Connect with us

News

John Krasinski reveals scene that sold Emily Blunt

Published

on

If Emily Blunt had her way, “A Quiet Place Part II” would be rated PG-40. 

The actress re-teams with husband John Krasinski for the stress-inducing follow-up to 2018’s surprise horror hit (in theaters Friday). Although it’s PG-13, the couple’s daughters – Hazel, 7, and Violet, 4 – will have to wait much longer to watch. 

“I’m trying to bring it in a little bit, like maybe 27, but right now it’s still holding at 40,” Krasinski jokes. “It’s funny, because clearly if we showed them, they would probably just go in the fetal position for years. 

“But ‘A Quiet Place’ has become this adorable thing because Mommy and Daddy did it together,” he adds, laughing. “So they love talking about ‘A Quiet Place,’ not knowing at all what they are in for when they finally do see it.” 

Regan (Millicent Simmonds, left), Marcus (Noah Jupe) and Evelyn (Emily Blunt) try to stay silent and evade monsters in horror sequel

Regan (Millicent Simmonds, left), Marcus (Noah Jupe) and Evelyn (Emily Blunt) try to stay silent and evade monsters in horror sequel “A Quiet Place Part II.”
Jonny Cournoyer

Review: ‘A Quiet Place Part II’ roars back as a solidly freaky, monster-filled followup

Audiences, meanwhile, should expect bigger action and more monsters in the sequel, which doubles down on the emotional storytelling that made the first film a critical (96% positive reviews on aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes) and commercial success ($340 million worldwide on a $17 million budget). Blunt, 38, won a Screen Actors Guild Award for best supporting actress playing Evelyn, a fiercely protective mom navigating an alien apocalypse with her husband, Lee (Krasinski), and two kids, Regan (Millicent Simmonds), and Marcus (Noah Jupe). 

The new film picks up minutes after the events of the first movie, when Lee was killed by one of the noise-sensitive, crablike creatures that have invaded Earth. Having now figured out a way to kill the giant monsters using shotguns and high-frequency sounds, Evelyn and her children venture out in search of other survivors, all while caring for a newborn baby and trying to process their grief. 

Krasinski, 41, co-wrote and directed the first “Quiet Place,” but was reluctant to do a second, wanting to leave well enough alone. Producer Andrew Form started interviewing other writers and directors, but eventually managed to pull “The Office” actor back in. 

“Andrew said, ‘Will you do me a favor? Do you have any ideas we can talk to these people about?'” Krasinski says. “I said, ‘Yeah, there’s one idea I can’t get out of my head: We make Millie the lead of the movie.'” 

John Krasinski
I said, ‘Yeah, there’s one idea I can’t get out of my head: We make Millie the lead of the movie.’

That was enough to get the wheels turning for Krasinski, who has sole screenplay credit on the sequel. Exploring themes of parenthood, loss, hope and growing up, the film shifts its focus to Regan (who, like Simmonds, 18, is deaf) and her efforts to protect her family. She sets out on a solo mission but soon teams up with fellow survivor Emmett (Cillian Murphy), who becomes a sort of father figure to the girl. 

The first movie “was about that promise you make to your kids: that you’ll always be there for them no matter what,” Krasinski says. “Most parents know that promise has to inevitably be broken one day, so the second movie is about … when kids realize their parents aren’t going to be there and they have to take their own first steps into the world.”

Once Krasinski was on board as director, it didn’t take much to convince Blunt to say yes, too. 

“Emily always says the British thing, that you don’t want to over-pitch like,  ‘Oh, my gosh, I have the best idea!’ That makes her close off a bit,” Krasinski says. Instead, he simply asked her to read the sequel’s nail-biting opening scene, a flashback to the day the aliens arrived. Once she did, she said matter-of-factly, “‘So I’m gonna do the movie. Where does it go from here? Hurry up, keep writing.'” 

Because the opening tracks Day 1 of the apocalypse, Krasinski’s Lee appears throughout the action-packed sequence, as monsters overturn vehicles, crash into storefronts and claim their first victims. At one point, Evelyn is forced to drive a car in reverse down a crowded, chaotic street when a city bus comes barreling toward her. The stunt team rehearsed the terrifying moment for three weeks before shooting, but Blunt decided to wing it on the day. 

“I said, ‘Do you want to rehearse this once?’ And she said, ‘No, I want you to get the real reaction,'” Krasinski recalls. “So that shot is what’s in the movie: That was the first time she was ever in that car, and that bus is actually coming at her at 40 miles an hour.

“Right as I closed the door and before I called action, I thought, ‘Did I just put my marriage on the line? This could go very badly for a lot of reasons.'” 

“A Quiet Place Part II” arrives in theaters more than a year after its original March 20, 2020 release date, when the film’s release was delayed due to COVID-19. The movie was postponed three more times before Paramount planted it on this Memorial Day weekend.

Producers mulled skipping theaters altogether for an on-demand release. 

Trailer Tuesdays: ‘A Quiet Place Part II’ and the best movies that use sound to scare you

Entertain This!, USA TODAY

“Everything was talked about,” Form says. But like the first film, the sequel “was made as a theatrical experience.” (It will then start streaming on Paramount+ in July.)

With 39% of the U.S. population fully vaccinated and moviegoers showing high excitement about returning to theaters, “Quiet Place 2” could match or even best the $50.2 million opening of its forerunner. 

“Audiences are steadily growing more comfortable with going back to theaters,” says Shawn Robbins, chief analyst at Boxoffice Pro, who believes “Quiet Place 2” could take in anywhere from $40 to $60 million its first four days. 

“It’s wise to remember that box-office comparisons still have a giant asterisk next to them … but there’s never been a stronger justification during the pandemic to hope that a big-screen revival is imminent.”

John Krasinski
There’s never been a movie in our career, Emily or I, that we’ve been more excited for people to see.

Krasinski, who recalls feeling “weirdly emotional” getting his second vaccine dose, is currently traveling the country doing surprise screenings and Q&As as a way of thanking fans for returning to theaters. Whatever the box-office outcome, the long-awaited release already feels like a victory in itself for the sequel, which premiered in New York last March, days before the COVID-19 lockdown. Over a year later, reviews are finally released, with a 92% positive on Rotten Tomatoes.

“The whole situation is totally bizarre: having your premiere, which is usually the metaphorical champagne bottle on the ship right as it goes to sea, and then having them bring it right back,” Krasinski says. “But there’s never been a movie in our career, Emily or I, that we’ve been more excited for people to see. And the fact that people are liking it is incredible.” 

Published

Updated

Continue Reading

News

Woman passenger from UK tests Covid positive at Hyderabad airport

Published

on

Hyderabad: A 35-year-old international passenger who reached the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport here on Wednesday has tested positive for Covid-19 after undergoing an RT-PCR test at the airport itself. The woman passenger had traveled from the United Kingdom, which has been categorised as an ‘At Risk Country’. 

The passenger has been admitted to the Telangana Institute of Medical Sciences (TIMS) and samples were collected and sent for genetic sequencing. Officials said she did not have any symptoms and that her health condition was being monitored closely. 

According to officials, the woman hails from Rangareddy district and was on a visit to UK from Hyderabad. Though her close relatives tested negative, their health condition is also being monitored. 


Now you can get handpicked stories from Telangana Today on Telegram everyday. Click the link to subscribe.

Hyderabad News

click here for more Hyderabad News

Click to follow Telangana Today Facebook page and Twitter .

Continue Reading

News

Revealed: how Sidney Powell could be disbarred for lying in court for Trump | US elections 2020

Published

on

Sidney Powell, the former lawyer for Donald Trump who filed lawsuits across America for the former president, hoping to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, has on several occasions represented to federal courts that people were co-counsel or plaintiffs in her cases without seeking their permission to do so, the Guardian has learned.

Some of these individuals say that they only found out that Powell had named them once the cases were already filed.

During this same period of time, Powell also named several other lawyers – with their permission in those instances – as co-counsel in her election-related cases, despite the fact that they played virtually no role whatsoever in bringing or litigating those cases.

Both Powell’s naming of other people as plaintiffs or co-counsel without their consent and representing that other attorneys were central to her cases when, in fact, their roles were nominal or nonexistent, constitute serious potential violations of the American Bar Association model rules for professional conduct, top legal ethicists told the Guardian.

Powell’s misrepresentations to the courts in those particular instances often aided fundraising for her nonprofit, Defending the Republic. Powell had told prospective donors that the attorneys were integral members of an “elite strike force” who had played outsized roles in her cases – when in fact they were barely involved if at all.

A couple poses for a photo in front of a Trump campaign bus at a rally in Alpharetta, Georgia, on 2 December 2020.
A couple poses for a photo in front of a Trump campaign bus at a rally in Alpharetta, Georgia, on 2 December 2020. Photograph: Nathan Posner/REX/Shutterstock

Powell did not respond to multiple requests for comment via phone, email, and over social media.

The State Bar of Texas is already investigating Powell for making other allegedly false and misleading statements to federal courts by propagating increasingly implausible conspiracy theories to federal courts that Joe Biden’s election as president of the United States was illegitimate.

The Texas bar held its first closed-door hearing regarding the allegations about Powell on 4 November. Investigations by state bar associations are ordinarily conducted behind closed doors and thus largely opaque to the public.

A federal grand jury has also been separately investigating Powell, Defending the Republic, as well as a political action committee that goes by the same name, for fundraising fraud, according to records reviewed by the Guardian.

Among those who have alleged that Powell falsely named them as co-counsel is attorney Linn Wood, who brought and litigated with Powell many of her lawsuits attempting to overturn the results of the election with her, including in the hotly contested state of Michigan.

The Michigan case was a futile attempt by Powell to erase Joe Biden’s victory in that state and name Trump as the winner. On 25 August, federal district court Judge Linda Parker, of Michigan, sanctioned Powell and nine other attorneys who worked with her for having engaged in “a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process” in bringing the case in the first place. Powell’s claims of election fraud, Parker asserted, had no basis in law and were solely based on “speculation, conjecture, and unwarranted suspicion”.

Parker further concluded that the conduct of Powell, Wood, and the eight other attorneys who they worked with, warranted a “referral for investigation and possible suspension or disbarment to the appropriate disciplinary authority for each state … in which each attorney is admitted”.

Wood told the court in the Michigan case that Powell had wrongly named him as one of her co-counsel in the Michigan case. During a hearing in the case to determine whether to sanction Wood, his defense largely rested on his claim that he had not been involved in the case at all. Powell, Wood told the court, had put his name on the lawsuit without her even telling him.

A man holds a sign reading "The dead cannot vote" at a rally in Alpharetta, Georgia.
Trump supporters attend a rally in Alpharetta, Georgia, where Sidney Powell spoke on efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Photograph: Nathan Posner/REX/Shutterstock

Wood said: “I do not specifically recall being asked about the Michigan complaint … In this case obviously my name was included. My experience or my skills apparently were never needed, so I didn’t have any involvement with it.”

Wood’s attorney, Paul Stablein, was also categorical in asserting that his client had nothing to do with the case, telling the Guardian in an interview: “He didn’t draft the complaint. He didn’t sign it. He did not authorize anyone to put his name on it.”

Powell has denied she would have ever named Wood as a co-counsel without Wood’s permission.

But other people have since come forward to say that Powell has said that they were named as plaintiffs or lawyers in her election-related cases without their permission.

In a Wisconsin voting case, a former Republican candidate for Congress, Derrick Van Orden, said he only learned after the fact that he had been named as a plaintiff in one of Powell’s cases.

“I learned through social media today that my name was included in a lawsuit without my permission,” Van Orden said in a statement he posted on Twitter, “To be clear, I am not involved in the lawsuit seeking to overturn the election in Wisconsin.”

Jason Shepherd, the Republican chairman of Georgia’s Cobb county, was similarly listed as a plaintiff in a Georgia election case without his approval.

In a 26 November 2020 statement, Shepherd said he had been talking to an associate of Powell’s prior to the case’s filing about the “Cobb GOP being a plaintiff” but said he first “needed more information to at least make sure the executive officers were in agreeing to us being a party in the suit”. The Cobb County Republican party later agreed to remain plaintiffs in the case instead of withdrawing.

Leslie Levin, a professor at the University of Connecticut Law School, said in an interview: “Misrepresentations to the court are very serious because lawyers are officers of the court. Bringing a lawsuit in someone’s name when they haven’t consented to being a party is a very serious misrepresentation and one for which a lawyer should expect to face serious discipline.”

Nora Freeman Engstrom, a law professor at Stanford University, says that Powell’s actions appear to violate Rule 3.3 of the ABA’s model rules of professional misconduct which hold that “a lawyer shall not knowingly … make a false statement of fact of law to a tribunal”.

Since election day last year, federal and state courts have dismissed more than 60 lawsuits alleging electoral fraud and irregularities by Powell, and other Trump allies.

Shortly after the election, Trump named Powell as a senior member of an “elite strike force” who would prove that Joe Biden only won the 2020 presidential race because the election was stolen from him. But Trump refused to pay her for her services. To remedy this, Powell set up a new nonprofit called Defending the Republic; its stated purpose is to “protect the integrity of elections in the United States”.

As a nonprofit, the group is allowed to raise unlimited amounts of “dark money” and donors are legally protected from the ordinary requirements to disclose their identities to the public. Powell warned supporters that for her to succeed, “millions of dollars must be raised”.

Echoing Trump’s rhetoric, Powell told prospective donors that Defending the Republic had a vast team of experienced litigators.

Sidney Powell speaks at a press conference on election results in Alpharetta, Georgia.
Sidney Powell speaks at a press conference on election results in Alpharetta, Georgia. Photograph: Elijah Nouvelage/Reuters

Among the attorneys who Powell said made up this “taskforce” were Emily Newman, who had served Trump as the White House liaison to the Department of Health and Human Services and as a senior official with the Department of Homeland Security. Newman had been a founding board member of Defending the Republic.

But facing sanctions in the Michigan case, some of the attorneys attempted to distance themselves from having played much of a meaningful role in her litigation.

Newman’s attorney told Parker, the judge, that Newman had “not played a role in the drafting of the complaint … My client was a contract lawyer working from home who spent maybe five hours on this matter. She really wasn’t involved … Her role was de minimis.”

To have standing to file her Michigan case, Powell was initially unable to find a local attorney to be co-counsel on her case but eventually attorney Gregory Rohl agreed to help out.

But when Rohl was sanctioned by Parker and referred to the Michigan attorney disciplinary board for further investigation, his defense was that he, too, was barely involved in the case. He claimed that he only received a copy of “the already prepared” 830-page initial complaint at the last minute, reviewed it for “well over an hour”, while then “making no additions, decisions or corrections” to the original.

As with Newman, Parker, found that Rohl violated ethics rules by making little, if any, effort to verify the facts of the claims in Powell’s filings.

In sanctioning Rohl, the judge wrote that “the court finds it exceedingly difficult to believe that Rohl read an 830-page complaint in just ‘well over an hour’ on the day he filed it. So, Rohl’s argument in and of itself reveals sanctionable conduct.”

Continue Reading

News

Govt to introduce important Bill, Covid situation likely to be discussed

Published

on



The government on Thursday will table ‘The National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (Amendment) Bill 2021’ in the Lok Sabha. A discussion on Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic and its various related aspects is also likely to take place in the lower House.


Health Minister Mansukh Mandaviya will move the ‘The National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (Amendment) Bill’ in the Lok Sabha to amend the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research Act, 1998.





Under rule 193, a discussion on Covid-19 pandemic and various aspects related to it will likely take place. According to sources, the members may also raise their concern and ask for the government’s preparedness for the new Omicron variant. Under Rule 193, members can seek details about the new Covid variant. “Short duration discussion is likely to be held in the Lok Sabha on the Covid and its various aspects, including new Omicron variant,” sources said.


Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat, Prahlad Singh Patel, General V.K. Singh, Krishan Pal, Bhanu Pratap Verma, Rameshwar Teli and Kaushal Kishore will lay papers on the table. Reports and action reports of different standing committees will also be laid in the day.


The Lok Sabha on Wednesday passed the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Amendment) Bill 2021 (ART) by voice vote as the amendments moved by the DMK MP N.K. Prem Chandran, Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy and Shiv Sena MP Vinayak Raut were negated. The ART Bill seeks to regulate fertility clinics. All such clinics will have to be registered under the National Registry of Banks and Clinics of India.


The opposition is likely to continue to raise its voices on price rise, unemployment and extended jurisdiction of the Border Security Force (BSF) in some states. The opposition parties are also demanding a law guaranteeing the minimum support price (MSP).

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Dear Reader,

Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.

We, however, have a request.

As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital Editor

Continue Reading

Trending