You know that trope where a character has to spend a night in a creepy old mansion and if they’re still alive the next morning, they inherit or win something? Willy’s Wonderland is basically that, except with Nicolas Cage, a Chuck E. Cheese-style restaurant filled with evil animatronic robots, and a cool-ass car. House on Haunted Hill could never.
Willy’s Wonderland stars Cage as an energy drink-chugging janitor (I’m already in) whose car gets a flat tire in a nowhere town. “Unable to pay the repair shop to fix his Jeep, he agrees to work off his debt by spending the night cleaning Willy’s Wonderland, an abandoned theme park full of animatronic characters that were once a beacon of fun for children to play with,” according to the official plot description. “But Willy’s Wonderland carries a dark secret that The Janitor is about to discover.” If you guessed “smashing a robot ostrich with a broken mop,” congratulations, you are correct.
“He’s been lured into a deadly trap, or rather, a living nightmare, as the Wonderland’s animatronic characters come to life to destroy him. The Janitor is forced to fight his way from one monster to another, trying to survive until morning.”
I can’t believe it took this long for Nicolas Cage to play a janitor who has to battle murderous robots in a movie described as “Pale Rider vs. Killer Klowns from Outer Space.” It seems like something he should have done years ago.
Willy’s Wonderland, which also stars Emily Tosta, Beth Grant, Ric Reitz, and Chris Warner, hits digital and On Demand on February 12.
More news continues to trickle in following the violent insurrection on Capitol Hill led by a Trump-loving MAGA mob last week. By now, a handful of riot leaders have been identified by the FBI and local law enforcement agencies, and they’re currently sitting in jail on a litany of charges. The most famous among them? The QAnon Shaman, whose real name is Jacob Chansley, though he also goes by Jake Angeli. If you’re having trouble placing him, he’s the guy cosplaying in a “Chewbacca bikini,” carrying a spear, wearing fur and horns, and proudly claiming he was sent by “Q,” a mysterious figure fueling conspiracy theories about secret sex-trafficking rings led by the most elite, famous members of society.
He’s also the criminal complaining about the lack of organic options in prison — he’s refused to eat anything but organic meals while awaiting a detention hearing in Phoenix, Arizona. And now, his lawyer is all but demanding that President Trump issue the Shaman and his fellow QAnon groupies a pardon for the events that happened on Capitol Hill last week — riots that left five dead including an on-duty police officer.
Speaking to Chris Cuomo on CNN, Chansley’s attorney Al Watkins claimed his client didn’t break into the Capitol but was instead let in by police officers and was encouraged to march on Congress by Trump himself.
“He loved Trump. Every word, he listens to him,” Watkins told CNN. “We all have to understand that the words that were spoken by the president meant something, not just to my client. They meant something to a lot of people.”
Video taken at a MAGA rally, which took place just a few hours before Congress was set to ratify the Electoral College vote that would proclaim Joe Biden the next president of the United States, shows Trump encouraging his followers to march on the Capitol, saying, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”
Chansley and the rest of the Trump supporters there interpreted that as an order from the president to storm Congress with the intention of stopping the vote. Now that many of them have been rightfully arrested for their criminal actions, Watkins believes Trump owes them some loyalty.
“He has an obligation to them. He has an obligation to our nation,” Watkins said before adding he hoped Trump might consider pardoning his client before leaving office. Naturally, Cuomo wasn’t having it and calling the entire situation absurd, questioning why Chansley and other QAnon subscribers believe all these nonsense conspiracy theories. Watkins had an answer for that too, comparing QAnon and Trump supporters to the Jonestown Cult members who committed mass suicide in the ’70s.
“You know the only thing different here?” Watkins said. “There’s no Kool-Aid.”
Really, there’s no better burn than that. We won’t even try. Watch the entire exchange above.
At the heart of each spirit is, generally speaking, a blend of grain and malt whiskeys that are aged in a combination of ex-bourbon and ex-sherry barrels for a few years. They almost always come in at 40 percent ABV and share some distinct flavor profiles (floral, fruity, nutty, malty). The biggest difference between the two styles is that Irish whiskey is tripled distilled, while scotch whiskies are only twice distilled. This developed as a means for Irish whiskey to distinguish itself as the more refined of the two products, back in the 1800s.
Beyond that, there are smaller variations that designate the styles as uniquely Scottish or Irish. For instance, “single pot” Irish whiskey uses both malted and unmalted barley in its mash bill. Scotch “single malt” uses only malted barley (that’s sometimes peated). But to the surprise of many drinkers, the peaty and smoky flavors of certain Scotch whiskies have plenty of analogs in Ireland.
For this exercise, we’re leaving the Islay-style smoke monsters out of the conversation. We’re looking at three $20-$35 Irish whiskeys and three $20-$35 blended Scotch whiskies to see how they stand up to each other. While this is squarely about taste and ranking the expressions by which ones we want to drink more of, I did try and guess which was from where. I was only really sure about the last two drams. There were two more I was pretty sure of. The final two? No idea.
In the end, I gave it my best guess and ended up getting both wildcards wrong. To me, that goes to show you how close these two regional styles can be at this price point.
This is malty, warm, and full of cherry. I want to say there’s some vanilla in there but it’s very faint. A butterscotch note kind of takes over and muddles everything. I have no idea what this one is or where it’s from.
Ireland? Sure … why not.
Taste 2
Zach Johnston
Tasting Notes:
This is grainy and fruity. It’s very light and easy drinking with an almost orange zest edge next to a hint of vanilla.
I want to say this is Irish thanks to the grassy/grainy nose and taste up top.
Taste 3
Zach Johnston
Tasting Notes:
This is a little malty with a subtle spice next to plenty of orchard fruits, nuts, and softwood. It’s really easy to drink and slightly perfumed but more like a blend of tobacco leaves and dried florals.
Pretty sure this is Scottish.
Taste 4
Zach Johnston
Tasting Notes:
Very thin and grainy yet warm and malty. There’s a clear apple candy sweetness that’s not overdone. It is mild and there seems to be a note of vanilla somewhere under all that candy.
I’d say Scotland but really have no idea.
Taste 5
Zach Johnston
Tasting Notes:
Butterscotch and tinniness lead towards a warm malty nature. It’s a little bit fruity and woody. There’s nothing overly distinct besides being very thin and easy to drink.
Pretty sure this is Grant’s and Scottish, thanks to that tinniness.
Taste 6
Zach Johnston
Tasting Notes:
Dried lemon peels lead to a fruit orchard full of flowers. It’s slightly malty and grainy with a nutty edge. It’s super easy to drink and very bright.
This whiskey from the Highland’s always throws me for a loop. It’s advertised as having peated whisky from Ardmore in the blend but I never get any smoke or peat on this one.
Bottom Line:
I don’t mind this. It came in fifth out of six drams last week. But when tasted next to subtler Irish whiskeys it just doesn’t do anything for me.
This blend from William Grant & Sons touches all of Scotland’s whisky regions. The uniqueness of this expression is in the triple barreling. They use new oak, American oak, and re-fill American oak for the maturation before blending, proofing, and bottling.
Bottom Line:
This is really drinkable, for what it is. Though, tasting it today, that tinniness really stood out and didn’t do it any favors.
Still, this is perfectly fine for highballs or as a mixer in general.
4. Bushmills White Label — Taste 4, Ireland (Incorrect)
This is a classic Northern Irish whiskey. The grain and malt whiskeys are tripled distilled. The juice is then aged in ex-bourbon barrels before blending, proofing, and barreling.
Bottom Line:
I took a stab in the dark and guessed this was Scottish. While it is pretty easy to drink, there was nothing that said either scotch or Irish whisk(e)y here.
Again, this is a perfectly good mixer but not much more.
Tullamore’s entry-point whiskey is a blend of triple distilled grain, malt, and single pot (malt and unmalted barley mash) whiskeys. Those spirits are then aged in a combination of ex-bourbon and ex-sherry casks before blending.
Bottom Line:
This is very easy to drink for a cheap and familiar whiskey. I’d easily drink this over some rocks and not complain for a moment.
This expression of Jameson uses the standard and much-beloved triple distilled juice from Midelton and finishes it in an IPA cask from craft beer brewers around County Cork. The result is a whiskey that’s just touched by the hoppiness of the brews, adding a brighter nature to the sip.
Bottom Line:
I’ve never really liked this pour until today. Maybe because it was the last dram of the day? It’s grown on me a lot and that brightness cannot be denied.
I can see sipping this on the rocks later or in a highball with an ice twist of lime.
Chivas is a Highland blend from the Strathisla Distillery. It’s crafted as a workhorse whisky that’s great for sipping or mixing.
Bottom Line:
This really did stand out with the best overall complexity and drinkability. There are zero rough edges on this dram and you really want to keep drinking it to find more depth and flavor.
Part 3: Final Thoughts
Zach Johnston
This was actually more fun than I thought it’d be. For one, these whisk(e)ys are shockingly similar. Sure, there are plenty of nuances that make them unique, but they all look pretty much identical and fall pretty neatly into the same overall flavor profiles of fruity, malty, and maybe a little vanilla-y.
I do have to call out that Jameson again. There was something about it today that really popped. Maybe it’s the oxidization from an open bottle? Or maybe it’s simply growing on me. Either way, I’m into it now.
At the heart of each spirit is, generally speaking, a blend of grain and malt whiskeys that are aged in a combination of ex-bourbon and ex-sherry barrels for a few years. They almost always come in at 40 percent ABV and share some distinct flavor profiles (floral, fruity, nutty, malty). The biggest difference between the two styles is that Irish whiskey is tripled distilled, while scotch whiskies are only twice distilled. This developed as a means for Irish whiskey to distinguish itself as the more refined of the two products, back in the 1800s.
Beyond that, there are smaller variations that designate the styles as uniquely Scottish or Irish. For instance, “single pot” Irish whiskey uses both malted and unmalted barley in its mash bill. Scotch “single malt” uses only malted barley (that’s sometimes peated). But to the surprise of many drinkers, the peaty and smoky flavors of certain Scotch whiskies have plenty of analogs in Ireland.
For this exercise, we’re leaving the Islay-style smoke monsters out of the conversation. We’re looking at three $20-$35 Irish whiskeys and three $20-$35 blended Scotch whiskies to see how they stand up to each other. While this is squarely about taste and ranking the expressions by which ones we want to drink more of, I did try and guess which was from where. I was only really sure about the last two drams. There were two more I was pretty sure of. The final two? No idea.
In the end, I gave it my best guess and ended up getting both wildcards wrong. To me, that goes to show you how close these two regional styles can be at this price point.
This is malty, warm, and full of cherry. I want to say there’s some vanilla in there but it’s very faint. A butterscotch note kind of takes over and muddles everything. I have no idea what this one is or where it’s from.
Ireland? Sure … why not.
Taste 2
Zach Johnston
Tasting Notes:
This is grainy and fruity. It’s very light and easy drinking with an almost orange zest edge next to a hint of vanilla.
I want to say this is Irish thanks to the grassy/grainy nose and taste up top.
Taste 3
Zach Johnston
Tasting Notes:
This is a little malty with a subtle spice next to plenty of orchard fruits, nuts, and softwood. It’s really easy to drink and slightly perfumed but more like a blend of tobacco leaves and dried florals.
Pretty sure this is Scottish.
Taste 4
Zach Johnston
Tasting Notes:
Very thin and grainy yet warm and malty. There’s a clear apple candy sweetness that’s not overdone. It is mild and there seems to be a note of vanilla somewhere under all that candy.
I’d say Scotland but really have no idea.
Taste 5
Zach Johnston
Tasting Notes:
Butterscotch and tinniness lead towards a warm malty nature. It’s a little bit fruity and woody. There’s nothing overly distinct besides being very thin and easy to drink.
Pretty sure this is Grant’s and Scottish, thanks to that tinniness.
Taste 6
Zach Johnston
Tasting Notes:
Dried lemon peels lead to a fruit orchard full of flowers. It’s slightly malty and grainy with a nutty edge. It’s super easy to drink and very bright.
This whiskey from the Highland’s always throws me for a loop. It’s advertised as having peated whisky from Ardmore in the blend but I never get any smoke or peat on this one.
Bottom Line:
I don’t mind this. It came in fifth out of six drams last week. But when tasted next to subtler Irish whiskeys it just doesn’t do anything for me.
This blend from William Grant & Sons touches all of Scotland’s whisky regions. The uniqueness of this expression is in the triple barreling. They use new oak, American oak, and re-fill American oak for the maturation before blending, proofing, and bottling.
Bottom Line:
This is really drinkable, for what it is. Though, tasting it today, that tinniness really stood out and didn’t do it any favors.
Still, this is perfectly fine for highballs or as a mixer in general.
4. Bushmills White Label — Taste 4, Ireland (Incorrect)
This is a classic Northern Irish whiskey. The grain and malt whiskeys are tripled distilled. The juice is then aged in ex-bourbon barrels before blending, proofing, and barreling.
Bottom Line:
I took a stab in the dark and guessed this was Scottish. While it is pretty easy to drink, there was nothing that said either scotch or Irish whisk(e)y here.
Again, this is a perfectly good mixer but not much more.
Tullamore’s entry-point whiskey is a blend of triple distilled grain, malt, and single pot (malt and unmalted barley mash) whiskeys. Those spirits are then aged in a combination of ex-bourbon and ex-sherry casks before blending.
Bottom Line:
This is very easy to drink for a cheap and familiar whiskey. I’d easily drink this over some rocks and not complain for a moment.
This expression of Jameson uses the standard and much-beloved triple distilled juice from Midelton and finishes it in an IPA cask from craft beer brewers around County Cork. The result is a whiskey that’s just touched by the hoppiness of the brews, adding a brighter nature to the sip.
Bottom Line:
I’ve never really liked this pour until today. Maybe because it was the last dram of the day? It’s grown on me a lot and that brightness cannot be denied.
I can see sipping this on the rocks later or in a highball with an ice twist of lime.
Chivas is a Highland blend from the Strathisla Distillery. It’s crafted as a workhorse whisky that’s great for sipping or mixing.
Bottom Line:
This really did stand out with the best overall complexity and drinkability. There are zero rough edges on this dram and you really want to keep drinking it to find more depth and flavor.
Part 3: Final Thoughts
Zach Johnston
This was actually more fun than I thought it’d be. For one, these whisk(e)ys are shockingly similar. Sure, there are plenty of nuances that make them unique, but they all look pretty much identical and fall pretty neatly into the same overall flavor profiles of fruity, malty, and maybe a little vanilla-y.
I do have to call out that Jameson again. There was something about it today that really popped. Maybe it’s the oxidization from an open bottle? Or maybe it’s simply growing on me. Either way, I’m into it now.
The hosts of Inside the NBA, in particular Charles Barkley and Shaquille O’Neal, know quite a bit about high-level basketball and how to entertain hoops fans, but they notoriously can be a bit shoddy on the details. TNT viewers were reminded of this on Thursday night when, because while he was wrapping up an interview with Nuggets star and MVP front-runner Nikola Jokic, Shaq tried to drop in a bit of Russian.
The Joker cleverly parried the blow and turned things back on Shaq, reminding the legend that what he was speaking was, in fact, Russian. Then, host Eddie Johnson had to remind the Big Aristotle that Jokic is Serbian.
Shaq’s reply? A guilty chuckle and a coy “my bad.”
Jokic took it like a sport, but the other Inside hosts made sure to jeer Shaq a bit more, with Kenny Smith joking that Shaq should have asked Jokic a follow-up question of how it was to grow up in Moscow.
Ever the gentleman, Johnson prodded Shaq by saying the Russian was “a nice touch.”
In some ways this is all pretty silly, but also, for a show that is often built around making fun of NBA players’ mistakes or not knowing who certain players even are, the fact that Shaq was a bit embarrassed at his mistake shows in its own way the level of respect that Jokic has earned among the legends of the game.
Sports betting is a rapidly growing industry in the United States, particularly after a 2018 ruling by the Supreme Court that opened the door to legalized operations on a state-by-state basis. While not every state in the country has legalized sports betting just yet, the map is expanding and, with sports leagues and other outlets attempting to jump on board the money train, interest is higher than ever.
As such, many are new to the space and, in the first of several explainers, we will tackle the real basics. For experienced sports bettors, this will be far too elementary but, given the expansion of sports betting terminology used on more mainstream sports broadcasts and within games, even the non-bettors could find it useful to understand the flow of information.
Later, we’ll dive into more nuanced approaches. Today, though, we stick to the nuts and bolts of how to get around and understand what you’re looking at on an odds board.
Point Spreads
In simple terms, the point spread is a wager on what the margin of victory will be in a particular game. It is, by a wide margin, the most oft-discussed wagering option, both in mainstream and more advanced circles. A point spread can also serve as a de facto “projection” of the difference between two teams.
The team that enters as the betting “favorite,” or the team projected to win the game, will be displayed with a minus (-). On the flip side, the betting “underdog,” or the team projected to be the weaker of the two, will be displayed with a plus (+).
As a very prominent example, let’s look back to Super Bowl LIV on Feb. 2, 2020, with the Kansas City Chiefs taking on the San Francisco 49ers in the largest sporting event in the country. When the game began, the Chiefs were listed at -1.5, meaning that Kansas City was the favorite, with 1.5 points as the point spread itself.
In practical terms, if a bettor wagered on the Chiefs to “cover” (meaning they would win the bet), Kansas City would need to win the game by more than 1.5 points. If the Chiefs won by one point, or lost the game entirely, the bet would lose.
To flip things around, the 49ers were listed at +1.5, meaning that San Francisco was the underdog. If the 49ers won the game on the field, a point spread bet on San Francisco would win. Beyond that, a one-point loss by the 49ers would also be a winning bet on San Francisco, but a loss by two points or more would not be victorious in the point spread world.
Over/Unders
As noted previously, point spreads are the most common way to wager on a few high-profile sports like basketball and football. Another prominent option, however, is the ability to wager on how many total points will be scored.
These “total” bets are sometimes referred to as Over/Unders, because one side of the bet is an “over” and the other is an “under.” Using the same example from Super Bowl LIV back in Feb. 2020, the over/under total was set at 53.
As such, a bettor could wager on the “over” at 53 and, if the two teams combined to score 54 points or more, that wager would win. If they scored 52 points or fewer, the wager would lose.
On the other side, a bettor could wager on the “under” at 53 and the opposite would be true. The bettor would be hoping for 52 points or fewer, and any total more than 53 points would be a losing wager.
While the point spread in the above example was not a round number (1.5), the over/under in this case is exactly 53, rather than 52.5 or 53.5, for example. Because of that, a “push” is possible. Essentially, a push occurs when a wager ties. In this case, a combined score of 53 points would trigger a refund for any bet placed on either the over or the under, and no bet would win.
Money Lines
If you don’t want to be tasked with doing math during game action, money lines are a bit more conventional. In fact, a money line wager is based entirely on which team wins, and the margin (or even the frequency of scoring) does not matter. These wagers are offered across the sporting landscape, but they are particularly prominent in sports like baseball, soccer, and hockey, when the margin of victory is often small given the limited number of points/goals scored by both sides.
To better understand money lines, however, it is important to know what the listed odds actually mean.
American Odds
American odds are prominent in, you guessed it, the United States. They are not as prominent, or regularly accessible, in other corners of the world but, given our audience and the reality that American odds are what you will see in any local sportsbook, an explainer is needed.
Importantly, the odds are listed in association with every single bet we’ve discussed in this space, including point spreads, over/unders, and money lines. The short version is that American odds are focused on a $100 unit of measurement, and that is how they are displayed.
In the same way referenced above with point spreads, underdogs are listed with the plus (+) sign and favorites are listed with the minus (-) sign, and that is the way to differentiate the two. From there, we’ll use the Super Bowl LIV example one last time today.
The money line referenced Kansas City at -125. In plain terms, that means that a bet on Kansas City would yield $100 for every $125 wagered. So, if a bettor placed a $125 bet and the Chiefs won, the bettor would receive their $125 back and an additional $100, for a profit of $100.
The 49ers were listed at +105 in the same game, entering as the betting underdog. If a bettor placed a wager on San Francisco and the 49ers were victorious, the bettor would receive their $100 back and an additional $105, for a profit of $105.
To be clear, not everyone is wagering is increments of $100, but the percentages stay the same. For every $1.25 wagered on the Chiefs, the bettor would win $1 on a victory, and for every $1 wagered on the 49ers, the bettor would win $1.05 on a victory.
The Vig
In our final section of this introductory explainer, we get to the less “fun” part of sports betting, at least for the individuals placing the bets and rooting against the casino or bookmaker. The vig, or vigorish, is sometimes referred to as the juice, and it basically refers to the cost of placing a bet, all while explaining how bookmakers keep the lights on.
We’ll harken back to the Super Bowl LIV example, and move back to the point spreads this time. As noted above, the Chiefs were -1.5 in that particular game but, while that was the point spread, a bettor wasn’t placing a $100 wager on Kansas City with the potential to receive $100 back. The standard, or most common, vig/juice/vigorish in the United States is -110.
Using the discussion about money lines above, that means that a bettor would have to place a $110 wager on the Chiefs -1.5 to win $100. That is also true of a wager on the 49ers +1.5, with a bettor placing a $110 wager to win $110.
While that $10, or less if the wager was for a smaller amount, may not seem like much, the bookmaker is, for all intents and purposes, charging a tax. Bettors must win well over 50 percent of their bets to “break even” using the -110 vig and, as such, it is very difficult to win over the course of a large sample. Most are betting for entertainment but, at the very least, it is good to know what you’re getting into and, like any casino activity involving gamblings, the house makes sure to have the mathematical edge over the vast majority of individuals.
The finer points of sports betting can’t be learned overnight and there is plenty more to dissect. However, learning the basics is absolutely critical and, if one can sift through the math of these three “standard” wagering opportunities, the rest becomes much easier to unpack.
(Spoilers from Marvel Studios and Disney+’s WandaVision will be found below.)
With the first two episodes of WandaVision now streaming on Disney+, Marvel fans are already hard at work combing through the show for Easter eggs and clues as to what’s really happening with the series’ bizarre sitcom setting. So far, WandaVision has only slightly tipped its hat to outside forces with the presence of SWORD, which in the comics is a more space-based version of SHIELD, but it may have a different purview in the MCU. However, Twitter user “shrish” noted a key piece of dialogue between Elizabeth Olsen’s Wanda and Kathryn Hahn’s Agnes in Episode 2, which may hint at a classic Marvel villain lurking behind the scenes.
In the brief exchange, Dottie (Buffy‘s Emma Caulfied Ford) tells another character that, “The devil’s in the details, Bev,” which prompts Agnes to quip to Wanda, “That’s not the only place he is.” As shrish suggests, this could be a clever reference to Mephisto, who’s essentially Marvel’s version of Satan and might be Agnes’ unseen husband, “Ralph.” There are also theories that Agnes is secretly Agatha Harkness, an ancient sorceress tied to the Scarlet Witch’s past who’d be right at home pairing up with Mephisto.
cw// wanda vision spoilers – – – – – …so we can all agree that agnes’ husband is definitely mephisto & he’s the main villain right-
WANDAVISION SPOILERS – – – – – – – mephisto reference/tease in the 60s ep! i didn’t even notice this the first time i watched pic.twitter.com/c1YHZdw6LO
Have you noticed that everything revolves around children?! Talent show FOR THE CHILDREN! Like someone (Mephisto) was to lure Wanda into making kids and then taking them away from her?! pic.twitter.com/oF3bdgwo7H
As for who might be playing Mephisto, if he’s even in the show, here’s where we go even deep into Theory Town. Earlier in the week, Paul Bettany revealed that a surprise actor would be appearing on WandaVision that people will not expect. “I’ve been wanting to work with [this actor] forever who is just unbelievable and we have some real fireworks together.” Bettany told Black Girl Nerds.
Our theory is that actor is Al Pacino. Back in 2014, Pacino raved about Guardians of the Galaxy at the Venice Film Festival and told Deadline that he wants to work with Marvel:
“I would do anything that I could understand in terms of how I fit in it. And you know, of course if I could fit in it. Anything’s possible,” he told me. Then he winked, “You know, I did Dick Tracy and I got an Oscar nomination, so come on. I mean, what can I say?”
With Pacino’s Marvel love out in the wild, the fan castings began pouring in, and Mephisto was on virtually every list thanks to Pacino’s classic performance in The Devil’s Advocate. Could WandaVision finally make that dream-casting a reality? We’ll just have to wait and see in the weeks ahead.
David O. Russell has cast everyone in Hollywood for his first film since 2015’s Joy. As if the previously-announced Christian Bale, Margot Robbie, John David Washington, Rami Malek, and Zoe Saldana wasn’t stacked enough (there’s seven Oscar nominations between them, including two wins), Deadlinereports that nine others have joined the ensemble for the still-untitled movie: Robert De Niro, Mike Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Michael Shannon, Chris Rock, Anya Taylor-Joy, Andrea Riseborough, Matthias Schoenaerts, and Alessandro Nivola.
I love Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, but I’m still mad that Quentin Tarantino cast Timothy Olyphant and Margot Robbie in the same movie, but didn’t give them a scene together. Russell better not make the same mistake — all the better if Taylor-Joy and Myers-as-Austin-Powers are involved. As for what the heck the movie is about:
The untitled project [is] based on an original idea from the five-time Oscar-nominated filmmaker. Filming is currently underway in California. New Regency’s Arnon Milchan will produce, alongside Matthew Budman and Anthony Katagas.
New Regency is owned by the Walt Disney Company, meaning Russell, the (allegedly abusive) director of Three Kings and I Heart Huckabees, is technically making a Disney movie. The campaign to make Michael Shannon an official Disney Prince starts now.
The Rundown is a weekly column that highlights some of the biggest, weirdest, and most notable events of the week in entertainment. The number of items could vary, as could the subject matter. It will not always make a ton of sense. Some items might not even be about entertainment, to be honest, or from this week. The important thing is that it’s Friday, and we are here to have some fun.
ITEM NUMBER ONE — Great news for Helen Mirren and me
It’s good to have dreams. They give you something to strive for, a reason to keep moving, whether they are big ambitious ones or smaller ones you can attain more easily. You can keep them to yourself for internal motivation or you can blast them out into the world in an attempt to will them into reality. The important thing is that you have them and that you do your best to see them through because, one day, if you don’t give up, they might come true. Just look at Helen Mirren and her dream of driving a car in the Fast & Furious movies.
I should back up. There’s a lot going on here, and there is a lot of history. Let’s start in 2015, when Dame Helen Mirren, legendary star of the British stage and screen, said this in an interview with Yahoo.
My great ambition is to be in a Fast and Furious movie. I so want to be a mad driver in a Fast and Furious movie. My claim to fame is I always do my own driving — I was on Top Gear, and I did [my lap] in a very good time. I keep putting it out there, and they never ask me. I’ll be in Fast and Furious 8. I have to say Vin Diesel is brilliant. I love Vin Diesel. He’s a great guy, smart — I love him. It’s partly because of him I’d like to be in one, but also the driving.
I need you to go back and read that in Helen Mirren’s voice for the full effect. Have you ever read anything cooler? Helen Mirren has starred in tons of awards-caliber movies, often as the Queen, and according to her, her great ambition was to be in the Fast & Furious franchise as “a mad driver.” She even buttered up Vin Diesel a little bit at the end, just for good measure. This was so bold and funny and awesome at the time, and the best part is that it worked, because Helen Mirren did end up in The Fate of the Furious as Jason Statham’s mother.
Actually, I lied. The best part is everything I just said plus the fact that she was so excited about it that she broke the news of her own casting in an interview with Elle Magazine, of all the places in the world to break Fast & Furious casting news.
I’ve always rather loved driving. I said, ‘I’ll be in it, but only if I’m allowed to drive if I do drive in it.’ But we’ll see. We’ll see how it transpires.
But there was bad news. For some unknowable reason that made me livid at the time (and still does today, a little bit), after casting Mirren in the movie as per her wishes, they didn’t let her drive. Not even a little. How can you cast Helen Mirren in a damn Fast & Furious movie and not let her drive? Uggghhhh. This is a movie that ended with The Rock punching a torpedo that was launched onto an ice sheet from a nuclear submarine that was stolen by a cyber-anarchist played by Charlize Theron with braids. They could have found room for Helen Mirren to drive.
I wasn’t the only one who was annoyed by this. Helen Mirren was ticked off, too.
But sadly for Mirren, Fast 8 won’t feature her behind the steering wheel. “I wanted to be driving, but unfortunately, I’m not,” she says, shrugging. “Maybe that will come in the future, in Fast and Furious 12.” She pauses. “I’m probably one of the few people on the set who know how to drive a gear shift car. I doubt the Rock knows,” she jokes. “But I do. I know how to double declutch.”
What a perfect quote. All of it, starting with her repeated public requests to be allowed to drive, moving on to her sarcastic jabs at it “maybe” happening by the 12th movie, and finishing with the objectively hilarious assertion that The Rock can’t drive stick. If you can find anything anywhere better than Helen Mirren repeatedly begging to be allowed to drive a neon Honda in a Fast & Furious movie and taking good-natured public shots at The Rock in the process, buddy, send it my way at once. I need it like I need oxygen.
But.
There was a development early last year that gave both Helen Mirren and me hope. In the trailer for the next movie, F9, which was released in January and, among other things, introduced John Cena as Vin Diesel’s secret brother and featured Charlize Theron with a bowl cut flying a magnetic plane, there was this very brief shot.
Universal
That is Helen Mirren behind a steering wheel. Which implies that she drove or is about to drive. Which is a good thing. But, because the car isn’t moving at all in the shot, it raised the possibility that she never actually gets to drive it on-screen. Can you think of anything more cruel? Six years of lobbying to drive a car in the Fast & Furious movies only to be placed behind the wheel of a parked car? I would torch the studio. Just turn it all into ash.
To me, maybe the biggest question for F9, and we get a little tease in the trailer, is whether Helen Mirren finally gets to drive. She’s the one who campaigned to be cast because she so badly wants to be behind the wheel. We see her in the car, with Dom riding shotgun, but I can’t help notice they are parked. Or is this a spoiler too?
[Laughs] Derek, you ask the right questions. Again, without giving away any spoilers…You know what, I’m going to give you a spoiler: Yes, she gets to drive.
On behalf of Dame Helen, thank you!
It’s so awesome. She gets to drive and she gets to drive sleek.
Never give up on your dreams, people. That’s the lesson in all of this. They might not come true right away, but if you stick with them and say them out loud to every journalist who puts a microphone in front of your face for half a decade, you might make them a reality one day.
ITEM NUMBER TWO — This changes everything
FOX
Alan Sepinwall, Rolling Stone’s television critic and my former podcast partner, has a new podcast. It’s called Too Long; Didn’t Watch and it has a cool premise: Alan and a celebrity guest watch the first and last episode of a show the guest has not seen and then the guest tries to figure out what happened in between. The first episode featured Jon Hamm learning about Gossip Girl, which is a fun chunk of words to write, although that’s not the big takeaway from it. The big takeaway came during a discussion about Gossip Girl’s creator Josh Schwartz’s previous show, The O.C. Let’s take the next part straight from the mouth of Hamm: “I did audition for one of the dads on The O.C. I was probably 31 or 32. I think it was me and Harry Hamlin. I remember walking in and going, ‘Is that Peter Gallagher? Why am I here?‘ I love Peter Gallagher, but I was just like, ‘Dang!’”
Is… is Jon Hamm telling us that he auditioned for the role of television super dad Sandy Cohen, the Jewish surf-obsessed public defender with a heart of gold? Because even if he’s not, now I kind of want to rewatch the whole show so I can picture a young Jon Hamm in the part. I do not think it would have worked at all, and I do not particularly want to live in a world without Peter Gallagher and his eyebrows delivering perfect advice at every turn, but please do picture Jon Hamm — feel free to give him the full Don Draper here, for the full effect — discussing the finer points of schmearing a bagel with cream cheese.
This is now one of my favorite “person was considered for a role they didn’t get” stories of all time, right up there with Burt Reynolds being offered the part of John McClane in Die Hard. I know you’re still picturing Hamm as Sandy Cohen, per my request, but take some time later this weekend to think about this one, too. Really get in there. Let your brain run free on a playground with it all. You deserve it.
ITEM NUMBER THREE — Look, I don’t want to be the guy who questions the storytelling accuracy of the show about packs of unsupervised karate teens terrorizing Southern California, but this is not how spinal cord injuries work
Netflix
Cobra Kaiis a lot of fun. The Karate Kid continuation series is way more enjoyable than it has any right to be, especially when you look at its concept — Daniel LaRusso and Johnny Lawrence start rival karate dojos in their 40s — on paper. And yet, there it is, right there on Netflix, with three charming seasons full of personal victories and gangs of karate teens beating the hell out of each other all over California. There are seriously so many violent karate fights. There’s one at a carnival and one during a house party and one at their school that features one girl trying to Freddie Kruger another with a spiky bracelet and one boy spin-kicking another off a balcony and onto the railing below.
This brings me to the point I’m making. The kid who fell, Miguel, a sweet boy who gets some bad mentoring early on, ends up in the hospital in a coma and bolted into a halo brace because of a spinal cord injury. By the end of the season, he is doing wicked karate moves again in the house party chaos. As far as I can tell, his injury is healed by people yelling at him to, like, just make his legs work.
This is… let’s go with “not great,” which I say as someone who also had a spinal cord injury and was at one point bolted into a halo brace and now uses a power wheelchair to get around. It kind of implies that overcoming the injury is a matter of wanting it enough, which also implies that not overcoming it means someone didn’t want it enough. It’s not the best message to put out there, both for a) the general public who is constantly fed sappy inspirational stories about people overcoming their disabilities to achieve greatness without much focus on the harder/uglier/realistic parts of the situation, and for b) younger people with disabilities who could see it and internalize shame/anger because they couldn’t magically heal themselves through the power of positive vibes.
I know it’s a little silly to run through a fun karate show and point out very specific medical inaccuracies, but it’s one of the things that stinks about the portrayal of disabilities on television and in movies and I don’t often get a better chance to rant about it than “a major character on a popular show overcomes the same injury as me through nothing but will and his sensei lighting his sneakers on fire,” so that’s what is happening here. I still enjoyed the show! It’s fine if you did, too! This is just me getting an objection on the record in the hope we can do better moving forward. Thank you.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR — The Bosch Cinematic Universe is expanding… kind of
Amazon
Three things are important to know here:
The man who writes the Bosch novels, Michael Connelly, also writes the Lincoln Lawyer novels, the latter of which was adapted for a McConaughey movie a few years back
Bosch and the Lincoln Lawyer and half brothers
There is a Lincoln Lawyer series coming to Netflix, from producer David E. Kelley
Written and executive produced by Kelley and showrunner Ted Humphrey (The Good Wife), The Lincoln Lawyer revolves around Mickey Haller (Garcia-Rulfo), an iconoclastic idealist, who runs his law practice out of the back seat of his Lincoln Town Car, as he takes on cases big and small across the expansive city of Los Angeles.
“The Lincoln Lawyer series will be adapted to serve up the complex and mysterious arcs fans know and love with a mix of light-hearted humor and a dose of family dynamics,” Connelly said.
There is good news and bad news here. The bad news is that the series going to Netflix, which all but eliminates the possibility of a Bosch/Lincoln Lawyer crossover on Amazon. But that also means there’s good news: The Lincoln Lawyer series going to Netflix means there is a possibility — slim, but still — that the show brings in its own Bosch for a special episode or two.
Do you see what could be happening here?
We could have two Bosches on two separate streaming networks.
TWO BOSCHES.
We live in truly incredible times.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE — Urkel was surprisingly good at basketball
I broke down Urkel and Grandmama dominating a 2 on 2 tournament in Family Matters pic.twitter.com/s9c3RQQ46z
This is a fun little breakdown of a very strange episode of Family Matters in which Urkel and Larry Johnson — in character as Grandmama — dominate a Chicago two-on-two basketball tournament. It’s fun for a bunch of reasons but I like that Urkel was secretly sick as dribbling and could dunk. It raises so many questions that I would ask if all of them couldn’t be answered with “I dunno, it was the 1990s.” Very strange decade.
My theory on this is the same as when Urkel invented a machine that transformed him into a super-cool guy: I think Jaleel White eventually got enough juice at the show to make demands like “I have to look cool as hell at least once a season or I leave” and the producers scrambled for ways to make it happen. It’s the only way to explain Steve Urkel dunking. The man could barely walk down a flight of stairs. Whatever the reason, I love it. I hope Young Sheldon dunks one day, too.
READER MAIL
If you have questions about television, movies, food, local news, weather, or whatever you want, shoot them to me on Twitter or at [email protected] (put “RUNDOWN” in the subject line). I am the first writer to ever answer reader mail in a column. Do not look up this last part.
From Matthew:
I just read this week’s Rundown, where you mention wanting to convince people a show exists called Sunbathers starring David Schwimmer. This reminded me of a story I thought you’d appreciate.
I live in Chicago, but am from the Philly area originally (go Birds). A few years ago me and two friends got invited to a Halloween party last minute, with no costumes ready to wear. So we decided to all wear suits with bowties and come up with a fake television show whose characters we were dressing up as, and then acting shocked when people didn’t know who we were.
Our television show? Tres Hoagitios, a show that only airs on the Wawa sandwich kiosks while you’re waiting for your sandwiches and is about a group of detectives who solve crimes, some of which are hoagie related. The fake star of said fake television show? Also one David Schwimmer.
I think everyone actually believed our story because the three of us were all from the east coast, and everyone else at the party was from the midwest so they had no reason to doubt us. Plus one of the guests was a food scientist so she had heard of Wawa, which I think helped our story.
A few things are true here:
This is a tremendous email, really just one of the best I’ve ever received
I encourage everyone to do stuff like this, just for yourself, just for fun, like maybe try to convince someone you don’t know who Beyonce is
I… I really want to see this show now, exactly as it’s described, in this exact format
A Missouri man was jailed after police said he was found in a stolen floating tiki hut in Key West.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me be very clear about this so there’s no confusion: What we have here is a tiki hut boat heist.
There are more details, which I will briefly summarize, although you should really click on that link to see the pictures. Anyway: Apparently there are the floating tiki huts you can rent out for little booze cruises around the Florida Keys, and apparently some guy got very drunk and stole one and headed out to sea on it. I love it. Guy just got a wild idea and ended up in the ocean on a floating tiki hut, where police later found him slumped over the steering wheel.
It could happen to any of us.
“I’m not going to jail!” Morlang told FWC officers.
Morlang said he had heart problems and was taken to Lower Keys Medical Center. While in a hospital bed, the Fish and Wilflife agency said Morlang tried to fight officers and one officer used his Taser stun gun on him. FWC said Morlang later pulled away from officers who were placing him in a patrol car.
This is a Jimmy Buffett song.
FWC said the boat was damaged with burn marks on the bar. A VHF radio was also partially melted and residue was left from a fire inside a coconut and in a sink behind the bar. Officers found a 10-ounce can of lighter fluid on the deck of the vessel.
“He decided to build fires, to stay warm I guess,” said Johnna Sleith, one of the owners of Cruisin’ Tikis. “He started mini fires in cup holders and water jugs. It melted a lot of stuff.”
This looks like an open and shut case, seeing as they found the guy in the half-torched floating tiki hut and he appears to have gone full Florida Man in the hours after his arrest, but I need you to consider one thing before you put this matter to rest: They need to find 12 people — TWELVE — in Key West who are willing to convict someone of drunken tiki piracy. That’s practically a religion for large chunks of the island. This is a town that once had a fire chief named Bum Farto who sold cocaine out of his fire stations and was arrested and disappeared and hasn’t been seen since 1976. People still sell “Where is Bum Farto?” t-shirts in town. I swear this is true. Google it right now.
My point here is this: I bet you a pitcher of umbrella drinks this guy walks. Hell, they might elect him mayor.
The New 1017, Gucci Mane’s latest label endeavor with Atlantic Records, is already off to a strong start. The Atlanta trap rap godfather signed a handful of up-and-coming rappers, including Foogiano, Ola Runt, and Pooh Shiesty, and put out the So Icy Summer compilation last June to showcase their talent. So far, things have paid off — especially when it comes to Pooh Shiesty, the 20-year-old Memphis rapper whose gift for slick wordplay is reminiscent of both his new mentor and hometown hero Blac Youngsta.
Despite only having a year’s worth of videos up on his YouTube, Pooh’s generated over 10 million views with each new release, which include “Main Slime” with Moneybagg Yo, “Monday To Sunday” with Lil Baby, “Back In Blood” with Lil Durk, and his solo venture, “Twerksum.” His latest video, “Guard Up,” was released today and is already trending toward similar numbers, despite being only around 12 hours old as of this writing. It’s clear Gucci Mane’s ear for talent hasn’t dulled — he did lend his silver tongue to the early rises of such stars as Migos, Mulatto, Rico Nasty, and more — and it looks like Pooh Shiesty is well on his way to being a star.
Watch Pooh Sheisty’s “Guard Up” video above.
Pooh Shiesty is a Warner Music artist. Uproxx is an independent subsidiary of Warner Music Group.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
reference/tease in the 60s ep! i didn’t even notice this the first time i watched 
) was to lure Wanda into making kids and then taking them away from her?! 
