Back in the ’90s, a sitcom called That ’70s Show appeared on TV screens worldwide. At that time, I didn’t watch the show regularly, but rather sporadically. I found it amusing, yet not entirely convincing. It wasn’t until the 2000s that I eventually started watching the show in English, and it was so much better than in German. Don’t get me wrong—the German voice actors usually do an outstanding job, but when it comes to sitcoms, where there are plenty of puns and wordplay, it’s difficult to find suitable translations. I loved the first few seasons, but I’m not sure if I even finished the last one. The quality dropped over time. However, a funny constant throughout the seasons was Red and Kitty. Also, the ’90s were the golden age of sitcoms, and over time, I grew to become a fan of the show.

I was really skeptical when Netflix announced a sequel set in the ’90s, logically named That ’90s Show. Of course, the first episode brought back the familiar faces from the original show to get it off to a good start. That helped a lot in warming up to the new characters. However, there was no long transition from old to new, and the new cast had to prove they could carry the legacy on their own and evolve into something fresh. After watching the 10 episodes of the first season, I wasn’t entirely convinced, but I was curious to see how the story would continue.

So, I was happy when the second and third seasons were announced, with 8 episodes each. Although That ’90s Show will never reach the quality of That ’70s Show, it manages to create its own world, which I can relate to as a ’90s kid. I wonder if ’70s kids felt the same way about That ’70s Show in the ’90s?

Red and Kitty still have their spirit, but of course, the actors have aged—going from old to even older. It’s been almost 20 years between the last episode of the original and the first episode of the sequel. As a fan of the original show, I struggle with the new cast, but I think that’s for two reasons:

1. The new cast is young, as all the characters are meant to be teenagers. Maybe I’m just too old to relate to the “dumbasses,” as Red would say.
2. The new cast isn’t just targeting people like me; it also has to reach a younger audience, which I’m no longer part of.

Nevertheless, That ’90s Show isn’t a must-watch, but rather a nice-to-watch. The 20-minute episodes are easy-to-digest, entertaining snacks. If you liked That ’70s Show and are a ’90s kid like me, you might enjoy this one too.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

The eagerly awaited third installment of the Deadpool movies kicks off in full throttle right from the opening sequence, staying true to the Merc with a Mouth. I’d say this is Ryan Reynolds’ masterpiece (so far). However, you may wonder why I give “only” 4.5 out of 5 stars: because the movie is only half as funny if you don’t know Deadpool or the Marvel universe. Movies like Iron Man or Captain America served as gateways into the Marvel world for those unfamiliar with the comics. Deadpool & Wolverine is not quite like that. Of course, it won’t appeal to those who haven’t seen the first two movies, but even then, that’s not enough. The movie is a 2-hour Easter egg collection for nerds. Moreover, it’s a buddy movie – a film where two buddies play two guys who become buddies.

The movie boasts a nearly perfect cast with plenty of surprises, keeping interest high throughout. The chemistry between the actors is palpable, particularly between Reynolds and Jackman, breaking through the fourth wall.

Reviewing a movie like this without spoilers is challenging, but I can confidently say my rating is from a fan’s perspective. If you’re not into this world, it’s a violent action movie with explicit language and some good (dad) jokes – something that might rate as a 1.5 out of 5 stars for some.

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and I watched it with my best buddy – my wife, who enjoyed it too. So, I can’t even think of rating this movie poorly. Grab your buddy, wife, husband, girlfriend, boyfriend, or whatever buddy, and go see Deadpool & Wolverine. It’s a blast, that makes your inner teenager giggle.

Just when I hear the name Dick Turpin, a rush of memories hit me. Remembering all the fun I had as a kid watching Sidney James and the “Carry on…” movies.

The historic person of Richard Turpin (1705–1739) was an English highwayman, son of a butcher, whose exploits were romanticized following his execution in York for horse theft. In the early 1730s, Turpin became involved with the Essex gang of deer thieves. The Essex Gang is also part of the new show available on Apple TV.

He is also known for a fictional 200-mile (320 km) overnight ride from London to York on his horse Black Bess, a story that was made famous by the Victorian novelist William Harrison Ainsworth almost 100 years after Turpin’s death. Ainsworth’s legend of Black Bess was repeated in works such as Black Bess or the Knight of the Road, a 254-part penny dreadful published in 1867–68. In these tales, Turpin was the hero, accompanied by his trusty colleagues Claude Duval, Tom King, and Jack Rann. These narratives, which transformed Turpin from a pockmarked thug and murderer into “a gentleman of the road [and] a protector of the weak”, followed a popular cultural tradition of romanticizing English criminals.

Apple takes the historic facts and turns it into a 6 part comedy show (so far), with a 30 minutes runtime per episode. Noel Fiedlung portrays the highway man, and I think his kind of humor is polarizing, and thus, I think there will be many people not liking the series at all. I know Fielding from his appearance in the IT Crowd. I like his sense of humor, but it took me one episode to get into it.

Dick Turpin is not a must-see, but a fun-to-watch.

Over the years, I’ve realized I enjoy movies and series most when I don’t know anything about them. Sure, I hear about the latest movies/shows and read about the cast and the media talking about them, but I avoid delving too deep. Surprise definitely enhances the enjoyment, and the lower the expectations, the less the disappointment.

A few weeks ago, I caught a teaser for “Argylle.” It didn’t reveal much about the plot; rather, it showcased the cast. And it worked; it grabbed my attention. However, I also gathered that this might not be high-quality storytelling but rather easily digestible entertainment for a Sunday night.

Thus, I decided to watch it one Sunday evening, and I wasn’t disappointed. It’s difficult to write a review without spoilers, but I believe I can say that the movie doesn’t introduce anything groundbreaking to our cinematic universe. Yet, it’s an entertaining spy action comedy. That’s what I was in the mood for that Sunday night, and that’s what I got.

Don’t expect too much logic from this flick, as that will detract from the fun. Simply enjoy the vibrant and colorful visuals. I don’t understand why movies nowadays have to exceed a runtime of 2 hours, especially for such straightforward movies, but I believe a duration of about 100 minutes would suffice for a movie like this.

Anyway, I enjoyed the almost 2 and a half hours.