Reviews

Must be enormous to attempt a huge bio picture of Whitney Houston. In the end Whitney was a drug ridden mess. I remember interviews with her that were so difficult to watch. She was so strung out on drugs of many colors. As for the director, with whom I worked with on CANDYMAN, I do not believe she will ever get another opportunity to direct again. I lost track as to all the films she directed and this should be her last. Every one was a failure, but she kept on trying. The acting was good especially the lead as Whitney. The only one that was poorly cast was her Mother ,Cissy Houston. Kasi took an easy approach in dealing with her being a Lesbian. There are scenes where she makes out with men, but god for bid a hot sex scene with a woman.

Did not deserve the Oscar. It was strictly political because she came out as lesbian, and latino at that. I just watched it again and can say it has not aged very well. LOL. It's not even a year old. The original is far superior. Spielberg does not have an ear for musicals. He was up to his usual visual tricks. Here he played with fractured light in his lens, and dust or was it smoke? Many of the sets were too fake and overdone. And the dance moves were ridiculous. It also never occurred to me the the hole of the story takes place in two days. That made no sense. I do not believe the original ever mentions the dance being last night when Maria meets Tony. Which means the Tony is killed the day after meeting. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Not one of his yes friends. He has always expected me to be honest about whatever he has done. That even includes his choice in divorcing his muse Shirley Russell. He literally left her for women searching for something to make them famous for no talent of their own. There are things here that are quite clever due to a no budget production. Poe's castle is one much humor especially it's fall. However the female lead a Lisi Tribble/Russell, Kens last wife will go down as the woman that was Ken's fall to obscurity. She even convinced him to join the short lived Big Brother. She clearly did not have Ken's best interest here or anywhere, for that matter. She solely ruined his legacy.

Granted ,I am a huge fan of Baz Lurhmanns films. He make films a cinematic experience something I expect from film, that few directors live up too. But here Baz was able to find actor born to play Elvis. Austin Butler, with whom I never heard of, has become Elvis body and soul.

He is simply remarkable. I kept waiting for the film to get into his relationship with Ann-Margret. I more than certain that she refused to be part of this being she is a very private woman of dignity and still to this day does not talk about this part of her life.

Shooting a scene in the dark of night one should never dress its players in black. I've got a 60" screen and still can not make out what what is happening. What I was able to see was an old man being able to fight men 50 years younger. Not to mention his two large dogs that are no where to be seen when needed. It is all ridiculous.

I have always likes Jeff Bridges he always shines. Wish I can say the same for John Lithgow. This a bit disappointing. First off we have this "OLD MAN" beating the crap out of men 50 years younger. Then we have to endure the first hour with pictures we can't see. The lighting was terrible. I personally work for a director that taught a very important lesson, which was to never dress people in black in a night scene if at all possible.

So beautifully photographed, great costume design, and production design. That is about all things positive. But what was it about???? I thought Crispin Glover was far too young for the role. The woman who alwayschad a smile on her face, no matter what.

Why does Clyde have modern tats on his body????? The placement of where these are are ridiculous for their time. They could have easily been covered. For me they were simply distracting. And the actress playing Bonnie was terrible. I'm towards the end of the first and don't think I will finish.

Here is another example of how critics try to make the paying audience feel stupid. First the film is shot so dark one cannot see what is there. There is No excuse for such bad cinematography for such a film. Secondly Robert P. Is rarely in this film. It is mostly a stunt double or a body double for a shot of the back of batman shirtless. It clearly is not the actors back. I could not finish this piece of crap.

You will admire this unknown little masterpiece. The performances are all top notch and the film making is as well. It is a very emotional ride much like Midnight Express with a totally different outcome.

Truth is his films are so loaded with clever ideas, visually stunning, great performances, wonderful design but adding up to, "WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT". I wonder if he can explain what his films are about.

Years ago I met Jan de Bont at a small gathering in LA. I asked him how and why did Bruce Willis's wife beater tank change from white to grey. He was surprised that I noticed being the first person ever mentioning this. When I explained I was a costume designer and notice things like this, he understood. Should re-watch it to see why it has received such a great response.

But hated this as much second time, maybe more. Firstly there was no correlation between the inside of the trains and the train. Another mishap is there was no movement inside. We have all been on moving trains and know that there is a constant sense of being unbalanced. I do not get how this film got rave notices from critics. What am I missing.

Here we go once again where the critics love making the film going public feel stupid. If they rave about a film, you had better agree with them, sort of like the judging of democrats vs republicans. This Star studded fiasco was such a waste of time fo all involved, It was also the first film I can honestly say Meryl Streep was terrible.

Lin Manuel Miranda has never impressed me with all the things he has done. His works are so well received by critics and public alike, but has left me cold, until this. For a small musical and first time directing it is a very moving experience.

Andrew Garfield deserves all the praise coming his way for this performance. I will now see everything he does in the future. Without a doubt this is the best performance by a male in a musical in any year. It really is a mind blowing performance and deserves the Oscar. This is now the 5th time my watching this. I don't, it seems, getting tired of watching this.

Having had the opportunity of working with Tina on TOMMY, I don't understand why a very important chapter of he life was ignored. Just before she left IKE two people came to her rescue, Roger Smith and Ann-Margret, allowing her a new life, so to speak. Ann-Margret even had a TV special with solo Tina as her guest. I even was invited to the Smith home for a small dinner which included Tina and Ken Russell. It boggles my mind that this was not included in this Documentary. I know the Smiths live a very private life and do not gloat on the kindness they extend to people they love unlike most of the Hollywood Crowd.

There have been in the past actresses winning an Oscar for roles that fit their exterior perfectly. Case in point is Louise Fletcher winning for Cuckoo's Nest. She is a terrible actor, just watch her in other things. Kristen Stewart suffers the same personality, cold as ice. Princess Diana was equally cold. This was just a great casting.

I was totally into season I and 2. Season 3 leaves much to be desired. There is some really bad acting which I was never aware of before. Also why was it needed for all those childhood flashbacks. All children experience bad things while growing up, some worse than others, however they do NOT turn into serial killers. I binge watched the total season in two days.

I watched this due to not quite believing in how cliched and unbelievable this is. As for peoples comments on it being compared to a horror film........I just don't get. The one huge mistake was seeing a mirror. In real life, at a Shiva all mirrors ore covered.

.....one could read the sub titles. Who the hell thought that using white titles on a white ground was a good idea. Some of the footage was impressive but not worth trying to read the titles.

Sean Penn is fascinating to watch, Understanding him is a different story. He appears so strange visually and in personality that I did not believe that the people he encounters would give him a minute of their time.

I think it took place before cell phones but they were mentioned. There is also a scene where he pays a visit to a High School Teacher who does not remember him. He actually tells her it might be because of how he looks now in all the eye makeup. Later he mentions that at the age of 15 he felt his father disliked him for wearing makeup, DUH?

The other big error was his name. The total time we are to believe he is Jewish. If I remember correctly his Sur name was Smith. I never knew any Jewish people with the name of Smith.

It is beautifully shot but sooooooooo boring.

There was nothing about the film that interested me besides the production design. Leonardo was nothing like what Hughes was, who was over six feet tall. And to ignore the fact that Hepburn was a Lesbian only goes to show what a cowardly director he is. For some reason Hollywood is in love with everything this director does, and the film going public just goes along. I personally hated, Cape Fear, loved the original, Hugo, Shudder Island, Gangs of New York, Age of Innocence. With the sort of budgets he can command, there is no reason they should not look good. His best film IMO is WOLF OF WALL STREET. That being a huge surprise for me.

Just watched this three time in three days. Do not believe some of the negative comments, by some ultra Anti American posters. I will not go into the actual story, what I will say is , it has the very best stunt work clearly done by the actual actors. It also has a special effects towards the end that I have never seen done better. This director needs to do a James Bond film. Michael Keaton in a role I would never think of him doing was superb.

I have worked on films for 30 years as a costume designer. Some of the films I have done had crowd scenes"EXTRAS" which always was problematic for me. As a costume person I dealt with dressing them, which developed a closeness to them. When our lunch was served we would line up at the catering van and usually had a choice of a hot meal. The extras were given a styrofoam box with a sandwich and piece of fruit. I could never bring myself to eat at the tables set up for crew. I would take my tray to my wardrobe trailer and eat my meal there. I bring this up because this film, we are told used real homeless nomads. I wonder if they got the same sandwich. Would love to know ,if anyone knows.