James Cameron’s breakout film “The Terminator” may not have been a hit in theaters, but it was such a cult favorite on home video that it spawned one of the biggest and most lucrative movie franchises in history. With “Terminator: Dark Fate” in theaters, let’s look back at all six feature films in the saga, and see how they stack up against each other.6\. “Terminator Salvation” (2009)The fourth “Terminator” movie has a great cast — Christian Bale, Anton Yelchin, Bryce Dallas Howard, Helena Bonham Carter — and a smart idea, to give all the time-travel a rest and actually set one of these post-apocalyptic thrillers after the apocalypse for a change. Unfortunately, director McG is more interested in chaotic action than in the story, the new revelations about the universe are groan-inducing, and Sam Worthington’s forgettable protagonist, a survivor with a secret, takes valuable screen time away from everyone and everything else.”Terminator Salvation” is the movie fans were waiting for, a film finally set in the future starring John Connor, and it failed to deliver in almost every way.5\. “Terminator Genisys” (2015)Alan Taylor’s failed attempt to reboot the “Terminator” franchise plays like a whole bunch of fan theories thrown into a blender. Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) goes back in time to rescue Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke), only to discover that she teamed up with a Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) years ago and is also capable of protecting herself. The timeline is a mess, on purpose, and it’s up to them to fix it. There are some interesting ideas in “Terminator Genisys,” but that only gets the film so far, and only if you’re completely addicted to the minutiae of this franchise. The actual story falls apart quickly, thanks in no small part to Courtney and Clarke failing to capture the magic of the original characters, and a plot that’s all set-up for future sequels and very, very little payoff.4\. “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” (2003)Jonathan Mostow’s entry in the “Terminator” franchise is better than its reputation suggests, following the classic formula in an unexpected way and building up to a gut-punch finale that finally solves the paradox underlying the franchise: if Skynet was only built because Skynet sent a Terminator back in time, then how did Skynet get built in the first place? Nick Stahl takes over as John Connor, Claire Danes plays the woman who will one day become his second-in-command, and Arnold Schwarzenegger has to protect them from a new breed of Terminator, the T-X, played with menace and unusual physicality by Kristanna Loken. The action sequences are phenomenal — the truck chase is one of the highlights of the series — but the humor falls flat, and the frenetic pace gives us very little time to connect to the characters. “Terminator 3” is not a bad film, and yet, compared to the first two, it can’t help but look subpar.3\. Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)The latest attempt to reboot the franchise, ignoring all but the first two films, is an absolute winner. Tim Miller (“Deadpool”) takes over, in a story about a new Terminator coming back in time to kill a young woman named Dani (Natalia Reyes), who is protected by a new kind of cyborg (Mackenzie Davis) and Sarah Connor herself (Linda Hamilton). The story hits familiar beats, but the characters are rich and distinct, and the film treats its contemporary backdrop like the sort of sci-fi dystopia that movies like the first “Terminator” warned us about. Fantastic action, memorable characters, surprising humor, and impressive relevance. “Terminator: Dark Fate” doesn’t play like a cash-in sequel, or fan fiction, or even a mixed bag. It’s a legitimately great “Terminator” movie.2\. “The Terminator” (1984)James Cameron’s original film, inspired by the works of Harlan Ellison, plays as much like a horror movie as a sci-fi action flick. Linda Hamilton plays Sarah Connor, a mild-mannered waitress who doesn’t realized she’s been targeted for extermination by a high-tech robot from the future, played by a terrifyingly cold Arnold Schwarzenegger. Only Kyle Reese, a fiercely dedicated soldier from the future, can save her before the Terminator ends her life and prevents her son from saving the future from the tyranny of the machines. Bold, violent, idea-driven filmmaking, with practical effects so impressive you’d hardly know it was a low-budget production. Everything about “The Terminator” feels epic. Or at least it did, until the sequel came along and redefined what “epic” could be.“Terminator 2: Judgment Day” (1990)Cameron’s sequel raised the bar for action filmmaking and visual effects, with a film that revisits much of the original’s plot (even some of the dialogue is the same) but pushes it as far as moviemaking could go. Sarah Connor spent years training her son, John (Eddie Furlong), to be the hero of the revolution, before she was institutionalized for her paranoid fantasies and paramilitary acts of terrorism. But when John is targeted by a new liquid metal T-1000 (Robert Patrick), and rescued by a heroic older model (Schwarzenegger), he realizes she was right all along. Together they try to change the future, kill an unkillable machine, and make seemingly impossible images and action sequences look plausible. They succeeded. “Terminator 2” may be a bit of a retread, but it’s a singular, ambitious entity; not just one of the best sci-fi movies, but also one of the best action movies, and one of the greatest spectacles in movie history.Read original story All 6 ‘Terminator’ Movies, Ranked Worst to Best (Photos) At TheWrap
(Below you’ll find some pretty massive spoilers for “Avengers: Endgame”)“Avengers: Endgame” is the biggest earner ever at the box office, and it had a budget to match — it’s easily the most expensive movie to date in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Which is actually kind of curious, because despite also being the longest MCU film it really has significantly less action than the three other “Avengers” films.It’s likely that we can chalk up that higher budget/fewer set pieces discrepancy to the price of assembling such an enormous cast full of big stars. Sometimes it felt like every major character who has ever appeared in the MCU showed up at some point or other, and it’s not cheap to get so many big names together at the same time.But “Avengers: Endgame” didn’t just bring back the big stars. A bunch of minor characters also got to return in some surprising ways. But maybe none were more surprising than this one character who appeared for only a brief moment at the very end of the movie.Also Read: Here's Why Black Widow Didn't Get a Memorial At the End of 'Avengers: Endgame'The character in question is a teenage boy who appears with all the other mourners at the funeral of Tony Stark. In this shot the camera pans across a bunch of people after Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) sent the original mini arc reactor that Tony crafted back in “Iron Man” into the lake. For the most part all the people we see are major characters who have shown up in the MCU recently, except for this one kid who’s standing there alone looking at the ground.You’ll be forgiven if you don’t recognize this guy, because he looked a lot different the last time he appeared in the MCU. That character is Harley Keener, played by Ty Simpkins, who you’ll remember from “Iron Man 3” as the kid from Tennessee who helps Tony (Robert Downey Jr) recharge his suit while he investigates a mysterious death. “Iron Man 3” came out way back in 2013, and Simpkins was just a kid at the time, and he’s grown up a bunch since then.Here’s what the character Harley Keener looked like in “Iron Man 3”:So, yeah, no shame in not being sure about that one — Simpkins looks completely different now than he did back then.Also Read: 'Avengers: Endgame' - What Happened With Loki and the Tesseract?It’s very interesting also that they would bring him back at all — a character that has not been mentioned at all since that movie six years ago. Is Harley Keener coming back to the MCU? I guess we’ll find out.Read original story ‘Avengers: Endgame’ – Who Is That Random Kid at the End of the Movie? At TheWrap
(Major spoilers ahead for “Avengers: Endgame” and the whole situation with Black Widow, aka Natasha Romanoff, but you probably already knew that given the headline)Even though Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) didn’t get a movie with her name on it in the first decade of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, she’s been just as central to the franchise as anybody. She was introduced back in “Iron Man 2” and has been instrumental in so many major events. So it’s puzzling that “Avengers: Endgame” didn’t really spend any time memorializing her at the end of the movie, which spends so much time saying goodbye to Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr) and Captain America (Chris Evans).It’s puzzling also just within the context of the movie — Natasha’s sacrifice made everything that came after, including Tony’s own sacrifice, possible.If Black Widow hadn’t killed herself on Vormir so that Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) could return to the present with the Soul Stone, then they wouldn’t have been able to save all those people Thanos snapped, and then Tony Stark’s snap to wipe out all of Thanos’s forces wouldn’t have been possible. Her sacrifice mattered just as much as Tony’s did. Indeed, Tony’s sacrifice wouldn’t have been possible at all had Natasha not made her sacrifice first.Also Read: 'Avengers: Endgame' - That Last Scene Makes No SenseBut when we get to the end of the movie, we get a big memorial for Iron Man with a huge number of famous heroes showing up to pay their respects, while Hawkeye and Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) hang out in the corner having their own private mourning ceremony for Natasha and Vision, who apparently nobody other than them — and Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), I guess — cared about.It would have been a great moment to elevate a character who always operated from the shadows, never getting the acclaim that Tony always received. The one time Black Widow stepped into the spotlight was at the end of “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” when a US Senate committee threatened to put her on trial. The people of the MCU finally had a chance to give Natasha the respect she was due, and they just didn’t.On the commentary track on the home video release of “Avengers: Endgame,” co-director Joe Russo addressed this concern, and blamed next year’s “Black Widow” movie for the lack of a memorial for Natasha.Also Read: 'Avengers: Endgame' - Who Is That Random Kid At the End of the Movie?“People have asked why Natasha didn’t get the same amount of screen time post-death as Tony did,” Joe Russo said. “Well, Tony does not have another movie. Tony is done. And Natasha has another film. And Marvel Universe obviously does not have to move forward linearly anymore. But that character still has more screen time coming.”So there’s your answer — Natasha Romanoff didn’t get a big memorial in “Endgame” because of the prequel movie coming out next May, whereas Tony Stark is not gonna be in the MCU again for the foreseeable future. Though they didn’t mention Vision specifically, there’s probably a similar reason for the lack of love for him after he died in “Infinity War,” since he’ll be back somehow in the “WandaVision” Disney+ show in 2021.There is an interesting sentence in that answer, though, that caused a big exclamation point to pop up over my head, though: “And Marvel Universe obviously does not have to move forward linearly anymore.” Since the MCU has done multiple prequel movies that didn’t involve time travel, including the first “Captain America” movie that was the fourth film overall in this franchise, it seems incorrect to say that the MCU ever “had to” move forward linearly.Also Read: 'Avengers: Endgame' - What Happened With Loki and the Tesseract?To me, this implies that the “Black Widow” movie will be more than just another prequel like “Captain America: The First Avenger” or “Captain Marvel,” which took us to the past to set up heroes that would have an impact on the present. To me, the implication is something I have long suspected about “Black Widow”: that it will involve characters from the MCU’s post-“Endgame” present somehow.But Marvel still has yet to confirm anything along those lines about that film. When they presented footage from the film at Comic-Con a couple weeks ago there was no indication that it would be anything other than a straight prequel — one that likely will set up a new player for future movies, like probably Florence Pugh’s Yelena.We’ve got a while to wait before we find anything out about what the “Black Widow” movie really has in store for us. It’s nine months until the movie comes out, and it’ll probably be December at the earliest before we get a proper trailer. So sit tight.Read original story Here’s Why Black Widow Didn’t Get a Memorial at the End of ‘Avengers: Endgame’ At TheWrap
For years people have speculated that there's been romance between them, but Shawn Mendes and Camila Cabello have always denied it.
"The Perfection," which started streaming on Netflix last Friday, features Williams as Charlotte, a revered cellist who travels to Shanghai for a competition. There she meets Lizzie (Logan Browning), an up-and-coming prodigy who immediately hits it off with Williams and the two embark on a Chinese countryside road trip.
Outraged male fans protested the clip's criticism of toxic masculinity by revealing some toxic masculinity of their own.
"Game of Thrones" actress Emilia Clarke shares the emotional challenges she faced while recovering in the hospital from brain aneurysm surgery.
[Warning: This post contains spoilers for "Avengers: Endgame."] Peter Parker (Tom Holland) is still reeling from the events of "Avengers: Endgame" in the latest trailer for Sony's "Spider-Man: Far From Home." "Everywhere I go, I see his face," Parker says of Tony Stark, who died at the end of the last Marvel installment. "I just […]
(This article contains some spoilers for “Avengers: Endgame.”)The most common problem with really long movies is a midsection that lulls — it’s unavoidable with many stories, and it’s a thing that can make a three-hour film make it feel like it’s four hours long instead. But “Avengers: Endgame” does not have that problem. Its midsection is just as fast and zippy as the rest of it, and it somehow manages to make a three-hour running time feel like it’s only two.And that’s because this film’s midsection contains the part of the film where the Avengers enact their big plan to undo the damage Thanos did at the end of “Avengers: Infinity War.” That plan? A “time heist,” in which the Avengers go back in time and steal the Infinity Stones before Thanos destroyed them.Our heroes revisit major past events, like the immediate aftermath of the Battle of New York from the original “Avengers” film, where they need to snag the Tesseract and Loki’s scepter before they can be taken back to SHIELD. But things don’t go as planned and the whole situation gets extremely out of control, and they make one very big mistake that should theoretically have major consequences.Also Read: 'Avengers: Endgame' - Everything You Need to Know About the Asgardians of the GalaxyThat flub comes when Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), disguised as security, gets the Tesseract knocked out of his hand right as he’s trying to escape. It lands at the feet of Loki (Tom Hiddleston), who is at that time Thor’s prisoner just moments after the end of the battle, and Loki grabs it and uses it to teleport away.The movie kinda treats this development as a minor hiccup — Tony and Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) simply go further back in time to steal the Tesseract in 1970 instead, and that whole Loki situation is never mentioned again.But this is a problem, according to the rules of time travel set by the film. Unless Steve somehow prevents that whole thing from happening when he returns the stones, then the incident would have sparked a branching alternate timeline where Loki is running around with the Tesseract after the Battle of New York.Also Read: 'Avengers: Endgame' - That Last Scene Makes No SenseAccording to the “Avengers: Endgame” time travel rules, the only way to keep that from happening would be to literally keep that from happening in the moment — either by preventing the Avengers from doing their time heist in the first place or by interfering in that moment. Going back to 1970 to steal the Tesseract then also doesn’t help because allegedly Steve returned the stone to that moment.And regardless, as Hulk says, changing the past just creates a new, alternate timeline. Doing something to the Tesseract in 1970 would not affect Loki’s ability to snatch it in 2012. According to the rules set by this movie.So unless Captain America went back to 2012 and specifically prevented Loki from taking the Tesseract, then there’s an alternate timeline where Loki just ran loose after the Battle of New York and did who knows what bad things. And there is no indication that Steve did anything about that situation — Hulk tasks him simply with returning the stones, and Old Steve only says he returned the stones before deciding to retire in the past. And he would have returned the Space Stone to 1970, not 2o12.Also Read: 'Avengers: Endgame' - We Need to Talk About This Black Widow SituationSo what does this mean for Loki? It’s anyone’s guess, since Loki is never even mentioned again after that scene. It could be, and this is purely speculation, that Loki’s escape is the beginning of the Loki TV show that Marvel is producing for Disney+. That show will see Loki popping up to influence various historical events on Earth, and the Tesseract could potentially enable time travel by some means. And also let’s not forget that the Avengers just have a time machine now. Time travel just exists now.But really you know as much as I do about where Loki went and what he did after, because “Avengers: Endgame” is not really concerned with that situation. So maybe we’ll find out something someday in a movie or a Disney+ show, or maybe that incident will never be mentioned again and it will forever, to us, just be a silly gag that will have potentially major ramifications for the inhabitants of that alternate timeline.Read original story ‘Avengers: Endgame’ – What Happened With Loki and the Tesseract? At TheWrap
The individuals who supported the patients dying of AIDS didn’t provide comfort and care for the glory. But in the new film 5B, they’re being recognized for their heroic efforts.
Police say the man was issued a citation for assault by contact after losing his temper at a co-worker.
In a rare social media post, Prince Michael Jackson, shared a photo of his younger brother, Prince Michael Jackson II, during a movie outing to see "Avengers: Endgame" with friends.
(Spoiler alert: Do not read on if you haven’t see “Avengers: Endgame.”)There are a lot of jaw-dropping moments in “Avengers: Endgame,” and one was the girl power moment when most of the women of the “Avengers” franchise came together on screen. Sure, it was fleeting — it ended before everyone’s roars and applause dissipated — but it’s important, and could hint at what’s to come in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.During the big “Endgame” battle scene, Tom Holland’s Peter Parker is holding the Infinity Gauntlet when Brie Larson’s Captain Marvel comes over to ask, “You got something for me?” He tells her that he doesn’t have a clue how she’s going to get the gauntlet to safety through the masses of villains coming at them alone, but then we hear, “She’s not alone,” and Scarlet Witch, Valkyrie, Okoye, Mantis, Shuri, Hope van Dyne, Gamora, Nebula, and even Pepper Potts in her own Iron Man suit show up to help. GRL PWR!But the scene also raises a theory — which is, for now, only a theory — that the moment might foreshadow the cinematic rise of the A-Force.What’s the A-Force? The A-Force was introduced as part of Marvel Comics’s “Secret Wars” crossover event in 2015. In the story, a couple of parallel Marvel universes collapsed into each other and were destroyed, and from the ashes Doctor Doom created Battleworld, where most of the heroes from both universes did battle with each other.Also Read: Danai Gurira on All-Female 'Avengers' Movie: 'There's This Hunger for This Type of Thing' (Video)Battleworld was divided into 41 nations, or “domains,” one of which was called Arcadia. And the all-female defenders of Arcadia were collectively referred to as the A-Force. Some of the members of A-Force are characters who have already appeared in the Marvel Cinematic Universe: Captain Marvel, Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Agent 13 aka Sharon Carter, and Rescue — the name of the superhero that Pepper Potts became in “Avengers: Endgame.”A-Force also includes a character we know will be introduced to the MCU soon — Kate Bishop, who will be the subject of a Disney+ series in which she follows in the footsteps of the original Hawkeye.MCU actresses have talked about the rumors about a possible all-female Avengers movie in the past. In October 2017, Tessa Thompson, who plays Valkyrie, said that several had pitched an idea for an all-female “Avengers” film.However, according to the Observer, at the Tribeca Film Festival, Thompson said: “I don’t know. That was kind of an offhand thing, and then the press really ran with it. The extent to which the press ran with it is also an expression of what ripe a time it is for something like that. That people are hungry for it, that people are interested in it.”Danai Gurira, who plays Okoye, has reminded us, “Magic happens when women do their thang.” And recently, Larson expressed her hopes for an A-Force movie, saying it would be “powerful and iconic.”Marvel has been criticized in the past for a lack of diversity in its films. The studio has put out 20 movies that feature a male protagonist, and only put out a female-led superhero film in 2019 with “Captain Marvel.” (Last year’s “Ant-Man and the Wasp” starred both Paul Rudd and Evangeline Lilly in the lead roles.) “Captain Marvel” was the first Marvel film to have a female co-director (Anna Boden with Ryan Fleck).Also Read: 'Captain Marvel': Kevin Feige on Film's 'Female Voice' and the MCU's 'More Diverse' FutureIn March, Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige said films like “Captain Marvel” and “Black Panther” represent the future of the MCU. After all, Marvel hired Chloe Zhao to direct “The Eternals,” and Cate Shortland was tapped to direct the standalone “Black Widow” movie.“The notion of representation on screen, in front of and behind the camera, somebody asked me once, so is ‘Black Panther’ a one-off? I said, no, it’s not a one-off. This is the future,” he said. “This is the way the world is, and the way, certainly, our studio’s going to be run going forward, because it brings about better stories. The more diverse the group of people making the movie is, the better the stories.”Phil Owen contributed to this report. Read original story ‘Avengers: Endgame': Let’s Talk About That Girl Power Moment At TheWrap