Join the conversation about this story »

Before Donald Trump announced his candidacy for the highest office in the land, he was very nearly cast as a fictional POTUS in the Syfy made-for-TV movie "Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No!," according to a profile on the series by The Hollywood Reporter. 

In January 2015, Trump agreed to appear in the film after Ian Ziering, the star of the series and a former contestant on "Celebrity Apprentice," contacted his former reality TV boss about the role. A contract was soon sent to Trump's lawyer, Michael D. Cohen.

Eventually, the once "serious talks" devolved into silence from Trump's camp as he prepared to launch a real presidential bid, according to David Latt, the founder of The Asylum, the studio behind the "Sharknado" series.

"Donald's thinking about making a legitimate run for the presidency, so we'll get back to you," Latt recalled to THR how Cohen explained Trump's indecision about the role. "This might not be the best time."

Nevertheless, when the role of POTUS went to Mark Cuban at the last minute, Trump took offense.

"We immediately heard from Trump's lawyer," Latt said. "He basically said, 'How dare you? Donald wanted to do this. We're going to sue you! We're going to shut the entire show down!'"

"Sharknado 3" went on to premiere in October 2015 to a 36% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Just over a year later, Donald Trump would win the presidential election, and Michael D. Cohen would soon be under FBI investigation for the Trump campaign's alleged connections to Russia.

SEE ALSO: Here’s how 'Sharknado 3' packed in all those celebrity cameos

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Marvel dropped another trailer for 'Thor: Ragnarok' — and it looks incredible

Walt Disney Studios made a major update to its theatrical schedule in July at the fan event D23 Expo.

The company outlined its movie schedule for the next two years, announced new live-action films, and confirmed release dates and casting for movies including "Aladdin" and "Dumbo."

They're just two additions to more than 20 coming Disney movies, which includes a mix of animated films, Marvel superheroes, sequels, and many more trips to a galaxy far, far away. Disney previously released dates for coming films stretching through 2020 and beyond. INSIDER rounded up every release date we know for the studio.

This list does not include all of Disney's undated live-action films. You can see all of those titles here.

Here is everything you can expect to see from Disney from now through 2020:

We'll finally get a third "Thor" movie in November.

In "Thor: Ragnarok," the God of Thunder will be imprisoned on one side of the universe without his hammer and with a new look.

At the same time, his home of Asgard is undergoing some new management after being destroyed by new villain Hela (Cate Blanchett).

Her character's so strong she broke Thor's hammer in the movie's first teaser. You can read more on her here.

There's a creed The Gunslinger lives by in "The Dark Tower," and it ends with: "You do not kill with your gun. He who kills with his gun has forgotten the face of his father. You kill with your heart."

Director Nikolaj Arcel and everyone at Sony should have thought about that meaning more when adapting Stephen King's eight-book series, because unlike The Gunslinger, they had no heart in their attempt to bring this classic to life.

Done in a brisk 90 minute running time, the movie feels like a bunch of scenes cobbled together. With a disregard to character development, or even simply giving the audience a moment to breath in the world, the feeling of watching "The Dark Tower" is like racing through a meal because you are late to an appointment.

At one point, I was imaging what it must have been like to edit this movie. Likely it was days filled with Sony Pictures head Tom Rothman standing over the editor screaming, "IS IT DONE YET? IS IT DONE YET?? IS IT DONE YET!?!?!?"

The movie opens with teenager Jake Chambers (Tom Taylor) having a nightmare that kids are being forced to be weapons for an evil Man in Black (Matthew McConaughey) in his quest to destroy the Dark Tower, a giant black structure that goes high up in the sky. Seriously, that's all I know about it. The movie gives very little indication of its importance outside of it being very powerful. Gradually, we learn that Jake continues to have visions of The Man In Black and Roland Deschain/The Gunslinger (Idris Elba), while noticing that people around him seem to be strange creatures disguised as humans. Eventually, Jake's visions lead him to a portal to another dimension, and there he meets The Gunslinger. The two then go out to find the Dark Tower and also face The Man in Black.

I never read the King books, but it's more than obvious Arcel and the slew of screenwriters who have taken on this project over the years — there are four credited, including Arcel — completely slaughtered King's material.

Numerous supporting characters are given zero time for audiences to understand who they are and their importance in the story.

And even more bizarre is the major power Jack has in the movie is actually a reference to another King book.

About halfway through the movie, Jack discovers that he shines, which means he has psychic abilities. It's a power Danny Torrance possesses in King's novel, "The Shining." Though it's kind of cool that the movie makes a reference to another King classic, it's also very weird. In King's "The Dark Tower" books, Jack possess a similar power called "The Touch." Wouldn't it have made more sense to go with that? Fans of books like the movies they are based on to reference what's actually in them.

It's hard to fault Elba or McConaughey for their performances. Whatever they were sold on to accomplish in this movie likely never panned out. Honestly, outside of some fish-out-of water comedy done by Elba when The Gunslinger transports to Earth briefly, there's nothing memorable about any performance.

It's more than obvious Sony wasn't looking to really make a movie for the fans of the books — which is just plain bizarre. They are the ones who can't wait to see this!

"The Dark Tower" turns out to be just the latest in a long line of movies based on King's books that are nothing like his work. The added problem with this one, however, is it's nowhere near close to being as good a standalone movie as most of those others.

"The Dark Tower" opens in theaters on Friday.

SEE ALSO: How a guy who injected PEDs to see the effects scored a Netflix deal and uncovered the biggest doping scandal in Olympics history

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: DC showed off a new 'Justice League' trailer at Comic Con — and it looks epic

Celebrity often outweighs talent when it comes to landing roles in Hollywood, and the recent audition experience of "Game of Thrones" star Sophie Turner is another example — according to her.

Turner, who plays Sansa Stark on the hit HBO show, told Porter magazine that she won a role over a "far better" actress for a project because she has a "big social-media following."

Turner's online audience includes 5.4 million followers on Instagram, 1.35 million on Twitter, and 2 million on Facebook.

"A lot of what I have achieved is about timing and luck, but it is also, and I hate to say it, about a big social-media following," Turner told the print-only magazine. 

"I auditioned for a project and it was between me and another girl who is a far better actress than I am, far better, but I had the followers, so I got the job," she said. "It's not right, but it is part of the movie industry now."

Though Turner didn't name the project in question, she is slated to appear in four films over the next two years. These upcoming projects include "Berlin, I Love You,""Hunstville,""Time Freak," and a reprisal of her role as Jean Grey in "X-Men: Dark Phoenix."

We must note, however, that while Turner is speaking to a truth in Hollywood, she's also being modest. She has given a spectacular performance as Sansa Stark in "Game of Thrones," especially in the later seasons.

SEE ALSO: This week's 'Game of Thrones' power rankings: Can you die and still be No. 1?

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 8 details you might have missed on the season 7 premiere of 'Game of Thrones'

Disney's live-action remake of "The Lion King" already has stars like Donald Glover as Simba, John Oliver as Zazu, and James Earl Jones as Mufasa (he voiced the same character in the original animated feature) — and now it looks like they are close to landing their Scar.

According to The Wrap, "Doctor Strange" star Chiwetel Ejiofor is in talks to taking on the villain role, which was voiced by Jeremy Irons in the 1994 original movie.

The anticipated remake, which opens in theaters in July 2019, follows the success of CGI-heavy live-action movies Disney has recently given us, including "The Jungle Book" and "Beauty and the Beast.""The Jungle Book" director Jon Favreau will be directing "The Lion King" remake.

The original "Lion King" is a beloved classic in the Disney archives. It won two Oscars and to-date (including re-releases over the years) has grossed over $968 million at the worldwide box office. 

Ejiofor was nominated for best actor at the 2014 Academy Awards for his performance in "12 Years a Slave."

SEE ALSO: "The Dark Tower" movie has no heart, and will really upset fans of the Stephen King books

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 7 details you might have missed on season 7 episode 2 of 'Game of Thrones'

Is Netflix's selection not enough for you? Than you're in luck if you live in Los Angeles or New York City. 

In July, LA's public library announced that it would provide streaming of hundreds of films including access to films from The Criterion Collection for free if you had a card.

New York City publication Gothamist wanted to know if New Yorkers have this benefit, too — and they didn't.

But starting Friday, they will.

On August 4, anyone with a New York or Brooklyn Public Library card will have streaming access to hundreds of movies including films from The Criterion Collection. The Criterion Collection includes classic and contemporary films that are considered important including "The Royal Tenenbaums,""Mulholland Drive,""Do the Right Thing," and "Pan's Labyrinth." (It's not clear exactly which films from The Criterion Collection will be available, and the selection may change.)

If you live in LA or New York, it's a simple process to get started.

First, you need a library card if you don't have one already. Then create an account on the streaming site, Kanopy, using your library card number. You can watch up to ten movies per month, you have a three-day limit on each movie, and you can watch on an array of devices.

SEE ALSO: 'The Dark Tower' movie has no heart, and will really upset fans of the Stephen King books

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Marvel dropped another trailer for 'Thor: Ragnarok' — and it looks incredible

The INSIDER Summary:

• It took 10 years for "The Dark Tower" to come to the big screen.
• It's based on Stephen King's fantasy book series and stars Matthew McConaughey and Idris Elba.
• The movie is a critical disaster, with a Rotten Tomatoes score of less than 20%.
  

It took a decade for "The Dark Tower" to make it to the screen, but maybe it would have been best for everyone if it took a little longer.

The movie is based on Stephen King's book series of the same name. It's a fantasy epic where Idris Elba plays the gunslinger, a sort of magical diplomat-warrior trying to build peace in the universe, and Matthew McConaughey plays The Man in Black, who's an evil sorcerer. It's pretty wild.

A screen adaptation of the eight-book series has been planned in various incarnations. In 2007, J. J. Abrams wanted to adapt it, but backed out after three years when his option on the books ran out. Then Ron Howard picked it up, trying to make an ambitious spectacle that would include three movies and two TV series bridging them, but had trouble finding the financing.

Finally in 2015, "A Royal Affair" director Nikolaj Arcel directed the project with the backing of Sony Pictures, but only with one film to start. McConaughey and Elba signed on, and King had a lot of creative control, according to Variety.

Now the movie is finally here, with a run time of just an hour and a half. It's currently sitting with a 17% score on Rotten Tomatoes with 41 total reviews. That's not quite as bad as "The Emoji Movie," but still pretty bad. Undeterred, Sony is moving ahead with a "Dark Tower" TV series, reports Deadline.

The critical consensus is that the movie tears apart too much of King's masterwork and ends up being a bland, messy, and bone-headed fantasy film. Here are some of their biggest burns.

It feels like a bunch of disparate scenes strung together.

"Done in a brisk 90 minute running time, the movie feels like a bunch of scenes cobbled together. With a disregard to character development, or even simply giving the audience a moment to breath in the world, the feeling of watching "The Dark Tower" is like racing through a meal because you are late to an appointment.

At one point, I was imaging what it must have been like to edit this movie. Likely it was days filled with Sony Pictures head Tom Rothman standing over the editor screaming, 'IS IT DONE YET? IS IT DONE YET?? IS IT DONE YET!?!?!?'"

— Business Insider's Jason Guerrasio

It's a fantasy without the magic.

"'The Dark Tower' should still add up to more: It could use more magic, more dread, a more staggering sense of wonder. It’s wholly inoffensive, but it’s unmemorable too. This is a fantasy that runs like a business."

— Time's Stephanie Zacharek

The movie is weird, yet forgettable.

"[Idris Elba's] performance stands out. The movie around him is sadly pointless, weirdly forgettable despite a slipstream story mashing fantasy and science-fiction and Brooklyn. 'A Tower Stands at the Center of the Universe,' opening text informs us. 'The Mind of a Child Can Bring it Down.' That child is Jake Chambers (Tom Taylor), a boy whose whole world fell apart when he lost his father. 'When you lost your father, your whole world fell apart!' his psychiatrist tells him, so there’s your precious backstory. Jake’s having bad dreams that he helpfully illustrates: a tower, a man in black, a dude with cool guns, ugly creatures with stapled-on human faces."

— Entertainment Weekly's Darren Franich

None if it makes any sense.

"Those readers who have followed King down his 4,000-page rabbit hole will probably be the only folks patient enough to sit through Nikolaj Arcel’s 95-minute cinematic abridgment. Despite two fine actors in key roles, and the efforts of a four-man screenwriting team to strip King’s story down to its basics, 'The Dark Tower' still makes virtually no sense, even by the rules of its own world(s)."

— Newsday's Rafer Guzman

It's poorly crafted.

"Most of the scenes in 'The Dark Tower' feel like a desperate compromise of some kind, and often there seem to be scenes missing that would simply get us from one point to another. With fantasy material like this, we need to be made to believe in the inventions and the conceits, and we cannot do that if they are shot and staged in such a truncated and perfunctory way."

— TheWrap's Dan Callahan

The movie doesn't do justice to its source material.

"Fans of King’s books will likely be disappointed by the way this long-awaited film adaptation speeds through essential plot points and frantically introduces characters with little in the way of rhythm or care, all in service of a rushed finale that will leave plenty scratching their heads. A tight story is one thing, but a 95-minute feature that is unable to give even the slightest inkling that it’s based on a grand-scale epic masterpiece is something else entirely. The whole universe is at stake here, but 'The Dark Tower' wastes precious time before it delivers any big moments, which then only arrive care of listless and muddled action sequences."

— Indiewire's Kate Erbland

"The Dark Tower" is in theaters Friday.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: There's a place off California's coast called the 'Red Triangle' where over 1/3 of great white shark attacks happen

The INSIDER Summary:

• Netflix has a feature which allows you to download TV shows and movies onto your mobile devices.
• It's easy to use and handy if you're going on a trip and don't want to pay for an in-flight movie.
• We've outlined the best practices and tips for using the feature.

I recently flew cross-country from New York City to Los Angeles, California. Since I don't sleep too well on planes, I figured it would be the perfect time to catch up on some movies and television I haven't had the time to watch.

I was flying Virgin America. And while the airline offers a selection of shows and newer movies, I wasn't as enthused by the $5-to-$8 price per film. If I'm going to pay to watch a premium movie, then I want to see it in good quality on a larger screen. 

If you're not into spending some cold hard cash on an in-flight movie and you happen to have Netflix, there's a simple alternative you can and should be doing to bring some movies and TV shows with you on the go for free.

Ahead of my over five hour flight, I used Netflix's download feature to put several movies and TV shows onto my phone. The streaming site added the feature at the end of 2016. I had tried it out a few times before on the NYC Subway and NJ Transit to plow through new seasons of "Orange Is the New Black" and "House of Cards." (I'm a serial binger.)

Though I was watching on a small iPhone 6 screen, I didn't have to worry about interruptions from the pilot cutting off dialogue or missing some of the movie if I dozed off. I could pause, rewind, and restart as much as my heart desired. There was also the satisfaction of not having to pay extra for some quality in-flight entertainment. 

If you're not using Netflix's download feature, then you're not getting the most out of your streaming subscription. If you haven't heard of the feature or aren't familiar with it, here's a quick rundown on how to use the feature and what you're able to download. 

How to download shows and movies from Netflix onto your device

If you have never downloaded something from Netflix to watch offline before, don't worry. It's easy! When you log into the Netflix app from your mobile device, tap the menu icon in the upper left hand corner.

You'll then see a drop-down menu. In it, you should see sections labeled "My Downloads" and "Available for Download." My Downloads is the folder that will hold all of your offline TV shows and movies. Presuming you haven't downloaded anything yet, you're going to want to head to "Available for Download."

Netflix doesn't make all of its content available for download. So you don't have to play the guessing game, the app makes it easy by putting all of its offline content in one area. 

This is what it looks like: 

After you see something you like, click on it and you'll be brought to a screen for that individual item. I was excited to see the Oscar-nominated movie "Lion" was available for my flight, since I hadn't been able to catch it before.

You'll have the option to add it to your list, rate it, share it, or download it. That's the one you want to select. 

Once it's downloaded, tap on the menu item and, this time, head to "My Downloads." 

All of your downloaded items should appear neatly in there. Each item should have the little phone icon next to it, meaning your good to watch on the go. Just tap on the show or movie you want to watch and it should load without using up extra data.

Some things to know before you download

Make sure you're on Wi-Fi 

Before you start downloading anything, make sure your device is running on Wi-Fi. If you're downloading a long movie or a season of a TV show, you don't want that eating up your data.

Don't download at the last minute

You don't want to be downloading shows and movies while you're in the airport or on the way to your flight. Again, you want to be connected to Wi-Fi when you're downloading content. You also want to give yourself some time to make sure everything can download onto your phone. 

How much you can download will depend on the amount of storage space you have on your device. I was able to comfortably hold two movies and four episodes of a TV series. If you're not sure how much space you have, you can head to "App Settings" from the drop-down menu and it will tell you how much storage space Netflix is taking up and how much you have left.

The Drawbacks

You're watching content in lower quality

Netflix automatically sets your media to download at a standard video quality rate so items download faster and take up less storage space. But if you've already made peace with the fact you're watching premium content on a small screen, you're probably OK with this.

Personally, I've found the picture and sound quality to be great while traveling. I always watch with the captions on in case I miss anything from the hum of a train or my surroundings. That's not for everyone though.

You can watch in higher quality, but it will cost you more space

If you head back into the app's settings, click on video quality. You can toggle between a standard and high video quality.

The downside is that the higher quality will take up more space on your phone and take a bit longer to download. If you have a lot of space to spare and plan ahead to download content a while before your trip, then you should be OK.

I downloaded two movies in both standard and high quality. It didn't take too much longer to add to my device while connected to Wi-Fi. One of the movies took up slightly more space than the other.

Not everything on Netflix is available to download 

This is one of the killers. If you're just scrolling through Netflix and not the "Available for Download" area, it will always tell you if a show or film is available for download. Just look for the little download carrot next to a show.

Most Netflix originals are available for download. Any that aren't available were made with a studio which owns the content. The same goes for why only some content is available for download. Some movie and TV studios have deals with other companies or Netflix states on its site popularity is another factor.

Some content expires after you download it

I've also noticed that certain media has a limit on the time that you can watch the downloaded content. It doesn't seem to be clear which shows have an expiration. Netflix also limits the amount of times you can download some shows and movies onto a device. For instance, after going to download one of the most recent episodes of "Orange is the New Black," I was warned I only have one more time to download it. I think I've downloaded it once before.

I don't think I'm going to need to rewatch "OITNB" on my phone more than once or twice anyway, but it's something to be aware of if you plan to download content and forget to watch right away.

If you don't mind those things, then you're good to go. I found the download feature a useful and easy way to catch up on some content I wouldn't have otherwise. 

SEE ALSO: Here's everything coming to Netflix in August

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Amazon has an oddly efficient way of storing stuff in its warehouses

As a species, we’re working on our seventeenth year into a new century and everything is on fire. The blurring of the lines that divide fact and fiction has grown so smeared and indecipherable as to allow climate change to still be questioned and corruption has been radically normalized to the point of borderline decriminalization.

Unavoidably, this international tendency to believe what we want as often as what’s factual has bled into moviemaking, both in regards to increasingly untenable productions in the big studios and in innumerable filmic takes on major (and minor) historical events seen in narrative films and, perhaps even more so, documentaries.

This is what makes docs like Waltz with Bashir and Tower, both of which rely heavily on animation to convey the tricks of memory that corrode and aggrandize the truth, so important. Then there’s more narrative-based tricks, such as the anxious shell game that is Banksy’s exuberant Exit Through the Gift Shop or the more existential narrative questions at the heart of Jafar Panahi’s This is Not a Film. Beyond the testing of boundaries between fact and fiction, these movies are infectiously curious about the importance and meaning of truth in movies. Outside of documentaries, one could see this concept being tossed around in the late Abbas Kiarastomi’s Certified Copy, one of the best films of this century full stop.

Nevertheless, these advances don’t discount the power of reinventing more classical stylistic choices in the documentary form. Frederick Wiseman, America’s greatest documentarian, has honed his own no-frills aesthetic over his many decades as a filmmaker and he has made the best documentary of the century thus far. Similarly, elder masters like Steve James, Claude Lanzmann, Werner Herzog, and Errol Morris arrived high on my (very rough) list of the 25 best documentaries of the century thus far. Truthfully, had I not limited myself to one movie per director, Wiseman would have dominated a quarter of this list between Boxing Gym, National Gallery, At Berkeley, Domestic Violence, State Legislature, and the upcoming Ex Libris.

Perhaps a list with those titles would be a more honest collection of the most revelatory documentaries that the last decade and this one have produced. More titles from Herzog, Morris, Chinese master Wang Bing, and several others would have also likely made the final cut. In doing that, however, one might not see the staggering breadth of transformation that the genre (or is it style?) has been going under since we all survived the millennium’s imagined doomsday.

SEE ALSO: 33 documentaries on Netflix right now that will make you smarter

25. "Henri-Georges Clouzot's Inferno"

A thrilling tale of cinematic obsession found amongst the wreckage of an unfinished thriller about romantic obsession. Clouzot, who perfected the art of nerve-rattling with Diabolique and The Wages of Fear, had planned to make a tense, diabolic melodrama called L’Enfer with Romy Schneider in the lead as the beautiful bride to a vacationing bourgeoisie Frenchman who grows ravenously jealous of local male attention. Directors Serge Bromberg and Ruxandra Medrea find vast, feverish undercurrents of paranoia and self-obsession in the remnants of Clouzot’s footage but, more importantly, finds even stronger and stranger visions of the dark side to imagination and creative control in the story of Clouzot’s inability to fully realize his vision. In conflating the stories, this wildly entertaining near-masterwork evokes the infectious spirit of artistic creation, for better and worse.

24. "Zero Days"

Consider Alex Gibney’s latest work – one of the prolific filmmaker’s very best – as an alternate history of the Iran Nuclear deal, one in which the watchful Western eyes get poked by their own sharp stick. In this metaphor, the stick is StuxNet, a computer worm manufactured by Israel and the USA in secret to keep a leash on Iran. Things did not quite turn out that way, as Iran eventually utilized the cyber-weapon to their own advantage to give us our own national security hair-mussing. At once an engrossing, detail-oriented cyner-thriller and a brilliant primer on the era of cyber warfare, Zero Days renews and reinforces the argument that Gibney is one of the most thoughtful and direct political filmmakers out there.

23. "Bright Leaves"

Ross McElwee is primarily known for Sherman’s March, a poignant masterwork that conflated the director’s fascination with General Sherman’s destructive campaign through the South during the Civil War with McElwee’s own chaotic, ambling romantic life. There’s a similar rousing intermingling between geography, the crimes of history, and personal reflection in 2004’s Bright Leaves, which finds the filmmaker studying his family’s connection to tobacco – his great-grandfather was the man behind Bull Durham – while also studying the poverty and desperation that followed in the wake of the cash crop’s plummet in popularity. Obviously and tragically, the insights and images that McElwee stirs up while rambling around North Carolina still resonate in the age of Trump.

Who doesn't like a periodic dose of violence, gore, terror, and shock from a controversial film?

A lot of people, apparently.

There have been many a film out there that the public was just not cool with, and people en masse would go as far as protesting the films, which sometimes were banned before they could even be released. This, of course, still happens regularly – sometimes to films that really don't deserve such backlash.

We can look at movies like "A Clockwork Orange" and be repulsed by its shocking performance of violence and gore. But we can't pretend that the movie (and many like it) isn't an iconic, visually stunning, and incredibly affecting piece of film. Even films that have attracted a more uniform opposition present a difficult question: Should a film, even one that encourages the worst in people, be banned in a free world?

These films faced a mix of terrible production, legal trouble, and public outrage, among other obstacles. Some of these films were initially unreleased before later making their way to the public, while others are unreleased only in some countries. Some spoilers may lie ahead, so be wary!

Check out these 15 movies that were delayed or unreleased because of controversy:

SEE ALSO: How much work it will take to digitally remove Henry Cavill's mustache for 'Justice League,' according to visual effects artists

15. "Buffalo Soldiers"

The United States and its citizens will most likely never forget the atrocities that occurred during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The event caused a surge in patriotism and a wider dedication to American troops that lasted many years. It perhaps makes sense why any film that shone a bad light on the US military would face scrutiny during that time.

"Buffalo Soldiers," a satirical film starring Joaquin Phoenix and based on a book of the same name, follows the story of a crooked, heroin-dealing American soldier who causes havoc in Berlin. The film premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival just days before the terrorist attacks took place. The film remained unreleased in theaters until mid 2003.

14. "A Clockwork Orange"

We can't have a list of banned controversial films without mentioning Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange." The dystopian crime film, starring Malcolm McDowell, comments quite violently on morality, the faults of psychology, and social problems that plague British culture. The 1971 film boasts intensely violent scenes of rape, assault, and murder.

While American audiences enjoyed the film, which brought in nearly $24 million more than it cost to make, the movie was outright banned in the United Kingdom a year or so after its initial release. Protests, widening emulative violence, and pressure from the police led Kubrick to bar the film from the UK until the year 2000.

Ironically, the Anthony Burgess book it was based on has been banned off and on across schools in the US.

13. "Hippie Hippie Shake"

"Hippie Hippie Shake" is an unreleased British film starring Cillian Murphy and Sienna Miller. The film is based on the life of Richard Neville, the editor of satirical magazine Oz, which was the subject of a very public trial for producing obscene content in the '60s.

Production for the film began way back in 1998 and ran into repeated roadblocks. Directors kept getting switched out through the years, and numerous producers and screenwriters tossed the script back and forth. When things finally started to gain some traction, the film was abruptly delayed yet again in 2008 because of Miller's controversial personal life.

In 2009, both the director and the screenwriter left the project in postproduction. The real-life people depicted in the film also expressed distaste for its authenticity during test screenings, and it remains in movie limbo.

YouTube has pulled off a major score for its subscription service, YouTube Red, and in the process has left its competitors Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu all feeling envious.

The site has landed the TV sequel to the classic 1984 movie, "The Karate Kid," according to The Hollywood Reporter. 

Titled "Cobra Kai," it will be a 10-episode half-hour comedy series that features two of the stars from the movie, Ralph Macchio and William Zabka. The series will debut in 2018. 

"The Karate Kid" became a sensation in the late '80s for its look at teenager Daniel LaRusso (Macchio), who after moving to a new town begins to get picked on constantly by bully Johnny Lawrence (Zabka) and his friends — who all know karate from training at the intense Cobra Kai dojo. Daniel befriends Mr. Miyagi (the late Pat Morita), who uses unconventional methods to train Daniel how to do karate. The movie ends with Daniel and Johnny fighting at a karate tournament.

The series, set 30 years after that tournament, focuses on Johnny. He's down and out but reopens the dojo to seek redemption. Daniel, on the other hand, is successful but is struggling to find balance in his life since the death of Mr. Miyagi.

Josh Heald of "Hot Tub Time Machine" fame will direct most of the episodes. The series will be written by Heald and "Harold and Kumar" franchise screenwriters Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg.

The series landed at YouTube after a competitive bidding war that included Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and AMC, according to THR. Macchio and Zabka, who are also executive producers on the show, were heavily involved in the pitch around Hollywood.

"The Karate Kid" adds to other original programs YouTube recently announced, including a Kevin Hart workout show, and separate shows that look inside the lives of pop stars Katy Perry and Demi Lovato. Some of those will play on YouTube's ad-supported tier, while others will go on YouTube Red, which costs $9.99 a month. 

Macchio starred in the two sequels that followed the original "Karate Kid" movie. Though there have been attempts to reboot the franchise in movie form over the decades with 1994's "The Next Karate Kid," starring Morita and Hilary Swank, as well as 2010's "The Karate Kid," starring Jackie Chan and Jaden Smith, none have held a candle to the original movie.   

The original also features one of the best endings in movie history. It certainly seems to be a moment that will hang over the characters at the start of the show.

Watch the scene below:

SEE ALSO: "Wet Hot American Summer: 10 Years Later" is funny, but lacks the charming spirit of the original

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 7 details you might have missed on season 7 episode 2 of 'Game of Thrones'

The INSIDER Summary

• A whimsical and expensive theme park is being planned for London, which doesn't have a major one currently.
• Previous partner, Paramount – the movie studio behind "Transformers," the "Star Trek" films, and "Mission: Impossible"– has dropped out of the project.
• But the companies behind the park say that Paramount's withdrawal means they can be more flexible about the brands they can work with.
• See mockups for the planned theme park below.

The only thing that could make London better would be a theme park. Unfortunately, it doesn't have one.

That might all change in a few years. London Resort Company Holdings (LRCH) and its parent Kuwaiti European Holding Group (KEH) are planning to open an enormous $4.5 billion theme park, dubbed the "UK Disneyland." According to projections, the 872-acre park, just outside the city, would attract 40,000 visitors a day and cost around $75 for a ticket.

Originally, LRCH and KEH planned to open the park with Paramount, the movie studio behind "Transformers," the "Star Trek" movies, "Mission: Impossible," and "Spongebob."Paramount has now dropped out of the deal, so now it looks like we won't get that "Godfather" roller coaster.

But LRCH and KEH are still moving forward with their plans. Now, they say, they'll have greater flexibility about which brands they can work with.

"We very much look forward to showing our plans to the public as part of our final stage of consultation prior to submitting later this year,"LRCH CEO Humphrey Percy told Kent Online. "We are creating a unique entertainment destination offering a scale and quality unprecedented in the UK where much-loved characters and stories will be brought to life from iconic movies, television, books, electronic gaming and toys." 

Here are design mockups that show what the theme park could look like:

It'll have a grand entrance with enormous columns.

The location would technically be just outside Swanscombe Peninsula, North Kent. It's about an hour's drive from the center of London, and shorter by train.

The "Myths & Legends Castle" makes the park comparable to Disney's.

The park will have different themed zones: Adventure Isle, Land of Legends, and Cartoon Circus.

Like any good theme park, it has a sense of adventure.

Other areas of the planned park include Action Square and Entertainment City. Each one would have its own set of rides and attractions.

The INSIDER Summary: 

• Some movies are just so bad that they become fun to watch.
• Many of the movies on this list have developed a cult following that loves them for how awful they are.
• Some of the best examples include "The Room,""The Happening," and "Coyote Ugly."

There are good movies and there are bad movies. But at some point, a movie gets so bad that something amazing happens: Everything reaches a tipping point of terrible that makes it fun to watch again. This phenomenon has resulted in a special pool of films that we love even though we understand that they are also basically garbage. In fact, we love them exactly because they are garbage. 

Before we get started, there are a few rules and guidelines we used to compile this best worst movies list: 

• It can’t be intentionally bad. Sorry, Sharknado. We want our bad movies to come with a heavy dose of sincerity. 
• There can’t be a large number of people who sincerely like the movie. This cancels out a few great best worst options, like "Point Break,""Bring it On," and "Adventures in Babysitting." 
• It had to be a theater release — so all Lifetime movies were eliminated. They are still terribly wonderful, though. 
• It can’t be just boring or just confusing or just low-budget. We were looking for movies that are actually entertainingly bad. 
• We couldn’t list every single Steven Seagal movie, so we just listed one that represents them all. 

Ready? Click through to see if your favorite (least favorite?) made the list. 

"Fear"

This 1996 suspense thriller is absolutely stunning in its weirdness. Sixteen-year-old Reese Witherspoon meets an older boy at a party (Mark Wahlberg), but it turns out that he’s a crazy person who won’t let her go. Without giving anything away, there is an amazing scene on a roller coaster and an amazing scene with a dog. Sorry, but that’s all we can say. 

Bonus badness: We love the complete and utter mid-'90s aspect of this movie — it might be the scariest part. 

"The Wicker Man"

There should be an entire subgenre of movies that are so bad they are good that contain Nicolas Cage. We totally understand that he’s a very talented actor, but the thing is that sometimes he also totally sucks (even though he’s obviously trying very hard). This particular film stars Cage as a sheriff who stumbles upon an island of pagans who are trying to sacrifice his daughter. It doesn’t sound funny, but don’t worry, it is. Even if that wasn’t the intent. 

Bonus badness: If you love bad Nicolas Cage, please watch this montage of him freaking out.

"Howard the Duck"

Who doesn’t like a film starring a cigar-smoking humanoid duck-alien? We sure do. This movie from 1986 borders on the unbelievable. Despite the PG rating, there is some duck sexual harassment, people having sex in a hot tub (?) and, yep, some duck-human action. And a lot of other stuff that is just extremely, extremely weird. Definitely one that makes you wonder how it was written and produced without someone saying, “This is insane! We can’t do this!” 

Bonus badness: At some point, there are some duck boobs. Not duck breasts, duck boobs. We are confused too. 

People get tattoos in honor of family members and hobbies and the same goes for celebrities. But some will get extra ink to commemorate a project they hold near and dear to their hearts.  

From "Game of Thrones" actresses to Selena Gomez, some of the stars show off their movie and TV tattoos loud and proud, while others get their reminders in more discreet locations as a personal reminder of a big event in their lives.

Keep reading to see what TV and movie casts got inked together to remember their time together on set.

Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul both got inked in honor of the “Breaking Bad” series’ finale.

Cranston told TheWrap both he and costar Aaron Paul decided to get tattoos on the last day of filming the hit AMC show. Cranston has the show's "Br, Ba" logo etched on the inside of his ring finger on his right hand.

"Someone said, 'Well if you put it there, no one can see it,'" Cranston told E!"I said, 'I can see it.' So every once in a while I catch a glimpse of it, and I see that logo for 'Breaking Bad' and it just makes me smile.'"

Paul, meanwhile, got the phrase "no half measures" tattooed on his bicep. The line is from the season three episode, "Half Measures."

"13 Reasons Why" executive producer Selena Gomez and the show’s cast members got matching semi-colon tattoos.

The singer got matching semicolon tattoos with the show's stars Alisha Boe and Tommy Dorfman, who play Jessica and Ryan, respectively, in April.

The semicolons are a symbol of new beginnings, made popular by suicide prevention organization Project Semicolon.

Lucy Hale and the "Pretty Little Liars" cast will always carry a memory of the show on their index fingers.

The "Pretty Little Liars" women got the first initial of their character's names inked on their index fingers to celebrate the end of the series. Hale, Shay Mitchell, Janel Parrish, Sasha Pieterse, Ashley Benson, and Troian Bellisario got the tattoos at the Shamrock Social Club in West Hollywood, California in October 2016.

"Thank you @shamrocksocialclub for taking care of us,"Hale wrote on Instagram. "We couldn't not get tattoos to commemorate the show! And obviously on our ‘shh’ finger."

For most of his career, Steven Soderbergh has tried desperately to stay out of the movie studio machine.

Though his biggest financial successes have come from Hollywood — like the “Ocean’s Eleven” franchise or “Erin Brockovich,” for which he was also nominated for a best director Oscar — he’s been most comfortable being an independent.

He won his best director Oscar for "Traffic," through the now-defunct USA Films, after the big studios declined to make a movie about the drug war. IFC Films allowed him to make two separate movies for his Che Guevara biopic, “Che.” And then there’s his classics like “sex, lies and videotape” through Miramax, “The Limey” by Artisan, and “The Girlfriend Experience" with Magnolia.

But Soderbergh craved more control as the years went on, and frustrated he couldn’t get it, he retired in 2013.

Four years later he has returned with a movie and has full control over it.

“Logan Lucky” masterfully shows off Soderbergh’s talents. The story of two brothers trying to pull a heist at a NASCAR race has the mainstream appeal of an “Ocean’s” movie with a hint of the eclectic style found in his indie work.

All of that has led to one of the most anticipated movies to end the summer, and it wasn’t done with the help of a studio's test groups and millions of advertising dollars. Instead, Soderbergh launched his own company, Fingerprint Releasing, where he oversees the entire marketing and release of “Logan Lucky.” If the movie performs well when it opens on August 18, it could be a model other auteurs like Soderbergh could follow from now on, and never have to deal with a studio again.

If Soderbergh went with a studio to release “Logan Lucky,” like he did with 2012’s “Magic Mike” through Warner Bros., the director would have been looking at a $40 million marketing campaign for the $29 million-budgeted “Lucky,” in which the studio would collect around 15% of total ticket sales. Any remaining profits would go to the owners of the movie.

“You’re way too far away from your money,” Soderbergh told The New York Times about going the studio route.

So, Soderbergh teamed with former Warner Bros. executive Dan Fellman and sold portions of the movie’s non-theatrical rights (Amazon took the streaming rights) to raise a $20 million marketing budget. Then Soderbergh hired on indie distributor Bleecker Street to market and release the movie theatrically in the US for a $1 million fee.

Soderbergh now has full control over the release strategy and marketing campaign of the movie, the first time he’s ever had that. Bleecker will receive a cut of the ticket sales and other revenue streams, according to the New York Times story.

“Logan Lucky” will be released wide, but Soderbergh has stated that because of how the movie is being marketed (ignoring the expensive New York and LA markets and focused on the south and midwest), even a modest opening like $15 million is a success.

But is this a model that can be replicated by other directors who have the notoriety of Soderbergh (and the relationship with big name movie stars)?

Business Insider spoke to numerous sources within the independent film space and though they commend Soderbergh’s hustle, they don't believe he’s reinventing the wheel.

For some, the model sounds like a form of a “service deal,” where a producer hires a distributor on a flat fee to market and release a movie, and the distributor takes a cut of the box office. This method has become more popular since the emergence of streaming giants Netflix and Amazon, which make service deals when doing theatrical releases of their titles. But the practice itself has been going on for decades. George Lucas didn't want to relinquish the rights to "Star Wars" back in 1977, so he just licensed it and the two sequels that followed to 20th Century Fox.

And Kevin Smith has gone down the service deal route for recent films “Red State,” “Tusk,” and “Yoga Hosers,” through his company SModcast Pictures.

Then there are others who believe this auteur DIY model won't be that popular, because most filmmakers aren’t up for “getting their hands dirty” in the distribution phase of a movie’s life like Soderbergh is.

There’s also the question of the kind of movie you’re making. A $29 million heist movie where movie stars don't take their usual asking fee is one thing. It becomes more of a challenge if a director wants to make a big-budget epic, and can’t find the financing through independent sources. That’s when the studio becomes you’re only hope.

But one aspect that seems to be universally agreed upon is that Soderbergh is smart to keep his marketing budget low (he told the New York Times he’s only spent 15% of it three weeks out from the movie opening).

Hollywood studios have budgets that match or sometimes double a production budget because having big marketing dollars leads to more box office, and more money in studio executives’ pockets.

“Studios will spend $1,000 to make an extra $25,” said one source.

But when you are doing it all under one roof, like Soderbergh is doing, the low marketing costs means he will be seeing more money come back to him at the end of the day.

Soderbergh’s model may not lead to a revolt of studio moviemaking, but it's becoming clear he's found a way to no longer need its services.

"Logan Lucky" opens in theaters August 18.

SEE ALSO: How a guy who injected PEDs to see the effects scored a Netflix deal and uncovered the biggest doping scandal in Olympics history

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Pokémon Go's first real-world event was a complete disaster — here's what happened

The summer movie season is crawling to the finish line.

Sony's long-developed adaptation of Stephen King's epic "The Dark Tower" finally hit theaters this weekend and won the domestic box office, though it was a very soft estimated $19.5 million on over 3,400 screens, according to Variety.

Though Sony will spin that the movie defied its lousy 18% Rotten Tomatoes score to win the weekend, the second consecutive week when one of its movies has been one of the top domestic earners despite a rotten score — last week "The Emoji Movie" landed in second place at the box office despite having a 7% rating— the bottom line is there hasn't been much to interest audiences at the multiplex these past couple of weeks.

Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk" came in second place with $17.6 million, after topping the box office the last two weekends.

The $60 million-budgeted "Dark Tower" was a decade in the making. Previous directors like J.J. Abrams and Ron Howard (he's a producer on the movie) attempted over the years to adapt King's eight books into some kind of workable feature.

Though director Nikolaj Arcel (2009's "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo") finally figured it out, the end result was uninspired. However, with no other competition as most audiences have seen current releases "Spider-Man: Homecoming,""Dunkirk," and "Despicable Me 3," it turns out the greatest strength "The Dark Tower"had was being placed at the perfect weekend.

This first weekend of August certainly is different from previous years that put an exclamation point on the season with titles that set record-breaking openings like 2014's "Guardians of the Galaxy ($94.3 million) or last summer's "Suicide Squad" ($133.6 million).

SEE ALSO: "The Dark Tower" movie has no heart, and will really upset fans of the Stephen King books

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Pokémon Go's first real-world event was a complete disaster — here's what happened

The INSIDER Summary:

• Charlize Theron's last name is often mispronounced.
• It should be "Their-IN," not "Their-OWN."

Charlize Theron has been giving us kick-ass movie performances. So in return on her birthday Monday, August 7, the least we can do is give her the gift of pronouncing her name correctly.

The Oscar-winning South African actress, 42, is currently impressing fans as the lead in "Atomic Blonde." But as people talk about the movie, they may be saying her name wrong.

To pronounce Theron correctly, it is supposed to sound more like "Their-IN," not "Their-OWN."

While on "The Tonight Show" in 2014, Theron and host Jimmy Fallon spoke about the correct pronunciation. She said she wanted to create an audio recording for people to listen to so they could get it right. 

But back on an episode of "Piers Morgan Tonight" in 2011, the actress had already given the proper pronunciation of her name. And it's more like "Throne," with a slightly lilted "r." You can listen below.

So go ahead and practice, so you can get it right. Happy birthday, Charlize!

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The biggest mistake everyone makes when eating steak, according to Andrew Zimmern

Netflix has acquired comic book publisher Millarworld in its "first ever" acquisition, the company announced Monday.

The brainchild of comic book creator Mark Millar, Millarworld has been responsible for characters and storylines like Kick-Ass, Kingsman, and Old Man Logan, all of which have been made into major studio films in recent years.

Netflix and Millar are now teaming up to bring his characters and new content to the service in the form of Netflix-exclusive projects.

"Mark has created a next-generation comics universe, full of indelible characters living in situations people around the world can identify easily with," said Netflix chief content office Ted Sarandos in a statement. "We look forward to creating new Netflix Originals from several existing franchises as well as new super-hero, anti-hero, fantasy, sci-fi and horror stories Mark and his team will continue to create and publish."

Though Netflix has not disclosed the terms of the acquisition, Millar said in a statement that "this is only the third time in history a major comic book company has been purchased at this level."

While Netflix does not release its viewership numbers, the acquisition of Millarworld seems to signal that its four current Marvel Comic shows ("Luke Cage,""Jessica Jones,""Iron Fist" and "Daredevil") have performed well with the streaming service's audience. 

Millar previously spent eight years as a writer at Marvel, where he developed the comic book story arcs that inspired the first "Avengers" movie, "Captain America: Civil War," and "Logan."

SEE ALSO: YouTube beat out Netflix and Amazon to snag 'The Karate Kid' TV series sequel

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here’s what celebrities would look like with symmetrical faces

Romantic comedies have been a staple in the Hollywood machine for as long as movies have been around. But the 1980s and 1990s was the genre’s golden era, as the likes of Rob Reiner (“When Harry Met Sally…”), Garry Marshall (“Overboard,” “Pretty Woman”), and Nora Ephron (“Sleepless in Seattle,” “You’ve Got Mail”) elevated the movies into emotional tear-jerkers that were perfect for date nights.

For those decades, the titles were solid box office moneymakers for the studios, and went on to become cash cows on DVD and cable (where many still play to this day).

And though the early 2000s saw new classics come into the fold like "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" and "Hitch," around 2010 romantic comedies at the studio level drastically slowed down. In recent years, they’ve all but stopped. Since 2010, rom-coms went from nine major studio wide releases (a high water mark for the genre in the 2000s) to zero released at the studio level in 2017.

The last rom-com to earn over $100 million domestically at the box office was 2015's "Trainwreck." 

What happened?

A big factor is the studios realized that comic book movies were where the money was (especially overseas, where rom-coms rarely ever make coin). The major studios only had three wide releases of comic book adaptations in 2010. Since then, there’s been a steady stream of six, sometimes eight (in 2014) comic book movies released by the studios yearly. By the end of 2017, five will have hit the multiplex.

But all the blame can’t be pointed at Iron Man and Wonder Woman. The studios also lost touch with how young people today connect romantically.

“Less people are getting married, or getting married young now than they were years ago, and the whole dating culture with the apps and online, there’s a subtle sea change in what that audience is looking at in terms of romantic comedy entertainment,” Billy Mernit, author of “Writing the Romantic Comedy” and story analyst at Universal, told Business Insider. “So you have the studios still making the same formulaic romantic comedy where it's a courtship story that leads to marriage, and it usually revolves around a young professional woman who gets a leg up by getting involved with an alpha male. The target audience, the twentysomethings and above, just no longer related to that kind of a movie and yet the studios seemed to be tone deaf to that change.”

But romantic comedies haven’t gone away completely. They’ve been modernized at the independent film level and have found success there.

Over the years movies like 2014's "Obvious Child" and 2015's "Sleeping with Other People" have proven that rom-coms can delve into some dramatic waters while still cracking jokes about the dating scene.

One of the most talked about movies of 2017 is Judd Apatow-produced “The Big Sick.” Though it's a romantic comedy, what stands out is its unique multicultural love story between a Pakistani man (Kumail Nanjiani) and white woman (Zoe Kazan). And it manages to find laughs even though it revolves around the guy caring for the girl who is in a coma.

The buzz about the movie going into this year's Sundance led to Amazon buying it for $12 million. Lionsgate is doing the theatrical release, and the movie has grossed over $35 million worldwide to date (it was made for $5 million). 

"There is slowly a shift in perception on what a romantic comedy is," Mernit said. "The smart romantic comedy writer of 2017 is writing a script that they aren't calling a romantic comedy. They have to have a fresh angle."

Or perhaps the smart rom-com writer is headed to TV. As movies find success now with raunchy R-rated comedies like "Bad Moms" and "Girls Trip," Mernit pointed out TV is where you can find the rom-coms, whether its "The Mindy Project" or "Catastrophe."

"The Catch 22 of the industry right now is the fact that tentpoles supersede all other types of filmmaking," Jeff Bock, senior box office analyst at Exhibitor Relations, told Business Insider. "Truth is, the romantic comedy genre doesn’t seem to have too many maestros as it once did. The Nora Ephrons of the world have faded to black, and love and laughs seem to have gone the way of the sitcom, and into streaming content."

So even though occasionally we may see someone like Amy Schumer convince a studio to release a movie starring her in search for love, the rom-com of yesteryear is pretty much extinct.

"The golden era of a romantic comedy coming out every week, we're done with that," Mernit said. "But the romantic comedy genre will never die because whether it's lesbian lovers, a threesome, or a girlfriend in a coma, we are still interested in seeing those stories. I don't think that's ever going to go away."

SEE ALSO: Steven Soderbergh has a new plan to make Hollywood movies outside the control of big studios

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Ryan Seacrest reveals the one thing you should never say to a celebrity the first time you meet them