Channel: Movies
Mark channel Not-Safe-For-Work? cancel confirm NSFW Votes: (0 votes)
Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel.

Another quiet weekend at the box office as everyone stayed home to binge 'Stranger Things' (NFLX)


Jigsaw Brooke Palmer Linosgate final

  • "Jigsaw" won the weekend box office with an estimated $16 million.
  • It was another weak performance by the box office, as many were likely home watching "Stranger Things" on Netflix.
  • "Jigsaw" had the second-lowest opening of any movie in the "Saw" franchise.
  • The George Clooney-directed "Suburbicon" was given a D- CinemaScore.

With Halloween coming on Tuesday, Hollywood was hoping the resurgence of a classic scary movie franchise over the weekend would bring in business, but most found that Netflix had something better to offer.

Lionsgate dusted off its profitable "Saw" franchise with the release of "Jigsaw" over the weekend. It did its job and won the weekend, but only took in an estimated $16.25 million, according to Exhibitor Relations.

That's the second-lowest opening for the franchise, which in the early 2000s was averaging around $30 million opening weekend per-film. Only 2009's "Saw VI" ($14.1 million) had a lower opening weekend.

But with a $10 million production budget and bare-bones marketing, Lionsgate can't be too disappointed.

However, Hollywood in general has to look at this weekend and see it as just another indication that young people just aren't motivated to go to the movie theater week in, week out anymore.

Suburbicon ParamountWith the highly anticipated season 2 of "Stranger Things" made available on Netflix Friday, the show has been the dominant chatter on social media and clearly was what the country was excited to check out this Halloween weekend.

But perhaps the studios knew that and conceded.

The major studios' only had two offerings. Universal's coming home war movie "Thank You for Your Service," which despite being directed by the screenwriter of "American Sniper" and starring Miles Teller, only took in $3.7 million.

And Paramount suffered another major dud with the release of the George Clooney-directed, Matt Damon starrer, "Suburbicon." The studio has now come off the F CinemaScore grade its Darren Aronofsky thriller "mother!" received in September with "Suburbicon"getting a D- grade this month by the exit poll tracking company. The movie opened with $2.8 million.

But there's always next week. Marvel will come to the industry's rescue when it opens the anticipated "Thor: Ragnarok" on Friday.

SEE ALSO: I watched all of "Stranger Things" season 2 — and the best thing about it is it never tries to top season 1

DON'T MISS: How the screenwriter of 'American Sniper' convinced Steven Spielberg he was ready to direct

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The full 'Black Panther' trailer is here — and it's amazing

The 20 top-earning horror movies of all time


stephen king it

This fall, fervor for the latest take on Stephen King's "It" has pushed the film near the top of the highest-grossing horror films in history.

To find out where "It" sits on the worldwide list, we turned to Box Office Mojo for its international box office data on the highest-grossing horror movies.

With a late push around Halloween, "It" could soon be the top-earning film in the history of the genre, but it still has one classic to surpass in worldwide totals.

Here are the 20 highest-grossing horror films of all time: 

Note: We have not adjusted the grosses for inflation.

SEE ALSO: The 20 actors who have made the most money at the U.S. box office

20. The Ring (2002) — $249.3 million

19. "Get Out" (2017) — $252.4 million

18. "The Village" (2004) — $256.6 million

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Rose McGowan says Harvey Weinstein offered her $1 million in hush money, days before bombshell sexual misconduct allegations broke


rose mcgowan

  • Actress Rose McGowan told The New York Times she received a $1 million offer for her silence from someone close to Harvey Weinstein in late September.
  •  She said she declined the offer one day before a bombshell Times report set off a deluge of sexual harassment and assault allegations against Weinstein. 
  • McGowan has accused Weinstein of rape.


In September, days before a series of bombshell reports alleged sexual harassment and assault against Harvey Weinstein, actress Rose McGowan said someone close to the film mogul offered her $1 million in hush money, The New York Times reportsMcGowan is one of Weinstein's alleged sexual assault victims.

McGowan told the Times that the offer, presented to her through her lawyer, included signing a non-disclosure agreement.

She said she considered taking the offer and made an unsuccessful counter offer of $6 million, due to her depleted funds. Ultimately, she decided to decline the offer one day before The New York Times broke a story in which multiple women in Hollywood accused Weinstein of sexual harassment. 

"I figured I could probably have gotten him up to three," McGowan told the Times of her counter offer. "But I was like — ew, gross, you're disgusting, I don’t want your money, that would make me feel disgusting."

McGowan had reached a $100,000 settlement with Weinstein in 1997 over an incident in a hotel room, but she told the Times on Saturday that she learned over the summer that the agreement she signed had not included a confidentiality clause. 

On October 12, a week after the New York Times first reported allegations against Weinstein, McGowan tweeted that she was raped by "HW," and confirmed that the initials signified Harvey Weinstein. She had previously said that she was a survivor of rape and that her assault was perpetrated by an unnamed, powerful studio boss.

Since the first Times report, over 60 women have accused Weinstein of sexual harassment or assault, including multiple rape claims. 

SEE ALSO: 19 powerful men accused of sexual misconduct in the wake of Harvey Weinstein

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what Melissa Joan Hart — who played Clarissa and Sabrina the Teenage Witch — is doing today

Horror movies tap into a primal fear instinct in your brain


Pennywise It

  • Horror films can be so scary because they're able to bypass our knowledge that we're watching something and trigger a real fear reaction.
  • Neuroscientists have started studying people when they watch films, and filmmakers are consistently able to trigger similar emotional reactions in viewers, especially with scary movies.
  • As filmmakers get a better understanding of the science and technology improves, this effect will get even more powerful.

It's October, the perfect time for scaring yourself with a spooky film.

Some people adore the rush they get from watching a horror flick; others can't stand how filmmakers somehow worm their way into your consciousness, building up tension and then striking that moment of terror with a jump scare or with some creepy moment that seems to burn itself into your brain.

Using images and sound, the best horror directors are able to tap into a part of your brain that operates purely on instinct.

When you sit down to watch "It" or "The Ring," you know that the movie isn't real. And yet somehow, the best scary films put you on the edge of your seat, ready to jump — sometime actually eliciting a yelp or a gasp.

That's a powerful effect.

"Usually when we're watching something we've shut down the motor regions of the brain, and yet those stimuli [from a shocking scene] are so strong that they overcome the inhibition to the motor system," said Michael Grabowski, an associate professor of communication at Manhattan College and the editor of the textbook "Neuroscience and Media: New Understandings and Representations."

We jump or yell because a film bypasses our tranquilized state and taps into a primal instinct, which is to react immediately to protect ourselves and warn others — before taking time to process what scared us.

"The scream is a way to alert others in your social group and scare off attackers," said Grabowski.

These scary moments supersede our rational thought process that knows they aren't real.


Grabowski's background is in filmmaking, but his research now is focused on an emerging field called "neurocinematics," which focuses on the connection between the mind and the experience of cinema.

While filmmakers have been able to evoke emotional responses in viewers for more than a century, it's only now that modern neuroscience can show us what's happening in someone's brain.

This goes beyond horror, too. Think of the last time that you felt emotion while watching any film, whether you laughed or suddenly felt tears welling up in your eyes during "Inside Out." Despite knowing that what you're watching isn't real, you feel real emotion.

But as Uri Hasson, a researcher and professor who focuses on neuroscience and psychology at Princeton, discovered when conducting the study that first coined the term"neurocinematics," people watching something scary or suspenseful tend to have particularly similar responses in their brain.

For now, that insight is mostly helping us understand what that fear looks like in the brain. But some researchers think that modern filmmaking, with an updated understanding of neuroscience and psychology, is actually better able to tap into emotion than it used to be.

Vertigo, HitchcockAs Dutch media studies professor Patricia Pisters wrote in an essay for Aeon, "in contemporary thrillers, the spectator knows just as little as the characters, and is immediately drawn into the subjective emotional word of the protagonists. As spectators, we indeed experience the world increasingly 'inside out' and have direct access to the drama of the neural mechanisms of emotion. We are taken on a neuronal rollercoaster that will eventually give us the story."

In the future, said Grabowski, it's possible that filmmakers will be able to use even more precise insights to directly stimulate certain emotions, to control when their audiences jump and what they feel.

When you combine that with powerful technologies like virtual reality, something that makes it even harder for us to tell reality from fiction, the possibilities are fascinating and even a little scary. (If you have a Cardboard headset, check out the terrifying short film "Catatonic"— the future of interactive media is somewhat terrifying.)

It's like the dream of Alfred Hitchcock that Pisters cites in her essay, quoted from Donald Spoto's biography of the filmmaker.

"The audience is like a giant organ that you and I are playing," Hitchcock reportedly told scriptwriter Ernest Lehman. "At one moment we play this note, and get this reaction, and then we play that chord and they react. And someday we won't even have to make a movie — there'll be electrodes implanted in their brains, as we'll just press different buttons and they'll go 'oooh' and 'aaah' and we'll frighten them, and make them laugh. Won't that be wonderful?"

This story was originally published in 2016.

SEE ALSO: Technology is eroding our ability to understand what's real and what's just an illusion

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What a harvest moon actually is, and what makes tonight's so unusual

'Thor: Ragnarok' works because it leans into laughs and weird moments more than any other Marvel movie



  • This is the third Thor movie in the franchise and it's very different.
  • The laughs and weird moments are what you'll remember most.
  • But sadly Cate Blanchett as the villain is one-note and is often just doing a strange, Enchantress from “Suicide Squad” walk. (Come on, Marvel!)


Warning: Minor spoilers ahead.

It seems after two “Thor” movies, Marvel decided to do a huge pivot in tone for its third, and thank goodness it did.

Not to say that “Thor” (2011) and “Thor: The Dark World” (2013) aren’t good — they aren’t the best Marvel movies, but they are definitely watchable — but we all needed a change from the super-serious family drama surrounding the son of Odin.

Enter filmmaker Taika Waititi. Waititi has an outlandish style highlighted in his out-there indie films (“What We Do in the Shadows,” “Hunt for the Wilderpeople”), and he brought the perfect new feel to Thor.

ThorRagnarok4MarvelIf you’re a Marvel Cinematic Universe fanatic, you know that Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) have been out doing their own things since “Avengers: Age of Ultron” (2015), and didn’t appear in “Captain America: Civil War.” (In “Doctor Strange,” Thor appeared in the end credits.)

In “Ragnarok” (in theaters on Friday) we find out what they’ve been up to.

After a stint trying to track down the Infinity Stones, we find Thor on his way back to his home of Asgard, as word is that Ragnarok, a giant battle foretold to lead to the ultimate destruction of Asgard, is coming. He returns to find Loki (Tom Hiddleston) ruling the world disguised as their father Odin (Anthony Hopkins). Needing to warn his father about Ragnarok, Thor makes Loki take him to where he left their father. After a funny cameo by Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), the brothers find Odin, who is on the verge of death. He reveals that there is an even greater evil that’s to come, Hela (Cate Blanchett), the sister they never knew they had. Following a quick battle, Thor and Loki find themselves on the planet Sakaar where they meet a bunch of interesting characters, including Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson), Korg (voiced by Waititi), Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum), and Hulk, who has been on the planet for two years. They team up to head back to Asgard to take down Hela.

Sounds like a cut-and-dry Marvel movie, huh?

Well, along with the usual exposition, the movie is filled with deadpan jokes and is-this-scene-really-in-a-Marvel-movie moments. From Thor and Hulk sitting on a bed talking about their feelings, to Goldblum being his most Goldblum, “Ragnarok” is an enjoyable break from the more “serious” issues explored in the MCU.

ThorRagnarok3Marvel“Ragnarok” certainly isn't the first Marvel movie to be fun. All MCU titles have taken pride in having a playful mix of laughs and action (the “Guardians of the Galaxy” movies and "Spider-Man: Homecoming" are recent examples).

But what Waititi brings to “Ragnarok” is a step beyond that.

Every funny remark or action in “Ragnarok” is extended further, and what comes out of that is a playful tone that is a nice break to the mind-numbing violence.

It's also nice to see Hemsworth being allowed to show off his comic chops beyond just a line here or there in the previous two movies.

But that’s not to say the movie is perfect.

There are points when the momentum stops for (ugh) plot. Most of the movie is split up between Thor and his “Revengers” trying to get off Sakaar, and the evil things Hela is doing on Asgard. The shift to the action on Asgard is dull and by-the-numbers.

Sadly, Blanchett doesn’t help in this part of the movie. Like most superhero movie villains, Hela is bland and predictable. Blanchett has a few chances to get in on the fun, and throw out a witty line of two, but often she’s impaling things (or people) with the unlimited swords she can summon and doing a distracting Enchantress from “Suicide Squad” walk.

SEE ALSO: The director of "Thor: Ragnarok" says the movie is so unconventional Mark Ruffalo joked they'd both get fired

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what Melissa Joan Hart — who played Clarissa and Sabrina the Teenage Witch — is doing today

The 7 best horror movies of 2017, according to critics


stephen king it

This year in horror movies has seen a number of critically acclaimed films that were also hugely successful at the box office.

While "It" is on its way to becoming the highest grossing horror film of all time, Jordan Peele's "Get Out" became an instant hit and certified modern classic upon its release in April. 

To track which horror films of this year are worth watching, we turned to the reviews aggregator Rotten Tomatoes for its list of the most critically acclaimed "scary movies of 2017," ranked by their composite critical reception. We excluded any film that had less than 40 reviews to skew the list toward wider releases, and we used audience scores to break any ties. 

Here are the 7 best horror movies of 2017, according to critics:

Note: We've footnoted foreign films that were initially released in previous years but saw a North America release for the first time in 2017. 

SEE ALSO: The 20 top-earning horror movies of all time

7. "The Limehouse Golem"

Critic score: 77%

Audience score: 60%

Summary:"A series of murders has shaken the community to the point where people believe that only a legendary creature from dark times - the mythical so-called Golem - must be responsible."

What critics said:"This nasty little Victorian London horror film has more than a few blood-soaked charms of its own."— Chicago Sun-Times

Initial release: Sept. 2016; North American release: Sept. 2017. 

6. "It"

Critic score: 85%

Audience score: 86%

Summary: "A group of bullied kids band together when a shapeshifting demon, taking the appearance of a clown, begins hunting children."

What critics said: "This new 'It' has more on its mind, and gives more body and voice to [Stephen] King's ideas of childhood anxieties and the corrosive power of fear."— New York Magazine

5. "The Transfiguration"

Critic score: 86%

Audience score: 55%

Summary: "When troubled teen Milo, who has a fascination with vampire lore, meets the equally alienated Sophie, the two form a bond that begins to blur Milo's fantasy into reality."

What critics said: "Bold and brutal in shocking spurts, the indie horror drama from writer-director O'Shea is a startling debut that leaves a fresh mark on the genre while celebrating its forbears."— Los Angeles Times

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Chance the Rapper's secret horror movie now has a trailer — and it's really creepy


chance the rapper

  • A24's secret Chance the Rapper movie, "Slice," now has a teaser trailer. 
  • The movie will come out in 2018 with a cast that includes stars from "Stranger Things" and "Atlanta."


One year after A24 — the company behind the Oscar best-picture winner "Moonlight"— announced that it was making a secret movie with Chance the Rapper called "Slice," a teaser trailer for the project has been revealed. 

The horror movie surrounds the murder of a pizza delivery driver, and the mystery of who is behind it. The suspects range from drug dealers to a werewolf. 

The movie will star Chance and be directed by Austin Vesely, who has directed numerous Chance the Rapper music videos.

"Slice" will also star Joe Keery (Steve from "Stranger Things"), Zazie Beetz ("Atlanta,""Deadpool 2"), and Paul Scheer.

The movie opens in 2018. 

The first teaser doesn't show much footage, but certainly gives the vibe that "Slice" is going to be a creepy movie. 

Watch it below:

SEE ALSO: "Thor: Ragnarok" works because it leans into laughs and weird moments more than any other Marvel movie

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what Melissa Joan Hart — who played Clarissa and Sabrina the Teenage Witch — is doing today

People are calling for the Oscars to bar Casey Affleck over allegations of sexual harassment


casey affleck 2016 oscars

  • In 2010, two women sued Casey Affleck for sexual harassment in lawsuits that have since been settled.
  • People are asking the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences not to invite the actor to present at next year's Oscars ceremony.
  • The allegations are back in the spotlight after Harvey Weinstein was booted out of the Academy for allegedly sexually assaulting dozens of women.

Actor Casey Affleck settled two lawsuits accusing him of sexual harassment more than seven years ago. But in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal — where dozens of women have accused the mega-producer of sexual assault — allegations against Affleck have reemerged.

In 2010, Affleck was sued by two women who worked on the set of the film "I'm Still Here." They claimed Affleck crept into one of their beds, routinely demeaned them, and encouraged the movie's crew to harass them as well.

Now there is a petition circulating — with around 6,000 signatures as of writing — asking the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) not to invite Affleck back to 2018's Oscars, which will be held on March 4. And the voices on Twitter are even louder.

People don't want Affleck to attend the 2018 Oscars.

Affleck won the best actor award at the 2017 Oscars for his performance in "Manchester by the Sea." If Academy tradition holds, Affleck should present the best actress award at the 2018 Oscars.

Few people seem to want that.

And it wasn't just voices on Twitter. "Last Week Tonight" host John Oliver called out the Academy for keeping Affleck in the organization after it stripped Weinstein of his membership.

John Oliver last week tonight casey affleck

"The group that counts among its current members Roman Polanski, Bill Cosby, and Mel Gibson has found the one guy who treated women badly and kicked him out," Oliver sarcastically said on his show. "So congratulations, Hollywood! See you at the next Oscars where — and this is true — Casey Affleck will be presenting best actress."

INSIDER reached out to The Academy to see if it plans to invite Affleck to present at the 2018 Oscars, and had not heard back at the time of this post.

Affleck was accused of some wildly inappropriate behavior in the 2010 lawsuits.


Here's a quick refresher of the allegations in the 2010 lawsuits against Affleck, which were filed by Amanda White and Magdalena Gorka. White was a producer on the film "I'm Still Here," and Gorka was the director of photography. Affleck directed the film, which he made with Joaquin Phoenix.

Here are some of the things White and Gorka alleged in their lawsuits:

  • Affleck allegedly snuck into Gorka's bedroom while she was asleep and crawled into her bed, wearing only underwear and a T-shirt.
  • He allegedly asked a crew member to take off his pants so he could show White his penis, even after White objected.
  • He allegedly locked White out of her bedroom because he and Phoenix were in there with two women to have sex. (At the time, Affleck was married to Phoenix's sister, Summer, with two children. The couple separated in 2015.)
  • He frequently talked about his sexual exploits, White and Gorka alleged, and talked about the sexual exploits of other people that he said he witnessed.
  • He allegedly suggested Gorka should have sex with a camera assistant.
  • He allegedly suggested White and a male crew member have a child together.
  • He routinely encouraged the crew to harass Gorka, according to the lawsuit.
  • White also claimed that Affleck refused to pay her for any of her services on the film.

The lawsuits were filed in the summer of 2010 and settled in September of that year, before the release of "I'm Still Here."

But the allegations resurfaced in 2016 as Affleck gained Oscar buzz for his performance in "Manchester by the Sea."

Affleck apologized after he won an Oscar.

In an interview with the Boston Globe after winning his Oscar, Affleck said that everyone deserves to be treated with respect. Affleck said he was legally barred from commenting on the specifics of the lawsuits, a strategy commonly used to silence victims.

"I believe that any kind of mistreatment of anyone for any reason is unacceptable and abhorrent, and everyone deserves to be treated with respect in the workplace and anywhere else," Affleck said. "There’s really nothing I can do about it ... other than live my life the way I know I live it and to speak to what my own values are and how I try to live by them all the time."

brie larson casey affleck oscars

During the Oscar ceremony itself, the allegations against Affleck were still on people's minds.

Brie Larson, who presented the award to Affleck, kept her body language cold. She didn't clap after he took the statuette from her.

After the ceremony, she said her body language was intentional.

"I think that whatever it was that I did onstage kind of spoke for itself,"Larson told Vanity Fair. "I've said all that I need to say about that topic."

The Weinstein scandal appears to be a watershed moment for outing sexually inappropriate behavior in Hollywood and beyond.

The Weinstein scandal appears to have, at least for a moment, ushered in an era where sexually inappropriate behavior is no longer tolerated in Hollywood.

Weinstein himself has become a pariah, ousted from numerous movie industry organizations.

The scandal itself also led to the downfall of other powerful men in media accused of sexual misconduct, like director James Toback, editor Leon Wieseltier, photographer Terry Richardson, and actor Kevin Spacey. And it arrived amid scandals surrounding other media figures, like former Fox CEO Roger Ailes, Fox host Bill O'Reilly, reality TV host and current US president Donald Trump, and comedian Bill Cosby.

The Weinstein scandal even affected Ben Affleck, Casey's brother. His career took off with the movie "Good Will Hunting," produced by Weinstein. Following news of the allegations against Weinstein, a video from 2004 resurfaced, where Affleck appeared to fondle the breasts of a TV interviewer. (The journalist, Anne-Marie Losique, later defended him, saying the footage was "taken out of context.")

harvey weinstein serious


Casey Affleck has several forthcoming projects.

Since winning an Oscar, Affleck's career hasn't slowed down.

The actor starred in the acclaimed "A Ghost Story" earlier this year. He also directed and stars in the forthcoming survival drama "Light of My Life" and will act in the forthcoming prestige crime drama "Old Man and the Gun."

casey affleck accepting oscar academy award manchester by the sea

Affleck is also slated to star as Meriwether Lewis in the HBO miniseries "Lewis and Clark" and in "Stoner," a drama based on the beloved novel by John Williams.

It's a new environment in Hollywood, where fewer victims are afraid of speaking out against their alleged harassers, and where the industry wastes no time in cracking down on misconduct.

If the allegations against Casey Affleck are proven to be true — or if more allegations arise — then his career could be over. 

If you are a victim of sexual assault, you can visit RAINN or call its hotline at 1-800-656-4673 to receive confidential support from a trained staff member.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Everything we know about the mysterious SR-72 — Lockheed Martin's successor to the fastest plane ever

The 50 best movies of all time, according to critics


marlon brando the godfather

Many of the notable lists that rank the greatest movies of all time — like the American Film Institute's "100 Years ... 100 Movies" from 1998 — have enlisted thousands of movie-industry names to come up with a consensus on the well-established classics.

When film critics are the only factor taken into account for such a list, however, the results skew in unexpected directions.

To find out which films have been the most critically acclaimed in history, we turned to the reviews aggregator Metacritic for its ranking of the all-time greatest movies, which scores films by their composite critical reception. 

The resulting list includes modern masterpieces, like "Moonlight" and "Pan's Labyrinth," in contention with classics like "The Godfather."

Here are the 50 best movies of all time, according to the critics on Metacritic:

SEE ALSO: Netflix's 24 original drama series, ranked from worst to best

50. "Maborosi" (1994)

Critic score: 94/100

User score: N/A

Plot summary: "A young woman's husband apparently commits suicide without warning or reason, leaving behind his wife and infant."

49. "Carlos" (2010)

Critic score: 94/100

User score: 7.8/10

Plot summary: "The story of Venezuelan revolutionary Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, who founded a worldwide terrorist organization and raided the 1975 OPEC meeting."

48. "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" (2003)

Critic score: 94/100

User score: 9.1/10

Plot summary: "Gandalf and Aragorn lead the World of Men against Sauron's army to draw his gaze from Frodo and Sam as they approach Mount Doom with the One Ring."

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

The 7 best movies coming out in November that are worth your money to see in theaters


Call Me By Your Name Sundance Institute

Though there are more movies being released now than ever before in the business, less people are motivated to go to the theater to watch them. 

With so many movies available on streaming, and TV technology making your living room rival your neighborhood multiplex, there’s more than enough reason to just sit back and enjoy at home. 

But there’s still something special about going to the theater and experiencing a good movie on the big screen. 

Here we highlight seven titles coming to theaters in November that we think are worth you spending your hard-earned cash on. 

Note: Titles listed below as limited releases will likely expand to more cities throughout the month. 

SEE ALSO: The 5 best new shows of the fall that you have to watch, ranked

1. “Lady Bird” — November 3 (limited release)

Actress Greta Gerwig’s first solo directing effort is a semi-autobiographical, bittersweet look at her teenage years. Saoirse Ronan gives a perfect performance as Christine “Lady Bird” McPherson, a high school senior who can’t wait to escape her hometown of Sacramento, and the confines of Catholic school, and go off to college in New York. Through the year we journey with her on the highs and lows of teen life and her relationship with her mother (an Oscar-worthy performance by Laurie Metcalf).

There have been many great movies that have looked at teen life, and Gerwig has elevated the genre a beautiful balance of sincerity and deadpan comedy.

2. “Thor: Ragnarok” — November 3

The latest movie from Marvel Studios is a little different than the rest. Enlisting the talents of indie director Taika Waititi, the third movie in the Thor franchise focuses more on fun and the relationships of the characters than an impending doom (though there’s that, too). Chris Hemsworth has done great work playing Thor, but in this one you can just tell he finally was challenged to show off some of his acting skills.

3. “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” — November 10 (limited release)

It’s hard to mess up a movie that features Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson, and Sam Rockwell. But with the writing-directing of Martin McDonagh (“In Bruges”), these talents are given material that even elevates their games.

McDormand plays a mother who is fed up with the lack of progress the local police force has made in solving her daughter’s murder, so she decides to motivate them a little by posting three huge billboards that call out the sheriff (Harrelson) specifically for failing her. With a extremely dark comedic tone, the movie explores loss and redemption.

Oh, and Rockwell’s performance is really, really special.

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

These Halloween costumes won the internet this year


ratatouille halloween costume

  • These days, creative minds come up with Halloween costume ideas with the hope of going viral.
  • From Peter Pan and his shadow to a shirtless Leonardo DiCaprio with a water gun, here are the most viral costumes of 2017.


Dressing up to scare people is so outdated.

In 2017, people make costumes on Halloween because they want to go viral.

These are the costumes that were creative enough to achieve viral success on Twitter. Some of them also appeared in Reddit's Halloween costume contest. The best ones cleverly reference pop culture, are a creative take on a viral meme, are adorable, or simply take a ton of effort.

Here are the most viral Halloween costumes of 2017. 

A pair dressed up as Peter Pan... and his shadow.

One woman said she polled 100 people for "the most unnecessary Halloween costume in the history of the world." She went as their answer: sexy Steve Harvey.

This guy went as a meme about men.

A couple dressed up as Chucky and Chucky's Bride. Except one of them isn't quite right...

One kid went as his dad — including the snow cone and duros cart he operates.

His cousin apparently went as another street food vendor.

One group of friends pretended to be the family that went viral after a daughter gate-crashed her dad's BBC interview.

A woman dressed up as the thing that her exes were most afraid of. She tagged them all in her Instagram photo.

"I am pretty sure most of my exes thought it was funny,"she told INSIDER.

One couple parodied a scene from "Hell's Cafeteria," a parody of "Hell's Kitchen."

But contrary to whatever Gordon Ramsay thinks, even a rat can cook.

Some guy dressed up as a very specific viral photo of Leonardo DiCaprio running shirtless with a water gun.

Everyone's favorite characters from "Zootopia" are the sloths at the DMV. They made a killer Halloween costume.

And if you're going to do a "Moana" costume set, making a custom Tomatoa outfit is a whole new level.

Don't forget about the pun costumes. Change the Rapper was too easy.

This couple had an interesting take on Van Gogh's paintings.

One woman got creative with her red hair and went as orange soda.

Mr. Krabs is already a meme character, so why not combine it with the "One thicc bih" one as well?

An employee at the Philadelphia Inquirer came to work as the publication's paywall.

And here's a young woman who dressed up as a kneeling Colin Kaepernick.

One of the more regrettable costume choices may have been dressing up as Rufus, the naked mole rat from "Kim Possible."

Two friends nodded to their costume from last year, dressing up as red and white wine.

"Stranger Things" fans were deeply impressed by a man who dressed up as Eleven.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what losing weight does to your body and brain

Why Warner Bros. could be affected by the sexual misconduct allegations against Brett Ratner (TWX, T)


Brett Ratner Neilson Barnard Getty final

  • Brett Ratner is a partner in RatPac-Dune Entertainment.
  • The company has financed many Warner Bros. hits, including "Wonder Woman" and "It."
  • The industry is waiting to see if the Ratner sexual misconduct allegations will affect WB/RatPac-Dune.


In the wake of an LA Times story that went live on Wednesday, in which six women accused director-producer Brett Ratner of sexual misconduct, Warner Bros. now needs to do full damage control, while its parent company is close to being acquired by AT&T.   

Ratner not only has a first-look deal with the studio, but is also a partner in RatPac-Dune Entertainment, one of the biggest financiers of Warner Bros. titles, including recent releases "Wonder Woman" and "It." 

The $450 million deal in 2013 between WB and RatPac-Dune, which includes Ratner, Steven Mnuchin (who has since left to company to become US treasury secretary), and silent investors like the Koch brothers, has benefitted the studio over the years ("Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice,""Mad Max: Fury Road") — and especially this year. Along with "Wonder Woman," which was the second-highest grossing movie of the year domestically and the highest-grossing summer movie, RatPac-Dune also helped finance its potential awards contender "Dunkirk," directed by Christopher Nolan, and the fall's biggest hit so far, "It."

Wonder WomanThe company is also involved in Steven Spielberg's anticipated new movie coming out next year, "Ready Player One," which is also being released by Warner Bros.

Now the industry will wait and see whether these allegations toward Ratner will affect WB/RatPac in the same way the Weinstein Company suffered following the sexual assault and harassment allegations against its founder, Harvey Weinstein. In that case, movies stripped Weinstein's name from credits, and upcoming releases have scrambled to get out of deals with TWC. The company will not release any more movies the rest of 2017. 

A WB spokesperson told Business Insider, "We are aware of the allegations in the LA Times and are reviewing the situation." Business Insider contacted RatPac-Dune for comment but did not get an immediate response.

Warner Bros. is also a major chip in Time Warner being acquired by AT&T, a deal that is in a preliminary agreement with a pricetag of $85 billion.  

SEE ALSO: 19 powerful men accused of sexual misconduct in the wake of Harvey Weinstein

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch Adam Savage go undercover as Chewbacca at New York Comic Con

'Thor: Ragnarok' director explains why his hilarious 'flashback scenes' idea didn't make it in the movie


thor loki thor ragnarok

“Thor: Ragnarok” is filled with laugh-out-loud sequences, but its director Taika Waititi revealed one that ended up being spiked, even though he believes it was a great idea.

In the early talks with Marvel to make “Ragnarok,” Waititi had an idea to feature flashback scenes, particularly of Thor and his brother Loki tormenting each other as teens.

Waititi even highlighted it in the sizzle reel he created for Marvel by including a scene from the 1980s classic “Sixteen Candles” to show the kind of tone that he wanted for the flashbacks.

“It was in the first couple months of storylining,” Waititi told Business Insider. “We always wondered, could we put in these flashbacks and make them work? To me it still feels like a great idea.”

There’s one scene in “Ragnarok” (opening in theaters on Friday) where it definitely could have worked.

Thor (Chris Hemsworth) recounts how Loki (Tom Hiddleston) fantastically tried to kill him as a teen. The story gets a laugh the way it's told, but Waititi wanted to go a step further and actually shoot a 1980s-era flashback of the moment, including teenage versions of Thor and Loki.

The thinking by Waititi was the flashback would be another example of how un-Marvel “Ragnarok” is. But the idea never got off the ground.

“It was very hard to justify doing,” he said. “It would have felt like just this one-off little flashback and it needed more. It would have been funnier if it was this ongoing thing where we had more and more of those stories through the movie.”

Even though it would have been really fun to see teenage Thor and Loki going at each other, there’s still a lot in the movie that will make you laugh.

SEE ALSO: The director of "Thor: Ragnarok" says the movie is so unconventional Mark Ruffalo joked they'd both get fired

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what Melissa Joan Hart — who played Clarissa and Sabrina the Teenage Witch — is doing today

Disney's requirements for the new 'Star Wars' movie have angered some movie theaters (DIS)


Star Wars Tim Whitby Getty

  • Disney is requiring movie theaters that show "The Last Jedi" hand over 65% of ticket sale revenue, and play it in their largest auditoriums for at least four weeks.
  • Some small independent theaters are deciding not to show it.


When you are the king of the mountain, you can declare some unusual terms — and that's exactly what Disney is doing when it comes to releasing "Star Wars: The Last Jedi," some theater owners said. 

Even though Disney releases, including its "Star Wars" movies, have been a godsend to the movie theater business, which has seen a decrease in ticket sales over the last few years, some theater owners believe the requirements the studio is forcing on them to play "The Last Jedi" have gone too far. 

According to The Wall Street Journal, movie theaters can show "The Last Jedi" only if they agree that Disney gets 65% of ticket sale revenue, which is the largest cut a studio has ever asked from theaters. They also have to show the movie in their largest auditoriums for at least four weeks.

Ignoring these terms would lead to Disney charging the theater an additional 5% (so that means Disney would take 70% of sales).

For major multiplexes, these requirements aren't deal-breakers. But for small independent theaters, this could cripple their business. So some independently-owned theaters have decided not to play "The Last Jedi," according to The Wall Street Journal.

Most theaters send 55%-60% of ticket sales back to studios, depending on if the movie is a major blockbuster or not. 

Business Insider reached out to Disney for comment but did not get an immediate response.

SEE ALSO: The 50 best movies of all time, according to critics

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The latest 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' trailer is here and it looks epic

MoviePass hinted that changes could be coming to its popular $10-a-month service



  • New MoviePass terms of service say the company can change the number of times a member is eligible to watch movies per month at any time.
  • If a price change were to happen it would occur prior to a billing cycle.


As Hollywood continues to wait and see if MoviePass will be a viable business model, or just the latest movie fad, the service that allows you to watch one movie a day for $9.95 per month might be hinting that changes are coming.

MoviePass recently updated its terms of service, and CinemaBlend caught a specific tweak in the language (specifically in paragraph 2.4). 

"MoviePass reserves the right to change the rules of movie-going attendance and ticket availability to members in connection with the Service at anytime," the TOS states. "MoviePass reserves the right to change from time to time the number of eligible movies a member can see per month. MoviePass reserves the right to offer members a new price option if they exceed watching a certain amount of movies per month."

To some, this sounds like obvious language for MoviePass to add — if for any reason it comes across a user who abuses the service. However, others see it as the start of the company changing its too-good-to-be-true deal for movie lovers. Specifically concerning is the line about the number of movies a member can see per month.

"You have heard of 'Use it or lose it?' This sounds more like 'Use it too much and you might lose it,'" wrote CinemaBlend.

But you don't have to worry about being hit with a price change mid-month. According to the terms of service, "You will be notified of any price changes made to the terms of service prior to your next billing cycle, at which point you would have 14 days to opt-out of the Service and terminate your subscription."

MoviePass declined to comment.

SEE ALSO: Who was the dumbest, smartest, and most heroic in "Stranger Things" season 2

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Raw eggs are actually less nutritious than cooked eggs — here's why

A British town is going to burn a 36-foot effigy of Harvey Weinstein


Harvey Weinstein effigy

  • An effigy of Harvey Weinstein is set to burn at a bonfire in Edenbridge, England, on Saturday.
  • Each year, the town chooses one celebrity to burn alongside an effigy of the 17th-century militant Guy Fawkes.
  • The town's "Bonfire Society" said Weinstein was the "obvious choice," following the multitude of sexual harassment and assault allegations against him.


A British town plans to burn a 36-foot effigy of disgraced film executive Harvey Weinstein, following the multitude of sexual harassment and assault allegations made against him over the past month.

Each year, according to the Associated Press, the town of Edenbridge's "Bonfire Society" chooses one celebrity to scorch alongside an effigy of the 17th-century militant Guy Fawkes. 

Fueled by a dark, historical sarcasm, towns in Britain light bonfires and fireworks on November 5 to commemorate Fawkes' failed attempt to blow up Parliament in 1605.

On Saturday, Edenbridge will give the Fawkes treatment to Weinstein, whom the society described as an "obvious choice" to burn.

Weinstein's caricatured effigy finds the movie mogul in a bathrobe — in line with his reported wardrobe preference for alleged sexual misconduct — with a clapperboard that reads "Final Cut" covering his genitals. 

The Edenbridge society told the AP that while there is "nothing funny" about Weinstein's allegations, the bonfire event is meant to be a light-hearted affair. 

SEE ALSO: 23 powerful men accused of sexual misconduct in the wake of Harvey Weinstein

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The time of day you eat is just as important as what you eat — a nutritionist explains

Tyrese throws down ultimatum: If The Rock is in the next 'Fast and Furious' movie, he won't be


Tyrese Gibson Dwayne Johnson Getty

  • Tyrese Gibson said, in an Instagram post, that if Dwayne Johnson is in the ninth "Fast and Furious" movie, he will not return to the franchise.
  • Gibson blamed the one-year delay of the movie on Johnson agreeing the make a spinoff movie to be released next year.
  • Gibson said he needs the work because he's "almost broke swimming in legal fees."


Tyrese Gibson's feud with Dwayne Johnson has entered a new realm: The Ultimatum. 

On Wednesday, Gibson, who plays Roman in the "Fast and Furious" franchise, took to his Instagram and continued his mostly one-sided feud with costar Johnson, who plays Hobbs in the movie, by stating that if The Rock returns for the ninth "Fast" movie, he will not return as Roman. 

"You mess with family and my daughter's survival I mess with yours......... close your eyes dude you’re a 'Clown,'" Gibson wrote in his post. 

Here it is:

Gibson has taken to Instagram numerous times since news broke that the ninth movie in Universal's lucrative "Fast" franchise won't be coming until 2020. The actor-musician has put the blame on Johnson, believing that the movie was pushed so a spinoff movie starring Johnson's Hobbs character, and Jason Statham's Shaw, could be released in 2019.

Another Instagram post by Gibson on Wednesday went a little deeper into why Gibson is so angry at Johnson — or the situation Johnson has put him in.

"I was never mad at The Rock - I was just mad that he was 'pitched' an idea privately and said yes to it without thinking of what I’m dealing with personally," Gibson wrote. "I’m almost broke paying legal fees." 

Gibson continued: "Going home to your daughter every night.... it’s was 60 days before I seen my baby..... and all I asked you to do 'privately' was NOT accept a role that would deeply effect us all....... You are simply NOT the people’s champ..... you are a selfish champ.....," he wrote. "I’m almost broke swimming in legal fees, CAA tried but couldn’t book me anything cause my ex wife killed my reputation so no one wants to hire me."

Gibson is currently in a custody battle with his ex-wife for his 10-year-old daughter, Shayla.

Here's that post:

Father God I see you and I finally get it............... Life is confusing at times when you’re moving along and your “role” or “purpose” isn’t revealed to you.......... Proudly I’m a Capricorn born Dec 30th 1978 Dr King was taken away from us April 4th 1968 and when I found out Dr King WALKED the streets of WATTS during the WATTS RIOTS it changed my life forever!!!!!! The King family it’s random but I just wanna thank you for love and thank you for your sacrifice and thank you for what your mother and “FATHER” selflessly did for us all........... #VoltronStudiosHollywood coming soon....... I repeat coming soon.... Ok? Take care guys......God bless you..... ps Lee Daniels dude you’re a fellow Capricorn please listen to me don’t you EVER wear your facial hairs like that ever again Ok? And FYI I was never mad at The Rock - I was just mad that he was “pitched” an idea privately and said yes to it without thinking of what I’m dealing with personally I’m almost broke paying legal fees and is doing what we committed to doing for the #FastFans and #FastFamily cause the fast is tradition it’s not just another Movie Fast was created to COUNTER images of racism to counter that WE ARE NOT ONE RACE...... So the rock how does it feel bro?.... going home to your daughter every night.... it’s was 60 days before I seen my baby..... and all I asked you to do “privately” was NOT accept a role that would deeply effect us all....... You are simply NOT the people’s champ..... you are a selfish champ..... I’m almost broke swimming in legal fees CAA tried but couldn’t book me anything cause my ex wife killed my reputation so no one wants to hire me.. It’s not about I know I know I know right?? Says the man on the Forbes list.. Make sure you kiss your 2 daughters when you get home I wish I could but I can’t afford to fight for my baby anymore so they’re likely going to take her away....... Thanks Dewayne see you guys in 2020 and I will not delete this post cause the TRUTH of selfish people in Hollywood needs to be mentioned.................. to this day Dewayne has NOT called me back as u see me crying every 3 hours over my baby know #ShaylaRocks

A post shared by TYRESE (@tyrese) on Nov 1, 2017 at 6:55am PDT on

It sounds like Gibson is in a tough spot, but butting heads with one of Hollywood's most bankable stars at the moment might not be the right play.

SEE ALSO: The 50 best movies of all time, according to critics

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 13 details you might have missed in 'Stranger Things' season 2

17 '80s movie references you might have missed on 'Stranger Things' season 2


Dustin and Mike and Lucas Stranger Things season two

Warning: Spoilers ahead for "Stranger Things" season two.

Set in October 1984, Netflix's newest season of "Stranger Things" was packed with the '80s nostalgia fans have come to expect from the series. Though we've already rounded up the in-universe details you might have missed, now it's time to look at all the meta ways cocreators The Duffer Brothers paid homage to their favorite '80s icons. 

Keep reading for a look at all the best movie references on "Stranger Things 2."

SEE ALSO: 361,000 Americans binge-watched the entire second season of Netflix's 'Stranger Things' in the first 24 hours, Nielsen says

The opening scene of "Stranger Things 2" takes place at the Palace Arcade.

The Duffer Brothers lifted that arcade name from the 1983 movie "WarGames."

"WarGames" is a sci-fi film centered around the Cold War and the idea of a computer game getting conflated with a nuclear weapons control system. 

In an interview with Vulture, Ross Duffer said this was his favorite 80s reference of the opening "Madmax" episode.

"WarGames" was also one of the VHS tapes Jonathan rented for movie night at the Byers' house.

Both "WarGames" and "Twilight Zone: The Movie" (1983) fit with the general themes of "Stranger Things 2," focusing on the public's fear of a Russian threat as well as the supernatural elements of the Upside Down. 

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

9 movies that were notoriously difficult to make


Steven Spielberg Jaws

Getting any movie made is a minor miracle. While the finished film only takes anywhere from 90-120 minutes to enjoy, years of hard work went into making that become a reality.

It begins with the script, obviously, but production can be its own special nightmare, and then various decisions have to be made during post-production to put the film together just right. That’s not to mention the fact that, depending on how the film was produced or financed, you may have 5, 7, or 10 different people “in charge,” each demanding their own tweaks, adjustments, and changes.

So yeah, movie making is hard.

But some films are particularly challenging to put together, and their “making of” stories could result in compelling movies in and of themselves. Below, we go through nine different films that were notoriously difficult to get made. From fired actors to budget overruns to PCP doses (seriously), these nine films were really tough to create, but they all reached the finish line—for better or worse.

SEE ALSO: The 50 best movies of all time, according to critics

"Alien 3"

Alien 3 was not only David Fincher’s first feature film, it’s also one of the most important films in his entire career. Fincher’s experience making Alien 3 colored how he approached his work from then onward, resulting in a confident attitude that allowed him to craft some truly groundbreaking films within the studio system while refusing to compromise his vision.

Fincher was not the first director on Alien 3. Vincent Ward, the filmmaker behind The Navigator: A Medieval Odyssey, was the original director attached. His story took place on a wood-centric planet populated by Luddite-like monks, where Ripley’s escape pod crash lands and she becomes the only woman in the monastery. Development began, sets were starting to be assembled, but when Fox executives asked Ward to make significant changes, he balked and left the movie.

So Walter Hill and David Giler were brought on to refine the script while Fincher was tasked with replacing Ward as the director. The basic outline of Ward’s story remained, but the wood planet was turned into an ore refinery and the monks were turned into prisoners. Filming began, but two weeks in cinematographer Jordan Cronenweth—Fincher’s closest ally on the production team—had to depart the project due to Parkinson’s disease, so he was replaced by Alex Thomson.

As production wore on, Fincher started butting heads with producers and studio executives more and more. Not only had he inhabited someone else’s film that had already left the station, but the script was never finished. The notoriously meticulous Fincher was trying to get his shots and craft his film while the script was simultaneously being written (and rewritten) and studio executives and producers were looking over his shoulder, trying to make the film more in line with the previous two Alien movies.

The battles continued into post-production, during which reshoots were ordered and arguments heatedly revolved around the ending. Fincher would oversee the editing, but when he left the room, the film’s editor would recall that producers and/or studio executives would come in and force him to undo or ignore Fincher’s instructions.

By the end of the project Fincher had little control left and all but disavowed the movie. The film was released to negative reviews and little fanfare, and years later Fincher would say, “No one hated it more than me; to this day, no one hates it more than me.”

"The Bourne Identity"

The Bourne Identity is proof positive that difficulties during production, and even creative differences with the director, doesn’t always equal a bad movie. The spy thriller marked Go and Swingers filmmaker Doug Liman’s biggest film to date and was Matt Damon’s first foray with an “action hero” role, but the two had no interest in making your standard actioner. Indeed, Liman’s almost documentary-like approach to The Bourne Identity adds a visceral quality to the 2002 film that your standard, clean-shaven actioners lacked at that time.

But once filming commenced, Liman and Universal Pictures started butting heads. The studio was unhappy with the film’s pacing and smaller scale action set pieces, and Tony Gilroy and Liman were rewriting the script constantly, causing the film’s release date to push from September 2001 to June 2002. Things were so hectic that Matt Damon later revealed that producer Frank Marshall ended up directing some scenes himself, because it was all hands on deck. A major point of contention was the third act, specifically the sequence set at the farmhouse. Universal wanted it cut, but Liman and Damon argued it was crucial to understanding Bourne as a character, so it went through numerous rewrites and reworks to make both Liman and the studio happy.

All involved assumed the film would be a flop, but of course it wasn’t—it was a huge hit and spawned one of the best action franchises of the 21st century. Still, Liman’s relationship with the franchise and studio was broken, and he was not asked to return to direct the sequel. But his method of figuring out the film on the fly has become standard procedure for A Doug Liman Film, making some anxious but resulting in great movies like The Bourne Identity and recently Edge of Tomorrow.


Steven Spielberg is notorious for working quickly, knowing exactly what he wants, and sometimes releasing two masterpieces in the same calendar year. But the filmmaker was almost broken before his career got off the ground. At 26 years old, Spielberg lobbied for the gig to direct an adaptation of Peter Benchley’s novel Jaws. Having just worked with producers Richard D. Zanuck and David Brown on The Sugarland Express, they opted to take a shot on the up-and-comer, and thus one of the most troubled productions in history began.

Spielberg actually tried to leave Jaws just after signing his contract for fear of becoming typecast after Duel, but Universal exercised its right to veto Spielberg’s planned move over to 20th Century Fox’s Lucky Lady. Unhappy with Benchley’s own adaptation of the novel, Spielberg enlisted a slew of different writers to take a crack at the script, making the characters more likeable and adding more humor. Carl Gottleib was originally contracted to just do some punch-ups, but eventually became the primary screenwriter.

Filming began on a budget of $4 million that quickly ballooned up to $9 million. The reason? One of the biggest issues facing the production was Spielberg’s decision to shoot the film on actual open water rather than in a tank. The filmmaker didn’t realize how difficult this would be, nor was he expecting the mechanical shark—the title character in the film—to be mostly unusable. Indeed the shark, which was nicknamed Bruce, was originally intended to show up much earlier in the film. But since the prop didn’t work, Spielberg had to create suspense and terror in other ways. One fix was the yellow barrels, which ended up being one of the film’s most memorable sequences.

Shooting at sea caused delay after delay, as cast and crew members got sick, cameras malfunctioned, and resetting shots took hours. Spielberg went so far as to estimate that out of a 12-hour workday on Jaws, only an average of four hours were spent actually filming something. Originally scheduled for 55 days, principal photography droned on for 159 days in total, extremely over budget and over schedule.

Spielberg was convinced he’d never work again. That the studio was furious with him. That he had ruined the movie. Instead, he ended up creating one of the best films of all time and singlehandedly crafting the first “summer blockbuster.” All’s well that ends well.

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

'Wonder Woman' is now the highest-grossing superhero origin movie of all time (TWX)


Wonder Woman on battle field

  • "Wonder Woman" is now the highest-grossing superhero origin movie of all time, with $821.749 million worldwide.
  • It surpasses longtime chart-topper, 2002's "Spider-Man."


Finally some good news for Warner Bros. 

The studio has cause to celebrate, as its hit summer movie "Wonder Woman" has passed 2002's "Spider-Man" to become the highest-grossing superhero origin movie of all time. 

The movie based on the legendary DC Comic, starring Gal Gadot in the title role and directed by Patty Jenkins, edged passed Sam Rami's Sony blockbuster earlier this week, having now earned a worldwide total of $821.749 million. "Spider-Man" has a worldwide total of $821.708 million. This is obviously not counting inflation, in which case Spidey would still be ahead, coming in at over $1 billion.

spider-man, spidermanBut that shouldn't diminish the achievement by "Wonder Woman." The movie business is very different today from how it was 15 years ago. In the early 2000s, most of us had no idea how much streaming services would change our moviegoing appetites.

And we should also tip our caps to Warner Bros., which used the long-tail approach with "Wonder Woman." The studio kept it in theaters worldwide long after most superhero movie runs (partly to keep it in awards season talk), and that's a major reason why the movie is now number one.

This news couldn't come at a better time for the studio. Earlier this week, it was busy having to navigate the sexual misconduct allegations against director-producer Brett Ratner, who is a partner at RatPac-Dune Entertainment, a company that has financed many of the studio's recent successes, including "Wonder Woman," the fall hit movie "It," and Oscar favorite "Dunkirk." 

Ratner has since announced that he's stepping away from his involvement in all Warner Bros. projects.

SEE ALSO: The directors behind "The Girlfriend Experience" explain their radical approach to season 2

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch Adam Savage go undercover as Chewbacca at New York Comic Con