Author: Wally De La Fuente

As a fan of both “New Girl” and “Freelancers,” I appreciate the unique charm each show brings to the comedy genre. “New Girl” has been a personal favorite for its witty humor and the delightful quirkiness of its characters, especially Jess. The show’s ability to blend sexual jokes and situational comedy in an urban setting is unparalleled. It’s a series that resonates with a young adult audience, navigating relationships and life in the city with a humorous twist. While both are American comedy series, they have distinct settings, themes, and character dynamics.

“New Girl,” a sitcom created by Elizabeth Meriwether, aired from 2011 to 2018 on Fox. It revolves around Jess Day, a quirky teacher who moves into a Los Angeles loft with three men: Nick Miller, Schmidt, and Winston Bishop. The show combines comedy and drama as it explores the characters’ relationship issues and career choices in their late twenties and early thirties. “New Girl” is known for its ensemble cast and single-camera setup, focusing mainly on Jess, portrayed as a unique character who would typically be a side character in other shows. About 20% of each episode was improvised, contributing to its success.

On the other hand, “Freelancers” is a web television series created by Mallory Everton for JK! Studios, shot in Provo, Utah. Premiering on YouTube in 2019, it follows five broke millennials struggling to build their video production company despite limited resources and experience in a small, quirky town. The cast includes Whitney Call as Arizona “Zona” Goodwin, the creator and producer; Mallory Everton as Devin Mann, the editor; Stacey Harkey as Micah Pratchett, handling light, sound, and make-up; Stephen Meek as Owen Darby, the director; and Matt Meese as Ryan Mcloud, the camera operator.

While both shows are comedies, “New Girl” is a more traditional sitcom with a focus on character relationships and personal growth in an urban setting. In contrast, “Freelancers” has a premise centered around the professional struggles and humorous endeavors of a group of friends in a small town, with a more entrepreneurial and creative industry focus. The improvised nature of “New Girl” and its focus on a female lead in a mixed-gender living situation contrasts with the more structured narrative and ensemble focus on a workplace comedy in “Freelancers.”

On the flip side, “Freelancers” holds a special place in my heart for its more family-oriented approach. It’s refreshing to see a comedy that focuses on the professional and creative struggles of a group of friends without relying heavily on sexual humor. The show offers a wholesome and relatable portrayal of young entrepreneurs in a small town, making it a perfect choice for family viewing. The characters are endearing, and their entrepreneurial adventures are both amusing and inspiring.

While “New Girl” thrives on its edgy, adult humor and complex relationship dynamics, “Freelancers” shines with its light-hearted storytelling and family-friendly content. Both shows are brilliant in their own right, offering something unique to their respective audiences. Whether you’re looking for a good laugh after a long day or a show to enjoy with the whole family, these two comedies have got you covered.

While New Girl can be watched exclusively on Peacock, you can watch Freelancers here on ReDiscover Television!

As someone who journeyed through the whirlwind that is “Loki” Season 2, I’m left with an intriguing blend of confusion and anticipation. The initial episodes were a rollercoaster of timelines and realities, often leaving me wondering if I was watching a cleverly crafted narrative or merely a chaotic jumble of Marvel lore.

The series’ penchant for time-slipping and universe-hopping gave off an air that everything we’ve known about the Marvel Cinematic Universe might be rendered inconsequential. This feeling was compounded by the seemingly aimless wanderings of Loki and his companions through various timelines, making the first half of the season feel more like a labyrinthine diversion rather than a meaningful narrative.

One of the more perplexing episodes of “Loki” Season 2 involved the destruction of multiple timelines, an event that left me with more questions than answers. As I watched timelines being obliterated, I couldn’t help but wonder about the fate of the universes and characters we’ve grown to love in the MCU. Was this the end of the Spider-Man universe as we know it? Were other beloved characters and storylines being wiped out of existence? This episode, while visually stunning and dramatic, instilled a sense of uncertainty and concern. It felt like Marvel was flirting with the idea of erasing significant parts of its cinematic history, potentially upending narratives and characters that have been meticulously built over the years. This bold move by the show’s creators seemed to challenge the permanence of everything we’ve seen in the MCU, leaving me both intrigued and apprehensive about the future of these beloved universes. But alas, no. They were not brave enough to see it through. Of course, everyone who must have obliterated were people we never met and leads us to never care much.

However, there’s a turning point in the final three episodes that compels me to reconsider the overall impact of the series. These episodes hinted at a potential conclusion to the Kang storyline, a pivotal arc in the Marvel Universe. It’s as though the chaotic puzzle pieces started aligning, providing a clearer picture of where the MCU might be heading.

This seemingly marks the end of Kang’s arc, brings a mixed sense of relief and disappointment. While the narrative decision to potentially close the chapter on Kang’s character might streamline the MCU’s future storytelling, the portrayal of Kang in this series – and indeed in his other appearances in the Marvel movies – was underwhelming. The actor tasked with bringing Kang to life failed to deliver the gravitas and complexity expected of such a pivotal character. His performance often felt flat and uninspired, lacking the depth and charisma necessary to make Kang a memorable and formidable antagonist in the MCU. This lackluster portrayal only added to the sense of anticlimax in the series’ conclusion, leaving a gap where there should have been a powerful impact. The end of Kang’s storyline, therefore, while a narrative relief, also feels like a missed opportunity to explore a richer, more compelling character in the Marvel universe.

So the final episode, in particular, felt like a reset button. It cleverly managed to bring the narrative back to basics, making the convoluted journey of the earlier episodes seem almost unnecessary. In a strange twist, the finale renders much of the Loki series – with its time loops, alternate realities, and complex character arcs – as somewhat irrelevant to the broader MCU narrative.

As a viewer, this leaves me with mixed feelings. On the one hand, the series showcases Marvel’s creative storytelling and the endless possibilities within its universe. On the other hand, the realization that much of what transpired in “Loki” might not significantly impact the overall storyline gives a sense of futility.

In summary, “Loki” Season 2 is an enigmatic addition to the MCU. It’s a series that challenges viewers with its complexity and then, quite unexpectedly, simplifies everything in its final act. While it may seem that the series doesn’t add much to the MCU’s overarching narrative, its potential role in concluding the Kang saga makes it a crucial watch for dedicated Marvel fans.

I felt more watching the original 70’s Spider-man live action series and that’s saying a lot. What? Haven’t seen that? Take a look on www.rediscovertelevision.com!

“Thanksgiving” had me at its grindhouse roots – a promise of raw, unfiltered horror that harked back to the golden era of exploitation films. When Eli Roth first teased us with the mock trailer in “Grindhouse,” I was all in for a gritty, blood-soaked ride. However, the 2023 feature film, while entertaining, swerved off this path, veering into a territory reminiscent of late ’90s and early 2000s slashers, leaving me with a mixed bag of feelings.

The original trailer was a tribute to the grindhouse style – rough around the edges, yet charming in its brashness. It encapsulated everything the genre stood for: gore, shock value, and a tongue-in-cheek approach to horror. In contrast, the full-length “Thanksgiving” film ditches this aesthetic for a narrative structure and tone that would feel more at home in films like “Scream” or “I Know What You Did Last Summer.” It’s not that I don’t appreciate these films – they have their place in horror history – but I couldn’t help feeling a twinge of disappointment for the missed opportunity to revive the grindhouse style in its full glory.

The modern setting and incorporation of current technology felt like a diversion from the unrefined rawness I was craving. The opening Black Friday sequence, albeit gory and darkly comical, lacked the unapologetic, low-budget feel of a true grindhouse flick. There can also be the argument that this kind of Black Friday tragedy hasn’t happened since the mid 2010’s, which is when this film seems to be an homage to. The film’s pivot to a more contemporary slasher style, complete with a high school-centric plot and a more polished look, seemed like a departure from the gritty authenticity that the trailer promised.

Don’t get me wrong, Roth’s direction and Rendell’s script do offer some captivating moments. The killer, wearing the mask of Plymouth’s first governor, adds a unique twist, and the film does an efficient job of setting up its characters. However, the narrative and stylistic choices steer the film towards a genre that, while popular, doesn’t quite satisfy the longing for that raw, visceral grindhouse experience.

In essence, “Thanksgiving” is a decent slasher film that ticks many boxes for a horror enthusiast. Yet, for someone yearning for a true grindhouse revival, it’s akin to expecting a Thanksgiving feast and getting a well-prepared, but somewhat conventional, dinner. It’s good, but it’s not the nostalgic indulgence I was hoping for.

“Eli Roth’s ‘Thanksgiving’ (2023) not suitable for family viewing. This film, rooted in the slasher and horror-comedy genres, presents a level of gore, violence, and dark humor that is inappropriate for younger audiences. Its graphic depictions of violence, combined with a storyline centered around a serial killer, make it a film that is best reserved for mature viewers. The film’s over-the-top kills, disturbing thematic elements, and the intense horror it portrays are far from the content typically deemed suitable for family-friendly entertainment. ‘Thanksgiving’ caters to an adult audience, seeking thrills and chills in the horror genre, and is not recommended for family movie nights, especially those with children or viewers who are sensitive to graphic horror content.”

If you would like to take a look at another film which captures the essence I wanted in Thanksgiving, look no further than “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” It is renowned for its raw, visceral horror that’s both shocking and deeply unsettling. The film’s gritty, low-budget aesthetic and its relentless, nightmarish atmosphere echo the grindhouse tradition. It’s a movie that doesn’t rely heavily on gore (despite its reputation) but rather on intense psychological terror, much like what was expected from “Thanksgiving.”

Watch on www.rediscovertelevision.com!

by Wally De La Fuente

“The Marvels,” directed by Nia DaCosta, is a film that dances on the edge of brilliance and confusion, a tightrope act that is both its strength and downfall.

Nia DaCosta’s direction shows promise, despite her remote completion of the film due to scheduling conflicts. Her departure from traditional on-site direction, though unusual, was not unprecedented in filmmaking. DaCosta adapted to these challenges, finishing post-production in the United Kingdom. This move, while necessary, might have impacted the film’s cohesion, though DaCosta stated that her vision and that of her crew remained clear throughout.

Brie Larson’s portrayal of Captain Marvel reveals a matured and more engaging character than her previous outings. Larson brings a depth to Carol Danvers, indicating a deepened understanding and comfort in the role. This evolution is a refreshing shift, adding layers to a character that previously seemed more monolithic.

Iman Vellani, as Ms. Marvel, is a revelation. Her performance is brimming with energy and charisma, portraying Kamala Khan as a relatable and endearing hero. Vellani’s portrayal stands as a highlight, bringing a much-needed freshness to the MCU.

However, the film’s ambitious nature is its Achilles’ heel. The narrative, cluttered with multiple storylines and characters, struggles under the weight of its own complexity. This clutter is perhaps a consequence of Disney’s influence, aiming to please a wide audience but losing narrative focus in the process.

The singing sequence on the planet Aladna, initially jarring, eventually finds its rhythm. This sequence, initially intended to be longer and more elaborate, was cut down, much to the disappointment of Vellani, a self-proclaimed musical theater enthusiast. The sequence, while at first seeming out of place in the MCU, eventually adds a unique charm to the film, showcasing a willingness to experiment with genre conventions.

Not to be overlooked are the film’s feline elements. Goose, the adorable cat from “Captain Marvel,” returns, adding a light-hearted and whimsical touch to the narrative. His presence, though seemingly minor, contributes to the film’s charm and appeal, resonating with audiences who enjoyed his antics in the previous film.

In conclusion, “The Marvels” is a film of contrasts. It excels in character development, particularly with Larson’s and Vellani’s performances, and dares to experiment with musical elements. Yet, it stumbles in its convoluted plot and tonal inconsistencies, likely a result of external studio influences. It’s a film that will entertain and perplex in equal measure, a testament to the ever-evolving nature of the MCU.

Be sure to watch the original 1941 serial Captain Marvel on ReDiscover Television!