Reviews

This has been a hard week for women in the entertainment field. On July 23rd, it was the seven-year anniversary of Amy Winehouse passing. The days after that, Demi Lovato was rushed to the hospital from a suspected overdose. Between the field of psychiatric care that I work in and my personal experience with addiction, it was an overwhelming week. The thing that put me over the edge was this documentary Whitney, which chronicled the life of Whitney Houston.

Whitney shows Houston's upbringing as unproblematic. Between her mother Cissy, who was a backup singer for musical legends such as Elvis and Aretha Franklin, and her cousins Dionne and Dee Dee Warwick, it was almost predetermined that Houston was going to be a huge singer. Yet the world nor Whitney was prepared for the type of rush that would bring her to superstardom. The film is smart in how it depicts Houston through interviews with her family, friends, and whatever the hell Bobby Brown is.

The documentary does a brilliant job of telling the story in a way most documentaries wouldn't dare to do: in a non-linear fashion. Documentaries are supposed to present facts in a way where you are persuaded to understand the filmmaker's point of view. What Whitney will do is present the facts, but then backtrack and change the facts as the story will go along. To most amateur film viewers, this might seems confusing. But this is a flawless dive into the real psyche of Houston, with all of her virtues and vices. Kevin MacDonald does this in a way that makes the viewer empathize with Houston as she struggles to make it in the world, even with the world at her feet. I have seen over 1,500 movies in my life and only cried in 29. Well, this film made an even 30. It is a beautiful film that proved that the world was robbed of a great talent when Houston died tragically at the age of 48. The only flaw is the film's running time, which is a girthy two hours. Whitney is in select theatres, but if you miss it, catch it in any way you can. This is one of my must-see films of the year that few will see, even after I published my previous list earlier in the week.

Grade: (9/10)

Shane Black has consistently been one of the best action-comedy directors in Hollywood. From the start of his career as the writer of Lethal Weapon to his directorial efforts of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Iron Man 3, and one of my favorites, The Nice Guys, Black has continued to capture audiences with jaw-dropping action and sharp-pitch black humor. When he was announced as the director for The Predator, I was incredibly thrilled. His effort would be something to reboot the franchise, in my mind. even with the problematic casting of a convicted sex offender, and all the controversy surrounding it (his scenes were removed in post-production) I still was ecstatic to see what Black could do with our favorite alien killer All I can say was, everything I thought this movie would be was absolutely wrong.

The Predator has absolutely no plot, has disjointed and flat-out offensive comedy, and no touch or taste at all. Thee jokes in the screenplay make it feel like it was written by College frat boys who took a break in between writing Old Row blog posts. There was literally a shot where the camera focused in on a house number that said 420. Do I have to say more? Using crude, inaccurate stereotypes of various illnesses such as Tourette's Syndrome, PTSD, and Autism Spectrum Disorder, the film's way of portraying and creating and continuation of mental health stigmas for the pleasure of the audience was absolutely disgusting. Olivia Wilde has since made comments about being the only primary female character on the set. This was various obvious that almost no females were present on the set. One of the scenes dealt with a scenario in which was a flat-out approval of rape culture, and the reasoning for why we need to Me-Too Movement. There were incredible moments where there was nudity and gore for absolutely no reason to move the plot forward, but the approve to the dimwitted, low-Iq minds this film was so obviously prepared for. I don't expect a Predator movie to have a lot of smarts, but I expected so much more than the sheer idiocracy displayed throughout that miserable 2 hours I sat in the theatre.

I want to say a few redeeming things about the movie. The only performances I remotely enjoyed where Trevante Rhodes, who proves he is not a one-trick pony after his success in Moonlight. Sterling K. Brown did the best he could with the miserable screenplay and proves he should be in more starring roles. The actor I feel most disgusted for is little Jacob Tremblay. the actor has proved that he is worth so much more than erroneous and unncessary films like that. His prescene as a foul-mouthed, poorly wrriten child with Austism Spectrum Disorder, which was mislabeled as "Asberger's" and "retarded: in the film, which are both defunct terms. This film's role for him almost set up several sessions for Tremblay's eventual counseling for the pitfalls he will face as a child -star in Hollywood.

I have never wanted to walk out of a movie as much as I did to this disjointed and unpalatable movie. This is coming who sat through Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales. By the end of the film, I wanted to build a time machine to throw back Shane Black into the 1980's, where is poor style would obviously work. His entire filmography means near to nothing to me now, and I wish I was graced with new eyeballs and a new brain after seeing this poor excuse for a movie.

The first thing you should know before seeing this movie is it is not the original film. throw all concept of the original film out of your mind, because of you compare the two films, you will be monumentally disappointed. Nostalgia plays a big part in why we love the movies from our childhood, whether or not they are truly actually good. However, the original animated Beauty and the Beast was a masterpiece of animation. It was the first animated film to be nominated for Best Picture. I know it is hard to try and drop comparison, but please, try to do it, and think of this film as its own entity.

This version of Beauty and the Beast clocks in at just over 2 hours, nearly forty minutes longer than the original film. In the film, they deeply explore some more of the themes of feminism and misunderstanding that the original just glances over. Some of the exploration of the past really works well. However, some sequences fall flat, like the exploration of the Parisian windmill. Not everything necessarily needs explaining within a film, and it almost felt as if the writers assumed the audience was a little dumber than they actually are.

One aspect of this film that drove me crazy was the visual effects. Don't get me wrong, there moments where I was very impressed by some of the lavish effects. That being said, there were many times it was just plain overkill. The Be Our Guest sequence featured far too many flashing colors that made me think I was developing either ADHD or epilepsy. I felt the computer graphic image rendering to be nothing more than sloppy. the wolves in the movie made me wonder how any computer artist could think that the work on them was remotely good enough to put on the screen. That is how fake and unrealistic they looked. I found big problems also with the design of the Beast. When doing my research, I found that director Bill Condon wanted to create the Beast with skilled makeup rather than CGI. However, Condon's request was overpowered by the studio heads in charge of the film, I wold have much rather had a practical made Beast because his face was at time frighteningly terrible. I gave praise to Logan's visual effects yesterday, and how well they were done. Beauty and the Beast brought back to why I hate bad CGI more than nearly anything else in film, as it can ruin so much within a singular movie. Finally, some of the interactions between the furniture and the live actors felt clunky to me as well. Many shots in the film had me question director of photography Tobias Schliesser's credentials as someone they did not pick up off the street on the day production began. Many of the pullback shots were so out of focus of the characters that you could hardly see the character singing. Seeing as Beauty and the Beast is the most expensive musical ever made, I truly believe they should have put more time and effort into the visual effects.

A major criticism of the film came in the casting of the actors, and their inability to sing or fill the roles of the original voice actors. Here's the deal. Voice actors only have to worry about their voice. That is the only thing they have to contribute to a film. Of course, their voices are going to be better than live action actors, who have many more dimensions to their performances. Yes, many of the actors in Beauty and the Beast are not trained singers by any means sans Audra McDonald. However, they give very solid performances of the songs. Original songwriter Alan Menken even wrote some new songs for the live action film. Are they slightly forgettable? Yes. However, they are decently enjoyable tunes. The original songs have stood the test of time of the past twenty-five years. They are bound to be more memorable songs. Much of the casting was pretty spot on, in my opinion. Emma Watson did a wonderful job exploring the feministic side of Belle, showing the characters quiet strength in not only her acting but vocal performance. There was no performance I think in the film that really held it back. I still wish Jean Dujardin was cast as Lumiere over Ewan McGregor, but you can't always get what you want. Josh Gad is once again a scene stealer as the more flamboyant model of LeFou. Also, if you cannot handle a homosexual subplot for not even four minutes of a film, you should not see movies. The "gay Lefou" storyline was blown so far out of proportion by the media that you hardly even recognize it in the film.

Not enough praise is given to the technicians who create so much of the films we see and get so little of the credit. The same goes for Beauty and the Beast. The set design and costume design was lavish and distinguished, and should definitely be recognized by The Academy for Oscar nominations.

Beauty and the Beast has moments where its brilliance shines through. However, many parts of it feel clunky and too in your face. Overall, it is an above average musical that is enjoyable throughout. If you must compare it to the animated class which it is based, I give you this shocking thought: Remakes are very rarely better than the original, and this film is absolutely no different.

Score: (7/10)

One of the first classic films of cinema I remember identifying with was King Kong. When I was in the years of my early childhood, I was fortunate enough to get on the Kongfronatation ride at Universal Studios when it was still functional. That sparked an obsession. I will never forget the sheer disappoint I had in my heart when I heard that my classmates in elementary school booed a screening of the original 1933 Kong. To me, this was a great monster movie, and there is no way that anyone could possibly hate it! To make it short, I have always had a deep love for King Kong, and was obsessed with how he was to be depicted. When the 2005 version of Kong was released, I remember leaving the movies uninspired, even at the age of 10. To me, they had ruined my idea of how our giant simian friend was depicted, and I was greatly disappointed. So, of course, when Kong: Skull Island was released, I knew I had to see it.

Kong: Skull Island is the second entry in Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures shared Monsterverse. the first entry was Godzilla (2014), which I felt to be slightly underwhelming. My sentiment has always been that in any monster movie, human conflict always drags down the true nature of the monsters. the whole plot of a family trying to be reunited in Godzilla warranted several eye rolls from me as an audience member. To be perfectly honest, I am not even sure we need the shared cinematic MonsterVerse. It seems that every studio is trying to find a way to copy Marvel's model that has made them billions of dollars. That being said, I think it is making individual films more and more uninspired, as they become part of a much larger and unnecessary vision.

One thing I will say for the writing of Kong is that the human characters were uninspired and unmemorable by the end of the film, I could maybe name one of the main characters. That is how easily forgettable they were. Incredibly underdeveloped and mundane, I never felt a real reason to care for these characters. Being as there was no central protagonist, the fractured lives of a cast of characters made me ignore them completely. Also, I felt the that there was very little conflict resolution for most of the characters. also, the studio shamelessly cast Chinese actress Tian Jing in a bit role. This is obviously to appeal to the Chinese and global audience, which is becoming more and more of an issue in contemporary blockbuster filmmaking. This is especially problematic when Chinese companies are starting to take majority control in major Hollywood studios. For example, Legendary Studios, that produced this film, is now owned by Chinese investors. In the next couple of years, China will be the biggest box office in the world, even surpassing the United States. This means that studios will do anything they have to to reach this giant global audience to maximize box office profit.

I will say that Kong Skull Island tried desperately to develop some real relevant socio-political themes, even having John Goodman mutter the line, "There will never be a crazier time in Washington." The setting of the Vietnam War was present, as much as they tried to force is. There were consistent homages to classic movies depicting the Vietnam War, such as "Born to Breed" engraved on one of the soldier's helmets. in Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket, Private Joker's helmet has "Born to Kill" written on the side of it. Also, it is very apparent that director Jordan Vogt-Roberts has seen Apocalypse Now many times. This very evident throughout the film. the production team even had a poster made that looks somewhat familiar.

All the elements of a Vietnam War movie are there. From thematic elements of war vs. peace to a blazing soundtrack of Creedence Clearwater Revival, Kong: Skull Island tries desperately to fit into the aesthetic. However, I am not sure that it successfully accomplishes this goal in the slighest. There is something to be said for the classic 1930s setting that Kong has always had, and without it, I felt as if something was missing entirely. There were homages to the original film subtly sprinkled throughout, but they felt too subtle to even notice.

Now that I have spent the last two paragraphs slamming what I really did not like about the movie. throughout mostly choppy dialogue, there were some moments of brilliance in the dialogue, mostly spoken by John C. Reilly's Captain Hank Marlow. Also, the battle scenes are breathtaking. As I have always felt the monsters, not the human should be the focus of the movies. Humans are mostly unnecessary. I don't go to see these movies to learn about human interest causes; I go to them because I want to see monsters blow things up. Kong really brings to the front the brutality and cruelty of the monsters that reside on the island with striking and surprising violence.

Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a decently fun movie. It is great to see on a big screen and it is moderately enjoyable. However, I do think that it is a very flawed and undeveloped film, and is not any way, shape, or form an innovative action film in the slightest.

(Score: 7/10)

I walked into Man of Steel chomping at the bit for the film to begin. The moment it started, it just started wrong and never got much better. Let me praise its few positives first. Wonderful fight scenes and special effects. That's it. The pacing was all wrong of the film. It jumped around too much from different time periods in Clark Kent's life, and before it could answer questions about what I had just seen, it moved on to something else and didn't explain that scene at all. Some of the scenes were just confusing and unexplained. the character performances were all boring with not one bit of character development. Superman was almost a silent film star as the ghost of Russell Crowe you wish would just evaporate already had more lines than Superman it seemed. It was so dark and dry, not in the delicious way that made The Dark Knight an excellent film. it seemed to want to ride on Nolan's trilogy too much. To compare this film to any of Christopher Nolan Batman movies is blasphemy. I would compare it more to a Michael Bay Transformers film that just is a reason to show off what special effects can do without telling any kind of a real story. If this is a start to Justice League, God save that poor DC Universe.

Casablanca is a film that never loses one bit of any emotion or wit that it was originally written with. This classic tale of romance contains the timeless theme of the nearly hopeless struggle of getting over that one ex that still captivates you, even though you ended poorly. Bogart gives the performance of a lifetime as Richard Blaine. There's a real sense of bitterness and dismay that no other actor could come close to capturing. Ingrid Bergman becomes one of the most beautiful creatures to ever grace the screen as the breathtaking Ilsa Lund. you can really see her heart breaking throughout the movie in the way her eyes move as she tries to pick between her husband, Victor Lazlo (Paul Henreid who gives a great performance as the well respected war hero), and her former lover, who now has become a crotchety old drunk. Claude Raines steals every scene he is in, and offers some of the snappiest dialogue ever seen in film. This is by far one of the greatest films ever made.

This movie was heralded as a feel good movie, but I left the movie feeling very flat. No doubt were the visuals incredible, but the story left me feeling confused and disappointed. The ending is far too ambiguous and open to interpretation. It left me feeling somewhat depressed that everything I had watched for the past hour and a half was simply a coping mechanism invented by a very traumatized individual. Much darker than the trailers or marketing campaigns made it to be. I don't get the hype whatsoever. I agree that it deserved Best Cinematography and Best Visual Effects at The Oscars, but how in the world did Ang Lee win Best Director over Steven Spielberg? Much of the work was done for him be effects crews. The effects alone make this movie an 8 or a 9, but the story being a 4 or a 5 out of 10 just bring it down. Very disappointed.