Entertainment news

About me

I'm a movie buff, and I love anything to do with entertainment (especially science fiction and British dramas!) I write about current and upcoming films and other entertainment-related news. I currently work at The Newton Kansan newspaper as a reporter, and I'm an aspiring novelist. - Ashley Marie Bergner


A second chance for ‘Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.’: Why fans should give the show another try

SHIELD_blogMarvel’s “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” was one of the most anticipated new shows premiering last fall, a concept that appeared to be full of potential. However, after the first several episodes, many fans seemed to agree the show hadn’t quite lived up to the hopes they had for it. The characters weren’t quite clicking, the show struggled to find a tone and focus, and it didn’t seem to have the same magic spark as the Marvel movies. Ratings have continued to drop, and if the trend continues, a cancellation notice could be in the show’s future.

Which would be a shame, because “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” has shown real improvement in the second half of its first season. Show runners have been fixing many of the issues fans seemed to have with the series, and it’s now closer, I think, to the show fans were actually hoping to see when they tuned in last fall.

The first episode after the holiday break, “The Magical Place,” at first appeared to be a bit of a letdown; the truth about how Agent Phil Coulson was brought back from the dead wasn’t quite as dramatic as fans had been hoping for. However, with the episode “T.R.A.C.K.S.,” the show began to really pick up steam, and we learned the supposed “big reveal” about Coulson was only part of the truth. The run of solid episodes continued through last week’s “Turn, Turn, Turn,” which provided a nice tie-in with “Captain America: The Winter Soldier.”

Back in January, I wrote a blog about what I wanted to happen in the second half of “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” season one, and I was excited to see that most of the concerns I raised have been addressed. One of the main issues fans seemed to have was that the show lacked a strong, overarching plot. The “monster of the week” format used in the first half of season one resulted in some interesting episodes but caused the show to lack a sense of continuing, high-stakes urgency. That has changed with part two. So far, a major character has been shot, some characters have turned traitor, a member of Coulson’s team is given a top secret mission from Director Nick Fury that he or she isn’t allowed to share with the rest of the team, and another major character is brought back from the brink of death, similar to Coulson.

The show has focused in on a mysterious villain known as the “Clairvoyant,” who appears to have psychic powers, and the Clairvoyant also has been tied into the truth about Coulson’s resurrection. The major secret about S.H.I.E.L.D. uncovered in “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” spills over into “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.,” understandably shaking the entire foundation of the show. The increased complexity and heightened sense of mystery and danger has me excited about watching the show again.

I also feel Coulson’s team is finally starting to click, and the characters are functioning more as a cohesive unit. We’re seeing some deeper character development and learning more about who these characters are and what secrets they’re hiding in their past. The addition of some new characters has added energy to the show: Bill Paxton has been great as Agent John Garrett, a friend of Coulson’s, and I’ve enjoyed watching B.J. Britt, who is charming and likable as Agent Antoine Triplett. Jaimie Alexander (Lady Sif from the “Thor” movies) also guest stars on a great “Thor”-crossover episode called “Yes Men” (it’s actually a stronger “Thor”-crossover episode than the one marketed last fall, right after the release of “The Dark World”).

While Skye still doesn’t seem to be a fan favorite, I think the writers have done a better job working her into the show and haven’t been trying as hard to force her as the main character. Agent Ward is another character fans have had a tougher time warming up to, but some recent plot twists have added a more interesting side to the character. My favorite character, aside from Coulson, continues to be Agent Fitz. Though he started out as more of a caricature, the show has added depth to his character, and his character is now a nice mix of sweet, funny and quirky. I’d also like to see more of the character Mike Peterson, who has been turned into the villain Deathlok against his will. Peterson is one of the most heartbreaking and emotionally complex characters on the show.

If you started watching “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” but gave up after the first half of season one, I’d encourage you to give it another shot. The show still has some work to do — I’m still not buying the Agent Ward/Skye romantic subplot — but the series has definitely improved and seems to have found the right blend of elements: a mix of the Marvel superhero movies, “James Bond” and “The X-Files.” I think the show has earned a second chance — and a second season.

So, what do you think? Are you still watching “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.”? Do you think the show has improved since it started?

Movie review: ‘Captain America: The Winter Solider’ a tense, exciting superhero thriller

470643 KS_New_capAWatch out, Iron Man and Thor — the gauntlet has been thrown. Though the two Avengers may have had stronger origin films, it’s Captain America who has the best sequel, wrapping up Marvel’s Phase Two solo Avenger films with a politically-tinged thriller that’s tense, exciting and genuinely game-changing for the Marvel cinematic universe.

Like “Iron Man 3″ and “Thor: The Dark World,” “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” takes place after the events of “The Avengers.” Steve Rogers/”Captain America” (Chris Evans) — a WWII super soldier who was frozen and revived 70 years later — is now a full-fledged S.H.I.E.L.D. operative, and he appears — at least on the surface — to be adjusting well to life in the modern era. He’s learned how to use technology such as cell phones and the Internet, and he keeps a notebook full of things he needs to catch up on (an amusing list that includes pop culture items such as “Star Wars” and “Star Trek”). However, in quiet moments, it’s easy to see the pain lingering in his eyes, and he’s still grieving for the friends he left behind and the life — and love — he never got to experience. He’s also beginning to realize the war he’s fighting now is far more morally ambiguous.

Rogers and fellow Avenger Natasha Romanoff/”Black Widow” (Scarlett Johansson) are dispatched on a seemingly routine mission to rescue hostages from a band of pirates who have taken over a S.H.I.E.L.D. ship. Or at least that’s what Rogers is told the mission is about. The truth is far more complicated, and as the lies he’s been told start to come to light, Rogers is no longer sure who he can trust. After a shocking and tragic death rocks S.H.I.E.L.D., Rogers finds himself on the run from the very organization he swore to serve. He has to decide how high a price he’s willing to pay for his country’s security, and the secret he and Black Widow uncover about S.H.I.E.L.D. creates a shock-wave that will be felt in many Marvel films to come.

“Captain America: The Winter Solider” has a different tone than some of the previous Marvel films, and it’s arguably the most timely. The issues it addresses are the same ones we see popping up in real-world headlines: what are the ethics of modern espionage; how much freedom should we be willing to sacrifice for the sake of security; and how to tell the difference between the “good guys” and the “bad guys.” The film’s subtitle is, I think, purposefully deceptive. A mysterious assassin known as “the Winter Solider” was featured prominently in the trailers, but viewers quickly begin to wonder if he’s really the main villain, or if he’s even ultimately a villain at all.

Chris Evans is well cast as Captain America/Steve Rogers. Though he’s played the character twice before, he’s even better this time around. He captures the character’s old-fashioned manners and charm, but also coveys the burden Rogers carries as a man ripped out of his own time. He works well with Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow; I think it was a great idea to pair up the characters in this film. Although at first they appear to be complete opposites — unlike the Cap, Black Widow has no problems with the slippery morals of espionage — they are both haunted by their pasts and a sense of regret. The two characters share a flirty chemistry, trading banter throughout the film; it will be interesting to see where this leads in future Marvel movies.

Samuel L. Jackson is great, as always, as S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury, and I also enjoyed seeing Cobie Smulders return as Agent Maria Hill. My favorite of the newcomers was Anthony Mackie as a new superhero, Sam Wilson/”Falcon.” His friendship with Captain America was one of the highlights of the film for me, and I hope he shows up in future Marvel projects as well.

“Captain America: The Winter Solider” is one of the best of the Marvel films we’ve seen so far, and it serves as a great lead-in to next year’s “Avengers: Age of Ultron” (make sure you stay for the credits!) *Spoiler alert!* While I was pretty sure Robert Redford’s senior S.H.I.E.L.D. leader Alexander Pierce had a sinister side, I didn’t see the film’s big “HYDRA” twist coming. I’m curious to see how this affects future Marvel films, as well as Marvel’s spin-off TV show “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.”

“Captain America: The Winter Solider” is a fun, engaging sequel, and it’s my favorite movie of the year so far. It’s definitely a must-see for Marvel fans.

Movie preview: Will ‘Captain America’ continue Marvel’s dominance in superhero cinema?

34832 KS_New_capATrying to guess what movies will become hits isn’t an exact science. Sometimes a film will come seemingly out of nowhere — like Disney’s recent animated musical “Frozen” — and become a huge hit at the box office, while other times even an A-list cast or a prestigious director aren’t enough to elevate a film from a short, disappointing run in theaters.

However, Marvel’s new Captain America movie “The Winter Soldier” (out in U.S. theaters Friday) appears to have all the makings of a hit. Advance reviews are very positive (currently at 92 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, about in line with “The Avengers”), and the movie is tracking for an $80 million+ debut, similar to the Thor sequel.

“The Winter Soldier” looks to be yet another blockbuster from the now seemingly bullet-proof Marvel Studios. It has been interesting to watch Marvel evolve its line-up of “Avengers” tie-in films, which started in 2008 with the surprise hit “Iron Man.” Marvel has used a now well-refined formula — fun characters, good action sequences and dashes of humor — to make stars of what were once considered more B-list superheroes. I’d argue Iron Man and Captain America are now just as well known as Batman and Superman.

There was some concern Marvel might experience a post-Avengers slump, and the solo superhero films might seem like a bit of a letdown after the big-budget team-up of all the superheroes in “The Avengers.” However, that doesn’t seem to be a problem so far. Interestingly, both the Captain America and Thor sequels will open higher than their predecessors, probably thanks to a boost from “The Avengers.”

In terms of character origin films, I think Iron Man had the strongest story, followed by Thor and then Captain America. However, Captain America may very well turn out to have the best sequel of the three. I really like Chris Evans’ portrayal of Captain America/Steve Rogers. He’s earnest and idealistic, but there’s also a sense of sadness and a deep longing for the era he was pulled out of and can never go back to.

I’m also excited because it appears — at least from the trailers — that Marvel is taking this movie in a new direction. It’s a superhero movie that’s also a political drama and a study of the ethics of espionage. S.H.I.E.L.D. is supposed to be “the good guys,” but are some of the methods they use in the name of national security morally defendable? How will Captain America react to the shifting values and evolving technology of the modern era?

I’m glad Marvel decided to pair up Captain America with Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) in “The Winter Soldier.” Film makers have an opportunity to highlight the contrasts between their characters — she’s a “cloak and dagger” assassin, he’s a more straight-forward soldier — but, at least in “The Avengers” movie, they seemed to work well together. There’s been some speculation over whether the chemistry between the characters is romantic in nature. If so, that could result in some interesting fall-outs in the second Avengers film. I’m also looking forward to seeing what roles newcomers Robert Redford and Anthony Mackie will have in the new Captain America film, as a senior leader within S.H.I.E.L.D. and a new superhero, respectively.

I have high hopes for “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” and I’m excited to find out what comes next in the Marvel cinematic universe. The real test for Marvel will be its sci-fi superhero film, “Guardians of the Galaxy,” which hits theaters in August. It’s a departure from what Marvel has done before and will show just how big of a draw the Marvel brand is for a film that doesn’t include its “big three” superheroes: Iron Man, Thor or Captain America.

Hit rewind: Movies that were better the second time around

798975 KS_New_walleFor me, most of the time it’s “love at first sight” when it comes to movies. I fell in love with most of my favorite movies — like “Star Wars,” “Indiana Jones” and “Casino Royale” — within the first 10 minutes of screen time, and I loved these movies just as much the dozens of times I’ve watched them since. :) And if a movie makes a bad first impression, that’s usually not going to change.

However, there are several movies that are now on my list of favorites that didn’t “wow” me when I first watched them. It wasn’t until I watched them a second (or even third!) time that something clicked, and I changed my original opinion of them. Here are some of the movies I liked more the second time, and I’d also love to hear what movies you love now that you maybe didn’t love the first time you watched them.

Pacific Rim (2013)

PACIFIC RIMThe first time I watched Guillermo del Toro’s giant robots vs. giant alien monsters sci-fi movie “Pacific Rim,” I enjoyed it, but as I walked out of the theater I couldn’t escape a lingering sense of disappointment. It was a fun movie, but the characters and plot/dialogue weren’t quite as deep as I’d been hoping for.

But then, I went back to watch the movie in IMAX 3-D and found I enjoyed it more and had a better understanding of the effect del Toro was going for. Sure, we could probably argue that the movie would have been even better with stronger character development or dialogue, but it’s just so much fun that it’s hard not to get caught up in del Toro’s enthusiasm. And the spectacularly over-the-top action sequence in the film’s middle act — which features one of those giant robots using a full-size ship to fight a monster — is just plain awesome. ;)

Wall-E (2008)

wall-e-and-eveWhile “Monsters, Inc.” is my favorite, I love almost all of Pixar’s computer animated films. However, I wasn’t a big fan of “Wall-E” — at least, not at first. I wasn’t quite sure what to expect from it, so maybe that’s why it didn’t click the first time. It’s very sparse in terms of dialogue, and it has a different tone and type of characters than previous Pixar films.

Eventually, the story about a curious trash compacting robot did win me over, and I came to like the film’s unique charm. Like all Pixar films, the animation is gorgeous, and the film’s message is relevant without being too heavy-handed.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

monty-pythonIt’s hard to believe it now — especially since I am obsessed with all things British ;) — but I didn’t really get “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” the first time I tried to watch it (it was either back in high school or early college, I believe). I don’t think I made it all the way through the movie, either.

But when I re-watched it again several years later, after my BBC and British comedy obsession was in full swing, I realized what I’d been missing out on. The movie is a collection of hilarious, offbeat medieval sketches sprinkled with infinitely quotable dialogue. It’s now earned a prominent place in my DVD collection. :)

The Wrath of Khan (1982)

khanI know, I know, this movie shouldn’t even be on this list, because I should have appreciated it the first time. ;) Yet it actually took me a while to cross over to the “Trek” side. “The Wrath of Khan” is generally considered by fans to be the best of the “Star Trek” movies, but I’ve always been more of a “Star Wars” fan.

It wasn’t until J.J. Abrams’ 2009 “Star Trek” reboot that the “Star Trek” franchise finally clicked for me, and my poor friends and family members haven’t heard me quit talking about it since. ;) After Abrams, I went back and re-watched other Trek movies/episodes, and I found I’d gained a new appreciation for them. Abrams’ movie was the point of entry I’d needed into the franchise. The original characters, such as Kirk, Spock and McCoy, remain my favorites, and I now love both “Wrath of Khan” and “Into Darkness.”

Movie review: Will ‘Divergent’ be the next ‘Hunger Games’?

984498 KS_New_divergentNot long ago, young adult book-to-movie adaptations were a hot commodity in Hollywood. The supernatural teen romance “Twilight” and its sequels made millions at the box office, and the post-apocalyptic thriller “The Hunger Games” made a star of Jennifer Lawrence and generated huge amounts of buzz.

However, recent film adaptations of young adult books have struggled to reach those same heights. Remember “Beautiful Creatures,” “The Mortal Instruments” or “Vampire Academy”? All three posted disappointing box office returns, and Hollywood’s enthusiasm for the genre seems to have cooled.

That’s why there is so much pressure riding on “Divergent,” a post-apocalyptic drama about an oppressive society in futuristic Chicago. Early tracking indicates the film could pull in $50 million+ its opening weekend, and studio executives hope it will launch a new franchise. However, how does it measure up against the critically praised “Hunger Games,” to which it has been compared?

In the world of “Divergent,” society has been divided into five factions, based on different character traits. There’s Abnegation (selfless); Amity (peaceful); Candor (honest); Dauntless (brave); and Erudite (intelligent). Sixteen-year-old Beatrice Prior (Shailene Woodley) was born into the Abnegation faction but never felt like she truly belonged there. She sees “Choosing Day” — the day when young adults get to pick what faction they want to spend the rest of their lives in — as an opportunity to redefine who she really is. However, a test that’s supposed to tell her what faction she’s most suited for comes back as inconclusive, and she learns she’s “divergent” — she doesn’t fit neatly into just one faction. Faction leaders find this label dangerous because it means Beatrice can’t be as easily controlled, and she’s warned her life will be in danger if anyone finds out she’s divergent.

At the Choosing Ceremony, Beatrice — who later goes by just “Tris” — decides to pick the Dauntless faction but later comes to regret it. The training in Dauntless is grueling and sometimes borders on cruel, and she finds it increasingly difficult to keep her divergence a secret. She also fears her trainer, the mysterious “Four” (Theo James), sees through her. Tensions between the factions continue to build, and Tris finds herself at the center of a conflict that could collapse the fragile bonds holding society together and ignite a rebellion.

“Divergent” currently is ranking right at 40 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, a number which is, I think, unfairly low. Some of the problems critics have found aren’t necessarily the film’s fault and actually trace back to the source material. The original young adult novel is a fast-paced read, but it isn’t as strong in terms of plot or character development as the similarly-themed “Hunger Games.” Even though the Capitol-controlled world of “The Hunger Games” is more extreme (teenagers are forced to kill each other in a televised death match), it feels more realistic and fleshed-out than the world the author creates in “Divergent.” “The Hunger Games” delivers more of an emotional punch and the author (and film makers) never let you forget just how high the stakes really are.

However, I think “Divergent” director Neil Burger did improve on the source material, and I enjoyed the film overall. I liked the cinematography, which presented a post-apocalyptic Chicago that was recognizable enough to feel familiar but also eerily foreign. He does a better job than the original book clarifying why people have been divided into factions and why the powers-that-be find “divergents” so dangerous. The soundtrack also fits well with the tone of the film, featuring a collaboration between famous film composer Hans Zimmer and electronica artist Junkie XL. The film does a good job bringing to life some of the best scenes from the book, including a late night “capture the flag” game through the streets of Chicago and an adrenalin-rush zip-line trip above the Chicago skyline. The dream-like sequences designed to serve as psychological tests for Tris are genuinely creepy.

There are places in the film you could be picky. The middle portion of the film features a number of training sequences, and it might have been nice if Burger had tightened these up and left more time for building the background political drama (as Francis Lawrence did in “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire”). I would have liked to see more screen time and character development for Kate Winslet’s icy Erudite villain, Jeanine Matthews. Still, if you’re a fan of dystopian sci-fi, the film is worth checking out. I hope it does well at the box office, because I’d like to see another film featuring this world.

DVD review: Disney’s ‘Frozen’ offers plenty of frosty charm

113036 KS_New_frozenYes, I’ll admit that by now, I’m probably one of the last people to watch the movie “Frozen.” ;) Disney’s latest animated musical, released in theaters in late November, became a surprise box office hit, only the second animated movie in Hollywood’s history to cross the $1 billion mark at the international box office. Strong word-of-mouth kept the movie in the weekly box office top 10 for weeks (in fact, it’s STILL in the top 10), and the movie is now out on DVD.

“Frozen” is about two sisters named Elsa and Anna who are princesses in an imaginary Norwegian-like kingdom known as Arendelle. Elsa, the oldest, has magical powers that allow her to conjure snow and ice. Although she doesn’t want to use her powers for evil, she finds her abilities difficult to control, and she eventually banishes herself from the kingdom to prevent her from hurting people. In the process, she ends up plunging the kingdom into an eternal winter.

Heartbroken but determined, Anna sets off after her sister, enlisting the (somewhat reluctant) help of an ice harvester named Kristoff. However, Elsa doesn’t want to be rescued, believing her self-imposed exile is the only way to keep the kingdom safe, and she accidentally places a curse on her sister. The sisters will ultimately have to work together to save each other and the kingdom.

While I didn’t enjoy “Frozen” quite as much as Disney’s similarly-styled animated musical “Tangled” and it doesn’t rise to quite the same heights as Disney classics such as “Beauty and the Beast” and “The Little Mermaid,” it’s impossible to resist “Frozen’s” charm and catchy songs. Some of the stand out tunes include “Let It Go,” a ballad that shows off the powerhouse vocals of Idina Menzel, star of the musical “Wicked,” and “In Summer,” a song about a snowman named Olaf who dreams of frolicking in the summertime, not realizing that as a snowman he’d actually end up melting. “Do You Want to Build a Snowman?” also has a poignant, bittersweet twist.

The movie has gained attention for deviating from the typical fairy tale story line. Both Elsa and Kristoff lecture Anna after she announces she’s engaged to Prince Hans even though the two have only known each other for a day; in many fairy tales, the prince and princess do get engaged after spending what only amounts to a few hours together. The film doesn’t have a traditional villain; you don’t find out who the real villain is until the end of the film, and it certainly isn’t the character you’d first suspect. And while the spell that has cursed Anna and trapped the kingdom in eternal winter is broken by an act of true love, it’s not the proverbial “true love’s kiss” that usually brings about the happy ending in fairy tales.

If you didn’t get a chance to see “Frozen” in theaters, it’s well worth catching on DVD. Kids will enjoy watching the antics of Olaf and Kristoff’s sidekick, a reindeer named Sven, but there’s enough going on with the plot and character development to delight grow-up viewers too.

Live and let die?: The perils of resurrecting canceled TV shows

serenityThis week, teen detective Veronica Mars heads to the big screen, making a surprise comeback after a Kickstarter campaign helped to resurrect the character. “Veronica Mars” is a cult favorite TV series that continued to have a fan base following its cancellation in 2007 after just three seasons. A Kickstarter campaign raised a surprising $5.7 million from fans for a film featuring the title character, played by Kristen Bell.

While I’ve never watched the original “Veronica Mars” TV show, I’m excited for fans of the series, and I hope the film will be satisfying. Early reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are mostly positive, and I’m curious to see how the film performs at the box office. If the film is a hit, it may offer hope to fans of other well-loved TV shows canceled before their time.

There isn’t always justice in the world of television, and sometimes really good shows slip under the radar or aren’t given enough time to grow before studios give them the axe. If fans are lucky, show runners are given a head’s up about the impending cancellation, and they can at least try to give fans some closure. Other times, a show is canceled mid-season, and we’re left to ponder what might have been.

However, whether a canceled show can be revived and whether it should be revived are two different questions. Sometimes it’s not easy to recapture the magic a cult hit had during its first run. For example, reviews were mixed when the comedy “Arrested Development” returned to Netflix for a 15 episode season last year.

So, why are successful TV revivals challenging, even if most of the original cast and crew return? It may depend, in part, on how much time has passed between the cancelation and the revival. In between those times, all the actors, writers and directors have (presumably) participated in different projects, and they’ve changed as people and evolved as performers. It’s tough to capture the exact same feeling as the show’s original run. Also, fan expectations increase the longer viewers have to wait for a revival, and it is perhaps inevitable that when the revival does happen, the content — no matter how good it is — often feels like a little bit of a letdown. That’s why I’m hesitant to see some of my favorite canceled TV shows revived, especially if it has been several years (or more) since they were canceled.

Perhaps no other canceled-before-its-time show is more beloved than Joss Whedon’s sci-fi Western “Firefly.” The show may have lasted a mere 14 episodes, but it’s one of my all-time favorite TV series. It has (at least in my opinion) :) one of the best ensemble casts ever put together for a TV show; every single one of the characters is a complex, multi-layered person who challenges stereotypes. And yet, as much as it breaks my heart to say it, I don’t know if I want a “Firefly” revival.

Yes, it was canceled far too soon, and despite a 2005 movie, “Serenity,” that tied up some loose ends, fans will always have to wonder about unexplored possibilities. Would hired gun Jayne Cobb have ever reached a point where the money was good enough for him to actually betray Captain Malcolm Reynolds and the rest of the crew? Was Shepherd Book really a traveling preacher, and what secrets remain hidden in his past? Why did licensed companion Inara really decide to join up with a gang of smugglers and criminals — was she running from something, or looking for something?

Although “Firefly” fans would like to know the answers to these questions, it has now been more than a decade since “Firefly” went off the air. I guess I’d rather have the show ride off into the sunset, leaving us satisfied but wanting more, than come back and have the revival not quite live up to the hopes we had for it. The “Serenity” movie also complicates matters because it limits what show runners could do plot-wise in a series revival. If they set the revival after the movie, the show would be missing several key characters, who died in the film. Would the show still be a success without these characters?

There are other shows I loved but ended too soon: quirky crime drama “The Unusuals” and Edgar Wright’s hilarious but too brief British sitcom, “Spaced,” which lasted just 14 episodes. However, like “Firefly,” sometimes it’s hard to go back to what happened before.

So, what do you think? Are there canceled TV shows you’d like to see revived? Or do you think a revival is too risky? What are some of your favorite canceled shows?


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,092 other followers