US release: 27th January 1990
United States release: 27th January 1990
Sweden release: 12th August 1996
£0 $0 
$0 The first image from has been revealed from upcoming movie Superman which can be viewed in full if you scroll down this page.
The image was posted by director James Gunn on his Threads account and he comments that "The above photo was taken on set by Jess Miglio and was entirely in-camera."
Movie breakdown
Synopsis for Superman
Superman embarks on a journey to reconcile his Kryptonian heritage with his human upbringing as Clark Kent.
Check out the Salty Popcorn movie page for more information on this upcoming film.
After making a mark for herself in the DC universe with the successful Wonder Woman and the soon to be released Wonder Woman 1984, director Parry Jenkins is directing a spin off Star Wars movie Rogue Squadron.
No more details were given at Disneys Investors Convention on December 10th but the image shows an X-Wing fighter and as we know Rogue Squadron was a Rebel Alliance starfighter squadron in the original Star Wars.
The spin off movie Rogue One: A Star Wars Story was named after this call sign.
That film which was well received by fans was based before the original Star Wars movie, no this could likely be about the formation of the squad and go into more detail about that time in the first film, with crossovers.
The movie isn't set for release until December 2023 and joins the already announced movies being directed by Thor Ragnorak director Taika Waititi.
It was teasered last week, and there is a 9 minute prologue infront of the IMAX version of new The Hobbit movie, so the hype is well and truly in top gear, and today we get the first trailer.
It's an annoying trailer and I hope the film is better. The teaser was great, and the poster is excellent, but this trailer is a little cheesy.
It starts with a very bad voice over telling (I presume) kirk, (maybe) about the events (I presume) that will take place in him life (the film). Or is the voice referring to someone else.
The trailer is I think tedious for the first minute, then although it's get more exciting after that there are far too many money shots! What do I mean by money shots, shots that are in there just to make you say, oooh what happens there.
The best thing by far is Benedict Cumberbatch who displays a look that is genuinely chilling, and lets hope he'll make the best vilain since Khan, who many fans think he is playing, why? Another of those money shots which look suspiciously like the Spock death scene in Star Trek 2 (check out the image below).
I have full faith in JJ Abrams to deliver a fantastic film, so lets drink from the hype cup till then and enjoy the film on May 17th.
Daniel Radcliffe, for the immediate future anyway, is always going to be Harry Potter, for 10 years he lived and breathed the character and to millions of adoring fans he is the image of the boy wizard, which is why it is an achievement that while watching The Woman in Black Harry Potter hardly crossed my mind.
The story, set in an Edwardian era, centers around Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) who is a solicitor sent to clear up the paperwork of a recently deceased woman. Kipps himself has a 4 year old child and is a widow, his wife having died during child birth.
Kipps arrives in the village of Crythin Gifford where he is to spend the next couple of days working before his son arrives to join him for a holiday. During his train journey Kipps meets the local wealthy man who he befriends and then is given a lift in his car (noted as being the first car in the village) to the inn where he is booked in to stay.
The welcome Kipps gets from everyone else is far from friendly, and as he goes about his business the next day he is more or less told to leave town. What ensues from there is a traditional ghost story with scares and jumps at every opportunity.
As I first mentioned Radcliffe, fresh from the Potter franchise where he IS the boy wizard, manages to detach himself from that completely, not sure if it's the side burns or the fact that his character spends a lot of time alone and doesn't say a lot, or maybe it's the low budget film not being laden with special effect but it's a good move.
I'm showing my age now but I remember the Hammer Horror films of the 70's and 80's which at the time were scary as hell, and the TV show had me hiding behind the sofa more than Doctor Who did, and this film, which is produced by Hammer and filmed in the UK captures the spirit of the old Hammer perfectly.
The film is jumpy if a little corny in places, not too long and has a story which is acceptable for a horror film of this type. I started the question things when a seemingly normal guy decides to spend the night in the creepiest looking house in England that is cut from mainland during for large part of the day and he'd already experienced minor paranormal activity (I'd never have gone anywhere near the house in the first place) and some of the jumpy scenes were far too predictable and came off as amusing but on the whole it's an enjoyable scary horror harking back to the glory days of Hammer.
Good: Decent screenplay from Jane Goldman and some genuinely scary moments. Well directed by James Watkins and a good supporting cast.
Bad: Does get predictable and some of the scares are funny. Too many unanswered things happen and the ending although good could have been better.
25thframe.co.uk rating:
I simply had to share this with you, the excellent Empireonline has gone to great length to explain the ever increasing complexity of movie franchises using the diagram below.
Do check out the page at Empire online as it, and the site, are well worth a regular visit, but I've posted the image below which graphically explains the mystery behind sequels.