Forrest Gump was the highest-grossing movie of 1994 – it made $677 million worldwide, though only made $46,282 in Indian theaters. The movie still holds the top spot for a summer drama release and received high-critical praise. Forrest Gump was nominated for 13 Oscars and won six for Best Picture, Best Actor for Tom Hanks, Best Director for Robert Zemeckis, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing and Best Visual Effects.
“Today I would’ve had 7 years sober,” the singer wrote. In July 2018, news broke Lovato had suffered from an apparent overdose. The next month, she announced she was taking a step back from social media to heal and focus on her recovery. Lovato returned to Instagram in November 2018 with an important message about voting in the midterm elections, and in January 2019 she celebrated six months of sobriety.
“I don’t regret going out because I needed to make those mistakes but I must never forget that’s exactly what they were: mistakes,” Lovato continued on Instagram this afternoon, in reference to what happened over the summer. “Grateful that AA/NA never shuts the door on you no matter how many times you have to start your time over. I didn’t lose 6 years; I’ll always have that experience but now I just get to add to that time with a new journey and time count.”
She ended her Instagram Story with a message for people who are also struggling with addiction. “If you’ve relapsed and are afraid to get help again, just know it’s possible to take that step towards recovery,” she wrote. “If you’re alive today, you can make it back. You’re worth it.”
See Demi Lovato‘s posts for yourself, below:
The speculation surrounding Lovato’s relapse has been nonstop. In December 2018, she attempted to shut down the chatter by tweeting (and later deleting), “Someday I’ll tell the world what exactly happened, why it happened, and what my life is like today…but until I’m ready to share that with people, please stop prying and making up shit that you know nothing about. I still need space and time to heal.”
The Kree-Skrull War is a huge storyline within Marvel Comics universe, and now that conflict exists within the Marvel Cinematic Universe as well. Captain Marvel showed the Earth-born Carol Danvers joining this war originally fighting for the Kree empire, but then later aiding the shapeshifting Skrulls, as they were depicted much more sympathetically than they usually are on the printed page. Carol’s defection marked a major turning point in the MCU’s Kree-Skrull War, but according to Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige, it didn’t necessarily mark its conclusion. Speaking about introducing the Skrulls in Captain Marvel, Feige said:
Given the commercial success of Captain Marvel and the many positive reviews it’s received, it’s a good bet that Marvel will give the green light to Captain Marvel 2 eventually. While Kevin Feige’s above comment doesn’t confirm whether or not the Kree-Skrull War is still going in the present day, the conflict obviously played a huge role in Carol Danvers’ origins, and her actions might not have spelled the end of this bloodshed. We’ll have to wait on more official confirmation, but evidently Captain Marvel 2 will explore the Kree-Skrull War further, either directly or through the fallout.
Kevin Feige also elaborated on why it was decided to feature the Skrulls in Captain Marvel, saying the following in the Captain Marvel Official Movie Special (via Comicbook.com):
He’s absolutely right. The Skrulls were introduced in 1962’s Fantastic Four #2, and while various members of this species frequently fight Marvel’s First Family, the Skrulls as whole evolved into a threat against all the heroes of the Marvel Comics universe, particularly in the Secret Invasion storyline. That said, in sharp contrast to their usual depiction in the comics, Captain Marvel positioned the Skrulls, who were advertised as the movie’s main villains, as the victims in the Kree-Skrull War, with the Kree destroying their homeworld and intent on wiping out all of these shapeshifters.
Carol Danvers, who had spent years believing she was Kree and fighting for Starforce as Vers, eventually learned the truth from Talos and discovered how her mentor, Dr. Wendy Lawson, a.k.a. Mar-Vell, had defected from the Kree empire to help the Skrulls find a new home. After her powers fully awakened, Carol sent Yon-Rogg and the rest of the Kree operatives who had come to Earth packing, and she left to help the Skrulls find a new planet to live on. We have no idea yet if Captain Marvel 2 will be set in the 23-year gap between Captain Marvel and Avengers: Endgame, or if it will be set post-Endgame, but either way, this particular narrative isn’t over.
Forgive me Father for I have sinned. I’ve broken the biggest beauty rule in the book—one that has been drilled into my head since I was a fledgling beauty addict stealing my mom’s fashion magazines. I never wear sunscreen (pause for shock and horror). I know I’m supposed to wear it everyday, but my reality is closer to once every few months, when I know I’m going to be out in the sun for an extended amount of time. I’ve heard it said that if you’re not wearing sun protection, the rest of your skin care is essentially useless, but I still can’t bring myself to change my ways.
My aversion to sunscreen comes down to two major factors, the first being that I am simply very lazy. As someone who’s chronically running 15 minutes behind at all times, my morning skin care routine has to be as quick as possible. Adding a sunscreen and then giving it time to sink in before moving on to my makeup frankly just takes too long.
The second factor is the majority of sunscreens don’t work for me. I’ve experimented with texture, brands, mineral and physical forms, and hadn’t found the right fit. They either pilled up, were too matte or too shiny, or disrupted my makeup. Most sunscreens also break my out or irritate my sensitive eyes, and I was starting to think SPF just wasn’t for me. Sure, I’d be wrinkly later on, and not wearing sunscreen isn’t doing any favors for my hyperpigmentation, but at least I don’t have to deal with all the drama now.
I’d dabbled in moisturizers with SPF (as opposed to layering a separate sunscreen over my moisturizer), but I found most were too low in SPF to really make a difference, and I was too married to my favorite moisturizer to make the swap. Time was on my side though, and right as I ran out of my beloved Embryolisse the Supergoop Superscreen Daily Moisturizer SPF 40 arrived at my desk.
The Superscreen is a daily moisturizer with SPF 40. It comes in a very Instagrammable pot and has a bouncy, whipped texture that I can only describe as pudding-like. There’s a light floral fragrance with a hint of Play-Doh that I actually kind of like.
I’d tried Supergoop before and had unfortunately broken out shortly after, but I was sucked in by Instagram hype yet again and decided to give the Superscreen a try. I’m pleased to report not only did I not break out, but my skin looked amazing. It soaks right in, and my skin feels immediately plump and bouncy, which could be attributed to the formula’s inclusion of blue-green algae, an ingredient with nourishing benefits and antioxidants. The cream is rich enough to hydrate my dry skin and leave a pretty glow, but doesn’t leave an oily residue. And most importantly, it creates a perfect canvas for makeup, with no flashback or pilling.
The formula also contains Cerium, an element that protects from blue light damage. The jury is still out on if blue light has an affect our skin, and it personally feels a little gimmicky to me, but it’s nice to know I’ll be protected if it does turn out to be dangerous. The other thing to note is that this is a chemical sunscreen with avobenzone, homosalate, and octisalate as the active sun protection ingredients. According to a new FDA proposal, there are only two guaranteed safe ingredients to use, Zinc Oxide and Titanium Dioxide, because they sit on top of your skin. These actives are currently being reviewed for human safety by the FDA, but haven’t been deemed unsafe. They are reef safe though and won’t cause damage to the oceans.
I’ve turned a new leaf, and since I tried Superscreen about two months ago, I’ve worn sunscreen everyday—my all-time record. And that’s nothing to scoff at.
In a surprising bombshell, it has been reported that James Gunn will be returning to direct Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 after being fired from the project last summer. This is great news for the film and Marvel fans, but is it bad news for Suicide Squad 2, the DC film Gunn signed on to write and direct after his firing? Thankfully, no, James Gunn’s return to Guardians 3 will not impact The Suicide Squad.
In the report from Deadline about James Gunn’s reinstatement as director for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, it is revealed that James Gunn will still write and direct The Suicide Squad as planned. This complicates the time table for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, but Marvel Studios has agreed to wait to begin production on the threequel until after James Gunn finishes The Suicide Squad for Warner Bros. and DC.
This was all made possible because Marvel never even met with or considered other filmmakers to replace James Gunn. The studio seemingly knew that there was nobody else who could do the job and infuse the same personality James Gunn did that would appease the fans and the cast. So Marvel was willing to wait for him to do Suicide Squad 2 first.
It would have been easy for DC fans and those excited to see what James Gunn could do with The Suicide Squad to get worried upon reading headlines about his Marvel return, but those fears are unfounded. Essentially, James Gunn’s return to Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 means nothing for The Suicide Squad other than that we’ll be getting two James Gunn comic book movies, in two different universes, back to back.
This is one of those rare situations that is pretty much a win-win all around. James Gunn gets a second chance and those who felt he was unfairly fired see that situation righted, DC still gets a great filmmaker to come in and put his stamp on the universe with some exciting characters in The Suicide Squad, and we get James Gunn’s Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.
Sure, we aren’t getting Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 as soon as we once expected, but up until today it seemed like the best we could hope for was that James Gunn’s script would be used. Now James Gunn will return to both write and direct. Dave Bautista and the rest of the cast have to be ecstatic.
As long as we’ve had love, we’ve had to play its game. Think of playing it as purchasing a lottery ticket: You hope for the best, but chances are, it might not turn out well. What happens when you lose so much that you fear to play again? Teyana Taylor answers this question in her new video for “Issues/Hold On.” In the new clip, which dropped Friday (March 15), we follow her apparent marriage to A$AP Rocky in what appears to be the 1970s. It’s a beautiful, cinematic affair — directed by Teyana “Spike Lee” Taylor herself, as the credits reveal — that shows the path to victory in love that we can all learn from. Be persistent.
“Issues/Hold On” is a myriad of afros, platform shoes, and those gigantic records that go to outdated players we no longer know the names of. Cupid has stricken Taylor and Rocky, who peck each other on the lips like nervous fifth graders and smash buttercream icing on each other’s faces while the blinding whites of their teeth shine through the mess. This is the honeymoon phase where losing isn’t on both players minds, just love and how it will stretch eternally. But things change soon enough. Rocky is revealed to be a little flirtatious, and Taylor flips out on him.
Things eventually return back to normal. Taylor’s upset, but she gets over it. Maybe she’s thinking too hard about laughs. After all, laughs are preferable to frowns. But there’s always the threat of infidelity, that another woman will find the warmth in Rocky’s smile that attracted Taylor to him in the first place. Eventually, Rocky is caught chatting a lady up again, and Taylor gets indignant nearly immediately.
As the song plays in the background of this film’s most vulnerable moments, we hear Taylor’s thoughts. She’s hesitant, fiercely protective of what’s hers. As the video’s final scene shows, though, it can all be forgiven — sometimes it just takes a little sex.
Taylor’s K.T.S.E. dropped last year; she released the visual for “Gonna Love Me” with Wu-Tang Clan’s Ghostface Killah, Method Man, and Raekwon in December and dropped “WTP” in January. Check out the streamy, nostalgic new video above.
With Daniel Craig’s tenure as James Bond soon coming to an end with the 2020 release of Bond 25, Hollywood has been having an ongoing conversation about who should replace the actor as the next 007. As movies are seeing success enlisting female heroines for popular franchises, some have even challenged that the character should be taken on by a woman next. Don’t count former Bond Girl and wife to Craig, Eva Green in on this idea. Here’s what she said:
Eva Green’s recent comments to Vanity Fair aren’t in bias to her husband’s famous role; she has a powerful point here. James Bond is inherently a male character with a long history as such. To gender-swap the character isn’t necessarily a great move for inclusivity or female empowerment, because it ignores much of the roots of Ian Fleming’s literary character and has women potentially playing second fiddle to Bond’s legacy– instead of finding their own place in the action genre.
Just as women may certainly be enraged to learn Wonder Woman, who is a character deeply rooted in the feminine was going to be played by a man next, people may look similarly on characters such as James Bond. Though I’d argue this certainly doesn’t apply to all gender-swap situations. The Ocean’s franchise isn’t particularly rooted in having to be “male”, so changing it up with a female-led team Ocean’s Eight was a fun way for the series to continue.
Eva Green moved on to discuss the iconic “Bond Girl”, a character that the actress is proud to be a part of evolving with her portrayal of Vesper in 2006’s Casino Royale. She is passionate about the females depicted alongside James Bond to continue developing away from the “bimbos” of the past and becoming “intelligent and sassy and fascinating” onscreen characters.
While Green will not star in Bond 25, the filmmakers are reportedly eyeing Lupita Nyong’o to be the next Bond Girl in the upcoming film helmed by Cary Fukunaga. Daniel Craig’s James Bond will return to theaters on April 8, 2020.
It’s a very exciting time in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Phase Three has been on a roll, as every single installment in the massive franchise has been a critical and box office success. With Captain Marvel officially in theaters, anticipation for Avengers: Endgame is at an all-time high, as the massive blockbuster will arrive in a month. But today brought some unexpected (but still exciting) news: Disney has reinstated James Gunn as the director of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.
James Gunn was fired by Disney in July, when offensive tweets from a decade resurfaced. While Gunn apologized for jokes that were in poor taste, he was removed from the Guardians franchise, and production for the Vol. 3 was put on indefinite hold. But now the Guardians of the Galaxy visionary will return to complete his trilogy as planned, and recently posted a note of thanks on Twitter. It read:
It seems James Gunn is truly grateful to be back behind the camera for the upcoming Guardians threequel. As such, he’s taking the time to thank the fans, as well as the House of Mouse for welcoming him back to the fan favorite franchise. In short: we are Groot.
James Gunn’s recent tweet of thanks is a truly full circle moment, since it was his social media account that caused massive controversy, and eventually led to his firing. But it seems that his apology and fan outcry did some good, given his reinstation as the director of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.
It was unclear if the threequel was ever going to be produced, as the task of finding someone to replace James Gunn seemed impossible. Gunn’s point of view is very much apart of the bloodline of the franchise, as his taste of music, dance moves, and sense of humor were all incorporated into the first two movies. While some fans suggested who might take the job, many believed that there was only one person capable of finishing the trilogy: James Gunn himself.
The Guardians of the Galaxy cast hasn’t commented on James Gunn returning to the franchise, but it seems only a matter of time. While they all penned a letter supporting Gunn in the wake of his departure, Dave Bautista was arguably his biggest defender. In fact, Bautista maintained he wouldn’t appear as Drax unless (at the very least) Gunn’s original draft for the Vol. 3 was used.
When big news hits, as you might imagine, things at CinemaBlend go a little bonkers. Everybody goes slightly crazy as we all try to make sure we have all our bases covered. Things went crazy like that last summer when the word came down that Disney had dropped James Gunn from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, and they went that way again just now as the news came out that he’s back. While this news is huge for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the fact is that Gunn’s involvement with these characters went beyond two, and now one day, three movies. James Gunn’s return is going to be very good news for Disney’s theme park business as well, because the Guardians of the Galaxy are a big part of that.
James Gunn was directly involved in the development of Guardians of the Galaxy – Mission: Breakout, the first marvel themed attraction at a Disney theme park. In fact, he directed the video sequences of the ride while he was in production on Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.
Right now, a major new E-ticket attraction is under construction at Epcot at Walt Disney World. It’s a Guardians of the Galaxy themed roller coaster. While most of the details of the experience itself have yet to be confirmed, beyond some cool technical stuff, we fully expect the MCU versions of these characters to feature prominently. The initial indication was that James Gunn and the Guardians actors would film whatever sequences were required for the attraction while Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 was in production. When Gunn left the job and the movie was put on indefinite hold, it was far from clear what that meant for the theme park attraction.
The ride has something of a hard deadline. While no official opening date has been given, the ride has been promised to be open in time for Walt Disney World‘s 50th anniversary, which will be in 2021.
While we have no idea at this point when Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 will be going into production, we do know that it will happen sometime after The Suicide Squad aka Suicide Squad 2 is completed. With that film looking at a summer 2021 release date, Gunn might not even get around to Guardians 3 until the end of 2021 or so.
Still, I would fully expect James Gunn to spearhead whatever production is necessary for the new Epcot attraction. This means that Gunn’s first work back with Disney might not actually be Guardians of the Galaxy 3, it could actually be whatever theme park work is required. It likely can’t wait until the movie goes into full production and will probably be handled separately.
The Guardians of the Galaxy are an important part of Disney’s plans for Marvel, as the team is one of the few parts of the Marvel Cinematic Universe that Disney can use freely due to old agreements Marvel made with Universal theme parks before the company was purchased by Disney. At the same time, no part of the MCU is as closely tied to a single creator as the Guardians are to James Gunn.
One of the nice things about Guardians of the Galaxy – Mission: Breakout is that the structure of the experience allows for new content to be filmed and added to the ride over time. This is now that much more likely happen now that Guardians 3 is back on and Gunn is back involved. This will give the attraction the ability to stay relevant for a longer period of time, and keep guests going back.
What the future holds for the Guardians of the Galaxy at Disney Parks is far from clear, but there is now a brighter future to be sure.
Last week, Disney CEO Bob Iger told a room full of Disney stockholders that the plan for the upcoming Disney+ streaming service was to have Disney’s entire motion picture library available shortly after launch. Clearly, this is an exciting concept for both Disney fans, as well as movie fans in general, as Disney has a library stretching back decades. However, it seems highly unlikely that literally every Disney movie will ever actually be on the service, as there’s at least one movie that will almost certainly be missing: 1946’s Song of the South.
Whether or not you’ve ever actually seen the movie, you likely know at least something of the controversy that surrounds it. Last released in theaters in 1986, the film hasn’t been shown publicly since then, and has never received a VHS or DVD release in North America. When Bob Iger was asked about the film during the same Disney stockholders’ meeting in 2010, he called the film “fairly offensive” and has said we should not expect to see the movie released any time soon, if ever.
Song of the South focuses on a young boy named Johnny who has traveled with his parents from Atlanta to his grandmother’s plantation in an undisclosed Southern location. Upon arriving there, Johnny learns his father is turning around and going home. It seems Johnny parents will be separating for a while, perhaps something to do with his father’s controversial editorship of a newspaper. It’s all very vague and never explained.
Johnny attempts to run away back to his father, but he’s stopped by the kindly Uncle Remus, an elderly black man (James Baskett), who tells him a story about Br’er Rabbit and a time he tried running away from his problems, and only found greater ones. Johnny decides to stay, if only to hear more stories from Uncle Remus.
Johnny makes a friend in a young girl his age, Jenny, but runs afoul of her bully older brothers. Every time Johnny finds himself in trouble, Uncle Remus is there with a story that relates to the issue and helps Johnny through it.
While the stories of Br’er Rabbit, Br’er Fox, and Br’er Bear are animated, Song of the South is still very much a live action movie. The animated sequences cover no more than about 20 minutes, broken up in three segments, of the 90-minute film. Song of the South has been the subject of controversy since it was released back in 1946, and that controversy has only increased since then.
The first problem with Song of the South is that it never makes it entirely clear what the relationship is between the black and white characters in the film. While the movie is supposed to be set during the era of Reconstruction, it never comes out and simply says this. Many audiences have viewed the relationship between the black and white characters as being that of slaves and masters, and there’s little evidence to discount this view. The closest the movie comes is when, 10 minutes before the film is over, Uncle Remus decides to leave the plantation. The fact he’s allowed to do so is the only indication he’s not a slave.
Regardless, the relationship between black and white characters is portrayed as ideal. Everybody is happy, even though one group here is clearly rich and the other is clearly poor.
Beyond that, Song of the South deals with the use of racist dialects, as well as the use of the trope that would later become known as the “magical negro.” Even the animated sequences aren’t free of controversy. One of Br’er Fox’s plans to capture Br’er Rabbit involves the use of a golem made of black tar which the fox refers to as a …tar baby. Yeah, this thing can get rough.
On the other side of the controversy, however, is a movie that has a lot going for it. It’s the second feature film in Disney history to see human actors performing with animated characters in the same frame, and it’s done to far greater effect than it was in The Three Caballeros.
The film is a two-time Oscar winner. The song “Zip-A-Dee-Do-Dah” won the award for Best Original Song and James Baskett was given an honorary Oscar for his performance as Uncle Remus.
Since its final theatrical release in 1986, Disney has largely tried to forget that Song of the South exists. While the popular Splash Mountain attraction found at Disneyland and Walt Disney World takes its inspiration and music from the film, the ride focuses exclusively on the exploits of Br’er Rabbit and other animal characters. Uncle Remus does not appear and he is not mentioned.
Today, there are two minds about what to do with Song of the South. Many believe the film should simply stay buried. It’s a product of an era and attitudes about race that we all understand today were wrong. Bringing the film back would only remind people of something we should forget.
Others, however, would like to focus on the film’s positives, such as the popular music and the revolutionary animation. Many do feel there’s value to the film historically and that it should exist. Perhaps Song of the South could be brought back, maybe on a disc that also includes additional material like documentaries and retrospectives that put the film in context and accept the film has elements worthy of criticism, but uses them as a teaching moment.
Of course, if that does happen, then audiences will learn something else that’s important about Song of the South. It’s not very good. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it isn’t actually a great film. The animated segments really are fun (tar babies notwithstanding), but the live-action sequences just draw on and on and you get really bored waiting for the cartoons to come back on.
I’m not going to pretend like I know what the right decision to make here is. However, I’m also not sure that Disney knows either. Clearly, the studio’s plan is to leave Song of the South in the vault for now. Maybe a compelling argument will be made to bring it back one day, but I don’t expect that day will come this year. When Disney+ brings every other Disney movie right to your TV, from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs to The Cat From Outer Space and more, don’t expect Br’er Rabbit or Uncle Remus to come with them.