Change Your Image
StepsCheerBSB
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Whitney (2015)
Nice Tribute to Whitney but it's About Bobby.
As a child of the 80's, I grew up when Whitney Houston was at the top of her game, so its nice to see a film about her life. To begin, Yaya DaCosta did a great job portraying Whitney. From what I remember about Whitney, Yaya captured her mannerisms quite well.
Here are a few things I would have liked to have seen in the film: Timelines/subtitles notifying the viewer which year these events occurred and the story focusing more on Whitney and less on her marriage.
This film roughly covers the years between 1989 and 1994/1995. Again, I was young when all of these events happened in real life but putting the year at the bottom of the screen could have made everything clearer because how I thought things happened (like them getting married and her miscarriage/The Bodyguard) took place in a different order than what was shown on screen. Plus, it didn't help that Yaya had a different wig on in every other scene so it was difficult to follow the sequence.
Since this film was an hour and a half, this film could have explored more into her life growing up. I would have loved to have seen her as a child, whether it was if she went on tour with her mom (since her mom sang backup for Elvis), when/how she got discovered, her modeling days, was being in the music industry what caused her to start with the drug use or were the rumors true about her brother introducing her to drugs? Wasn't she in a group with Johnny Gill, and why that didn't work out? Did she ever go to rehab? What made her finally decide to divorce Bobby? This list can keep going but the movie is mainly focused on her relationship with Bobby to the point it should have been titled "Whitney and Bobby."
I know the family disapproved of this movie, but I didn't learn anything new about Whitney that the media didn't already cover years ago. I mean, I learned more about Bobby than Whitney. I saw Bobby talk about him growing up in the hood, plus his friend gets shot in a scene, his infidelities, him having two kids prior to their marriage with another on the way from different women, his insecurities about being Mr. Houston and him being stagnant while Whitney was on tour. Granted, there was limited insight due to the families disapproval and Whitney not being alive but there are several resources that could have added more to the story line. More research could have taken this film to the next level.
All in all, I loved the music, Deborah Cox did the singing for Whitney's performances. The intensity between the actors was great, the costume designs signified the era well. In the end, go into this film with the mindset that you'll probably learn more about Bobby than Whitney.
Albert Nobbs (2011)
An Engaging Story
Glenn Close does a compelling job at portraying a man in this film. The film is truly about identity in the 19th century but could easily translate into today's times.
What I enjoy about this film is it's different than the typical role reversal (woman dressing as a man and vice versa). Sure, it starts off as Albert (Glenn Close) as a woman portraying a man just to survive but what separates this film from the others is that Albert is attracted to a woman instead of a man. Here is where the identity part comes in, we get to see Albert go through the emotions of figuring out what defines him/her and what makes Albert comfortable.
There is a ton of symbolism in this film. Jonathan Rhys Meyers plays a small but significant role. He is only in a few scenes but each one is important. He is a viscount and a guest of the hotel. *spoiler* In the second scene, he is in a bathrobe and his friend was naked in the bed and says to him, "should we wake the girls?" that wouldn't mean anything but not only is he married but there are other allusions later in the film. In the following scene, which is a costume party for the guests, he is in a dress, while the viscountess is in his tuxedo. The final scene is him talking to the mistress about losing his key to the adjoining room; which alludes to the scene of them being naked. It seems like this character was brought in to show that when you have money, you have more freedom. To counter this, Albert couldn't even wear a dress in his own bedroom for fear of someone finding out he was a woman. The consequences were that he could not making a living vs. the viscount and viscountess wouldn't have that problem.
I mentioned those scenes to also discuss sexuality. Again, both the viscount and viscountess have the freedom to explore both genders sexually. In this film, *spoiler* since Albert is attracted to a woman, s/he gets the chance to see what life would be like to marry a woman. S/he meets Hubert Page, whom is also a woman dressed as a man but is married to a woman. We get to see Albert courting another server/waitress/maid that works in the hotel. Since there is a vast age difference and lack of experience, the server (Helen) has to tell Albert what courting is like in the 19th century.
Overall, a good film which raises questions about gender roles, expectations and identity.
Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb (2014)
Still Missing Something...
I am a big fan of Ben Stiller but I still have this feeling that these films are missing something. When I first saw Night at the Museum, I was hoping to learn something or they would "uncover a secret" (e.g. Night at the Museum meets National Treasure) Ben has the opportunity to take movies like this to the next level yet they fall short. They could have gave us unknown/little known facts and tied that into the story line; that way the children are learning something and the adults are intrigued with new information.
On a positive note, I did like the special effects, cameos and the overall plot. Sir Lance-a-lot was very funny and his action scenes were entertaining. It was nice they took this film to the British museum. Since, they did not have the characters from the sequel, I would have liked have seen more human-like ones to carry the story line. Also, Ben could have done without his "son/Nicky" in the film, he wasn't funny and did not add any depth to film. Since the original "son" is not in this film, the newer one did not have good comedic timing nor connection with the cast or audience. He could have made a cameo or played a museum character and no one would have known the difference.
This was a special film since this was one of Robin Williams final movies. The audience in the theater was sad at certain points. He reminded us that he has the ability to make us laugh, which is his magic. The same rings true for Mickey Rooney, his screen time was hilarious as well.
Overall, it was a good film, but I disagree with critics saying it was better than the first one. The first film had the element of surprise and this one repeated their formula instead of elevating it to the next level.
To rate this film from Netflix, Redbox, Matinée to After Matinée, I would say go see it before the matinée.
The Hangover Part III (2013)
Nice Way to Conclude the Trilogy
I'm usually not a fan of comedies that have trilogies but this one was funny. This is an Alan (Zach Galifianakis) centric film and if you didn't think he was funny in the first two Hangovers, then you won't like him in this film. I understand why some people were not a fan and its mainly because the plot was darker than the first two films. *spoiler alert* there were at least three deaths in the movie. Also, Bradley Cooper was very serious throughout the movie. I believe it's because he's done so many dramas back to back that it's hard to snap back into comedy. Plus, Stu (Ed Helms) didn't have any craziness (i.e. missing a tooth, face tattoo, marrying/ sleeping with strippers) happening to him either (unless you count the ending credits).
I should rephrase this, the dialogue in this film is funny but the scenes were not set up to be funny. For example, there was not a lot of physical comedy nor craziness but the way that Alan and the other cast members interacted with each other was hilarious. In the first film, they had a hangover and that whole movie was them retracing their steps. In this film, it picks up from a small part in the first film and *spoiler alert* there isn't a hangover, they aren't retracing their steps but they are using clues to track people down in order to save Doug.
This film has good cameos, and the writers do a good job with tying up loose ends and concluding everything. I highly doubt there will be a fourth film but if there is, I doubt Bradley or Ed would be in it because their performance seemed like their heart wasn't into it like the first film.
Maleficent (2014)
Different Adaptation
I was very excited to see this film but didn't have the time to see it in theaters. I rented the movie tonight and got upset towards the end of the film. I'm a fan of Angelina Jolie and have watched several of her interviews on television and can say that I know her values. I can tell that a lot of her values were implemented in this version of "Sleeping Beauty." There were many deviations from the 1959 cartoon version of "Sleeping Beauty" to the point I may have to re-watch the original film. I don't want to give too many spoilers away but there are at least three major plot twists that are not correlated with the Disney adaptation. This bothered me because I grew up with this movie and to change something as major as "True Love's Kiss" is what makes it a different film. As a filmmaker, if you're going to do a reboot/prequel/spin-off (or whatever you want to call it) at least have all the major elements the same so that it flows with the original film. I will say, they do mention that it's "not exactly how you remembered/heard it" which would be fine if the changes were subtle like in the movie "Ever After."
Going back to Angelina's values, I remember reading that she doesn't like to play the villain in films because of her children. In this film, *spoiler alert* she plays both hero and villain. The reason I wanted to watch this film in the first place was to see her be the bad guy. Everyone loves a good villain.
On a positive note, I did like the reasoning behind Maleficent having a grudge against Aurora. The writers made the grudge personal versus on a whim. The writers also did a good job with connecting everything together; they made Maleficent a fairy instead of an evil sorceress which explains her horns. However, I would have liked to have seen more background on Maleficent,*spoilers* they could have elaborated on how she became a fairy, the protector of Moors, how her parents died, what makes her sensitive to iron, can she only shift change animals, etc.
Overall, just keep an open mind and that this movie would probably be considered a reboot more than a spin-off.