Whitney (2018)

I find it surprising that people on earth still have never heard of Whitney Houston, but are old enough to buy alcohol and are supposedly responsible enough to drive a car… what is that about?

Since her death in 2012 there have been a handful of documentaries and different accounts popping up all attempting to tell Whitney’s story, but to be honest none of them have done anything for me. They either make her life seem ‘meh’, or present her as an awful drug addict.

 I love Whitney a hell of a lot, so for me badly made documentaries don’t change my opinion of her, but for those that are either not familiar with her, her life or work they don’t seem to make the best impression. 

Kevin MacDonald also has a go a this, and does her life and body of work some justice and attempts to make the world realise that you can never stop learning about someone’s life even if the film industry appears to have rinsed anyone and everyone of all the information they have.

This film hooked me in right from the beginning because of how much detail was paid to the editing. Throughout the film we are given a bit of an idea what era we are in by there being a montage almost of Whitney’s most popular music at that time mushed in with a series of flickering political events. It was such a perfect contrast and made you really think about the great escape Whitney created for her fans. 

The film then works chronologically and doesn’t just go from baby, to star, to dead star like other portrayals seem to have done before this. We get an idea of what her childhood was like, then we grow up with her, so to speak – throughout this film. Cissy Houston (Whitney’s mother) doesn’t seem to be someone you see being interviewed a lot, (well at least I don’t think I have and I have gone to some deep, dark corners of the internet when it comes to Whitney) but hearing her side of things really brought such a personal element to this film and tied things together as best as could be done for this type of production. We also heard accounts from other family members such as Whitney’s brothers – Gary and Michael, her sister in law – Pat, and close friends. As well as this we get a brief appearance from ex-husband, rapper, Bobbi Brown.

There are some parts of this film that just created goose bumps all over my body. For starters, the sound is fantastic – that’s a given, it’s Whitney Houston. Second, in some of the accounts from her family members you learn much more about her drug habit and how this began, and progressed – well at least I did. And finally, you get to the time surrounding her death which just gets me personally every time.

It really is a touching, heart-warming, upsetting, brave, considerate, and respectful piece of film.

Whether you are a Whitney fan or not, you should give this a go – I mean I took a friend who half forgot that she had died and they enjoyed it, so if that’s not giving credit I don’t know what is.

6.5/10

CINEMATES - S

Book Club (2018)

Four friends meet regularly for a book club and have been doing this for 30 odd years. They all have different relationship dynamics, and different lifestyles but everything seems to centre around their longstanding friendships. They then start reading the Fifty Shades trilogy and start to re-evaluate their lives.

The story behind this film doesn’t develop too far from this. I went into it with very low expectations but it was surprisingly better than I thought. It had some depth, and it wasn’t too wishy-washy so that it felt like you were chasing pointless characters. We get a rough idea of what all of them are doing and how they got there, but it goes no further than that in terms of character development – and it was just the right amount.

I didn’t understand how a film about a book club could be interesting or have anything to it, but really it was quite well done. The comedy in it was a bit meh in places, but there were also some chances to squeeze out an absolute belly laugh. However, I am not a middle-aged woman so some of the comedy may have been funnier if you are older? I don’t agree with that though really. I think it was made quite well for audiences of younger women upwards. I mean, I could possibly watch this with my Grandma… at a push, but it’s definitely something you could watch with your Mum.

The pacing was a little bit off, as some parts really dragged, and it seemed like they really wanted to put emphasis on the fact that ‘funny women are serious too’. There was a focus on some characters more than other – as you would expect, because from the off you know who the main character is. Some parts were just eye rolling kind of stuff.

I can’t say I noticed any kind of a score, I’m sure there was music it was just obviously not memorable enough, and wasn’t complimented by editing.
For me, the stars of the show – as I had anticipated were Jane Fonda and Diane Keaton. They are funny ladies. The cast was well chosen really, they all seemed to complement each other and you could believe that they had a relationship that meant something. It seemed like the kind of friendship you want in your 60’s.

Overall, it was incredibly average really. I wouldn’t buy it but I would recommend it to the mums of the world.

4.5/10

CINEMATES - S

Flatliners (2017)

Flatliners is the story of 5 medical students, who all take part in an experiment, to find out what happens to us in the afterlife, or if there is even such a thing. To do this, they take it in turns to stop their hearts for long enough to have their own experiences, but come back and tell their stories. However, this isn’t as simple as they might have imagined when their ‘sins’ come back with them and start wreaking havoc in their everyday lives. Resulting in serious complications for some of them. This idea to me was still quite refreshing, and the aspect of supernatural beings and life experiences being brought into this is what really hooked me in, well… and Ellen Page… and the 4% Rotten Tomatoes rating (oh and I love giving remakes a go).

As I mentioned, the cast was mostly what hooked me in with this remake, Ellen Page is a gem, and I was excited to see her in this because she takes on different characters and plays them well. This role for her, was no exception. You did understand the determination possessed by Page’s character from the beginning, and by the end you genuinely did fear for her, and in some parts empathise with what she was having to deal with as a consequence of her experiment. This hooked me when the film began. This part of the story was complimented wonderfully by Diego Luna’s character, who was concerned about what was going on because it was such a stupid thing to do, and frequently raised the incredibly real point that getting into a good medical school, and training to be a doctor is hard, don’t ruin all your hard work. Oh and, living is great, why are you all essentially committing suicide?

I don’t want to focus on the fact that this is a remake too much, so I don’t want to say the reason this film got bad is due to the choice of cast, the cast weren’t bad, it’s just the performances aren’t exactly memorable, but I guess this is possibly due to the writing. This was extremely poor in some areas, and I got a few eye-rolls in. The story was reasonably strong up until the point of shoving 2 new romances into an already busy film, it wasn’t needed, and took away some of the potential for originality. Similarly, the end is basically given away at the start. You are made aware of what is going to haunt Ellen Page’s character within the first 3 minutes, which again got a massive eye-roll.

There is really nothing much to say about it, and this seems to be the general consensus from those that have seen it. It was fine, it was well made from the point of view that it encorporated some comedy, some drama, it was a thriller, and possibly could be at a huge push a horror, and I would recommend that it is something you watch if you have either seen the original, and want to laugh at the attempt to make another average film from an already reasonably average film, or if you just want to see it, because it wasn’t bad, it just wasn’t great. I mean, I would watch it again, just maybe don’t get too excited about it.

5.5/10

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)

You might have seen the tweets about this a few weeks ago, and thought… well, is a review coming? It was, it is, it’s here. I was lucky enough to catch an early showing of King Arthur two weeks ago now, and unfortunately couldn’t get my thoughts out sooner due to an embargo.

But that time is up and I can finally talk about it!

As I said, on April 27^th I managed to catch a sneaky preview of the film, with thanks to ShowFilmFirst. I had seen the trailers once or twice, but was never gripped, and I don’t think I would have bothered with seeing this film had I not had this chance.

The trailer gives no indication of what the story is about, or how it develops and so on, so I did have no idea how this film was going to play out once I’d headed in and the film began. King Arthur is about Arthur (funny that…), played by the wonderful Charlie Hunnam, and how he lost his right as heir when he was a young boy, and was essentially left in the streets to fend for himself, and with the help of his friends, or workers, having no idea who he was, and he got on – obviously, just not with what should have been set out for him. Eventually we see the big scene where Arthur removed the sword from stone and it then becomes his duty to accept the hand he was dealt and overthrow the already ruling, King Vortigern (Jude Law).

I mean that seems straight forward, right? Not at all surprising for a film called King Arthur? Well, correct, nothing about this story was surprising, but at the same time it was. Written and directed by Guy Ritchie the traditional medieval story was adapted to fit a modern audience (in terms of language use most noticeably), I think very well. In addition to this, it took on the responsibility of including an element of fantasy. 

Through the film this idea grew on me, and eventually paid off, but at the start I felt a bit lost in regards to some of the creatures… why is that elephant so big? Who’s that spooky guy they keep showing? Then it all wrapped up, the story began to unfold and it all settled down and ended up making (somewhat) perfect sense. 

The locations that were selected, or created for this film were taken advantage of in some scenes, and parts were shot great. Alongside the musical score that was popped in it gave the film a certain ‘feel’, a sense of almost… uniqueness. I didn’t feel like I was watching something I had seen before because the nitty gritty aspects were quite individual. From reading other reviews, I have seen the Guy Ritchie has repeatedly been named the best thing about this film, and everyone is right. He is, and did we expect anything less? I am a fan of his work, and I think if nothing else – the fact that he is involved in this film is reason enough to watch it.

If you didn’t guess already from me calling Charlie Hunnam wonderful…. I thought he was wonderful. I was excited to see him in this, and he didn’t bloody let me down did he! He was casted perfectly to be honest, and it was a memorable performance, for which credit is due. The rest of the cast… it did its job, Jude Law is Jude Law, we don’t expect a bad performance, and we don’t get one. Did I believe he was the baddie? Yes, sure, the performance was fine. But other performances weren’t as particularly favourable as that of Hunnam, and some were even expected... of course we're going to have Aidan Gillen helping the lads out in a medieval themed film!

The issue King Arthur had, wasn’t necessarily the acting, it was more the pacing. Don’t get me wrong we had some great fight scenes, they packed them out, and they were great… but at the same time some were long. In fact, some scenes were really long, and I felt like I was in the cinema for ages.

This film wasn’t bad in the slightest, and now that I’ve had that time to digest what I’d seen before writing up, and being surprised with the trailers popping up everywhere again, I’d like to see it again. I think I would buy this, and would watch it (if I could dedicate to the what felt like 5 hours, again).

If you’re on the fence about this film, watch it. You never know – you might unexpectedly enjoy it. Overall, I’d give it a solid 6/10. It had its flaws, but had its fair share of redeeming qualities too. Not a bad film after all!

CINEMATES - S 

Going in Style (2017)

I almost forgot this film was being released until an advert appeared on my telly, and I was hooked from the second I saw Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine together.

In more recent years it seems that Freeman has taken any role that he has been asked to just because he can, and it hasn’t always paid off. I was ready to go into this with an open mind.

Going in Style is about 3 friends Joey (Caine), Willie (Freeman) and Albert (Arkin). The film starts of with Joey witnessing a bank robbery after being told he may be receiving a default letter, and having his house repossessed due to missing mortgage payments. He leaves and we discover that all 3 of them are having their pension stopped, so basically - they are all broke. Joey suggests to his friends that they should rob a bank, and with some training, and advice, they eventually get round to doing this.

I mean, really… there isn't too much that I can spoil, but there are some parts of this film that are pure gold due to how the story plays out. It keeps you hooked.

It seems like forever since I sat down and watched a film that was genuinely funny,   and a large reason for that is the cast.

In case you didn't guess already, I was really excited to see this cast working together, and they really did that, their acting styles complimented each other so well, and i honestly couldn’t imagine an alternative bunch of older dudes trying to rob a bank. You really felt for the characters, and believed how much they cared for each other and their families. Honestly, it made me think of my Grandad and his best friend and some of the mischief they may have gotten up to when left unattended, and it felt like that idea was in mind whilst making this.

Admittedly, i was surprised to see that Zach Braff was the producer of this film, but he pulled it off. I had no idea this was a remake until i was actually in the cinema, so i cannot make any comparisons to the way in which the original film was shot, acted, or paced, so i am taking this film at face value.

Visually, this film was nice,,, it wasn’t phenomenal, but it suited the type of film that was being show it was easy to look at. This was the same for the soundtrack, it was nice, and it again matched what was being shown.

This is definitely a film that I would buy, and watch again, and honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was nominated for, or even won an award.

If you like dry, classic humour, and think Freeman, Caine and Arkin are all top dogs, i highly highly recommend this film.

I would give Going in Style a solid 7/10. It was a great film, and I’m so glad I watched it.

CINEMATES - Ghost in the Shell (2017) First Reactions!

CINEMATES - Power Rangers First Reactions!

Logan (2017)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zggJx7TB1cc&t=211s