Shut In (French: Oppression) is a 2016 psychological horror thriller film directed by Farren Blackburn, written by Christina Hodson, and starring Naomi Watts, Oliver Platt, Charlie Heaton, Jacob Tremblay, David Cubitt, and Clémentine Poidatz.
In March 2015, EuropaCorp set the film for a February 19, 2016, release. On December 15, 2015, the release date was pushed back to June 17, 2016. In February 2016, the release date was pushed back again to September 9, 2016. In May 2016, the release date was pushed back again to November 11, 2016.
We don't know much about the film yet other than the fact that Hemsworth has been filming in Australia with Loki actor Tom Hiddleston and that the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) will be in the film. Now, it sounds like Doctor Strange may pop up in the movie, too.
The premise for the film is that two passengers are awakened 90 years early on a spacecraft transporting thousands of people to a distant colony planet. But the marketing presents a different version of the film than is seen in theaters. Sony has cleverly hidden the ethical quandary at the core of this movie from the trailers: The malfunction on the spaceliner has not woken up two passengers, but one. The rest of this article contains spoilers; you have been warned.
It's not as if it's an accidental oversight of the film, where we, through some cultural blindness, have failed to see the appalling nature of our hero's actions. It is the subject of the film. And I think that making a movie that leaves people room to argue about what they would have done, what they could have forgiven, what they can understand or fail to understand, I think that's great. I think that's good storytelling. What I don't believe the movie does is endorse or exonerate anyone. The movie looks, evenhandedly, at the dilemma everybody was in. I think putting good people in impossible circumstances makes for fascinating storytelling.
I believe they should have found a way to explore this troubled relationship and this really f***ed up situation to its full conclusion instead of taking this story to a disastrous action-filled climax. The third act of this film is a complete mess and sidesteps the real problem introduced in this story.
There aren't a lot of big differences until the ending. Gus, the character played by Laurence Fishburne in the film, has a different ending in the final film. Instead of passing away, after giving Jim and Aurora the information they need to hopefully fix the ship, Gus decides to take his own life. Too ill to help, Gus would rather go out on his own two feet and lets himself fall into the vacuum of space through the airlock. Not a huge change.
Jim and Aurora ultimately decide they do love one another, and Jim brings Aurora for a walk on the outside of the ship (something that happens earlier in the final film). That's the ending for them, but not the ending of the movie. Like the theatrical version of the film, the story cuts to eighty years later as the Starliner approaches the new colony. But in the script, the ship is actually landing on Homestead II, and we see the scene from the perspective of the colonists gathering to watch the new citizens arrive. The doors open and... Children of all ages and adults in smaller numbers exit.
The concept of outer space is inherently complicated. In a movie like Ad Astra, the rules of space are constantly questioned. And in law-shattering classics such as 2001: A Space Odyssey and Interstellar, those rules are replaced altogether. One element does tend to bind space movies together, though: time. Whether it be a film about astronauts plunging themselves into uncharted areas of the cosmos or an expedition to the moon, one thing is for sure: the laws of time function differently in space.
Ricky Ruszin is a Features Writer for Collider, focusing on film and TV. He is also a horror and suspense novelist, having earned his BA degree in English Language and Literature from Stevenson University. When he's not watching or writing about movies and TV, he enjoys reading, traveling, and seeking out the world's tallest and fastest roller coasters. He lives in Baltimore, MD, where he can be found quoting Seinfeld from the couch and eating way too many donuts.
Ultimately, the Roots remake gets a lot of things right, providing four episodes of riveting entertainment. In particular, the brilliant third installment is in many ways better than anything in the original (it could stand apart as a movie on its own). Yet if this updating intrigued you, I encourage revisiting the 1977 version (coming out this week in a new Blu-ray edition). Though flawed, it more fully develops its characters, and because it relies less on adrenaline-pumping action sequences, more realistically depicts the tragedies and triumphs of the enslaved.
Cell is a movie released in the year 2016 starring John Cusack, Samuel L Jackson and Isabelle Furhman in the lead roles. The movie is directed by Tod Williams and is the film is based on a novel of the same name by Stephen King. The ending of the film has often left the viewers baffled but here is an explanation about the ending of the film, read on.
Upon digging further into the details presented within the film, the facts not only point away from The Blair Witch as the killer, they actually zero in on the filmmakers themselves... the ones who went missing back in 1994. There are a handful of theories as to who could have murdered these three individuals, with culprits ranging from the obvious Blair Witch herself to the documentary's cameraman Josh Leonard as the primary suspect. There are even a few details that point to Josh working with the documentary's sound guy Mike (potentially under the control of The Blair Witch) to lure in their mutual friend Heather. Did The Blair Witch do it? Did Josh do it? Did Josh and Mike do it together? That's what we're going to discuss, but in order to do that, we need to look at the mythology and consider what's happening at the end of the movie.
Deloitte Global predicts that the value of movie theater admissions in the US and Canada will fall by about three percent in 2016, to about $10.6 billion, with about 1.3 billion tickets sold. It is impossible to forecast beyond that with any precision: box office is so dependent on the slate of movies released. Since 2007, the trend has been for the five highest-grossing five films to generate over 40 percent of the box office, which accounts for most of the year-on-year volatility.
Spending on making movies should assume flat-to-down theatrical revenues, but with an ever-increasing focus on franchises and sequels. Seven of the top 10 movies in 2015 were in this category, and the expected outlook for 2016 is for continued dominance. Sequels and franchises tend to be lower risk, and also enjoy better international success than standalone films. As of late 2015, Hollywood had 157 movie sequels in the works.
Deloitte Global predicts that the value of movie theater admissions in the US and Canada will fall by about three percent in 2016, to about $10.6 billion, with about 1.3 billion tickets sold. It is impossible to forecast beyond that with any precision: box office is so dependent on the slate of movies released. Between 1996 and 2015, the annual box office revenue change is nearly random, although it has never gone up by more than 10 percent or fallen by more than six percent and the number of tickets sold has never gone up by more than 12 percent or fallen by more than six percent. Given that, we expect average annual revenue growth in the near-term to be about one percent, but within a range of plus or minus 10 percent, and the number of tickets sold to decline about one percent per year. Box office dollars are likely to grow, but at a minimal pace, and are actually likely to decline (also at a minimal pace) if inflation is taken into account.
The annual movie box office is driven heavily by the fortunes of the top five blockbusters. The popularity of these films accounts for most of the year-on-year volatility. Since 2007, the trend has been for the five highest-grossing films to generate over 40 percent of the box office (see Figure 1). In 2014 the top five fared poorly and the box office fell five percent. Last year was better, up a forecast eight percent. 2016 may surprise, but at time of writing one industry forecast is for a slightly weaker slate of blockbusters, and therefore a decline, although not as bad as 2014.
It seems likely that the greater ease and accessibility of legal and illegal movie streaming or downloading has had an effect on movie box offices. One estimate of the cost of piracy to the US studios was $6.1 billion a year. What was a growth industry to 2002 is now marked by annual fluctuations around a slow decline. And although the dollar value of admissions has been relatively stable, the decline in terms of tickets is steeper: compared to a 0.8 percent decline in constant dollars for 2002-2015, the number of tickets sold has declined about twice as quickly at 1.5 percent annually.
Importantly, the stability of movie admissions is not being driven by older audiences, in the way that TV viewing is, where younger viewers watch about half as many hours per day as people aged 65 or over. The average North American aged 2 or over attended just under four movies per year in 2015, while the average 12-24 year old went to 6.3 movies. Yes, they are consuming movies on YouTube, iTunes application program, Netflix and illegal streaming/download sites, but they continue to over-index on cinema-going as well, citing the ability to socialize with friends and the big screen experience.
Bottom lineSpending on making movies should assume flat-to-down theatrical revenues, but with an ever-increasing focus on franchises and sequels. Seven of the top 10 movies in 2015 were in this category, and the expected outlook for 2016 is for continued dominance. Sequels and franchises tend to be lower risk, and also enjoy better international success than standalone films. As of late 2015, Hollywood had 157 movie sequels in the works. 2b1af7f3a8