TV & Beyond on 2025-07-28 18:45:00

TV & Beyond on 2025-07-28 18:45:00

Jame Gumb (Ted Levine), whose gender identity is tactlessly framed through an extremely damaging lens — a glaring flaw that still haunts the film’s glowing legacy more than 30 years since its release. The rest, however, is a compelling exploration of trauma and its manifestations throughout life, culminating in Clarice Starling’s (Jodie Foster) rattled utterance of the fact that the lambs haven’t stopped screaming.

Beyond its enduring pop culture references to fava beans and a nice Chianti, “The Silence of the Lambs” spotlighted one of the most fascinating fictional characters to exist within the psychological thriller genre. Anthony Hopkins’ brief, yet riveting turn as Dr. Hannibal Lecter helped cement the character’s legacy, promptly spawning one sequel (2001’s “Hannibal”) and two prequels (“Red Dragon” and “Hannibal Rising”) to further capitalize on the “Lambs” legacy. Fast-forward to 2013, NBC’s “Hannibal” stunned the world with a deliciously twisted, unapologetically psychosexual take on Thomas Harris’ source material, with special agent Will Graham given the chance to shine like never before. 

It seemed that the world couldn’t get enough of Hannibal Lecter and his many iterations onscreen, and the only memorable story centering Clarice was sadly confined to the beloved 1991 film that started it all. That was until CBS’ “Clarice” was promoted as a follow-up to “The Silence of the Lambs,” promising to deliver the goods when it came to the vast complexities confined within its titular protagonist. Unfortunately, “Clarice” failed even before everyone could come to terms with its existence.

The canceled Clarice series was doomed to fail from the start

In the CBS show, we follow FBI agent Clarice (Rebecca Breeds) a year after the events of 2001’s “Hannibal.” Due to her prior involvement in the Buffalo Bill case, Clarice has to deal with constant media scrutiny, along with the morbid fascination of strangers/colleagues who mythologize and second-guess her at the same time. Tabloid magazines have run wild with speculations about her relationship with Hannibal, adding to the huge pile of rumors that have obfuscated the truth about who Clarice Starling truly is.

In reality, Clarice is not doing too well, as she is seen crashing on a fellow agent’s couch while mostly surviving on soda and candy. This is worse than a depressive stupor: once again, the lambs have started screaming, but this time, they take the form of the numerous victims she couldn’t help save. Just when you think this guilt will consume her, Clarice is put on a case that does little to heal the trauma she has experienced so far.

The problem with this premise lies solely in its shoddy execution. There’s some merit in exploring the damaging aftereffects of a rookie FBI agent’s first high-profile case, but “Clarice” relies a bit too much on “The Silence of the Lambs” to justify its existence. The first three episodes alone are half-hearted rehashes of what happens in the film, recontextualized through watered-down anecdotes and jokes that do not land. Breeds’ Starling isn’t the problem here, as her characterization is somewhat faithful to Harris’ novels, but her complex interiority is conveyed in such heavy-handed ways that any nuance is lost halfway through. Instead of having us infer or read between the lines, we repeatedly told that Clarice’s male colleagues are jealous of her reputation, and that she is bogged down by the blatant workplace misogyny that plagues her everywhere she goes.

The glaring lack of Hannibal is yet another drawback, although I genuinely believe that a taut, well-written story centering Clarice doesn’t need Hannibal to work or make its mark. Unfortunately, good writing isn’t one of the show’s strong suits, so “Clarice” unfortunately exists under the looming shadow of Hannibal’s absence, while having the misfortune of being unfavorably compared to NBC’s “Hannibal.” As expected, “Clarice” was canceled after a disappointing first season, bringing the complicated legacy of Clarice Starling to a grinding halt, at least for now.

TV & Beyond on 2025-07-28 18:30:00

TV & Beyond on 2025-07-28 18:30:00

plus a fourth one that was never released) that have failed to really make an impact or properly capture what makes the original characters fun — even if the 2005 film is not that bad!

Now, Marvel Studios hopes the fourth time is the charm, and it seems to be working. “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is a vastly different take than the last three movies, and also different from any recent Marvel movie. Though it chooses style over substance, the style is so distinct and unique that it makes this a fascinating superhero movie. The retro-futuristic aesthetic and the stunning (award-worthy) production design create a world unlike any we’ve seen in the last 20 years. Plus, the focus on fun, hope, and family makes for a film that, as /Film’s Witney Seibold described in his review, “balances the team’s necessary, wimpy corniness with astonishing spatial adventures, emerging as one of the better superhero films of the year.”

Still, as many good ideas as “First Steps” has, it is still not the best “Fantastic Four” movie we’ve ever seen. That’s because the most perfect representation of the Fantastic Four already happened in a movie over 20 years ago, and it wasn’t even made by Marvel.

That’s right: The best “Fantastic Four” movie is still Pixar’s “The Incredibles.”

Two superhero families

It’s been 21 years since “The Incredibles,” but it remains one of the best American animated movies of the 21st century. A big gamble for Pixar at the time, it was the company’s first movie entirely about humans and its first movie that came from an animator who hadn’t started out at the studio. “The Incredibles” is not just a, well, incredibly good animated movie, but also an incredibly good superhero movie. It oozes style without losing its substance, paying homage to the Golden Age of comics with an exquisite late ’60s, early ’70s aesthetic. It paid off big time, and saved the box office by becoming the biggest original superhero movie.

When “The Incredibles” first came out, many critics and audiences pointed out how similar it seemed to a Fantastic Four story, and the comparison pop up again juxtaposed against “First Steps.” Beyond the fact that both movies are about a family first and superheroes second, the fact that they have very similar powers is noticeable. Mr. Fantastic is basically a male Elastigirl, The Thing is just Mr. Incredible but made of rock, Sue Storm’s powers are similar to Violet’s, and (this will be important in a bit) Reed and Sue’s son, Franklin, is baby Jack-Jack.

Both movies have a retro-futuristic look, being set in alternate versions of the 1960s full of wonder and cool technology. And they both have an in medias res opening with a montage showing the history of their respective universes, showcasing the heroes’ feats through news footage. This helps establish the movies’ worlds and makes them feel full of history and detail. Both films also feature interrogations of the place of superheroes in society, with “The Incredibles” being set after the government decided not to pay for the property damage caused by heroes anymore and forced them into hiding, while “First Steps” is set in a world clearly made better by the work of the Fantastic Four. (Both also feature a mole man villain.)

But possibly the biggest similarity is how both movies feature an all-powerful creature that becomes a key part of the story’s climax: a baby.

One superpowered baby

A significant part of the story of “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” has to do with Reed (Pedro Pascal) and Sue’s (Vanessa Kirby) son, Franklin. Even before the child is born, he is being targeted by Galactus (Ralph Ineson), the Devourer of Worlds. Galactus believes the child has immense cosmic powers, perhaps as great as his, and is willing to let Earth survive if the Fantastic Four deliver the child to him to become his successor. By the end of the film, when Sue sacrifices herself to push Galactus into a portal that sends him far away, she is quite literally brought back to life via Franklin’s powers.

In the comics, Franklin Richards is considered one of the most powerful beings in the universe (and in one continuity, he becomes Galactus), even capable of creating entire new universes. He is the Marvel equivalent of Akira from “Akira.”

Though not exactly as powerful, baby Jack-Jack from “The Incredibles” serves a similar narrative function in the climax of the movie when we discover that the seemingly only normal member of the Parr family is actually its most powerful. After defeating the Omnidroid, Syndrome attempts to kidnap Jack-Jack to raise him as his sidekick, but he is killed after the baby develops every single power you can think of and kicks Syndrome’s ass. “The Incredibles II” doubles down on this by giving the baby even more powers, making for one adorable yet very dangerous toddler.

Even after 20 years, “The Incredibles” remains a stellar piece of superhero cinema and the best “Fantastic Four” movie that doesn’t feature the Human Torch (though Jack-Jack does have Johnny’s powers).

TV & Beyond on 2025-07-28 18:00:00

TV & Beyond on 2025-07-28 18:00:00

But could that be where “Starfleet Academy” comes in?

The upcoming “Star Trek” series isn’t due to arrive until 2026, but we’ve now received our first official look at it thanks to a new trailer released during the 2025 San Diego Comic Con … and it sure seems to be all about the idea of how to carry on the Starfleet torch. Set concurrently with the final season(s) of “Discovery,” in the distant future of the 32nd Century, “Starfleet Academy” focuses on humanity’s attempts to rebuild the flagship organization and train the next generation of space-faring officers. But that’s not the only aspect that caught our eye.

[embedded content]

We can expect plenty of connections to “Discovery,” largely in the form of returning characters Sylvia Tilly (Mary Wiseman) and Jett Reno (Tig Notaro), but the footage also includes several overt references to other “Trek” shows of yore. The appearance of a much more rugged-looking Robert Picardo as the holographic Doctor from “Voyager” is a nice touch, but it appears that the new series will also reach even further into the past and pay homage to one of the best and most beloved characters of all: Avery Brooks’ Benjamin Sisko. Like “Deep Space Nine” itself, this feels like a big swing and bold choice to showcase in a trailer … and, given the ambiguous ending surrounding the former Captain and Emissary, we’re hoping this amounts to more than just a simple tease.

Starfleet Academy isn’t the first time Sisko’s fate has been addressed in Star Trek before

Few individuals in “Star Trek” have cast a longer shadow than Benjamin Sisko, the reluctant leader who went on to play a massive role in winning the Dominion War and ultimately became a quasi-religious figure to the local population of Bajor as their Emissary of the Prophets. The finale of “Deep Space Nine” ended with the beloved captain seemingly dying in a blaze of glory … though, in actuality, he was ushered away to the otherworldly “Celestial Temple” as a reward for fulfilling his spiritual purpose. Ever since, what actually happened to Sisko has remained a topic of great interest — both among fans and, as it turns out, in-universe among the characters of the “Star Trek” franchise as well.

The “Starfleet Academy” trailer includes one tantalizing shot where young cadet Sam (Kerrice Brooks) gazes in reverence at what looks like a museum installment dedicated to the good Captain. “Did he die in the fire caves of Bajor?” and “Did he live on in the Celestial Temple?” are two potential questions asked rhetorically on the plaque, offering up no easy answers to what’s been hanging over the head of the property since “Deep Space Nine” ended back in 1999. Could the series be setting up an actual resolution to Sisko’s fate? Could this be a sneaky way to make a backdoor sequel to the show, much in the same way the brilliant “Star Trek” documentary “What We Leave Behind” suggested?

That’s extremely doubtful, but this marks the first time the franchise has attempted to address this loose plot thread … canonically, at least. A handful of non-canon novels sought to provide an answer to this, most prominently the book “Unity” that came as part of a “Deep Space Nine” relaunch series to mark the show’s 10th anniversary. The recent comic book series “Godshock” also revolves around the return of Sisko and even has him teaming up with an assortment of “Trek” characters like Beverly Crusher, Tom Paris, Data, and more. For now, we’ll have to wait and see what (if anything) “Starfleet Academy” does to explore this topic when it arrives on Paramount+ sometime in early 2026.

TV & Beyond on 2025-07-28 17:45:00

TV & Beyond on 2025-07-28 17:45:00

the second season of “Severance,” Mark (Adam Scott) has arrived at a special cabin room that presents him with a strange and rare opportunity. While inside the cabin room, Mark is his “innie,” that is, he only has memories of working inside the bleakly corporate basement of Lumon. He has no memories of his life outside of Lumon. Then, when he steps through the door out to the balcony, Mark reverts to being his “outie,” that is, he only has memories of his ordinary life and can’t remember anything that occurs inside the walls of Lumon. Although Mark is merely swapping back and forth between two sets of memories, the bifurcation has led Lumon employees to think of themselves as two different people. 

Outie Mark, by that point in the series, has discovered that his presumed-dead wife Gemma (Dichen Lachman) is actually alive and being held captive inside a Lumon sub-basement. To free her, though, Outie Mark must convince Innie Mark to help. Innie Mark, as one might suspect, is reluctant. Because he has no memories of Gemma, he has little at stake in rescuing her. Also, Innie Mark has developed feelings for his co-worker Helly (Britt Lower), and leaving Lumon would essentially end his life.

Thanks to the balcony at the cabin, Mark’s two halves can communicate. Outie Mark records a message on a camcorder while sitting on the balcony, and then steps inside, where Innie Mark takes control and watches the message. Innie Mark then records his rebuttal and steps outside, where Outie Mark watches. It’s the easiest way for Mark to talk to Mark. 

 Scott spoke with EW recently, and he described that scene as immensely weird. He found that, while rehearsing the scene and nailing the technical aspects of playing two characters, Scott would have to pause to note that “Severance” is a very strange program. 

Adam Scott more or less shot the Innie Mark/Outie Mark scene live

Scott, show creator Dan Erickson, and episode director Ben Stiller all had a plan on how they were going to shoot the Innie Mark/Outie Mark scene, but they found that they had to abandon that plan very quickly. When Adam Scott received the script for the episode, he got a camcorder and recorded himself performing both halves of the scene in his apartment. The idea was to use the apartment-shot footage on set, giving Scott and the editors something to react to and time the scene around. The apartment-shot scenes would then be replaced, in post, by on-set footage.

But, because of the nature of “Severance,” the scene was rewritten on the fly. The rewrites rendered Scott’s home-recorded footage useless. Eventually, Scott and Stiller merely shot the final draft of the script using a camcorder on set to record live footage. The shooting of the scene played out more or less the same way as the scene itself. Scott figured filming the scene would be a weird actorly experience, but the surreality of everything hit him hard. As he put it:

“I think that part of what I was thinking about, at least at the beginning of the scene when they first start talking to each other and looking at each other on these screens, was just how weird that would be, and just to take some time at the top to marvel at how f***ing weird this is. Ben felt the same way, so it was nice to have a beat of that in there. Because sometimes in science fiction, you are going with the reality of the story — the reality of the world — and you forget to take a moment for people to react, like, a person. Like, “Holy s***, can you believe this is happening?”

The real Adam Scott began to lose memories of what the outside world was like, it seems. Which is wholly fitting for “Severance.”

TV & Beyond on 2025-07-28 17:30:00

TV & Beyond on 2025-07-28 17:30:00

by | Jul 28, 2025 | TV & Beyond Articles

horror movies are a great way for up-and-coming actors to get a foothold in the film industry. That’s primarily thanks to the horror boom of the 1980s, giving opportunities to numerous thespians who went on to become A-list actors; folks like Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, Meg Ryan, and others. Yet the notion of horror giving a first chance to future stars is not relegated to the last 40-odd years. Sure, horror’s reputability certainly wavered during the classic Hollywood years, meaning that studio horror films weren’t as prolific as Westerns were, and thus many more young actors found themselves riding a horse more often than running around a spooky castle. Yet horror’s always been popular, and during the 1950s, the studios began to get excited about a new gimmick which would briefly revitalize the genre: 3D.

1953’s “House of Wax” is, in retrospect, a bit of a milestone movie in several respects. The film is an adaptation of Charles S. Belden’s 1932 short story “The Wax Works,” which had been previously made into a movie by Michael Curtiz in 1933, entitled “Mystery of the Wax Museum.” (That version was also a gimmick movie, being one of the few movies shot and presented in two-color Technicolor.) So, since “House of Wax” is effectively a remake, director Andre de Toth decided to give the movie some extra spice by choosing to shoot it in 3D, using Milton Gunzburg’s Natural Vision 3D system, which had made a splash in United Artists’ “Bwana Devil” the year prior.

On top of that, de Toth cast Vincent Price in the leading role of the mad Professor Henry Jarrod, rescuing the actor from a slump. Price’s performance in “House of Wax” helped cement his reputation as a preeminent horror star of the day, and essentially launched Price into the next phase of his career. Amidst all this was the role of Jarrod’s assistant, Igor, a part which needed to be played by someone physically imposing and with an intimidating glare. The role was filled by a young actor named Charles Buchinsky, who would change his name the year after “House of Wax” because of the Red Scare that was sweeping Hollywood. That new name would be Charles Bronson, and the actor would soon go on to star in numerous Westerns and action pictures after his “House of Wax” appearance.

‘House of Wax’ was a one-and-done horror film for both Bronson and his director

While “House of Wax” would make Vincent Price synonymous with the horror genre, it did not do the same for either Charles Bronson or Andre de Toth. For both men, it was the only horror film they ever made. (In Bronson’s case, this only holds true depending on how you categorize the 1983 thriller “10 to Midnight,” in which Bronson plays a cop on the trail of a skeevy serial killer.) By the time of “House of Wax,” de Toth had already made a name for himself as a director of edgy genre pictures, mostly westerns and film noir. Despite the success of “House of Wax,” the filmmaker never returned to the horror genre again.

Yet de Toth was clearly impressed with Bronson’s work as Igor in the film, enough that the two men worked together several times subsequently. De Toth cast Bronson in the film noir “Crime Wave” and the western “Riding Shotgun” (both 1954). The latter film helped establish Bronson in the western genre, a relationship that continued throughout the rest of his career with appearances in such classics as “The Magnificent Seven” and “Once Upon a Time in the West.” Bronson’s tough-guy stature also served him well in the burgeoning action film genre, taking him from crime pictures like “Machine Gun Kelly” to films like “The Mechanic” and, of course, the gritty vigilante “Death Wish” series.

Ironically, Bronson and de Toth nearly worked together a final time in a completely different genre: the superhero movie. Thanks to Bronson’s good relationship with director Richard Donner (appearing in two of Donner’s early features, “X-15” and “Lola”), Bronson became one of the actors to audition for the title role in 1978’s “Superman.” Of course, that part went to then-unknown Christopher Reeve, yet had Bronson won it instead, he would’ve worked again with de Toth, who had been hired to do some uncredited second unit directing on the film’s flying sequences. Though Bronson had appeared in various small roles in films and TV episodes prior to his performance as Vincent Price’s eerily stoic henchman, it’s clear that “House of Wax” was a turning point in his career, making him a charter member of the “actors who got their break thanks to horror” club.

TV & Beyond on 2025-07-28 17:20:00

TV & Beyond on 2025-07-28 17:20:00

by | Jul 28, 2025 | TV & Beyond Articles

“First Steps” had by far the biggest opening weekend ever for the “Fantastic Four” franchise. It debuted to an estimated $118 million domestically to go with $100 million overseas for a $218 million global debut. It’s very much the win that Marvel and Disney needed after the relative misfires that were “Captain America: Brave New World” ($415 million worldwide) and “Thunderbolts*” ($382 million worldwide). This is, if you’ll pardon the pun, a heroic opening weekend much more in line with what we used to expect from the MCU.

It also essentially matches what James Gunn’s “Superman” did just a few weeks ago when it bowed to $220 million, which is good company to be in. So, what went right for this well-received reboot? What helped to bring audiences out in an age where big superhero movies (even those in the MCU) are no longer automatic hits the way they once were? We’re going to take a look at the biggest reasons why “Fantastic Four: First Steps” was a success at the box office on its opening weekend. Let’s get into it.

Critics and audiences really liked the new Fantastic Four

Though it doesn’t always equate to ticket sales, a good reception never hurts a big blockbuster. To that end, “Fantastic Four: First Steps” was welcomed with open arms by both critics and audiences alike. The movie currently holds a very solid 87% critical approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes to go with a great 93% audience rating. Not to turn this into a competition but, as of this writing, both of these numbers are just slightly above those for “Superman.” Shakman’s latest also earned an A- CinemaScore, which similarly matched “Superman.” This matters because DC’s new take on the Man of Steel has proven to be a crowd-pleaser with staying power.

In his review for /Film, Witney Seibold gave “First Steps” a 9 out of 10 rating, writing it “is set in a world that I wouldn’t mind living in.” Indeed, a lot of recent MCU releases earned a far more mixed response than this film did, if not a downright sour one in some cases. The house that Feige built is simply not as bulletproof as it was in the lead up to “Avengers: Endgame,” back when the enterprise seemed downright unstoppable. Fortunately, that wasn’t the case here, as Marvel appears to have gotten its mojo back. It couldn’t have come at a better time, either.

The Fantastic Four are a known, classic Marvel team

One thing that simply cannot be overlooked when we talk about the success of “First Steps” compared to other recent Marvel fare is the sheer recognizability of the team at the center of the film. We’ve had several “Fantastic Four” movies (of varying quality) over the years. They were one of the teams that helped make Marvel Comics what it was way back in the ’60s after being created by the legendary Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. Even very casual audiences know, vaguely speaking, who these characters are. The same can’t be said for the namesakes of “Eternals” or “Thunderbolts*.”

By Feige’s own admission, a lack of character recognition helped doom “Thunderbolts*,” in particular, despite the fact the movie earned very strong reviews. The MCU needed to bring in a heavy-hitter. It got four of them in the forms of Mr. Fantastic, The Invisible Woman, The Thing, and The Human Torch. The Fantastic Four are a hugely important team within the Marvel Comics canon and, if things go well, “First Steps” may kick off a franchise that can help carry the MCU for the next decade. Put plainly, the studio needed this one to work. By all accounts in the early going, it did.

Fantastic Four: First Steps promised something fresh for fans

Another thing that greatly benefited “First Steps” was the fact that it promised something fresh for both hardcore comic book fans and casual moviegoers. The fact of the matter is that the post-“Endgame” era of the MCU, which has been defined by wildly expansive storytelling within the larger Marvel multiverse, has been somewhat unwelcoming to audiences. It’s made many of its movies — not to mention the shows on Disney+ — feel like required homework rather than things to be enjoyed as one pleases.

Again, Feige has admitted the MCU was focused on quantity over quality for a while there, and that hurt the brand. Fortunately, this movie wasn’t saddled with multiversal baggage and got to exist on its own terms. That was made very clear in the marketing and during the press tour. Beyond that, Shakman crafted a retro-futuristic look for the film that helped set this “Fantastic Four” film apart not only from the ones that have graced the big screen before but also other movies in the MCU. It looked different and, thankfully, did not require hours of previous viewing homework to appreciate.

Indeed, people can enjoy “First Steps” as a movie for its own sake, while hardcore fans are free to connect any dots that might lead to “Avengers: Doomsday.” It’s precisely the sort of thing that the MCU used to do so well with regularity.

It has been a decade since the Fantastic Four graced the screen

In 2015, director Josh Trank’s “Fantastic Four” became one of the biggest bombs in superhero movie history. It was a disaster of epic proportions, and it certainly didn’t help that 2007’s “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” was also a failure before it. The larger point is that, even though Disney completed its purchase of Fox in 2019, giving Marvel Studios control of the “Fantastic Four” and “X-Men” properties, the House of Ideas exercised patience and avoided rushing a new movie with these characters into production right away. Instead, the studio allowed some time to pass, giving the wounds from those previous failures a chance to heal. Most importantly, it allowed a real appetite to build up.

Now, in the year 2025, fans have been absolutely dying to see this “Fantastic Four” reboot, complete with a far more comic book accurate version of the villain Galactus and an A-list cast bringing these heroes to life. To that end, Marvel Studios nailed it by lining up Pedro Pascal (“The Mandalorian”) as Reed Richards, Vanessa Kirby (“Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning”) as Sue Storm, Joseph Quinn (“Stranger Things”) as Johnny Storm,” and Ebon Moss-Bachrach (“The Bear”) as Ben Grimm. A decade removed from Trank’s ill-fated flick, everyone was ready to love the Fantastic Four again.

Audiences are still ready to love Marvel movies

Speaking of love, one of the biggest things “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” had going for it was the Marvel Studios logo itself. To be sure, for as much as the studio’s last handful of years has been defined by disappointments such as “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumanina” and “The Marvels,” it has also given way to absolutely gigantic hits such as “Deadpool & Wolverine” ($1.3 billion worldwide).

The fact of the matter is that audiences are still ready to fall in love with these movies and will spend their hard-earned money on a ticket if they think it seems worth it. Is it as easy as it once was for MCU films to make it to $1 billion globally? No, but that should never be the bar for success, even for Marvel Studios. The number of movies that can open to more than $200 million globally are few and far between in the pandemic era. Despite its numerous misfires, however, Marvel can still do that with the right film.

There’s a reason why millions of people watched and analyzed the hours-long “Avengers: Doomsday” casting announcement in March. There’s also a reason why its misfires haven’t derailed everything that Marvel puts out. Audiences just want to feel like what they’re going to see is truly worth their time, much in the way that “Guardians of the Galaxy” or “Captain America: Civil War” were in their day. In this case, Shakman, Feige, and everyone hit the mark. Audiences seem like they’re downright rooting for Marvel to hit the mark and vote happily with their dollars when it happens. Here’s hoping this can be the beginning of the end for the rough patch. 

“The Fantastic Four: First Steps” is in theaters now.