Nobody asked ‘How are you?’ “Showbiz Kids” (2020)

directed by Alex Winter
© 2020 HBO. All Rights Reserved.

Children in cinema, that’s a never-ending topic. They aren’t professional actors, but sometimes they absolutely steal the show. However, this documentary isn’t a sweet picture full of joyful children. You can listen to several interviews with well-known actors, who started their career being very young. And even though it may seem like a great fun and magical childhood, the truth is way different. This topic is so complex I’m not sure where I should start. Perhaps I could start with the motivation. Yes, there are children who want to become actors, but I’m afraid that it’s mostly their parents’ will to have a “successful” child. And you may actually find out it’s true, according to the people in this documentary. There’s a lot of pressure coming from everyone and nobody goes easy on those little humans. From the very beginning, they’re expected to be acting like adults, but still stay at childish as possible because that’s something producers need for the film. Of course, I’m sure it’s not always like that and there are filmmakers who work differently with young actors. However, I can tell you that I know something about this world from the other side and starting your careers at the age of 5 or 10 is nothing pleasant. It’s exciting at first, but then you’re slowly going down and might not even notice it. Show-business is cruel and nobody prepares children for being burnt at some point. A lot of famous people who started as children have ended up with depression, anxiety, various addictions or even suicidal thoughts. That’s definitely not how it should look like. Yes, they are adorable on the screen, so little, so awkward, speaking with a funny voice – but in several years, that will be a human who will be struggling with being either too famous or absolutely forgotten. Should we stop inviting children to films? No, but I believe we should realise how much our actions influence people. And it’s good to ask the simple “how are you?” question from time to time.

My rating: 7/10
S.

You’re gonna need nicer shoes. “Alice” (2019)

directed by Josephine Mackerras
© 2019 Monument Releasing. All Rights Reserved.

I’m so glad I got to see this film. Perhaps not many would hear about it, so I’m even more happy to be writing this post for you. The main character, obviously, is Alice (Emilie Piponnier), who’s a wife and a mother. Everything seems alright until one day she realises that their common accounts are absolutely empty and her husband François (Martin Swabey) has disappeared. The woman starts searching for some clues and she finds out that the man has been meeting with “very expensive ladies”. Alice is absolutely heart-broken, but she has to come up with some solution, because they may soon lose their flat due to lack of payments. The woman decides to try being a prostitute herself, especially since she gets into this agency which provides its customers with high quality ladies and it means Alice could earn quite a lot of money. First of all, this film doesn’t present Alice’s new job as something disgusting. Quite the opposite, it shows that it’s a profession for very independent women, who are not ashamed of themselves and proudly sell their time and body for a very good price. No matter how controversial it seems, I honestly saw it this way. Besides, it also presents how much a woman can do in order to protect herself and her own child. I believe that Emilie Piponnier played her role fantastically and at some point I forgot I was watching a fictional film. And also, I like that they mentioned this ridiculous issue which is men proudly paying women for pleasure, but being against their own women working as prostitutes. If only they saw their paid ladies as somebody’s wife, daughter or mother, perhaps they would think twice. I don’t judge anyone, prostitution is a job as well, but let’s be consistent in our actions, choices and opinions, shall we?

My rating: 7/10
S.

Thank you and fuck you. “The Boys in the Band” (1970)

directed by William Friedkin
© 1970 National General Pictures. All Rights Reserved.

As I said yesterday, today I’d like to recommend you the original film about the boys in the band. The screenplay is almost exactly the same as the one you can see in the remake, but, obviously, everything was filmed in the actual 60/70s and the actors were different. Here’s the cast from the 1970 version: Michael (Kenneth Nelson), Harold (Leonard Frey), Donald (Frederick Combs), Emory (Cliff Gorman), Bernard (Reuben Greene), Hank (Laurence Luckinbill), Larry (Keith Prentice) and Alan (Peter White). There’s also one more person that you can see in the flat and that’s the gift Emory “got” for Harold. He ordered a hustler, who was played by Robert La Tourneaux in this version and by Charlie Carver in the 2020 version. I’m not going to tell you the story again and who is who, because it’s almost copy-paste. However, I want to say that both films are equally good, but this one has way more 60s vibes, which isn’t surprising I guess. At least I felt so. When it comes to acting and emotions, I can’t choose the better adaptation. What’s very interesting is that in the 1970 version the majority of the cast were gay, while in the 2020 version all the actors were gay. And I love both for that. The old one for showing that a heterosexual man can play a homosexual man and still be fabulous and male, and the modern version because now, all those actors who’ve been struggling with getting roles and feeling comfortable with themselves are loved and appreciated. I mean, I know the whole cast of the 2020 from other productions and if you watch a lot of films, I’m sure you also recognise them well. And I love one important thing about both versions – they show that sexuality is so indefinite. I mean, being a homosexual man doesn’t mean you wear colourful clothes and speak with a high voice. And it applies to everyone, no matter who they are. People are generally very different even if we put them into certain social “boxes”. So yes, both films, very much recommended. By the way, I’d like to attend such party and dance with them on the terrace. So much fun!

My rating: 6/10
S.

One time, it’s youth. Twice is a phase, maybe. Several times, you like it. “The Boys in the Band” (2020)

directed by Joe Mantello
© 2020 Netflix. All Rights Reserved.

What would you say for a gay drama? Because I said “yes” and I didn’t regret it. Today’s film is actually based on the play written by Mart Crowley, who was also one of the authors of the screenplay of the film adaptation from 1970. I’ll be happy to write you more about the first film tomorrow, but today I’d like to focus on the remake which was released this year and you can see it on Netflix. The film is about a group of gay friends living in the 60s in Manhattan, who decide to celebrate the birthday of one of them, Harold (Zachary Quinto). However, before the birthday man arrives, we get to know them all. Michael (Jim Parsons) is the owner of the flat and a writer, Donald (Matt Bomer) is the friend who doesn’t live in the city and comes specially for this occasion,  Emory (Robin de Jesús) is an absolute sunshine of this group and an interior designer, Bernard (Michael Benjamin Washington) is a black-skinned bookstore clerk, Hank (Tuc Watkins) is married to a woman but he’s definitely more interested in men, especially in Larry (Andrew Rannells) who is his boyfriend. So as you can see, the party is going to be quite interesting. Unfortunately, Michael’s friend Alan (Brian Hutchison) insists on meeting him and also shows up at the party. Alan, unlike all other guests, is straight. At least he claims so. Still, the atmosphere is incredibly awkward and it’s just a spark that will start a real fire of emotions. Generally, the whole film takes place in that one flat and is very much focused on feelings. I believe that the actors in this remake were casted perfectly and they all did a great job. I had chills watching and listening to them. I find this film incredibly beautiful when it comes to presenting what homosexual men have been like. I said “have been”, because despite the fact that the story is from the 60s, the characters and issues they have are very much universal. One thing I didn’t really feel was those 60s vibes. I don’t know whether it was because of the actors who we recognise from the modern productions, but I just didn’t believe in this part of the story. Anyway, the screenplay is very interesting and worth your time. And if you want to compare, I recommend you to see the adaptation from 1970, about which I’ll write you tomorrow.

My rating: 6/10
S.

You know, people-sort-of problems. I have them. “Friends with Money” (2006)

directed by Nicole Holofcener
© 2006 Sony Pictures Classics. All Rights Reserved.

Perhaps today’s film doesn’t have the highest ratings, but it’s definitely worth checking out. I was a bit sceptical myself, but in the end I believe it’s a meaningful story. It presents the lives of a group of friends. Franny (Joan Cusack) is a quite wealthy woman who’s a stay-at-home mother, Christine (Catherine Keener) is working as a television writer, and Jane (Frances McDormand) is a fashion designer. All the three women are rather comfortable about their financial situation. But there’s also Olivia (Jennifer Aniston), the fourth friend. She’s struggling with money and is currently working as a maid, which is quite embarrassing for her considering how rich her other girlfriends are. However, after some time we realise that Olivia isn’t the only one having life problems. Even though Franny, Christine and Jane seem successful, their love lives are a bit messed up, in very different ways. Obviously, Olivia is also willing to find someone, but it’s not easy since she needs to work a lot. For me this film is very pleasant, I enjoyed how all the characters were written and played by the actresses. In my opinion, it’s a simple production about love and how universal it is for everyone to search for it. And even if you have everything, a big house, an expensive car, you’re a CEO and generally you could burn money in your fireplace, you also need love to feel fulfilled. Sometimes it’s the love coming from your partner, sometimes from your friend, sometimes even from your own pet, right? But love is a must-be in everyone’s life and this is how I read the film. Perhaps you’ll see something different, so go and try.

My rating: 6/10
S.

I want to sue my parents for bringing me into this world. “Capernaum” (“Capharnaüm”, 2018)

directed by Nadine Labaki
© 2018 Sony Pictures Classics. All Rights Reserved.

Is it some kind of pattern that the Academy would never appreciate the film in the Best Foreign Language Film category that I would personally choose. And in 2019 I wasn’t that mad because back then I hadn’t seen “Capernaum”, so all I knew is that “Roma” wasn’t my favourite production, but that’s it. This year I finally made myself watch “Capernaum” and now I know that it should have won in 2019. But I guess I’ll never agree with the Academy when it comes to that. And I’m glad I waited with watching today’s film, because I needed to be ready. This story is so difficult and emotionally draining, that I recommend you to choose a free day, without any stress or duties. You might need a bit of time to reflect after watching it. And what is it about? The main character is Zain El Hajj (Zain Al Rafeea), an about 12-year-old Syrian refugee, who’s in prison. First things first, I wrote “about” because the boy comes from slums, where nobody cares about birthdays or making anything official. The child appears and voilà, it is here, time to make another one. And how come such a little boy got into prison… well, it’s for you to discover. However, the most important part is that Zain wants to sue… his parents. And then we get flash backs from his past, during which we learn more about his story and experiences. I was absolutely speechless when I was watching this film and I totally forgot it’s fiction, and that’s probably one of the best compliments a filmmaker can get about their work. Zain Al Rafeea, the little actor who played the role (btw named after him) of Zain, did a wonderful job, which definitely wasn’t easy for him. The boy himself is a Syrian refugee, who spent his childhood in slums for real. Before you start wondering, he’s now living in Norway and I’m sure his life conditions are better. Still, you can see the little actor was extremely natural and he’d been through a lot, because it’s something that you can’t play like that. And when it comes to the film itself… masterpiece. And finally about a topic that a lot of us forget about. We care about politics, about money, about who has more power and who has less of it. In the meantime, there are millions of children whose irresponsible parents bring them to this world and leave on their own or use for their own profit. Absolutely heartbreaking, but significant production. Please, find time for watching it. Just please.

My rating: 8.5/10
S.

New decade, new rules. “Scream 4” (2011)

directed by Wes Craven
© 2011 Dimension Films. All Rights Reserved.

Alright, how are you doing guys? Today, I’ve got the last part of the “Scream” series… the last so far! Doom doom doom! It’s said that they’re working on the fifth part, which is planned to be released in 2022. Unfortunately, Wes Craven, the director of all the other parts, died in 2015, so that would be the first “Scream” film to be made by someone else. I guess we have to wait till 2022 and see how it’ll all work out. Anyway, let’s focus on the 4th part first. Surprise surprise, Sidney, Gale and Dewey are still alive! And it’s been many years since the last events involving Ghostface. However, something must have happen since they made another film about it, right? New Ghostface kills two high school students. In the meantime, Sidney is over 30 and she’s promoting her own book. When she’s in Woodsboro, the police find the bodies of the two high schoolers in her car. It’s clear for everyone that Sidney isn’t the murderer, but she obviously becomes a suspect. In this part, we also get to know Jill (Emma Roberts), Sidney’s cousin, who seems to be Ghostface’s new target. Some people say it’s the best part of the “Scream” series after the first film, but I wouldn’t be so sure. I guess we might appreciate it more because it’s done 11 years after the 3rd part, which means way better equipment and different techniques of filmmaking are noticable. Still, I indeed liked the idea for this part, but the ending was rather disappointing, even for a horror that’s a parody itself. By the way, in the 4th film Gale and Dewey are a couple and perhaps you don’t know, but in real life Courteney Cox and David Arquette were married from 1999 to 2013. So basically we could say that their love was as long as the “Scream” series. I’m afraid they won’t get back together in 2022, but we’ll see. Still, isn’t it romantic? You’re running after a murderer in a creepy costume and after shooting you’re like “hey, wanna have dinner at my place tonight?”. Romance is not dead, I’m telling you. Anyway, this is the end of our “screaming” marathon. I hope you enjoyed it and that it’s put you into Halloween mood. And hope to get back to you in 2022 with the review of the 5th part. And remember, if someone calls and asks you what your favourite scary movie is, say “Bambi”.

My rating: 6/10
S.

Psychos can’t kill what they can’t find. “Scream 3” (2000)

directed by Wes Craven
© 2000 Dimension Films. All Rights Reserved.

If you’re still not tired of “screaming”, then I’ve got the third part for you to watch. Again, get ready for spoilers, no hard feelings. Sidney is still alive (yay!), because if she wasn’t that would be a horrible sequel of a series that mocks sequels. Anyway, this film takes place three years after the last events. This time, they’re making “Stab 3”. Do you remember? In the second part of “Scream 2” we were introduced to “Stab” film, which is about previous crimes done by Ghostface that the characters can watch in cinemas. In this “Scream” part they’re making already the third part of “Stab” and, as you can guess, Ghostface is back. This time the killer murders one of the actresses that was supposed to play in “Stab 3”. Our smart Sidney knows that it won’t stop like this and Ghostface will keep chasing other people, including her. Hey, the nosy Gale and clumsy Dewey are also still alive, so obviously, they will be very important again. Sometimes I feel like the character of Sidney is there just to pick up the phone and say “guys, he’s killing again” and the rest are trying to actually catch him. But perhaps it was done on purpose to mock horrors for this element, that often the protagonist is so irrational and the reason they survive is pure luck or thanks to other characters. Standard. However, you know that this part could have looked way different? Before they started working on the third “Scream”, there was a huge tragedy in the US known as Columbine High School massacre, when two teenagers walked into the school and killed a lot of people. Because of that, the producers were concerned about releasing such a film like “Scream 3”, where they’re kind of joking about murder. And since people had become incredibly sensitive about it, that was a risky decision. Still, the director said that they wouldn’t make significant changes, because that would destroy the idea of the series. Whether it was a good decision or not, it’s an individual opinion. I’m glad that “Scream 3” was released in the end and that tomorrow I can write you about the 4th part as well.

My rating: 6/10
S.

Let’s face it, baby, these days you gotta have a sequel. “Scream 2” (1997)

directed by Wes Craven
© 1997 Dimension Films. All Rights Reserved.

Welcome to part 2! As you might be guessing, there might be some spoilers in this post, so if you haven’t seen the first part, don’t get angry with me. The main character is still alive! So are our irreplaceable Gale Weathers and sheriff Dewey. I really liked how this part began, because it starts with some random couple going to see “Stab” film in the cinema. “Stab” is a film inside our film, which is basically about what happened in the first part of “Scream”. Genius! Anyway, during the projection, everyone’s wearing the costume and mask of the famous killer called Ghostface. When the man from that couple goes to the restroom, he gets murdered by the real Ghostface, who gets back to the projection room instead of him. At first, the woman thinks her boyfriend is just fooling around, but when she gets attacked. And what do people do? They think it’s all just an additional performance to entertain them all, so they also start running around and stabbing people with their plastic knives. If this part doesn’t present what a weird species we, humans, are, then I don’t know what does. Anyway, Sydney, the heroine from the first part, is still alive and this time we can find her studying at a college. She soon finds out about the situation in the cinema and it’s clear that the new killer is not going to stop after that one murder. What I absolutely love about “Scream” sequels is that they are full of jokes about sequels in general. And I think the fact that the filmmakers decided to make this series so mocking is the reason why it got so popular and why every year in October we can see a bunch of people running around in the Ghostface maks. By the way, is wearing his mask considered as covering your mouth and nose? Because if so, perhaps I could get myself one and use it in public places. Imagine how many people I’d freak out. At least there would be no wasting time in the queue, right?

My rating: 6/10
S.

Do you like scary movies? “Scream” (1996)

directed by Wes Craven
© 1996 Dimension Films. All Rights Reserved.

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s not yet Halloween, but I’m sure the fans of this holiday are already in the mood, so I guess we can do it now. I’m officially starting the “Scream” marathon! Those who like horrors probably know all the parts by heart, but those who don’t tend to watch this genre may at least recognise the bad guy. Yes, that’s the one in the picture. And if he doesn’t seem familiar, then perhaps… I don’t know… I mean… yeah, how? Anyway, the first part starts with Drew Barrymore and her incredibly short performance, because she dies after several minutes. Sorry for the spoiler, but I guess it’s obvious. She plays Casey, a high school student living in Woodsboro. The girl receives a call from some stranger who soon turns up at her place and murders her. And after that we get to know the main character of this story, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell). She also answers the phone to hear the same threatening person. At first she accuses her boyfriend Billy of attacking her, but even after he gets arrested, Sidney’s phone keeps ringing. The situation gets even more complicated because another person dies and the girl wants to find out who’s the murderer. There will be two very important supporting actors in the roles of Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox), as a very nosy reporter, and sheriff Dewey Riley (David Arquette). Without those two, the story wouldn’t be the same, so don’t ignore them. Generally, this film is cringy, but the filmmakers had so much distance towards themselves and their work that they didn’t mind making fun on their own film in the film. Because “Scream” is a horror, which has a typical horror screenplay, a lot of blood and jumpscares, but it’s also ridiculous and full of hilarious lines. As a horror, it’s nothing special, as a creepy comedy, it’s awesome. Besides, it’s iconic, because it made people like horrors again and it was a breath of fresh air in this genre back in the 90s. So enjoy and see you tomorrow for part 2.

My rating: 6/10
S.