kingbk-2

Full disclosure: while I have seen an episode or two of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, I am not familiar enough with the program to judge this program with that one. Having said that, this program is indeed a nice hybrid of three shows I do enjoy (The Office, Parks and Rec, Silicon Valley) with it's own flavoring as well. It took me a few episodes to get into it, but once I did, I was really hooked.

I think my favorite part of this show is the fact that it might be the best display of a plutonic friendship between a man and a woman that I have ever seen. Ian Grimm and Poppy Li might constantly be arguing and at each other's throats, but the mutual respect they have for each other and the deep bond between them is always evident no matter what. The best part, you can tell they love and care about each other, but romance is never forced and shoved through needlessly. It's about time Hollywood figured out how to write a realistic plutonic friendship between a man and a woman. They exist and there are many of them in 2021.

Also, the show is not afraid to take risks and write episodes completely different from the formula. A Dark Quiet Death, the Quarantine Special and Backstory are a few examples of this.

I'm not sure if this is truly what working at a video game studio is like, but now I can't help think of this show when I read about how video games are developed.

Let's be honest: the original Space Jam was not a great movie. It holds nostalgia in our eyes because it starred the greatest basketball player of all time next to some of our favorite cartoons. However, the original Space Jam looks like a classic compared to this overly produced mess of a sequel.

First off, let's get something straight. LeBron James is an amazing basketball player and he's very popular with young adults. However, he does not have the same aura about him that Michael Jordan did. MJ came at a time when being a celebrity wasn't so ubiquitous like it is now with the Internet and social media. Also, media is so fragmented now that we really don't have those "shared" experiences like we once did. EVERYONE knew MJ and the Chicago Bulls, basketball fans or not. I'm not sure LeBron has that same appeal. Also, even if people didn't like MJ, they respected him. Maybe it's because he gets political, or maybe because he switches teams, I don't know why, but LeBron is much more polarizing. Maybe it's just the cultural climate we live in today, but there are a lot of people who straight up don't like the guy.

The second thing is how corporate this movie is. So many product placements and pseudo commercials all over the place. It takes people out of the story and makes it feel like you are just watching endless commercials for 120 minutes.

Third, 120 minutes is way too long for families. 90 minutes or less. Kids loss attention after that. So do adults.

This movie is fine if you are looking for something to do for 2 hours, but there are better ways to spend that time than watching a lukewarm, unnecessary, over the top commercial showcase designed as a sequel to Space Jam.

In the Heights is a fun musical with great dancing, good music and a lot of energy. However, it is way too bloated. Clocking in at about 2 and a half hours, there are so many parts that plod along with no real focus or direction. Way too many side stories and secondary characters given big numbers. The script and the film in general badly needed an editor. Chop off about 30-45 minutes of material and you likely would have a great show, but instead, you have a good show.

I loved The Chase on GSN. The combination of Brooke Burns, Mark "The Beast" Labbett and regular trivia loving contestants together made for a very exciting quiz show, a format that's very hard to make fresh in lieu of Jeopardy and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. However, this version did just that, and it was one of my favorite shows to watch on GSN.

I was excited when I heard that the show as returning to ABC. However, the excitement dwindled quickly after I started watching it. First off, Sarah Haines is no Brooke Burns. She doesn't understand how to banter with "the Chasers" and she really struggles reading questions quickly, which is essential to this game. She seems nice and is great looking, but not the best host. Instead of having just the Beast, we get four Chasers: the three Jeopardy ultimate champions (Ken Jennings, James Holzhauer and Brad Garrett) and the Beast. The Jeopardy champions are fine I guess. Ken Jennings has the most personality out of all of them. Age I think has caught up to Brad. He has slipped a bit in the trivia department as of late. Might be time to hang it up and call it a career. James Holzhauer has the personality of burnt toast. The Beast is great, but without Brooke to play as his foil, he just seems a bit out of place.

The other thing that bothers me are these behind the scenes shots of the Chasers bantering. Why are these included? Why do we need these?

The questions lean more towards current pop culture, which these trivia giants struggle with. It seems set up to help favor the contestants.

They also cut the budget from the first season.

Overall, great concept, but some disappointing decisions on execution.

Starcade came out in 1982, right in the golden age of video arcades. If you weren't alive for this time, this was when you could find video arcade machines EVERYWHERE. Gas stations, supermarkets, restaurants, bars, shopping malls, no matter where you went, you could find arcades. As this new hobby was becoming a craze, Ted Turner, who was looking for programming for his fledging new cable network TBS, was fascinated by it and bought the concept from a husband/wife team based out of San Francisco. That's how Starcade was born.

Video game based game shows, in my opinion, have not been good. This one, however, is the exception. The game sticks to video games, from the trivia questions asked, to the overall concept. It's two contestants, or two teams depending on the episode, playing against each other to see who could score the most points in the popular games of the time. Stone cold classics like Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, Space Invaders and Galaga were on the program, but so were more obscure titles like M. A. C. H. 3, Cliff Hanger, Bubbles and Holey Moley. Each episode featured contestants playing three of the five games on the program, and whoever had the highest score would play one of the two remaining games, attempting to beat a score in a time frame for a grand prize, which was either an arcade machine, a robot or a jukebox. They also had a "mystery game" which if selected won a prize and a "name the game" mini game for another prize if you could name 3 or 4 out of 4 screens.

Besides the fact that the game stuck to video gaming, it did a few other things I liked. The host, Geoff Edwards, who took over from the stiff, robotic Mark Richards, seemed to genuinely care for the contestants and video games. He didn't try to come off like a fake, hip dude like future video game game show hosts would do. He even played all the games himself, grew to enjoy video games, and gave out his own tips. The other thing was the contestants varied in age, gender and more. You had kids, adults, teens, moms, dads, uncles, aunts and much more. It was very cool and made it appear that video games were a hobby EVERYONE could enjoy. Unfortunately, after the NES came out, Nintendo made it a toy and focused on preteen boys. It wouldn't be until around the PS3/Xbox 360 where gaming once again was accepted as something anyone can enjoy, not just kids, but Starcade was a very early example of this.

Unfortunately, the show only lasted one season, as the video game crash made anything video game related toxic, but it was a wonderful program that should be revived, as video games now are more popular than pop music and movies. There is an audience who would watch and enjoy this program.

Playing with Power is a docu mini-series that talks about the rise (arcades/NES/Game Boy/SNES), fall (N64/Gamecube), rise (DS/Wii), fall (Wii U) and rise (Switch) of Nintendo, if you will. If you have read books on video games or if you have even the slightest knowledge of the history of Nintendo, you likely know most of these stories and nothing new will be uncovered for you.

One of the things this series does that's different is it focuses a lot on video game leaders who are NOT affiliated with Nintendo. Microsoft's Phil Spencer, in particular, comes off like a likable guy. Thanks to him, we've seen some Xbox exclusive gems like Ori and Cuphead come to the Switch. Compared to Nolan Bushnell (who still seems bitter about Atari), Trip Hawkins (never was a fan of Nintendo the company) and Tom Kalinske (You made the Genesis relevant for two years, whoopie!), he comes off the best in the documentary for non-Nintendo figureheads.

I also liked the Gears of War creator (Cliff Bleszinski) say that Zanac on the NES, of all games, was one of the best video games of all time. A pretty off the wall choice and not one of the usual NES standards, but it speaks to the high quality of the NES library.

Some other thoughts:

The first two episodes were well done, the last three were rushed through.

While it does point out some of the negative things about Nintendo, it was all things we already pretty much knew about.

Howard Phillips with an earring? Quite jarring after remembering him for being a bow-tied geek. And why nothing about why he departed the company? His story was dropped with no resolution. It would have been cool to hear about how he almost joined Sega.

Very little about any of the games themselves.

No, mobile games didn't kill the Wii U. Horrible marketing and alienating an entire fanbase of dedicated gamers did. The Switch fixed both of those problems.

Sean Astin said the Wii appealed to all gamers. No, it appealed to casual gamers. The Switch I think is the first console by Nintendo to appeal to all gamers.

Tommy Tallarico is right that quality control has disappeared, which has flooded the Nintendo eShop with garbage, burying many great games underneath.

I'd give the series as a whole a 7 out of 10. Better than Netflix's High Score, but still pretty basic.

It's hard to compare this show to something similar, like Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, and not come out thinking it's quite a bit more mediocre. The writing, acting, music and choreography of Crazy Ex-Girlfriend is so much stronger that this show just doesn't compare. Jane Levy is a great actress, and I'm happy Skyler Astin finally gets his due in a fresh starring role instead of filling in for a very popular character in one of the most controversial moves during Crazy Ex-Girlfriend's time, which hurt his acceptance on that program. The writing on this show is paint by the numbers predictable, and using already written pop songs and over the top choreography doesn't make up for the cliche filled mess this program is as a whole.

And when can we finally get a show with two best friends that are heterosexual and opposite gendered that are truly plutonic best friends? It's 2020, and I know many people that have a best friend of the opposite gender with zero romantic feelings involved. That would be a really fresh and unique take instead of the tired "so and so falls in love with best friend."

Animaniacs returns after a 22 year absence and largely, for the most part, remains just as funny and enjoyable as it was back in the 90s. However, the humor is a little more hit or miss, and the zany magic the show had has been muted a bit. Maybe that's because the 90s were just a more fun decade to riff on than God awful 2020, or maybe that's the new writers, or maybe certain humor has aged a bit, but it just doesn't quite hit like it did in the original format. Don't get me wrong, there are still a lot of laugh out loud moments and I would have to say Pinky and the Brain segments might be even better than they were back in the day, but something seems a little off. It also could be that what I find funny now compared to what I found funny 22 years ago has changed. Or what was a fresh, fun, original concept in the 90s now comes off as a fun, enjoyable but not quite groundbreaking cartoon in 2020. The one thing I don't get is people whining about the show talking about pop culture and politics. This show has ALWAYS talked about pop culture and politics from day one. Maybe you don't find it as enjoyable because the pop culture and politics of 2020 are just that terrible compared to what they were in 1998. So my overall take, a good cartoon, a fun cartoon, but maybe not the renowned cartoon that it was in the 90s.

High Score is great if you are a casual fan and are interested in the history of video games. However, if you are a true gaming fan, you will be screaming at the TV at how many mistakes/gaps are in this mini-series. Nothing about Ralph Baer and how he basically invented the video game, very little about Nolan Bushnell and how Pong launched the arcade era, interviews with artists/small figures for games and many times not the game developers themselves (looking at Final Fantasy). And for a show that wanted to highlight the contributions of minorities, why did you not point out how Donna Bailey co-created Centipede, one of the biggest arcade hits of the golden age? That's a huge omission, especially in favor of an entire episode of an LGBTQ guy who made a game back in the 80s, lost it, and it never saw the light of day, yet it influenced LGBTQ games? That's why people roll their eyes, you forced trivial stuff like that and try to make it seem important, when there are actual minority figures who did do important things that you ignored. Almost nothing about Tetris, which arguably is the most successful video game franchise of all time. Leaving out how Shigeru Miyamoto didn't just make Donkey Kong and Mario, but also Zelda. And nothing about Sony PlayStation and how successful it has been for over 20 years? If you want a better write up on video game history, check out the book "The Ultimate History of Video Games" by Steve Kent, or search YouTube for many videos on different topics that are more researched and informative. This is great for casuals and no one else.

What do you get when you write a movie about perhaps one of the most enigmatic, flamboyant, front men in rock history, but keep it clean for a PG-13 rating? You get this film, an entertaining, enjoyable movie that plays it safe and skirts the more dark elements.

Freddie Mercury was notorious for his sexual relationships, his indulgence, his drug use, his diva behavior that made him truly a pain in the rear end to deal with in the later years. Yet, in this movie, all of that is touched on with kid gloves and we get Freddie, the PG-13 version, with some of these traits, but only to the degree that it moves the film forward. We don't dive deep into his darkest days, and we get none of the edge surrounding his choices during this time.

Beyond that, the rest of the members of Queen are merely props to highlight Mercury it seems. We know little about them, and they seem interchangeable parts, which, for a band as successful and popular as they still are even post Mercury, strikes me as odd. Supposedly, Roger Taylor and Brian May were very particular how their characters were portrayed in the film and as producers, edited out many of the less flattering traits each of them possessed. Why? The best bio films show all the warts and unflattering elements. Here, the keep the darkest parts of Mercury's life under wraps and give their own characters no color.

The truth is played with loosely all throughout the movie. Stuff is left out, events happen differently than how they truly happened, the timeline is not followed in a particular way. Also, for a band known for being extremely competitive during songwriting sessions (Queen was known as The Police before The Police when it came to this), this is only glossed over at best.

Overall, it's an average movie. Entertaining, but missing so much it could, and should, have included.

Reginald Dwight grew up in a loveless home on the outskirts of London. A shy, musical prodigy who could play classical pieces by ear, the only support he finds is from his Grandma, who encourages him to develop his gift. Ignored by his Dad and shunned by his Mom, Reggie takes delight in Elvis Presley records and decides he wants to not only pursue music, but rock music. From forming his high school band Bluesology to meeting young lyricst Bernie Taupin, Reggie's career takes off. Eventually he changes his name to Elton John (though the movie lies about how he came up with the name for some reason), adopts a flamboyant stage persona complete with gaudy costumes and loud accessories and becomes one of the biggest rock stars during the 1970s. As success grows, so too do bad habits, leading a fast downfall and the question if Elton John would ever regain his fame and popularity that he had in his heyday (which, unless you've lived under a rock for the past 30 some years, you know the answer to that question).

I will give this film credit. Unlike Bohemian Rhapsody, which carefully protected some of the more dark elements of Freddie Mercury's life, John lays bare all his warts and short comings. He had a lot of demons and darkness during his career. However, the overall execution is spotty. It can be campy at times, which fits with John's stage persona during this time, but sometimes it goes way beyond, to the point where it's uncomfortable to watch. The actors are good and some of the scenes are very powerful, but then others fall flat. I also would have liked maybe cutting down on some of the stuff (maybe shortening the musical numbers. That "Saturday Night" number goes on way too long) and touching on his "revival" in the 90s, when he did the duet with George Michael, wrote the soundtrack for The Lion King and wrote the biggest selling single in Billboard history with the Candle in the Wind tribute to Princess Diana. Nothing from this timeframe is shown in this movie, and it would have been a good conclusion to the darkness and despair that is throughout his life in this film.

Overall, better than some of the bio pics I've seen, but some weird artistic choices leaves it lacking in some areas as well. If you like Elton John or rock music from the 70s, watch it. If not, you might want to pass.

Gordon Ramsay has been working hard in recent years to rehabilitate his image as the angry, cursing chef, with mixed results. Masterchef and Masterchef Jr. show a more positive, encouraging, patient chef while Hell's Kitchen and Kitchen Nightmares continue demonstrating a moody Brit with a short fuse. With the sad passing of Anthony Bourdain, Ramsay attempts to enter the realm of the traveling food show that acts as an exploration of new cultures. Uncharted attempts this challenge and at times shows potential, but Ramsay is no Anthony Bourdain and it's unlikely he will ever get there.

Some people like to point out how both Bourdain and Ramsay were "culinary bad boys." True, but with a big caveat. Bourdain, besides his turn as a food judge on one season of Top Chef and two seasons of The Big Taste, has largely hung up his apron and packed away his knifes. Ramsay, on the other hand, continues running a food empire with shows, restaurants, books and more that are centered around him being the chef. That never goes away in Uncharted, and the scenes of culture and experience are tempered by cooking competitions, with Ramsay trying to keep it loose with his laughing and joking, but you can see he's still the perfectionist that wants to win. It takes away a lot of the empathy and modesty that Bourdain's programs had where it seemed like he truly cared for the people he was meeting and instead turns into a Ramsay cooking showcase, all around the world.

Some people have the charisma and charm to make us care and pull us in. Here, it feels inauthentic and like it's just another step in the Ramsay food empire. Ramsay is no Anthony Bourdain and Uncharted is not even close to No Reservations.

Have you ever seen a movie that you thought was good, but left the theater disappointed, because you knew deep down in your heart it could have been great? That's how I felt after seeing Yesterday. I remember seeing the previews on TV and thinking "wow, what an original and interesting movie!" I hardly go to the theater anymore because I'm so sick and tired of superhero movies, sequels and remakes, so seeing an idea that seemed unique and different really grabbed my interested. I liked it, but with the right writer and director it could have been heralded like Groundhog Day.

Jack Malik works as a teacher while moonlighting as a struggling musician. He is supported by his longtime childhood friend Ellie Appleton, who, as you expect, harbors a crush on him. One day, after another underwhelming performance, Malik is hit by a bus while biking home. He wakes up, bandaged and a couple of teeth missing, in a new timeline where the Beatles don't exist. Using his knowledge of their catalog, he begins using the songs to help advance his music career to levels he never thought possible before.

This is a brilliant concept that should result in an outstanding movie. In fact, if you look up the original story/screenplay, you see that this was a somewhat dark, complex story. However, Hollywood, as usual, got in the way, with Richard Curtis rewriting the story into a predictable rom com.

The Beatles had no creative input in this film outside of approving of their music being used, and it shows. It seems in fact that a traditional rom com movie was written, and the Beatles part was slapped onto it. This alternative timeline could of and should of been further investigated. Why did it happen? How many people were involved? What else in history has changed? In fact, you could go down a very deep rabbit hole and ask even more questions. If the Beatles never existed and neither did Oasis, does Jack still like music? Maybe he could have woken up and have no interest or ability in music, which then could have changed the type of friendship he has with Ellie, who fell in love with him while watching him perform. Maybe the British Invasion never ended up happening, so bands like The Who, Led Zeppelin and Queen never became a thing. Or maybe rock never took off like it did and standards performed by Michael Buble, Josh Groban, Norah Jones and Diana Krall top the charts. There was so much that could have been explored and that could have made a much more interesting movie.

The problem is the movie, as it progresses, actually gets worse. The relationship between Jack and Ellie has no rhythm to it. It's up, down and I just don't care. And seriously, if two other people in this "new timeline" know of The Beatles, who else does? And I'm sure there are others who aren't as kind or understanding to what Jack is doing, and would blackmail/exploit him for the highest dollar possible. To top it off, there is a scene towards the end of the movie where he meets one of the Beatles that is so contrived, convoluted and almost insulting that I cringed. It alone almost tanked the movie for me.

So yes, a good, albeit predictable rom-com that is an enjoyable 90 minutes of entertainment that could have an excellent, renowned film if it was given a little more TLC.

This version of $100,000 Pyramid is the best remake of this show. In the early 2000s, we got the slick Donny Osmond version, which was style over substance. A few years back, we got one on GSN that suffered budget issues, weak contestants and bad celebrities. This one checks off most of the boxes accurately.

First off, host. Michael Strahan takes over the podium and he does a great job. He's friendly, upbeat and really projects a good Dick Clark vibe but with his own touch. He knows when to crack a joke, he knows when to keep the game moving, he even knows when to give the perfect clue. He doesn't do the back rubs like Clark did, but in 2019, that likely would be frowned upon.

The celebrities are pretty solid. The show moved back to NYC, where it taped in the 70s, and maybe it's just me, but it seems the celebrities from NYC are just a bit more cerebral than the ones in L.A. Not all of them are great, but more of them have been strong players than weak players.

The game goes back to the 7 in 30 format, with a set that harkens to the 80s version but modernized. No 7-11 bonus, but the Mystery 7 remains and the prizes are solid. I wish they would change the tiebreaker rule, I don't like the fastest time gets to go to the Winner's Circle format.

Speaking of the WC, the bonus round is way too easy. One of the things I liked about Pyramid was the bonus round was challenging and rewarded intelligence, similar to Final Jeopardy. This one is way too relaxed on enforcing the rules. I've watched multiple episodes where contestants would have been buzzed in the 80s version for what they say. For the big money this show gives out, we should make it a bit more of a challenge.

Overall though, this is definitely one of the better versions of Pyramid. They did a great job remaking it to follow similar format to the 80s.

Joel McHale is one of my favorite comedians, but his deadpan snark falls flat in Card Sharks. It almost reminds me of David Letterman hosting The Riddlers for one episode. McHale looks bored and that this whole thing is a waste of time.

I appreciate that the show returns to the original 1978 format, up to the poems to start each episode. Answer numerical survey questions and guess if the answer is higher or lower.

Doing one long row of ten cards vs. best out of three of five cards is an interesting choice. I get it that they want to fit two full games in every episode and not straddle like the original show did, but ten cards is a lot. It slows the game at times to a halt.

The money cards bonus round is back and in a similar format. However, now we have unnecessary "chips" to bet for each turn. Why?

The set is fine. The models do what they should do.

The contestants? More L.A. local actors trying to get "noticed." I miss shows where the contestants seemed like regular people. Why is it not that way anymore?

Overall, the potential is blunted by some questionable choices.

Press Your Luck, the 80s hit game show from CBS that's lived in reruns for years, has returned to TV with new episodes after almost 33 years. ABC, which has done a tremendous job in bringing back old game show and modernizing them while keeping the classic feel of the sets and rules, has done it again. So has does PYL hold up in this new era of TV?

The set looks like a brighter, more modern version of the 80s set. It's even taped in CBS Television City like the original! The main rules of the game are the same as before: contestants buzz in to answer trivia questions, with a correct buzz in answer getting 3 spins and correct multiple choices answers 1 spin. The first question round in this new version is three questions instead of four. This was likely due to the new bonus round and more commercials needing to air than they did in the 80s. Contestants take their spins to the board to win cash and prizes and avoid the Whammy, which acts a bankrupt and loses the contestant everything. Contestants play another question round, this time with four questions, and then another board round. The player with the highest total after all the spins wins and plays the bonus round. Like the original, four whammies eliminates you from the game.

The host: I think it's funny some people think Pete Tomarken was in the same category of host as Bob Barker or Alex Trebek. He was not. He was a good host, but not this amazing host. Elizabeth Banks I think does a great job. She's funny, she seems genuinely excited and she keeps the game moving. To those complaining she says "press your luck or pass?" too much, watch an 80s rerun and you'll see Peter doing the same thing.

The board: loaded with tons of cash and prizes. Nice cars, exotic trips, and squares with all the unique cash values like the older version.

The main game: I honestly started getting a little bored with the main game. I soon realized why this game was maybe always a smidge overrated compared to other game shows. It doesn't have the same excitement or pull to it that a game show like Pyramid, Jeopardy or Price is Right has. Maybe this was entertaining to watch in the 80s, but now just watching people hit a button over and over again gets kind of tiring.

The whammy animation: I like that the kept the old hand drawn style of whammy cartoons. I think for the most part they are good.

The bonus round: the best part of this new version and a great way to update a somewhat outdated format. Contestants risk taking a minimum number of spins to rack up cash and prizes, with the chance to win $1 million. Each round they must take the minimum number of spins. After they take them, they can quit with their winnings, or go to the next round, with more money on the board, but also more whammies. Four whammies ends the game. It's actually quite an exciting format and it's very neat that they put prizes on the board for the contestant.

I think adding the bonus round helped refresh a rather aging format of a game show. If it was just the main game, I think most people likely would have gotten bored with it quickly, but this new bonus round adds a wrinkle of excitement.

Overall, a pretty solid revival, but compared to the better game shows out there like Pyramid, Jeopardy and Price is Right, Press Your Luck falls a bit short.

The Goldbergs has been a very funny show. 80s nostalgia with interesting, hilarious characters results in a show that is touching, but entertaining at the same time. What do you do when you start running out of 80s stuff to talk about and you have characters aging? You create a spinoff set in the 90s!

Schooled is the second attempt at a spinoff of The Goldbergs. The first one in 2018 starring Nia Long didn't get off the ground and was never picked up by ABC. This one, Lainey Lewis, best friend of Erica and girlfriend of Barry, is the main character. Also joining her from the Goldbergs universe are Coach Mellor (Bryan Callen) and Mr. Glascott (Tim Meadows), who now is principal.

Lewis applies to be music teacher after her dream at stardom in Hollywood fizzles out. In the job, she struggles learning how to teach while inspiring her students at the same time.

There's something missing with this show. It fell flat for me. The characters are not as interesting. The charm is missing. It felt too forced. I just didn't like it much.

I'll give it a couple more episodes, but maybe you can't recreate this again.

I've been trying to figure out why I no longer go to the movie theater as much as I used to. I think I've figured it out. Hollywood treats us like suckers. They rewrite the same films over and over again, and expect us to shell out the $12-$15 for a ticket, $20 for concessions and do it week in and week out. Ocean's Eight is Exhibit B (Star Wars Exhibit A, comic book movie of the month Exhibit C) of exactly what is wrong with Hollywood today.

Let me be straight up before diving in: I would LOVE an all-female crime film. I think an all-female crime film would be awesome. However, taking the Ocean's 11 script, tweaking it a bit and putting in female characters isn't what I had in mind. That's essentially what they did with this movie. Gary Ross took Steven Soderbergh's 2001 script, made some edits to it, replaced the males with females, and called it a day.

I mean, Debbie Ocean, Danny's "estranged" sister? Really? Is the whole Ocean family corrupt? Guess we'll need a prequel now about how Mom and Dad had their first date by jacking a sports car. Yeesh.

The beginning of the movie is almost verbatim Ocean's 11, except we moved the location from the West Coast to the East Coast. George Clooney had Brad Pitt as his right hand man. Sandra Bullock gets Cate Blanchett, who does a wonderful impersonation of a female Rusty Ryan, except without all the eating. Swap out robbing casinos with robbing diamonds. Gather the gang. Ho hum.

Instead of getting Terry Benedict and Tess Ocean, we get someone who is basically both characters in one. As you can predict, just like Ocean's 11, Blanchett, like Pitt, questions the revenge motive behind the crime. They still participate anyways. And we get an hour or so of the most predictable, banal, anticlimactic heist "action" around. You know what will happen because you've seen most of this already. Sure, some new "twists" are thrown in, but again, you will feel deja vu with this film.

I will give credit to Anne Hathaway. She gives by far the best performance in this crud. Her character is an biting satire of the Hollywood diva. Too bad they couldn't have given her more screen time. She would have made this at least enjoyable predictability.

Instead, we get this mess, with some forced appearances by the Ocean's 11 gang. It doesn't save this mess.

How about some original ideas Hollywood?

NYC photographer Chris Washington (Daniel Kaluuya) has been happily dating his caucasian girlfriend Rose Armitage (Allison Williams) for five months. She coaxes him into going to her parent's house one weekend to meet the family. His best friend Rod warns him against this, but he agrees to join Rose. They make the hour-2 hour drive outside the city into a beautiful lake community where the Armitage house resides. Chris immediately feels uncomfortable, from the black servants working at the house, to the awkward conversations he has with her family, to the unannounced party they will now have to attend. Chris learns of a dark secret the family is hiding, and must figure out how he can escape before it's too late.

This is honestly one of the most original movies I've watched in years. Jordan Peele, a comedian I enjoy from his Key & Peele days, writes a story that honestly resonates more with what America is like these days more than the typical racism stories you see. He hits on the "white liberal guilt" type of racism, where whites are not blatantly racist to blacks, but instead want blacks to fit a certain white mindset. These are the types who point to Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Denzel Washington and President Barack Obama and want blacks to be like that. They aren't calling them the "n" word, they aren't attacking them and many times they are friendly towards them, but only to a point. I'm glad this aspect is finally touched on because in 2018, there are many, many more types of this pseudo discrimination and racism than there are of the white nationalist, blatant racism variety. The irony of it all is Peele himself is married to a white caucasian woman, so I'm sure many of the themes and topics are things he dealt with (and still does) in that relationship.

Calling it just a horror movie doesn't do it justice. Horror, with a mix of comedy, satire and thriller is probably a better description. I takes a deeply political, sensitive issue, addresses it, and does it in a way that is not pushy or over the top. The characters are not stereotypes, but fully developed. The story builds and builds, with a conclusion that I found satisfying.

Peele could be a filmmaker to keep an eye on moving forward. I look forward to other stories he has to tell.

Lady Bird was a surprisingly strong film. I didn't know what to expect with the movie, but what you get is a very funny, well written tale of a young girl from Sacramento entering her senior year of high school, figuring out how to escape to New York City.

Christine McPherson is a 17-year-old teen who refers to be called "Lady Bird." She lives in a lower-middle class area of Sacramento, a city she loathes, with an adopted older brother who is attached to his girlfriend. She wants to move to New York City and applies to a bunch of universities in the city. However, her Mom, a firm, honest, but fair nurse, reminds Lady Bird of the unlikelihood of being able to afford such a school. She still applies to them, with help from her chronically depressed and unemployed but loving Dad. They keep it a secret between the two of them. To help assist her admittance, she gets involved in the Drama Club at her strict Catholic School. As her senior year unfolds (during 2002-2003), she befriends new people, tries new things and learns more about herself, her family and what she really wants from life.

Great Gerwig writes a nice love letter about her hometown and her family. Sacramento frequently gets dismissed for the more glamorous Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego in California, but the wonderful cinematography paints a beautiful city, warts and all. Lady Bird is naive, rebellious, scared and frankly is a realistic teenager. She loves her parents, but they drive her nuts. She wants a boyfriend, but makes questionable decisions. She wants to be popular, but alienates her best friend in the process. She tries to charm the cool math teacher for a better grade. It's funny and it's also true. That's the underlying theme of the movie. In the end, when she finally moves to NYC, she realizes the scenery might have changed, but the true change will have to come from inside, and though it was time to move on from her past life, there was a lot to like about it and she gets a whole new appreciation of her life in Sacramento.

Strong writing, brilliant acting, lots of humor and a touching story. Lady Bird was a strong movie and one of the best ones I've seen recently.

I went into yesterday waiting for the DuckTales reboot skeptical. Many times when something is relaunched, it's not nearly as good as expected. However, I must say that the new DuckTales is quite good, perhaps, dare I say, even better than the original. There are some things I like better off the bat. The animation is much higher quality now than it was in the 80s. It's fluid, it's clean and it has a comic book feel to it that gives a nice nod to Carl Barks and his original creation. Also, I like that Huey, Dewey and Louie are given actual individual personalities. In the original, they were pretty much interchangeable. This one, each has a unique appearance and demeanor. Webby is also much better in this one. The writing is strong. A great mix of humor, adventure and character development. Having Donald Duck as a main character is great and adds new dimensions to the show. The only thing early on that really bugged me was the new voice of Scrooge. I know that Alan Young has passed away, but it's going to take some time to get used to this new voice. In defense, I do like the characterization of Scrooge, so once I get used to the voice, it shouldn't be bad either. The other voice actors are great. You can tell they hired some big names to help with this show. This reboot is high quality and has a ton of potential. I look forward to seeing how it unfolds once it goes on the regular schedule. Bravo Disney!

Pirates of the Caribbean, when it came out in the early 2000s, was one of the most original and unique movies to be released in recent memory. It was a great mix of comedy, adventure and action that could appeal to the whole family. Depp's boozy Captain Jack Sparrow was part ruthless pirate and part sly wink. You never knew which one you would get. The first one got it all right: a great story, a ton of adventure and a lot of fun. However, the series has dropped in quality a bit more with each subsequent release, to the point that now I find the whole thing boring, trite and overdone. Depp's Sparrow continues his act, but now it's more canned and predictable. The story seems to be written as it goes along, so you lose track of what's going on and who's doing what and why we even care. It deals with Will Turner and Elizabeth Swain's son and that he wants to join an evil pirate group and yada yada. Some explosions, sword fights, Sparrow drunk walking and some boats on the water. Ho hum. The good news was at two hours, this was one of the shorter films in the series. The bad news is this aging franchise has long overstayed its welcome.

I was really looking forward to this. I thought this was going to be great. Robert DeNiro, HBO, Michelle Pfeffier, a very interesting story about one of the most successful conmen in our country, how could this go wrong? Unfortunately, it does from the beginning. The problem with this movie is that the writing puts it down a path that is uninteresting. We don't learn much about Madolff, his family or why he got to where he is today. Instead, it's a series of interviews Madolff has with a NY Times writer while in prison. The story is told in a mix of flash forwards and flashbacks, never developing much of a rhythm. I started getting bored with the slow dialogue and unfolding of scenes that really didn't tell me much at all. Hank Azaria plays a great villain, but why do we need to hear 10 minutes of a disgusting joke to get that point? There's just no build up or conclusion. What we get is a man who knows what he did was wrong and keeping it from his unlikable family. I had no sympathy. The Madolff scandal is a very interesting story, it's too bad it wasn't told in an interesting, thought provoking way.

Forget the "kid friendly" sequels, forget the Michael Bay remakes, forget the CGI experiment. This, right here, is and still remains the definitive Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie. This got the vision laid out by Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird most accurately: A dark, edgy, tongue-in- cheek parody to Frank Martin, Daredevil, Cerebus and New Mutants. Sure, you still had some of the cartoon elements thrown in for good measure (the colored masks, the surfer lingo), but compare this one to the other movies and this one followed the closest to the original comic book series, which was written for adults. The violence has been toned down significantly, as has the cursing, but it's there, on a lower level. As a kid, I was confused about why this was so dark and almost scary. Later, reading the underrated comic books, I learned this was what TMNT was originally envisioned as. Eventually, toy sales and Saturday morning TV won over the comic book, but here, for one brief movie, the turtles, as they were meant to be seen by their original creators, got their time in the sun. The writing isn't terrific and the acting not award winning, but still a fun movie to watch from time to time.

I'm a huge fan of the band Chicago, mainly of the 1968-1978 output. The combination of jazz, rock and pop was uncanny, and the band wasn't afraid to try out new things that were uncomfortable at times. I was looking forward to this documentary, to learn about the various band members, the different variations of the band and how some of their big songs were composed. What we get instead is a biased view from the four remaining original members, who seem defensive of where they are today.

I enjoyed the tribute to Terry Kath, easily the heart and soul of this band, whose death changed everything. The man was a guitar legend, and seemingly underrated compared to most of this time frame. Jimi Hendrix himself called him the best guitar player of the time, even better than himself! Kath also had a soulful growl, similar to Ray Charles, that gave their sound an R&B flavor. It was fun to learn about the early days, from forming in the namesake city to moving out to L.A. living in squalor to creating albums at a retreat in Colorado, where anything and everything was allowed (sex, drugs, rock and roll). However, we lose Kath to a gun accident, and the band never fully recovered. They lost their label and their direction. Eventually, they would get resigned and start working with David Foster. This period is very polarizing to fans. Some think this was Chicago at their best, others thought the band was too slick, too focused on ballads and Peter Cetera. Danny Seraphine admitted he was the one who pushed them towards Foster, and Foster even admits he might have changed the band too much. Lamm considered leaving the band at this time, and Cetera soon would when the band wouldn't allow him time to work on a solo album. Shortly after, Seraphine would get canned when his drumming deteriorated due to his focus on the more managerial aspects of the band. The four others don't seem to have nice things to say about Cetera or Seraphine. They say Cetera "wasn't that important" to the band, regardless of the fact he was one of their main lead singers and created many of their important singles. They make Seraphine's replacement seem like such a better drummer, which is completely false. These remaining members seem bitter and grumpy about things, and it's really too bad.

The better name for this film should have been "how a great band turned into an oldies act and can't let go of things." Disappointing.