Following multiple delays from its original May 2020 release date, Marvel's "Black Widow" is finally available. Viewers currently have two options to watch the movie: in theaters or at home with Disney Plus Premier Access. 

For $30 on top of your Disney Plus subscription, you can unlock "Black Widow" to stream from the comfort of your couch while it's still playing in theaters. That said, subscribers who are willing to wait, can watch the movie without an extra fee starting October 6.

I bought the movie with Premier Access on release day and it made for a fun movie night-in over the weekend. Though I'm a huge movie buff, I'm still a bit iffy about going to theaters during the pandemic, and I actually prefer the privacy of streaming new films on my big-screen TV. 

That said, as entertaining as the movie is, many Disney Plus subscribers will be better off waiting until the wide release to save some cash. Still on the fence? Here's a full rundown of what we thought of the movie and the overall value of Premier Access.

'Black Widow' is an entertaining blockbuster with heart

After seven appearances in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) finally gets her own solo film. It was a long time coming and, as a piece of popcorn entertainment, the movie doesn't disappoint, even if it does feel a bit disconnected from the larger MCU storyline. 

Directed by Cate Shortland, "Black Widow" is an action-packed adventure that primarily takes place between two previously released Marvel movies, "Captain America: Civil War" (2016) and "Avengers: Infinity War" (2018). Natasha Romanoff, AKA Black Widow, is on the run from the US government. While in hiding, she reconnects with her former spy family to take down a nefarious Russian general and his deadly, mind-controlled assassin army.

It's this "spy family" that really gives the movie its heart and helps keep audiences invested in the story. Florence Pugh is especially engaging as Natasha's surrogate sister, Yelena, and David Harbour nearly steals the show as Red Guardian, a past-his-prime Russian super soldier. Their dysfunctional family dynamics lead to plenty of laughs and help ground all the larger-than-life super heroics in some genuine emotion. 

Of course, those super heroics are a big part of what people pay to see, and the action here is fun, exciting, and well choreographed. Some over-the-top CGI sneaks in every now and then, but the movie's set pieces take a page from the "Bourne" franchise with visceral fights and chases – but, you know, dialed way up to 11.

Sadly, Natasha herself does get lost a little in all the explosions and new character introductions. Johansson is strong in the role, but considering this is Black Widow's first and possibly only solo movie, the story lacks real weight on her overall arc. This is compounded by the fact that the film's story takes place before "Avengers: Endgame" which, as MCU fans know, makes it hard for the movie to really do anything new with the character's journey. 

At the end of the day, this is a fun standalone adventure that shines a spotlight on a character that should have already been highlighted years ago. It's also an engaging showcase for Florence Pugh's take on the Black Widow title, set to live on in the MCU for many more appearances. Outside of that new character's intro, it isn't essential viewing for the overarching Marvel plotline, but "Black Widow" is a popcorn adventure worth the price of admission.

Should you buy 'Black Widow' now or wait?

From a pure entertainment standpoint, "Black Widow" is easily worth $30 for most fans of Marvel movies. But, knowing the film will be available to all Disney Plus members without an extra fee in three months makes a full recommendation tricky. 

If you're the type of fan who's on the fence about going back to theaters but would have otherwise bought a ticket to see "Black Widow" on opening weekend, then Premier Access is for you. 

For $30 on top of your Disney Plus subscription, you're essentially buying a virtual ticket to see the movie from the comfort of your couch as soon as possible. As an added bonus, you can watch it as many times as you like as long as you remain a Disney Plus member. In this context, the $30 asking price isn't unreasonable, since that's around the same cost of two adult movie tickets. 

It also doesn't hurt if you've got a solid home entertainment setup to really show the movie off. Seeing "Black Widow" on opening weekend in Dolby Vision on a 65-inch 4K TV with surround sound really helped me feel like I got my money's worth, and I didn't even miss the movie theater experience at all. 

However, if you're not someone who waits with bated breath for each new Marvel release, then you're better off holding out for three months until the Premier Access window has expired and "Black Widow" opens up to all Disney Plus members.  

The bottom line

"Black Widow'' is a fun and surprisingly sweet entry in the MCU, but it feels more like a standalone side mission than an integral part of the overarching Marvel storyline. It's still great popcorn entertainment, however, and as a fan of Marvel flicks, I'm happy with my Premier Access purchase.

That said, anyone worried about massive spoilers or missing out on the next big Marvel twist can rest easy about seeing the movie right away. This is a good film, but it's not an absolute must-see. Casual fans and those on a budget are better off waiting until October 6 to catch the movie when it becomes available to all Disney Plus members.

Join the conversation about this story »

Scarlett Johansson's agent blasted the Walt Disney Company on Friday, accusing Disney of revealing the actress' salary in "an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman."

Johansson sued Disney on Thursday, claiming the release of Marvel's "Black Widow" on Disney's streaming service at the same time it was in theaters violated her contract.

Hours later, Disney fired back with its own statement on the matter, and included that the actress earned $20 million on the movie.

"There is no merit whatsoever to this filing,"a Disney spokesperson said. "The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Disney has fully complied with Ms. Johansson's contract and furthermore, the release of Black Widow on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20 million she has received to date."

This led to Friday's statement by Bryan Lourd, co-chairman of the Creative Artists Agency, which represents Johansson.

"The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of," Lourd said, according to Variety. 

"Scarlett is extremely proud of the work that she, and all of the actors, writers, directors, producers, and the Marvel creative team have been a part of for well over a decade," Lourd continued. 

Lourd also slammed Disney for "shamelessly and falsely" accusing Johansson of "being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic" in their response to her lawsuit.

Johansson argues that Disney violated her contract, potentially bilking her out of significant income, because her salary was largely based on box-office performance. According to The Wall Street Journal, actor could be missing out on $50 million in added income from bonuses due to movie's box office performance.

According to the Journal, Johansson was concerned about the movie being released in part on Disney+. Her representatives contacted Marvel to ensure that the movie would solely be released in theaters. The story also said Marvel's chief counsel said they would speak with her if those plans changed.

"Black Widow" earned $158 million in its global box-office opening, while Disney saw $60 million in sales from at-home viewing purchases.

"It's no secret that Disney is releasing films like Black Widow directly onto Disney+ to increase subscribers and thereby boost the company's stock price – and that it's hiding behind Covid-19 as a pretext to do so," John Berlinksi, Johansson's attorney, told Insider in an email on Thursday. "But ignoring the contracts of the artists responsible for the success of its films in furtherance of this short-sighted strategy violates their rights and we look forward to proving as much in court."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why I'm throwing away every plastic thing in my kitchen ASAP

"Typical."

What "typical" means in a midpandemic world is an open question. But that single word could make or break Scarlett Johansson's breach-of-contract lawsuit against Disney over the simultaneous streaming and theatrical release on July 9 of Marvel Studios' "Black Widow," according to one longtime entertainment attorney. 

All eyes in Hollywood are on the outcome of this high-profile claim, which could reset the template of studio-talent relationships in an era when blockbuster films are increasingly beamed directly into consumers' homes, which has upended the long-standing model of box-office revenue participation for stars and filmmakers.

Long before the world came to a standstill, Johansson's team contacted Marvel in March 2019 for assurances that the launch of Disney+ (then eight months away) wouldn't change release plans for the film centered on the Avenger and spy Natasha Romanoff — a role Johansson has played across nine titles since 2010's "Iron Man 2."

The suit, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, homes in on an email from Marvel's chief counsel, David Galluzzi, in which he wrote, "It is 100% our plan to do a typical wide release of Black Widow. We ... are very excited to try to do for Black Widow what we've just done with Captain Marvel." (Emphasis in the filing was added by Johansson's attorneys.)

Galluzzi added that the studio understood the star's "willingness to do the film and her whole deal is based on the premise that the film would be widely theatrically released like our other pictures."

"We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses," he said. 

Johansson's attorneys say in their 19-page court filing that a wide theatrical release means a movie that premieres exclusively in theaters for a window of 90 to 120 days before it's distributed on other platforms. What constitutes a "typical" wide release could be key to resolving the suit, said Jonathan Handel, an entertainment attorney at TroyGould and adjunct professor at USC Gould School of Law and Southwestern Law School.

"A 'wide release' means lots of cinemas, lots of screens. Has that customarily been understood to mean only in cinemas? That's a good law school-exam question because it's a question people wouldn't normally have focused on," he told Insider. "A 'typical' wide release is on 2,500 or 3,000 screens and up, and is exclusively theatrical ... That word 'typical' could be the difference between winning and losing this lawsuit."

Johansson's claim that Disney guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release is compelling, if true, James Sammataro, a partner at the law firm Pryor Cashman, said.

But the past 16 months have distorted the arc of a typical release, as exemplified by WarnerMedia's decision to put the entire 2021 Warner Bros. movie slate on HBO Max and in theaters concurrently. The move angered creators and stars, whose back-end deals generally include a portion of movie-ticket sales. The Wall Street Journal reported that WarnerMedia shelled out more than $200 million to make good with its talent.

Johansson's lawsuit alleges that after Disney announced in March that "Black Widow" would premiere simultaneously in theaters and on Disney+'s Premier Access service (for $30), the actor's reps reached out to Marvel to negotiate but were ignored.

More lawsuits might be coming but not 'daily docket filings'

Whether more movie stars will follow suit — and file suit — against studios depends on whether Johansson's litigation survives, said Handel, who added that the filing was against Disney and not its subsidiary Marvel, likely because of an arbitration clause in Johansson's original Marvel agreement. 

"If you really can sidestep the arbitration clause and reach both a judge and a highly public audience by bringing a case in court — a case that would probably be heard if it goes to trial by a jury as Johansson has demanded — that certainly is a great spur," he said.

"You have to have enormous stature in the industry and enormous courage to bring a lawsuit like this because there's always a question of where exactly in this town one's going to eat lunch again when suing a studio," Handel added of Johansson. "These kinds of lawsuits are very rare." 

Disney released a statement saying the lawsuit was without merit and "especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic," citing the $20 million Johansson has already been compensated. But in a nationwide atmosphere increasingly thick with empathy for workers' rights — perhaps even for those who get paid in the eight figures — sentiment seemed to turn Johansson's way on Thursday and Friday, with many industry observers predicting that Disney will settle with the star. 

Barbara Rubin, a partner and cochair of the entertainment department at Glaser Weil, thought it was "inappropriate" for the studio to announce Johansson's salary in its response, since the complaint centers on profit participation. Johansson's CAA agent Bryan Lourd went a step further with a forceful statement saying, in part: "The company included her salary in their press statement in an attempt to weaponize her success as an artist and businesswoman, as if that were something she should be ashamed of. " 

Disney "may get away with this but ultimately it's not good for them," Rubin said, adding: "They need to be holding the hands of the talent and trying to figure out a solution that's good for everybody, not just them."

Either way, Handel and Sammataro both said the star's lawsuit would have an influence on future studio-talent deals.

"I think it will lead to heightened, agitated negotiations," Sammataro, who is skeptical that the suit will open the floodgates to studios getting sued, said.

"You generally say, 'This is my rough justice number. And I'm going to accept my rough justice number because I don't want to go sideways with [the studio], whether it's Paramount or Viacom or Disney, because I need them eventually, and I don't want to be ostracized," Sammataro said. "You may see a couple more. I don't think you'll see daily docket filings."

Ashley Rodriguez contributed reporting.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Where you should go to stay safe during an earthquake

It was an unprecedented move when Disney debuted its first pandemic-era movie simultaneously on its streaming service and in theaters. 

Directors speculated on how doing so could impact the future of traditional filmmaking, streaming platforms followed suit to cash in on movies during a time when theaters were largely shuttered, and many viewers were thrilled they could watch new films at home.

But actress Scarlett Johansson, who stars in Marvel's "Black Widow" that debuted on Disney+ and in theaters on July 9, filed a lawsuit against Disney on Thursday— and it's one of the first sticky situations bred out of studios' decision to release movies online and in theaters.

Here's what you need to know about the "Black Widow" star's lawsuit against Disney.

What happened?

On Thursday, Johansson's lawsuit was made public and argued that Disney, which owns Marvel, violated her contract when it released "Black Widow" on its streaming platforms and in theaters.

Johansson's salary is largely based on box office performance — her character's standalone film raked in $158 million from theaters across the globe. However, Disney enjoyed $60 million in home sales of the movie, which costs $30.

And so sources told the Wall Street Journal that she was shorted an estimated $50 million because of the discrepancy.

Marvel's chief counsel Dave Galluzzi assured Johansson and her team in early 2019 that the film would have an exclusive theatrical release and not be aired online, according to an email included in the lawsuit.

Galluzzi confirmed that was the case and said he would consult the actress if those plans changed since the deal "is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses."

Who are the main players?

Johansson, Disney, and Disney's Marvel. 

What did Disney say about it?

A company spokesperson told Insider on Thursday "there is no merit whatsoever" to Johansson's lawsuit and said the filing was "especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic."

Johansson's attorney, John Berlinski, pushed back on that claim in an email to Insider and said Disney is "hiding behind Covid-19 as a pretext" to "increase subscribers and thereby boost the company's stock price."

Disney also said it has "fully complied" with Johansson's contract and said she's able to earn even more compensation with "Black Widow" airing on Disney+. It also publicly disclosed the actress' salary ($20 million.)

Marvel, on the other hand, reportedly wasn't happy with Disney's decision to release "Black Widow" both online and in theaters, in part because it could lead to piracy.

What's at stake?

Johansson's lawsuit could change how Hollywood pays and contracts talent in an age where streaming is rising in popularity.

As Berlinksi told Insider in an email Thursday, the lawsuit won't be the "last case where Hollywood talent stands up to Disney and makes it clear that, whatever the company may pretend, it has a legal obligation to honor its contracts."

Some are calling for actors to receive payments upfront if movies are going to be released on streaming sites, which could prevent situations like Johansson's from occurring.

The so-called streaming wars have heated up during the pandemic as Warner Bros' HBO Max, Disney+, and others have released high-budget, high-quality films on their services, which subsequently boosted subscribers and their bottom line.

But movie theaters, already battered by the pandemic, are suffering and are far from recovery. As Insider previously reported, "Black Widow" benefited Disney more than it did theaters.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Inside a $3 million doomsday condo that can sustain 75 people for 5 years

Hollywood's A-listers, that rarefied breed of actors who draw mass audiences and command jaw-dropping paychecks, were already an endangered species thanks to cultural trends from the dominance of IP in Hollywood to the ubiquity of social media. 

So the shuttering of movie theaters amid the COVID-19 pandemic looked like another nail to the heart of the megastar, as shoulda-been blockbusters premiered on small screens instead. Added to that creative injury was an even deeper financial insult: No theatrical release, no seven- and eight-figure payments tied to box office grosses. 

But Scarlett Johansson isn't taking this disruption lying down: Her "Black Widow" lawsuit against Disney, filed Thursday and first reported by the Wall Street Journal, could have widespread consequences for other stars' paychecks and power in Hollywood. 

Johansson's suit alleges her contract was breached when her Avenger character's standalone vehicle was released in theaters and on Disney+ the same day — despite what the court filing claims was a "valuable contractual promise" from Marvel that "Black Widow" would have a "wide theatrical release." One source told the Wall Street Journal that Disney's pivot cost Johansson more than $50 million. 

The lawsuit arrives during a crucial transition period for Hollywood, which is seeing studios and filmmakers develop vastly more content than ever before to supply streamers including Disney+, Netflix, HBO Max, and Amazon Prime Video. 

These changes are not only upending time-honored pay structures for stars like Johansson but also minting a new breed of star, whose value is measured more by social media fluency than by ratings or box-office receipts. Consider Noah Centineo, whose Instagram following rose from under a million to more than 13 million in the two months after the Netflix premiere of "To All the Boys I've Loved Before"; he'll soon star opposite Dwayne Johnson in "Black Adam."

While Johnson remains on the short list of headliners who can carry films and fill theater seats, today's audiences care less about the star and more about the IP. The Marvel Cinematic Universe and its trove of franchises is a fine example: Three actors have played Spider-Man in Marvel's live-action films since 2002 — box office success has varied but each Spidey saw at least one hit — and Avengers fans are less driven by the ensemble's star wattage than by the excitement of their favorite superheroes assembling.

Pandemic brought stars closer to audiences — maybe too close

Enter the COVID-19 pandemic, which kept shut-ins around the world glued to streaming films and shows with few big names involved. Shonda Rhimes' frothy Netflix confection "Bridgerton," which debuted last Christmas,was the biggest series debut on Netflix ever, the streamer said, despite having no recognizable actors in its cast. And Disney+'s first hit, "The Mandalorian," was all about Baby Yoda.

The pandemic also chipped away at A-listers' mystique. On late night shows and awards telecasts, audiences saw stars in their living rooms, clad in message T-shirts instead of couture — so accessible, so real, so … unglamorous. 

And as production ground to a several-month halt in early 2020, many celebrities sought to connect with fans by increasing their social media presence. Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat now offer an unprecedented look into the daily minutiae of stars' lives. 

At the same time, these platforms are catapulting waves of unknowns to prominence. Two of TikTok's most popular stars, Charli D'Amelio and Addison Rae, command 121.2 million followers and 82.1 million followers, respectively, with D'Amelio earning $4 million and Rae earning $5 million during the 12-month period ending in June 2020 from a slew of partnerships, according to a Forbes report. 

D'Amelio's and Rae's earnings fall well short of the top paydays for Johansson and her ilk, but these influencers' cultural clout among the younger demographic is their superpower — and it's translating to Hollywood: D'Amelio will appear in a Hulu documentary series alongside her sister premiering September 3, and Rae will appear in a remake of '90s teen rom-com "She's All That" on Netflix later this month. 

Expect that kind of crossover to continue as more influencers rise in status and secure top Hollywood agents to shepherd their far-reaching ambitions. D'Amelio in October 2020 hired Greg Goodfried, UTA's former co-head of digital talent, to help grow the family empire. Time will tell whether "TikTok's First Family" can capture the zeitgeist the way the Kardashians did. 

But don't look for Scarlett Johansson to press her case against Disney in a 90-second viral video or an Instagram Story. She's not on social media.

Read more: Scarlett Johansson's agent accuses Disney of trying to 'weaponize her success as an artist' by revealing her salary

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why scorpion venom is the most expensive liquid in the world

Disney doubled down on its decision to simultaneously release some movies in theaters and on streaming on Thursday.

"As you probably recognize, we live in a very uncertain world in terms of the recovery of some of our markets in the theatrical exhibition world is certainly part of that," Bob Chapek, CEO of Disney said in an earnings call."We've said from the very beginning that we value flexibility in being able to make as last-minute calls as we can given what we see in the marketplace."

His comments come less than two weeks after "Black Widow" star Scarlett Johansson filed a lawsuit against Disney, accusing the company of breaching its contract with her contract by releasing the movie on its Disney+ streaming platform and in theaters at the same time. Her compensation, the lawsuit says, is based largely on box office revenue, some of which will be foregone by streaming. 

Johansson's lawsuit was not immediately addressed in the call. 

The star's attorney told Insider that Disney ignored the contract it had with the actress and violated her rights. 

"It's no secret that Disney is releasing films like Black Widow directly onto Disney+ to increase subscribers and thereby boost the company's stock price – and that it's hiding behind Covid-19 as a pretext to do so," John Berlinksi, Johansson's attorney, said at the time. "But ignoring the contracts of the artists responsible for the success of its films in furtherance of this short-sighted strategy violates their rights and we look forward to proving as much in court."

Disney defended the release, telling Insider that"there is no merit whatsoever to this filing. The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic." The release on Disney+'s "premiere access" subscription level also "significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20M she has received to date."

Overall, contracts with talent during the pandemic's strange era of movie releases have "by and large, they've gone very, very smoothly," Chapek said Thursday.

"Just to reiterate, distribution decisions are made on a film-by-film basis….based on global marketplace conditions and consumer behavior," Chapek added. "We will continue to utilize all available options going forward, learn from insights gained with each release, and innovate accordingly…. while always doing what we believe is in the best interest of the film and the best interest of our constituents."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Inside a $3 million doomsday condo that can sustain 75 people for 5 years