There was once a time when it felt like all Marvel movies were meant to be huge hits, but that’s not the case anymore. Spider-Man: Brand New Day may have officially become a $2 billion dollar winner, but it follows a string of MCU flicks that have performed below expectations. Someone just asked Marvel boss Kevin Feige if it has to do with the movies being “the same," and he had a point to make.

In an interview with Variety, Feige was asked if he thinks “audiences are getting tired of more of the same story.” I was surprised he answered the question, but he made a thoughtful point:

The Fantastic Four: First Steps came out last summer to underwhelming commercial results. While the movie had an awesome first weekend at the box office, it saw a significant drop in its second weekend. Ultimately, it’s the 11th-lowest grossing film among MCU films even though as Kevin Feige suggested, it was a new look and feel for the universe.

To Feige’s point, First Steps certainly stands out among MCU movies. It’s set in an alternate universe in the 1960s of a retro-futuristic world. It also didn’t include any cameos from other Avengers or MCU characters and had the old-timey feel of its original comic books.

Surely, there are other reasons why audiences weren’t clobbering to the movie theaters for Fantastic Four. For one, there’s been three previous movies about the team across the past 20 years. Then, there’s the “superhero fatigue” of it all.

A couple of years ago, Kevin Feige got honest with CinemaBlend about there being an “overabundance” of MCU movies and TV shows. Lately, Marvel has been slowing down the roll out of upcoming MCU projects. For example, this year there are just two new 2026 movie releases and three live-action seasons of MCU-related TV shows. (Well, for those with a Disney+ subscription). It’s a change of pace from, say 2021, when there were four big-screen releases and three seasons of live-action TV all in the same twelve months.

The massive success of Spider-Man: Brand New Day shows that people are very excited to show up for Tom Holland’s Spider-Man. Superhero movies are not as much of a slam dunk as they used to be, but they can still be big. Next up is Avengers: Doomsday, which is already reportedly projecting ahead of Brand New Day in presales. We’ll see how the latest MCU movie does when it comes out this December 18.

I was starting to get genuinely nervous about the future of Fast Forever. The 11th and supposedly final Fast & Furious movie has spent years drifting between announcements, delays and Vin Diesel social media posts that made production sound much further along than it actually was. Just last week, director Louis Leterrier was talking about how he “hoped” they would get to finish the franchise. That is not exactly what you want to hear about a movie already sitting on Universal’s release calendar. Now, Diesel has finally given us something considerably more concrete.

Speaking to Variety at a 25th anniversary screening of The Fast and the Furious, the Dominic Toretto actor said Fast Forever is expected to begin filming very soon. He explained:

Principal photography beginning this December, even if there is still a qualifier attached, after four years of development, is very exciting. The movie finally sounds like it may be ready to leave the garage.

However, the actor's “if” is doing a little work there, and Diesel did not explain exactly what Universal has asked of him. Still, December is the clearest production window we have gotten in quite some time.

It also clears up some recent confusion. The Bloodshot star shared footage in July that appeared to come from the Fast Forever set and told fans he needed to “get back to this filming,” which certainly made it sound like cameras were already rolling. We later learned that was not the case.

Then Leterrier complicated matters further. While discussing the finale recently, the Fast X filmmaker said he had been keeping himself busy with other projects while waiting and added that he hoped everyone would get to finish the franchise properly. He also had not yet read the latest version of the screenplay that apparently reduced the xXx helmer to tears.

Needless to say, I had questions, but Diesel's explanation that the script went through four sets of writers over four years helps explain why this has taken so long. Michael Lesslie is behind the current screenplay, and Universal has also reportedly been looking for ways to bring the enormous budgets associated with the later Fast and Furious movies back under control.

Whenever filming actually begins, Fast Forever has plenty of unfinished business waiting for it. Fast X ended with Dom and his son apparently trapped by Dante Reyes while Roman, Tej, Ramsey and Han faced a separate disaster. The movie also brought Gal Gadot’s Gisele back from the dead and used its credits scene to usher Dwayne Johnson’s Luke Hobbs back into the franchise.

Diesel has repeatedly said he wants the finale to return to Los Angeles and to the street-racing culture that started it all back in 2001. The movie is currently scheduled to hit theaters March 17, 2028, a full five years after Fast X.

After all the stops, starts, and occasionally confusing updates, a December shoot finally gives this thing a much clearer road ahead. We will not be seeing the finale on the 2026 movie schedule, or even in 2027, so there is still a long wait. But in the meantime, fans can revisit Fast X with a Peacock subscription.

I’m not going to pretend like Dwayne Johnson’s 2021 film Jungle Cruise is the best film the man's ever done. Movies about Disney rides in general don't have the best reputation, but I do think in this case the premise is really fun, and it could be even more fun in a sequel. While the movie, which you can watch with a Disney+ subscription, keeps the vibe of the beloved ride at Disneyland that it’s based on, it missed the mark in other ways that I'd love to see corrected.

So, I was interested when Dwayne Johnson was out here amping up the potential movie this weekend

A Sequel Faces Strong Currents Against It

While speaking at D23, Johnson explained why Jungle Cruise didn’t exactly face calm waters. The movie, like others around that time, was released simultaneously in theaters and on Disney’s VOD service, and it did reasonably well, but it certainly wasn’t a massive hit. For a movie based on such a popular ride at their parks, and one with a relatively large budget, Disney must have been very disappointed. I think, unfortunately, that played a big role in canceling the planned sequel to the movie.

Still, Johnson would love to see that sequel revived. He told EW:

I’m all in here. I, like Johnson, believe that there is real potential for a future movie. Even though the original walked through a lot of the quirks that make the ride so special (like pointing out the backside of water), the sky is the limit on a subject like a boat cruise up a river. A cartoon-y version of Indiana Jones, if you will. (And I mean that in the best way.)

Johnson and Blunt are great in the uneven original, but there is a ton of DNA there that could produce a really fun movie. Johnson believes that it didn't really get a chance, saying:

Truthfully, now that a lot of those beloved quirks are out of the way–because let's be honest, sometimes what works on a ride doesn't work for a movie–there are a lot of directions the plot could go in. I don't necessarily need recreating all the parts of the ride, but I do want it keeping that vibe alive.

The currents pushing back a potential Jungle Cruise 2 are strong, no question. Right now it feels like the property is up a creek without a paddle, but I really hope that Disney doesn’t give up on it, and if the opportunity arises and Johnson and Blunt are on board, I trust they could make something special. It is, after all, as classic Disney as it gets. Meanwhile, Johnson's next upcoming movie is sort of in the same vein, as Jumanji: Open World hits the 2026 movie schedule on Christmas Day.

Spoilers below for the handful of people who maybe haven’t seen Spider-Man: Brand New Day yet, so be warned!

There’s no question Spider-Man: Brand New Day is one of the most successful movies of all time, with over a billion box-office dollars earned thus far, and many millions more to come. There’s also no question we’re going to see Peter Parker’s Spider-Man again in an Avengers sequel, thanks to that confusing post-credits scene. But the movie did leave me with several questions that I really hope get answers or clarification without before either Secret Wars or Tom Holland’s fifth Spider-Man solo movie hits theaters in 2027 and beyond. My Spidey-Patience is not so powerful.

And I’m not specifically talking about the biggest-picture questions here, like what Peter and Ned’s handshake really meant, and whether or not Doctor Strange’s spell was broken by the power of friendship. They are related, though. Since first watching Brand New Day, my brain has been preoccupied with speculation about the limits of such magical spells, and how it all works within the characters’ own brains.

Where Does MJ Think Her Necklace Came From?

Taken completely at face value, MJ still wearing her black dahlia necklace throughout the entirety of Spider-Man: Brand New Day is an oh-so-sweet sign that her love for Peter is pure enough that not even sorcery can eliminate all signs of it. In that way, it's also possibly the biggest clue early on that Doctor Strange's spell left room for certain loophole-esque situations where Peter's friends still have totems from the years they spent together. But I'm baffled by what their brains are doing to fill in the memory gaps.

Peter gives MJ the necklace in Far From Home, inspired by learning the black dahlia is her favorite flower. The pendant doesn't make it out fully intact, but MJ chooses to continue wearing it for all the adorable thematic reasons, and it's as much a symbol of their bond as Peter and Ned's signature hand-smacks is of theirs. So from a creative perspective, of course she's still wearing it in BND.

But from a more logistical real-world angle, I think it's lowkey terrifying to consider MJ compulsively wearing this necklace on a daily basis without any front-of-mind reasoning for it. Like, if I made a point of wearing the same watch for years on end, only to realize one day that I had zero clue where it came from or when I got it, I miiiight be too freaked out to put it back on. Sure, I can't tell you exactly when and where I bought every T-shirt or pair of pants that I own, but I still have the general blueprint of events up there. But if my favorite accessory only inspired blank spots, I might need a therapist.

When MJ sees her necklace in a mirror, or moves it with her hands, does her brain attempt to flash back to where it came from, only to short-circuit before real memories can appear? Or does Doctor Strange's spell intentionally dull the part of her brain that attempt to make such connections? I really hope there's a slide-show presentation explaining it before any other MCU movies come out.

Is Jean Grey's Telepathy Powerful Enough To Reverse Magic?

One of the ongoing fan theories about Spider-Man: Brand New Day is that Sadie Sink's Jean Grey knocks a few mental dominos loose in MJ and Ned when her telepathic powers bubble out and force zillions of New Yorkers to stay locked in place. I don't really buy into that idea, though, since everyone is affected by the "forget about Peter" spell, and it'd be amazingly convenient for two of his friends to be the only ones to have such adverse affects to Jean's actions. A little too amazingly convenient.

That said, I do think it's entirely possible that the vengeful mutant has (or will have) the ability to perform more distinctive tasks within people's brains. Such as making someone think they're a different person, that they can only eat brown foods, or any other kind of behavioral change that a state hypnotist might also use in an act. But is telepathy (hers or anyone's) powerful enough to reverse a spell crafted by such a magically dominant entity as Doctor Strange?

I almost have to think so at this point, because part of me doesn't want to just buy into the feel-good notion that MJ and Ned's love for Peter alone is enough to shatter such an ironclad enchantment. That's a little too pat and smooth for my tastes.

I guess now I can start pondering whether Doctor Strange's spell will continue to work if he gets killed off in Avengers: Doomsday or Secret Wars. Might as well brew some coffee now, because this could take a while.

Two of my favorite movies ever–and two of the best movies of their era–are Die Hard and The Hunt for Red October. Obviously, the two movies share some DNA, most notably that both are directed by John McTiernan and both are book-to-screen adaptations. There is another little tidbit, a fun Easter Egg, that I never clocked until recently watching a behind-the-scenes feature on the Hunt for Red October DVD released in the ‘90s. There is a giant stuffed teddy bear in each, and it’s actually the same prop in both.

Yep, It’s The Same Bear

We first meet the bear in 1988’s Die Hard when John McClane (Bruce Willis) lands at LAX and is met at the airport by his limo driver, Argyle (De'voreaux White). McClane, an NYPD detective, is on his way to see his kids, who live with their mom in LA. As a gift, he’s bringing a giant teddy bear, and I can speak as a kid who grew up in the 1980s: everyone wanted a giant teddy bear. I sadly never got one. The bear hangs out with Argyle in the back of the limo for the rest of the movie, and I like to think it played a role in stopping the thieves.

Another kid who did get one in the movies, though, is Jack Ryan’s daughter, Sally (Louise Borras) in McTiernan’s follow-up to Die Hard, 1990’s The Hunt for Red October. Ryan (Alec Baldwin) is seen with the bear on his flight home to England after the events of the Cold War thriller (which never officially took place, of course). The bear is seated next to Ryan on the plane in first class. You have to wonder if Ryan (or the CIA) had to pay for the seat, but I digress. Ultimately, and interestingly, we never see any of the kids actually receive their gift, and I wonder if the bear is still out there somewhere, looking for a home.

It’s Also A Christmas Gift In Both Movies!

Ok, ok, I’m not going to get into the debate as to whether Die Hard is a Christmas movie or not. You can check it out with your Prime subscription if you want to think on it. That debate is, frankly, tired and boring to me. However, there is no question that the bear in each movie is a Christmas gift for the protagonists’ kids. McClane is traveling to LA for the holiday, bringing the bear as a gift. In The Hunt for Red October, Jack makes a couple of mentions of Christmas shopping while he’s in Washington, DC.

It seems the giant bear Jack is taking home is a Christmas gift, and a brother for Stanley, Sally’s teddy bear at home. Ryan promised to get Stanley a brother while on his trip at the beginning of the movie when we briefly meet Sally. It’s worth noting that the movie is set in November, 1984, so the timeline all makes sense.

So there you have it. The big teddy bear with a red bow is a Christmas gift that ties the two movies together and, honestly, makes them a perfect double feature in the holiday season.

After Matt Damon starred in Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar and Oppenheimer, he and the British filmmaker reunited for the latter's latest IMAX project, The Odyssey. In playing the lead role of Odysseus, Damon had to act out the character's attempts to brave the elements and mythological figures as well as his own psychological struggles amid his quest to return home to his family. This is one of Nolan’s most ambitious features and, funny enough, Damon referred to his director as a “drowned rat” when bringing up his directing style. Of course, the actor also shared a reasonable explanation for that description.

Nolan definitely had a lot of work on his hands when helming The Odyssey, which has become one of the runaway hits of the 2026 movie schedule. He took on the challenge of filming the movie solely with IMAX cameras across several countries, and he shot the movie with as many practical effects as possible. With all of that in mind, Matt Damon spoke on The Today Show’s Sunday Sitdown, expressing that Nolan looked like a “drowned rat” while facing the challenges of shooting on cliffs and dangerous waters:

You’ve got to commend Nolan for having the patience and resilience to shoot such challenging scenes and still keep everything running effectively. As the Good Will Hunting actor made clear, Nolan was literally in the same boat as his actors, who were experiencing some shaky conditions.

For example, Damon explained that the cast had to stop and freeze whenever a scene ran longer than two-and-a-half minutes, because that’s the maximum amount of footage IMAX cameras could capture at a time. This caused the crew to have to keep reloading the cameras. Sentiments like these are a testament to the fact that making a movie is a team effort, and no one person can do it alone.

Matt Damon has spoken highly of his experience making this historical epic. He really got a sense of how “big” The Odyssey was when he saw 1,200 extras and buildings set on fire for simply a flashback scene. The Martian actor also had his own set of hurdles to jump through while filming the epic action fantasy flick and even admitted to feeling wet and cold for a lot of scenes.

Damon also couldn’t shake off the feeling of being in a “very dank and smelly” real cave while shooting the cyclops scene. But, despite every roadblock encountered, the Oscar winner still described The Odyssey as “the best experience of my career.”

It's funny to hear Matt Damon refer to Christopher Nolan as a “drowned rat” on set. However, that term of endearment speaks to the tremendous efforts of the visionary filmmaker. Nolan clearly wasn’t afraid to get his hands dirty alongside his actors to make sure his book-to-screen adaptation would be a real cinematic experience for audiences.

Check out The Odyssey in theaters now and see the work that Nolan, Damon and co. put in.

Ask any mega fan of Arnold Schwarzenegger what his three best ‘80s films are, and I guarantee you'll get the following three movies: Conan the Barbarian, Predator, and The Terminator.

Sure, somebody might swap Conan for Commando (the best action movie ever), or The Running Man (and I wouldn't fault them for it since it's definitely one of the best sci-fi movies of the ‘80s), but Predator and The Terminator are certified locks, and I dare you to find somebody who says otherwise.

That said, the one Arnold flick from the ‘80s that I NEVER hear anybody talk about (well, besides Red Heat) is 1986's Raw Deal, where Arnie takes on the mob. I'm not saying it's a hidden gem or anything like that, but it should still be talked about. Here's why.

Schwarzenegger Goes Undercover For This One

One of my absolute favorite Schwarzenegger movies is 1994's True Lies, where Arnie spends almost the entire movie undercover. Now, since True Lies is a James Cameron film, it's expertly paced, hilarious at times, and an action-packed extravaganza. Raw Deal is not, but Schwarzenegger does go undercover. That said, what the latter lacks in great pacing and hilarity, it makes up for in the action department.

In this film, Schwarzenegger plays a former FBI agent named Mark Kaminsky who gets removed from the force…for reasons... However, when the FBI tries to build a case against a mob boss, they need to bring in Kaminsky since there’s a mole in the force who keeps giving away the locations of their witnesses.

Kaminsky fakes his own death and goes undercover as a former ex-con who gets in deep with the mob (kind of like The Departed, though not as enthralling). This is all in an effort to take the mob down from the inside, which he does with aplomb and just how you’d expect from Schwarzenegger in the ‘80s, i.e., like a wrecking ball.

Again, it’s nothing I’d call special, but if you love Arnie and you haven’t seen this one, then you’re doing yourself a disservice, since it’s different enough (with the added mob elements) that it’s worth a watch.

His Acting Is Exceptionally Bad In This One, Which Means It's Awesome

As a huge fan of Arnold who’s watched every single one of his movies (with Total Recall being my absolute favorite), I’m just going to come out and say it: Unlike his contemporary, Sylvester Stallone, who’s shown glimmers of being a good actor (Especially in my beloved First Blood), Schwarzenegger has never, in his entire career, exhibited acting chops that would even put him in consideration for an award.

I’ve always loved him for this reason. Because Arnold is not like any other actor, and no other actor is like him. In fact, the worse his scripts are (and Raw Deal’s script isn’t the most polished), the more Schwarzenegger has to lean into his natural charm, and he does so with gusto in this film.

With his hair slicked back for most of the movie, and him putting on an almost smarmy charm, Schwarzenegger‘s acting is pretty bad in this one, which means it’s awesome, since it truly does feel like the entire movie centers around his performance.

His line delivery is even more stilted than usual, and even his one-liners sound a little forced. However, Arnold powers through it all, and he makes this film enjoyable, even despite itself. That’s just the power of Schwarzenegger.

In The End, It's Not The Best Schwarzenegger Movie, But It Shouldn't Be Forgotten, Either

So, do I understand why nobody really talks about Raw Deal anymore? Sure, it’s one of the weaker Schwarzenegger films.

But should it be forgotten? Hell no, as it has its fun moments, and it’s not a total wash (In fact, I’d much rather watch this than a series like FUBAR).

I’d also say it’s only for true Arnie fans, as most other people won’t get much out of it.

Even so, even a “bad” Schwarzenegger movie (and no, The Last Action Hero is NOT a “bad” film) is still pretty enjoyable. So, watch Raw Deal if you haven’t already! It’s worth your time…if you’re a mega fan, that is.

CinemaBlend was very enthusiastic when Peacock announced it would be bringing a Dungeon Crawler Carl series to the small screen, with creator of talking bear series Ted Seth MacFarlane attached. In the time since, we’ve learned details like audiobook narrator Jeff Hays still doing the voice of talking cat Princess Donut, and anecdotally, more people increasingly seem to be joining the DCC bandwagon. Because of this, a lot of people are also just now noticing some fun details, including one frustratingly obvious one you won’t be able to unsee now.

The book-to-screen adaptation has had a dedicated fanbase for a while, and that fanbase is only growing. Recently, one fan actually really took a look at the cover for Matt Dinniman’s first book, the titular Dungeon Crawler Carl (available on Amazon). They noticed one detail they’d never noticed before. Take a look.

Per the Reddit reader, there’s an “eye” in the center of the letter a in the word Carl. It’s easy to miss, particularly given a lot of people choose to listen to these books instead of read them. But is it a reference to the AI that plays a major component in the books and in Carl's fate as a whole?

I’d honestly been a book reader and not a listener. I’m also a person who literally bedazzled the eye on the cover of my copy. Despite this, I never even thought anything about the eye, much less that it could be an "AI" reference. However, some enterprising readers actually spelled this out a bit further for those of us who are a bit denser when it comes to Dinniman’s lore.

Digging Even Deeper Into The A “Eye”

Mostly, people are talking about what we know about Book 1, here, but some readers who are much further ahead further theorized about how this could be a sign the “AI” is literally inside Carl. It’s a little early to be noting that on the Dungeon Crawler Carl cover, but it has been hinted at in later books. Though, if Matt Dinniman thought that through that far ahead, kudos to him.

• "AI is also inside of “Carl” could be hinting at his primal class."
• "Even better, it could be hinting that the AI is literally physically located inside Carl. In This Inevitable Ruin; the Ai describes its own back as being “ 30.004861 centimeters” which interesting enough, happens to be the exact same number it gives in describing Carls Foot in the Butchers Masquerade."

Now some people think the eye was just a cute touch alluding to Mongo, and they’ll die on that hill. We've heard some wild details about DCC coming together already, and I don’t really think this one is an incorrect theory either. In fact, now someone has pointed out the “a eye” double meaning, I'd be surprised if it wasn't intentional -- even if they are using Mongo's eye to illustrate the point. Using "a" eye for AI just can't be an accident.

• "I thought it was Mongo's eyeball but this makes way more sense."
• "Naw mongo’s eye makes more sense still. Because that is definitely a Dino mouth on the cover. Sometimes the blue curtains really are just blue curtains."
• "I mean more realistically it’s just an allusion to Mongo since it’s also a Dino mouth and the eye is placed roughly where it would be on the head sometimes the blue curtains are just that, blue curtains."

If you haven’t picked up Dungeon Crawler Carl yet, you definitely should give it a chance ahead of the new series getting off the ground. It’s a delight, devastating and amusing alike, particularly as you get into the second and third books. I can’t wait to see it play out on the small screen, and hopefully in a way that sticks the landing. With two more books to come, we’ll see.

Meanwhile, while we wait, check out what is coming to TV this fall with our full 2026 TV schedule.

When Kyle Chandler was revealed to be co-leading the upcoming DCU series Lanterns, I was truly shocked, given how relatively few comic book-esque spectacle projects he's aligned himself with in the past. (King Kong and the Godzilla movies are clear exceptions.) But that only made me more excited, since the actor brings down-to-earth gravitas and authority with each and every role. And true to form, he's been quicker to focus on the show's character study in interviews than to talk about magical green constructs and meeting space aliens.

So it's perhaps not an astounding revelation to learn that the Friday Night Lights actor did not spend his childhood pretending to be any Jack Kirby creations or other more fantastical characters. When asked by Jimmy Kimmel Live! guest host Anthony Anderson what superhero he would have wanted to grow up to be, Chandler first let out an amusing "Good God!" as his first reaction before shedding some (dark knight) light on his earlier years. In his words (via YouTube):

So of all the superheroes and other powered-up characters that Kyle Chandler's imagination could have latched onto, he picks two DC characters that very notably do NOT have superpowers, and are instead just natural human dudes that are vastly skilled at literally everything they do. Of course that's who he picked. Even in a world of childhood fantasy, the actor couldn't quite cross the threshold, and I'm just too amused by it.

Because you just know Chandler's interest in being Batman and Sgt. Rock had to have been all about doing genuinely heroic things and saving people from harm. And not like...being a brooding billionaire with a cave-attached mansion and limitless gadgets. Or being whatever the most petty version of Sgt. Rock would be.

That does make me wonder whether or not James Gunn, Peter Safran and/or other DC and WB execs talked to the Buffalo native about possibly portraying Sgt. Rock for the big screen, in regards to Luca Guadagnino's previously greenlit feature that Colin Farrell was set to star in (following Daniel Craig dropping out). That project seems to have gone nowhere since Farrell's name entered the conversation, so it's unclear if it's still happening. But how cool would it be if Chandler got to take on that role as well?

Also, pretty interesting that Chandler talked about the easy costuming being part of why he pretended to be Batman as a kid, considering he recently took potshots at the Caped Crusader after claiming Green Lantern's costume is the coolest one he's ever seen. At which point he said, "Batman's got nothing on on. He isn't here, is he?" This guy is the driest form of the Joker imaginable.

For what it's worth, co-star Aaron Pierre has said John Stewart is the only DC hero he’d want to play. That isn't necessarily true to what he wanted to be as a kid, though. The ring will let us know if he was lying or not.

HBO unveiled the first five minutes from Lanterns' series premiere, giving audiences a quick look at the tense kinship between Hal Jordan and John Stewart. Check it out!

Lanterns will construct its first episode on HBO and streaming via HBO Max subscription on Sunday, August 16, at 9:00 p.m. ET.

Movies based on video games have had a rough history, but over the past few years, moviegoers were treated to the best video game movies ever. Simon McQuoid's pair of Mortal Kombat movies (which are streaming with an HBO Max subscription) were ripped straight from the source material, to the joy of fans. But is a third movie going to happen? Right now it's unclear, but the director's comments are making me nervous.

Mortal Kombat II hit theaters in May, and while it performed better than its predecessor, it wasn't necessarily a box office hit. While writer Jeremy Slater has plans for four more movies, the studio hasn't made any official announcements. In an interview with The Wrap, McQuoid addressed the status of the MK threequel by saying:

Well, this doesn't necessarily inspire confidence. While Simon McQuoid and company haven't heard any bad news from Warner Bros., there's still no indication that a third Mortal Kombat movie is going to be greenlit. We'll just have to see how the movie continues to perform on HBO Max, and if it gets enough streams that the studio decides to continue the R-rated narrative with another sequel.

Narratively, Mortal Kombat II's ending definitely set up future stories. After Martyn Ford's Shao Khan was killed and Earthrealm was saved, the surviving heroes (including Baraka and Kano) united and vowed to revive the various heroes who died during the last two movies. Namely Jax, Liu Kang, Kung Lao, and Lewis Tan's Cole Young. But only time will tell if we actually get to see this happen in a threequel.

Following the somewhat infamous '90s Mortal Kombat movies, Simon McQuoid's pair of blockbusters offered a much more faithful adaptation of the beloved video games. Much of this had to do with their R-rating, which allowed for the blood and grisly fatalities that gamers know and love.

This is a change that has been quite successful critically, but the sequel's box office performance didn't guarantee that we'll get a third movie. Mortal Kombat II made $129 million on a reported budget of $80 million, which is more than its predecessor but not necessarily a home run. But a strong enough streaming performance might be able to get a third movie greenlit. That's the "life cycle" that the movie's filmmaker seems to be referencing. I personally loved the first two MK movies, and would love for the story to continue, and more beloved fighters to make their way to the big screen.

Mortal Kombat II is streaming on HBO Max as part of the 2026 movie release list. Let's just hope that Warner Bros. greenlights a third movie, and we get to see those fallen heroes return to the world of the living.

Alan Ritchson is in high demand these days, but even as he pops up in 2026 movie releases like War Machine and the dialogue-free Motor City, fans of the hit Prime Video series Reacher don’t have to worry. Jack Reacher’s adventures will continue for at least two more seasons, with the first of the new episodes premiering August 12. Reviews have dropped for Reacher Season 4, and I’m happy to report that Ritchson seems to have followed through on the big promise he made.

Alan Ritchson had said he wasn’t sure showrunner Nick Santora could top Season 3, but after seeing how different and unexpected the new story is — with Reacher uncovering a political conspiracy and getting, ahem, involved with the enemy — the actor called Season 4 “the best season we’ve ever made by a long shot.” Luckily for us, the critics seem to agree! Sherin Nicole of RogerEbert’s review reads:

Alan Ritchson Batman rumors aside, Reacher Season 4 may not just be the best but also the bloodiest season, according to Raphael Motamayor of The Wrap. It’s also the funniest yet, with a timely political story that Motamayor says results in possibly the series' best twist to date. The critic writes:

David Caballero of Collider rates it a 9 out of 10, writing that the most recent installment stays true to itself while delivering a product that’s “more muscular and unforgiving than ever.” Viewers will be cheering through gritted teeth, Caballero says in his Reacher Season 4 review:

Ryan Britt of Men’s Journal says this is Jack Reacher’s most James Bond-like season yet, with its old-school, emotionally charged action and a story where the romance is so closely connected to the character’s motivation and possibly even his downfall. Britt continues:

Craig Elvy of ScreenRant gives Reacher Season 4 an 8 out of 10, noting that the action this season shifts into a higher gear than before. The critic lists “artful driving stunts, nail-biting aerial work, and a greater focus on blades,” as the series offers set pieces that audiences haven’t seen anywhere else (which is saying quite a lot). Elvy writes:

It’s hard to argue with the above reviews, and few critics are. Reacher Season 4 started with a 100% critics’ score on Rotten Tomatoes from 11 reviews but has since dropped to 87% as more opinions are gathered. Either way, if you’re even remotely invested in Reacher, you’ll definitely want to check out what Alan Ritchson called “the best season.”

The first three episodes of Reacher Season 4 drop Wednesday, August 12, on the 2026 TV schedule and can be streamed with a Prime Video subscription. New episodes drop weekly on Wednesdays thereafter.

For years now, Samara Weaving has been in my Mount Rushmore of modern-age scream queens, having steadily crushed roles in high-quality variety of horror movies. So every time she joins a new one like the excellent Ready or Not 2, I’m readily standing at attention like a bloodthirsty pup. That hasn’t been the case as much recently, however, as she’s too busy joining other projects about things I love dearly. First, she was recently confirmed to have joined the MCU’s X-Men cast. And now it’s been reported that she’s in Nintendo’s Legend of Zelda movie.

It’s like she (or her agent) has a direct line into my pop culture-sopped brain that lines her up with whatever 2026 movie or 2027 release can makes the most synapses happen. (Not that I’m actually so self-centered that I’d think anyone’s management team has or wants access to my brain.) I’ve been looking forward to a Legend of Zelda movie at least since 1993’s Super Mario Bros. first warded Nintendo away from movie adaptations for decades, and wasn’t entirely sure how many of the upcoming video game adaptation’s cast members would be revealed before the first trailer drops.

Who Is Samara Weaving Reportedly Playing In The Legend Of Zelda?

News of Weaving’s casting was first shared on X by self-described “messenger” Beyond Reporter, who has been on the money enough times to make posts like this worthy of attention. Had this been the lone mention about the casting, I might not have been swayed to give it further thought, but then the same source later posted that Weaving would be playing a fairy character, but then later doubled-back with a supposed correction for who the actress is actually playing, which states:

I honestly wouldn't have been surprised to learn that Weaving would be playing an aged-up version of Zelda, since she looks like she'd be right at home with this universe's characters. But I'm very intrigued by the rumor that she'll instead be portraying the goddess Hylia, especially since there's no indication of what that portrayal would even consist of.

More often than not, Hylia is depicted in Nintendo's various Link-led games through statues and other forms of iconography, as opposed to the goddess herself being a townsperson wth conversations to engage in and quests to assign. Which speaks to the idea that Weaving may have one or two marquee scenes near the beginning and end of the movie, without a whole lot of screentime as a speaking and breathing character, though she still might actually be seen all throughout the movie in statue form.

However it goes, this marks the latest project Weaving has joined that I couldn't be more excited about. And I would be remiss if I didn't also note that the Bill and Ted movies are among my most cherished, so the fact that she got to carry on the legacy in Face the Music makes her even cooler in my eyes. And I can only imagine that she'll kick some ice-covered nards as Emma Frost for Jake Schreier's new take on the X-Men franchise.

Considering she keeps doing things I love, which includes being in a Jorme Tacoma-directed movie (for the well-received Over My Dead Body opposite Jason Segel), here's a list of other things I love, and projects I've love to see, that she could theoretically join.

• Any of Mike Flanagan's upcoming Stephen King adaptations
• Any of Mike Flanagan's projects that aren't Stephen King adaptations
• The alleged Nightmare on Elm Street reboot
• Gravity Falls Season 4
• Another Bill & Ted sequel
• Hannibal Season 4
• DCU horror movies after Clayface
• The new Inbetweeners movie (why not?)

Now I just have to sit back and mentally manifest every one of those projects into existence, so you may not hear from me for a while. Until then, just follow the sound of the air guitar in the wind. Or wait, is that an ocarina?

With all of this X-Men chatter lately, you’d think it was the ‘90s all over again (I guess that’s what X-Men ‘97 is all about, really). Seriously, have the X-Men ever been this much a part of public discussion as they are right now?

I mean, between their upcoming role in Avengers: Doomsday, their future in the MCU, and (spoiler!) one of their members appearing in another MCU project, the X-Men just seem ubiquitous right now… and I like it!

It got me thinking about what is arguably the best X-Men movie of all time, 2011’s X-Men: First Class. I’ve loved most of the X-Men movies, but this one stands head and shoulders above the rest. Here’s why.

Making Charles And Erik’s Relationship The Center Of The Film Was The Right Call

While it’s popular to believe that Professor Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr, aka Magneto, were inspired by Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, respectively, the truth is, Stan Lee and Jack Kirby never intended for the comparison. That said, it just fits so perfectly, doesn’t it?

The fight for Mutant rights is certainly analogous to the Civil Rights Movement. That movement kickstarted in the mid-’50s, while the X-Men debuted in 1963. Plus, Martin Luther King Jr.’s peaceful approach to integration is similar to what Professor X would later propose, while Magneto’s more militant approach mirrored the earlier “By Any Means Necessary” approach by Malcolm X.

X-Men: First Class wonderfully shows this dichotomy of peace vs. force. Throughout the film, we see Charles (James McAvoy) and Erik (Michael Fassbender) working together to create mutant acceptance. Erik, a survivor of the Holocaust, views humankind with disdain, but, because of Charles’ optimism and friendship, tries to make it work.

As you already know, it doesn’t work. The CIA creates a special unit for mutants, but it turns out that the government is just as quick to get rid of them, which breaks the bond between Magneto and Charles. Their friendship and ultimate parting of ways really work as the crux of this film.

The Time Period Has Never Felt More Important In A Comic Book Movie

X-Men: Days of Future Past focuses on the “future,” 2023, and also 1973. The film’s conceit is more just an excuse to connect the “old” X-Men from the 2000s with the “new” X-Men of the 2010s. Only X-Men: First Class really makes the time period feel wholly essential to the story, as it takes place in the 1960s at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In fact, the whole third act consists of a what-if scenario of what-if mutants actually were the cause of all of the international tension back then? We also get a true sense of the overall turmoil back in the ‘60s, which was, again, the height of the Civil Rights Movement.

All of this makes X-Men: First Class feel like not only a comic book film, but also a great history lesson, which is amazing.

It Gets To The Heart Of What Makes X-Men Special - The Fight To End Bigotry From Different Sides

Is First Class a movie that explores race and social justice? Not really, but it certainly feels like one.

X-Men has always been the most “woke” popular comic book series. Mutants can be substituted for any particular race, religion, or sexual orientation, and the “enemy” is anybody who views them as disgusting, or worse, sinful and deserving to be eradicated.

First Class works better than any other X-Men film because it fully leans into this. It’s great not just because it’s enthralling, but also because it truly tackles the issue of what the best way to fight bigotry is, and it never really lands on an absolute answer (as it shouldn’t).

Was Charles right? Was Magneto? That’s up for the viewer to decide, which is why I think this X-Men film in particular is the most special, and the greatest of them all.

Spider-Man: Brand New Day is dominating the box office, and if that wasn't evidence enough that the Marvel Cinematic Universe still has what it takes to keep chugging along, I think what it set the stage for does. The X-Men get set up for the future in a big way at the end of this movie, and while not everyone is a fan of that, the audience I saw the movie with was hype.

I guess not everyone was hip to the rumors that Sadie Sink's mysterious villain was actually one of the founding mutants, and people in my theater were audibly shook by the revelation on opening weekend. It has me positive that the MCU is back on track, and after Avengers: Doomsday, we're only going to see more bangers from Marvel Studios as the years drag on.

Jean Grey Getting A Gasp-Worthy Reaction From A Full Theater Has Me Positive The MCU Is Back

Back when Famke Janssen was playing Jean Grey, I was a kid with my dad explaining to me who she was in the comics and why she was so important. 26 years later, the collective gasp in my packed theater for Spider-Man: Brand New Day told me that you no longer need to be a comic book fan to recognize one of the X-Men's most powerful psychics, especially considering there wasn't any other reference to mutants or other iconic imagery from the franchise.

Based on Jean's role and how the movie ends, it feels clear the X-Men are not an established team in the MCU. It stands to reason we're going to meet some more mutants in the coming years, and if people are that psyched for Jean Grey, imagine how they'll be when they meet the new Cyclops, Storm, or Wolverine.

Marvel Studios Rebooting The X-Men Can Definitely Carry The MCU For Another Decade

If Marvel Studios has plans to slowly introduce the X-Men and make them a team, then I think we have a good while before Marvel fatigue strikes a mainstream audience again. Kevin Feige confirmed plans were in place for Marvel to reboot the superhero team for the MCU, and I think the studio is going about it in the best way possible.

Starting at the very origin of X-Men is the right call and allows us to be reintroduced to a new cast to invest in and bring a new generation into the story of the Mutants. Whether we'll get a more traditional comic book origin story, a new twist, or one of the alternate tellings has me excited.

As comic book readers know, there are so many mutants beyond Wolverine that could have their own standalone film series. There's so much potential with that, especially at a time where it feels like the verdict is still out on how much we all like the new Avengers lineup. If the Mutants end up being the torchbearers of the next era of the MCU, I won't be mad.

Spider-Man: Brand New Day is currently in theaters and continuing to make wheelbarrows of cash. It has me wondering just how long we'll have to wait for another movie, and when we can expect to see Sadie Sink's Jean Grey again.

When we got news that Ryan Hurst, who was scheduled to play Kratos in the upcoming Amazon God of War video game adaptation, got injured and would have to be replaced, it was pretty shocking.

In fact, it kind of upended everything we knew about the series, which will eventually be available with a Prime subscription, as how can you have a God of War show without Kratos? However, there’s now word that former pro-wrestler and current movie star, Dave Bautista, may be up to replace Hurst, and my only question is, why wasn’t he ALREADY the choice to play the character?

Honestly, when you think of the wrestlers who turned actors, I’d put Bautista on the top of that list. So, here’s why I’m shocked that Amazon is JUST coming to this decision.

Dave Bautista Is Literally The Perfect Actor To Play Kratos

Here’s the thing about Kratos - he has history, and surprising depth. This is a man who once slaughtered his entire family and has gone through life regretting his past when he was younger, and Dave Bautista would be perfect for this performance.

A lot of people think of Bautista as Drax the Destroyer from the Guardians of the Galaxy films, and that’s good, because like Drax, Kratos also has a vengeful side to him as he hunts down the gods and deities. However, the Kratos we’re getting in this new series follows the one from the 2018 game, who is a quieter and more introspective character than in other games.

For this, I think of Bautista’s roles in movies like Blade Runner 2049, the Dune series, and, surprisingly, his voice work in the new animated Avatar movie, Avatar Aang: The Last Airbender. This is an actor who can go from rage-fueled to somber and meditative at the flip of a switch, and this is the Kratos we get in the 2018 game, as well as God of War: Ragnarok. In fact…

What’s More, He’d Be Great As A Weary, Over-It Kratos, Just Like The One From The Later Titles

Do you want to know another movie of Bautista’s that makes me think that he’d be the perfect Kratos? 2020’s My Spy, of all movies. In the action-comedy, he plays a CIA agent who watches over (and later depends upon) a 9-year-old girl, and it just makes me think about Kratos’ relationship with his son, Atreus.

In the game, which a lot of people playfully refer to as “Dad of War”, Kratos is drastically different from the one we got in the earlier titles. This is very much more of a weary, over-it Kratos who really just wants to be left alone to take care of his son after the death of his wife, Laufey. In fact, his journey is to honor his wife’s death and to scatter her ashes at the top of the highest peak in the Nine Realms.

I think Bautista would be perfect for this. I can envision him being totally lost in thought after just eviscerating a horde of enemies with his axe. It would be wonderful.

I Hate To Say It, But Now I’m Actually Interested In This Series, Whereas Before, I Just Wanted To See It Fail

Haters gonna hate, but before news of Dave Bautista possibly getting the role of Kratos emerged, I genuinely wanted to see this show fail.

You see, I really hated the Halo series from Paramount+, and after seeing that image of Ryan Hurst crouching in the woods, I already thought, This is gonna suck so hard, and lost all hope.

But Dave Bautista as Kratos? Yep, sign me up. Now THAT I want to see.

So, again, my only question is, what took you so long, Amazon? Isn’t it clear? Dave Bautista would be the perfect Kratos!

Spoilers below for anyone who hasn't yet watched Spidey's latest big-screen romp, so be warned (or be punished)!

The biggest movie of 2026 so far, Spider-Man: Brand New Day is the relatively rare MCU release that has won over critics and audiences alike, and feels like a step in the right direction for both Sony and Marvel Studios. Tom Holland's fourth webslinging solo film will likely keep audiences talking until the next Marvel movie releases thanks to its pair of ambiguously teasy final scenes: Peter and Ned's go-to handshake and the Spidey Tracker's outer-space update.

After co-star Jacob Batalon's Ned spends the entire movie unaware of who Peter is, his former BFF makes an introduction in which Ned unwittingly goes through the motions of their special handshake. But does that mean Doctor Strange's memory-wiping spell has been reversed? Batalon shared his take on the matter with THR, seemingly without any secret behind-the-scenes knowledge of where things are going next. And I dunno that he'll be putting an end to any debates here when asked about Ned being the first character to regain any memories of Peter. In his words:

Oh man, oh man. Had the actor just avoided the question entirely, it might have been minorly frustrating. But here, he dismisses any assumptions about Ned's memory coming back, and instead gives equal weight to some of the most relevant arguments that fans have been debating since the movie's release. That's just cruel, J.B.! (At least he didn't bring up the idea that Jean Grey's widespread mind control might have unlocked something.)

Not that anyone should readily expect anyone in the Brand New Day cast to suddenly reveal a concrete answer to questions posed by those mysterious final moments, since any kind of genuine answer would just inspire more questions, and there's no real end to that line of action. Still, I'm amused that Batalon doesn't narrow the list of options down even slightly.

He continued, and voiced his hope that it's a positive omen for the future. As he put it:

As much as I'd love to think that True Friendship is more powerful than a Sorcerer Supreme's magic spell, I personally don't believe that Ned is starting to regain his mental memories of his past with Peter, and I think it's more muscle memory than anything else. Doctor Strange's spell didn't necessitate that Ned would forget everything he knew that had anything to do with Peter. If I'd magically forget who my parents were, that doesn't mean I'd automatically forget how to drive a car because they taught me how.

I guess I don't have inarguably proof of that, since I don't personally know the contact info of any Sorcerers Supreme. As such, the debate will rage on until we're all years older and watching the first trailer for Spider-Man: Whazzidoozitz? Or you know, whatever the next one is called.

It's a good time for gamers who are also cinephiles, because the best video game movies have arrived over the past few years. Case in point: Simon McQuoid's pair of Mortal Kombat movies (which are streaming with a HBO Max subscription). Fans were shook when Lewis Tan's Cole Young was killed off early despite being the protagonist of the first movie, and the actor has spoken about his possible future in the R-rated franchise.

Mortal Kombat II's trailer had some fans nervous about Cole, given how limited his screen time was. And indeed, he was the first hero to be the victim of a fatality during his battle with Martyn Ford's Shao Khan. During an interview with Vulture, Tan was asked if he thinks he'll play the original MK character again in the future, responding with:

Well, I'm intrigued. While we have seemingly seen the last of Cole Young in the burgeoning Mortal Kombat franchise, that doesn't mean that Lewis Tan won't be back if/when a threequel is ordered by Warner Bros.. So who could he end up playing?

One popular theory is that Cole will end up becoming the blind hero Kenshi. Mortal Kombat II saw Sub-Zero transform into Noob Saibot, so there is some precedence there. Later in his same interview, Tan spoke about his unique history with the franchise, offering:

Cole Young might be dead, but that doesn't mean that the Deadpool 2 actor's tenure in Mortal Kombat is done. Hopefully another movie gets green lit soon; writer Jeremy Slater has ideas for four more Mortal Kombat titles.

Despite the games having a huge roster of characters, the first Mortal Kombat put original character Cole Young front and center, including a relation to Scorpion. This was a choice some fans took umbrage with, but didn't expect him to have such a small role in the sequel. But if Lewis Tan returns as a new character that might be just what the doctor ordered.

Mortal Kombat II is streaming now on HBO Max as part of the 2026 movie release list. Fingers crossed that the live-action franchise gets to continue with a third movie by director Simon McQuoid.

After years of questions and speculation, a fourth Mummy movie starring Brendan Fraser and co. is finally being made. The long-hoped-for film took a big step forward earlier this year when it was announced that Scream and Ready or Not helmers Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett (known collectively as Radio Silence) would be directing and, as of late, casting has been underway. It’s now been reported that two more familiar faces are returning for this latest installment, and I have a question regarding one of these characters.

The Mummy 4 Brings Back More Franchise OGs

Fans have been asking for Oded Fehr to return to the Mummy franchise, so they should be pleased to hear that he’s reportedly signed on to reprise his role as Ardeth Bay in the upcoming fourth movie. He’ll also be joined by Kevin J. O’Connor, who played Beni Gabor in the franchise’s inaugural 1999 film alongside Fehr and more. Deadline also reports that the production has also added Numan Acar of Homeland and Jack Ryan fame. As of this writing, Universal Studios has not publicly commented on the castings.

While details on Acar’s character are surely being locked away like an undead pharaoh, fans should be more than familiar with the characters played by Fehr and O’Connor. The first film establishes Fehr’s Ardeth Bay as the leader of the Medjai, a group of warriors sworn to protect Egypt from supernatural threats. In that movie, Ardeth aids Rick O'Connell (Fraser) and co. against the resurrected priest, Imhotep, and aids them again in 2001’s The Mummy Returns. Fehr has long shown his love for this franchise, and I love that he’s returning.

O’Connor’s Beni is a cowardly thief who works with Rick during their time in the French Foreign Legion. During the film, Beni’s allegiances shift as he seeks out treasure and tries to remain on Imhotep’s good side. The story ends in a somewhat dour way for Beni, which is why I’m both surprised and confused by O’Connor’s casting in Mummy 4.

I Have A Big Beni Question To Ask

At the end of The Mummy, Beni gets what he wants – but not in the way he intended. He ultimately finds himself buried within the infamous City of the Dead, Hamunaptra along with the treasure he was so desperate to find. What’s more is the last time the character is seen, he’s surrounded by carnivorous scarabs after setting off a booby trap. The weasel of a character’s torch ultimately burns out and, as the screen goes dark, he screams when the bugs close in.

It’s hard to imagine how Beni could survive a situation like that, so I’m wondering who he’ll be written into the fourth movie. Of course, given the supernatural elements of this series, maybe O’Connor’s character didn’t survive, and he returns in this latest film as an undead specter of sorts. That seems like the most plausible way for Radio Silence to handle that because, otherwise, an explanation for him surviving the scarabs could come off as contrived.

While the directors have de-canonized 2008’s The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon, I can’t see them erasing that last scene involving Beni. Gillett and Bettinelli-Olpin are crafty filmmakers, though, and I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. On that note, I also can’t wait to see how they handle PG-13-friendly action sequences and curses, considering their prior experience with R-rated horror films.

Brendan Fraser also seems excited to return, and he’s been getting in shape to play Rick again. Aside from Oded Fehr and Kevin J. O’Connor, returning alongside Fraser is Rachel Weisz – who famously played Rick’s eventual wife Evelyn Carnahan. Fan-favorite co-star John Hannah is also returning as Evy’s brother, Jonathan. It’s also been reported that Obsession’s Michael Johnston has been cast in an undisclosed role as well. Given these cast additions, I’m even more eager to see what The Mummy 4 has to offer.

The fourth Mummy movie is currently scheduled to be released on October 15 as part of the 2027 movie schedule. In the meantime, stream the first three films using an HBO Max subscription.

It has been nearly five years since Daniel Craig ordered his final martini in No Time to Die, and the search for the next James Bond has somehow produced more rumors than actual information. Every British actor under 40 has seemingly been fitted for a tuxedo by the internet, but we may finally know when the real answers are coming. Stop the presses, because we finally have a timeline for when we should expect Bond 26 to be getting underway.

Producer Amy Pascal told Deadline that an announcement about the next 007 could arrive by the end of the 2026 movie calendar. When asked whether that time frame sounded realistic, Pascal called it “a good bet,” explaining:

That is still not a casting announcement, but after years of hearing some variation of “the process is ongoing,” I will gladly take an actual target. By New Year’s Eve, we may know who will be standing beside an Aston Martin in the first official photo from the post-Craig era.

Whoever gets the role will have an impressive group waiting behind the camera. Dune filmmaker Denis Villeneuve is directing the next Bond film, while Peaky Blinders creator Steven Knight is writing the screenplay. Pascal and Harry Potter producer David Heyman are producing, with Tanya Lapointe serving as executive producer.

That lineup goes a long way toward explaining why the team is being so careful. Villeneuve has already described Bond as “sacred territory” and said he wants to honor the franchise while opening the door for future missions. Amazon MGM Studios has also praised his ability to create immersive theatrical worlds through movies such as Arrival, Blade Runner 2049 and the Dune films.

Casting Bond is always a huge decision, but this one carries extra weight. Craig played the character for 15 years, beginning with Casino Royale and ending with a film that gave his version of 007 a definitive conclusion. The next actor cannot simply walk into the same continuity and order another drink.

And based on Pascal’s comments, it sounds to me like the producers understand that. Her emphasis on finding something “different” makes me think they are not searching for an actor that could essentially replace Craig, only younger. The new actor needs to work with whatever Villeneuve and Knight are building, particularly if Bond 26 is meant to start another long-running era.

Until someone is officially introduced, the usual names will continue circling the role. Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Theo James, Callum Turner and several other actors have all been discussed online, while previous reports suggested that the search had moved into talent testing, with another round of auditions expected in August.

That does not mean the winner will be one of the famous contenders fans have spent years debating. Bond producers have often benefited from casting someone recognizable without choosing the most obvious movie star available. The next 007 could still be an actor hiding several pages deep in everyone’s prediction list.

For now, the important news is that the process finally has something resembling a finish line. We may not have Bond, a release date or even a title, but the team appears to be closing in on the person who will carry the franchise forward.

After this long without 007, the end of the year suddenly feels very close. While we 007 fans wait for more info, now is a great time to revisit the sixty years of films by streaming all of the Bond films or renting them with an Amazon Prime subscription.

Well, folks, we're almost there. Avengers: Doomsday comes out December 18th (the same day as Dune: Part 3, making it “Dunesday” for many), and I'm pretty excited.

I mean, how could I not be? My favorite Marvel “hero” is Moon Knight, but when it comes to villains, it has to be Doctor Doom. And yet…I kind of wish we weren't getting Doomsday. At least not so soon.

You see, I'm still very much of the opinion that Marvel should have stayed the course with their plans for Kang the Conqueror. Yes, Kevin Feige said to The Hollywood Reporter that Kang “wasn’t big enough” after Thanos, and yes, I know Jonathan Majors was dropped by Marvel after being found guilty of reckless assault and harassment. I still think Marvel should have kept with Kang rather than pivoting to Doctor Doom.

Kang COULD Have Been Big Enough With The Right Push

This might not seem like the right time to bring this up, but I want to talk about the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie. Now, when it was first announced that we were getting a Guardians film, my initial thought was, Are you kidding me? Because look, I grew up in the ‘90s, and I can tell you this: If Spider-Man and the X-Men were considered A-tier Marvel back then, then Guardians of the Galaxy was considered F-tier.

It’s not that Guardians of the Galaxy was a bad series back then, but all of the cosmic stuff (sans Silver Surfer, who was pretty popular even back then) felt pretty obscure in the ‘90s. Nova, ROM, and yes, GotG all felt like SUPER niche characters, and only for the nerdiest of the nerds. So, when we got F-tier Marvel comics as a film… and it was SUPER SUCCESSFUL, well, that just told me any Marvel character was fair game for the MCU… as long as they were handled properly.

Granted, following Avengers: Endgame, the MCU kind of felt like they dropped the ball when it came to introducing new characters (Like my beloved Eternals). That said, Marvel had it in its capabilities to really do something special with Kang the Conqueror if they just did it right!

Which, I understand, they DIDN’T get Kang right when he appeared in Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. However, Kang was so great at the end of Season 1 of Loki, and I feel like Marvel should have kept at it with his character, as he just needed that extra something to push him over the top, even without Jonathan Majors, which I’ll get into next.

If Jonathan Majors Was Also A Factor At The Time, They Could Have Just Written Him Off And Made Him A Variant

Going back to that Kevin Feige Hollywood Reporter session and how he said they were already pivoting away from Kang before the Jonathan Majors incident, fine. I’ll take him for his word, as these things definitely take time, and filling the Russo brothers in that the MCU wanted to integrate Doctor Doom couldn’t have just been some spur-of-the-moment decision. That said, I’m also going to believe that Jonathan Majors' conviction of assaulting his ex-girlfriend had to have at least been a contributing factor to Marvel dropping Kang at the time.

I mean, just look at how fast Marvel dropped James Gunn from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 after his controversy, only to bring him back once the internet had cooled off. So, there's definitely a precedent for Marvel getting squeamish when one of their major players gets a negative spotlight drawn on them. However, the thing about the multiverse is that Marvel could have just written off Majors and put somebody else as a variant of Kang, and I don’t think anybody would have minded.

For example, we got Victor Timely in Season 2 of Loki, and he was a variant of Kang, as well as He Who Remains. And, while sure, these are just different versions of Jonathan Majors, there really wasn’t anything saying that Marvel couldn’t have just gotten another charismatic actor to play a DIFFERENT variant of Kang. Like, instead of David Jonsson playing the next Black Panther (which, you know, cool), perhaps he could have been a variant of Kang. He certainly has the acting chops for it.

Or, I don’t know, anybody besides Jonathan Majors. It could have been done. Because without Kang’s time travel shenanigans, the whole TVA thing kind of feels pointless. Speaking of which…

Plus, Kang's Departure From The MCU Cheapens Loki's Return In Doomsday

If there was ever a time to cry watching anything MCU-related, I can think of two instances: One was when Spider-Man turned to dust at the end of Avengers: Infinity War, and number two was Loki’s sacrifice in becoming the living embodiment of all of the timelines in Season 2 of Loki, which showed true growth in Hiddleston’s character.

All of this timeline stuff ultimately connects to Kang the Conqueror, who is known for his many variants and time-traveling capabilities. In fact, he’s what made the whole TVA thing feel interesting and alive, and Loki being a part of that really felt like something special. In a lot of ways, Loki and Kang felt intertwined in their destinies.

By just dropping Kang, it kind of weakens Loki’s story and the great finality to his role in the MCU. Now, Loki’s coming back in Doomsday, which is kind of weird. Yes, I know Hiddleston has said to The Hollywood Reporter that his role in Doomsday picks up after his sacrifice in Season 2, but I still can’t vibe with the idea of Kang just being poof, gone, forgotten.

Kang felt so instrumental to everything involving the multiverses and the timeline, and now none of that seems to matter with Kang gone. And this is all just to move on to Doctor Doom, who I really need to talk about now.

Doctor Doom Really Did Need More Time To Cook

Kevin Feige has recently shared his thoughts on Doctor Doom’s lack of build-up, and he’s compared it with Thanos, saying that the big purple dude really didn’t have all that much build-up, either. However, I’d say that was a hell of a lot more than what we got at the end of Fantastic Four: First Steps with Doctor Doom (IF that was even him).

Honestly, one post-credit scene is nothing, and it feels like it really should be something given the existential threat that Doctor Doom should present. I mean, this is Doctor FREAKING Doom we’re talking about here, and we’re really just going to get him introduced to us in this movie…which is also going to bring the X-Men into the fray?

For real? I mean, I do have faith in the Russo brothers, but Doctor Doom is a TOP TIER Marvel villain (I’d say even more so than Thanos), and I think he needed to be built up A LOT more before just throwing him against the Avengers, the Fantastic Four, and the X-Men.

Plus, where do we go from Doctor Doom? He’s like THE big bad guy in Marvel along with Thanos. Kang could have been that nice in-between if done right.

The 2026 movie schedule is filled with legacy sequels, and there’s one particularly irreverent one that’s set to arrive later this month. I’m talking about Super Troopers 3, which sees the members of the Broken Lizard comedy team returning to write and star in the production. Some other franchise alums will also be back in the fray this time as well, including Lynda Carter. The fan-favorite actress seems excited to be back, and she recently expressed that enthusiasm by sharing some pics, including a still in which she’s chilling in a bathtub.

At this point, Super Troopers fans have surely come to expect comedy-based action from this franchise and, of course, other madcap antics can ensure as well. However, I can’t say I would’ve expected a still from the film to show Carter’s Governor Jessman smiling while soaking in a tub. That’s exactly what Carter revealed in a recent Instagram post, though, along with a couple of behind-the-scenes photos taken on set. Check out the seemingly ageless Carter in the post below:

While I’m delighted to see a bit of ST3 content, I’m also just enamored with Carter, who looks downright stunning. The iconic Wonder Woman star has always seemed to have something of a glow to her, and that’s definitely apparent in these fresh pics. Aside from that, though, it’s also just cool to see Carter once again sharing space with some of her longtime co-stars like Brian Cox and Jay Chandrasekhar. The jokey comment she makes pertaining to Chandrasekhar in her caption is also funny:

I’d like to think that Vermont Governor Jessman will do more than sit in a tub when she returns in this upcoming threequel (though I could be wrong, considering how unpredictable this film series can be). Throughout the franchise, Carter’s Jessman has served as a key ally to the titular team and provides them with intel on missions. Jessman’s last appearance was in ST2, in which she unites the troopers to help deal with a land-related situation involving Canada. With all that said, this latest photo does leave room for speculation. I mean, is Jessman done with her political obligations and now living the simple life? We’ll have to wait and see.

What is known about the plot of Super Troopers 3 is that it’ll see the team trying to solve a case involving a drug operation. And, at the same time, Trooper “Thorny” will be wrestling with his sister’s engagement to “Favra” and attempt to break them up. Matrimony-based chaos seems likely to ensue, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

As was the case with the first Troopers sequel, it’s honestly miraculous that a threequel is happening, though I certainly won’t question it. I’m curious to see what the Broken Lizard brings this time around and, of course, I can’t wait to see Lynda Carter return as Jessman as well. Until then, I’ll just be pondering why Carter’s character will be soaking in a tub during one part of the film.

Grab a Super Troopers 3 popcorn bucket and check out the film when it opens in theaters on August 7. In the meantime, stream the OG 2001 movie with a Hulu subscription, and grab an HBO Max subscription to check out the 2018 sequel.

Fast & Furious 11’s status has been widely discussed for a few years now, and there have been varying reports about when it’ll finally head into production. Something that’s remained consistent, however, is franchise lead Vin Diesel’s enthusiasm for the production. The actor has shared a myriad of social media posts, through which he’s shared updates on the film and, this weekend, he shared some thoughts on the series capper's script. Diesel has since followed that up with a lovely video including co-star Michelle Rodriguez.

Vin Diesel Reunites With Michelle Rodrigeuz For A Cute Video

As mentioned, Diesel has an affinity for staying connected with F&F fans, and that’s certainly been evident in recent weeks. Many of the actor’s posts involve nods to his blockbuster franchise, while others may include a simple message. The longtime Dominic Toretto portrayer opted for the latter with his most recent post. Diesel took to Instagram to share a video, in which he thanked his followers and wished them a “Happy Creative Sunday.” Also, at the unknown location was Rodriguez, who made a cheeky little cameo:

It’s hard not to smile at the sight of Diesel being reunited with Rodriguez, who plays his on-screen girlfriend, Letty Ortiz. Also, I’m chuckling a little at Rodriguez whipping out that sweet camera and preparing to get a snapshot before the clip cuts off. While I’d love more context for this outing between colleagues, what is clear to me is that these two buddies still have love for each other. To that point, Diesel shouted out Rodriguez in a social media post last fall, in which he referred to her as a true “ride or die.”

Although Rodriguez has thrown a little shade at some of the more recent Fast & Furious installments, she, like her co-star, seems set on reaching the end of the proverbial road with Diesel and co. by way of Fast 11. That particular race has definitely taken longer than most likely expected, but Diesel’s latest comments on the project may perk up fans.

Vin Diesel Drops Thoughts About The Fast 11 Screenplay

Via social media posts, Diesel has shared a myriad of details on the final Fast movie and, this past January, he confirmed the official title, Fast Forever. The Riddick star garnered significant attention this past Saturday when he posted a trailer for 2001’s The Fast and the Furious, which is set to be re-released in theaters for its 25th anniversary on August 26 amid the 2026 movie schedule. As part of that Instagram message, Diesel also made a massive claim about the franchise’s closing installment:

Vin Diesel talks a big game, but for him to call Michael Leslie’s script the best he’s “read in decades” is really something. Based on his comments about “crying,” reading the script was apparently an emotional experience for him as well. No specifics are shared, of course, but this might be just the update some Fast fans have been waiting for.

There are still plenty of questions to ponder in regard to Fast Forever, though, as the film was in limbo (in great part) due Universal Studios’ seeking to reduce production costs. Even cast member Alan Ritchson acknowledged those “obstacles” during a recent interview. As it stands, the movie is still scheduled to be released in March 2028, but it’s unknown when filming will begin.

Still, Vin Diesel appears excited, and both he and Universal head Donna Langley have promised that Fast 11 will mark a return to the franchise’s street-racing roots. In the meantime, I’d expect Diesel to continue sharing updates online (and I hope Michelle Rodriguez pops up in a few of those theoretical posts as well).

Tom Holland and Timothée Chalamet are two of their generation’s biggest movie stars, and both of their 2026 movie schedules are packed with highly anticipated tentpole films. Yet their signature roles could hardly be more different. Chalamet’s Paul Atreides spends Dune brooding over visions, power and the possibility of becoming a galactic tyrant, while Holland’s Peter Parker can barely explain himself without tripping over his words or revealing classified Avengers information. But what if the two actors had swapped places? I'm cracking up over the Holland's take on how he would've played Paul.

Said contrast came up in Holland’s recent appearance on Josh Horowitz’s Happy Sad Confused podcast. The host imagined an alternate Hollywood timeline where Chalamet became Spider-Man, and he led Denis Villeneuve’s (Steven Spielberg-approved) Dune trilogy. Holland gave Chalamet a genuine vote of confidence as Peter Parker, then offered a much less flattering description of his own Paul Atreides:

The host immediately pushed back and said he did not believe the Brand New Day actor would actually play the role that way, and he is probably right. The star of Christopher Nolan's latest box office hit, The Odyssey, has done enough dramatic work to prove he could handle Paul’s fear, anger and increasingly heavy sense of destiny.

With that said, I cannot stop picturing his proposed version. Instead of solemnly walking across the desert while visions of a holy war flash through his mind, Holland’s Paul would presumably tumble down a sand dune, lose one of his boots and accidentally spoil the Fremen’s entire battle plan. His first sandworm ride would feel less like the arrival of a messiah and more like Peter Parker clinging to the side of an airplane.

It would be a very different performance, but Holland is right that something is interesting there. The Wonka star’s Spider-Man would probably be less likely to greet a villain with an enthusiastic pop-culture reference. He might also make Peter Parker look like he has not slept since Uncle Ben died.

Shortly after the trip into "what if" fancasting land, Holland recalled being only 17 when he began auditioning for the role. Looking back at those old screen tests now, he said he can't help but see himself as a child compared with the actor he is now, leading the recently released Spider-Man: Brand New Day. Playing Peter Parker has taken up “damn near the majority” of his life.

Holland also explained that his dance background helped define his version of Spider-Man. Because the costume covers his face, he had to communicate through movement. He even developed a physical detail in which Peter’s arms occasionally hang loose in the suit, almost as though he does not fully control them. That small bit became part of how he plays the character.

Chalamet would undoubtedly have created a different take on the Web-Head. Audiences probably would have gotten a more withdrawn and brooding Peter Parker, though the actor behind Paul Atreides can be very funny when a role allows it. Chalamet’s recent work hardly suggests he would spend every scene staring sadly from a rooftop.

I'd say the Uncharted star is being too hard on his possible Dune. He could bring plenty of emotion to Paul, and his physicality might make the desert action terrific. I still would not trust him near the Water of Life without supervision.

Thankfully, both actors landed the roles that helped define this stage of their careers. Chalamet became the haunted heir of House Atreides, while Holland brought nervous energy and gymnastic movement to Peter Parker. I'd like to think, though, that somewhere in the multiverse, however, Spider-Man is moodily considering destiny while a blundering Paul Atreides runs from a very confused sandworm. That is one heck of a funny image.

Spider-Man: Brand New Day is playing in theaters now but, if you want to revisit Holland's prior turns as Spidey, stream his Home trilogy with a Disney+subscription. As for Chalamet, his first two Dune films are streaming with an HBO Max subscription, with Dune: Part Three, the third and final entry, landing in theaters on December 18.

Major spoilers for Spider-Man: Brand New Day are ahead! If you have not seen this movie, it’s currently playing in theaters.

For a long time now, a common criticism of Tom Holland’s Spider-Man movies is that there’s always another hero he kind of has to share the spotlight with. From Iron Man to Doctor Strange, he hasn't been able to get a movie to himself. That’s never really bothered me, though. Well, that was the case until I saw Spider-Man: Brand New Day. While I agree with Brand New Day’s reviews, and I think it’s great, unfortunately, the way they handled Sadie Sink’s character, Jean Grey, is the reason I have a problem with it.

Don't Get It Twisted, I Love This Movie And Sadie Sink's Performance

If I don’t think about the MCU as a whole or the upcoming Marvel movies, I loved the role Sadie Sink’s Jean Grey played in Brand New Day. The conflict revolving around Spider-Man’s plan to suppress his own powers as well as hers was effective. And I love that Peter realizing he should embrace his evolving powers stemmed from him finding common ground with Jean.

Overall, I thought Jean’s introduction was a very powerful way to get Peter Parker to realize and deal with his demons and then come out of this isolation he’d put himself in for years. He accepted his powers, started reuniting with MJ and Ned, and that happened as he tried to defeat and then protect Jean.

I also loved that this film subverted expectations and didn’t have one all-powerful villain. Instead, it flipped the script; while Jean started as the antagonist, the government ended up being the real bad guy, and Peter realized he should actually be helping the young mutant.

Plus, Sadie Sink’s performance was amazing. It’s tortured yet delicate, and I am genuinely looking forward to seeing more of her as the iconic X-Men character. However, this is where my problem with this entry on the 2026 movie schedule lies.

I Don't Like That Spider-Man: Brand New Day Feels Like A Set-Up For X-Men

Yes, Brand New Day is a solid movie. Yes, it does tell a compelling story about Spider-Man. However, for a good chunk, it turns into a Jean Grey origin story. And after it's revealed that the body-jumping antagonist is Jean, it was almost distracting how often I was thinking about what’s next for her.

I’m certain they’re setting Jean Grey up to be a big player in the MCU, and we know Jake Schreier has an X-Men movie in the works. So, as we saw her origin play out in Brand New Day, and we learned about her powers, it didn’t necessarily feel like it was being done for this Spider-Man story. It felt like it was being done to serve the greater universe.

What I wanted from Brand New Day was a Spider-Man movie about Spider-Man. I didn’t want to be distracted by the bigger universe Marvel is trying to construct. Introducing Jean Grey and doing it in the way they did took the spotlight off the webslinger for too long, and that’s why I have a problem.

It’s not necessarily anything to do with the character herself or Sink’s performance. I actually enjoyed those a whole lot. It was more so the fact that her part in this story felt like a springboard into another chapter of the MCU. I didn’t want Spider-Man: Brand New Day to be a bridge to the greater world. I just wanted it to be a Spider-Man movie.

A few days ago, before I’d gotten the chance to see the stunningly reviewed Spider-Man: Brand New Day, an interview dropped in which Sadie Sink was asked for one word we’d only understand after seeing the movie. Now, if you know anything about the run up to this 2026 movie release, you should know Sadie Sink has been pretty opaque throughout this entire process. Despite rumors, this press tour has been misdirect after misdirect over the secret character she ultimately is playing, and I honestly thought she was just being weird and throwing us off the scent. In actuality, however, her one-word response was spot-on, and a moment that threw me for an emotional loop while watching.

First of all, we obviously have to get into spoilers here, so if you haven’t seen Spider-Man: Brand New Day, yet, this is not the story for you.

The One Word Sadie Sink Said We’d Understand After Watching Brand New Day

Sadie Sink was out and about promoting the then-upcoming Marvel movie when she was asked to name something fans will “only understand” after watching Spider-Man: Brand New Day. I saw the interview a couple of days before I went to see the movie, and she had a one-word answer:

At the time, I honestly thought this moment was pretty weird. I thought it was (probably) a non sequitur again meant to throw us off what was coming in the movie. She’d obviously already been attempting to keep the audience at bay for months prior to this interview. (That is, until her role was spoiled on the carpet just days before release.) She’d even said at one point that avoiding spoilers was “not that hard” for her, unlike Tom Holland. And it didn’t help this video came straight from the Marvel team, making me feel like it was a possible misdirect.

Then, I saw the movie.

How A Scrunchie Led To One Of The Most Heart-Wrenching Moments In Brand New Day

In Spider-Man: Brand New Day, it’s Jean Grey and her sister Sara against the world after they’ve been kicked out of their home. That is, until the day Sara is unceremoniously taken from a park, and from Jean's life. She leaves Jean with one clue “v-max,” a mysterious word with a meaning that seems unclear to the many people Jean tracks down and asks.

Some time later, Jean is also taken and left in a high security room, a room that once housed her sister. She eventually finds out Sara is deceased after seeing a sticker on an air unit reading ‘v-max” and noticing an object sitting on a desk across the room: the scrunchie her sister always wore in her hair. The scrunchie moment is heart-wrenching. It makes you empathize with Jean and her part-villainous, part-pure intentions. It makes Jean the perfect antagonist for Spider-Man, who has also faced incredible loss in this movie.

So, yeah, one word that we all understood, and could only understand after watching Brand New Day is absolutely the word scrunchie. It’s a great tease from the already masterful Sadie Sink, who casually kept us off the scene on what was doubtless a very long press run for her. Just like previous Tom Holland Spidey installations, the movie is already resonating with audiences globally, so grab your scrunchie, your xuxinha, your haargummi or シュシュand get to the theater.

Alan Ritchson was born to be an action star, so it felt like a no-brainer to see him join the Fast & Furious franchise with Fast X (streaming with a Peacock subscription), alongside Vin Diesel. As Aimes, the actor got in on the stunts and fistfights and clearly had a great time being a part of it all. But it’s been three years since the film came out, and with no release date on the 2026 movie calendar, fans are wondering when the final installment of the franchise will finally hit theaters. And they’re not the only ones.

The Fast and Furious movies first revved onto the big screen 25 years ago and the scope and scale has only gotten bigger and wilder with each release. Over two decades of the action-adventure empire has been building toward this moment. But following Fast X's cliffhanger ending and the excruciatingly long Fast Forever delay, questions continue to arise about when we’ll finally get to learn how it all ends. The Reacher star recently appeared on the Happy Sad Confused podcast to promote his latest action flick, Motor City, and of course, the conversation turned to what he’s heard about the status of the Fast franchise. He said:

When it comes to putting seemingly impossible things out into the world and making them happen, there is no better manifester than Vin Diesel. Unwilling to give up on anything, it’s admirable to witness his unwavering grind, and I’m sure Alan Ritchson and the cast appreciate the push to get Fast Forever into production.

After defying the laws of physics countless times, even launching a car into space using a rocket in F9, it’s hard to scale things back down. And all of that comes with a hefty price tag. But Ritchson, who has described his franchise character as “disarmingly unflappable with a down home charm,” is right that there has to be a more efficient way to shoot and to pull things back while still honoring what the Fast and Furious world has become. And really, it comes down to family. Smallville’s Aquaman is optimistic that it will happen, and reassuringly said:

Fast and Furious has become one of the most popular action franchises of the 21^st century, encompassing not just movies, but an animated series, theme park attractions, video games and more. It has also embraced some of the biggest names in the genre, counting Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Jason Momoa, Charlize Theron, Helen Mirren and Gal Gadot among its cast ranks.

But honestly, as long as the character dynamics stay true and their bonds remain strong, I know I’d be down to see a conclusion that recalls where it all began. A final chapter that stays more grounded and pulls back from all of the over-the-top stunts bordering the absurd and takes things back to Los Angeles to honor the franchise’s roots would definitely get me into a theater to see the final film that’s currently slated for March 17, 2028.

I have accepted that Henry Cavill will (more than likely) never suit up for a new DC movie to play Superman again. There are not many new Cavill projects that could distract me from wanting one more flight in the cape, but his long-gestating video game adaptation of Warhammer 40,000 has always been high on the list. Now, one possible collaborator has pushed it even closer to the top. This is a team-up I’d be even more excited for than a Supes return.

Mike Flanagan is in talks to write, direct and serve as showrunner on Amazon MGM Studios’ Warhammer 40,000 series, which the British leading man is expected to star in and executive produce. According to TheWrap, Amazon declined to comment, so this is not official yet. Still, the possibility of Cavill and Flanagan building this universe together sounds almost suspiciously well-matched.

The former Man of Steel portrayer has never hidden how much Warhammer means to him. He has collected and painted the miniatures for years, understands the lore and appears capable of discussing the Imperium of Man at a depth that would make most studio executives quietly leave the room. When Amazon announced his involvement in 2022, he described the opportunity as a lifelong dream.

That enthusiasm is probably the biggest reason I have remained interested despite the slow progress. Cavill is not showing up simply because Amazon wants a recognizable face holding an enormous weapon. He knows this material, cares about getting it right and has enough nerd credibility that fans may actually trust him when he starts making difficult adaptation choices.

Flanagan could be the person who turns all that knowledge into a TV show people who have never touched a miniature, like myself, can follow. Let's be real, Warhammer 40,000 is dense. There are genetically modified Space Marines, hostile alien races, ancient machines, psychic powers and a human empire held together by war and religious fanaticism. The setting is proudly excessive, and I mean that as a compliment. However, several hours of characters explaining factions and military history would send casual viewers running for the nearest escape pod.

Flanagan is especially good at taking huge supernatural ideas and finding the sad, damaged people trapped inside them. Midnight Mass could have simply been a vampire story, but he made it about faith and addiction. The Haunting of Hill House had ghosts everywhere, yet the family remained the grounding point, and that's why it's still one of the best horror series ever made. And it's that sort of care that Warhammer needs. To get a feel for the vibes the series could bring, check out the Warhammer 40,000 cinematic trailer below.

This potential team-up also arrives at a useful time. Updates on Cavill’s adaptation have been slow, although Games Workshop previously confirmed that it and Amazon had agreed on the project’s creative guidelines. Bringing in a filmmaker such as Flanagan would be the clearest sign yet that the series is moving beyond ambitious planning and toward actual production. Amazon already has a working relationship with him, and his upcoming Carrie book-to-screen adaptation is set to hit the 2026 TV schedule later this year.

Of course, Flanagan already has plenty on his plate, not just Carrie but his long-discussed Dark Tower adaptation. His involvement with Warhammer is still only a possibility, not a done deal. Even so, Henry Cavill guarding the lore while Flanagan explores the horror, faith and damaged humanity beneath it feels like an ideal partnership. I would gladly cheer them on as they head into the grim darkness of the far future.

As for what's next for the former Witcher star, he's set to appear in the Highlander remake sometime on the late 2027 movie calendar.

Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart have spent so many years roasting each other that a new Jumanji trailer without some collateral jabbing would feel incomplete. Sure enough, Johnson used the rollout for the 2026 movie release of Jumanji: Open World, their final entry in the franchise, to introduce yet another nickname for his co-star: “Lil Toot Toot.”

The blockbuster movie star shared a promotional video on Instagram ahead of the trailer premiere, captioning it “Shut up lil’ Toot Toot” before directing fans to the evening’s Jumanji livestream with Hart, Jack Black and Karen Gillan. The clip, as you can see below, shows the comedian's likeness seated behind a desk, wearing sunglasses and reading from a spiral-bound script, while a voice keeps steering the bit toward clowning on his co-star and friend. It is juvenile, unnecessary and completely on brand for these two.

This is hardly the first time they have turned a promotional moment into an excuse to needle each other, and it probably will not be the last. Their celebrity faux feud has become part of the friendship, whether Hart is joking about Johnson getting pulled over, trying to force his way into the billionaire club or mocking the size and spectacle of his action movies. Even when they are busy making films together, they always seem to find room for another jab. For these two, affection and trash talk are practically the same language.

The video itself is stranger than the insult. A large number of commenters accused the clip of being AI-generated, pointing to the Moana actor’s unusual-sounding voice and the comedian-turned-superstar's pretty uncanny appearance and movements. Others argued that only one performer had been altered, while some thought the whole thing was created by a computer. Which is pretty hard to argue with because the former WWE star's voice sounds off, stilted, and has a slight Dr. Phil twang to it that just does not sound right.

The post does not identify the clip as AI-generated, but that has not stopped online ‘sleuths’ from doing a bit of detective work. Though, admittedly, it doesn't take a software developer to recognize there is something... Uh, off… about the video. So, of course, the online detective work has produced more theories than answers.

What is clear is that the Dr. Smolder Bravestone performer personally posted it and remains committed to calling the Night School star “Lil Toot Toot,” regardless of what's going on with this video.

Fortunately, the actual Jumanji trailer gives fans something more concrete to examine. Open World brings Dr. Smolder Bravestone, Franklin “Mouse” Finbar, Ruby Roundhouse and Professor Oberon out of the video game and into reality, where the avatars are stuck in “demo mode.” The new footage reunites Johnson, Hart, Gillan and Black, while Alex Wolff’s Spencer and the other players scramble to restore the boundary between the game and the real world.

The movie is being promoted as the final Jumanji adventure and also brings back Danny DeVito, Awkwafina, Nick Jonas, Bebe Neuwirth, Rhys Darby and the original dice from Robin Williams' movie. Jumanji: Open World arrives in theaters on Christmas Day 2026. That leaves Johnson and Hart several more months to keep the faux feud alive.

I've been excited for Michael B. Jordan's remake of the classic '90s film The Thomas Crown Affair since the project was first announced. With the new version set to hit theaters early on the 2027 movie schedule, we finally have a first look with the release of a teaser trailer today. It seems exactly what I was hoping it would! It even appears to address the single flaw in the Pierce Brosnan version, and I hope I'm correct.

The Brosnan Version Is Awesome, But I Don't Like The Psychologist Scenes

The '90s Thomas Crown Affair starred Brosnan and Rene Russo in the lead roles, playing a cat-and-mouse game as Russo's character, Catherine, tries to catch Thomas in his art thefts. They were joined by a slew of great actors, like Ben Gazzara, Denis Leary, and the iconic Faye Dunaway. Dunaway, who played the Russo role in the original Thomas Crown Affair alongside Steve McQueen in 1968, plays Thomas' analyst. It's a role that doesn't appear in the original, and I think it was added to pay tribute to the original with one of the original stars.

Unfortunately, I think it's the only thing that doesn't work in the 1999 movie. Like, at all. And The Thomas Crown Affair one of my all-time favorites, and I consider it one of the best movies of the '90s. It all feels forced and unnecessary. However, I'm hoping (or simply guessing?) that the subplot is included in this latest version, as Jordan has cited the '99 version as the one he really loved, so he seems to be looking to it for his inspiration.

The trailer includes Jordan's Thomas speaking to someone off-camera about what gives him a thrill in his life, and I have a sneaky suspicion it is his psychologist, as it's similar to what Brosnan's version did with his analyst. So I'm thinking (and, again, hoping) that it incorporates Thomas Crown's sessions in a more meaningful way in the movie, because I think there is a lot to explore there.

There is obviously a lot to psychoanalyze in a billionaire who steals art to get his jollies, which is exactly what Thomas is talking about in the trailer. Let's get into what makes Thomas tick, something the '90s really only touches upon. I think it's a fantastic way to update the heist movie and really add something to the story.

We still have about seven months to wait until The Thomas Crown Affair hits theaters on March 5th, but I'll be first in line to buy a ticket, especially after this trailer.

Stranger Things ended this past December after five seasons, and it’s still being talked about. The final season of the Netflix hit was divisive amongst fans, so much so that many were convinced there was a secret episode following the release of the finale. This led to the #ConformityGate theory, which suggested that the "true" ST capper had yet to be released. While there's been no official indication that such a development might happen, Vecna/Henry Creel actor Jamie Campbell Bower is still getting asked about a bonus installment.

Fans' displeasure with Season 5 seemed to stem from apparent plot holes as well as the ambiguity of Eleven’s fate. It's somewhat wild to think that even though that dropped over six months ago, some people would still want more. Well, that would seem to be the case, as Bower recently confirmed to Entertainment Weekly while recalling what he believed to be the wildest theory to ever swirl around the Duffer Brothers' massive show:

#ConformityGate picked up shortly after the series finale aired, and a portion of viewers seemed very convinced that a secret ninth episode was filmed and the eighth episode was actually an illusion, thanks to Bower’s Vecna. Fans kept pointing out clues either in the episodes or via something that the Stranger Things or Netflix social media accounts posted. Bower recalled that as part of all that, even slight moves that the cast made were scrutinized:

Ultimately, #ConformityGate has remained nothing more than a theory. There certainly don't seem to be any plans for a secret episode to be released, at least not yet. As someone who also has mixed feelings about the finale and Stranger Things 5 in general, I honestly wouldn’t mind if there was something else up the Duffers’ sleeves in regard to the ending. Still, even I can admit that the fact that this still being brought up months later is wild, or as Bower called it, “pretty crazy.”

There have certainly been some disappointing TV series finales over the years and, unfortunately, Stranger Things’ wasn’t great in many people's eyes. Even with the supersized episode, it just wasn’t enough. Of course, it wasn't all bad, as most of the characters did get happy endings. If you're like me, though, you may have simply been pining for a little more closure in some respects.

For now, people may want to give up on #ConformityGate, especially since it's pretty evident at this point that nothing is going to come of it. Much of the cast is busy, whether it be professionally or personally. And, on a more practical and obvious note, Stranger Things wrapped filming over a year ago, so the cast and crew have said all of their goodbyes already. So it may just be best to accept what is and move forward.

With that, fans can decide for themselves if another episode is truly necessary by watching all of Stranger Things with a Netflix subscription.

Minor spoilers for The Odyssey lie ahead.

As general audiences and critics heap praise on The Odyssey, something that’s been noted quite often is just how practically made the film is. Writer/director Christopher Nolan is known for shying away from soundstages and visual effects whenever possible, and he certainly commits that principle to heart with his 2026 movie release. The cast (and crew) really went all in as a result of that and even performed some serious stunts. And, as CinemaBlend learned, that included drowning scenes.

Much of The Odyssey takes place in and around large bodies of water, especially since the film heavily centers around Odysseus and his men’s attempt to return to the island of Ithaca. Cast member Himesh Patel (who plays Eurylochus) recently spoke with us about having to act like he was drowning for one particularly intense scene of the film. When asked if acting out drowning is essentially just drowning, Patel agreed with that summation and added the following thoughts:

Having to perform such a wild moment seems daunting enough, but that’s only the half of it. When our own Hannah Saulic asked if Patel trained before performing that particular stunt, he shared an honest answer that also delighted co-star John Leguizamo (who plays Eumaeus):

• Patel: [George’s] like, ‘You'll be fine. We're not going to let you drown.’ But there is no alternative. You just got to sort of look like you're drowning and flail around.
• Leguizamo: While you're drowning.
• Patel: Yeah, while you're drowning.

Even with safety measures in place, I still would’ve been anxious about performing that drowning scene. To the stunt team’s credit, though, the scene is incredibly convincing, and I was stressed out while watching it. Check out Himesh Patel discussing the topic in the Instagram video below:

Many of Odyssey’s stars were put in the position to step out of their comfort zones while shooting Nolan’s ambitious film. Leading man Matt Damon talked about being “wet” and “cold” during portions of the shoot, and he and Nolan also recalled shooting the Cyclops scene in a truly “dank” cave. At one point, Charlize Theron also acted through massive winds that got up to 30 to 40 miles per hour. Even while facing the elements, though, many of the stars have talked about feeling excited and grateful to be part of the movie.

I’d say their efforts weren’t in vain either, considering how The Odyssey has rocked the box office and earned considerable buzz following history-based nitpicks and further Internet-based backlash. Given the drowning scenes, battle sequences and more, it’s probably safe to assume Himesh Patel and his co-stars won’t soon forget their time making this movie. On that note, see the historical epic for yourself, as it’s currently playing in theaters nationwide.

With the upcoming releases of Spider-Man: Brand New Day and Avengers: Doomsday, Disney has been promoting a new premium format for movie theaters: Infinity Vision. The tricky thing for the House of Mouse is that the new MCU movies are both getting released against some major competition on the 2026 movie schedule: The Odyssey for Spidey and Dune Part III for Doomsday. What’s even more challenging for Disney is that both of those movies have exclusive holds on IMAX theaters around the world. This seems to be what has motivated the company to come up with Infinity Vision.

Like many, I wondered exactly what the new format consists of, so I went down the rabbit hole to find out. (A different rabbit hole from Alice's, to be sure.)

So What Does Infinity Vision Mean?

For starters, I need to point out that Infinity Vision is not the same as other premium formats, like IMAX. Disney is not designing and building new theaters to create a new experience for filmgoers.

Back in April at CinemaCon in Las Vegas, Disney unveiled Infinity Vision, and in a press release, the company describes the certification of movie theaters around the country as having:

• The largest screens for maximum scale
• Laser projection for superior brightness and clarity
• Premium audio formats for fully immersive sound

The Head of Theatrical Distribution for Disney, Andrew Cripps, wrote this in regards to the certification:

If it still seems a little bit nebulous, know that there are clear standards set forth, per the FAQ on the Infinity Vision ticketing website:

• Screen: Minimum of 45 feet wide
• Sound: Theaters with either Immersive sound (like Dolby Atmos) or 7.1 sound
• Projection: Theaters with brightness levels reaching either 14 footlamberts in 2D and/or 6 footlamberts in 3D

Okay, so what does all that mean? Well, it means that only the biggest (non-premium large format screens, or PLFs, like IMAX) and brightest screens in theaters with state-of-the-art sound systems will qualify for the designation. It’s important to note, per Disney’s FAQ that:

According to the Disney press release, there are at least 75 theaters in the United States and more than 300 worldwide that have received the certification, though that number may be low, as thousands have since applied to be included in the designation.

Why Is Disney Doing This?

There is a pretty simple answer to why Disney has made a push for this. Getting locked out of PLFs like IMAX will likely put a serious dent in the box office hauls for their two Marvel tent poles in 2026. The company is also releasing Avengers: Endgame in September, under the new name Avengers: Endgame Encore with bonus footage for screenings in theaters that meet the qualifications for Infinity Vision. Endgame Encore will be the first movie released in theaters with the certifications.

Spider-Man: Brand New Day will not be part of the rollout, but almost certainly played a role in the development of Infinity Vision. The Tom Holland and Zendaya-led superhero movie is blocked from IMAX due to Christopher Nolan’s deal to hold exclusivity for The Odyssey for three weeks (partly because he shot the whole movie on IMAX technology). That includes the first week of Brand New Day's run in theaters. When you are counting the upcharge that PLFs enjoy on tickets, it plays an important role in the box office take of any big movie, especially movies like Brand New Day and Doomsday, for which people clamber for PLFs.

Is It Really Just Marketing?

Some of the more cynical critics in Hollywood have dismissed Infinity Vision as a simple marketing strategy for Disney given the situation, but I have a different opinion. I mean, I agree that it is marketing, for sure, but it’s actually helpful marketing. It makes it easy for me and others to identify the best theaters to see the upcoming Marvel movies. I have a pretty good idea which theaters around me would qualify, but seeing it as part of the movie listing on my phone when I go to buy tickets is useful. How much that is worth to people is another question, but for me, it’s worth a couple extra bucks.

I do not doubt that some of those same critics will decry the extra charge for a theater that isn’t really bringing anything new and special to a screening, and that is a fair argument. For me, though, I get it. I get that Disney has to make money here, as losing out on IMAX revenue is certainly going to hurt the overall box office numbers. As I said, I appreciate knowing which theaters will present the movie in the best environment possible. For people who don’t go to the movies as often as I do and who might not immediately know which theaters in their area are the best, this is even more helpful.

Will Infinity Vision Last?

Another question some critics have raised is just how long this format will really be a thing. Again, another fair question. It was invented for the upcoming release of Endgame Encore and, mostly, Doomsday. Will we see it in 2027 with the release of Secret Wars, even if it also gets a more traditional release through PLFs that Doomsday has been locked out of in 2026? I think so, yes. At least for Secret Wars, which will also have stiff competition from Lord of the Rings: The Hunt for Gollum. Beyond that, I’ll just say, I’m dubious as to how long the designation will last.

In the meantime, it seems both Disney and theater owners are all too happy to market the movies this way, and if it works, then I do think we’ll see it more often in the future. If the public decides the differences aren’t worth it, we’ll probably see it quietly go away.

Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey is currently killing it at the box office, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was up for Best Picture come Oscar season.

One movie that will NOT be up for Best Picture and did terribly at the box office is Masters of the Universe, which came and went so quickly that it barely even registered on my radar (It’s actually one of the reasons why I think this summer is one of the weaker ones in recent memory).

However, now that it’s available with an Amazon Prime subscription, I watched it and really liked it! Dare I say, even more so than The Odyssey? I’ll explain.

First Of All, The Odyssey Held Back On The Fantasy, While Masters Goes Full Throttle

When it was announced that The Odyssey would be Christopher Nolan’s next project, I was excited…but with some trepidation. You see, I love Homer’s The Odyssey, and mostly for its fantastical elements. However, Nolan is the absolute king of making grounded, realistic movies, even when it concerns a rich guy who dresses up as a bat at night. That’s what I go to see his movies for.

That said, I DIDN’T want that with The Odyssey, and that’s what we got: A grounded version of this fantastical tale, which is why I wasn’t in love with it (Though, it’s superb when it comes to the human elements). When I want fantasy, I want it full throttle, and Masters of the Universe does just that!

MotU is a fantasy movie par excellence! There are swords, sorcery, firepower, weird monsters, you name it! I was just a wee one when the Masters of the Universe cartoon first aired in the ‘80s, but the colors, visuals, and ridiculousness of this movie struck a chord with me that put a huge smile on my face. Do you know how many times I smiled while watching The Odyssey? Not once!

Masters Of The Universe Also Has A Lot More Personality Than The Odyssey

Not too long ago, my colleague, Jessica Rawden, wrote about one thing that Masters of the Universe does better than The Odyssey, and can I say that it does a lot more than ONE thing? I can name several things that MotU does way better than The Odyssey.

For one, it has WAY more personality. Nolan has a particular style, and it works for him. It’s why he can make a movie about dreams, and the farthest he goes to showing how weird dreams can be is having a city fold in on itself (In contrast, watch a movie like Paprika to see the real surrealness of dreams). And look, I LOVE Inception, but I find Nolan’s style a little bland sometimes.

Well, MotU is full of personality, humor, and color! Jared Leto is unrecognizable as Skeletor, but he has personality for days. Eternia feels way more alive than the various islands that Odysseus travels to. I mean, is The Odyssey an overall better movie than MotU? Of course! I’m not going to argue that, but which would I rather watch again? Well…

I Could See Myself Watching Masters Again. The Odyssey? Not So Much

Another one of my colleagues, Hugh Scott, recently wondered why Masters of the Universe was even made, and he has some valid points (Namely, who was this even made for?). That said, even though some of the jokes were definitely bad, and He-Man’s journey could have been better, I still find that I enjoyed the journey…for the most part.

You see, when I was watching The Odyssey, I found myself engaged in the story, but I don’t really see myself carving out another three hours to watch it again, mostly because I feel like I got what I needed to get out of it the first time. On the other side, watching MotU, I felt there were probably in-jokes that I might have missed, or other cool details hidden in the story, which is why I enjoyed the film.

It never takes itself seriously, which I love. It’s fun, and I highly recommend it. So, if you missed it in theaters, check it out now. It’s no The Odyssey, of course, but in this instance, I prefer that.

Avengers: Doomsday fans just experienced the biggest promotional week yet for the upcoming Marvel movie, thanks to that gobsmacking trailer reveal dropping and key details being unveiled at San Diego Comic-Con. As it usually goes, Marvel confirming more information leads to more fan theories and rumors getting bandied about. But while a lot of the updated guesswork is seemingly based on pure fantasy, one fan’s Doctor Doom question about Fantastic Four: First Steps has somewhat harder evidence to fall back on.

Doctor Doom’s full movie-specific costume was put on display for SDCC attendees to peep out, and it was later joined by a figure showing off a “Latverian Witch” costume that quickly sparked further theories about the MCU’s most beloved witch, Elizabeth Olsen’s Wanda Maximoff, appearing in the Russo brothers’ sequel. And it’s not hard to understand why, even despite the actress saying previously that she’s not in it.

If the general “witch” connection wasn’t enough to sell it, just look at the specific way the left hand is set, as opposed to being straight down like the other one.

Pretty convincing, right? I mean, not like 100%, but better than a lot of other "clues" that fans have used to prop up their theories. But my overall point here isn't even about the Scarlet Witch, per se, so let's swing the focus over to the final non-cartoony sequence from the MCU's Fantastic Four movie.

Was It Actually The Latverian Witch, And Not Doctor Doom, That Appeared Before Franklin Richards?

One fan who commented beneath a pic of the Latverian Witch made a potentially huge connection between that character's silver mask and the one that "Doctor Doom" removes from "his" face at the end of Fantastic Four, since the latter doesn't look at all like the on-camera mask that Robert Downey Jr. is wearing in the Doomsday trailer. (As well as the one on display behind the Witch.)

The biggest and easiest comparison to make from the jump is that both are smooth and curved in the forehead area, while Doctor Doom's mask is more angular, with layered metal and rivets making it not at all as smooth as the one shown in Fantastic Four. It's 100% not the same mask, to say the least.

But to that same end, the mask in First Steps also isn't identical to the Latverian Witch's face covering. The impressions under the eyes appear deeper, at least, though it's not clear what the rest of the design looks like. So there feasibly could be more similarities to address, and there could be possible differences as well.

The biggest piece of evidence that would seemingly disprove this theory is that Fantastic Four star Vanessa Kirby has confirmed that it was indeed Robert Downey Jr. who filmed the mid-credits scene. But doesn't that really prove that it was Doctor Doom and not his witchy cohort? In the sense that, if it was a stand-in actor under the cloak instead of RDJ, the character would still be seen as Doctor Doom by viewers. So it wouldn't really matter who actually filmed the scene if we didn't see their face.

That said, it would be hilariously amazing if the Latverian Witch was another variant of Victor Von Doom / Tony Stark, but it's just RDJ in a wig and lipstick.

To play devil's advocate here, it's entirely possible that Doctor Doom's mask design wasn't fully flashed out before The Fantastic Four filmed that mini-scene, so the prop designers just went with a more generic look that could be expanded upon later. Or maybe it's not even the same Doctor Doom. There's no end to the theories, really.

Of course, if that wasn't Doctor Doom in The Fantastic Four: First Steps, that'd mean fans complaining about the lack of Doctor Doom's narrative build-up might have even more fuel for their argument. But how realistic is this idea? Realistic enough, even though it may never get addressed directly either in Doomsday or by cast members if it's totally bogus.

Here's hoping we get more clues about that scene ahead of Avengers: Doomsday hitting theaters on December 18, 2026.

Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey has received rave reviews from critics and for a multitude of reasons. Pundits and general audiences alike have lauded the film’s direction, screenplay, performances, score and more. The British filmmaker pulled from Homer’s original epic poem when crafting the film, though he also looked to others, including Emily Wilson, who translated the story in 2017. While Nolan named Wilson as an inspiration for his approach, the author has some brutally honest thoughts about the book-to-screen adaptation.

To put it simply, Nolan’s 2026 movie schedule entry has stirred up a lot of conversations amongst those familiar with the story. There’s been backlash leveled at Nolan for his casting choices and use of modern language. Well, Wilson has entered the chat, and she lambasts the blockbuster in an essay written for the London Review of Books. While Wilson noted that her teenage kids “had a good time,” she laid out why she was unimpressed:

Wilson also goes on to say “the film’s vision is too confused, its characters too underdeveloped, to deliver what it half-promises in terms of big ideas – although it is very good at conveying big bangs and big giants.” The writer is also of the belief that the Dark Knight helmer’s “spectacle threatens to drown out his story”. While Wilson acknowledges that film adaptations don’t need to follow the source to the letter, she’s still of the thinking that Nolan misses the mark here in several respects. She also adds this:

Wilson’s translation of the story has been celebrated over the years, with fans even shouting it out when they saw one of the movie’s cast members, Zendaya, holding a copy of it. The actress’ character, Athena, is also referenced in Wilson’s review, as the classicist also claimed the movie’s female characters were mostly underwritten as well as the characters of color. Wilson did admit to being “humbled” that Nolan used the first line of her translation – “Tell me about a complicated man” – but added another biting thought:

It’s quite clear that Wilson has some very strong views on Nolan’s film and, like anyone, she is indeed entitled to her opinions. Plenty of comments made the rounds on the internet long before the movie even hit theaters. Much of that involved users nitpicking the film over historical inaccuracies, much to the annoyance of the movie’s early defenders. Yet I wouldn’t group Wilson in with that discourse, as she even still calls the film’s release “still an event to celebrate” and notes that translations of the book (including her own) are seeing big sales.

Any sentiments shared by detractors don’t seem to be hurting The Odyssey’s box office performance. The film is soaring and, amid Toy Story 5’s billion-dollar achievement, the historical epic saw only a 27% drop from its first-to-second weekend hauls. Like so many others, I really enjoyed the film as well, and I’m surprised by Emily Wilson’s sentiments. Be that as it may, viewers can form their own opinions on the Christopher Nolan film by seeing it in theaters now.

I have NEVER seen one like Warfare, and I've seen a lot of the best war movies ever made.

In fact, I’m actually quite shocked that it was even made. I mean, it’s not that Warfare makes America look bad (In fact, it’s still strangely a patriotic film), but it just makes warfare look so…AWFUL that I’m surprised it even came out.

I know “war is hell” is a popular sentiment, but this is such an unvarnished and brutally realistic war film that it just shocks me that it got a theatrical release (and has since found an audience with an HBO Max subscription). So, here’s why I’m so shocked (and awed) about this film.

It Is Somehow Both An Anti-Enlistment Film, And Also One Of True Valor

Anybody who’s watched the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan will tell you that it’s anxiety-inducing and sickening. Watching people get torn apart by gunfire and missing limbs is about as far from glamorous as you can possibly get, and Spielberg did an excellent job of showcasing the effects of combat.

However, it has NOTHING on Warfare, which is probably the greatest anti-enlistment film I think I’ve ever seen. In this movie, which details the true encounter after the Battle of Ramadi, Navy SEALs are pinned down in a two-story house and need to fight to get out alive. During the battle, several SEALs get their limbs blown off, and it’s so awful and harrowing that I can’t see why ANYBODY would want to enlist in the military after watching this.

And yet…the camaraderie of these men shows true valor and heart. Even with the scenario seeming as dire as it is, the men don’t leave each other behind, even if it means that they might be mowed down. Warfare wasn’t nominated for an Oscar, but when it comes to a war movie that truly captures what warfare is actually like, then you probably won’t get any more realistic than this.

There Is No Actual Victor

Wars are typically judged by the “winners” and the “losers”. It’s why World War II almost feels mythic in nature since there was a definite side that won, and a definite side that lost. However, with many wars, there really is no victor - only the remnants of what survived, and what changed for everyone else. That’s reality.

When it comes to movies, you typically want to see some sort of outcome, whether it be a victory or a defeat. In Warfare, we get neither, which is another reason why I’m shocked that this film was made. The Navy SEALs who escaped the confrontation didn’t win anything. The insurgents don’t so much as win and survive one more battle.

It’s odd to see so much loss of life and limb only for there to be no catharsis. You just end up feeling empty when it’s all over, which is an uncomfortable feeling to say the very least.

You Also Rarely Get To See A War Film Sympathize With The Civilians Like This

To get a better vantage point, the SEALs take over a civilian home and basically change the house's inhabitants forever by getting them in the middle of this conflict.

The film does a good job of getting us to sympathize with the civilian lives caught in warfare, because this isn’t just a story about the brave soldiers and their enemies. It’s also a story about the people who get caught in the middle with no way out. These are families that were sleeping one night, and then had their living quarters invaded by the U.S. military, and they just had to accept it.

It’s hard to watch such fear in their eyes when bullets fly through their windows and walls. Though the U.S. military had interpreters who tried to assuage the families’ fears, how could they do anything of the sort when the civilians might die by no fault of their own? It’s really powerful stuff, and little wonder why we initially gave this film such a high review.

You know, some people will never admit when they’re wrong, even when it’s just an opinion. But me? I have no problem re-evaluating something, and then changing my mind.

Case in point: The Snyderverse. I once despised it, and was glad to see it gone, but I’ve been rewatching some of the films, and I’ve had a change of heart. For example, I now like Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, and I’m also now a fan of Zack Snyder’s Justice League. So, I thought I’d rewatch Snyder’s first movie in the defunct DCEU, Man of Steel, which I initially hated, and…

Well, I still don’t like it. I mean, I wouldn’t say that I still “hate” it, but I do still think it’s a good movie. Here's why.

Yes, Henry Cavill Is The Perfect Superman, But This Is Still A Bad Superman Movie

Similar to Michael Keaton as Batman, for many, there will never be a better Superman than Christopher Reeve, and cool. I get it. Reeve starred in the two best Superman movies, those being the 1978 classic and its sequel Superman II (Unless you consider the 2025 movie to be the best Superman film, which I disagree with, but you’re welcome to your opinion), so it's only natural that I consider Reeve the best Big Blue Boy Scout.

That said, I'm going to openly admit that I consider Ben Affleck to be the best cinematic Batman (unless you're counting Kevin Conroy's voice in Mask of the Phantasm, and you know, valid), and I think Henry Cavill is the perfect Superman. He looks good in the suit; he’s got the demeanor, the jawline. He’s just perfect as Superman. You couldn’t get a better specimen. So, why is the movie around him so bad?

Look, I’ll be the first to admit it. I’m not the biggest fan of the character, so including stuff like the Phantom Zone and having deepcut characters like Jax-Ur are probably why fans of Supe love this movie. There’s also a lot of action in the film (which I’ll get into later), which a lot of Superman movies sorely lack.

However, the tone feels so incredibly off. Everything is so dismal and full of despair. I know I base all of my Superman movies off of the first two Christopher Reeve films, and Man of Steel is anything but those. Still, how are you going to have the ideal Superman in such a depressing Superman movie? What gives?

I Like The Cast...Just Not The Roles That They're In

Though a lot of people pooh-poohed these Snyderverse movies at the time (including myself), I think one thing that everybody could admit is that these movies had excellent casting. Aside from Cavill, whom I already mentioned, Man of Steel also has Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent, Diane Lane as Martha Kent, Amy Adams as Lois Lane, Laurence Fishburne as Perry White, and Michael Shannon as General Zod.

Now, besides Shannon as Zod, who I actually think is even better than Superman II’s Terence Stamp, I just don’t vibe with the rest of the cast. It’s not like they’re bad. It’s just that…well, I don’t feel they fully immerse themselves in the roles. That might be more Zack Snyder’s fault, if anything, but I’m never really convinced that Amy Adams is Lois Lane. I mean, Adams plays a good enough journalist, but I just think actresses like Rachel Brosnahan or Margot Kidder are more convincingly the Lois Lanes.

While I get what Snyder was going for with Jonathan and Martha Kent with Costner and Lane, respectively, I just feel they are too big as movie stars to take them seriously as Kansas farmers. I much prefer Glenn Ford and Phyllis Thaxter from the original, and especially Pruitt Taylor Vince and Neva Howell in the most recent Superman.

As for Laurence Fishburne? I mean, he’s fine as Perry White, but for such a good actor, I think he gets lost in this film, so there’s that.

Also, While It's Been Said To Death, This Movie Is Way Too Desaturated

Yes, the desaturation is a problem with all of the DCEU movies (Well, aside from the Aquaman movies, which are surprisingly colorful), but Man of Steel is just way too dark and colorless. Actually, I shouldn’t say that, since this movie has a LOT of blue…perhaps too much blue, really.

That said, I think this definitely dampens the mood and tone of this film. I’m not the first to say this, but Superman is NOT Batman. Ideally, a Superman movie should be the exact opposite of a Batman flick when it comes to tone. Just look at James Gunn’s Superman movie, to which we gave a pretty high review. Personally, I wasn’t in love with the film, but one thing I will say that Gunn DEFINITELY got right was the colors and tone.

2025’s Superman is super bright and expressive, very much like a comic book, and it works for the character. The Superman I know (and I think most others know on a casual level) has always been about stirring music and hope, so the films should reflect that. The original 4 Superman movies are like that (Almost to a fault in Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace), but Man of Steel is the antithesis of that.

I know the film’s fans think that makes the movie more serious and “adult,” but I just think it makes it feel like it’s not a Superman movie, which is not how I think I’m supposed to feel when watching a Superman movie.

And Yes, The Destruction At The End And Supes Killing Zod Still Rubs Me The Wrong Way

I knew going into this recent rewatch that I would probably still dislike all of the destruction and death, and I haven’t changed my opinion on that. It’s just way too much. Let’s start with the blatant IHOP product placement fight between Superman and the Kryptonian, Faora-Ui (Antje Traue). Sure, it looks like a Dragon Ball Z fight, what with characters flying through walls, but it also just feels like too much for me. Like, I understand, up to this point, we hadn’t seen battles like this in a Superman flick, and I applaud the new approach, but it just feels overblown to me. Admittedly, that’s likely more a "me thing".

What is definitely NOT just a me thing though is the battle at the end with the Metropolis battle, and the eventual killing of Zod. I know people roll their eyes at Superman saving a squirrel in James Gunn’s Superman flick, but I could imagine a Superman who would do that over one who drags Zod across buildings, potentially killing people through collateral damage in the long run.

Then, you have the killing of Zod. I've heard people tell me, “Well, what other choice did Superman have? Zod was gonna obliterate that family,” and my answer to that is, why did it even have to come to that in the first place? Why did the screenwriters put Superman in a scenario where he had to snap Zod's neck? I'm sure there were other ways to write that scene that didn't compromise Superman's soul.

That primal scream of regret Superman gives after killing Zod still bothers me, since I don't feel he should have HAD to have killed Zod in the first place. Man of Steel is a story, and having Supes kill Zod was a creative choice that I still don't agree with. So, in the end, I like the eventual direction of the Snyderverse after this film, but I'm still not on board with this one in particular.

Spoilers for The Odyssey are in play here, so read on accordingly.

The Odyssey offers up a stellar cast, and all of them give excellent performances throughout Christopher Nolan’s epic book-to-screen adaptation. For me, that definitely applies to John Leguizamo, who plays the role of Eumaeus, Odysseus’ blind and faithful servant. One of Leguizamo’s scenes is honestly quite surprising, and that’s saying a lot due to this film including massive wars and a cyclops in a “dank” cave. With that, Leguizamo spoke to CinemaBlend and got real about knowing people would hate him for THAT moment.

A flashback sequence shows the origins of Odysseus’ loyal dog, Argos, who patiently awaits his master’s return to Ithaca in the present day. It’s established that as a puppy, Argos is part of a litter obtained by Odysseus and Eumaes. In a surprising move, Eumaes takes one puppy from the group and throws it off a cliff before Odysseus picks the pupper who eventually becomes Argos. It’s also implied that the others will suffer the same fate as the one thrown off the cliff seemingly as part of a method of breeding the strongest canines.

Before the film’s debut amid the 2026 movie schedule, CB spoke to Leguizamo alongside his co-star, Himesh Patel (who plays Eurylochus). The John Wick alum shared a funny response when asked how he thought audiences would react to the puppy scene:

Some audience members have indeed expressed reservations about that cliff scene, with some taking to Reddit to express their displeasure. On the other hand, though, others have defended the puppy-throwing practice as accurate to that period of time. Regardless of how someone may feel about what happens during that moment, Leguizamo makes a good point that in time, his character is able to “redeem” himself. He does that by defending an aged Argos when he receives abuse from Penelope’s suitors. Leguizamo and Patel also share:

• John Leguizamo: I know that was rough. I was like, ‘Oh man,’ every time I took a puppy and dropped it off the edge, I mean, obviously….
• Himesh Patel: No puppies were actually harmed.

Yes, unsurprisingly, Nolan and co. took steps to ensure that none of the diminutive dogs were hurt as part of that scene. Leguizamo also offered this important detail:

Of course, that’s not even the most emotionally intense scene Leguizamo had to film while working on The Odyssey. Eumaeus has several cathartic scenes, and Leguizamo plays them to perfection. It’s no wonder his name has been coming up amid the positive reviews Nolan’s latest film has received. Leguizamo’s blind character is one of the film’s heartbeats, and he helps keep the sometimes fantastical story grounded. That’s a tough task, so the Menu alum deserves credit for his efforts.

I still think audiences aren’t going to forget that puppy scene, and more viewers might have less-than-positive thoughts as the box office-breaking Odyssey continues to draw crowds. Still, just remember that all the puppies involved in that scene lived to bark another day. So check out the film now whether you have already or just want to experience it again.

When the long-awaited Masters of the Universe live-action movie first hit the 2026 movie schedule, I would say I was moderately excited. I’m a Gen Xer who grew up in the ‘80s, and the original cartoon was appointment viewing when I got home from school every day, so reliving those old glories sounded like it could be fun. I even rewatched the 1987 live-action movie in anticipation.

I had my reservations, because even as a kid, I recognized that the plots of the shows were pretty flimsy. Now I’ve finally caught the movie with my Prime subscription, and I have to ask, why did we need this?

The Jokes Were Bad, And He-Man’s Story Was Frustrating

There are two big gripes I have with Masters of the Universe. One, the jokes really didn’t work for me at all. I completely appreciate what the writers (of which there were at least three) and director Travis Knight were trying to do: make the movie fun and cheeky, with a wink the audience acknowledging how silly the whole world of Eternia is, but the jokes didn’t land. The sexual innuendos felt both completely childish AND too adult for the material. I don’t know how they pulled that off, but they did.

My biggest gripe, though, was the origin story of Prince Adam/He-Man. In the cartoon, He-Man is a superhero who rarely shows any weakness (at least, I don’t remember there being a lot of pathos; maybe it went over my head). In the 2026 movie, Adam, played by Nicholas Galitzine, has been sent to live on Earth to escape the wrath of Skelator (Jared Leto, who is the best part of the movie). On Earth, he’s basically a goofy wimp. I hated that. Even worse, when he finally does return to Eternia with Teela (Camila Mendes), his newfound power is completely unearned. If you’re going to set up a hero’s journey, our hero has to struggle with more than a comic book store mannequin.

Which Leads To Ask: Why Was This Made, And For Whom?

I was left to struggle with the question of why Masters of the Universe was even made, and more importantly, who the target audience is. I mean, sure, I get why it was greenlit in the wake of the massive success of Barbie, but Barbie is an iconic toy that has transcended multiple generations. He-Man was a flash in the pan, comparatively. The toyline (and subsequent cartoon) was wildly popular, but only for a small window of time in the mid-’80s, and only with a specific age group (one I happen to fall right into).

I can’t say it left me satisfied, and theoretically, I’m at least one part of the target audience as a movie fan who grew up with He-Man. But it didn’t seem like it was made for me. It reinvents who Prince Adam is, and not very successfully, in my opinion. It also doesn’t feel like it was made for a new audience, either, because, again, it’s not like this is an enduring franchise on the level of Barbie, or even G.I. Joe for that matter. I think that’s reflected in the movie’s poor performance at the box office, despite mostly positive reviews.

Looking ahead to the 2027 movie schedule, there is another toyline from the same era releasing a new movie, Voltron, that I think shares a lot of commonalities with He-Man. Does the same fate lie ahead for it? Time will tell.

I don't know what I expected. The same ambitious director, Christoper Nolan, who made a grounded Batman trilogy and a whole movie centered around entropy, wasn't going to just make a by-the-numbers Odyssey flick.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think The Odyssey is BAD. It's actually really good. That said, even though I was greatly looking forward to it, I didn’t really like it (and no, it’s not because it was Rated-R, which it definitely didn’t have to be). Here’s why.

Oh, and some minor spoilers up ahead.

Christopher Nolan Could Have Gone Fantastical For This One. Instead, He Went "Realistic"

When I first saw Interstellar, there was a key moment in the film where I thought, if this goes where I THINK it’s heading, then I’ll probably hate this movie, but if it doesn’t and Nolan surprises me, then I’ll probably love it. The moment in question was the S-T-A-Y scene, and it went exactly where I thought it was heading, and guess what? I don’t like Interstellar (Even though this website looks upon it fondly).

I had a similar moment with The Odyssey. You see, my favorite part of the epic poem is when Odysseus has to get his men through the Strait of Messina, but there are two horrific monsters called Scylla and Charybdis. Now, Charybdis is a living whirlpool, and Scylla is a multiheaded monster that’s waiting for sailors to come by.

I really wanted to know how Nolan would approach this moment since I knew it was coming and…I was massively disappointed. I’m not going to say it was “realistic,” but it definitely wasn’t as fantastical as it could have been. In fact, all of the mystical moments in this film felt subdued, and it just bummed me out (like the cannibalistic Laestrygonians just being some big dudes in armor). The same goes for the Cyclops scene (There was definitely no “Nobody is attacking me!” moment), as well as Odysseus's journey to the world of the dead.

I mean, the human drama in this film is great, and I liked all of that, but – as I should have expected – Nolan stayed well within his comfort zone when it came to the actual magical elements of this story (Though, the Circe scene was fantastic). Could you imagine if Peter Jackson or Guillermo del Toro tackled The Odyssey? I’ll tell you what, the whole Scylla and Charybdis moment would have definitely been a whole lot more epic.

It Also Takes Itself SO SERIOUSLY. Possibly Too seriously

Once again, I don’t know what I was expecting. The story of Odysseus’s inner turmoil is very effective here, and I love that Nolan included the war as something that is holding Odysseus back. Because in truth, Odysseus is lost both externally and internally as well.

Again, this movie is good for what it is. I’m just saying that I didn’t like it, or at least, I didn’t love it. That may be because I feel like it takes itself way too seriously. I want to go back to that Cyclops moment.

While MOST of the poem is grim and serious, certain parts are whimsical, and even fun. I feel like that’s missing entirely from this film. Yes, Nolan's approach has always been to make pretty much everything serious (which worked for Batman after the tremendously silly Batman & Robin), but I would have liked at least some levity in this movie, like the silly “Nobody is attacking me!” moment in the poem with the Cyclops.

Or, you know, maybe the gods could have actually been involved in the story rather than just being an interpretation. I’m not going to spoil Zendaya’s role in the story as Athena, but I would have loved it if there were clear and definable gods in this movie, since Nolan goes to the edge, but doesn’t quite go far enough.

I don’t know. I’d say The Odyssey is a solid 7 out of 10 movie, and I get why many would call it a 10 out of 10 flick. I just wish that Nolan would have stepped out of his comfort zone a bit more, but I guess it wouldn’t be a Christopher Nolan movie if he did that. Oh, well.

The best video game movies have ben released over the last few years, including Simon McQuoid's pair of Mortal Kombat films. The sequel recently arrived on streaming for those with a HBO max subscription, and now fans like me can re-watch the R-rated adventure over and over again. Bodybuilder and actor Martyn Ford plays the villainous Shao Khan, and spoke to CinemaBlend about the "horrible" process of transforming into the beloved video game character.

Mortal Kombat II hit theaters in May, and now folks can stream the movie over on HBO Max. I had the chance to speak with the movie's cast ahead of its release, where i asked Ford about what it was like becoming Shao Khan. He got honest about the transformation, joking it was:

While Martyn Ford made playing Shao Khan look easy, the reality of becoming the Outworld antagonist was something very different. Namely because of the extensive prosthetics that were applied to his body and face for every single day of shooting. And the latter was used even though the character wore his signature helmet throughout almost all of Mortal Kombat II's 116-minute runtime. Talk about dedication.

While Ford was honest about the difficulty of becoming Shao on the set of Mortal Kombat II, it wasn't all bad. Later in our same conversation he spoke about why playing the video game character was still ultimately "rewarding." He told me:

Despite the hours of makeup and costumes needed before filming Mortal Kombat II, it sounds like Ford is still over the moon about his experience and the video game movie as a whole. And even though Shao Khan was killed by Kitana in the movie's final fight sequence, we'll have to wait and see if the actor ends up reprising his role if a third movie ends up being green lit by Warner Bros.

You can check out my conersation with Martyn Ford about his MK II role below:

While Mortal Kombat II's writer has plans for four more movies, it's currently unclear if Warner Bros. is planning to move forward with the burgeoning franchise. The movie made $129.5 million at the box office, which is significantly more than the first. If it performs well on HBO Max hopefully the studio will decide to green light a threequel. After all, there are tons of stories and characters to mine from.

Mortal Kombat II is streaming now on HBO Max as part of the 2026 movie release list. And it's going to be different watching Ford's performance knowing just how difficult it really was to become Shao Khan.

I’ve been a big fan of watching Alan Ritchson’s Reacher with my Amazon Prime Video subscription since Season 1. In fact, it’s probably (now) my second favorite show on Amazon, and of course I’m also excited for the Neagley spinoff. However, in recent days we did get a new announcement about the upcoming 2026 TV series that has me a little concerned. Hear me out.

Previously, Reacher Had Been A Winter TV Show

For its first three seasons, Reacher was a winter TV show, premiering after the holiday season. It hasn’t had the exact same trajectory, however, premiering in February during Season 1 and 3 and in December for Season 2. It’s not like the show premieres exactly at the same time every year, but prior to this it had not been attempting to compete with network TV’s fall lineups.

Instead, it was doing its own thing during wintertime and premiering at times where it would not directly compete with network TV. Primetime is basically off the air in December. Reacher was essentially competing with the likes of soon-to-air Christmas movies in Season 2. In Seasons 1 and 3, while audiences have been trained to tune in for winter premieres, those are frequently in January. February is a month where people don’t like to get out and the shiny newness of returning network TV has dulled a bit. In short, the winter has been very good to Reacher.

Everything is changing with Season 4, however, and that also directly impacts the Neagley spinoff, which does have me concerned. It all has to do with Amazon Prime completely shifting its airing strategy for both Reacher and its spinoff.

Neagley Is Going To Have To Compete With Fall TV

Reacher Season 4 is coming, and soon. While I’ve been excited with Alan Ritchson calling it the “best” one yet, it’s not getting its traditional wintertime release. Instead, the powers that be have pushed Reacher to the summer, with Neagley following right after.

It was Maria Sten who broke the news on social last week, and who has said in general a Neagley spinoff is very much needed. The way the structure looks right now?

• Reacher Season 4 will run from August 12-September 16th
• Neagley will drop in full on September 16th

This has its pros and cons, and I’m not fully mad at every choice Amazon has made here. First, I like that Amazon is wrapping Reacher’s finale onto the same date as Neagley Season 1. Secondly, given we don’t know fully if audiences will embrace Neagley as an extension of the Ritchson-led series, I don’t think it’s necessarily a poor choice to drop all of the spinoff episodes at once, at least for Season 1. (They can always talk about spacing Season 2 out if it becomes a megahit.)

I just don’t understand why the streamer is shifting the series up so it’s butting up against fall TV. Right now, for example, my appointment TV viewing is nearly wide open. I just finished The Five-Star Weekend (and want more!) and House of the Dragon is airing on Sunday nights, but I’m mostly just rewatching old seasons of Survivor with my Paramount Plus subscription.

That’s going to change drastically when fall TV comes back and I watch everything from game shows like The Floor and newcomer The Traitors: New Blood to dramas, sitcoms and even cable fodder like South Park, which actually drops on the same day as Neagley. Heck, even Monday Night Football kicks off on September 14th, just two days before Neagley hits. My fall TV dance card gets full fast.

Sure, some network TV doesn’t hit the schedule until October now, which gives the show a bit more of a window than it might’ve had a few years ago, and this new Reacher and Neagley schedule won’t deter me from watching personally, but I still have concerns about whether it's the best choice. Winter was Reacher’s. It could have been Neagley’s thing, too. That schedule worked great for me and other TV viewers, and I just don’t get why they’ve changed a format that was already working well.

I do hope it pays off, and I hope it pays off in blood and violence. Just kidding. Sort of.

It was very sad to hear about the passing of screen legend Sam Neill this month. I’m a huge fan of many of his movies, and I’m also a huge fan of the James Bond franchise, but it wasn't until I read a story after his death that I learned he'd auditioned for the role of 007 back in the 1980s. The audition came after Roger Moore left the role after A View To A Kill. He even did a screen test in a scene from what would become.

Now, I’m a fan of the underrated Dalton era of Bond. I think the Welsh actor was given too short a leash, being replaced by Pierce Brosnan after just two movies, but I would have loved to see Neill in the role, and I think we missed out.

Neill Auditions Before Dalton Got The Role

Over the years, eight men have played James Bond, and after the Roger Moore-era ended with A View To A Kill, it was time for producer Cubby Broccoli and the rest of the production team to find the first new Bond in over a decade. Broccoli really wanted Pierce Brosnan to take over the role and offered the part to the actor who would eventually become Bond in the mid-’90. Unfortunately, he was tied up with his TV show, Remington Steele, and they couldn’t make it work. That meant a big search for who would replace Moore.

One of the actors who auditioned and screen-tested was Neill. At the time, before Jurassic Park and The Hunt for Red October, Neill was still somewhat unknown to much of the movie-going public. However, after watching his screen-test (and loving both of those movies), I can’t help but wonder, “What if?” Would Neill have been a popular Bond? Would it have meant we’d have missed out on those roles in Jurassic Park and Red October? It’s impossible to know for sure, but in a perfect world, maybe we get it all.

I’ve Never Been A Fan Of The Brosnan Movies

If I’m totally honest, the Brosnan-era of James Bond has long been my least favorite. It’s not that I think Brosnan is bad in the role, but the movies are just so cheesy. They all have that ‘90s sheen of slickness that is really off-putting. For me, they are the most dated-looking of all the Bond movies, and that’s saying something for a franchise that is over 60 years old. However, I think the two Dalton movies are by far the most underrated of all the Bond movies.

So, while I wouldn’t want to live in an alternate timeline without a Dalton Bond, I wouldn’t mind seeing what could have happened with Neill in the role over Brosnan. Interestingly, though, Neill himself said that he didn’t want the role, at least in part because Brosnan was gunning for it. Quite the conundrum. Personally, though, I think we missed out on something pretty cool.

We still don’t know who will be the next 007 in the yet-unnamed James Bond 27. As it was before The Living Daylights, there are tons of rumors about who the next actor to drink martinis and flash his Walther PPK handgun will be. Stay tuned to CinemaBlend for all the updates!

Christopher Nolan's movies are known for their epic scale and practical effects, and he's done it again with The Odyssey, which is crushing at the box office. The acclaimed book-to-screen adaptation is super ambitious, and Matt Damon recalled one wild moment on set that showed just how big of a production the latest Nolan movie truly is.

The Odyssey's reviews have been super positive, and there's already Awards Season buzz surrounding the massive blockbuster. Matt Damon movies aren't known for being on indie budgets, but the level of production on Nolan's latest shocked even him. In a video from The Today Show's Instagram, the 55-year-old actor spoke about shooting one particularly epic sequence. In his words:

Talk about a crazy day on set. Damon is no stranger to huge movies, but it sounds like The Odyssey was on another level... even for him. Christopher Nolan has a reputation for preferring practical effects over CGI, and that includes employing tons of extras when necessary. Case in point: The Dark Knight Rise's epic final battle actually had hundreds of background actors rush at each other when Bane's forces collided with Gotham's Police Department. And the scale of The Odyssey is even bigger than that Batman movie (which is streaming with an HBO Max subscription).

In the same interview, the Martian actor went on to tell the same story, and a comment by cinematographer Hoyt van Hoytema really highlighted what a huge movie they were filming. As Damon went on:

Talk about perspective. The fact that Christopher Nolan put this much money and effort into what would ultimately just be a flashback for The Odyssey proved how huge a movie it would become. That includes plenty of epic flashbacks, a stellar ensemble cast, and (of course) that wild Trojan Horse sequence.

Fans can see The Odyssey's scale for themselves as the movie is in theaters now as part of the 2026 movie release list. Spoiler alert: the movie is HUGE.

Alan Ritchson has been highly sought after since blowing up on Reacher, but before a new, best-yet season of the hit Prime Video series hits the 2026 TV schedule next month, we’ll have the chance to see (but not hear) him on the big screen. Motor City is a new action flick, and if you’ve ever wished you could have all brutal fights with none of the cheesy, testosterone-fueled banter, this may be the pick for you.

Potsy Ponciroli’s Motor City is virtually free of dialogue, making for a pretty unique crime thriller set in 1970s Detroit. Alan Ritchson and his co-stars — Ben Foster, Shailene Woodley and more — may not have had a lot to say, but the critics won't shut up about the movie.

Steve Pond of The Wrap calls it a “hyper-adrenalized revenge thriller” that replaces conversation with a variety of noises and fun needle drops. Pond says:

Even without the dialogue, Owen Gleiberman of Variety says Motor City delivers love, violence and suspense. Audiences are tasked with interpreting the characters’ looks and gestures, making this movie a “true immersive cinematic experience.”

Anzhe Zhang of Slant also calls it immersive, particularly when the soundtrack matches the action on the screen. Not limited by the restraints of a traditional story, The 2026 movie release is “exhilaratingly alive throughout its set pieces.” Zhang rates it 2.5 stars out of 4 in his Motor City review, writing:

Other critics, however, grew tired of the dialogue-free gimmick, with David Rooney of THR calling the exercise “overstretched.” Alan Ritchson still brings gravitas to the project through his hulking physical presence alone, the critic says, but the supporting cast is lacking depth, and the flick is overall “rendered a bit silly by its silence.” Rooney continues:

Jesse Hassenger of AV Club gives it a C, agreeing that Alan Ritchson is well-suited for the “strong and silent” character of John Miller. While the intent was ambitious, Motor City was unable to shed its clichés. Hassenger’s review reads:

Critics are definitely intrigued by the choice to silence Motor City’s characters, but they’re iffy on the end result. The movie has a score of 69% on Rotten Tomatoes as of this writing, and I’ll be interested to talk about what moviegoers think of Alan Ritchson’s latest when it hits theaters on Friday, July 24.

We’ve come a long way when it comes to news about December 18th’s Avengers: Doomsday. From seeing a whole bunch of names on chairs to learning that Cap and company were coming back, the info keeps on rolling.

And with the news, we also got a new poster from former visual development director Andy Park, as well as a brand-spanking-new trailer featuring Doctor Doom and everything. I’m definitely looking forward to seeing the X-Men, The Avengers (Both old AND new), and The Fantastic Four whoop Doctor Doom’s behind. However, one team is notably absent from the trailer, and that’s the one from my favorite Marvel movie, Eternals.

Which, you know, really bugs me, since if the Eternals were ever coming back, it likely would have been for this extravaganza. Let’s talk.

Look, I Get It. Nobody Likes Eternals Except For Me

Okay, I get it. When most people rank the MCU movies, Eternals always lands somewhere near the bottom, if not THE bottom. And, yeah, I’ve heard all of the complaints: “It should have been a TV series rather than a movie.” “There were just too many characters,” and, the most common of all, “It’s just so BORING.”

However, even after a rewatch, I still consider it my favorite MCU movie. I’m eternally hoping that we’ll see Thena, Sersi, and Kingo again (even though it probably would be in Kumail Nanjiani’s best interest to stay away from Marvel this time, for mental health's sake anyway). I just love these characters. I don’t think Eternals should have been a TV series, and I feel that the film did a great job of managing so many characters. But, most importantly, I don’t find it BORING. I find it ambitious, engaging, and artistic, and I always wanted more of it from Marvel.

So, to not see any hint of them on this new concept art or in the trailer just really upsets me. Especially since I know Marvel still remembers that they exist.

I Mean, Hello. They’re Referenced In Captain America: Brave New World

Another Marvel movie that I know people don’t like, but I enjoy, is Captain America: Brave New World, which I would actually rank higher than the first Captain America flick. Now, something that surprised many a longtime MCU fan is that Eternals were actually referenced in a major way in the fourth Captain America movie, as we actually got to see what happened to the Celestial, Tiamut, with Celestial Island.

That tells me that Kevin Feige still remembers Eternals. Now, I understand that the Russo brothers probably don’t care about Eternals since they have their own vision in mind, plus they also have the X-Men to bring into the fray.

However, I just can’t shake the feeling that Eternals should have at least SOME kind of presence in this movie, which actually brings me to my last point.

Eternals Would Be Really Cool In Avengers: Doomsday, So Am I Being A Fool For Still Holding Out Hope?

There’s still a lot we likely don’t know about Avengers: Doomsday, even with everything they’ve shown us thus far in the trailer. So, am I being foolish for believing that perhaps the Eternals MIGHT make an appearance in this movie somehow?

I mean, I never thought I’d see Thor: The Dark World ever referenced again, but it played a prominent role in Avengers: Endgame.

So, could the Eternals also be hidden away in this movie somewhere and we just don’t know about it yet? I guess only time will tell.

Is Tom Cruise ready to get back in the driver's seat with a sequel to his 1990 classic Days of Thunder? It looks like the movie that has been long-rumored is getting closer to crossing the finish line. Digger might be one of my most anticipated movies on the 2026 movie schedule, but as a child of the '80s and '90s and a fan of racing movies, the idea of seeing Cruise burn up tires around the track again has me just as excited. Here's what we know about Days of Thunder 2.

Jonathan Levine Is In Talks To Direct

There have been rumblings about a Days of Thunder sequel for years. After the massive success of Top Gun: Maverick, it only made sense that Cruise would want to revisit another classic from the same era (in addition to another possible sequel). The original Top Gun and Days of Thunder have a lot of similar DNA. In addition to starring Cruise, both movies were directed by the late Tony Scott and produced by Jerry Bruckheimer and Don Simpson. Bruckheimer is on board to produce this sequel, as he did with Maverick, according to a report from The Hollywood Reporter.

The outlet is also reporting that Jonathan Levine is in negotiations to direct Days of Thunder 2. Levine's Mr. Irrelevant: The John Tuggle Story starring David Corenswet is set to be released by Paramount in December (and already looks like a hit). Paramount is the company behind both Days of Thunder and Top Gun (and most of Tom Cruise's movies since the 1980s). Before Mr. Irrelevant, Levine helmed the underrated and funny Long Shot starring Seth Rogan and Charlize Theron in 2019.

Days Of Thunder Became An Instant Classic For A Generation

Though it was quite the juggernaut that Top Gun was in the 1980s, Days of Thunder was a huge hit with teenagers when it dropped the hammer in the summer of 1990. The original stars Cruise as a hot-shot young racer named Cole Trickle who joins a NASCAR team led by veteran pit crew chief Harry Hogge, played by the late Robert Duvall. Nicole Kidman plays a doctor and Trickle's love interest in the movie, and Michael Rooker plays his biggest rival on the track. It's been remarkably enduring ever since.

Speculating about further casting is a little premature, especially given the personal relationship between Cruise and Kidman. Top Gun: Maverick only brought back Val Kilmer from the original, in addition to Cruise, so this might follow suit. Still, it would be fun to see some of the other actors from the original, like Rooker, John C. Reilly, and Cary Elwes.

Given the huge worldwide success of FI: The Movie last year, it seems like a no-brainer to revisit one of the best (if not the best) movies about stock car racing ever. Meanwhile, we still have Digger to look forward to later this year, which is going to be a very different kind of movie, judging by what we know about it.

Famously, Christopher Nolan, whose The Odyssey is currently walking all over the competition at the box office, doesn’t like cell phones. He doesn’t use one, and he bans them from his sets. It turns out that’s not the only bit of modernity that he doesn’t want on set. He apparently bans the ubiquitous boots, UGGs, from his working environment as well. He was asked about it on CBS Mornings and related why he doesn’t like actors turning up to set in the footwear. I’ll be honest, I’m with him on this, but maybe for different reasons.

Christopher Nolan's Philosophy Is Kind Of Like Method Directing

Method acting is when an actor tries to completely disappear into a character, even when the cameras aren’t rolling. It’s a craft practiced by many of the best actors in the world, perhaps most famously used by Daniel Day-Lewis. It can be seen as mercurial and often obnoxious, but you can’t argue with success. Nolan, it turns out, brings some of that same thought process to his director’s chair and is seen acutely with the UGGs ban. He doesn’t want actors wearing them when they arrive to shoot a scene. Here’s what he said when asked why by CBS Mornings host Gayle King:

It’s easy to imagine how “real” some of Nolan’s set pieces feel, given his preference to avoid CGI and rely on practical effects. Showing up to the ancient city of Troy in a pair of trendy footwear could pull everyone on set out of the “reality” of the ancient Mediterranean. Nolan added:

This kind of thing might come across as pretentious or even a little silly, but for me it’s easy to understand. While some method acting goes to the extreme, it serves a real artistic purpose, just like this type of “method directing.” Nolan wants everyone on set to be in tune to what is happening in any given scene, and I’m sure it can be easy to lose focus, if only for a moment when distracted by something so “today.” This is probably especially true in a period epic like The Odyssey, which may be part of the 2025 movie schedule, but is very much of a different era.

For me, I think the shoes are ugly, so for that reason, I’m on board with Nolan’s decision to ban them from his sets, even if he actually thinks UGGs are "great."

As we barrel towards the release of Avengers: Doomsday on the 2026 movie schedule, everyone was a little surprised when Doomsday's first trailer dropped just days before San Diego Comic Con kicks off. I think most fans thought it was more likely to drop there during the Marvel panel on Saturday. The great news for those of us not attending SDCC, we all got to see it Monday for the first time. We got a good look at many of the characters that we’ve long known are in the upcoming MCU movie, but I was really surprised that we didn’t get surprised by at least one of two characters who are heavily rumored to be in the movie, Spider-Man and Wolverine.

I Expected One Surprise From The Trailer

In the trailer, we saw a ton of characters, so it’s hardly shocking that there were some who we know are going to be in the movie, like Beast (Kelsey Grammer) and Nightcrawler (Alan Cumming), who didn’t make it into the short trailer. There are also a handful of major MCU actors who weren’t part of the big director’s chair reveal last year when the movie was officially announced, nor have they been announced since. I’m talking about actors like Elizabeth Olsen (The Scarlet Witch), Mark Ruffalo (Hulk), Benedict Cumberbatch (Dr. Strange), Ryan Reynolds (Deadpool), Tom Holland (Spidey), and Hugh Jackman (Wolverine).

I really kind of expected at least one of those, most likely Wolverine, based on Jackman’s recent social media posts, or Spider-Man (since Brand New Day is hitting theaters at the end of the month) to be in Doomsday. We saw neither. I get the Russos and the powers that be want to save some surprises for the theaters, or even for future trailers, keeping the hype train going. They may also be holding some back for SDCC later this week, but I really did think we’d see either Spider-Man or Wolverine in the first trailer. Yes, I fully believe that both characters will appear in the movie (along with Dr, Strange and Deadpool).

There Is A Web Of Rumors Surrounding Spider-Man

Maybe it’s less surprising that Spidey wasn’t included, because there are a lot of theories out there that it might not be Tom Holland’s version of the webslinger, but Tobey Maguire’s, who could be in Doomsday. That is definitely a reveal that you’d want to keep for the movie, so if that rumor does end up being correct, I get it. Wolverine, on the other hand, would be the perfect character to surprise fans with in the first trailer.

Doomsday is going to mark the real introduction of the full complement of X-Men into the MCU films, after some flirting with the characters in WandaVision and, of course, Deadpool and Wolverine. Putting the most famous big-screen X-Man, Wolverine, in the trailer would have given us all a “whoa!” moment. It would save the potential reveal of Spider-Man for the movie, but still get people talking about the future of the MCU beyond Doomsday.

Then again, maybe all this is just wild speculation about all these unannounced characters and none of them will be in Doomsday. All I know is that I’ll be keeping a close lookout for any more clues and crumbs that get dropped over the next few days, weeks, and months.

Major spoilers for The Odyssey lie ahead, so read on at your own risk.

Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey has been acclaimed by critics, and it’s not hard to understand why. The filmmaker mostly stays true to Homer’s epic poem in this book-to-screen adaptation and sticks to the themes that make it such a timeless story. While there’s plenty of spectacle to be found, from daring sword fights to a “dank” encounter with a Cyclops, there are intimate moments that are also poignant. And, when lead actor Matt Damon spoke to CinemaBlend, he talked about being shocked by the final scenes.

At the center of the film’s story is the treacherous journey that Odysseus (Damon) and his men make in order to return home to Ithaca after The Trojan War. Odysseus is ultimately the only one to return and, in the film’s third act, he attempts to keep his identity a secret from his wife, Penelope (Anne Hathaway) and son Telemachus (Tom Holland). During his interview with CB, Damon spoke about the irony or “twist” that resulted from his character actually making his way back to the aforementioned Greek island:

In time, a cloaked Odysseus finds himself having a confessional with Penelope, who’s unaware of his true identity. He then goes on to convey the shame he feels over the invasion of Troy, as it resulted in copious casualties. (One of those is even linked to Zendaya’s Athena.) For Damon, that scene was huge, and Hathaway contributed to that sense of awe in a key way:

Penelope and Odysseus’ scene is indeed an emotional gut punch, and both Damon and Hathaway act it out so beautifully. That’s a massive reason why the following scene, which sees Odysseus revealing himself and doing battle with Penelope’s various suitors, hits so hard. And, ultimately, Damon’s character doesn’t die in the film, but he emerges victorious and exiles himself. From there, he and Penelope sail west to honor the former’s fallen comrades and find solace in each other’s company.

This particular moment isn’t just a testament to the actors’ skills, but it’s also a credit to Christopher Nolan’s stellar screenplay. It’s nothing short of amazing that even throughout massive action sequences and surreal, creature-centric scenes, Nolan can still keep character at the forefront of the proceedings. As a whole, the film “walloped” me for that reason but, like Damon, I’ll also long be enamored by that reunion scene.

Check out The Odyssey, which is playing in theaters now alongside other 2026 movie schedule entries. With that, you’ll bear witness to all the tweaks Christopher Nolan made to the story as well as the scenes that ring true to the original text.