Ballerina first reactions: John Wick spin-off hailed as a ‘worthy addition' to franchise with ‘mind-blowing' action

Fans are eagerly waiting to see how actor Ana de Armas fares in the John Wick spin-off Ballerina. The film had its first screening in London where it was showed to selected members of the press, and if the early reactions are anything to go by than fans can expect a summer blockbuster which promises 'jaw-dropping' action sequences and stunts. (Also read: Tom Cruise is all praise for Ana de Armas-starrer Ballerina amid romance rumours)
Reporter Jonathan Sims called Ballerina 'the best movie of the year,' in his tweet, and went on to add: 'Absolute mayhem from start to finish. Mind-blowing fight scenes, phenomenally choreographed and staged. Ana de Armas is an action hero for the ages. A simple revenge story with incredible stunts and improvised weapons, from flame throwers to grenades to ice skates. You have to see it to believe it.'
Amon Warmann of Empire Magazine said, 'Really dug #Ballerina! Slickly choreographed action which has lots of variety - Grenades! Flamethrowers! Roller skates! - and Ana de Armas proves she can scrap with the best of them. A worthy addition to the John Wick franchise. More please!'
Several press members noted the relentless action sequences in the film. The Nerds of Color said, 'The action's brutal and relentless! De Armas is terrific & I can't wait to be seeing more of Eve soon! Imperfect but worthy installment to the world of Wick.'
Meanwhile, Chalice Williams of Black Girl Nerds said, 'Ballerina is hands down one of the top 3 in the John Wick franchise! The action doesn't stop until the credits roll! Ana De Armas is THAT girl! The incredible fight sequences stole the show! Love how the film didn't need Keanu to carry it, it was a force on its own.'
Critics noted highly of the film's addition to the John Wick franchise. Chris Bumbray of JoBlo's movie network added, 'Happy to say Ballerina is actually a solid addition to the John Wick franchise, and a good star vehicle for Ana de Armas, who is a born movie star.'
Nadya Martinez of GothamGeekGirl noted, 'Ballerina expands the world of #JohnWick with absolutely stunning backdrops, an exciting and gripping vengeful story of consequences, and a heavy arsenal of creative weapon choices and quick-witted resourcefulness.'
Ballerina focuses on a young, highly skilled assassin played by Ana de Armas. The story follows her quest for vengeance against those who murdered her family, unfolding between the events of John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum and John Wick: Chapter 4.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hindustan Times

12 hours ago

• Hindustan Times

Tom Cruise to receive honorary Oscar: Is a competitive win still possible?

Tom Cruise will finally be receiving an Oscar after decades in the film industry. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had announced earlier this week that he would be given an Honorary Oscar at the 2025 Governors Awards in November, celebrating his lifetime contributions to cinema, Deadline reported. The Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning actor, who at 62 is still one of Hollywood's most bankable and enduring stars, has never taken home a competitive Oscar despite being nominated four times. Tom Cruise to receive honorary Oscar by the Academy.(Vianney Le Caer/Invision/AP) The Academy said that the honorary recognition is for Cruise's 'extraordinary distinction in lifetime achievement', particularly for his commitment to enriching theatrical experience, to the filmmaking and stunt communities. Cruise will be honored alongside production designer Wynn Thomas, choreographer and actor Debbie Allen, and Dolly Parton, who will receive the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award. Also Read: Mission accomplished? Tom Cruise is finally getting an Oscar but its not for any of his films Although Cruise is being bestowed with the honorary recognition, the big question remains: Will this end the Mission: Impossible actor's chances of winning a competitive Academy Award? Well, history suggests otherwise. Past Oscar winners prove an honorary award doesn't end the race As per Deadline, actors like Paul Newman and Henry Fonda both received honorary Oscars before they won Best Actor in the very next year. Additionally, Laurence Olivier, who won an Honorary Oscar in 1947, clinched Best Actor two years later. Harold Russell took home both an Honorary and a competitive Oscar in the same year. Some stars like Peter O'Toole initially resisted the gesture in fear that the honorary accolade was a consolation; they went on to receive further nominations. Moreover, figures outside of acting, like Ennio Morricone and Spike Lee also turned their honorary recognition into competitive wins later. The Deadline report added that the timing for Tom Cruise may be auspicious, too. The actor is currently filming a project with Oscar-winning director Alejandro G. Iñárritu. The Birdman filmmaker's next project is expected to release next year, which places it squarely in the running for the 99th Academy Awards. Tom Cruise could still find himself holding the elusive golden statue if the performance matches the prestige. So, while November's honorary award marks long-overdue recognition, it doesn't close the curtain on Cruise's Oscar journey. It might just be the prelude to his biggest role yet, an Oscar winner. FAQs Why didn't Tom Cruise win the Oscar? Despite four nominations, Tom Cruise has faced tough competition each time. His performances were critically acclaimed, but others edged him out during award season. Why is Tom Cruise getting an honorary Oscar? The Academy is recognizing Cruise for his lifetime contribution to cinema, including his work as an actor, producer, and champion of theatrical experience. Has Tom Cruise ever been up for an Oscar? Yes. He has been nominated four times: twice for Best Actor (Born on the Fourth of July, Jerry Maguire), once for Best Supporting Actor (Magnolia), and once as a producer for Best Picture (Top Gun: Maverick).

Time of India

15 hours ago

• Time of India

US strikes Iran: How Tom Cruise's Top Gun: Maverick eerily predicted Donald Trump's Operation Midnight Hammer

When Top Gun: Maverick stormed theatres in 2022, it wasn't just a sequel—it was a resurrection. It defied every law of modern franchise gravity. No multiverse. No Marvel. No brooding they-them anti-hero. Just the return of a square-jawed cis-American icon doing exactly what he did 36 years ago—only faster, louder, and with a bigger sonic boom, looking like the folks at Scientology had finally found the Fountain of Youth. What made it work? First, it respected the original. No irony. No winks. No smug Gen Z subtext. Tom Cruise didn't hand over the keys—he repossessed the plane, flew it through a canyon at Mach 1.6, and landed it on an aircraft carrier with his grin cryogenically preserved in confidence. Kenny Loggins was still on standby. The soundtrack still slapped. The opening still had that slow-mo montage of jets and muscle, set to a synth-and-snare build-up so patriotic it practically handed you a Coors Light and called you "sir. " There was shirtless beach football. Beer without guilt. Bros being bros in the golden light of American masculinity. Maverick didn't just bring back a movie—it brought back a memory. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Eat 1 Teaspoon Every Night, See What Happens A Week Later [Video] getfittoday Undo Of the good old days, before drone warfare, before greyzone psyops, before movies needed three disclaimers and a trigger warning. A time when war was sexy, the rules were simple, and the only labels that mattered were 'friendly' and 'bogey on your six.' Second, it was real. Practical stunts. Real G-forces. No Marvel mush or green-screen gibberish. You felt every dive, every roll, every breath in a cockpit that looked more like a coffin. In an age of CGI fatigue, Maverick reminded viewers what cinema used to feel like—sweaty palms and pounding heartbeats, set to the scream of a jet engine. But above all, Top Gun: Maverick gave audiences something even rarer: sincerity. It wasn't cynical. It wasn't ashamed of heroism. It put on aviators, turned up the volume, and said: "Let's go." Top Gun Maverick Beach Scene 4K IMAX And go it did—straight into the heart of America's foreign policy theatre. Because what looked like a nostalgia-fuelled testosterone trip in 2022 now feels like something far more uncanny in 2025. As President Donald Trump orders a massive stealth strike on Iran's Fordow nuclear facility, Maverick doesn't look like a movie anymore. It looks like a propehcy. A daring pre-emptive strike. An underground uranium plant. A ticking clock. A threat not to America, but to unnamed "allies in the region." What once felt like high-octane fantasy is now playing out, almost scene for scene, in the skies above the Middle East. And Tom Cruise? He wasn't just making a sequel. He was filming the trailer for Trump's next war. The Anti-Woke Hit That Soared When Maverick dropped, it didn't just break box-office records—it broke Hollywood's progressive chokehold on patriotism. No identity politics. No postmodern angst. No war guilt disguised as character development. Just raw American adrenaline, jet-fuelled storytelling, and Tom Cruise doing what Tom Cruise does best—defying gravity and cultural trends alike. Even Jon Hamm showed up, having shed the whiskey-soaked aura of Don Draper to play a tight-laced, by-the-book commander who looked like he personally banned pronouns from the base. You could almost smell the Aqua Velva. The cast was tailor-made for culture-war glory. Miles Teller stepped in as Rooster—Goose's mustachioed legacy—looking like he belonged on a recruitment poster for bros who bench for liberty. Monica Barbaro played Phoenix, the token female pilot who neither lectured nor got lectured—just flew like hell and left feminism on mute. Glen Powell's Hangman was Iceman 2.0: arrogant, tanned, and ready to drop a snide remark along with his payload. Jennifer Connelly was there too, ageless and cool, running a bar where no one talks politics. No lectures. No apologies. Just call signs, dogfights, and sweat-drenched montages scored to the sound of American confidence. Reagan Redux: Top Gun Was Always Propaganda Top Gun (1986) Official Trailer - Tom Cruise Movie The 1986 Top Gun wasn't just a movie—it was Cold War propaganda with better hair. The Pentagon handed over carriers, jets, and script suggestions. Hollywood returned the favour by air-dropping a generation of recruits into Navy flight school. It was recruitment wrapped in romance and set to guitar riffs. Maverick followed the same flight path. The military offered full support. The Navy looked like gods. But this time, there was a twist: the enemy was unnamed. No Soviet MiGs. No al-Qaeda. Just a faceless rogue nation with a uranium facility in the mountains. The target? An underground enrichment site. The mission? Destroy it before it becomes operational. The threat? Not to America—but to our unnamed "allies in the region." Nobody said Iran. Nobody said Israel. And yet everybody knew. That narrative sleight of hand—so brazen in its vagueness—would soon feel less like creative license and more like strategic foreshadowing. Scene for Scene: Trump's Iran Strike Mirrors the Film In June 2025, President Trump—new term, same instincts—ordered a real-world operation that bore eerie resemblance to Maverick. Seven B-2 bombers took off from the US under the cloak of midnight. The mission: Operation Midnight Hammer. The target: Iran's Fordow uranium enrichment facility, buried in the mountains near Qom. A site designed to withstand everything short of Armageddon. A site built for this very moment. In Maverick, the enemy is never named, but the target is clear: a uranium plant in a GPS-jammed valley, surrounded by surface-to-air missiles and fifth-gen fighters. In real life, Fordow sits in a mountainous fortress, shielded by SAM batteries, jamming tech, and hardened bunkers. In the film: three weeks become ten days become go-time. In reality: intel warned that Iran's enrichment programme was just days from a critical threshold. And in both cases, the justification was identical: not America-first, but ally-defence. In Maverick, it's the vague protection of "our friends in the region." In 2025, Trump didn't even bother with euphemism—Israel was the subtext and subtext became text. It wasn't a shot-for-shot remake. But it was close enough to make even Cruise raise an eyebrow behind his aviators. Whose War Is It Anyway? What made Maverick eerie in hindsight was how little it bothered to justify the mission. No American hostages. No nukes pointed at New York. Just an unspoken understanding that someone else's red line was worth flying into. And that's what the Right is now debating. Why should American pilots risk their lives for foreign bunkers? Why should billion-dollar aircraft be dispatched to send messages on behalf of another democracy? Maverick doesn't ask "why." It only asks: "Can it be done?" That question, in 2025, is no longer rhetorical. The Real Finale: A Flag, a Flyby… and a Fade to Black Maverick ends like every great American military fantasy: mission accomplished, uranium plant obliterated, and Tom Cruise strutting across the tarmac with his abs and aircraft intact. The jets land. The music swells. The flag flutters in cinematic slow motion. It could have been lifted straight from the closing scene of Operation Midnight Hammer. But imagine for a second that Maverick didn't make it. That he was shot down in that snowy canyon, dying for a target that never threatened his home, buried in a country he couldn't name, on a mission no one would claim. Would the audience still cheer? Would they even remember who the war was for? This is the question now circling Washington like an unarmed drone—silent, discomfiting, and impossible to shoot down. When the justification for war is wrapped in vagueness, when the enemy is unnamed, and when "defending our allies" becomes the only plotline—how long before audiences, and voters, stop watching the show? After all, wasn't this the very premise Trump once campaigned against? That MAGA would not behave like Bush-era neocons salivating for another war? That America's sons and daughters would no longer be deployed as global hall monitors in faraway deserts? Only last month in Saudi Arabia, Trump, trying to draw a red line between himself and Dubya, declared: 'In the end, the so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built. ' As David Remnick pointed out in a recent piece in New Yorker , Trump once echoed Bannon and Tucker Carlson when he said: 'In recent years, far too many American Presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it's our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use U.S. policy to dispense justice for their sins.' Top Gun: Maverick (2022) Dagger Attack Scene And yet, here we are—seven stealth bombers later. A highly classified mission. A decoy formation. A multi-theatre deployment. A strike not to defend American cities, but to send a message on behalf of regional allies. It may have looked like surgical precision from the skies—but on the ground, it's a policy contradiction wrapped in cinematic déjà vu. Even the bill Trump signed to fund the strike—what he called a 'big, beautiful defence package'—flies in the face of MAGA's small-government gospel. This wasn't lean governance. It was big-budget interventionism, scored by swelling violins and paid for with a trillion-dollar cheque. It ignited a backlash from his base—and a very public falling out with Elon Musk, who accused Trump of abandoning fiscal discipline for Pentagon theatrics. Because it didn't start with a movie. It started with a massacre. On October 7, 2023, Hamas fighters paraglided into southern Israel, launching the deadliest attack in the country's history. That single morning shattered illusions across the region. It led to a brutal war in Gaza. It provoked the Houthis to enter the fray. It drew Hezbollah closer to the edge. And it hardened Israel's posture, setting off a chain reaction that eventually led the US to launch Operation Midnight Hammer. From beach football to bunker busters, from afterburners to actual airstrikes—Top Gun began as propaganda. Maverick upgraded it into spectacle. And Trump's Operation Midnight Hammer may be the moment the reel became real. The movie always had the jets. Reality just pressed play. And if that doesn't make you pause—even if you're wearing aviators—just remember: Not even Tom Cruise can outrun a B-2 bomber. Though, to be fair, he'd probably try. On foot. While dangling off a missile. Smiling. As for the true MAGA believers—those who rallied behind promises of no more endless wars and a return to fiscal sanity—they're left asking the same question Maverick once did: Whose mission was this anyway?

Pink Villa

4 days ago

• Pink Villa

Box Office: How To Train Your Dragon, Ballerina and Materialists look at steady run in India, collectively make Rs 30 crore in 7 days

How To Train Your Dragon, Ballerina, and Materialists have completed their first week at the box office today. Released simultaneously on June 13, all three Hollywood films have managed to cater to different sections of the audience and have maintained a steady run at the Indian box office, with an aggregate total of Rs 30 crore in 7 days. How To Train Your Dragon leads, Ballerina follows, Materialists records best box office trends The live-action movie How To Train Your Dragon smashed over Rs 14.85 crore net at the Indian box office in its opening week. The movie added around Rs 5 crore from Monday to Thursday, after an impressive weekend of Rs 9.85 crore. According to the trends, the Dean DeBlois-directed movie has the potential to gross over Rs 30 crore net in its entire theatrical run in India, which would be an encouraging result for a standalone live-action movie. While the Dreamworks Animation venture leads the pack, Ana de Armas starrer Ballerina managed to gain traction as well. Coming from the world of John Wick, the slick action movie netted Rs 7.65 crore in its opening weekend, followed by another Rs 3 crore on the weekdays from Monday to Thursday, taking the total 7-day cume to Rs 10.65 crore net in India. The third release, Materialists, witnessed the best box office trends compared to the other two releases with regard to its occupancy and growth. However, its opening week cume remained far behind due to less showcasing in the initial days. Starring Dakota Johnson, Pedro Pascal, and Chris Evans, Materialists netted Rs 2.85 crore in its first weekend and then went on to add another Rs 1.6 crore with an impressive hold on weekdays. It made a total sum of Rs 4.45 crore by the end of its first week. Day-wise India nett box office collections of How To Train Your Dragon, Ballerina and Materialists Particulars How To Train Your Dragon Ballerina Materialists Friday Rs 2.25 crore Rs 2.35 crore Rs 55 lakh Saturday Rs 3.60 crore Rs 2.80 crore Rs 1.15 crore Sunday Rs 4.00 crore Rs 2.50 crore Rs 1.15 crore Monday Rs 1.25 crore Rs 75 lakh Rs 40 lakh Tuesday Rs 1.40 crore Rs 90 lakh Rs 45 lakh Wednesday Rs 1.25 crore Rs 75 lakh Rs 40 lakh Thursday Rs 1.10 crore (est.) Rs 60 lakh (est.) Rs 35 lakh (est.) Total Rs 14.85 crore Rs 10.65 crore Rs 4.45 crore Stay Tuned To Pinkvilla For More Updates! Disclaimer: The box office figures are compiled from various sources and our research. The figures can be approximate, and Pinkvilla does not make any claims about the authenticity of the data. However, they are adequately indicative of the box-office performance of the films in question.