looks Like The Fox And Disney Merger Will Cause A Ton Of Layoffs

Looks Like The Fox And Disney Merger Will Cause A Ton Of Layoffs
Walt Disney Studios castle logo

Even if you've never personally been part of a business merger of any kind (and I have), it's not hard to predict many of the things that will happen as a result. When two companies that used to do largely the same thing come together, you end up with one company that has a lot more employees doing the same job than it may necessarily need. That means layoffs. When two companies the size of Disney and 20th Century Fox come together, that's a lot of employees, and that means a lot of potential layoffs. Specifically, 7,500 people are expected to end up unemployed as a result of the merger.


Needless to say, 7,500 people is a lot of people who likely will be viewed as redundant after the dust settles. The Disney/Fox merger is expected to be finalized on paper as early as next week. We likely won't see a bunch of people out of work on day one. A lot of the work of combining these two massive companies together likely hasn't even started yet, waiting for the merger to become official.


Certainly, not everybody coming on board is going to lose their job. Fox, and its various subsidiary divisions, is going to remain as a separate distribution label under the Disney umbrella, similar to Marvel Studios or Lucasfilm. Those parts of the company will still need people to run them and handle various jobs inside.





While it's easy to assume that layoffs will hurt a lot of the people in smaller positions, and it certainly will, nobody is entirely immune from layoffs. The new company doesn't necessarily need any more vice presidents or other top level executives than it already has, so some layoffs will take place at every level. Though, certainly things will hurt the lower level employees more.


Most of these layoffs will likely come from the Fox side of things. Disney is the company retaining control over the new company, it's easier for Disney to simply keep all its people in place and simply add in the necessary Fox people, but there's no way to know for sure.


It shows just how big the new Walt Disney Company will be that it is adding an entirely new film division, some smaller film subsidiaries, like Fox Searchlight, as well as new cable channels, and more, and will still need to layoff something close to 7,500 people. THR says that the massive merger between AT&T and Time Warner won't result in nearly as many lost jobs. While there are some undeniably cool things that a Disney/Fox merger may create on the content side of things, it can't be overstated that this merger is changing the media landscape forever.





Wheels will begin turning next week once the merger is official and the new Walt Disney Company begins to move forward and figure out what it is going to be. Hopefully, the people who find themselves without a home in the new company won't be without a job for too long.

Iron Man Creation Timeline- How Marvel's Gamble On Tony Stark Paid Off

Iron Man Creation Timeline- How Marvel's Gamble On Tony Stark Paid Off
Robert Downey Jr. Iron Man Marvel

With Avengers: Endgame being hailed as one of the biggest love letters to the MCU to date, it feels like a good time to revisit the film and the character that started it all, Iron Man. Believe it or not, the world almost got Tony Stark in theaters much sooner than when it actually premiered. Here's a breakdown of the years leading up to Iron Man, and the studios, actors, and directors who almost had a hand in it.


The Beginning- (1990)


The first mention of Iron Man in a film surfaced in 1990 in a couple of ways. Tony Stark was considered as a character who could possibly be included in Death Of The Incredible Hulk, but the idea was ultimately scrapped for Hulk sacrificing his own life instead. It's a shame we didn't get to see an early 90s live-action Tony, if only to see if it's as laughably bad as other live-action Marvel characters of the era.


Universal Studios had the rights to Iron Man during this time, and while Re-Animator director and Honey I Shrunk The Kids writer Stuart Gordon was approached to direct a low-budget feature, that never happened. That same year Robert Downey Jr. starred in the movie Too Much Sun, which was written and directed by his father Robert Downey Sr. It was just one of ten films the father and son duo would do together over the years.




The 20th Century Fox Years (1996-1997)


20th Century Fox ended up acquiring the rights to Iron Man, and from that point on some really interesting things happened. At least, more interesting things than whatever happened at Universal, which as mentioned before, didn't do a lot. The first eleven months of the character's acquisition were quiet, and then word surfaced in early 1997 a young actor fresh off of a big Hollywood film was interested in playing the hero.


That man was none other than Con/Air actor Nicolas Cage. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of information out there about any discussions that happened, or how serious Cage actually was about playing Tony Stark. What we do know is that he did a costume test for Tim Burton's Superman that same year, so maybe his interest laid more in playing a superhero than anything? We can only speculate, although it is worth noting he's done a handful of superhero roles since.


Stan Lee's Iron Man Script (1998-1999)


The year 1998 brought another big celebrity to Fox's doors, as Tom Cruise said he was interested in producing and starring in an Iron Man feature. Sometime later I-Robot screenwriter Jeff Vintar teamed up with Stan Lee to write a story that re-imagined Iron Man's origin and featured the villain M.O.D.O.K. as the central villain. Plans eventually fell apart, and Goldeneye screenwriter Jeffrey Caine was brought in retool the script.




Then, things took a surprising turn when the studio approached Quentin Tarantino to write and direct an Iron Man movie. What was his vision? Was Samuel L. Jackson involved? How many times did Tony Stark drop an f-bomb? It could've happened, but unfortunately Fox ended up selling off the rights. While the studio liked Lee and Vintar's script, they just had too many Marvel films in development to commit.


New Line Cinema's Iron Man Script (2000-2001)


It was the start of a new millennium, and with New Line Cinema in ownership of the rights to Iron Man, a new hope that a movie would be made was born. A new script was commissioned with Pirates of the Caribbean writers Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio and The Iron Giant's Tim McCanlies helping out with writing as well. This script was also an origin story, but with corporate villains.


Another interesting part about this script was that it allegedly included a Nick Fury cameo. According to rumors from insiders at the time (via Comics2Film), the S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier was set to make an appearance, over a decade before it actually did in The Avengers. Coincidentally enough, New Line also entered into discussions with Joss Whedon to direct. Was it the Helicarrier mention that caught him? Because that connection is just too good.




Iron Man vs. Howard Stark? (2002-2004)


New Line Cinema finished the script in 2002, and New Line got John Q and The Notebook director Nick Cassavetes on board to direct. This time, the plot put Tony up against his father, Howard Stark. That's right, Howard Stark was the bad guy, and would eventually weaponize Tony's design to create, wait for it, War Machine.


Thankfully, nothing happened with that idea and New Line Cinema eventually lost Nick Cassavetes. (He released Alpha Dog not long after). With the studio's main prospect gone, New Line Cinema ended up relinquishing its rights to Iron Man, which sent it back to Marvel.


Back Home With Marvel (2005-2006)


After years away, Iron Man was finally home. Unfortunately, it had lost all interested parties in the process. For a time, Marvel struggled to find a writer due to it being strictly a Marvel production and the obscurity of Iron Man. Marvel decided to hold a campaign to raise awareness about the character, and commissioned future Deadpool director Tim Miller to make shorts that showcased the character's abilities.




The studio eventually landed Jon Favreau, who had a vision for a character finding redemption as a hero in what could be a bit of a spy thriller. He originally wanted to go with an unknown actor as the lead, but became hooked on Robert Downey Jr. after seeing how the actor's personal struggles mimicked that of Tony Stark. Marvel tried to push back on the hire, but Favreau wouldn't budge. The rest, as they say, is history.


It Wasn't Quite That Easy Though (2007)


Iron Man had its cast, a passionate director, and apparently, that was enough to go into filming. The script wasn't fully complete, which led to a lot of improvised dialogue, on-set rewrites, and actors doing multiple takes for lines they came up with on the spot. As Jeff Bridges would describe many years later, it was like shooting a $200 million student film.


For all intents and purposes, it could've been a train wreck. Yet, Iron Man succeeded in theaters and started one of the most impressive cinematic runs in movie history. It's even more impressive understanding the history involved, and how it could've all turned out radically different had a few things gone differently. Luckily, it didn't and audiences have been able to celebrate Robert Downey Jr.'s impressive run as the character for over a decade.




That run continues in Avengers: Endgame, which is currently in theaters. Stick with CinemaBlend for all the analysis on it and what comes next for Marvel in the future.

Will Avengers: Endgame Dethrone Avatar As The Highest-Grossing Movie Of All Time?

Will Avengers: Endgame Dethrone Avatar As The Highest-Grossing Movie Of All Time?
Avatar

We knew Avengers: Endgame would do well. But this well already? Some folks scoffed at the idea of a $800 million worldwide opening weekend. Instead, Endgame scoffed at a $1 billion global opening and did even better than that.


Since Avengers: Endgame opened to a worldwide weekend gross of $1,209,000,000, does it stand a chance of topping Avatar as the highest-grossing movie of all time (not adjusting for inflation)? There's a poll below, after a bunch of number-crunching, so feel free to skip right to your answer if you already have a yes/no prediction ready.


Here are the domestic, foreign, and total box office numbers for Avatar, which came out 10 years ago:





Avatar

Domestic: $760,507,625

Foreign: $2,027,457,462

Worldwide: $2,787,965,087



That worldwide total of $2,787,965,087 is the biggest number to beat. For Endgame. For anyone.


Here are the domestic, foreign, and total box office numbers so far for Avengers: Endgame as of April 28, after first opening in some markets (including China) April 24, and officially in the U.S. on April 26.:





Avengers: Endgame

Domestic: $350,000,000

Foreign: $859,000,000

Worldwide: $1,209,000,000



As you can see for Avatar, it was the foreign box office that really elevated the film to great heights with more than $2 million alone from international markets. Based on Box Office Mojo's numbers, it looks like China gave Avatar its biggest boost with $204,129,854. China has already passed that for Avengers: Endgame in less than a week. But since the movie is already out in China, you can't say we're building up to a big China release. So how much further can it go from here?


There are voices of caution who don't think Avengers: Endgame will pass Avatar. More than doubling this opening weekend will not be an easy feat. And, as some have pointed out, if you look at the current list of the top grossing movies of all time, the top three were all released in December:





1. Avatar (December 18, 2009) - Worldwide: $2,787,965,087

2. Titanic (December 19, 1997) - $2,187,463,944

3. Star Wars: The Force Awakens (December 18, 2015) - $2,068,223,624



Is December the magic month? I don't think Avengers: Endgame's April release is going to hurt it too much on that front, but time will tell. The #4 movie of all time is Avengers: Infinity War, which opened last April and just missed the worldwide cut to top Star Wars with its $2,048,359,754 worldwide gross. And yet ... Avatar made $740 million more than that, and that's not nuthin.


After that top four, the top-grossing movies include other spring/summer releases -- Jurassic World, Marvel's The Avengers, Furious 7, and Avengers: Age of Ultron. Then there's Black Panther, which opened in February, formerly considered a box office dead zone, and it made $1.3 billion.




There's a lot of competition heading to the box office this summer, from Godzilla: King of the Monsters to Toy Story 4 and beyond. But I think it's safe to expect Avengers: Endgame to pass $2 billion worldwide, at least, and if that happens it would automatically make it the #5 highest-grossing movie of all time, above Jurassic World.


I do think Endgame will top Avengers: Infinity War's $2,048,359,754 total -- it's as close to an apples to apples comparison as we can get, and there's even more hype for Endgame. Some fans have already seen the movie multiple times, thanks to movie theaters basically running Endgame 24/7, or close enough, to make the coin. It feels like one of the biggest cinematic events of our lives and many people will be honoring that with multiple trips to the theater, perhaps even specifically to help it pass Avatar.


That said, Avengers: Endgame is a bit longer than Infinity War, and that might mean slightly fewer runtimes as we move forward and it dominates fewer screens. After all, Detective Pikachu and John Wick 3 are going to need to play on some screens very soon.




Everyone is throwing numbers around right now, but according to Box Office Mojo's early projections, Avengers: Endgame could make as much as $920 million domestically if it follows the pattern of Infinity War.


Infinity War had a total domestic gross of $678.8 million, so $920M would be much higher. However it would also be just shy of Star Wars: The Force Awakens' current record domestic gross of $936.6 million. Where The Force Awakens lost the overall total game to Avatar was at the foreign box office, since the Star Wars movie "only" made $1.1 billion there. Titanic made $659.3 million at the domestic box office and $1.5 billion worldwide to take second to Avatar. (Pause to marvel once again at James Cameron for his double win.)


CinemaBlend's own Cody Beck decided to quickly crunch the Box Office Mojo numbers for his own projections, and here's what he came up with:





Okay so this is obviously flawed for many reasons, but some quick back of the envelope calculations. Infinity War did 37.96% of its total domestic box office and 27.95% of its total foreign box office in its first 3 days. IF that were to hold true for Endgame, which I understand is different, that would give it a total of $3,995,368,441.69 when all is said and done. Which seems....ridiculous.



Yeah, I don't think we're looking at a $4 billion movie! But you can see how everyone is doing their own calculations and coming up with different projections, based on different metrics. So now it's your turn. Whether you have crunched any numbers or are taking a wild guess, there are two main options -- Endgame will pass Avatar, or it will not. If we were adjusting for inflation, the question might be about Gone with the Wind, but tomorrow is another day on that front. Now vote:

How Lashana Lynch Thinks Maria Would React To Her Daughter Becoming a Superhero

How Lashana Lynch Thinks Maria Would React To Her Daughter Becoming a Superhero
Lashana Lynch as Maria Rambeau and Brie Larson as Carol Danvers in Captain Marvel

This article contains SPOILERS for Captain Marvel, so turn back if you haven’t yet blasted off with the high-flying hero in theaters yet.


The MCU’s latest movie, Captain Marvel, unveiled Carol Danvers' origin story and introduced quite a few other crucial comic book characters to screen, such as with Lashana Lynch and Akira Akbar as mother-daughter pair Maria and Monica Rambeau. As fans of the source material may know, Monica also has gone by “Photon," “Pulsar," “Spectrum” and, at one time, “Captain Marvel” – the leader of the Avengers.


During the Captain Marvel press junket in Los Angeles, I asked Lashana Lynch how she thinks her character might take Monica’s crime-fighting future, assuming that the MCU decides to embrace her story past Captain Marvel. Here’s what she said:






I think she’d be really cool. She in my eyes is a superhero anyway. She doesn’t have the usual superhero powers, but in being a fighter pilot, in being a mother and someone who represents a real woman in her society, she is almost like raising Monica to be a superhero anyway. I feel like when we see Monica in the future, we’re going to be like “Of course she turns out this way” because she brought her up well! She just had a good mother.



There you have it! In Lashana Lynch’s eyes, Maria’s daughter becoming “Photon” or the next Captain Marvel wouldn’t even phase her because it makes sense within Monica’s character arc. In the movie, Monica looks to be single-handedly raised by her fighter pilot mother, who may have “lost” her best friend for some time, but it didn’t stop her from raising her kid to be strong, disciplined and… well, like a hero.


In the few scenes we see Monica Rambeau, she’s definitely comes off as fearless, takes an interest to the circumstances of the film and seems to look up to her mother and Carol Danvers, along with being unafraid of the intergalactic stakes in front of her.





Following the previous answer, I asked Lashana if she thinks we might see Maria join in with Monica on the action, since her character fits right in as a superhero as well. In her words:



There’s a moment when Maria and Monica have to have a conversation about what’s going to happen next and Monica is the adult in the situation and is like ‘Mom, I’m going to take care of this, you go do your thing.’ So I feel like Maria would be like, ‘I trust you, you’re my daughter, I brought you up well, I’m going to let you live in your truth and do your own thing.’



There’s nothing like having a trusting mother, and per Lashana’s answer, she thinks once it comes time for Monica to suit up, Maria will step back and let her do her thing – even if she’s a badass fighter pilot who can totally kick some ass too!





If you’d like to take a look at the short discussion for yourself, you can watch a clip from the interview below:


Lashana Lynch certainly gives an empowering answer about her character being a superhero already and raising up her daughter touch and strong, so she can later trust her to potentially save the world. While it’s unclear if and how their storylines will expand in future MCU stories, Lynch certainly seems to enjoy playing with the idea.


With Monica being introduced as a kid in the ‘90s, the present-day timeline would see her as a 30-something-year-old woman who belongs among the other Avengers. What do you think? Would you like to see Monica Rambeau grow into her origin story on the big screen? Let us know in the comments below.




Avengers: Endgame Reviews Are In, Here’s What The Critics Are Saying

Avengers: Endgame Reviews Are In, Here’s What The Critics Are Saying
Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark in Avengers: Endgame

We’re almost there, folks! After more than a decade of set-up and following a year after the devastating conclusion of Avengers: Infinity War, Avengers: Endgame is only a couple days away from finally being released to the masses. However, some folks were lucky enough to see the movie early, and now, following the social media reactions that poured in last night after the Endgame world premiere, the first reviews for the movie are pouring in, and they’re overwhelmingly positive.


Let’s kick off with CinemaBlend’s own Eric Eisenberg, who awarded Avengers: Endgame a perfect 5 out of 5 stars in his review, noting that his movie is packed with all sorts of surprises, from actors you never expected to show up popping in to plot twists “coming out of left field.” While he felt it would be “reductive” to call Endgame a love letter to Marvel fans, it definitely is a “wonderful gift” for those who’ve been invested in this franchise over the last 11 years, one which audiences “are going to want to experience over and over again.”



Avengers: Endgame is one of the most ambitious, entertaining, emotional, and stunning blockbusters we’ve ever seen, and the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe canon thus far.





Next up, we have Germain Lussier from io9, who described Avengers: Endgame as “everything you’ve ever dreamed a Marvel movie could be” and called it a “complete, complex, and satisfying conclusion” to the last decade we’ve spent with these MCU characters. Endgame becomes more complex as it goes along, which can sometimes make the movie feel “overstuffed and overly busy at times,” but the payoffs are well worth it.



After 11 years and 21 movies, Avengers: Endgame is larger than a mere movie. It’s a personal experience. It works as a singular film and ultimately will be judged as such, but on first viewing, it works even better as a cherry on top of a decade of Marvel storytelling—the final piece of a glorious puzzle we’ve all been working to piece together since 2008.



Entertainment Weekly’s Leah Greenblat gave Avengers: Endgame a B+, declaring that the movie promises many things, like revenge, redemption and a ridiculously long runtime, and it “largely delivers” on that. And if you’re a fan of Marvel cameos, then brace yourself, because Endgame is filled to the brim with surprise appearances.





With the stakes being no less than the fate of the world (or at least approximately 50% of it), there’s an expected urgency to it all, but an underlying melancholy, too — not just for everything that’s been lost, but for what won’t be coming back. After seven years, four films, and uncountable post-credit easter eggs, the endgame of an era has finally come.



Over at Birth.Movies.Death., Russ Fischer, who was not “convinced” by Avengers: Infinity War, found Avengers: Endgame to be a more satisfiable MCU offering. The movie has an “unusual structure,” though that’s definitely appropriate for the kind of story being told, and the second act plays out as a “Marvel’s Greatest Hits” before delving into the final battle. In Fischer’s eyes, Endgame doesn’t create a “seismic shift” like Infinity War did, but it does put everything on the table.



Ultimately, Endgame is an entire movie of payoffs. It plays off and completes thoughts begun in Age of Ultron and Civil War, and even in comics. Conventional wisdom says that a sequel should be able to stand on its own. For the past decade, Marvel has worked to make that true, to whatever degree is possible in a series of more than 20 interconnected films. That changes with Endgame, which has no ambition to stand on its own, and no need to. This Avengers finale is an event as much as a movie.





USA Today’s Brian Truitt gave Avengers: Endgame a 3.5 out of 4 score, describing it as the “triple-disc greatest-hits package with the really awesome cover and a slew of familiar, comforting gems inside.” The movie loses some momentum over its three-hour runtime, but it delivers those emotional gut punches we’ve expected and an explosive finale.



Endgame is tragic and uplifting, rousing and grounding, while leaving minds racing and making everybody cry (even the toughest guys). Marvel movies have managed to find endearing, crowd-pleasing magic amid these fun and flawed comic-book characters in the past decade, and Endgame pays off all that goodwill by letting them do what they do best on the biggest stage yet.



Angie Han from Mashable didn’t find Avengers: Endgame to be the best, prettiest or even the funniest Marvel movie ever made, but she did call it the “most Marvel movie” ever made, and that’s a notable accomplishment. There are some “quibbles” to be had at certain moments, but it ultimately serves as a testament to what this franchise has become.





This is Marvel flexing, building on over 10 years and 20-plus films of careful groundwork and intricate planning to show us what it can do that no other movie franchise can. As such, it's an immensely satisfying finish to this era of the series.



Finally, IGN’s Laura Prudom awarded Avengers: Endgame a 9.5 out of 10 score, calling it a movie that “rewards your knowledge of the MCU in its entirety.” There are some parts that might feel like “outright fan service,” but they feel more as though they’re earned after everything we’ve seen over the last 11 years. Like most Marvel movies, there’s an over reliance on “overproduced CGI battles,” but fortunately, the quieter character moments are still able to shine.



A fitting and surprisingly poetic payoff to more than a decade of storytelling, and the start of a bright new chapter.





These are just a handful of the Avengers: Endgame reviews that are now available, so feel free to venture elsewhere on the interwebs to learn what other critics thought of this movie. Be careful about running into spoilers, though, as there are some reviews that delve into minor plot details that some of you might not want to know. Tread cautiously!


You can judge Avengers: Endgame for yourself when it’s released on April 26, but for now, keep up to date with CinemaBlend for more coverage on this blockbuster event, and be sure to look through our Marvel movies guide to learn what else this franchise has coming down the pipeline.

What Will Happen To Disney's X-Men Franchise After Dark Phoenix

What Will Happen To Disney's X-Men Franchise After Dark Phoenix
Sophie Turner as Jean Grey in new X-Men Dark Phoenix

With Disney's acquisition of Fox officially completed in late March, X-Men: Dark Phoenix will be the first official X-Men film to premiere under the Marvel and Disney umbrella. From there, fans have been given a bit of information on what's next for the X-Men, but only in the form of release dates for films. As many may know, however, dates can always change and movies can be cancelled, so what will happen to the X-Men following Dark Phoenix?


We do have some answers, and some healthy speculation that explores how Disney and Marvel may incorporate the Mutants into its Phase 4 plans. We also have a history of the franchise from the time it left Marvel to its return, which provides context and explains why the answers behind the future of the X-Men franchise aren't easy to assume.


The X-Men Franchise Under Fox


The year was 1993, and Marvel was far from the financial powerhouse it is today. As a way to stay afloat and get some cash, the comic company sold the movie rights of its heroes to film studios, such as Spider-Man to Sony, and of course, the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchise to 20th Century Fox. The decision was based, in part, due to the studio's success with X-Men: The Animated Series, which premiered in 1992.




The first Fox X-Men movie wouldn't hit theaters until 2000, and would prove to be a massive hit, making $296 million at the box office on a $75 million budget. There would be two financially successful direct sequels, both of which would more heavily revolve around the star of its spinoff films Hugh Jackman. Folks loved Wolverine, and still do to the point fans hoped he'd reprise his role when the Disney and Fox deal went through.


Wolverine would continue to be the Marvel franchise's sole spinoff character until 2011, when X-Men: First Class introduced another commercially successful spinoff to the mix. In 2014, Deadpool was introduced, and fundamentally changed Hollywood's perception on the commercial viability of R-rated features for superheroes.


While Fox's X-Men movies were commercially successful, there was little consistency in the acclaim between X-Men films. Additionally, the franchise's timeline was a bit of a mess, despite the best efforts by X-Men: Days of Future Past to marry the worlds of the original cast and the First Class cast. It apparently wasn't a big deal for Fox for it all to make sense at the time, although it is a factor that may come into play later.




The X-Men Franchise Under Disney


While Fox was making oodles of X-Men movies off of Marvel's characters, the original company had finally found some ground in the film world via Iron Man. Marvel's success caught the attention of Hollywood, including Disney, who successfully acquired Marvel Studios a little over a year after Iron Man's release date. With the massive purchasing power of Disney behind it, Marvel was in a great position to purchase back the rights for some of its characters.


Disney got to work and successfully navigated deals with Sony to get Marvel Studios involved in Spider-Man, and also has a right of first refusal with Universal should the studio ever want to collaborate on another Hulk film. To say Disney was explicitly interested in purchasing Fox for the X-Men isn't entirely true, as the Avatar franchise and television franchises (including sports) under the umbrella will give plenty of value as well.


There was a slight competition between Disney and Comcast for Fox, but the House of Mouse won out in the end and got the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchise back for Marvel. The two movies Fox had in-development, X-Men: Dark Phoenix and New Mutants, had both been postponed prior to the acquisition.




Now, Dark Phoenix is slated to be released on June 9, but New Mutants has been pushed back to a release in April of 2020. Additionally, Fox's long in-development spinoff that highlights the mutant Gambit has officially been shelved. The movie had yet to get some serious traction for quite some time, and had various issues since the idea was first proposed over a decade ago. In short, Disney's decision to effectively kill the movie isn't all that surprising.


The Future Of X-Men


After X-Men: Dark Phoenix premieres, there's a question of what will happen to the rest of the Marvel franchise. There's been curiosity as to whether Marvel Studios will incorporate the existing cast into the MCU, and some or all of the heroes will make an appearance in Phase Four. It's certainly a possibility, although some skeptics believe that Marvel might opt for a full-scale reboot due to the inconsistent timeline of the franchise potentially tainting its carefully crafted universe.


The release of Avengers: Endgame and recent revelations from Spider-Man: Far From Home somewhat deepen the mystery, as there's a potential way for the X-Men franchise to exist within the MCU in the form of a separate multiverse. This would mean that the X-Men are in a parallel universe from the rest of the MCU, which would prevent any of its events or confusing timelines from invading on the rest of the MCU.




The good news, is that if Phase Four includes the multiverse, it's already been heavily implied that characters can travel between them. This, of course, means the X-Men could theoretically one day fight alongside (or against) the Avengers, and that War Machine could appear alongside Deadpool like Don Cheadle has been hoping for. Provided this is what Marvel has planned, it's the perfect situation where Disney can have the cake, and eat it too.


Again, though, nothing is certain and Disney and Marvel could also just keep the X-Men separate from the rest of the MCU, or do a reboot of the franchise entirely sometime after X-Men: Dark Phoenix or New Mutants. It could also establish an entirely new set of Mutants exclusive to the MCU, considering Scarlet Witch and her brother Quicksilver were technically mutants. These days, nothing seems entirely off the table with Disney and Marvel.


As mentioned, Marvel and Disney are set to release X-Men: Dark Phoenix in theaters Friday, June 7. CinemaBlend will report on the X-Men's future with Marvel as more updates become available, so continue to read our content for the latest and greatest news in movies, television, and pop culture.



Godzilla: King Of The Monsters Reviews Are In, Here’s What The Critics Are Saying

Godzilla: King Of The Monsters Reviews Are In, Here’s What The Critics Are Saying
Godzilla in King of the Monsters

It’s been five years since Godzilla kicked off the MonsterVerse, and while we rewound the clock back in 2017 to delve into King Kong’s origins in Kong: Skull Island, Godzilla is finally back in action this weekend for Godzilla: King of the Monsters. This time around, the giant reptile is colliding with Rodan, Mothra and King Ghidorah, and these Titans vying for supremacy will leave humanity’s existence hanging in the balance.


The public is still a few days away from getting to see Godzilla: King of the Monsters, but reviews from critics are now being published, and it’s looking like this sequel improves upon its predecessor in some ways, but is still a mixed affair.


CinemaBlend's own Mack Rawden gave the film 3 stars on our official review, citing major problem with the film's pacing. While praising the film's visuals, Rawden revealed:





In fact, the pacing is so strange that after about the twenty minute-mark, I had no concept whatsoever of how far into the film’s runtime we were. I’m usually pretty good at timing out a movie in my head and estimating what percentage we’ve completed. Not here. Not even close. There’s no slow burn or escalating momentum. The whole movie is in the deep end. Godzilla: King Of The Monsters is just a relentless haze of destruction throughout, a creative decision that obviously brings with it an enormous amount of pros and cons.



On the more positive end of the spectrum, William Bibbiani from Bloody Disgusting gave Godzilla: King of the Monsters a 4 out of 5 score, declaring that it felt like Warner Bros heard the collective complaints about how the 2014 Godzilla movie didn’t have enough monster action and “unloaded three sequels worth of monster fights into one follow-up.” That being said, King of the Monsters is filled with a lot of one-note characters, and if you treat blockbusters “like any other movie,” you’ll be disappointed with how this blockbuster fails to properly utilize its ensemble.



Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a big, kinda silly, but otherwise exciting blockbuster. It’s gorgeous, it’s epic in the extreme, and it features some of the most impressive monster fights you’ve ever seen. Maybe someday Americans will make a Godzilla movie that isn’t just ‘badass,’ but which also works on another level and resonates in a meaningful way.





Conversely, The AV Club’s Katie Rife wasn’t pleased with Godzilla: King of the Monsters, stamping it with a C- grade. Rife acknowledged that the look of the movie’s Titans and their fights are cool, but the rest of the King of the Monsters suffers as a result, with the human characters failing to impress. The family drama that occurs between the members of the Russell clan (Millie Bobby Brown’s Madison, Vera Farmiga’s Emma and Kyle Chandler’s Mark) is described as the “least successful flavor.”



Of course the monsters should be the stars of a Godzilla movie. But until blockbuster filmmaking goes entirely non-narrative, some attention should be paid to the rest of it as well.



James Whitbrook from io9 took a middle ground stance in his review of Godzilla: King of the Monsters, calling it “big, dumb and beautiful.” The sequel functions excellently as a love letter to the history of these cinematic beasts and the set pieces are “gorgeously rendered,” but the storyline is weak, there’s an inconsistent tone and there’s no proper exploration of the moral debate it sets up early on.





If you’re fine with some incredibly stupid people playing second fiddle to glorious kaiju moments, King of the Monsters will provide one of the best popcorn blockbusters of the summer. But if you wanted a Godzilla movie that had something, anything to say about its destruction? Then you’ll be definitely looking for something meatier than Ghidorah flank to chew on.



Empire’s Ben Travis did not enjoy Godzilla: King of the Monsters, giving it just one star out of five. In Travis’ opinion, the “staggeringly poor script” has the characters doing nothing but standing around or explaining the plot and their personal motivations with cliched dialogue. Making matters worse, the action sequences are also disappointing, with the final clash between Godzilla and King Ghidroah being described as “an overload of repetitive, joyless destruction that mistakes volume and demolition for actual excitement.”



Globe-trotting but not adventurous, action-packed but not remotely exciting, utterly overstuffed and completely paper-thin. Nuke it from orbit.





Finally, Scott Collura from IGN awarded Godzilla: King of the Monsters a 7.8 out of 10, observing, like many other critics, that the human characters get the short end of the proverbial stick, but the explosive monster action helps even the scales. Although the script is convoluted, King of the Monsters ultimately succeeds in delivering a lot of excellent battles and nerdy Easter eggs.



Godzilla returns in King of the Monsters, focusing on monster spectacle first and foremost. Which is as it should be!



These are just some of the Godzilla: King of the Monsters reviews that are now available, so feel free to look for others if you’d like more viewpoints. It is interesting, though, how one of the main complaints of the 2014 Godzilla movie was that there wasn’t enough monster action and too much focus on the humans, and now for King of the Monsters, the criticisms have been reversed. Talk about difficulty finding middle ground.




You can judge Godzilla: King of the Monsters for yourself when it arrives in theaters this Friday, May 31. Don’t forget to look through our 2019 release schedule to learn what movies are coming out later in the year.

Why Dark Phoenix Reshot Its Original Ending, According To Simon Kinberg

Why Dark Phoenix Reshot Its Original Ending, According To Simon Kinberg
Sophie Turner is Jean Grey in Dark Phoenix

The following story will not contain spoilers for Dark Phoenix**. However, we will discuss the story a bit, so on the off chance you want to go into next week’s release knowing absolutely nothing, stop reading right now.**


Jean Grey (Sophie Turner) seems destined to interact with the Phoenix force. It happens in comics, in one of Marvel’s most popular comic storylines. It happened in the initial run of X-Men movies, captured in The Last Stand. And now that the timeline has been reset via X-Men: Days of Futures Past, it’s about to happen to the version of Jean that we met in X-Men: Apocalypse.


Longtime X-Men writer and producer Simon Kinberg steps into the director’s chair for Dark Phoenix, which opens everywhere on June 7. And in a recent chat with EW, he dropped a terrific tease of an alternate ending to his debut film that he ended up reshooting, mentioning only that it took place in outer space. (This isn’t so far-fetched, as trailers have shown us that the X-Men are on a space mission when Jean interacts with the Phoenix in this film.)




As a rabid fan of the X-Men characters, I was curious about this original ending, though when I asked Kinberg about it during a recent press event in London for Dark Phoenix, he candidly told me why he thought the space finale had to be changed. He told CinemaBlend:



That was a version that was when it was sort of the less-grounded version of the movie. … It wasn’t a version of the movie where the X-Men and the family are -- we weren’t as focused on them coming together at the end of the movie. It was really more entirely Jean, and what it lacked was this sort of emotional closure. Thinking of this movie as the sort of culmination of all of the X-Men movies, where these strangers have become this sort of surrogate family, and then in this movie they get challenged like they’ve never been challenged before, it felt like at the end of the movie, it would be much more satisfying for the audience to both see Jean have extraordinary power… but also see the X-Men come back together as a family and perform. I sort of wanted to do both.



How they come together, we will leave it for you to learn by checking out Dark Phoenix. But it can be shared that one of the most exciting elements of the new film is the fact that we see the X-Men working together as a team for one of the few times in franchise history (for real, this group is usually so fractured and ostracized), so it makes sense why Simon Kinberg made the decisions that he made.




In Dark Phoenix, the X-Men must figure out a way to contain one of their own after Jean (Sophie Turner) encounters an alien force that greatly amplifies her natural mutation.


The movie co-stars X-Men alums James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult, while giving more screen time to Tye Sheridan, Alexandra Shipp, Evan Peters and Kodi Smit-McPhee. Dark Phoenix is being viewed as the culmination of this X-Men saga, so see where the story goes on June 7.

Shazam! Just Passed A Box Office Milestone

Shazam! Just Passed A Box Office Milestone
Zachary Levi as Shazam! DC DCEU Warner Bros.

Shazam! was top of the charts for two weeks in a row and just passed the $100 million milestone at the domestic box office.


Shazam! is heading into its third weekend with $104 million on the domestic front and $178 million from the foreign box office for a current total of $282 million worldwide. That's not counting the money it'll pick up this Easter weekend. (Speaking of Easter, don't miss some key Shazam! Easter eggs.)


According to Deadline, Shazam! passed the $100 million mark at the North American market in its 13th day of release.




Are these huge numbers? No, and certainly not for a major superhero movie. But everything about Shazam! has been positive so far, from the critics' reviews (90% on Rotten Tomatoes) to the fan response (A CinemaScore, 88% RT audience score) to the humble and grateful reactions of star Zachary Levi, director David F. Sandberg, and the rest of the cast.


Shazam! had a reported production budget of $100 million, per Box Office Mojo, and that doesn't usually include things like marketing. So Shazam! is just starting to break even and make a profit worldwide.


This weekend, though, Shazam! is expected to take second place to another Warner Bros. movie, The Curse of La Llorona. The Conjuring Universe movie is expected to make around $17 million, with Shazam! following with around $13.5 million. That's just at the domestic box office, and more will be added from foreign markets. Shazam! has already made $40 million in China, the second biggest box office market in the world after us.




Shazam! is technically part of the DC Extended Universe and even originally planned to have an appearance from Superman himself, Henry Cavill. So far, as compared to the previous six DCEU films, Shazam! is squarely at the bottom of that pack. That seems expected -- it was never eyed for massive blockbuster money. Then again, Aquaman was something of a surprise as the first DCEU movie to pass $1 billion, and the highest-grossing DC Comics movie of all time.


At the domestic box office, Shazam!'s current $104 million is just below Justice League's $229 million, and they are far below the current domestic leader, Wonder Woman, who has $412.5 million. Worldwide, Aquaman is the overall champ with a current total of $1.14 billion. Justice League is at the bottom of that pack, other than Shazam! (which is still earning money), with the Zack Snyder/Joss Whedon movie making $657.9 million total.


Shazam! has a long to way to go in its journey, but do you think it has any hopes of beating Justice League at the box office, or will it stay #7 on the list of the seven DCEU movies so far? There's no shame in it. Someone has to be the scrappy underdog.




Besides, there's a long way up from here. Shazam! could potentially lead to several sequels, including Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's Black Adam movie, which he's already plugging a year before filming.


Shazam! is still playing in theaters as one of the many movies worth watching in 2019. Come back to CinemaBlend Easter Sunday afternoon for our full box office report on how Shazam! fared against the many new releases out this week.

Sonic The Hedgehog Will Have 'Edgy' Moments, According To Jim Carrey

Sonic The Hedgehog Will Have 'Edgy' Moments, According To Jim Carrey
Dr. Robotnik in Team Sonic Racing

Unlike his more squeaky clean and family-friendly Nintendo counterpart Mario, Sega’s Sonic the Hedgehog has always seemed cooler, more mature and rocked way more attitude. As the Blue Blur prepares to make his big screen debut in November’s Sonic the Hedgehog, it is natural to wonder if he will retain the qualities that once had many kids swearing allegiance to Team Sega. According to Jim Carrey, who plays Dr. Ivo Robotnik, Sonic the Hedgehog will have ‘edgy’ moments, as he explained:



We're playing to families, so you can't get too crazy. But I made sure that there are some winks and nods, and edgy things that are still acceptable to both age groups.



First and foremost, Jim Carrey told IMDb that Sonic the Hedgehog is geared towards families, so anyone hoping for a dark, R-rated adaptation that has Sonic flipping people off as he speeds by will want to temper those expectations. Sonic the Hedgehog will be a family-friendly, four-quadrant movie, but that doesn’t mean it won’t have an edge to it, and Jim Carrey is making sure that it does.




The actor who plays the villainous Dr. Robotnik, or Eggman if you prefer, made sure that, at least in his performance, there are some edgier things for audiences to pick up on that will appeal to the older crowd, while simultaneously not making Sonic the Hedgehog unsuitable for younger viewers. That he will be delivering some of the film’s edgy moments just adds to the exciting prospect of seeing Jim Carrey chewing the scenery as the villainous mad scientist.


With Deadpool and Terminator: Dark Fate director Tim Miller executive producing Sonic the Hedgehog, hopefully that edge exists throughout the film and not just in Jim Carrey’s character. Because although this will obviously be a film meant to appeal to kids, I think there is still a desire for it to feel cool and have some attitude to it. And there are ways to have that edge without taking the movie out of the family-friendly Green Hill Zone.


What Jim Carrey describes is a quality that all the best family-friendly films have. Lots of kid movies are a slog to sit through because they are only appealing to kids in a very simplistic fashion, but when a good movie has a compelling story with subtext, references or winks to things that work on another level for adults, that edge makes the movie great for everyone.




If Sonic the Hedgehog is able to achieve that it will be half the battle. Although there have been some highly controversial posters for the film so far (perhaps not the edginess they were looking for), we are still waiting on a trailer for the movie. When it arrives, hopefully we’ll get a taste of what Jim Carrey is alluding to with some edgy moments that inspire confidence in this latest attempt to make a great video game movie.


Sonic the Hedgehog races into theaters on November 8. Check out our 2019 Release Schedule to keep track of all the biggest movies headed your way this year.

Natalie Portman Had A Tough Time Dealing With The The Star Wars Prequel Trilogy Backlash

Natalie Portman Had A Tough Time Dealing With The The Star Wars Prequel Trilogy Backlash
Amidala in The Phantom Menace

Star Wars is one of the biggest franchises in film history, and is still a behemoth at the box office after so many years in theaters. The galaxy far, far away has enthralled generations of moviegoers, which form its absolutely massive fanbase. But because so much stock is put into George Lucas' space opera, the wrath of the fans can be intense.


Just ask Natalie Portman, who starred as Padme Amidala in the prequel trilogy. George Lucas' second run in the Star Wars franchise has been the subject of some criticism, who took umbrage with excessive green screens, as well as the script and some performances. Portman recently opened up about the backlash to the films, especially as it they were being shot and released.



It was hard. It was a bummer because it felt like people were so excited about new ones and then to have people feel disappointed. Also to be at an age that I didn’t really understand that’s kind of the nature of the beast. When something has that much anticipation it can almost only disappoint.





Natalie Portman was still a teenager when Star Wars: The Phantom Menace arrived in theaters in 1999. It was definitely a breakthrough role for the young actress, but she was also privy to the backlash of the fans. People just don't know how to treat Naboo royalty.


The prequel trilogy has become more widely accepted in the years following its conclusion, but things started off very rocky. The Phantom Menace was noticeably more kid friendly, and the addition of the clownish Jar Jar Binks didn't resonate well with the adult audience. And considering it was this demographic that made the original trio of films so massive, that approval was key.


Related: Natalie Portman Shoots Down Star Wars 9 Rumor About Padme’s Return




The prequels seemed to improve as they went on, but there are some cringeworthy and often meme-d moments that consider to plague it. But with Disney continuing the franchise and producing subversive projects like The Last Jedi, the prequel has been getting more attention and love-- especially as the time before A New Hope is explored with standalone films.


In her same conversation with Empire, Natalie Portman addressed the love the prequels have gotten in more recent years, saying:



With the perspective of time, it’s been re-evaluated by a lot of people who actually really love them now. There’s a very avid group of people who think they’re the best ones now! I don’t have enough perspective to weigh in.





Natalie Portman may have played Padme through three movies, but she's always made it clear that she doesn't really follow up on the latest Star Wars news. She did manage to visit the set of The Last Jedi with her sons, so there are still some perks to being Queen.


It should be interesting to see how the prequel trilogy ends up factoring into future Star Wars projects. J.J. Arbams' The Rise of Skywalker will end the current trilogy and Skywalker Saga forever, and there are a few mysterious projects brewing at Lucasfilm. Will Rian Johnson's trilogy or D.B. Weiss and David Benioff's developing movies transport us back? We'll have to see.


Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker will arrive on December 20th. In the meantime, check out our 2019 release list to plan your next trip to the movies.



5 Reasons Godzilla (2014) Is Better Than You Probably Remember

5 Reasons Godzilla (2014) Is Better Than You Probably Remember
Godzilla (2014)

With Godzilla: King of the Monsters stomping, hopping, smashing and crashing its way into theaters around the world this week, I have a confession to make: I like Godzilla (2014). I like it a lot, in fact, and I don't think it deserves the flack it gets.


Gareth Edwards' assured, commanding sophomore film is a fire-breather of a Godzilla movie, one that surprisingly isn't afraid to bide its time and make the monster movie beats worth the while. It's a carefully-crafted B-movie with A-grade special effects, an expensive genre beauty that fills the big screen at choice moments. It produces a loud, roaring triumph of Spielbergian craftsmanship, complimented beautifully by its boisterous score, with a diligent desire to make the explosive finale a towering inferno of epic-ness. In short, it's a lot of fun, and it's a lot better than people give it credit.


The film does have its flaws — many of them, in fact. For instance, Aaron Taylor-Johnson's character is a soggy bread of a protagonist, lacking any real depth or nuance to make him worthy of being our central human character. The story structure can be a bit haphazard, favoring set pieces over a firm narrative streamline, and the lack of monster fights in the first two-thirds can be odd — to say the least — for a major American studio Godzilla movie. But its strengths far outshine its weaknesses, in my view, and I believe there's a lot worth celebrating in this big-budget remake. Here's my reasoning.




Godzilla Has Excellent Use Of Build-Up


Perhaps the biggest — and, in my view, most rewarding — surprise found in Godzilla (2014) is that it is an unexpectedly patient film. With Hollywood blockbusters, particularly in an era of massive superhero movies, we're used to seeing a lot of whizz-bang early and often. Blockbusters will jam-pack as many action beats as possible to keep easily-distracted eyeballs focused squarely on the big screen in front of them. You need to bring the masses, and the masses want something that keeps their attention spans stimulated, even if — or especially if — their brain is left unrewarded in the process.


There is nothing wrong with a good popcorn flick. I love them as much as the next guy. But Godzilla (2014) accomplishes something that is a little more dexterous in terms of its plotting and execution. It intentionally teases the audience, keeping the title character at a distance until it's time for the big, famous kaiju monster to make a hell of an impression. The result is a Godzilla movie with fewer action beats than you might anticipate, but one that is, nevertheless, deeply satisfying because the pay-off is so explosively enjoyable that you feel rewarded for being strung along for the last hour or so.


Godzilla Has Amazing Special Effects


With blockbusters today, we often take the wizardry of special effects for granted. Nearly every blockbuster released in theaters this weekend is filled with spectacles galore, often the work of computer animators trying to meet tight deadlines and massive expectations. Nevertheless, the VFX effects in Godzilla (2014) are truly incredible, not merely for a big-scale Godzilla movie (particularly with other Godzilla movies relying on people in rubber suits to do the job), but for a major Hollywood blockbuster such as this one.




Gareth Edwards made a beautiful looking movie, one that is complimented throughout with strong cinematography and commendable direction. But it is the lavish special effects from the movie's heavy $160 million budget that really make the visual pops in this action flick. Particularly with the very dated special effects found in Roland Emmerich's ill-fated 1998 Godzilla remake, Godzilla (2014) is the first time the big mean radioactive monster was given the proper Hollywood treatment. And he is as beautiful as he's ugly — if that makes sense.


Impressively massive and commendably fleshed-out, Godzilla looks more believable and photorealistic than he's ever looked before, and the reptilian badass is truly a sight to behold. It's a damn shame that Godzilla (2014) didn't even get a nomination for Best Visual Effects. Quite an egregious snub.


Godzilla Has Nice Set Pieces


While people are often quick to lament about the lack of monster-based action sequences in Godzilla (2014), the blockbuster does contain a wide array of impressive set pieces. Whether it's Hawaii, Las Vegas, San Francisco or the Philippines, Godzilla gets around in this new movie, and we follow him through a nice assortment of different scenic backdrops. Though Godzilla is a big, imposing, menacing dude, the skyscraper-sized creature sure knows how to get around the world in a short amount of time.




As a result, Godzilla (2014) is as expansive as it is expensive, providing audiences with a glorious blockbuster with the budget and means to jump from location-to-location. It provides moviegoers with a chance to see all kinds of locations, even if many — if not all — of them fall victim to widespread destruction in the grasp of Godzilla's fire-breathing reign. Gareth Edwards' first film, the micro-budgeted Monsters, showcased a rising filmmaker with a knack for making the most out of sparse and/or visually-dynamic locations. That filmmaking tradition continued with his next film, Godzilla (2014).


Godzilla Has A Great Sense Of Perspective


One thing that really makes Godzilla (2014) exceptional is that this major movie tends to prefer the small opposed to the big. While the film is filled with major overtures in the right key moments, it's a film that like to keep the focus on the ground floor. Picking up from the tradition of 2008's Cloverfield, it imagines the citywide destruction and global mayhem of the kaiju attacks from a view that is often closer to the floor than the sky. The result is a huge, gigantic motion picture that knows how to dish out action in a human level — even if it's human characters can often, unfortunately, be a bit lacking.


It's hard to say that Aaron Taylor-Johnson brings a lot to the lead role. And it's even harder to remember much of anything about his character or personality. But through his eyes, we are often witnessing the chaos that springs worldwide in these monsters' wake. The result is a movie that knows how to bring perspective in the fold, and one that constantly keeps the action investing by never being afraid to reveal its hand too early into the game.




The Cast Is Notable


Now, listen, I won't say the humans in Godzilla are richly fleshed-out, three-dimensional characters with rich backgrounds and layered personalities. You'd be hard-pressed to find many Godzilla-focused movies with the same high pedigree of actors. Bryan Cranston and Ken Watanabe are excellent in in their supporting roles, while Sally Hawkins, Juliette Binoche, David Stratharian and Elizabeth Olsen are always dependable talents. Unfortunately, most of the cast is given little to work with, as the humans are often a means to the end, and that end is monster-on-monster action.


Nevertheless, while most of these actors aren't given awards-caliber performances, there are only a few truly underwhelming performances. Everyone is doing the best they can with their often paper-thin characters, and Aaron Taylor-Johnson often gets the worst of it. He's a talented actor who has proven his talents in a variety of different films, including Kick-Ass, Nowhere Boy and Nocturnal Animals, to name a few noteworthy examples of late.


Sadly, however, like I said in the introduction, his character in this film is a wet blanket who isn't as much fun as his title co-star. Nevertheless, most of these actors do commendable work to sell the gravitas in this otherwise campy genre exercise, and their hard work and talents can be under-appreciated.




Will I call Godzilla (2014) a perfect movie? No. Because it's not. Like I said, it has its flaws, and it has its shortcomings. While Godzilla: King of the Monsters seems like it will be providing the non-stop, wall-to-wall monster action that hungry fans were expecting from this much-anticipated remake, I don't think it's fair to give this Godzilla movie the cold shoulder in the process.


On its own merits, Gareth Edwards made a well-crafted, exhilarating monster movie with Godzilla (2014), one that should be admired much more than it is. And I hope I provided some compelling reasons for why that should be the case.

Apparently Luke James’ Dance Scene In Little Caused Quite A Stir On Set

Apparently Luke James’ Dance Scene In Little Caused Quite A Stir On Set
Issa Rae and Marsai Martin in Little

In this weekend’s new comedy Little, moviegoers will see a ton of big-screen breakout performances, including 14-year-old Marsai Martin, best known for her role in ABC’s Black-ish, roll with Insecure’s Issa Rae and Regina Hall from Girls Trip, shaping up into an impressive female-centric cast. On the Little set, there was one performance everyone couldn’t bear to miss… R&B singer Luke James taking the floor for his character’s seductive & hilarious dance.


In my interview with Little’s writer/director Tina Gordon, she painted the picture of one of the most memorable days for the cast and crew on set. In her words:



Luke James was the lightning rod that brought everyone together on the rooftop in an Atlanta penthouse maybe because he was going to dance. Regina [Hall] flew in allegedly to support us as a producer but probably also to enjoy Luke James’ dancing. It was a great memory: it was like a hot night and we were on this gorgeous rooftop in Atlanta, overlooking the city with great music playing and Luke is just the kindest, most generous actor who can sing and dance. It was near the end of production, we just relaxed and Luke was dancing for us.





It looks like Luke James’ scene was quite the event, so much so that Regina Hall may have bought a plane ticket just to see the show. The Grammy-nominated singer is best known for his falsetto voice found in sultry songs such as "These Arms” and “Drip," and he has recently transitioned into acting. He guest starred in an episode of Insecure, the Fox series Star and the 2013 film Black Nativity.


In Little, he contributes to a few funny moments as he tries to win the heart of mean-spirited tech entrepreneur Jordan, who magically wakes up one morning as a 12-year-old version of herself after bullying a young girl. Here’s a bit of the scene, via the film’s Instagram:


Now when you watch the scene, you can imagine J. Holiday’s “Bed” was likely laid over “oohhs” and roars of laughter from the cast and crew who all couldn’t help but be in attendance for the filming of the scene. Tina Gordon, who also recently penned What Men Want, continued by saying this about the day on set:





If the camera could turn around and I think we have that footage – literally every woman in the crew and some men made it to that rooftop.



Looks like Luke James used a mix of his song-and-dance talent and some comedy chops to pull off the highlight of the filming process. You can see the funny scene when Little opens on Friday, alongside Hellboy and Missing Link. Hellboy was originally predicted to edge over the comedy this weekend, but with its disappointing reviews, maybe Little will find a few more reasons to dance.

Joe Carnahan Says He Left Bad Boys For Life Over Differences With Will Smith

Joe Carnahan Says He Left Bad Boys For Life Over Differences With Will Smith
Will Smith in Bad Boys

Development hell is a concept that isn't new to the film world. While certain projects seem to be promising and have the recipe for success, sometimes plans fail, and movies don't actually come to fruition. Highly anticipated action threequel Bad Boys For Life originally seemed like one of those movies, as it was been stuck in development hell for a number of years before finally going into production months ago.


Starting back in 2008, quite a few incarnations of Bad Boys' threequel were worked on before the current version was eventually nailed down. The Grey's Joe Carnahan was set to write and possibly direct Bad Boys III back in 2015, although he ultimately dropped out after the project stewed for a few years. Now he's explained the reasoning behind his departure, saying:



I just know myself, man. And I thought what we were doing at that point was the law of diminishing returns. I wasn’t servicing the story that I was really excited about telling, that the studio had green-lit. And again, this isn’t to throw shade at Will — it’s your face on the poster, it’s your name on the poster, you need to do things the way you want them done.





Well, this certainly sheds a light on things. Joe Carnahan doesn't seem to have sore feelings about the situation, but it appears that he had some creative differences with franchise star Will Smith. And since Smith is starring and producing Bad Boys For Life, he's got the right to have the final say. But that's just not how Carnahan wanted to make that movie.


Joe Carnahan's comments to Collider are in juxtaposition to the explanation that was given to his exit back in 2017. At that point, some reports indicated a scheduling conflict as the reason for Carnahan's departure. But it ultimately looks like it was creative differences, and a conflict with none other than Will Smith himself.


In his recent interview, Joe Carnahan was sure to not actually bad mouth With Smith over how Bad Boys For Life eventually came out. On the contrary, he understands what Smith has at stake for the project, and his own creative vision. But since they clashed, the director decided to exit the project, because he didn't want to work that way on the action sequel.




During that same conversation, Joe Carnahan was sure to pay his respects to Will Smith. Furthermore, he expressed how he was nervous to leave such a high-profile gig, explaining:



Here’s the thing. I love Will, he’s a great guy. It’s just, you get to a point where ... listen, I always say this. Harrison Ford, Tom Cruise, Will Smith, you find me a motherfucker in the modern era that’s walked away from movies with those guys and is still working in some capacity.



It looks like Joe Carnahan harbors no ill-will toward Will Smith due to his Bad Boys For Life departure. And while he was taking a risk by turning down such an opportunity, the writer/director had to follow his gut. That eventually made way for directors Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah to get behind the camera for the new blockbuster.




Bad Boys For Life recently wrapped production, and is currently set to arrive in theaters on January 17, 2020. In the meantime, check out our 2019 release list to plan your next trip to the movies.

Dumbo’s Original Source Material Remains A Mystery To This Day

Dumbo’s Original Source Material Remains A Mystery To This Day
Dumbo in sad clown makeup

In the discussion about Tim Burton’s Dumbo, most speak to its original source material as the 1941 Walt Disney Animated film of the same name – but while that’s not entirely wrong, it’s also not entirely right. While there is absolutely no questioning that the new film was heavily inspired by the classic cartoon, calling it the original source material ignores the fact that the first Dumbo movie was itself an adaptation. This by itself isn’t all that interesting, but what adds a few wrinkles to the situation is the fact that the first ever version of the story no longer appears to exist.


While the Disney film obviously popularized the tale of Dumbo, it was actually first envisioned by writers Helen Aberson and Harold Pearl and illustrator Helen Durney for a toy called a Roll-a-Book. It’s believed that a prototype was created, and there is some limited artwork still floating around, but apparently it’s impossible to actually find it.


This is not due to a lack of trying, however, as I learned earlier this month during the Los Angeles press day for the new live-action Dumbo. Having learned about this strange circumstance prior to seeing the Tim Burton film and become curious about it, I decided to inquire about the mystery of the Roll-a-Book during interviews with the movie’s producers. What I discovered was that efforts were definitely made to track down the original version of Dumbo, but nobody wound up having any luck.




I first sat down with producer Justin Springer and screenwriter Ehren Kruger, and right off the bat asked if they had any luck finding the mysterious invention. What I learned was that they did a full archive sweep shortly after development on the project started, and while they were able to find some incredible treasures that have been beautifully preserved by the Walt Disney Company, one item that wasn’t included with the wide variety of materials was the Roll-a-Book prototype. Springer explained,



It doesn't exist. Disney doesn't have it. As soon as Ehren and I started talking about it, we did go to the Disney archives and we were able to go to the animation archives and they pulled like 20 boxes of Dumbo stuff for us. And there were old treatments, and screenplays, and artwork, cell animation, early drawings, and model sheets. One of the opportunities at Disney is that you can go back to that source material and see what some of the original thinking was… But the Roll-a-Book itself was something that we found out about because we were doing research on where the original idea came from, and read about it. But we don't know that one exists.



The patent for the Roll-a-Book, filed November 2, 1938 and credited to inventor Everett Whitmyre, suggest that the device operated like an encased scroll that the user would navigate through with a pair of nobs. The reader would turn the nobs simultaneously, changing the image shown and letting the story continue. Specifically in the case of Dumbo, the story of a baby elephant with ears so giant that they allow him to fly.




Justin Springer and Ehren Kruger were unable to track down the Roll-a-Book, but interestingly it seems that their interest in digging through the archives was a touch contagious. The producer noted that the material they had found was passed along to Tim Burton and his team once they started becoming involved with Dumbo:



When I first met Tim [Burton] and Derek [Frey], when they were coming on-board the movie, I brought them a bunch of those files so that they could have them as well.



That was only the start for Derek Frey, though, as I later learned when I sat down with him and his producing partner Katterli Frauenfelder. During that interview I again opened by asking about the Roll-a-Book, and Frey admitted that the mystery was one that intrigued him as well in the making of Dumbo. And not only was it interesting to him, but it caught the attention of his wife Leah Gallo as well. Said Frey,





We looked [for the Roll-a-Book], and actually, my wife, who wrote the making-of book, she contacted Syracuse. I think it's Syracuse University has some kind of record of it, or maybe the original artwork. I don't think it's the Roll-a-Book itself, but they were so happy that we contacted them, because we wanted to get the information on like where did this originally come from? Obviously everybody thinks of the Disney animated picture, but they got the rights to do it based off of that little Roll-a-Book. So it's interesting.



If you can’t tell where this is going, however, the efforts ultimately didn’t bear any real fruit. Even with all of the resources of the Walt Disney Company supporting the search, the original Roll-a-Book prototype that inspired Dumbo remains a lost item… if you can even call it lost, given how it’s unclear whether or not it ever physically existed. Derek Frey summed it up this way:



From what I understand, it's kind of like one of these myths. There was a Roll-a-Book being planned. I guess the fact is I don't know if anyone's actually found a physical copy of one. I think there's imagery of it, or artwork that was created for it, and there could have been like maybe like a prototype created for it. But I don't think there's actually a physical Roll-a-Book. We didn't have one, but we looked.





Frankly, this sounds like a case where the thing will randomly turn up in someone’s basement someday, with the person in possession of it being totally and entirely clueless about its pop culture significance. But until that day comes, we’ll just have to live with the material we know exists.


On that note, the original Walt Disney Animation classic Dumbo is widely available on Blu-ray, DVD, and digital. And if you're curious about the new live-action take, Tim Burton’s Dumbo – starring Colin Farrell, Nico Parker, Finley Hobbins, Eva Green, Danny DeVito, Michael Keaton, and Alan Arkin – is now playing in theaters everywhere worldwide.