Crystal Lake Teaser Promises Friday the 13th Prequel Will Be Just a Slasher (Complimentary)

In October of 2022, A24 announced plans to make a Friday the 13th prequel with Bryan Fuller at the helm. Individually, we love most of those words. A24 continues to produce and distribute some of our favorite movies, including Marty Supreme, Backrooms, and The Invite. Ever since he got his start writing for Star Trek: Voyager and Deep Space Nine, Bryan Fuller has been one of our favorite creatives, thanks to shows such as Pushing Daisies and Hannibal. Yet, wonderful as they are, A24 and Fuller initially seemed like bad fits for Friday the 13th, perhaps the most crassly simplistic slasher franchise of the ’80s.

While various production choices have given us hope, including the addition of the always-reliable Linda Cardellini as Jason’s mother Pamela, our fears about the series were not assuaged until the first teaser for the show. Yes, there’s an A24 logo, and, no, there’s baritone voice over. But everything else feels like it was pulled from a trailer that would have played before a random Paramount release in the 1980s: a cheery song sang by children, gauzy shots of skinny people looking out on the titular lake, and people turning toward the camera and screaming as the screen turns red. In short, Crystal Lake looks like a trashy slasher, as it should be.

As established in the first Friday the 13th movie from 1980, Pamela Voorhees (originally played by Betsy Palmer, and then by Nana Visitor in the 2009 remake) came to Camp Crystal Lake as a cook. After her son Jason drowns in 1957 because of two counselors making out instead of watching him, Pamela took revenge. The murders gave the camp the nickname “Camp Blood,” and caused it to be closed down for 13 years, until new owners tried to rebrand it in the first movie.

Almost immediately after the first film, the Friday the 13th timeline became convoluted, especially since 1981’s Part II revealed that Jason had not died, that he had been hanging out in the woods, and saw his mother get beheaded by final girl Alice Hardy.

Between those inconsistencies and bare bones backstory, Friday the 13th was primed for a pretentious and convoluted prequel. Fuller left the project in 2024, to be replaced by Bradley Caleb Kane as showrunner. While Kane has done solid work as a writer for programs such as Fringe, Lodge 49, and It: Welcome to Derry, one could also imagine a modern TV professional repeating the Surf Dracula Phenomenon, making a show that builds up to the thing we want instead of just giving it to us each episode.

Certainly, Crystal Lake won’t give us the thing we ultimately want: Jason putting on his hockey mask and bending teenagers backwards. But the trailer seems to say that the show will give us everything else. Pamela’s got a big ol’ knife and she’s going to stick it into some dumb, sex-ed up teens all summer long.

Is that enough to sustain a full season of television? Who knows! But it’s enough to satisfy slasher fans, and they should be the primary concern for anyone making a Friday the 13th property, no matter how many television geniuses and boutique labels are involved.

Crystal Lake streams on Peacock on October 15, 2026.

How Sam Neill’s Laugh Made Cinema’s Scariest Meta Moment Even More Frightening

New Zealand actor Sam Neill has died at the age of 78, leaving behind an impressive filmography of memorable television and film performances. In addition to blockbusters like Jurassic Park and dramas such as The Piano, fans will surely point out his excellent work in horror movies, naming Event Horizon or Possession. But Neill’s greatest horror performance came in an oft-overlooked movie, one that everyone recognizes as great, but rarely gets the cult appreciation even afforded The Omen III.

The third part of his loose “Apocalypse Trilogy,” which also includes The Thing and Prince of Darkness, the 1994 John Carpenter movie In the Mouth of Madness takes a literary approach to the end of the world. Neill plays insurance investigator John Trent, hired by a publisher to look into the disappearance of their famed author, a Stephen King analogue called Sutter Cane. As the cynical Trent investigates further, the lines between fiction and reality blur into a Lovecraftian nightmare, leading to a mind-bending metatextual moment. Yet, the scariest thing at all is what Trent does at the end, delivering an utterly joyless, thundering laugh, played to perfection by Neill.

“You want to know about my ‘them’?” asks Trent in the first scene of In the Mouth of Madness, Neill cooly delivering the line with his smirk emphasized by his signature sharp eyebrows. When the doctor operating the mental asylum (played by the equally great and also late David Warner) responds with confusion, Trent continues, “My ‘them.’ Every paranoid schizophrenic has one; a ‘them,’ a ‘they,’ an ‘it.’ And you want to hear about my ‘them,’ don’t you?”

The coldness in Neill’s delivery of these lines contrasts with his behavior just a few moments before, when orderlies dragged a kicking and fighting Trent into the insane asylum. Once calm, Trent explains how he got there, allowing the movie to flashback to the beginning of the story. When Sutter Cane (Jürgen Prochnow) goes missing and his publisher tries to cash in the insurance policy, a skeptical Trent investigates. Trent believes that Cane and the publisher are attempting a stunt to drum up excitement for his new book, In the Mouth of Madness.

However, when Trent traces the clues to Hobb’s End, the heretofore fictional New England town at the center of all of Cane’s books, he cannot help but acknowledge the strange things around him. People transform into monsters, acts of violence occur, and time shifts wildly, all apparently according to Cane’s will. When Trent finally meets the author, Cane explains that his fans loved his work so ardently that his fiction has become truth and he’s become a god, a fact he proves by twisting reality around him.

The end of the film returns to the beginning, with Trent at the asylum. An undefined event seems to wipe out everyone else, and Trent walks free, moving out of the asylum and into the city, where he sees a movie theater with the words, “In the Mouth of Madness with John Trent” on the marquee. With popcorn in hand, Trent sits down and watches the show: In the Mouth of Madness, the same movie we just watched.

As he realizes what he’s seeing, Trent breaks out in laughter, a big boisterous chuckle, complete with snorts and guffaws. Yet, at no point does Neill allow any joy to creep in. Even before the laughter shifts to wailing, a change that occurs mere seconds before the final credits roll, Neill allows every other feeling to sneak into the laugh. He’s angry, frightened, confused, sad—anything but happy. He widens his eyes and throws back his head, acting out all of the motions of a big belly laugh.

In this one scene, Neill embodies the uncanny nature of the film. From the very beginning, Carpenter and screenwriter (and current Warner Bros. co-chair) Michael De Luca have been signaling that something’s off in the world of the film. Sometimes, those signals arrive in big, obvious ways, as when a paper boy (a pre-Anakin Hayden Christensen) transforms into an old man while peddling past Trent and his partner Styles (Julie Carmen). Other times, it’s more subtle, as when a doctor played by John Glover flashes a cheesy smile while checking Trent into the asylum.

Like The Thing and Prince of Darkness, In the Mouth of Madness scares the viewer by showing them the end of the world, a world undone by forces that cannot be named or even imagined. Those two films use more visceral imagery to achieve this effect, whether its Rob Bottin’s creature effects or nightmare-inducing video tape. In the Mouth of Madness certainly has its share of memorable visuals (“Did I ever tell you my favorite color was blue?”).

But its greatest effect is Neill himself. Neill could project skepticism with ease, just slightly turning his head so Trent could glare at a Caine superfan from the corner of his eye. He could play the anger of Trent yelling at the citizens of Hobb’s End who insisted that Caine wrote the end of all their stories. But his greatest feat occurs at the end, when Trent finally resigns himself to the falseness of the world around him, unleashing a laugh that contains no happiness, only ineffable terror.

Tom Cruise Gives Advice to YouTube and Gen-Z Filmmakers

Tom Cruise is pelvic-thrusting and finger-pistol shooting his way into auteur territory again as revealed in the first full trailer release for Digger, the upcoming dark satire from four-time Academy Award winner Alejandro González Iñárritu.

After more than a decade of action movies filling up Cruise’s resume, Film Twitter’s patron saint of cinema is bringing Mission: Impossible levels of enthusiasm to his first collaboration with Iñárritu. And at a Digger press event last week on the Warner Bros. lot in Burbank, Cruise held court in a theater full of reporters and influencers to discuss the experience of filming with the director and the helmer’s long-time cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, as well as the glee of subsuming himself in prosthetics and finding the “rhythm” of this larger than life character, Digger Rockwell.

Also long embracing his status as a statesman for the cinematic experience, Cruise seemed eager to discuss the state of moviemaking, particularly during a summer that might represent something of an inflection point. Hence after presenting the Digger trailer, Cruise talked to Den of Geek exclusively about how he sees the theatrical hits from younger Gen-Z filmmakers/YouTubers released this year as a great sign of the health of Hollywood.

“I feel very good,” the actor told us with his trademark intensity about the future of cinema. Furthermore, he has advice for the next generation of talent making the jump to theatrical: “Don’t ask for permission to create. You know Steven Spielberg started out directing an episode of Marcus Welby, M.D., learning the craft. I’m still seeing that. I love movies. And I see a lot of movies, and there are a lot of great movies still to come this summer.”

Earlier during the moderated Q&A around the Digger trailer presentation, Cruise set some broader context for his current temperature taking of the industry. “Since I was a kid, I’ve traveled the world and I go and I watch movies with audiences, and I’m very curious about, do they feel the same way I do?” Cruise said. “That’s the beauty of this art form, everyone has the things they like and their own taste and what works and what doesn’t work. I tell people, learn these skills and go off and communicate your own stories. You don’t have to do it like I do. Do your thing.”

The actor and Iñárritu are certainly embracing that with Digger. In a pre-taped message from the director in London, where he’s mixing the film, Iñárritu said Digger is based on a character archetype he conjured up a decade ago after The Revenant.

“People often ask me why I chose Tom to play Digger,” he offered. “To me, that’s like asking somebody why you drink water when you are thirsty? Because it’s what you need. The film needed Tom.”

Iñárritu said of the character and film that “it’s absurd, it’s dangerous, but certainly comedic, because the source of great comedy is tragedy.” All of that is personified through Cruise’s frighteningly wealthy industrialist who kicks humanity toward the precipice of environmental ruin, and then wants to be the cowboy frantically barreling in to save the day. The Digger trailer teases the bombast of Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb with the pointed environmental satire of Bong Joon-ho’s Okja and Mickey 17.

Cruise said of jumping into Digger: “There’s nothing better than to physically and metaphorically stand on the edge of a cliff and go, ‘Let’s do this. And I trust you and whatever we’re going to do, I know this is going to be a hell of an experience, and let’s come together and let’s do it. Let’s all do it.’ I have never had something that could challenge me in this way and neither has Alejandro…. And when you see this film, it’s totally original.”

Digger releases on Oct. 2, 2026.

Lin-Manuel Miranda Threw Away His Shot at Joining the MCU But He’s Okay With That

Casting can be a tricky business. Sometimes the perfect actor is the first choice, and other times the right fit only becomes clear after a “no thanks.” That’s exactly how Lin-Manuel Miranda views his almost soiree into the MCU, having revealed he turned down the chance to play an infamous Spider-Man villain. In the end, it seemed history had its eyes on someone else to play Vulture.

Yes, Vulture.

Talking to Josh Horowitz via the Happy Sad Confused podcast, Miranda spoke about his love for comics and added that, like any New Yorker, he was a fan of Spider-Man growing up. That prompted Horowitz to bring up Miranda’s previous comments about turning down a Marvel role in 2016, around the time he was leaving Hamilton, leading him to suspect the rejected project was Spider-Man: Homecoming.

Taking a shot in the dark about what character had been offered, Horowitz floated the reasonable guess of Mr. Harrington, Peter Parker’s endearingly awkward science teacher played by Martin Starr. Miranda laughed, replying, “I would have been so miscast,” before revealing that not only had he been picked to play Adrian Toomes, but also that Kevin Feige had personally offered him the part over the phone.

“Kevin Feige told me the entire plot over the phone,” Miranda explained, recalling how excited he was by the story and his immediate reaction to hearing the details. His enthusiasm led him to ask Feige when production would begin, only for the Marvel Studios president to reveal that filming would start the moment Miranda stepped off stage in Hamilton.

Faced with such a quick work turnaround, Miranda ultimately decided to pass on the role. “I went, ‘Well, I would really like to—I love these movies, but I would really like to stay married, so I cannot do this,’” he said, a decision that makes sense considering his grueling 18-month run on Hamilton. Miranda also pushed back against Horowitz’s suggestion that he would have been a great fit for Vulture, insisting that “Michael Keaton was perfect” and that Marvel “found exactly who they needed” for the role.

There’s no denying that Lin-Manuel Miranda is a lyrical genius but also a good actor to boot, so maybe, just maybe, he would have made for an interesting Vulture. In reality, though, Miranda being the first choice for the role is a pretty surprising casting decision, especially considering how different the character’s intimidating presence and grounded villainy are from the energetic charisma he’s known for.

Unsurprisingly, the idea of Miranda playing one of Spider-Man’s biggest villains sent fans into a frenzy of imagination. Reactions ranged from scene reimaginings poking fun at Miranda’s inability to resist a good rap to feelings of frankly understandable dread at what could have been. Others were more forgiving, acknowledging that while the Hamilton star is undeniably talented, Keaton’s performance defined the character and cemented Vulture as one of the MCU’s standout villains.

In the end, Miranda may not have taken flight as Vulture, but he still managed to leave his mark on Spider-Man: Homecoming in a way he probably never expected. Adding as a quick side note in his interview with Horowitz, Miranda shared that Feige told him his reaction to hearing the film’s story helped reassure the producer that he was on the right track.

“By the way though, Kevin does say, he goes, ‘When I told you that over the phone, that’s when I knew the movie was going to work because of your reaction.’ That’s my little footnote in history, was me going ‘OH!’” Miranda said.

And honestly, that’s the best possible outcome. Miranda got to contribute a well-needed spark of excitement behind the scenes, while Michael Keaton delivered the iconic performance that helped make Homecoming one of the MCU’s strongest solo outings. After all, there’s more than one way to be in the room where it happens.

Raised by Wolves Producer Confirms What Really Killed Season 3

Fans of Aaron Guzikowski’s Raised by Wolves were gutted to hear that there would be no season 3 of the acclaimed sci-fi series back in June 2022. At the time, Abubakar Salim, who led the cast as Father alongside Amanda Collin as Mother, suggested that the huge WarnerMedia and Discovery Inc. merger was responsible for Raised by Wolves’ sudden cancelation, which has now been confirmed by David W. Zucker, CCO at Ridley Scott’s Scott Free Productions.

Zucker told ScreenRant that the merger was indeed to blame for Raised by Wolves’ fate, noting that new CEO “David Zaslav [came] in” and that led to “our third season [getting] set aside” by HBO Max, adding, “I personally wish that we would be able to bring Raised by Wolves back,” and noting that he “never thought we would make an Alien or Blade Runner series” so keeps “hoping that [show] might have another day.”

The Raised by Wolves producer was, of course, referring to two of Scott Free Productions’ newer offerings, Alien: Earth, currently in production on a second season, and Blade Runner 2099, an upcoming miniseries set to debut on Prime Video in 2027. Still, you can sense that Raised by Wolves has certainly not been forgotten by those behind the scenes, even with some shiny new toys to play with.

Raised by Wolves imagined a future version of Earth that had been destroyed in a war between atheists and a religious group called the Mithraic. In the aftermath, two androids (Collin’s Mother and Salim’s Father) were sent to a distant planet along with human embryos in an effort to start a society of peaceful atheists. However, this plan was disrupted when Mithraic colonists also arrived and reignited the old feud between the two groups. Not only that, their new planet was full of secrets that challenged both religious and scientific explanations, and many of the show’s mysteries were left unresolved after the show’s abrupt cancellation.

After the WBD merger, the series was removed from HBO Max, and it is still searching for a streaming home.

Digger Trailer Looks Like Dr. Strangelove For the 21st Century

It looks like Tom Cruise has learned to stop worrying and love the bomb. Well, okay, Mission: Impossible—The Final Reckoning wasn’t a bomb, but it did end(?) the franchise on a down note. Now he’s taking the end of that franchise to go in a completely different direction, joining Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu for the satire Digger. The first trailer for the long-awaited movie has just dropped, featuring Cruise as blustery Southern-fried oil baron Digger Rockwell, a character that both resonates with his past performances and is totally new.

At a Digger event with Cruise on the Warner Bros. lot attended by Den of Geek correspondent Tara Bennett, the actor discussed the creation of Digger Rockwell. “If you start to feel the musicality of the character, it has a rhythm, and it’s not a rhythm like anything else,” he muses. “So the behavior of a character, the movement of a character, these are things that as we’re looking at the makeup side, as you’re developing, you got to go, is this our tone? Is it drama? Is it comedy? Is it too much? You’re dialing it in.”

Those questions about the movie’s tone are only intensified by Digger‘s first trailer. But we might find some answers by looking back at an earlier satire that also laughed at a crisis, Stanley Kubrick‘s satirical classic Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

In the trailer for Digger, we see how the titular character’s operation has unleashed an environmental disaster, one that merits the attention of world leaders, including the President of the United States (John Goodman). With the help of his friends and advisors, played by familiar faces such as Sandra Hüller and Riz Ahmed, Digger seeks to either fix the problem he created or control the public perception of the issue. Also, he must care for his beloved cat, who appears in the form of a charmingly ragged puppet.

Such a mixture of tones cannot help but recall Dr. Strangelove, the 1964 hit adaptation of the novel Red Alert by Peter George. Doctor Strangelove is a farce about a Cold War flub that pushes the world to the brink of nuclear disaster. In the face of such devastation, the famously cold Kubrick amps up the wacky comedy. Sterling Hayden and George C. Scott play military hawks General Jack D. Ripper and General Buck Turgidson, while Peter Sellers portrays three different characters: the officious RAF officer Group Captain Lionel Mandrake, the milquetoast President Merkin Muffley, and the titular Dr. Strangelove, a mad scientist and former Nazi.

For his part, Cruise has made his own memorable characters, a point he reflected upon at the Digger event, where he noted the similarities and differences between Digger Rockwell and other icons he’s portrayed.

“Like anything, there’s not one rhythm or comedy-fits-all, as we know. I mean, if you look at the difference between a Risky Business to a Jerry McGuire to a Les Grossman [of Tropic Thunder], Edge of Tomorrow, it has its own musicality. It has its own vision,” Cruise explains.

Kubrick made Strangelove at the height of the Cold War, when the possibility of nuclear annihilation was real. Yet, the Looney Tunes sense of humor was only heightened by those tensions, making the comedy sharper and allowing the audience to laugh at such absurdly high stakes.

Digger seems poised to do the same with our current situation. Although the trailer features shots of fighter jets and talk of a nuclear arms race, pointing to threats that have not actually receded since 1964, it focuses more on the devastating effect our energy systems have on the environment. Moreover, Digger reminds us that our economic system allows oligarchs to operate unilaterally, despite their reckless behavior and utter lack of expertise. We see the real-life cost of such structures every day on the news.

For Cruise, those high stakes are part of the excitement. He reveals, “There’s nothing better than to physically and metaphorically stand on the edge of a cliff and go, ‘Let’s do this. And I trust you and whatever we’re going to do, I know this is going to be a hell of an experience and let’s come together and let’s do it. Let’s all do it.’ I have never had something that could challenge me in this way and neither has Alejandro when we went in, ever. And when you see this film, it’s totally original.”

As anyone who has seen his movies Birdman or The Revenant knows, Iñárritu has no problem being original. What is surprising is the level of playfulness that the filmmaker puts into Digger. He seems to shoot every scene at an extreme angle, on sets with gaudy colors, with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki going as dramatic as possible and actors devouring every bit of scenery.

“The director sets the frame and the lenses and the lighting. It’s really my favorite thing,” explains Cruise. “Alejandro, he shows me, ‘I want you to look like this;’ And it wasn’t like he said, ‘This is the kind of character.’ So, I’m thinking, ‘This guy’s got fucking balls,’ and I’m like, ‘I can’t wait. Let’s go.'”

Clearly, Cruise is more than happy to oblige Iñárritu’s plans for a bigger movie. Gone is the open-heartedness that made Ethan Hunt such a compelling hero. In its place is a jauntiness that allows Doctor Strangelove to be such an enduring classic. Will Cruise and Iñárritu do the same with Digger? Or is that mission just too impossible?

Digger debuts in theaters on October 2, 2026.

The Odyssey Finally Brings Tom Holland and Tom Holland Together

Years of British historian Tom Holland being confused with British Spider-Man actor Tom Holland online have reached a pleasing high point, as the pair have finally gotten together for the former’s enormously popular podcast, The Rest Is History, which he co-hosts with fellow historian Dominic Sandbrook.

Holland and Holland leaned into the oft-repeated social media mix-up by recreating the “Spider-Man pointing” meme before sitting down in their chairs, both marked “Tom Holland,” to discuss Spidey Holland’s new Christopher Nolan movie, The Odyssey.

Viewers of the video version of the podcast were swift with their own jokes about the Holland vs. Holland encounter, with one writing “Legendary superhero meets a guy who was in the Uncharted movie,” while another posted, “My favourite historian meets the guy who always comes up when I google search for him.”

Historian Holland previously praised Nolan’s upcoming fantasy action movie after attending the London premiere, suggesting that those who have expressed negative opinions or made judgements about the film’s creative choices before even seeing it may be “missing out,” and in the podcast episode, which you can check out below, Spidey Holland also seemed keen to discuss the ways in which Nolan has “pushed the boundaries” of the perceived historical accuracy of The Odyssey, noting that Homer’s ancient Greek epic has been subject to a “humongous game of telephone” over the years.

“Odysseus’ side of the story, Matt’s side of the story, represents the myth,” Holland explained to Holland. “And this humongous game of telephone has been played with this text. You know, it wasn’t written down for hundreds of years. There was a dark period in ancient Greece where no one would write anything down, so they would sing the song. So to me, what I love about the creative choices that Chris has made on that side of the story is that he’s kind of pushed the boundaries of what might be deemed historically accurate or reality, because that is the myth.”

Actor Holland has been making the rounds in a PR blitz over the past month or so, promoting both The Odyssey, where he portrays Telemachus, and Spider-Man: Brand New Day, where he will reprise the role of wall-crawler Peter Parker for Sony and Marvel in what is expected to be an absolute slam-dunk summer blockbuster.

The Odyssey is set for release on July 17, while Spider-Man: Brand New Day is heading for a July 31 release.

Looks Like Spider-Man: Brand New Day Just Added Another Avenger

Kevin Feige seems to be staying one step ahead of notable spoiler generator Tom Holland this time around, as the Marvel boss rolled up at BiliBili World in Shanghai this past weekend to tease yet another recognizable addition to the cast of Spider-Man: Brand New Day ahead of the movie’s release later this month.

While standing next to a woman dressed as Florence Pugh’s MCU character Yelena Belova on stage, Feige told the audience at BiliBili World that “If you’re a fan of Yelena, wait until Avengers: Doomsday. Yelena plays a big part in that,” adding, “But if you don’t want to wait until then, you might see Yelena a little bit sooner in the movies.”

Since Brand New Day is the only remaining Marvel movie left on the calendar before Avengers: Doomsday is released, we can probably put the pieces together ourselves here and say that Pugh will indeed appear in the upcoming Spidey fourquel, though whether that’s in the main plot of the film or a post-credits scene remains to be seen.

Kevin Feige on Yelena's role in 'AVENGERS: DOOMSDAY'

"If you're a fan of Yelena, wait until Avengers Doomsday, Yelena plays a big part in that. But if you don't want to wait until then, you might see Yelena a little bit sooner in the movies"

(via: 艺东西 on RedNote) pic.twitter.com/4ws5aQD9np
— Avengers Updates (@AvengersUpdated) July 11, 2026

Pugh has made quite an impact on the Marvel Cinematic Universe since her debut in 2021’s Black Widow, where she was introduced as Natasha Romanoff’s estranged sister. The two spent some time together in their childhood years before being separated and trained in General Dreykov’s Red Room, where they became elite assassins known as “Black Widows.” Yelena eventually broke away from the group’s conditioning and repaired her relationship with Natasha before she died during the events of Avengers: Endgame.

Yelena then disappeared during the Blip and resurfaced under the employ of Valentina Allegra de Fontaine (Julia Louis-Dreyfus), who tried to dispose of her but accidentally forced her to team up with powerful yet forgotten villains and antiheroes like John Walker and Ghost. Along with Red Guardian, Bucky Barnes, and Bob Reynolds a.k.a Sentry, they were encouraged to form the New Avengers under Fontaine’s guidance.

Doomsday will mark Pugh’s first appearance in a real Avengers movie, but it is not yet known whether her character will survive the events of the movie to reappear in Marvel’s follow-up blockbuster, Avengers: Secret Wars. The actress has been candid in the past about her popular role, telling Total Film that when she first signed up to play Yelena, “lots of people from the indie-film world were all telling me that I was never going to go back to small movies again, and it always kind of wound me up,” but added that she thinks “there’s beauty in all types of those films. There’s beauty in the massive, epic storylines like Dune, like Marvel, like even Oppenheimer that I did. They’re amazing, mega movies.”

It looks like we can now add Brand New Day to Pugh’s impressive list of amazing, mega movies.

Spider-Man: Brand New Day is set for release on July 31.

Anne Hathaway and Matt Damon on the ‘Deeply Kind Person Behind Christopher Nolan’s Genius’

Christopher Nolan’s reputation precedes the man these days. He is one of the last Hollywood directors whose name alone is a brand; a calling card; a promise on the poster that you’re about to see something epic. It’s synonymous with IMAX spectacle and enigmatic characters. What might be less publicized or celebrated, however, are the humane qualities that make him so compelling as a storyteller. They’re crucial though for any leader whom men and women will follow on to the ends of the earth—or at least the Tyrrhenian Sea off the coast of Sicily.

“So before the scene where I’m lashed to the mast and face the Sirens, Chris was waiting for me on the dock with Hoyte [van Hoytema],” actor Matt Damon says with a smile, and perhaps the hint of a sigh, while recounting to us The Odyssey’s shoot across the Mediterranean. The scene in question is pivotal in Homer’s epic poem about a Greek king unable to get home. In the Ancient Greek text, it is here where the ethereal Sirens whisper sweet honey into Odysseus’ ear as he’s tied to his ship’s mast, sailing past their treacherous rocks. In Nolan’s movie, that sweetness is also implied, as is the Sirens’ primal beauty as observed from a distance. But what most forcefully trickles into Odysseus’ ear—and across Damon’s face in extended closeup—is nothing less than psychological agony. He hears the broken promises and waylaid desires whispered between a separated husband and wife. And feels the tears of torment.

“So it’s at six in the morning when we’d leave,” Damon explains, “and I had my armor and everything on, and saw them on the dock. Normally they took off on the camera boat before us, because it takes about an hour to get out there, but they knew I had to do this scene that day. And Chris said, ‘Hoyte and I were saying we should start with [you], and shoot till we’re happy. And then we’ll get the other pieces that we need.’”

It’s a small gesture, but for an actor like Damon, it might be the most graceful piece of direction he ever got from Nolan after three films together. Instead of focusing on the riggings, coverage, or capturing the Greeks’ authentic, wooden longship in the morning sun, Nolan and his cinematographer would just shoot one of the most emotionally taxing closeups of the movie until they, and Damon, were satisfied.

“That does a lot of things,” Damon says. “Number one, it means you’re not going to have to sit around all day. It’s like, I know I have one hour on a boat ride [where] I can get my mind right, and the second I step off that boat we’re going. And we’re going to shoot till we’re happy, meaning we’re going to do this a lot, we’re not leaving until we get everything we need. It seems like very simple direction, but there’s a lot of wisdom.”

Wisdom, and as added by Damon’s co-star and the other emotional anchor of The Odyssey, acute empathy.

“There’s a lot of humanity,” Anne Hathaway says of her director. “So I liked Chris, I was sort of amazed by him, but those little moments make you realize, ‘Oh, there’s a really deeply kind person inside this genius that we revere.’”

Hathaway’s seen it many times over, having collaborated with Nolan for longer than Damon, beginning with her stint as Catwoman in 2012’s The Dark Knight Rises, which is an experience she still looks back on with pride, especially with how it established a fruitful creative relationship.

“When we were working on Dark Knight Rises together, which I think I was 27 years old or something like that on, I couldn’t believe my good luck,” Hathaway remembers. “Because I was still very much the girl from The Princess Diaries, but all of a sudden I got to be on a Christopher Nolan movie playing this character that had meant so much to me my entire life. So I just wanted to be so prepared, I wanted to do such a good job. I just wanted to leave it all on the table, and I think he knew that about me.”

She continues, “So we were doing a sequence and before it even started, he just came up to me and said, ‘You know what, I just wanted to let you know we’re going to do a lot of takes of this because I’ve just had it in my head a certain way for a really long time, and I just need it to flow this certain way. So I’m going to do a lot of takes, but it’s not because you’re doing anything wrong.’” It is a note of humility and preemptive concern.

View this post on Instagram

That probing sympathy for all the filmmaking talent and characterization at play becomes blindingly self-evident in The Odyssey, a film where the entire cast from stars like Damon and Hathaway, to the smallest of supporting roles, are filled with Oscar winners and AAA talent. Hence while even Homer’s Helen of Troy is depicted mostly as the dutiful wife of Menelaus, the Spartan king who fought a bloody war of attrition for 10 years on the shores of Troy after she was taken by (or left him for?) a Trojan prince, the Helen played by Lupita Nyong’o opposite Jon Bernthal’s Menelaus must convey oceans of pained emotions in only a handful of scenes.

“Helen of Troy is kind of ubiquitous,” Nyong’o says. “We all know a version of the Helen story… but oftentimes the women are footnotes in these stories, so it was nice to flesh it out.” While she had not read The Odyssey in full while growing up in Kenya, Nyong’o became extremely familiar with various versions of the Trojan War myth, and what a woman like Helen might think about having an entire war fought in her name.

Adds the Oscar winner, “I do think that this film asks us to consider more than just her face.”

It also asks us to consider the emotional turmoil of even a man who clearly seems to resent that face after being reunited with it. Bernthal’s Menelaus is still married to Helen after the war’s end—which is more accurate to the Greek myths than 2004’s Troy ever got—but there is an inherent contradiction between how coldly the Spartan king treats his returned wife versus the genuine kindness he shows Telemachus, Odysseus’ young adult son played by Tom Holland.

“I think in the canon of Chris’ work and in the canon of all great storytelling, it’s always a gray area,” Bernthal reflects. “It’s not, ‘Okay, this is a good guy, this is the bad guy.’ It’s about what are the characters going through? I think there’s deep shame, there’s deep anger, there’s deep bitterness, there’s deep sadness, there’s deep survivor’s guilt. All this stuff is going on.”

Like Homer, it is tapping into universal emotions bigger than just heroes and villains. Anyone can relate to the pull of wanting to go home—or the fear that they blew it somehow by leaving. In some ways, The Odyssey feels like a culmination in Nolan’s work, and not just because it is the third movie where a hero must fight his way across vast distances to get back to Ms. Hathaway. It is also another story about the longing of home and family—and the fear of being unable to see them again not because of external forces, but due to internal, human ones.

“The first thing I said to Chris when I read the script was, ‘Wow, this traffic’s in a lot of the same themes as Oppenheimer,’” Damon reveals. “Just because I just felt that’s a story about accountability for what you’ve done and the decisions you’ve made. Odysseus is very much responsible for his own ingenuity and living with the effects of that.”

It is another film about a great man who does terrible things, and in the aftermath is unsure if he even deserves the home life he yearns for. It’s about the moral anguish of a struggling husband tied to the mast, not the spectacle he alone might be privy to. The intimate scope of Nolan’s epics in a nutshell.

The Odyssey opens in theaters on Friday, July 17.

Marvel Reveals New Look at Avengers: Doomsday With Loki at the Center of Everything

A new official look at Avengers: Doomsday’s ensemble cast offers some fascinating insights into the upcoming superhero blockbuster, which is still keeping much of its story under wraps ahead of Marvel’s return to San Diego Comic-Con later this month.

Although the ensemble was already announced a while ago with some strategically placed chairs, this new look seems to confirm a few rumors about the construction of the film’s team-ups, but also highlights Loki (Tom Hiddleston) in quite a mysterious yet important way.

Andy Park, who has been a key part of Marvel’s Visual Development team since 2010 and was laid off by the company in April 2026 as part of The Walt Disney Company’s devastating corporate cuts, shared the new look at Avengers: Doomsday on social media this past weekend, writing that it marked “the final full film I had the honor of leading as Director of Visual Development at Marvel Studios” and that the impressive illustration “commemorates that journey & reveals the characters & their looks for the first time.”

AVENGERS: DOOMSDAY – the final full film I had the honor of leading as Director of Visual Development at Marvel Studios.

This illustration commemorates that journey & reveals the characters & their looks for the first time. #AvengersDoomsday pic.twitter.com/87l95XZZ7d
— Andy Park (@andyparkart) July 11, 2026

Fans were quick to point out that there seem to be three distinct superhero teams in Avengers: Doomsday, with The New Avengers, Thor, Ant-Man, and a bearded Steve Rogers grouped together, the X-Men aligned, and the Fantastic Four standing with Sam Wilson Captain America, Shang-Chi, Shuri Black Panther and M’Baku.

Though the reveal of Doctor Doom’s menacingly masked face between Steve Rogers (holding a reformed Mjolnir) and Reed Richards seems to confirm that both heroes will indeed play a large role in whatever plans Doom has for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it was the center of Park’s illustration that drew a surprising amount of attention, for it was there that fans noticed the almost spectral illustration of Hiddleston’s Loki right in the center, still sitting atop his throne at the foot of Yggdrasil, where he maintains the multiversal timelines of the MCU.

The exact nature of Loki’s role in Avengers: Doomsday has been one of the movie’s greatest mysteries. As a villain, Loki was a huge part of the first Avengers film back in 2012, but was killed off at the start of Avengers: Infinity War. A variant of the character then managed to escape during the Time Heist in Avengers: Endgame, leading him on a time-bending journey in the critically acclaimed Disney+ series Loki.

Removing Loki from his glorious purpose as the God who now sits at the heart of the MCU’s timelines has long been theorized as a key move for any villain who would want to mess with the multiverse, but whether Doctor Doom will find Loki an easy target remains to be seen in Avengers: Doomsday, which will lead to the Multiverse Saga-ending Avengers: Secret Wars in 2027.

Naturally, Hiddleston has been tight-lipped about what we can expect from his beloved character in Avengers: Doomsday, simply telling GQ that the film is “monumental” and that the “surprising” center of the story “has never been done before.”

Avengers: Doomsday is set for release on December 18.

15 People Share the Gaming ‘Masterpiece’ They Just Can’t Get Into

Not everyone likes everything, and that’s ok; having distinct tastes is what makes us interesting, and worthy of sharing experiences. But of course, when everyone is singing the praise of a game or franchise, you want to know what that is all about. Only to encounter that these so-called ‘masterpieces’ don’t really click with you.

We know there’s nothing wrong with that, even if we can’t help but feel left out. This is how users of Reddit felt when sharing their own experiences, and these are the most notable games they mentioned. Look through this list to find people who think like you, or wonder how they could not enjoy the timeless classic you love.

The Sims

The Sims remains one of the best-selling life simulation franchises ever made, but its open-ended gameplay isn’t for everyone. Some players simply prefer games with clearer objectives and a stronger sense of progression.

Undertale

Praised for its memorable characters, humor, and unconventional combat system, Undertale has earned classic status. Even so, its unique style and quirky presentation don’t resonate with every player who gives it a try.

Fortnite

As one of the defining battle royale games, Fortnite attracts millions with its constant updates and crossover events. For others, the fast-paced multiplayer focus and competitive nature never quite click.

Metro 2033

Known for its immersive atmosphere and post-apocalyptic storytelling, Metro 2033 has a devoted following. Some players, however, struggle with its slower pacing and survival mechanics despite appreciating its world-building.

Hollow Knight

Hollow Knight is widely regarded as one of the finest Metroidvanias ever made. Its challenging combat, interconnected world, and demanding exploration can nevertheless prove frustrating for players seeking a more forgiving experience.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

Frequently cited among the greatest RPGs ever created, The Witcher 3 offers a massive world and acclaimed storytelling. Some players simply never connect with its combat, pacing, or lengthy quest structure.

Red Dead Redemption 2

Rockstar’s western epic is celebrated for its realism and attention to detail. Others find its deliberately slow movement, lengthy animations, and methodical pacing difficult to enjoy despite recognizing its craftsmanship.

Outer Wilds

Outer Wilds has been praised for its exploration and mystery-driven design. Players expecting more traditional progression sometimes struggle with its time loop structure and the freedom to uncover answers independently.

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

Nintendo reinvented the Zelda formula with a vast open world and player freedom. While many embraced the changes, others missed the series’ traditional dungeon structure and found weapon durability frustrating.

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Skyrim has remained enormously popular for more than a decade thanks to its expansive world and modding community. Still, some players never become invested in its combat or open-ended quest design.

Diablo III

Blizzard’s action RPG refined its gameplay considerably after launch and built a loyal audience. Even so, its loot-focused progression and repetitive endgame loop aren’t enough to hook every player.

Disco Elysium

Acclaimed for its writing and role-playing depth, Disco Elysium stands apart from most RPGs. Players looking for traditional combat or faster gameplay sometimes find its dialogue-heavy approach difficult to embrace.

Warframe

Warframe offers years’ worth of content and fast-paced cooperative gameplay. However, its complex systems, steep learning curve, and overwhelming amount of mechanics can discourage newcomers before everything falls into place.

Elden Ring

FromSoftware’s acclaimed open-world adventure earned widespread praise for its exploration and challenging combat. Even so, its demanding difficulty and minimal guidance remain significant barriers for players who prefer more accessible experiences.

Factorio

Factorio has become a benchmark for factory-building games through its intricate automation systems. Players who don’t enjoy optimization, logistics, or gradually expanding production lines often find it difficult to get invested.

15 Movies Where Your Mom Can’t Stop Asking Questions

Older generations tend to have problems following overly complicated movies, especially if they’re used to having movies only as background noise or as a relaxing activity. If you’re watching a movie with them, they’ll feel like the plot is impossible to follow. It’s hard to enjoy a film when watching with someone who keeps wondering who’s who, what just happened, or why everyone suddenly looks different.

Through their complicated plots and original ideas, these films reward careful viewing and tend to generate a steady stream of questions from anyone who isn’t completely locked into the story. Be careful who you choose as a watching partner in the future.

Inception

Christopher Nolan’s dream-heist thriller constantly shifts between multiple dream layers moving at different speeds. Missing one explanation about the rules almost guarantees confusion once the story reaches its increasingly complex finale.

Tenet

Time inversion, overlapping timelines, and dialogue packed with scientific terminology make Tenet one of Christopher Nolan’s most demanding films. Even attentive viewers often need a second watch to fully piece everything together.

The Prestige

The rivalry between two magicians unfolds through journals, flashbacks, and carefully hidden twists. The movie constantly encourages viewers to question what they’re seeing until the final revelations reframe everything.

Mulholland Drive

David Lynch’s surreal mystery deliberately blurs dreams, identity, and reality. Rather than offering straightforward answers, the film invites interpretation, making it a guaranteed source of confused questions during family movie night.

Memento

Because the main storyline unfolds in reverse chronological order, viewers gradually discover information alongside the protagonist. Looking away for even a few minutes makes reconnecting the narrative significantly more difficult.

Primer

Made on a tiny budget, Primer presents time travel with remarkable complexity and very little exposition. The overlapping timelines have inspired countless diagrams from fans trying to untangle the story.

Cloud Atlas

Six interconnected stories unfold across different eras with actors playing multiple roles under extensive makeup. Keeping track of the shifting timelines and recurring faces can become surprisingly challenging.

Donnie Darko

Between alternate timelines, mysterious visions, and philosophical discussions about time travel, Donnie Darko leaves many viewers debating its meaning long after the credits finish rolling.

Everything Everywhere All at Once

The film rapidly jumps across countless alternate universes while balancing action, comedy, and emotional family drama. Its constant multiverse shifts require viewers to pay close attention throughout.

Coherence

A dinner party becomes increasingly confusing after a cosmic event causes multiple realities to overlap. The film reveals its mysteries gradually, rewarding viewers who carefully track each character’s movements.

The Fountain

Darren Aronofsky tells three seemingly connected stories spanning different periods and realities. The emotional throughline eventually emerges, but the unconventional structure often leaves first-time viewers searching for answers.

Shutter Island

Martin Scorsese’s psychological thriller constantly challenges the audience’s understanding of reality. As new clues emerge, viewers are encouraged to reconsider everything they believed about the investigation.

Enemy

Denis Villeneuve’s adaptation of José Saramago’s novel embraces ambiguity from beginning to end. Doppelgängers, symbolism, and an unforgettable final image have made it one of modern cinema’s most debated films.

The Matrix Reloaded

The sequel expands its mythology with philosophical conversations, new factions, and complicated rules governing the Matrix. Viewers expecting another straightforward action movie often find themselves struggling to keep up.

Synecdoche, New York

Charlie Kaufman’s drama steadily dissolves the boundaries between reality, theater, and imagination. As years pass in unconventional ways and stories fold into each other, following the narrative becomes increasingly demanding.

Summer Box Office Blues Are Starting to Feel Like 1969

In 2015, Steven Spielberg received a lot of flack in the press—and even more on social media—when he suggested the type of modern mega blockbuster he helped pioneer, and which superhero movies specifically came to embody in the 2010s, was headed for a crash. At the time, sections of Film Twitter bristled at the assertion that “there’s eventually going to be an implosion—or a big meltdown. There’s going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen mega-budget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that’s going to change the paradigm.”

There is a degree of irony in this—including that Spielberg’s own Disclosure Day is underperforming, if far from crashing, this summer—with the king of blockbusters projecting the demise of its current iteration. But for anyone with a sense of film history, observed or lived-through the case of Spielberg, it made a lot of sense. After all, the Jaws director and many of his friends in the 1970s were only able to breakthrough after the final death rattles of the Golden Age studio system in the 1960s. It’s a twist of history that increasingly seeming prescient in the summer box office season of 2026…

Technically, it’s been a rosy summer and year for theater owners and moviegoers. Supply, and therefore the variety of movies that get made, is up, as is attendance and box office receipts. Last spring saw box office revenue grow by 23 percent over 2025, which is the best since the pandemic. Yet as is becoming glaringly apparent, a lot of that revenue is being generated from surprise corners like the new wave of Gen-Z filmmakers who are making their bones on YouTube before pivoting to original horror movies like Obsession, Backrooms, and Iron Lung, or films at least in genres that have largely been neglected by the studios in the last 10 years, a la adult-skewing, dialogue-heavy sci-fi films like Project Hail Mary and the female-led workplace comedy represented by the ascendant Devil Wears Prada 2.

Meanwhile this past weekend saw what on paper was another four-quadrant, franchise-mandated “sure thing” crash and burn on its opening weekend. That makes at least four in little more than a month.

While many (including ourselves) might have rolled their eyes at the logic behind remaking Moana just nine and a half years after the new animated classic, no one thought it was a commercially risky proposition. Disney’s live-action remake formula has run into snags when it’s turned to Boomer-nostalgia for pre-1980s animated films like Snow White and Dumbo, but when the Mouse House has targeted the warm and fuzzy memories of millennials and zillennials, they have seen billion-dollar success via remakes like The Lion King, Aladdin, and Beauty and the Beast. And last year’s Lilo & Stitch retread was aimed squarely at Gen Z and still cleared that magical 10-figure range.

Nevertheless, the Moana remake, complete with Dwayne Johnson reprising his beloved role as Maui from the 2016 animated movie, failed to draw out families or young adult moviegoers with fond memories of just how far Moana can go. As of press time, the movie is estimated to have grossed a mere $43 million, a figure only marginally better than the much snarked about Supergirl and it’s $37 million debut, albeit Moana has an even dizzier price tag of a reported $250 million(!) attached.

There will no doubt be plenty of reasons to speculate on this individual failure, although it is not the “brand” this time. Moana 2 just grossed $1 billion less than two years ago. More crucially, however, is the realization that Moana’s flopping is not happening in a vacuum. It’s part of an ongoing trend that’s rocked the summer blockbuster season to its core following dismal performances of WB’s Supergirl, Amazon MGM’s Masters of the Universe, and Lucasfilm’s Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu. That last one I even wrote was not catastrophic when it opened to “only” $98 million over Memorial Day weekend. Granted, even from the jump it was the worst opening for any Star Wars movie, but if the core audience liked it, it could’ve represented a rebuilding moment. Yet the picture then dropped an eye-watering 70 percent in its second weekend, showing that core word-of-mouth was actually dire. Worse, it dropped to third place at the box office, falling behind the $750,000-budgeted Obsession in its third weekend.

That movie’s misfortunes turned out to be the beginning of a trend. And at least the Star Wars spinoff still crossed $340 million worldwide. That is a number Amazon MGM’s attempt to return to the ‘80s nostalgia well with Masters of the Universe will never see, nor Supergirl which suffered a bleaker 77 percent drop in its second weekend. Meanwhile Universal Pictures and Illumination’s Minions & Monsters (a movie a lot of critics, including myself, consider to be the best film in the Minions franchise) also underperformed when it grossed only $62 million in its long five-day holiday weekend. The last Minions movie opened to $123 million across the same Fourth of July corridor in 2022.

Each underperformer has its own variables and reasons for stalling—and I even quite enjoyed two out of the four biggest commercial disappointments—but collectively they paint a picture that sounds a lot like Spielberg’s once-derided prediction. To be clear, even then Spielberg did not state it with scorn, or with an expectation that superhero movies are some enemy of cinema. He was just comparing the decline of one generational form of entertainment to another.

In a follow-up 2015 interview, he put a finer point on it when he said, “We were around when the Western died, and there will be a time when the superhero movie goes the way of the Western. It doesn’t mean there won’t be another occasion where the Western comes back, and the superhero movie someday returns… I’m only saying that these cycles have a finite time in popular culture.”

He might have pointed specifically to superheroes and Westerns, but the larger scale of this reminds me just as much of the collapse of musicals alongside the Western and historical/biblical epic in the 1960s. All three were the meat and potatoes of Hollywood during the 1950s if not earlier. The Arthur Freed Unit at MGM, a bit like Marvel Studios in the 2010s, was turning out hit after hit throughout the ‘40s and ‘50s: Meet Me in St. Louis, Easter Parade, Gigi, the 1951 remake of Show Boat, and of course Singin’ in the Rain. It laid the groundwork for the even bigger mega-musicals of the 1960s that, for a time, were the biggest hits on the block via My Fair Lady, Mary Poppins, and The Sound of Music. But come 1969—a year that saw Spielberg’s Boomer contemporaries like Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda making Easy Rider and the X-rated Midnight Cowboy win Best Picture—the musicals Hello, Dolly! and Paint Your Wagon absolutely crashed at the box office.

That last one, Wagon, was furthermore a musical-Western hybrid, complete with Clint Eastwood in a dubiously tuneful role. But like the musical’s rapid decline in the late ‘60s, the Western and other increasingly creaky “epics” were suddenly strangling their studios. Joseph Mankiewicz and Elizabeth Taylor’s enormous Cleopatra nearly bankrupted 20th Century Fox in 1963, and then left the door for the moribund musical Doctor Dolittle to finish the job, at least by the old economic standards. And while Spaghetti Westerns and deconstructionist Oaters made on a budget flourished in the ‘60s, many of the big studio epics like The Alamo (1960) and 1967’s The Way West fizzled. The latter came out in the same year as box office juggernauts The Graduate and Bonnie & Clyde, and one year before horror movie Rosemary’s Baby and the sci-fi 2001: A Space Odyssey were rewriting the commercial and artistic limits of “genre” moviemaking.

None of which is to say franchise movies are going away. Disney/Pixar’s Toy Story 5 is one of the best movies of the year and its biggest hit. The historical epic also had a major resurgence in the early 21st century thanks to movies like Gladiator, Braveheart, and Troy, and the musical came back in a big way during the same period thanks to Moulin Rouge! and Chicago, and never left. The “historical” epic might also resurface again after this coming weekend’s The Odyssey.

But that is the point: things move in cycles, and what seems to still be working at the moment is prestige “event” cinema—as well as things studios have largely eschewed or neglected. While the horror movie has remained one of the few genres to thrive with original titles over the last decade, it’s also among the few that studios continually invest in. But a new crop of filmmakers breaking through those testing grounds via YouTube? That’s new.

Conversely, The Devil Wears Prada 2 is absolutely another legacy sequel to a popular movie, but its over-performance this summer suggests audiences of all ages are starved for adult-aimed comedies. The same might be applied to high-concept sci-fi movies not part of a franchise, like Project Hail Mary. And like Christopher Nolan with The Odyssey, Phil Lord and Chris Miller are directors with strong followings among Gen-Z and millennial audiences.

What we might be seeing is the collapse of a system that relies purely on name and brand-recognition for a built-in audience. For the last 20-some years that has been a winning formula in Hollywood. But so was the Western and musical once upon a time.

15 Movies Where the Opening Scene Is Better Than the Ending

The beginning of a movie usually sets the tone for what’s to come, so if a film starts strong, you know you’re in for a good time. Unfortunately, not every movie manages to stick the landing, letting that starting section overshadow everything that comes after it.

That doesn’t necessarily make these bad films, but it does leave viewers remembering the first few minutes more fondly than the final ones. These movies all feature opening scenes that are widely praised, even by fans who feel the endings never quite lived up to that spectacular start.

Ghost Ship

The opening aboard a luxury ocean liner features one of horror’s most shocking sequences. While the rest of the film has its fans, many viewers agree it never again reaches the sheer impact of its unforgettable introduction.

28 Weeks Later

The opening farmhouse escape is frequently regarded as one of the franchise’s finest moments. Although the film remains entertaining, many critics and fans consider its tense introduction stronger than its chaotic finale.

Swordfish

The movie begins with John Travolta’s memorable monologue before launching into an explosive opening involving a massive blast. Despite continuing with stylish action, the ending rarely receives the same level of praise.

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

Its opening montage, showing humanity gradually expanding into space alongside alien civilizations, is widely celebrated. Many viewers found the imaginative introduction more compelling than the film’s later story and conclusion.

Jeepers Creepers

The opening stretches of highway suspense create an atmosphere of mounting dread through simple storytelling. Once the creature becomes fully revealed, many fans feel the mystery that made the beginning so effective fades away.

Spectre

The elaborate single-take sequence during Mexico City’s Day of the Dead celebration stands among James Bond’s best openings. The rest of the film, however, received a much more mixed response from audiences and critics.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

A montage depicting Logan and Victor fighting through multiple wars is often singled out as the film’s highlight. Many viewers felt the story never matched the excitement established during those opening minutes.

The Empty Man

Its haunting prologue in the Himalayas functions almost like a standalone horror short. Even admirers of the full movie often describe the opening as its strongest and most memorable section.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Bruce Wayne witnessing the destruction of Metropolis from ground level offers a compelling new perspective on familiar events. The emotionally charged opening earned broader praise than the film’s heavily debated conclusion.

Army of the Dead

The energetic opening credits efficiently tell the story of a zombie outbreak through action and music. Many viewers considered this montage more entertaining than the lengthy heist narrative that followed.

Darkness Falls

The opening legend surrounding the Tooth Fairy delivers effective supernatural horror. As the film progresses, many critics felt it became more conventional, making the chilling introduction its lasting highlight.

Mortal Kombat (2021)

The opening confrontation between Hanzo Hasashi and Bi-Han received widespread acclaim for its emotional weight and choreography. Many fans felt the remainder of the reboot never quite reached that same standard.

The Bye Bye Man

Its unsettling 1969 prologue establishes an intriguing supernatural mystery. Although the premise generated curiosity, the film’s conclusion was generally viewed as far less effective than its opening promise.

Snake Eyes

Brian De Palma’s lengthy opening sequence creates remarkable tension through seemingly continuous camerawork. While the mystery remains engaging, many critics felt the resolution lacked the same level of excitement and ingenuity.

The Happening

The mysterious and unsettling opening incidents immediately establish an intriguing premise. As the story unfolds, however, many audiences felt the explanation and ending failed to capitalize on that compelling beginning.

15 Historical Figures Who Were Decades Ahead of Their Time

What do we mean when we say that someone was ahead of their time? Simply put, it’s when a person shares ideas that aren’t understood by their peers, and only appreciated many years later. This gap between underappreciated and understanding can take decades or even centuries, hence why we can only talk about historical figures instead of current ones.

This has the potential to mean that, in our current age, there might be people who we don’t understand, only for our descendants to see them as revolutionary. There’s little way for us to have that perspective now, but at least we can see the figures of the past to prepare for the future.

Leonardo da Vinci

Centuries before powered flight or armored vehicles existed, Leonardo da Vinci sketched concepts resembling helicopters, parachutes, tanks, and other machines. Many of his designs couldn’t be realized until technology finally caught up hundreds of years later.

Susan B. Anthony

Susan B. Anthony devoted most of her adult life to women’s suffrage in the United States. Although she died in 1906, women didn’t gain the constitutional right to vote nationwide until the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920.

Alfred Wegener

In 1915, Alfred Wegener proposed that Earth’s continents had once formed a single landmass before drifting apart. His continental drift theory was widely dismissed until plate tectonics provided the evidence decades later.

Vincent van Gogh

Vincent van Gogh sold very few paintings during his lifetime and struggled for recognition. Today, his bold use of color and expressive style make him one of history’s most influential and celebrated artists.

Sinéad O’Connor

In 1992, Sinéad O’Connor tore up a photograph of Pope John Paul II on live television to protest abuse within the Catholic Church. She faced intense backlash before later revelations validated many of her concerns.

Ada Lovelace

Working with Charles Babbage’s proposed Analytical Engine, Ada Lovelace wrote what is widely recognized as the first published computer algorithm. She also envisioned computers handling tasks beyond simple mathematics, an extraordinary insight for the 1840s.

Dr. Thomas Dent Mütter

Thomas Dent Mütter revolutionized reconstructive and cosmetic surgery by introducing innovative techniques that improved patient outcomes. He also advocated for cleaner surgical practices before anesthesia and antiseptic methods became standard.

Joseph Lister

Joseph Lister transformed surgery by promoting antiseptic techniques based on germ theory. Although initially ridiculed by many contemporaries, his methods dramatically reduced postoperative infections and became a cornerstone of modern medicine.

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

After founding modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk introduced sweeping secular, educational, and legal reforms. His policies expanded women’s rights and modernized the country decades before many neighboring nations pursued similar changes.

Charles Babbage

Charles Babbage designed the Analytical Engine during the nineteenth century, envisioning a programmable mechanical computer. Although never completed, its architecture anticipated many concepts found in modern computers more than a century later.

Nikola Tesla

Nikola Tesla envisioned wireless communication, remote control, and global transmission of information long before such technologies became practical. Many of his ideas foreshadowed later developments in telecommunications and electrical engineering.

Nicolas Appert

In 1809, Nicolas Appert developed airtight food preservation by sealing and heating containers. His breakthrough laid the foundation for modern canning and dramatically improved long-term food storage decades before refrigeration became widespread.

Archimedes

Archimedes made groundbreaking discoveries in mathematics, engineering, and physics more than two thousand years ago. His work on buoyancy, levers, and mechanical devices remained foundational for centuries and continues to influence science today.

Ignaz Semmelweis

Long before germ theory gained acceptance, Ignaz Semmelweis demonstrated that doctors washing their hands dramatically reduced deaths from childbed fever. Many colleagues rejected his findings, despite the clear evidence supporting his observations.

Rachel Carson

Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring warned about the environmental dangers of widespread pesticide use, particularly DDT. Initially attacked by chemical companies, her work helped launch the modern environmental movement and reshaped conservation policy.

15 Horror Movies That Could’ve Ended in Ten Minutes

We need characters to make less than optimal choices for movies to happen, that much we know. They might ignore an obvious warning, open a mysterious door, or decide to investigate the strange noise instead of leaving.

While these choices make for entertaining films, they can also leave audiences wondering why nobody simply took the sensible option. In many cases, one practical decision made in the opening minutes could have prevented everything that followed. These horror movies are memorable examples of stories that might have wrapped up almost immediately with a little more common sense.

The Ring

Rachel’s investigation begins after watching a mysterious videotape tied to a deadly curse. Simply refusing to watch the tape or making copies only after understanding its danger could have prevented much of the ordeal.

Hellraiser

Frank Cotton unleashes the Cenobites by solving the mysterious Lament Configuration. Leaving the strange puzzle box untouched would have ended the story before it ever truly began.

The Cabin in the Woods

Curt and his friends could have driven away after encountering multiple unsettling warning signs on their trip. Ignoring the creepy cabin altogether would have prevented them from becoming part of the ritual.

Jeepers Creepers

After witnessing a man disposing of suspicious bundles down a pipe, the siblings return to investigate. Continuing their drive instead of satisfying their curiosity would have avoided the Creeper entirely.

Barbarian

Tess discovers clear signs that something is terribly wrong beneath the rental house. Calling the police and leaving immediately would have been far safer than repeatedly exploring the hidden tunnels herself.

Talk to Me

The supernatural chaos begins because a group treats a haunted embalmed hand like a party game. Refusing to participate would have prevented nearly every tragedy that follows.

Smile

Rose’s curse spreads after witnessing a patient’s horrifying death. Seeking immediate help while strictly avoiding further exposure to the curse might have changed the outcome before it escalated.

The Descent

The caving expedition becomes disastrous long before creatures appear because the group enters an undocumented cave system. Choosing the planned route would have eliminated almost every danger they encounter.

Candyman

Helen repeatedly ignores warnings surrounding the Candyman legend and continues investigating alone. Walking away after her initial research would likely have spared her the terrifying consequences.

The Blair Witch Project

The filmmakers become hopelessly lost after pressing deeper into unfamiliar woods despite repeated warning signs. Turning back at the first sign of trouble could have ended their documentary safely.

Hostel

The backpackers abandon safer travel plans after strangers recommend a remote hostel. Declining the invitation and sticking to established tourist routes would have prevented their horrific ordeal.

The Taking of Deborah Logan

The documentary crew chooses to continue filming increasingly disturbing events despite obvious danger. Ending production and leaving the property would have dramatically shortened the story.

Sinister

True-crime writer Ellison Oswalt knowingly moves his family into a murder house without telling them. Rejecting the house altogether would have prevented them from ever encountering Bughuul’s influence.

Oculus

Kaylie insists on confronting the cursed mirror instead of destroying or permanently isolating it from a distance. Avoiding direct interaction with the artifact would have greatly reduced its power over her.

The Grudge

Many victims become cursed simply by entering the haunted Saeki house. Leaving immediately after recognizing something was wrong would have been the only realistic path to avoiding its deadly supernatural cycle.

House of the Dragon Season 3 Episode 4 Review: The Tumbleton Diaries

This review contains spoilers for House of the Dragon season 3 episode 4.

One of the most consistently impressive features of George R.R. Martin‘s “A Song of Ice and Fire” canon is that every character within it, no matter how minor, is compelling enough to lead an entire fantasy story of their own.

The example I always like to point to is that of Lord Beric Dondarrion a.k.a. the Lightning Lord in Game of Thrones. Initially introduced as a fringe political figure from one of the Stormlands’ lesser Houses, Beric is given the unenviable task of tracking down and killing the eight-foot-tall, violently insane Gregor “The Mountain That Rides” Clegane. After Gregor inevitably kills Beric, he is accidentally brought back to life by his good friend Thoros of Myr (also a fascinating figure in his own right), who doesn’t realize that his lapsed religion’s arcane funeral rites hold real power. Beric and Thoros establish the Brotherhood Without Banners and protect the smallfolk of the Riverlands all the while Beric keeps dying and being resurrected, each time becoming a lesser version of himself.

While Beric and his unique circumstances could easily fill hundreds of pages of fantasy storytelling, he is a relatively unimportant figure in Martin’s book series and quite far down the call sheet of its TV adaptation. Still, what the saga of Beric, Thoros, and their Brotherhood Without Banners reveals is that there’s no such thing as an inconsequential or uninteresting character in this universe. Every soul is the hero of their own story, patiently waiting for the larger narrative to find them.

In House of the Dragon season 3 episode 4 that larger narrative finally finds Lord Ormund Hightower (James Norton). Unlike the previous installment, which almost entirely restricted itself to Queen Rhaenyra’s (Emma D’Arcy) point of view, this week’s episode isn’t solely the Lord Ormund Show. There’s plenty else going on here from Larys (Matthew Needham) and Aegon’s (Tom Glynn-Carney) misadventures in the Crownlands, to Daemon’s (Matt Smith) misadventures in the Vale, to Criston (Fabien Frankel) and Gwayne’s (Freddie Fox) misadventures in the Riverlands (a lot of misadventures going on around Westeros right now it turns out). But it’s through Ormund’s eyes that the episode both begins and ends. And in-between those moments, Ormund establishes himself as one of the show’s most dynamic figures yet.

Things begin in the humble Reach hamlet of Tumbleton where the odor-averse Lord of Oldtown is taking a leisurely bath in House Footly’s chambers. When Lady Footly complains of Lord Ormund making himself at home, he stands up, revealing the Hightower between his legs to all and making his priorities clear: “My purpose is to restore the rightful line to the Iron Throne.” It’s not unusual for the powerful folks of Westeros to speak so definitively and with such clarity of purpose. It is, however, a little unusual for them to lie so brazenly when doing so.

For, as the episode’s conclusion reveals, Ormund isn’t concerned with merely restoring the rightful line to the Iron Throne, he’s concerned with restoring one very particular branch of that line to the Iron Throne in the form of his nephew Daeron (Benjamin Evan Ainsworth). Ormund’s ruse involving a lowborn boy with dyed platinum hair wasn’t just to stymie the Blacks’ efforts to consolidate control of the Seven Kingdoms, it was a crucial part of his larger plan to “break the wheel” a la Daenerys Targaryen some 200 years later.

The realm has had plenty of Targaryen kings. It has not yet had a Hightower-Targaryen king. What’s more: it has not had a Hightower-Targaryen king raised by the great Lord Ormund Hightower himself. Our boy is freelancing. As Grand Maester Orwylve’s scouting report to Rhaenyra surmise later “I suppose only that Lord Ormund ruled Oldtown as a kingdom unto itself.” Well, that would certainly explain why Ser Otto’s letters to Oldtown went unanswered… and why we got a split second view of Otto imprisoned among the Hightower host last season.

None of this is – say it with me now – explicit in Martin’s Fire & Blood source material. But like Paddy Considine’s brilliant depiction of King Viserys I, it’s another example of House of the Dragon showrunner Ryan Condal and his team uncovering some captivating character traits in the margins of (fake) history. Why wouldn’t Lord Ormund want his pseudo-son to sit the Iron Throne? Why wouldn’t he see himself as a scholarly raconteur despite frequently demonstrating blinding rage? And why wouldn’t he have an inexplicably sensitive nose? Those are all human traits and Lord Ormund, as brought to life by James Norton, is human.

Also human are the poor inhabitants of Tumbleton trying to go about their days and avoid a civil war that has now found its way to their doorstep. While the show’s decision to place Hugh Hammer’s (Kieran Bew) wife in the line of fire is a bit on the nose and geographically dubious (the town is close enough to King’s Landing but a bit off the beaten Roseroad), getting to see what a military occupation looks like from the ground up is satisfying new ground for this franchise.

Left defenseless without the awe-inspiring power of the Third Amendment, the Tumbletonians are forced to quarter Hightower soldiers in their homes. And, like most other things in Westeros, this leads to sexual violence. Ormund’s response to one of his men’s crimes is telling. Though he haughtily tells Daeron that “when dealing with those beneath you, you must be fair but firm,” Ormund’s solution of gelding one guy does little to solve the larger tensions at play.

The soldiers stay quartered and the smallfolk stay vulnerable, setting the stage for a level of chaos and discontent that Hugh and Ulf the White’s (Tom Bennett) arrival on dragonback will do little to quell. Hugh may ultimately come to have an interesting interpretation of Rhaenyra’s orders to sit back and observe. After all, broad applications of the Queen’s words appear to be in vogue as the City Watch of King’s Landing interpret “please clean up this graffiti” as “indiscriminately kill a bunch of folks standing around the graffiti.”

The nobles’ inability to recognize the people beneath them as people is something of a recurring theme in this episode and the series overall. Nowhere is that more apparent than in Larys Strong and the absent King Aegon II’s journey through the Crownlands. As a lifelong underdog, Larys knows how to deal with others who have the audacity to think him their equal. One day you’re the master of whisperers at court, the next day some filthy transient is charging your travel companion a penny to touch his own dragon. What are you gonna do other than give him the penny and go on your way?

For Aegon, of course, it’s not so simple. The notion that another human being could compel him to do anything he didn’t want to do is as foreign to him as the possibility of flying Sunfyre to the moon. His inability to blend in as part of Ser Criston’s lost garrison at the ruins of Rook’s Rest ends with him kissing a very disgusting boot. Aegon, Second of His Name, is one of Westerosi history’s main characters. But for at least one afternoon he’s a footnote in one lowborn dickhead’s dominion over a very small parcel of land.

That fate of that aforementioned Rook’s Rest dickhead (who I believe is called “Janos,” presumably no relation to the similarly dickish Janos Slynt two centuries later) very well could have been the same of the anonymous sheepherder in the Vale who Daemon torches and frames as Sheepstealer’s rider to keep Rhaenyra from knowing the awful truth about Rhaena (Phoebe Campbell). Yes, it’s time already for this week’s #NettlesWatch, in which we examine how the biggest and most controversial change from Martin’s text is progressing.

For what it’s worth, House of the Dragon‘s gradual transformation of Rhaena into an entirely unrelated character continues to make more logical sense from week to week. HBO’s budget for the show, though surely generous, still couldn’t fully support the Dance of the Dragons’ expansive roster of combatants. Synthesizing Rhaena and Nettles into one plot not only makes sense from a financial perspective, it also adds some more skin in the game for both Daemon and Rhaena’s sister Baela (Bethany Antonia).

While that all may be true, there is still something so…off about Rhaena’s self-exile with Sheepstealer. I don’t want to lay blame at any singular party, least of all actor Phoebe Campbell who is finding some believable desperation within their character. But there’s something about the presence of Rhaena Targaryen that makes House of the Dragon forget how to be a TV show. The staging is boring, the dialogue uninspiring, and even the costuming unbelievable, with Rhaena appearing to sport cave pajamas from the “Tastefully Tattered Robe Emporium” or something. Some of those problems begin to infect the scenes around them with Daemon’s return to King’s Landing and fevered insistence that he found Jace’s killer coming across as slapstick. Though Mysaria’s casual “whose head is that?” cut to Daemon is tremendously funny.

Elsewhere in King’s Landing, Rhaenyra’s reign begins to stabilize a bit after its inauspicious beginnings. She stays true to her word to Alicent, making sure that Otto’s body is sent off to Oldtown and even begins to assemble a new small council, selecting Torrhen Manderly (Dan Fogler) as her new master of coin (a.k.a. scapegoat for the crown’s money issues) and accepting Alyn Velaryon (Abubakar Salim) as Hand of the Queen in his irate father’s stead.

Still, the problems with the Faith of the Seven aren’t going away and the smallfolk are getting restless, as evidenced by the treasonous messages scribbled around the capital. Rhaenyra’s responses to these burgeoning crises – inquiring about House Hightower’s involvement in the church and being rude to Ulf – offer little hope that she’ll ultimately be able to solve them… even if she’s sure she will.

That’s the thing about a fantasy universe full of characters who believe they are heroes of their own story: somebody still has to win.

New episodes of House of the Dragon season 3 premiere Sundays at 9 p.m. ET on HBO and HBO Max, culminating with the finale on August 9.

My Adventures with Superman Proves that the Death of Superman Was More Than a Sales Stunt

This article contains spoilers for My Adventures with Superman season 3 episode 5.

The fifth episode of My Adventures with Superman‘s third season makes its aims known right at the start. The episode begins with a title screen that displays the words “The Death of Superman,” with blood dripping down the iconic “S” shield. Even those who weren’t reading comics back in 1992 recognize the iconography. DC heavily promoted the storyline that saw Superman sacrifice himself to stop the monstrous Doomsday, so that newspapers, local broadcasts, and mainstream magazines disseminated the picture.

As one would expect, My Adventures With Superman takes a unique approach to the story. As in the comic, jealousy drives astronaut Hank Henshaw to become the Cyborg Superman, and Superman gets help from Superboy to stop him. But the cartoon skips over Doomsday entirely in this telling, leaves Steel off the board, and only gestures toward the Eradicator in Henshaw’s design. By playing with the concept while changing even important details, My Adventures With Superman shows that The Death of Superman has transcended its original intentions to be a defining quality of the Man of Steel as a character.

The Death of Superman stems from a problem faced by the editors in DC Comics’s Superman division back in the early ’90s. They may be in charge of the first and most important superhero, but he was also a superhero that had grown unfashionable.

The ABC series Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman gave the Man of Steel a hip prime-time makeover, with Teri Hatcher playing a modern Lois Lane and a then-unproblematic Dean Cain as a Clark Kent who shopped at Mervyn’s. DC Comics had postponed its plans to join Lois and Clark in holy matrimony until the TV show counterparts did the same, hoping to generate some synergistic buzz. But nothing worked, and Superman comic sales sagged, so writer Jerry Ordway proposed drastic measures: “Why don’t we just kill him?”

Even back when Superman finally died fighting the monster Doomsday in 1992’s Superman #25, nobody thought it would last. The Death of Superman immediately gave way to Funeral For a Friend, which in turn led into Reign of the Superman. By the time that story closed in October of 1993, the original Superman was back, albeit with a period-appropriate mullet. More importantly, from DC’s standpoint, the readers were back, and Superman comics spiked in sales.

Such stunts are hardly new to comics. The first company-wide crossover (something discussed in this week’s comics newsletter), Marvel Super Heroes Secret Wars, was designed explicitly to help sell action figures. Characters are redesigned and changed to match the actors who play them in film and television, as seen when Marvel changed Nick Fury from a grizzled old white guy to a hip bald Black man or Agatha Harkness was transformed from a crone to a sassy middle-aged woman. And The Death of Superman worked so well that DC started killing or removing all of its major characters to replace them with different versions: Batman‘s back was broken, Green Lantern turned evil, Artemis became the new Wonder Woman, and Green Arrow blew up in a plane.

In short, these are cash grabs, marketing techniques driving stories. But My Adventures with Superman proves that it’s not all they are. However craven the original intentions, these stories have sparked something in the audience, making them worthy of revisiting and adapting.

My Adventures With Superman is a perfect example. In the show’s telling, the battle is about who belongs on Earth: The foreigner Superman? Or the human Hank Henshaw?

The fight speaks to our time, when xenophobia and nationalism have been encouraged and legitimatized by those in power, while staying true to Superman’s core as an immigrant story. By swapping the clone Superboy of the original story with the modern Superboy Jon Kent, the son of Clark and Lois, the story also becomes about overcoming fear, letting the next generation succeed you, and fighting for a better tomorrow.

My Adventures with Superman is hardly the only series to revisit The Death of Superman. In addition to various animated movies that adapted the story, it appears in season eight of Smallville, the Justice League cartoon episode “Hereafter,” Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Justice League (both the Joss Whedon and Zack Snyder varieties), the CW Crisis on Infinite Earths crossover, and the third and fourth seasons of Superman & Lois. Infamously, it was going to be the main plot in the Tim Burton-helmed, Nicolas Cage-starring Superman Lives. And even the comics have revisited the storyline, most famously in the way it killed off the New 52 Superman.

Why do storytellers keep coming back to The Death of Superman? It’s not to boost sales or ratings anymore. Instead, it’s because the story gets at the fundamental truth of Superman. He’s good not because he’s the strongest or because he’s got nothing to fear. He’s good because he wants to help and protect others, even when those powers fail him. He continues to stand by his values and save other people, to the moment of his death. And, like all great fantasies, not even death is the end, as the story always ends with Superman coming back to life to continue his never-ending battle.

My Adventures With Superman recreates those principles in its unique, anime-influenced style. And even though the episode ends with Superman revealing that his powers are gone, the blue electricity manifested during the fight with Henshaw suggests that another big change is coming, one that also stems from a comic book story intended to spike sales… but that’s a story for another time.

My Adventures with Superman releases new episodes every Saturday at midnight on Adult Swim and HBO Max.

Batman Fans Prepared Christopher Nolan for Criticism of The Odyssey

The Odyssey is one of the most important works of Western Literature. For centuries, Homer’s epic has shaped the way we think about fundamental concepts such as duty and hospitality. Its depiction of the cunning Odysseus has influenced heroes from Sherlock Holmes to Superman. Countless of people have studied The Odyssey closely, have built their lives around it, and even more have heard and enjoyed it time and again. And yet, devotees of The Odyssey have nothing on Bat-fans.

When asked by The Telegrah about the various online critiques leveled at his upcoming film, director Christopher Nolan puts things in perspective. “I spent 10 years of my life dealing with Batman,” he points out. “When I came on to Batman Begins, writers and artists had been working on this beloved character for almost 65 years, and a lot of freighted thoughts were out there about what he represents.”

Even though The Odyssey still doesn’t release in theaters for another week, and even though there have been precious few adaptations of the story, and certainly none on a Hollywood blockbuster scale, commentators online have had strong opinions about the story. Perhaps the most gentle and reasonable critique came with the first images, when a Twitter user noted that the helmet worn by Matt Damon differs from the one described in the text.

However, since then, reactions have only grown more unhinged. People complain that Nolan has cast Elliot Page, a celebrated actor with whom he worked on Inception, because Page is trans. Others have grouched about Nolan casting rapper and actor Travis Scott, a man famous for his ability to tell stories in rhyme, as a bard. Most ludicrously of all, commentators were infuriated that Academy Award-winning actress, polyglot, and international model Lupita Nyong’o would play the face that launched a thousand ships, Helen of Troy.

These absurd complaints pale in comparison to the more reasonable knocks against Nolan’s Batman work. Leaving aside problems with The Dark Knight‘s final 20 minutes or the death of Talia in The Dark Knight Rises, fans took issue with the way Nolan altered long-established characters. He turned Bane from a South American mastermind into a thug with a non-distinct accent. The Lazarus Pit that resurrected Ra’s al Ghul time and again was replaced with a succession plan that allowed both Ken Watanabe and Liam Neeson to portray the character. And he cast a pretty-boy teen idol Heath Ledger to play the Joker, a decision that infuriated fans at the time, hard as it is to believe today.

But Nolan has the right attitude to dealing with these things. Batman stories have been told by hundreds of creators over decades, in every imaginable medium for a range of audiences. Bruce Wayne and his allies and rogues have never been one thing. The same is true of The Odyssey which was an imaginative work of historical fiction at the time it was new. “[Homer] and his audience were looking back centuries at what they viewed as a superior civilisation, this long-past Age of Heroes, and there had been this social and cultural collapse in between,” Nolan points out.

“What I learnt over my time on [the Dark Knight] trilogy is you can’t worry about any of that at all,” Nolan states. “What you have to do is honour the original text by interpreting it in the strongest way you personally can.” And if people don’t like it, well, they’ll get over the next time someone lights the bat-signal wrong and they can complain about that instead.

The Odyssey arrives in theaters on July 17, 2026.

Evil Dead Burn Proves That the Franchise Needs More Comedy

This article contains full spoilers for Evil Dead Burn.

About halfway through Evil Dead Burn, Bruce Campbell finally makes an appearance. No, he’s not there in person, nor does he seem to be playing Ashley Williams, the put-upon protagonist of the first three Evil Dead films. Instead, we just see his portrait on a wall as the camera pans to follow grandmother Polly (Maude Davey) as she rides her wheelchair elevator up the stairs.

Fittingly, Bruce’s appearance coincides with one of the few moments of levity in Evil Dead Burn. For most of its runtime, Evil Dead Burn follows the model set by Fede Álvarez‘s 2013 remake of The Evil Dead, as does Lee Cronin‘s 2023 follow-up Evil Dead Rise. These movies set out to challenge their audience, daring viewers to endure their grueling story beats and unrepentant nastiness. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this approach and even Burn, easily the weakest of the three, has its good qualities. But for as much as these movies pay deference to the original films by Sam Raimi, they do lack the humor that once made Evil Dead so special.

The Birth of Evil

Really, it’s all the fault of The Evil Dead from 1981. While most prefer Evil Dead II to its original, and as much as the 1987 second movie is essentially a remake of the first, The Evil Dead is a nasty movie. Shot for just $90,000, which Raimi and producer Robert Tapert raised from Detroit-area businessmen, The Evil Dead sets the premise that each subsequent movie (with the exception of Army of Darkness) will follow: a small group of people goes to a remote location, accidentally reads from the Necronomicon Ex-Mortis, and unleashes demons called Deadites, who torment them through the night.

In The Evil Dead, that group consists of friends studying at Michigan State University, including Campbell’s Ash. After Scott (Hal Delrich) reads from the Necronomicon, Ash’s sister Cheryl (Ellen Sandweiss) runs into the woods and gets sexually assaulted by the trees. From there, the Deadites use Cheryl and the rest of Ash’s friends to torture him, doing everything from stabbing him in the leg with a pencil to forcing him to decapitate his would-be betrothed Linda (Betsy Baker) with a shovel.

Raimi plays none of this for laughs. He uses his manic camera movements to make the characters seem as if they’re constantly under attack, and asks Campbell to play Ash’s emotional trauma without a smirk. But the camaraderie between Raimi and Campbell, and especially the former’s puckish spirit, still shines through. So by the time the duo remakes the first for Evil Dead II, the slapstick gags and Campbell’s hammier take on Ash feels less like a course correction from the first film and more like it’s accentuating what is already there.

Of course, humor becomes the driving force in the 1993 sequel Army of Darkness and the TV series Ash vs. Evil Dead, which ran for three seasons between 2015 and 2018. Those works turn Ash into a lovable blowhard, a gigantic doofus who tosses off one-liners with all the confidence in the world, despite just barely surviving each encounter with Deadites.

No Laughing Matter

Comedy came to so define the Evil Dead franchise that it felt like breath of fresh air when Fede Álvarez remade The Evil Dead in 2013. He and co-writer Rodo Sayagues seemed to be recovering something lost in the franchise, restoring all of the nastiness that Raimi and Campbell had left behind. Moreover, Álvarez and Sayagues added a level of thematic depth, making the MSU students go to a secluded cabin to help Mia (Jane Levy) overcome her drug addiction. The punishing visuals get so excessive, climaxing with gallons of blood poured on Mia, who must sever her own arm to survive, that it felt like the spirit of Raimi remained in the work, even if the humor was gone.

Lee Cronin moved his movie from a cabin in the woods to a metropolitan apartment for Evil Dead Rise, but he followed in the footsteps of Álvarez and Sayagues. By focusing on a fractured family brought back together, Cronin used the Deadites to explore the unspoken hurt feelings between people who love one another, adding more thematic weight to the franchise. Evil Dead Rise has just as many extreme moments as its predecessor, including needles and a cheese grater, but save for some character-driven reaction shots, it lacks humor.

This is where Evil Dead Burn swerves from the previous two movies, but only a little. French director Sébastien Vaniček, who co-wrote the script with Florent Bernard, imports much of his homeland’s New Extremity movement of the 2000s, crafting stomach-churning scenes involving a pen in the ear and the grossest possible example of parents kissing. It uses the Deadites as a metaphor as well, as protagonist Alice (Souheila Yacoub) must spend time with her cruel in-laws after the death of her abusive husband Will (George Pullar), in-laws who become Deadites.

Nasty and heavy as the movie often is, Evil Dead Burn does find moments for humor. The opening scene whip pans from the Deadite Jessica (Anna-Maree Thomas) stepping on the hand of a person she boiled alive to a hard cut to a woman’s butt shaking at Will’s restaurant. The jokes made at the expense of Polly’s dementia may be tasteless, but they are jokes, even if it’s just the asides she mutters to herself as the world around her gets increasingly strange. In perhaps the best scene, the Deadite Thya (Luciane Buchanan) pulls out Polly’s false teeth, slurps on them a bit, and then returns them to the older woman’s mouth. It’s so uncomfortable and strange that the audience can’t help but laugh, despite how icky the whole thing is.

Great as the bit in Burn is, it also reminds us that such weird jokes regularly appeared in Evil Dead movies, back when they could be more than just dire gorefests.

More Than Gore

Again, there’s nothing inherently wrong with a dire gorefest. All three later Evil Dead films have instances of top-quality filmmaking, and there’s clearly an audience for nasty, mean-spirited cinema. But as anyone who has seen a Rob Zombie picture can tell you, it doesn’t take a lot of skill to be nasty. All one need do is throw the unthinkable on screen, and that’s enough to make the audience cringe. In some cases, they’ll look away from the screen so hard, be so viscerally affected by the mere idea of what’s happening, that they won’t notice how poorly the idea is executed. The inference of effect exists without any cinematic cause.

Contrast that to the predecessor to the false teeth bit in Evil Dead Burns. In Evil Dead II, when an eyeball pops out of the Deadite Henrietta and lands in the mouth of Bobby Joe (Kassie Wesley). Gross as the scene gets, it also comes directly from The Three Stooges, and has a vaudevillian sense of showmanship that keeps us watching, despite the ick. We laugh and shudder at the same time, in part because we cannot look away.

Such moments used to regularly occur in Evil Dead films, but rarely happened in even quality horror comedies, which set the franchise apart from its contemporaries. For all they do well, the modern Evil Dead movies don’t offer too much that can’t be found in other recent nasty films. To make Evil Dead films special once again, the modern entries need to put some humor back into the mix, just like Grandpa Bruce used to make them.

Evil Dead Burns is now playing in theaters worldwide.

House of the Dragon Season 3 Is Therapeutic for Game of Thrones Fans

This article contains spoilers for the first three episodes of House of the Dragon Season 3.

It was never going to be easy. Right down to its last crimson-stained step, Rhaenyra Targaryen’s journey to the Iron Throne—a seat which according to the oath every great house in Westeros swore was hers by rights—could never be anything less than a bloodbath. The lords, armies, and especially a fractured Targaryen family insisted upon it, snuffing out whatever luminescence likely remained in the Realm’s Delight before she claimed her father’s chair.

Yet in the second episode of House of the Dragon’s third season, claim it she did in a sequence that was so immediately gratifying for longtime fans of Westeros, Game of Thrones, and the wider world of George R.R. Martin, that it did the rare thing for a television show in the 2020s: it broke through the pop culture white noise to be a genuine watercooler moment toasted by memes and reported as alleged news on pop culture social media channels. Obviously the latter bit was done with its tongue in cheek, but it reflected a catharsis that was palpable both on and off the screen.

In the context of the TV show, it’s the transgression House of the Dragon has been building to ever since a 2022 cold open staged the Great Council of Harrenhal, a political summit wherein all the noble houses of Westeros came together and forcefully declared that no woman should ever sit the Iron Throne. Despite Rhaenyra and her father King Viserys attempting to reverse that precedent a scant decade and change later, it probably was inevitable that for Rhaenyra to succeed Papa Viserys, she’d have to wade through a pool of blood. Albeit, one imagines Ser Otto Hightower, Viserys’ scheming and manipulative second-in-command, never entertained it would be literally his own that she’d make tracks in on the fateful day.

For the audience at home, however, the wait was almost as long when you factor in the time since the original Game of Thrones season 1 promo premiered more than 15 years ago in 2010. Aye, that was the first and last time viewers ever saw Emilia Clarke’s Daenerys Targaryen in the same seat now claimed by her direct ancestor Rhaenyra in House of the Dragon. Granted, that brilliant piece of early Game of Thrones marketing showed a lot of possible futures for Westeros, both likely (look out for Cersei Lannister in her husband and sons’ chair!) and impossible (sorry, Robb Stark stans).

But the image of Dany on the Iron Throne stuck in the cultural imagination for the entire run of Game of Thrones, with the character becoming something of a pop icon who transcended the textual narrative of her series to become a metatextual idol. One imagines many viewers in the 2010s were so swept up in the hype and majestic trappings of Dany’s stylings—Mother of (Cinematic) Dragons, Breaker of Chains, Fashionista of Meereen—that they likely missed the telltale signs and heavy foreshadowing of a possible fall from grace.

Yet for so much of Game of Thrones’ run, that is all they were. Hinted at and teased shadows on the wall of one possible future for Dany. When it actually came time for that original series to lay its cards on the table and reveal Dany’s tragic fate to die mere feet from her family’s reclaimed seat of power, and then only to be slaughtered a tyrant, the execution was near as catastrophic as Dany’s final choices to raze King’s Landing.

There was always the possibility Dany would indulge her dynastic instincts, but they were superseded by the qualities that made her such a compelling leader to so many viewers: her sense of sweeping vision, compassion for the weak and vulnerable, and her demands for justice. In the final three episodes of Game of Thrones, though, the series infamously rushed what is meant to be a tragic hero’s final descent into, ultimately, “Dragon Lady got too emotional and did an oopsie.” And then, in the epicenter of her family’s legacy, Dany could only just touch her father’s chair, brushing her fingers over what was supposed to be her birthright, before it and everything else was taken from her in a treacherous red gush.

Deserved or not in the context of the series, this released in the grander cultural landscape of a world not yet three years removed from the 2016 U.S. presidential election. And it all amounted to yet another woman being declared mad and denied even the opportunity of even attempting national power. And they called it justice.

So the sight of Rhaenyra Targaryen sitting the Iron Throne is its own kind of therapeutic healing. After being teased a Targaryen restoration for nine years in Game of Thrones before it was as rudely (and clumsily) snatched away, the ostensible heroine of House of the Dragon claimed a seat that was far more her own. Unlike Dany, Rhaenyra is the eldest child of the last uncontested ruler, her father King Viserys. Yet due to Viserys’ own ineptitude and fecklessness as a monarch, and the scheming treachery of the men on his Small Council and the wife in his bed—plus, to be honest, Rhaenyra’s own shortsighted choice to brood far from court on Dragonstone while the Queen Mother and Rhaenyra’s half-brother plotted—her rule was usurped. Her opportunity to govern was stolen.

There is thus great catharsis, indeed, in Rhaenyra finally sitting in that chair. But also for the writers of House of the Dragon, opportunity as well to expand on George R.R. Martin’s larger thesis about the inherent unreliability of rulers and those who seek power, even sympathetic ones who do so out of a sense of fairness.

While House of the Dragon has at this point infamously made more changes than Martin likes, writer Sarah Hess in particular has zeroed in on both Rhaenyra’s vulnerabilities and her blindspots in a way that can continue the Dance past Rhaenyra’s ascent. Even the way Rhaenyra haphazardly beheads her late father’s best friend sows seeds of danger. Viewers can rationalize a scene by considering the sorrow a woman would feel after just losing her third child in this war over her sex, just as we know the emotional knots that would come with condemning a paternal figure from your youth, even a duplicitous and treasonous one. But in a feudal and highly patriarchal society, her shaky swings of a sword between teardrops will read as weakness.

And in any context, Rhaenyra’s complacent trivializing of the requests of Corlys Velaryon—a staunch ally who has given Rhaenyra’s claim everything over the past 20 years and now asks her only to legitimize bastard sons who already demonstrated fierce loyalty—is arrogant and, again, shortsighted.

Similarly, it is easy for viewers to cheer on a self-styled Queen of the People humiliating and demoralizing the wealthy elite of King’s Landing by serving them a dinner of rats, but any passing study of history shows the danger of alienating the ruling class. Taxing their assets during a time of want and war? Necessary. Heroic, even. Taxing their pride and self-regard? Unnecessarily risky.

By taking the extra time to really wallow in the satisfaction, and also the agonies, of the character you root for getting everything she wants, House of the Dragon is taking the opportunity to explore the nuance—and mayhaps the tragedy—Game of Thrones so hurriedly stumbled through and threw away.

House of the Dragon is playing on HBO now.

15 Quick Facts Worth Knowing About the Movie Business

The movie business is far more complex than simply making a film and releasing it in theaters. Behind every blockbuster or indie hit is a network of financing, distribution, marketing, contracts, and audience data that determines whether a project succeeds or disappears without a trace.

While technology and streaming have changed many aspects of the industry, the fundamentals of how movies are funded, sold, and promoted continue to shape what reaches audiences. These few facts offer a glimpse into the business side of filmmaking that most movie fans rarely think about.

Marketing Can Match the Production Budget

A major studio film’s marketing campaign can cost as much as its production budget. Advertising, trailers, premieres, television spots, and digital campaigns often require hundreds of millions of dollars for the biggest releases.

Opening Weekend Still Matters

Even in the streaming era, a strong opening weekend remains one of Hollywood’s most important performance indicators. Early ticket sales influence media coverage, theater retention, and the perception of a film’s success.

Studios Rarely Finance Everything Alone

Large productions are often funded through partnerships involving multiple studios, production companies, and outside investors. Sharing costs also spreads financial risk if a movie underperforms at the box office.

Streaming Rights Are Major Revenue Sources

A movie’s financial life doesn’t end after theaters. Licensing films to streaming services, television networks, airlines, and international distributors has become a crucial part of modern studio revenue.

Tax Incentives Shape Filming Locations

Many productions shoot in places like Georgia, Canada, Australia, or the United Kingdom because governments offer tax credits and financial incentives that can significantly reduce production costs.

Theatrical Windows Are Much Shorter

Exclusive theatrical releases once lasted several months. Today, many films become available digitally within weeks of their cinema debut, reflecting changing audience habits and studio distribution strategies.

Test Screenings Influence Final Cuts

Studios frequently hold advance screenings for selected audiences before release. Feedback from these previews can lead to edited scenes, altered endings, or pacing changes before the movie reaches theaters.

International Box Office Is Essential

For many blockbusters, international audiences generate more revenue than domestic ones. Global appeal now influences casting, storytelling, and release strategies for many big-budget productions.

Visual Effects Work Is Often Outsourced

Modern visual effects are commonly divided among multiple specialized companies across different countries. Hundreds or even thousands of artists may contribute to a single film’s finished effects.

Product Placement Helps Fund Movies

Brands frequently pay to feature their products in films or provide equipment during production. These partnerships can offset costs while giving companies valuable exposure to worldwide audiences.

Completion Bonds Protect Investors

Many major productions purchase completion bonds, which guarantee that a film will be finished even if unexpected financial or production problems arise. They provide reassurance to lenders and investors.

Residuals Remain a Major Industry Issue

Actors, writers, and other creative professionals often receive residual payments when projects are rebroadcast or licensed. How those payments apply to streaming platforms has become a significant issue in recent years.

Film Festivals Can Launch Distribution Deals

Prestigious festivals such as Sundance, Cannes, and Toronto often serve as marketplaces where distributors purchase completed films. A successful festival premiere can dramatically increase a movie’s commercial prospects.

Release Dates Are Carefully Chosen

Studios strategically schedule releases to avoid direct competition or capitalize on holidays and school breaks. Moving a premiere by even one week can significantly affect box office performance.

Not Every Movie Turns a Profit

A film can earn hundreds of millions of dollars worldwide and still struggle to become profitable if its production costs, marketing expenses, and distribution fees are exceptionally high. Box office revenue tells only part of the financial story.

15 Celebs With Some Extra-Odd Health, Workout, & Diet Practices

Celebrities often have access to the world’s best trainers, nutritionists, and wellness experts, leading to them often seeking less than conventional advice. Over the years, many stars have shared unusual workout routines, strict diets, and wellness habits that range from quirky to downright bizarre.

No matter if these routines are followed as a law or a pastime, they have sparked debate among health professionals and fans alike. These celebrities have all embraced health practices that stand out from the crowd and keep people talking, but due keep in mind that you shouldn’t try them at home.

Mark Wahlberg

Mark Wahlberg famously begins many days before sunrise, often waking around 2:30 or 3:00 a.m. to fit in prayer, multiple workouts, meals, and work commitments before most people are awake.

Tom Brady

Although now retired from football, Tom Brady continues promoting the TB12 lifestyle. His diet emphasizes hydration while avoiding foods such as tomatoes, peppers, mushrooms, eggplant, and processed sugar.

Madonna

Madonna has long been associated with a macrobiotic-style diet emphasizing vegetables, whole grains, and carefully selected foods. Her disciplined nutritional approach has remained a recurring topic throughout her career.

Chris Hemsworth

Chris Hemsworth frequently incorporates cold-water immersion into his recovery routine. He has openly discussed using ice baths to aid muscle recovery and improve resilience following demanding workouts.

Shailene Woodley

Shailene Woodley once revealed that she occasionally consumed small amounts of edible clay, saying she learned about the practice from a taxi driver and believed it offered digestive benefits.

Gwyneth Paltrow

Gwyneth Paltrow has promoted a variety of alternative wellness practices, including oil pulling, an oral hygiene technique involving swishing oil in the mouth for several minutes before brushing.

Zac Efron

For roles like Baywatch, Zac Efron followed exceptionally restrictive diets and intense training. He later explained that maintaining such low body fat year-round was unhealthy and unsustainable.

Kourtney Kardashian

Kourtney Kardashian has frequently shared unconventional recipes, including avocado-based puddings and strict organic eating habits. Her wellness routines often prioritize unusual ingredient substitutions over conventional desserts.

Joe Rogan

Joe Rogan has publicly experimented with the carnivore diet, temporarily eating almost exclusively meat while documenting both the perceived benefits and unexpected side effects during the self-imposed challenge.

Jared Leto

Jared Leto has credited occasional fasting and moderation with helping him maintain his appearance. He has discussed skipping meals at times and embracing simple eating habits rather than constant snacking.

Hugh Jackman

To prepare for physically demanding roles, Hugh Jackman has combined intense strength training with intermittent fasting. He timed his meals carefully around workouts to support muscle gain while remaining lean.

Jessica Biel

Jessica Biel has joked about and participated in goat yoga, a fitness trend where participants perform yoga while goats wander freely around them, creating a surprisingly challenging and entertaining workout.

David Blaine

Magician David Blaine has trained extensively in breath-holding and physiological conditioning to perform endurance stunts. His unusual routines involve techniques more commonly associated with elite free divers than entertainers.

Mayim Bialik

Mayim Bialik follows a vegan lifestyle and has long advocated plant-based eating. Her approach combines nutritional choices with broader ethical beliefs, making it a defining part of her public wellness philosophy.

Bryan Johnson

Entrepreneur Bryan Johnson follows one of the world’s most publicized longevity routines, involving strict meal timing, constant biometric monitoring, dozens of daily supplements, and carefully measured exercise in pursuit of slowing biological aging.

15 Horror Movies Where the ‘Scare’ Hits a Little Too Close to Home

Stories of ghosts, demons, and all kinds of supernatural horrors have their own sense of dread. When used well, they are incredibly effective, although we can always take comfort in the fact that none of that exists. We are safe in our reality.

But what happens when movies depict situations that can potentially happen? The reality you’re living in isn’t as safe anymore, since you don’t know if your neighbour has any ulterior motives for your physical wellbeing. These are the horror movies that, like it or not, are incredibly plausible.

The Strangers

A couple’s quiet night turns into a nightmare when masked intruders terrorize them for no apparent reason. The randomness of the attack makes the film especially disturbing, echoing real-life home invasion fears rather than supernatural horror.

Funny Games

Two polite young men invade a family’s vacation home and subject them to psychological torture. The film’s greatest horror comes from its realistic violence and the unsettling absence of any larger motive behind the cruelty.

Hush

A deaf writer living alone in the woods becomes the target of a masked killer. The film builds suspense from believable circumstances, forcing its protagonist to rely on intelligence instead of impossible action-movie heroics.

Green Room

After witnessing a murder backstage at a remote music venue, a punk band is trapped by violent white supremacists. Every escalation feels grounded, making the story’s brutality frighteningly believable.

Eden Lake

A weekend getaway spirals into horror after a confrontation with a group of violent teenagers. The film’s realistic setting and plausible chain of events make its relentless tension especially difficult to shake.

Creep

A videographer accepts what seems like a simple freelance job in a remote cabin. The increasingly uncomfortable interactions mirror real-world situations where ignoring red flags can have terrifying consequences.

The Invitation

A dinner party slowly becomes more unsettling as old friends reunite under unusual circumstances. The horror grows from emotional manipulation and cult psychology rather than supernatural events.

The Gift

An unexpected reunion with an old acquaintance gradually exposes buried secrets and growing paranoia. The film demonstrates how unresolved personal history can become frightening without relying on traditional horror tropes.

Misery

After a car accident, a novelist is rescued by his self-proclaimed biggest fan. His captor’s obsessive behavior is terrifying precisely because dangerous celebrity fixations have occurred in the real world.

The Vanishing

When a woman disappears during a roadside stop, her boyfriend becomes consumed by finding answers. The film’s chilling realism and ordinary setting make its final revelation particularly haunting.

Compliance

Based on the real strip-search phone call scam, the film follows employees manipulated into committing disturbing acts by someone falsely claiming to be a police officer. Its events are unsettling because similar crimes actually occurred.

Speak No Evil

A family accepts an invitation from friendly vacation acquaintances, only to ignore increasingly alarming behavior out of politeness. The horror stems from the relatable discomfort of avoiding social confrontation for far too long.

Watcher

An American woman living abroad becomes convinced someone is following her. The film explores isolation, dismissed concerns, and the fear of not being believed, all within an entirely realistic framework.

Vacancy

A stranded couple checks into a remote motel and discovers they are being targeted for snuff films. The isolated location and human perpetrators make the premise far more believable than supernatural horror.

The Rental

What begins as a relaxing weekend in a vacation rental turns terrifying when two couples realize someone may be secretly watching them. The film taps into modern anxieties surrounding hidden cameras, privacy, and trusting complete strangers with temporary accommodations.