Plankton: The Movie

Last Thursday, I saw “Plankton: The Movie,” released on Netflix last month. How’s this spin-off compared to the last one?

Less than a year after the release of “Saving Bikini Bottom: The Sandy Cheeks Movie,” the SpongeBob SquarePants franchise releases another spin-off with “Plankton: The Movie.” Brian Orndorf said in his review, “It’s a sudden SpongeBobbing that’s a little disorienting, as someone, somewhere is determined to increase media ubiquity of the franchise and its cast of characters. “Sandy Cheeks” wasn’t entirely successful, but it remained an entertaining cartoon event, handling the presentation of a supporting player as she’s granted a starring role. “Plankton: The Movie” does away with heroism, electing to extend screen time with a villain, albeit one who never seems to have much success when disrupting daily life in Bikini Bottom. Thankfully, Plankton is an amusing irritant to follow, and while the production still maintains trouble with final acts, the offering is spirited and humorous, gifting co-writer/star Mr. Lawrence an opportunity to shine.”

Plankton (Mr. Lawrence) stays determined to want control of Bikini Bottom, wanting to steal the secret Krabby Patty formula from Mr. Krabs (Clancy Brown). Launching “Operation Success,” Plankton prepares for victory, but his “computer wife” Karen, voiced by Jill Talley, is losing interest in this fight, wanting to bring Plankton back to normal with her idea of a Chum Bucket renovation. When Plankton refuses to give up his desire, Karen goes haywire, launching a giant magnet that pulls Bikini Bottom up from the depths, helping to create a giant metal machine that’s run by this once nice computer, who’s now split into three evil personalities. Now afraid, Plankton hurries to stop this destruction, only to end up with SpongeBob, voiced by Tom Kenny, who uses his therapy methods to find where the villain started this behavior and look back at when Karen was invented. Orndorf said, “Plankton returns to his past to combat his gigantic spouse, attempting to fight fire with fire while Bikini Bottom residents hope to introduce the scheming little cyclops copepod to a concept alien to his existence: empathy.”

“Plankton: The Movie” doesn’t waste time getting to the villain, catching up with the puny green man and his pet, Spot, as they finish up “Operation Success,” which is meant to finally bring Mr. Krabs’s secret recipe in Plankton’s hands, letting him begin his mission to take over the world. We’ve seen this before, and the screenplay (by Mr. Lawrence, Kaz, and Chris Viscardi) acknowledges this tiring situation, especially with Karen, who’s programmed to support Plankton, but is prepared to show him a happier life in a renovated Chum Bucket, bringing better food and a warmer atmosphere to paying customers. “Plankton: The Movie” gets some laughs out of the protagonist’s inability to think of the possibility of business, and it introduces the first of many songs (including I’m a Jerky Jerk), turning the film into a musical with the help from songwriters Bret McKenzie, Bob and Mark Mothersbaugh, and Linda Perry.

Orndorf said, “Karen and Plankton eventually split over their disagreement, but it’s no everyday marital spat, as the computer turns evil, creating different personalities while destroying Bikini Bottom with a giant magnet (which allows for plenty of sight gags). A journey of realization is created for Plankton, who needs SpongeBob’s help to access the past, transforming the yellow lunatic into a Freud-like analyst capable of hypnotizing his patient, and “Plankton: The Movie” returns to Karen’s origin, initially manufactured from a calculator, a roller skate, and a potato. Director Dave Needham has fun playing with different animation styles to explore these moments of mental time travel, and the writing tries to develop the relationship between Plankton and Karen. The past puts the eponymous character on an odyssey to save the future, taking the creatures on a side trip to Bikini State University, returning Plankton to his happiest days.”

Orndorf continued, ““Plankton: The Movie” is most entertaining during these examinations of personal history, and development of the main madman’s world is welcome, extending to a trip into his “basement of failures.”” Supporting characters eventually join the journey, including Sandy and her “gal pals,” who make the mistake of introducing SpongeBob to coffee. Orndorf ended his review by saying, “Community sequences shine here, but there seems to be some type of studio order that all of these features need to climax with chaos, and “Plankton: The Movie” is no different, mixing the promising storytelling journey of empathy with plenty of large-scale cartoon violence. It’s more of the same, but Needham gets something out of this spin-off, and Mr. Lawrence’s gloriously unhinged voice work as Plankton is always good for laughs, now provided with extra dramatic substance to help add fresh details to the tyrannical character.”

I thought this was an entertaining, enjoyable film to watch. If you have been a fan of this franchise and seen all of the past films, than don’t miss the chance to see this one on Netflix. Check it out and have an enjoyable time laughing at this film.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned this Friday for the conclusion of “Nick Nolte Month.”

The Prince of Tides

By directing one good film, you show that you had a movie inside of you. By directing two, you show you are a real director, and that is what Barbra Streisand proved with “The Prince of Tides,” a confident and very serious 1991 love story that allows neither humor nor romance to get in the way of its deeper and darker topic.

The film stars Nick Nolte, in an Oscar-worthy performance, as an unemployed, lost, and miserably married football coach from the South, who travels north to New York City after his twin sister, a poet, tries to commit suicide. This is not her first attempt, and as we find out more about Nolte’s character, we begin to understand why he has special reason to care for her. They both had a traumatizing childhood.

In New York, Nolte meets his sister’s psychiatrist, played by Streisand, who is also not happily married, and their conversations change from therapeutic to personal, as both characters begin to feel that the other is lonely and drawn away from the normal human cheer. Roger Ebert said in his review, ‘We are familiar with the general profile of such relationships from many other movies, but “The Prince of Tides” is not about anything so banal as the ways that opposites attract. It is about two people whose affection offers a cure for each other – if they have the courage.”

Streisand has a son, played by Jason Gould, who is poor at sports, and Nolte agrees to throw a football around with him, getting to like the boy in the process. Streisand also has a husband, played by Jeroen Krabbe, who is a famous violinist and evil snob, who, as Ebert said, “gets one-upped by Nolte in a scene so funny and impeccably written that it is a crime, a violent crime against the cinema, that the surprise is spoiled in the movie’s trailers and publicity clips.”

Nolte was once happily married to Blythe Danner, but there is no more love in their marriage, maybe because of the pains he has deep in him. There is a distance between himself and his children. He loves his sister, played by Melinda Dillon, but feels hopeless to help her.

His emotional life still is around his mother, played by Kate Nelligan (Ebert noted, “playing both young and old, in her second great supporting performance in 1991, after “Frankie and Johnnie”)”. She was once really poor, married to a violent alcoholic who abused her and her children. Then, she married a local rich man whose evil was more superior. Her son hates her, but cannot free himself of her.

Ebert mentioned, ““The Prince of Tides” is based on a novel by Pat Conroy, who also wrote The Lords of Discipline, another novel in which the lives of young men are scarred by the weaknesses of their elders.” However, this time the movie is not quite that easy. These are complicated people who have lived difficult lives, and a quick romance or some feelgood therapy is not going to heal their pain. What Streisand shows, with likeable patience as both a director and writer here, is that the people can heal best by learning to build and trust relationships.

Ebert noted, “The movie is not all grimness and pain, of course. A dinner party scene provides a big liberating laugh, and the chemistry between Nolte and Streisand – such different people – is exciting because their minds, as well as their bodies, touch and are soothed.”

Ebert ended his review by saying, “In “Yentl” and again here, Streisand shows herself as a director who likes emotional stories – but doesn’t simplify them, and pays attention to the human quirks and strangeness of her characters.”

The late George Carlin plays Nolte’s gay neighbor in here. This is a very emotional movie. Currently, you can stream this on Pluto TV, and I do recommend this film. You should definitely give this a watch and see for yourself what type of an emotional roller coaster ride of a film this is. Once you see it, it will leave a lasting impression with you. Check it out and see for yourself.

Look out next week when I finish “Nick Nolte Month” with my absolute favorite comedy of all time.

Another 48 Hrs.

Roger Ebert started his review by asking, “You know how sometimes, in a dream, you’ll see these familiar scenes and faces floating in and out of focus, but you’re not sure how they connect?” “Another 48 Hrs.,” is a 1990 movie that feels the same way. The basic idea is familiar from the original “48 Hrs.” and the villains and cops are all basic movie stereotypes. However, what exactly is going on? Everybody seems to be looking for the Iceman, who is a criminal genius in control of all drug traffic in the San Francisco Bay area. A cop named Cates has been trying to find him for years – but every time he gets close, the Iceman slips away. Meanwhile, a convict named Hammond is about to be released from prison. Maybe he knows who the Iceman is. Maybe he can help Cates. On the other hand, maybe he can’t. He sure doesn’t want to.

Ebert said, “Watching the movie, I was trying to remember the details of the 1982 film.” In the first film, Nolte was trying to find some cop killers and he got Hammond out of prison for 48 hours to help him out. They became quite a duo – the hung-over white cop and the confident young black man, both suspicious of each other, both learning to be friends.

The movie had the scene that made Murphy into a star, a scene where he walked into a redneck bar, impersonated a police officer, and intimidated everyone with just the amount of his personality.

In the sequel, years have passed. Cates has stopped drinking (and apparently lost his long-suffering girlfriend). Hammond is back in prison, but Cates is holding $475,000 for him when he gets out. Meanwhile, in a shoot-out during a motorcycle race, Cates kills a man who fired at him. However, the other guy’s gun disappears, and with no evidence besides Cates’ troublesome personnel record, his badge is lifted and he’s charged with manslaughter.

Ebert noted, “Meanwhile, there is a bunch of long-haired, leather-jacketed, tattooed motorcycle gang members who cruise the desert blowing people away. They apparently work for someone who works for the Iceman. They want Hammond dead – so badly that they try to kill him by opening fire on the prison bus that’s returning him to civilization. You might ask why the bus driver couldn’t simply push them off the road during the high-speed chase, but that would be too logical a question for this movie, which specializes in confusing and endless action scenes.”

There’s one crucial difference between this movie and the original: We never get any idea of the friendship and camaraderie between Hammond and Cates. Their idea of friendship comes down to hitting each other as hard as they can, “to even the score.” They have no dialogue scenes together of any depth. The plot they’re in is so confusing that at one point they simply go back to the prison and ask one long-time inmate, played by Bernie Casey, to identify the guy they’re after. He gives them the man’s name and address. How does he know all of this information? Don’t ask.

Ebert pointed out, “Meanwhile, back at police headquarters, the cop plot is recycled from dozens of other movies. How often do we have to sit through that scene where the Internal Affairs guy makes the hero hand over his badge and gun. Leaving all the other movies out of it, this is the second time in a few months that Nike Nolte has personally had to go through that scene (after “Q & A”).” When the big secret of the Iceman’s identity finally is revealed, you ask: Would the drug kingpin of the entire Bay Area really need to keep the daytime job? Ebert said, ““Another 48 HRS” was directed by Walter Hill, who also did the previous movie, and who knows how to shoot violence so it looks convincing, although here he stages a scene that sets some kind of indoor record for the amount of glass that is broken. Hill and his writers, John Fasano, Jeb Stuart and Larry Gross, have not exactly extended themselves to create a new and original story for this movie, and the big set-piece once again involves Murphy and Nolte inside a redneck bar. It’s an aimless scene with a lot of loose ends, a reminder of how well the earlier scene worked.”

What holds the movie together to some degree is the simple presence of Murphy and Nolte, who are not given great dialogue or much of a story, but who have a certain charisma that’s interesting to watch. Ebert said, “Murphy in particular needed this movie, I think, as a corrective after his unfortunate “Harlem Nights” – a movie that was seen by a great many people, many of whom didn’t enjoy it all that much.”

If it does nothing else, “Another 48 Hrs.” reminds us that Murphy is a huge, genuine talent. Now it’s time for him to make a good movie.

I guess people can guess, this is not a good sequel. I don’t understand what could have happened that made this sequel bad. Because this could have potentially launched a franchise, but this film killed the idea. If you liked the first movie, don’t see the sequel. This is going to shame you for seeing it and you will regret putting this on.

Next week, we’re going to look at another classic film in “Nick Nolte Month.”

48 Hrs.

I thought of dedicating the month of April to Nick Nolte, as I almost reviewed films that I had seen of his last year, but something came up that I ended up delaying it to this year. Let’s start off the month with the film that probably started the buddy cop genre, “48 Hrs.,” released 1982.

Sometimes an actor becomes a star with just one scene. Roger Ebert noted in his review, “Jack Nicholson did it in “Easy Rider,” wearing the football helmet on the back of the motorcycle.” It happened to Faye Dunaway when she looked tiredly out of a screen window at Warren Beatty in “Bonnie and Clyde.” With “48 Hrs.,” it happens to Eddie Murphy.

His unforgettable scene comes about halfway through the film. He plays a convict who has done thirty months for theft and has six months left – but he gets a forty-eight-hour prison leave because of Nick Nolte, a hungover hothead detective who’s on the path of some cop murderers and thinks Murphy can help. Murphy thinks there’s a bartender who may have some information. Ebert noted, “The thing is, the bar is a redneck country joint, the kind where urban cowboys drink out of longneck bottles and salute the Confederate flag on the wall. Murphy has been jiving Nolte about how he can handle any situation.” Nolte gives him a chance. Murphy, mocking a police officer, walks into the bar, takes command, completely intimidates everybody, and gets his information. Ebert credited, “It’s a great scene — the mirror image of that scene in “The French Connection” where Gene Hackman, as Popeye Doyle, intimidated the black regulars in a Harlem bar.”

Murphy has other good moments in the film, as does Nolte, who gives a great performance as a skeptical, irresponsible, and immature cop who’s always saying lies to his girlfriend and sneaking a sip of whiskey out of his own flask. The two men began suspicious of each other in the film and end up having a warm dislike. Eventually, grudgingly, a type of respect starts to happen.

Ebert said, “The movie’s story is nothing to write home about. It’s pretty routine.” What makes the movie special is how it’s made. Nolte and Murphy and good, and their dialogue is good too – original and funny.

James Remar makes a really evil villain, realistically bad. Annette O’Toole gets the role of Nolte’s lover, but it’s another one of those thankless women’s roles. Ebert said, “Not only could O’Toole have phoned it in — but she does, spending most of her scenes on the telephone calling Nolte a no-good bum.” The direction is by Walter Hill, who has never been any good at scenes with women and doesn’t improve this time. What he is good at is action, male camaraderie, and atmosphere. His movies almost always have at least one wonderfully choreographed, unbelievably violent fight scene (Ebert asked, “remember Charles Bronson’s bare-knuckle fight in “Hard Times“?”), and the fight scene this time is tiring.

Where Hill grows in this movie is in his ability to create characters. Ebert mentioned, “In a lot of his earlier movies (“The Warriors,” “The Driver,” “The Long Riders,” “Southern Comfort“) he preferred men who were symbols, who represented things and so didn’t have to be human. In “48 Hrs.,” Nolte and Murphy are human, vulnerable, and touching. Also mean, violent, and chauvinistic.” It’s that type of movie.

This is a great movie. If you haven’t seen this movie, you’re missing out. You should definitely check this one out because it’s a classic and everyone will love it. This is currently streaming on Paramount+, so if you have that, see it and have an enjoyable time. This one is for the Nolte and Murphy fans, as I believe this was Murphy’s film debut.

I don’t think it comes as a surprise that this film was so successful that it had a sequel. However, if you want to know how that one is, stay tuned next week to find out in “Nick Nolte Month.”

Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy

Stephen Silver started his review by saying, “The Bridget Jones’ Diary phenomenon, based on the work of Helen Fielding, always struck me as a British version of Sex and the City. Both got their start in the 1990s as newspaper columns and later books about the sexual adventures of a woman in the big city.”

Silver continued, “The first movie, Bridget Jones’ Diary, arrived in 2001, which was at the zenith of Sex in the City-mania. Like SATC, the franchise has continued into its third decade, first with the heroine settling down with one of her long-term male suitors. And now, also like Sex and the City’s sequel series And Just Like That, the Jones film series has the protagonist (Renee Zellweger) in her early-50s, and single again after the death of her husband.”

The new movie, “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy,” released last month on Peacock, and it’s decent – enough that it probably deserved at least an obligatory theatrical, like it got in the U.K. The previous movies were all box office hits. The film skillfully ties among laughs that are faithful to the franchise, callback and fan service, and pulling at the heartstrings. Most of the fan-favorite side characters in the previous movies, from Emma Thompson’s gynecologist to Sarah Solemani’s news anchor, also return.

Silver noted, ‘Colin Firth’s Mark Darcy was always depicted as a prince of a guy, much more so than his fellow dead husband, Mr. Big.” However, as the movie starts, we find out that Darcy passed away four years earlier while doing humanitarian work in Darfur, leaving Bridget with two young children, even though Firth appears in a couple of flashbacks.

As the movie starts, Bridget is mourning not only her husband but also her father, reprised by Jim Broadbent, who passed way more recently but encouraged her to start living life again, both by going back to work and getting back into dating. However, despite the last film, “Bridget Jones’s Baby,” saying that Hugh Grant’s dishonorable old flame, Daniel Cleaver, was himself dead, the revival Grant is back in this film, having faked his death.

The two don’t get back together, but she’s there to help him make up for his life of jerkiness, and take a chance at reconnecting with his estranged son. Grant’s handful of scenes are mainly the highlights of the film.

Instead, we’re back to the first film’s formula of Bridget, stuck between two mean while occasionally having funny public embarrassments. This time, her possible men are a much younger, frequently shirtless park ranger (Leo Woodall) and her child’s teacher (Chiwetel Ejiofor).

Nothing surprising happens, and some callbacks are legitimately emotional. Silver noted, “The new movie’s dropping of its heroine into early-50s singledom is done much more smoothly, and less awkwardly, than the And Just Like That version.”

Silver continued, “A whole book—and possibly a You Must Remember This season—could probably be produced about the career travails of Renee Zellweger and what they say about the treatment of actresses of a certain age. She was cast as Bridget Jones a quarter century ago, at a time when both her weight gain for the part and her non-Britishness were treated as major controversies, as was the time in 2014 when she showed up on a red carpet looking unlike herself.”

Silver went on, “Her big comeback role came in 2019’s Judy, where she won an Oscar for playing Judy Garland in a performance much better than the movie that contained it.” However, for some reason, six years later, the new Bridget Jones is her first movie role of any type since. As always, she’s a great on-screen actress and was the right choice to play Bridget from way back then.

This was a surprise, just like the last sequel. However, I think people will get into this one more so than the last one. However, with what happens during the end credits, I think they have honestly ended the franchise off. Watch this on Peacock when you get the chance and have a fun time with it.

Thank you for joining in on “Bridget Jones’s Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed it and hopefully everyone has seen the franchise now. Stay tuned next month to see what I will review next.

Bridget Jones's Baby

Who could dislike Bridget Jones, the crazy eccentric protagonist whose 2016 viewing, in “Bridget Jones’s Baby,” finds her back where she started: alone and single?

Stephen Holden asked in his review, “Yet you have to wonder: A decade and a half on, does Bridget still have a place in a popular culture where the carbonated dreamland of romantic comedy is hardening into a sexual battleground and the very notion of Prince Charming seems an increasingly ludicrous anachronism?”

Holden continued, “Like the recent “Absolutely Fabulous: The Movie,” or the film spinoffs of “Sex and the City,” “Bridget Jones’s Baby” trades on nostalgia for the characters’ quaint misbehavior and silly fantasies of yesteryear. Renee Zellweger, crinkly eyed and confident Bridget, still chasing what she calls “happily ever after.” But the question nags: What planet does she think he inhabits?” The London shown here might as well be Planet C, as in cute.”

In this film, directed by Sharon Maguire, from a screenplay by Helen Fielding, Dan Mazar, and Emma Thompson, Bridget is now a successful producer of a cheesy television news show. On the broadcast, Bridget is the newscaster, her friend Miranda, played by Sarah Solemani, text from the sides.

In the beginning, Bridget celebrates her 43^rd birthday with a cupcake that only has a single candle as the song All by Myself, which was in the first film, plays on the soundtrack. Holden noted, “When the music abruptly segues to House of Pain’s “Jump Around,” a lip-syncing Bridget leaps onto her bed and bounces up and down like a 7-year-old on a sugar high.” However, Bridget has grown up in one significant way: Her fascination with diet and weight loss has decreased, and finally she looks at peace with her body.

Holden said, “What follows are a series of mildly farcical misadventures that revolve around Bridget’s unexpected pregnancy after dalliances with two dreamboats who appear as if summoned by a genie.” The most unlikely, Jack, played by Patrick Dempsey, is of a dating website who pulls her out of the mud at the Glastonbury music festival, which she attends with Miranda and which the movie shows as a cheap, loud circus. The friends are so clueless about contemporary music that they don’t recognize the singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran when they ask him to take their picture.

Holden mentioned, “The other possible father is Bridget’s old flame Mark Darcy (Colin Firth), who is so dour that when he flashes a smile late in the movie you half expect a heavenly choir to erupt with hosannas. Mr. Firth’s caricature of scowling British reserve masking a tender heart is pitch perfect. Because Bridget is afraid to have the amniocentesis procedure that would reveal the baby’s paternity, the rest of the movie is a guessing game with no surprises.

When “Bridget Jones’s Diary,” the first novel in Helen Felding’s series, was published in 1996 (the screen adaptation came five years later), the term millennial had been conceived but not yet popularized. Holden said, “The new movie acknowledges generational turnover by giving Bridget a cold but kooky new boss (Kate O’Flynn) who spouts enigmatic gobbledygook in an affectedly lowbrow accent.” However, it’s not enough to make “Bridget Jones’s Baby” feel at all with today’s standards. Holden mentioned, “A welcome splash of cold water is provided by Ms. Thompson in her sensible nanny mode, playing Bridget’s unflappably severe gynecologist.”

Despite the amount of mostly warm jokes that keeps the comedic tone at a quiet boil, “Bridget Jones’s Baby” doesn’t harden. Zellweger goes through the film, charming but strangely disconnected from her men. When she finally goes into labor, she is rushed to the hospital by Jack and Mark, who carry her through the streets and brave the predictable obstacles – a traffic jam and a demonstration. In the funniest absurd moment (not very), the three are stuck in a revolving door at the hospital’s entrance.

Even though this may not be as good as the last films, it is still a good one to check out. This is currently streaming on Max, so if you have been a fan of the franchise, then you can see this one just fine. See it and give it a chance.

Next week I will be ending off “Bridget Jones’s Month” with the latest sequel that was released last month. Sorry for the late posting. I was really busy with preparing for some stuff when I came home from work.

Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason

Does anyone have that friend you know for a long time and you shake your head in admiration and then eventually realize you’re shaking your head in misery? Bridget Jones would be that type of friend.

She’s miserably lovable, and she’s always going to be a friend whether you like it or not, but, really, who but Bridget, with her remorseful diary entries for alcohol and drug consumption per day, would end up getting arrested in Thailand on drug-smuggling charges?

Obviously, Bridget is not a drug smuggler, but being Bridget, she did the one thing no tourist should ever do, and that is to carry in her luggage a souvenir giving to her girl friend by a main. However, Bridget has pluck. In very little time, she exchanged her pink bra for cigarettes, organized her prison inmates into a Madonna class, and they’re rehearsing Like a Virgin.

Roger Ebert said in his review, ““Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason” is a jolly movie and I smiled pretty much all the way through, but it doesn’t shift into high with a solid thunk the way “Bridget Jones's Diary” (2001) did.” In the first movie, things happened to Bridget. In the 2004 sequel, Bridget happens to things.

As the movie starts, Bridget is in a happy relationship with Mark Darcy, reprised by Colin Firth, who to her surprised became her boyfriend in the previous film. Ebert noted, “Plump Bridget, in love with a hunk! She’s still working as an on-air personality for a TV show which seems to be running its private version of “Fear Factor” just for Bridget; surely this girl is not ready to sky dive?” Or ski? Or manage a romance without getting awkwardly jealous of the quality time Mark seems to be spending with his colleague Rebecca, played by Jacinda Barrett? However, she loves the man. Who else could keep him standing outside her door while she finishes leaving a message for him on his answering machine? Especially when the message is, essentially, that he is standing outside even as she speaks?

Bridget depends as before on the wisdom of three friends whose advice is dependably dangerous. They are Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Tom (James Callis), and Jude (Shirley Henderson), and they support her when she and Mark have a completely unreasonable fight. Bridget flies off to Thailand on assignment and discovers that her former boyfriend Daniel, reprised by Hugh Grant, is already there. This is a man she should never, ever, have anything to do with, but because she is mad at Mark, she allows herself to be taken over by a position where Daniel can cry happily: “Please! Please be wearing the giant panties!”

Ebert pointed out, “Renee Zellweger is lovable to begin with, and combining her with Bridget Jones creates a critical mass of cuteness: You don’t want to just watch her, you want to tickle her ears and scratch under her chin. She has that desperately hopeful smile, and the endearing optimism of a woman in a dress two sizes too small. When she embarrasses herself, it’s big-time, as when she single-handedly causes Mark’s table to lose the annual quiz at the Law Society Dinner.”

The scenes in Thailand, it must be said, project beyond apparatus. Ebert described, “Bridget is the kind of woman who is more at home dealing with the sorts of things that could happen to anybody, like dropping a rock Cornish game hen down the front of her dress. She isn’t made for cocaine busts. And it’s a little mystifying why Daniel and Mark, two relatively important and successful men no longer in their first youth, have another brawl over her. Their motivation, I think, is that the fight in the first movie was so funny.” Hugh Grant is so good at losing his dignity that we forget what masterful acting it takes to guarantee us he has any. Colin Firth basically plays the good guy, never a choice role. Scoundrels always have more fun in comedies.

Ebert said, “Standing back from “Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason,” I can see that the perfection of the first film has been replaced here by a series of comic episodes that could as easily be about anything else.” The movie doesn’t have the awful necessity of the first film’s journey for true love. If we didn’t know better, we’d think the sequel slightly plans her way into situations because she knows how cute she looks when she gets in trouble.

Ebert ended his review by admitting, “Still, at the end of the day, I left hoping there will be a Bridget 3. Long may she squint and bravely smile and keep tugging her neckline up and believe in love.”

As I stated last week, I remember seeing the trailer for this movie a long time ago, even before I knew this was a sequel. Then I saw the beginning on VOD but stopped for some reason. Many years passed before I saw the first one then I checked out the second one and I know that critics don’t like it, but I loved it. If you saw the first movie and liked it, I would say see the sequel on Max and give it a chance. If you don’t like it, I understand, but at least see it to know for sure if you like it or not.

Next week, I will look at the third movie, which took years before it came out. Apologies for the late posting. Today’s my sister’s birthday, so we were celebrating that with her.

The Wild Robot

Tonight, on Peacock, I finished watching “The Wild Robot,” released in 2024, while exercising and I will let everyone know what I thought about this film.

When a storm at sea removes a shipping container from a cargo ship, a large box goes on a faraway island preoccupied only animals.

Damaged and bruised but very resilient, the only thing in the box is a Rozzum 7134 android assistant, voiced by Lupita Nyong’o, that can walk, talk, gather information and help around the house. She’s made to service.

Confused about her friendly demeanor, the animals (beavers, possums, porcupines, deer, bears) see Roz as a monster and try to kill her – until accidently she falls on a nest breaking all but one goose egg.

Susan Granger said in her review, “When the abandoned gosling hatches, the baby bird imprints on dutiful Roz as she evolves into a maternal role although, as she admits, ‘I do not have the programming to be a mother’.”

Calling him Brightbill, Roz looks through her database to try to teach him basic skills – helped by Fink (Pedro Pascal), a scheming fox, and Pinktail (Catherine O’Hara), a bothered possum mother.

As Brightbill (Kit Connor) grows, Roz realizes that the time is coming for the local herd of geese to migrate and, despite Brightbill resists leaving the nest from his home and family, he, thankfully, has a Canadian goose mentor, Longneck (Bill Nighy), as he tries to follow the geese herd flying south for the winter.

There’s an important lesson here: If Roz properly does her job as a mother, her child will eventually leave.

Granger pointed out, “Written and directed by Chris Sanders (“Lilo & Stitch,” “How to Train Your Dragon”), this futuristic story of survival, parenting and community is based on a 2016 best-selling books by Peter Brown and is Oscar-nominated for Best Animation, Sound and Original Score.”

It’s obvious there will be a sequel, since “The Wild Robot” includes only the first part of a trilogy of the novels.

I had heard about this movie from my sister, I believe, but I never went to the theaters to see this. It’s a shame because I think this would have been a good theater experience. See this on Peacock because this is a good family film for everyone to see. You will love it as it has a very feel good, heartwarming feeling after watching it.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned this Friday for the continuation of “Bridget Jones Month.”

Bridget Jones's Diary

Since last month had the new Bridget Jones movie released on Peacock, I thought that for this month, I would review the entire series. Seems fitting seeing how March is Women’s History Month. Let’s start off with the first movie, “Bridget Jones’s Diary, released in 2001.

Amazingly fresh and funny, “Bridget Jones’s Diary” is a nice reminder of just how good – and how pointed – British comedies can be. KenHanke said in his review, “In a world seemingly overrun with truly stupid and truly tasteless attempts at humor in such rubbishy offerings as Say It Isn’t So and Tomcats (as well as the by-the-numbers blandness of Someone Like You), it’s a double delight to come upon this sort of genuinely edgy, bright, and creative filmmaking. Bridget Jones’ Diary is a film in the spirit of My Beautiful Laundrette, Sammy and Rosie Get Laid, How to Get Ahead in Advertising and A Man of No Importance. In short, it’s an honest-to-goodness piece of filmmaking that dares to be different and obviously hasn’t been test-marketed into just so much cinematic cheese whiz.”

Based on the book by Helen Fielding (who also worked on the screenplay), the film goes over a year in the life of Bridget Jones, played by Renee Zellweger, a slightly overweight, heavy-drinking, heavy-smoking book publicist with a liking for embarrassing public speaking and a habit to say exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time. Complicating her already disruptive life is her silly, matchmaking mother (Gemma Jones), her distracted and confused father (Jim Broadbent), and so many well-meaning, completely dysfunctional friends. Unsurprisingly, Bridget’s romantic life is a complete disaster and looks to stay that way when her mother tries to set her up with lawyer Mark Darcy, played by Colin Firth, who looks like a case of wary at first sight. Instead of speaking with him, she ends up being in bed with her charming boss Daniel Cleaver, played by Hugh Grant (who looks too good to be true – which he obviously is). Hanke said, “Generally speaking, the plot is not exciting in itself — and much as is the case with the recent Someone Like You, the ending is pretty much a foregone conclusion. (Anyone who doesn’t know with whom Bridget is going to find true love is in dire need of a remedial-movie-plot course.)” The difference is that “Bridget Jones’s Diary” comes to the end with fun, style, constantly smart lines (often very vulgar) delivered by a completely perfect cast, a true feeling of fun that extends to its soundtrack (the British feel like they can actually use a pop song soundtrack that mixes into the film), and best of all, the wonderful characters whose oddness make them more human than less.

Zellweger was originally born in Texas but she is completely convincing, charming, and touching as Bridget. Hanke credited, “It’s a model performance that — perhaps not accidentally — comes off as a rather more sexy and savvy, yet less cynical, variant of Lynn Redgrave in Georgy Girl.” Colin Firth has a very complex role that calls for him to appear very humorless and unlikable, while being anything but that underneath, and he somehow does it well. However, the disclosure for many is probably going to be Hugh Grant, an actor best known for showing off being handsome and working his stuttering charm for everything. Hanke noted, “Basically, there are two ways of using Hugh Grant to advantage (at least in the dramatic sense). In a successful Hugh Grant performance, the filmmaker has usually cast him to type in a manner where his basic limitations — his slightly priggish, seeming lack of imagination — work for the film (The Lair of the White Worm, Bitter Moon, Sirens). Only once before — in the little-seen An Awfully Big Adventure — has Grant really been called on act, as he has here. Cast against type as a thorough scoundrel who gets by on his looks, charm, and wit, Grant comes through with a nuanced performance that manages to make you detest him and yet succumb to his charm at the same time — not the work of a mere personality with a pretty face.” The rest of the cast is equally fine, but maybe the name to watch is first-time director Sharon Maguire. This woman is a natural filmmaker who mixes an unsolidified, vibrant, personal cinematic style with the ability to honestly direct actors (something a lot of modern filmmakers seem to have overlooked). If this film is the hit it deserved to be, Maguire is at the start of a career that might go anywhere.

I remember seeing the trailers for the second movie, not knowing it was a sequel. Years later, I got the first film from the library, if I remember correctly, and watched that. This is a very good comedy that I think everyone should see. Even though the main woman is not British, give her credit, she did a good job. If you’re a fan of the lead actors, then this one should be seen by you. This is currently streaming on Max, so check it out on there.

Look out next week when we look at the sequel in “Bridget Jones Month.”

Bob Marley: One Love

“Bob Marley: One Love,” released in 2024, follows the reggae star’s persona, rise to fame, exile in London, and death, with the Smile Jamaica concert and the political conflict as the setting.

You will find the reggae singer’s image drawn on posters, walls of bars, and merchandise almost everywhere you go. The famous dreadlocks, beanie hat, and the message of love, peace, and unity have been central to music and pop culture even over 40 years since his passing in 1981. Reinaldo Marcus Green’s biopic shows Bob Marley, played by Kingsley Ben-Adir, the Rastafarian, and re-establishes these parts of his life and times.

Written by Green, Terence Winter, Frank E Flowers, and Zach Baylin, the narrative does not do the usual linear format of childhood, rise to fame, struggles, and downfall. It refers to his life story occasionally in short flashbacks. The film is mainly about the two years Bob, aka Nesta, spent in London after an assassination attempt on him, his band, and wife Rita Marley, played by Lashana Lynch, due to the political conflict in 1976. While the narrative stays true to the basic idea, it gives no look on how he became such a huge star or what leaving his home and being away from his family meant to him.

Dhaval Roy said in his review, “The screenplay turns incohesive and languid. That said, the aesthetics, operatic background music, Robert Elswit’s cinematography make this a riveting watch. The recreation of Marley’s stage performances, especially the song War at the Smile Jamaica show, will give you goosebumps and make you want to revisit his music again.” The cinematic feel gives the movie great appeal.

Kingsley Ben-Adir becomes Bob Marley and has a strong hold on the portrayal throughout. The persona as a musician, a Rastafarian, and a believer of peace and unity is shown through. On the other end, his difficult relationship with Rita is look on briefly, and is overlooked so fast. Lashana Lynch deserves just as many credits of her powerful performance.

Roy said, “From being treated to Marley’s smash hits, including Get Up, Stand Up, No Woman, No Cry, etc. Fans of Marley’s music and personality will have a treat watching this. But those clued in about him as a revolutionary may find the screenplay lacking.”

However, the aesthetics and performances make it worth seeing.

I saw this on Amazon Prime thinking that this would be a life story of Bob Marley. However, what we got wasn’t what I expected. For people who may not know his history will not like this so much, but that is not to say that this is bad. It is a decent film if we didn’t get everything we wanted from the film. However, still check it out, but bear in mind, this is just fine.

Thank you so much for tuning in to this year’s “Black History Movie Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed it, as I did more recent films this time around again. Look out next month to see what I will review next.

The Color Purple (2023)

When the idea for a musical based on Alice Walker’s The Color Purple first came up, it was understandable why there would be some who would consider it a really bad idea to make. The novel and original film adaptation are loved by so many, and the idea of adding songs into what’s already a very powerful story could be seen as superfluous or just out of place. Jeff Beck said in his review, “However, all of that was quickly dismissed when the Broadway show became a big success, earning a whopping 11 Tony Award nominations in the process.” Even though it may have taken a while to make, a film adaptation was announced in late 2018, finally giving everyone else the opportunity to see how well a 2023 musical version of the classic story holds up.

Starting in Georgia in 1909, we meet young Celie Harris (Phylicia Pearl Mpasi), who lives with her father Alfonso (Deon Cole) and sister Nettie (Halle Bailey). Her father is a very cruel person who began raping her after the death of her mother, and she gave birth to two babies that Alfonso took away. He then forces her to marry a farmer named Mister, played by Colman Domingo, who also abuses her. Trying to escape their father, Nettie moves in with them for a small time, but is kicked out after rejecting Mister trying to come over her. As the years go by, Celie (Fantasia Barrino) stays stuck in this abusive marriage, with other people entering her life along the way, including the loud wife of Mister’s son Harpo (Corey Hawkins), Sofia (Danielle Brooks), and a jazz singer that Mister is seeing named Shug Avery (Taraji P. Henson), while also thinking if she’ll ever hear back from her very missed sister.

Beck credited, “Within just a few minutes, this feature film adaptation of Alice Walker's novel and the hit Broadway show goes a long way towards silencing any doubters as to whether such a thing could possibly work. The music, for the most part, is quite good. There's a fine mix of catchy, uplifting, and generally well-suited numbers to go along with this emotional tale of family and making your way through a terrible situation. The presentation of the musical numbers does come off as a bit stagey at times, but it's a musical, and such a handsomely-mounted one, that chances are you either won't notice or simply won't care.”

You could easily continue with how great the film looks, with its impressive production design and costumes beautifully bringing the story to life, and while those elements do deserve all of that credit, the main part that makes the film work as well as it does is the phenomenal cast. Nominated for SAG’s Best Cast award as one of the five best ensembles of the year, the cast includes Fantasia Barrino, Danielle Brooks (who also earned an Oscar nomination), Taraji P. Henson, Colman Domingo, Corey Hawkins, and many more. Beck said, “Because of them, the emotional richness of the material comes through perfectly, making it remarkably easy to get engaged with the characters and their intriguing storylines.”

Overall, despite there being no particular reason that a musical version of this story being able to work, the creators of the original show (and subsequently these filmmakers) have proved that, with the right kind of music & a remarkably talented cast, even a strange idea like this can turn out extremely well. As always, it’s a complete enjoyment to be taken completely by surprise by something like this, especially when it surprisingly ends up being one of the very best films of that year.

Blitz Bazawule’s “The Color Purple” is an amazing musical adaptation of Alice Walker’s classic novel and the great Broadway show, brought to life by a remarkably talented cast, and having an impressive selection of songs, ending up being a surprising success and one of the best films of 2023.

If you remember my review of the original movie and how much I loved that one, I was surprised that they decided to come out with a musical version of this play. When I saw it on Max while exercising, I was surprised by it that I loved it. Both films are good in their own ways and I think everyone should see the musical version if they have Max. They will love this film a lot as it is very fitting with this month.

Next week I will finish off this year’s “Black History Movie Month” with another biopic. Apologies for the late posting. Once again, I completely forgot what day of the week it was and that I had to make this review.

Paddington

Last night, my siblings and I saw the new “Paddington” movie, but before I talk about that, I should probably give my thoughts on the previous movies. Let’s start with the first “Paddington” movie, released in 2014.

When Paddington, voiced by Ben Whishaw, arrives in London (after he loses most of his family in a natural disaster back in Peru), he at first is lost with so many strangers and obviously, a little overwhelmed by the whole “bright lights, big city” feel. Reagan Gavin Rasquinha said in his review, “Nevertheless, he does have a taste for all things British (with an accent to match and a love for marmalade too) and stoically decides to wait it out at Paddington Station until hopefully, he will meet a family which will let him into their home and make him part of the family unit.”

What helps him is the signs he wears around his neck that says: “Please look after this bear. Thank you.” Soon, Mr. Brown (Hugh Bonneville), Mrs. Brown (Sally Hawkins), and their kids (Madeleine Harris and Samuel Joslin) notice him and decide to take him home. Mr. Brown says that Paddington can stay for only one night. Mrs. Bird, played by Julie Walters, manages the Browns’ house in her own strange but effective way. Rasquinha said, “Mrs. Brown learns that Paddington - a name she coined for him back at the train station - is quite literally, a rare bear and helps him to connect with his past in order to give him emotional grounding.”

Millicent the taxidermist, played by Nicole Kidman, finds out about Paddington’s rare breed and wants to turn him into her latest specimen, stuffed with sawdust and preserved for the future. The Browns and obviously Paddington will avoid her by any means necessary.

The unified combination of animation with live action is the best part of the film. Besides gently delivering the message about the importance of belonging, the cheerful film score also keeps the moving going nicely.

I believe my sister got this from the library and we checked it out together. I loved the movie, but I didn’t know this was based on a children’s book because I never read that growing up. You should see this movie because everyone can watch it and love it. Especially with Kidman playing a very believable villain.

To my surprise, they came out with “Paddington 2” in 2017. The first film was a surprise hit with a great message: in a big city, even a bear from Peru can find a home and fit in. Nick Levine said in his review, “Once again co-written and directed by Paul King, who cut his teeth on The Mighty Boosh, this sequel offers a similar mix of visual gags that brings Michael Bond’s beloved bear gently into the 21st century.”

The film begins with Paddington thinking of what to buy his Aunt Lucy for her 100^th birthday. Visting a local antiques shop, he sees a pop-up book showing the great London landmarks that his Peruvian clan has always wanted to see. Levine said, “Paddington starts a window-cleaning business so he can buy the book, but while he’s filling his savings jar, he’s framed for theft by washed-up luvvie Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant) who wants the book for himself.” After a trail with a funny cameo from Richard Ayoade as a useless expert witness, Paddington is sent to prison.

Even the prison scenes are surprisingly filled with warmth and well thought out humor. Paddington has a rocky start when he accidentally ruins his inmates’ clothes, but makes amends by sharing his marmalade recipe with the prison’s tough cook Knuckles McGinty, played by Brendan Gleeson. While he’s in prison bringing together a diverse group of criminals, the Brown family are trying to prove Paddington’s innocence by gathering locals played by British comedy favorites like Sanjeev Bhaskar and Jessica Hynes.

This film is a fantasy. Levine said, “It’s set in a London where everyone lives in a fancy Notting Hill townhouse and chats to each other on the street. But like its predecessor, this film never feels woolly: it’s filled with entertaining CGI set-pieces and has an admirable underlying message about the importance of community spirit.” The result is another heartwarming and completely lovable film with jokes that will make kids and adults laugh.

I checked this out from the library and my brother and I saw this together. We loved this film a lot and I think that everyone should see this if they saw the first one and enjoyed it. You will love this film too, I promise.

Once again, to my surprise, they made a third movie, “Paddington in Peru,” released five days ago. Compared to the second film, this one may seem a little more like standard kid’s film. The second film is still one of the most amazing and emotionally smart children’s movies of the last 20 years, so whatever came next was always likely going to be in its shadow. “Paddington in Peru” is a perfectly likable film on its own, even if it’s a step down from the two films that were directed by Paul King.

This time, Paddington flies back home to Peru to look for his Aunt Lucy, voiced by Imelda Staunton, who has gone missing somewhere in the Amazon rainforest. With a kind of unbalanced riverboat captain (Antonio Banderas) as their guide and his daughter (Carla Tous), Paddington and family (Mrs. Brown is now played by Emily Mortimer) fly to the jungles of darkest Peru on an innocent journey not only to find Aunt Lucy, but the lost city of El Dorado.

Mattie Lucas said in her review, “Part of the charm of the Paddington films has always been how his inherent kindness affects those he meets and how his sometimes hapless attempts to fit in and be British sometimes end in disaster. Paddington in Peru doesn't really afford Paddington much time for such things, and while he's still as clumsy as ever, the isolated nature of the story doesn't allow him to touch many lives along the way.” Olivia Colman is enjoyable as a particularly suspicious nun, but this film is more concerned with grand adventure and Paddington’s main mission to find where he belongs. While he does eventually find where he came from, obviously he realizes he’s been home all along.

Lucas noted, “It's a plot that resembles, somewhat surprisingly, Kung Fu Panda 3, which also found its bear hero discovering where he came from, only to choose to stay with the family he's come to know. Of course, this is all done with Paddington's signature British manners, which always make for some cute moments, but it doesn't have that colorfully whimsical spark that made the first two films so magical.” Hands down, fans will enjoy spending another two hours watching this lovable bear and his family, and parents may be happy to watch a family film kindly easy on obnoxious (and dated) pop culture references, even if his latest adventure doesn’t really reach the level we’ve come to expect.

My brother wanted to see a film last night, so I thought this would be a film that all of us would enjoy, and I was right. I had came back from work, but because I was tired, I feel like I fell asleep at certain moments, but I still found myself enjoying the film. Go to the theaters and see this because it doesn’t seem to be marketed enough, so check it out. If you loved the last two films, you should definitely not skip this one over.

The creators already confirmed there will be a fourth film, but whenever that is released, I will be looking forward to it. These films have all been good, so make sure not to miss any one of them, especially if you have read the books.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned this Friday for the continuation of “Black History Movie Month.”

W.

For this year’s “President’s Day Movie Review,” I will look at a film that I probably first heard when Josh Brolin was interviewed on “Inside the Actors Studio,” “W,” released in 2008.

This film is proof that great acting doesn’t necessarily get included to being a great film.

Richard Propes said in his review, “Directed by Oliver Stone, who seems to have a fondness for presidential cinema, "W." is the type of film we almost certainly didn't expect from the often controversial, always opinionated director...sympathetic.”

“W,” it kind of feared, would be a rather sarcastic and/or simply nitpicking showing of the former American president. As everyone knows, Stone is the one who made “JFK” and “Nixon.”

The man seems to be rather direct.

Propes noted, “Stone doesn't opt for character assassination, however, "W." also isn't a straightforward bio of President Bush. While it would be a stretch to call Stone's portrait a loving portrait, there's a sort of kid glove approach that seems to indicate a trust in the material.”

Written by Stanley Weiser, “W” spends more time dealing with Bush’s ongoing father issues than it does showing an articulate portrait of the man. This take works sometimes, while at other times it becomes the film’s greatest difficulty.

The former president is shown mostly as a drunken, womanizing man until he found the Lord at the age of 40. It appears that all of his behaviors are the root cause of his always complicated relationship with his father, the late president George H.W. Bush.

Bush’s expedition into politics is shown as almost an accident, something that was mainly done to impress his father’s favor. Propes said, “By the time Bush wins the White House, it becomes readily apparent that winning the White House put Bush in the position of being woefully ill-equipped for the mission in front of him.” However, Stone doesn’t judge him for completing this task…because it looks as thought it asks who wouldn’t really “want” to be president?

Propes said, “Stone takes a kinder, gentler approach to it all and it doesn't even feel tongue-in-cheek.”

Brolin, who jumped to Hollywood’s higher class with “No Country for Old Men,” makes the performance of his career in “W,” a performance that never becomes a caricature even for the fact that just by looking at Bush often feels like one is looking at a caricature. Even Elizabeth Banks makes a strong performance as Laura Bush, a woman who looks like she is way out of Bush’s league.

“W” is a mixture of Hollywood actors playing Bush’s supporting and, sometimes, controlling people including Condoleezza Rice (Thandie Newton), Donald Rumsfeld (Scott Glenn), Karl Rove (Toby Jones), Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss), Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright), and so many others. Particularly, Dreyfuss stands out from the whole cast that almost seems to be channeling the former Vice President that many believe was really the one doing the job a lot.

The late James Cromwell is rather intimidating as father Bush, maybe the film’s most evident antagonist portrayal, despite Cromwell balances it out nicely. Ellen Burstyn, as Barbara Bush, plays the part nicely.

It’s sad that in a film filled with so many great performances that, overall, “W” never really comes together as a film. Propes criticized, “"W." feels about 20-25 minutes too long, yet somehow still feels over-edited. While the episodic approach by Stone works fairly well early on, by the end of the film it feels like "W." is simply disorganized and out of focus.”

Solid performances all around and a career best performance from Josh Brolin work together to make “W” above mediocrity, however, it’s hard not to be a little disappointed with a film that had so much potential to say so much more.

One of my favorite impressionists, Frank Caliendo, said that Josh Brolin told him that Caliendo was Brolin’s inspiration to imitating Bush. As good of a job Brolin does in imitating Bush, there are times during Bush’s younger years where Brolin sounds like he isn’t trying to imitate Bush, but does a typical Texas accent. Even Cromwell doesn’t try to sound like father Bush, but I did find this film fascinating. If you want to check it out, you may do so on Tubi, but if you find this an average time, like I did, I hear you.

Happy President’s Day everyone. Sorry for the late posting. I was just really tired today from work. Stay tuned this Friday for the continuation of “Black History Movie Month.”

Whitney Houston: I Wanna Dance With Somebody

No one loves their clichés more than the biopic genre. However, no music biopic has done every cliché with such quick and reckless abandon as “Whitney Houston: I Wanna Dance With Somebody.” That’s not really a bad thing.

Christopher James said in his review, “Few pop culture icons loom as large as Whitney Houston, “The Voice,” who holds the record for seven consecutive number one singles atop the Billboard Top 100.” By quality of also being a modern celebrity, most people have some idea of Houston. So, the biopic spends less time educating people on who Whitney Houston is. Actually, it’s a crash course through her history. Unfortunately, it misses her soul and motivation – what made Whitney Houston from the biggest star in the world to passing at 48?

The simple answer the movie gives is drugs, but it never goes deeper than that.

We first meet Whitney Houston (Naomi Ackie) as a rebellious teenager adding runs and vocal lessons to the gospel songs her mother, Cissy Houston (Tamara Tunie) is teaching. Cissy is a singer herself and Whitney wants to follow in her footsteps, even hoping to reach the level of family friends Aretha Franklin and Dionne Warwick.

After one magnificent performance with her mother, Whitney catches the attention of producer Clive Davis, played by Stanley Tucci, who signs her to Arista Records. She became an overnight success with her bestselling debut album. However, as is usual for the blueprint for any biopic, success has its own challenges.

James points out, “From here, the movie picks up and drops story threads like its browsing Saks Fifth Avenue.” There’s some conflict where Whitney responds to criticism that she’s “not black enough,” but that is dropped just as soon as it’s introduced. Much of the first act is pent with Whitney’s female lover, Robyn, played by Nafessa Williams, who soon becomes her executive assistant. Their relationship feels relaxed, but once she meets Bobby Brown, played by Ashton Sanders, Robyn disappears. When Robyn comes back any conflict around their romantic relationship has disappeared. James noted, “Though a major part of her tabloid persona, Bobby Brown is rarely seen and is just a one-note obstruction when he is.”

There’s one major cliché that director Kasi Lemmons avoids. The film is not self-serious or sympathetic of Whitney Houston. Her drug use is awkwardly set up halfway through the movie. Five minutes later Whitney has hit the pit. If someone were trying to learn what it was like to follow Whitney Houston for decades, this would not be the right film introduction. James criticized, “For fans, it’s a perfectly sloppy vehicle. It celebrates and elevates her, spending more time with her iconic performances, fun idiosyncrasies, iconic music videos and moments of joy with Robyn. The movie revels in black joy more than black suffering, even though Whitney could be the poster child for both. Screenwriter Anthony McCarten and Lemmons fail in constructing a legible film, but they at least make a fun one.”

Playing Whitney Houston is a scary role that Naomi Ackie is more or less up for. She looks the part and most of the singing sequences use Whitney’s voice. James said, “Therein lies the issue, she evokes Whitney more than she embodies her.” Watching the movie, you can see that Ackie understands what made Whitney special. However, she doesn’t bring herself to the role or go deeper into Whitney’s perspective, an issue that’s already in the script. In the end, the performance comes off as a strong impersonation. James noted, “That’s still more than can be said of any of the supporting cast, who aren’t given enough material to transcend their two-dimensional purposes in the story.”

James continued, “Still, if you are still with your family on extended holiday and need something to take your Mother or Grandmother to, Whitney Houston: I Wanna Dance With Somebody is waiting for you with open arms. It’s a rocking good time with two and a half hours packed with Whitney music, Lifetime level overacting and just buckets of charisma.” It’s not right, but it’s OK.

I believe I saw this on Paramount+ and I fell in love with the movie. I didn’t know certain things about Houston’s life, so this was an eye-opener. I have always loved Houston’s music and if you’re also a fan, than this movie is for you. Check it out and see about one of the greatest artists of her time that we sadly lost too soon.

Monday I will be reviewing the yearly “President’s Day Movie Review.” Sorry for the late posting. I was starting to type this when I was called to do something that took some time to complete.