Let’s smoke the essence of man, darling. “Barbarella” (1968)

SashLeave a comment
directed by Roger Vadim
© 1968 Paramount Pictures. All Rights Reserved.

This week is full of very erotic productions, but after “Basic Instinct”, I got inspired to write about “Barbarella”. And you have to forgive me. Those who know “Barbarella” must be smiling right now, but those who don’t… I guess you’re also smiling, considering the ridiculous title of this film and the picture above. When I played “Barbarella” and watched first 15-20 minutes, I thought it couldn’t get any worse. It did, but I still managed to watch the whole 100 minutes. This film is horrible and we all know that. But it’s, as I may call it, “The Room Syndrome” – even if something is tacky, still millions love it. And I’m officially in the fan club of “Barbarella”. What is it about? No idea. The only thing I can tell you is that the main character, played by Jane Fonda, is… BARBARELLA (life surprises us everyday), she’s from the Earth and she has a mission to find Dr. Durand Durand (Milo O’Shea). The man has invented some new weapon which could be dangerous if the wrong people got it. That is why Barbarella goes on an adventure to save the world! And I have no right to tell you what happens next, because I guess it’s exactly what you see after taking too many different drugs, just much safer. But even though this film is one big cringe, I still laughed a lot. There are several allusions, which prove that this story isn’t really that fictional as it seems. Personally, I was facepalming and crying with laughter, so I know that this production is not for everyone, yet it’s worth giving a try. They even wanted to make a sequel, but I’m not sure if it’s a wonderfully terrible or terribly wonderful idea. I guess I will never understand what occurs in this film and let’s keep it this way. Will I watch it again? For sure? Will I watch it sober? For sure not.

My rating: 6/10
S.

I might be manipulating you to create risk for myself. “Basic Instinct 2” (2006)

SashLeave a comment
directed by Michael Caton-Jones
© 2006 Sony Pictures Releasing. All Rights Reserved.

I guess I will surprise some of you by writing about this film, but I find it incredibly pleasant to have a different opinion that the majority. Today, I’d like to recommend you the second part of “Basic Instinct”, which was made in 2006 and directed by a different director, but the main star stayed the same – Sharon Stone, beautiful as always. If you check this part on the Internet, you’ll notice it’s got quite bad ratings, especially comparing to the first part. And, to be honest, I even wanted to skip watching this part. Yet, something has told me that it’d be worth trying. In case, I’d stop watching after 30 minutes. How surprised I was when I finished the film and liked it. In this part, Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) murders another famous person, this time it’s a football player. I guess no rockman was available for killing that night. Anyway, the story repeats, so she’s the main suspect, but this time she doesn’t flirt with the detective. This time, she needs to take part in a therapy led by Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey). I’m sorry to be a bit shallow here, but he’s a much better choice of a guy such attractive murderer would fall for, but nevermind. So as you can guess, Catherine starts her flirting game one more time. Some people say it’s a horrible copy of the first part, some say it’s a horrible sequel. But, to be honest, I watched this film as if it was a separate production. I tried not to compare it to the previous one and I think it’s a decent erotic thriller. There are some cringy moments, but generally, I had fun watching it. Even the ending didn’t disappoint me that much. So if you’re wondering whether to see it or not – do it. If you like it, you’ll be a film outsider like me, but you definitely won’t be alone. Feel empowered.

My rating: 6/10
S.

How does it feel to kill someone? “Basic Instinct” (1992)

SashLeave a comment
directed by Paul Verhoeven
© 1992 TriStar Pictures. All Rights Reserved.

This film isn’t just a thriller, but a real life drama. And I guess even more extraordinary things happened behind the cameras. Still, let’s start from the beginning… The main character is Nick Curran (Michael Douglas), a homicide detective. He needs to find out who’s responsible for murdering Johnny Boz, a famous rock star. The man died in a quite… unusual way, because he was stabbed with an ice pick while having sex. I remember watching the beginning and thinking “is this really the film that’s appreciated by so many?”. Anyway, moving on. The suspect in this case is Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone), the rock star’s girlfriend. What’s even more interesting, the woman is a writer and she’s written a novel that describes the same kind of murder that she’s now accused of. The detective is not entirely sure whom to trust. It can be Catherine who had planned the crime or someone else had read her book and now it looks as if it was the woman’s fault. Catherine is a very mysterious and confident person, so Curran wishes to get to know her better and solve the case. Even though the woman has probably killed a man, the detective finds her incredibly attractive and sometimes gets “too close” to the suspect. Generally, it’s a very erotic thriller, done in both sensual and dirty way. Some people were disgusted by the way Catherine was acting in the film, but in my opinion the character is who she supposed to be and Sharon Stone herself is magnificent in this role. Perhaps choosing Michael Douglas wasn’t the best choice and it’s definitely not his type of roles, but Sharon steals the show and I’m thankful for that. Speaking of the drama, she literally steals the show, because the most famous scene in this film is when the actress shows her vulva. At some point, she’s not wearing underwear and opens her legs for a moment. Sharon says she didn’t know she showed “too much”, but the producers say she was perfectly aware of it. Not sure whom to believe, but drama is always exciting. Especially in cinema.

My rating: 8/10
S.

There are many like me. “Pili” (2017)

SashLeave a comment
directed by Leanne Welham
© 2017 Kuonekana Films. All Rights Reserved.

Perhaps this film doesn’t have the best ratings, but I’d still like to try to recommend it. The reason why I want you to see “Pili” is because it’s an important production to open our eyes and minds. Talking about HIV is still considered a taboo topic, which is understandable, because it’s not that easy to even start talking about it. However, more and more people are aware of the virus and try to protect themselves. If they can. But there are still many people in the world who have no idea about the existence of HIV or no way to avoid spreading it. Here’s the story of Pili (Bello Rashid), a woman abandoned by her husband and left with two small children. They live in a village in Tanzania, where Pili does physical work and earns very little money. One day, she gets an opportunity to rent a market stall, which would definitely improve her life situation. Unfortunately, the woman has only two days to collect the deposit. But why did I start the post talking about HIV? Well, Pili has caught the virus and she also struggles with the consequences. And, as you can imagine, she doesn’t put herself first, because she has two children to take care of and serious money problems. I have to agree that this isn’t a masterpiece when it comes to the final form of the film. Still, the topic it touches is incredibly important and I believe this production can change some people’s opinion on African countries and they way of “dealing” with the illness. Very often it’s not a matter of education, but about setting priorities in one’s life and deciding between bad and worse. Personally, I liked the fact that the acting in this film isn’t done by professional actors, because it makes you feel as if it was some kind of a documentary, not a fictional drama. And maybe that’s why it hit me.

My rating: 6/10
S.

I may have lost my heart, but not my self-control. “Emma” (1996)

SashLeave a comment
directed by Douglas McGrath
© 1996 Miramax Films. All Rights Reserved.

Yesterday, I told you about this year’s film adaptation of the book “Emma” by Jane Austen. Even though it’s not the only adaptation, it would be quite hard to tell you about all of them. For sure there are also series based on the same story, so if you’re a fan of the book, you can find several different versions to watch and compare. Still, there’s this one adaptation that I’d like to tell you about because it’s somehow significant for the film industry. In 1996, Douglas McGrath directed “Emma” and the film even won an Oscar in 1997. “Emma” was nominated in two categories: Best Costume Design and Best Original Musical or Comedy Score. What’s surprising, they didn’t win for the costumes, but for the score. And it’s quite funny to me, because I hadn’t known about it before watching the film and while watching, the score was something I noticed. It’s indeed lovely and really makes you “sink into the story”. Oscar well-deserved! This time I’m not writing you about the plot, because it’s almost the same as in the newest adaptation, so if you’re curious, check out my recommendation of “Emma.” (2020). Even though I liked the new version’s form a bit more, I think this one is also worth checking out. Especially for the score and the actors. And especially, especially for Ewan McGregor in that ridiculous wig. Oh boy, I won’t forget this view for a long time…

My rating: 6/10
S.

Inno-cence. “Emma.” (2020)

SashLeave a comment
directed by Autumn de Wilde
© 2020 Focus Features. All Rights Reserved.

I was avoiding this production for some time because I generally need to be in the right mood to watch a costume drama. I have to say that except marvellous costumes and scenography, those films are often copy-paste. So when I found out about this new remake of Jane Austen’s book, I thought “ho, ho, ho, maybe another time”. And the time came. And I liked it very much. And I’m still surprised. Since it’s a popular novel, perhaps some of you already know the story of Emma Woodhouse. However, for those who haven’t read the book, I can tell you a few words about it. So, Emma (Anya Taylor-Joy) is a wealthy lady living in the 19th century. I guess you can imagine what was expected from women back then – they were supposed to behave in a certain way, look neat and the only thing they should be thinking of was getting married as soon as possible. Emma is slightly different. She’s an incredibly classy young lady, but she’s definitely not going to become somebody’s wife anytime soon. Instead, she’s very much interested in the love lives of her friends, so she focuses on their romances. Emma is “living” other people’s lives so much, she doesn’t even notice her own secret admirer… Before writing the novel, Jane Austen said “I am going to take a heroine whom no one but myself will much like”. I’m afraid I also like her, dear Jane. And I guess a lot of other women can say the same. Yes, Emma is selfish and she can seem annoying at first, but, for me, she’s like a 21st century woman who was born two centuries too early. But getting back to the film, I really liked it not only because of the main character, but also because of the form. It’s actually a very modern costume drama with too many jokes to consider it a serious production. And something that always makes my day – marvellous camerawork. So, surprisingly, I had fun watching a film adaptation of a Jane Austen’s book. Who would have thought?

My rating: 7/10
S.

Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night. “The Truman Show” (1998)

SashLeave a comment
directed by Peter Weir
© 1998 Paramount Pictures. All Rights Reserved.

Have you ever thought that we’re all living in some kind of a game? And right now, our “Player” is trying to do the same as some people playing The Sims and deleting the pool ladder when Sims are swimming. Just, in our case, it’s more like deleting the door and setting fire. What a lovely year we’re having, right? Anyway, I’m sure most of you have seen “The Truman Show”, but for those who haven’t, let me explain why I started the post with such random nonsense. The main character of the film is Truman Burbank (Jim Carrey). He’s an ordinary man, working in an ordinary town, not travelling at all because of his fear of… water (you’ll get it) – generally, nothing interesting. However, the thing is that Truman is living in a show. His own show. His life is, in fact, a reality program broadcast live 24/7. All people “living” in the town are actors and the town is actually a huge set. Truman doesn’t know about this, because he’s programmed to be scared of travelling, so he’s never tried to leave the town. One day, despite a totally different scenario planned by the producers, Truman falls in love with one of the actresses, Sylvia (Natascha McElhone). The woman is about to be kicked out of the show, but before she leaves, she tells Truman that his life is a lie. And from now on, the man starts questioning his reality and wishes to find Sylvia. Basically, a smart Sim noticed us deleting the pool ladder and he wants to leave the game. This film is an absolute must-see and perhaps it would be even more meaningful to see it in the current times. What if we’re living in a show like Truman and the producers have come up with “a bit of drama” for the year 2020 to improve ratings? Okay, okay, don’t freak out. But this film is really worth reflecting on because some take it as a creepy comedy, some others as an incredibly serious drama. So I guess it’ll be a surprise for you. Fun fact: after the release, several people started thinking they are like Truman, living in a show, and such case has been called “The Truman Show delusion”. Imagine the power of cinema…

My rating: 7/10
S.

Fate has decided so. “18 Presents” (“18 regali”, 2020)

SashLeave a comment
directed by Francesco Amato
© 2020 Lucky Red. All Rights Reserved.

I was struggling a lot watching this film. I mean, I wasn’t sure if it’s average in a good way or in a bad way. Don’t get me wrong, if you’re a fan of “18 Presents”, I can really understand why. But I’m one of those people who can’t just enjoy a film because it’s “cute”. Or at least not that often. Unfortunately, I focus too much on details and I hate to say that this film is absolutely illogical. But let me tell you about the plot and then I’ll share my concerns (for those who’ve seen the film). The story is about a couple, Elisa and Alessio (Vittoria Puccini and Edoardo Leo), who will soon become parents. One day, Elisa finds out that she has cancer. Luckily, the baby is fine, but Elisa might not make it after the birth. That is why the woman prepares 18 presents that her daughter will be getting each year for her birthday. Later we see Anna (Benedetta Porcaroli), Elisa and Alessio’s daughter, as an 18-year-old. The girl is full of anger and she decides to run away from her 18th birthday party. At that night, she gets hit by a car and… And that’s all you should know for now. So if you haven’t seen the film, go check it out. If you have, keep reading *SPOILER ALERT* So… what the hell happened in the screenwriters’ heads? I mean, she meets her dead mother on her birthday. Okay, kind of acceptable. And then Elisa takes this random girl home, agrees to host her, finds her a job and start living as if they were besties. Not acceptable. At that point, I wanted to stop watching. Literally. They say it’s based on a real story… oh boy. Anyway, somehow I forced myself to finish the film and the climax was a bit better, but still seemed as if someone combined three different ideas into one. *END OF SPOILER* However, I think that the idea for the film was good enough to make me watch till the end. If someone asked me if it’s a well-written film, I would say “not really”. But if you asked me if it’s a good drama, I would have to say “yes”, because I imagine lots of you crying a river, especially at the end. And I’m giving an extra point for the actors, because they did a decent job in this one. Finito!

My rating: 6/10
S.

Man, with money in your pocket, you’re as free as the wind! “The Southerner” (1945)

SashLeave a comment
directed by Jean Renoir
© 1945 United Artists. All Rights Reserved.

Today’s film is a 1945 black & white production about farmers. Please, don’t skip this post. I know how it sounds and if you’re a fan of modern cinema, you may think I’m crazy trying to recommend you such a production. Give me a chance, though. Firstly, it’s not such an American drama as it may seem. It was indeed produced in the US, but its director was Jean Renoir, a French filmmaker. Perhaps it doesn’t mean anything to you, but I’ve noticed how different this film is from its other “peers” made in the US. But let me say a few words about the plot: Sam Tucker (Zachary Scott) is a share-cropper working hard together with his wife Nona (Betty Field) and Uncle Pete (Paul E. Burns). One day, the old uncle dies on the field because of fatigue and heat, but before he does, he tells his nephew to start working for himself. After the funeral, inspired by his uncle’s words, Sam decides to take his wife, their children, Granny (Beulah Bondi) and start a new life on their own farm. Even though they have a huge land, it’s incredibly neglected, including the house. After the arrival, Sam is worried that he may fail his family because there’s so much to be done and so little money in their pockets. However, Nona disagrees with her husband and encourages him to stay and work it out together. Even though this film wasn’t much liked by the people living in the southern US (because, in their opinion, it presented Southerners as white ignorant imbeciles), I still think it shows the beauty of hard work, getting out of one’s comfort zone and mutual support in relationships. The decision to grow their own crops wasn’t easy, but it’s a challenge that may lead to a better life quality. Besides, I adore how Nona and Sam work together and act like real partners, not like two separate individuals. So even though it’s about farmers, I find this film worth watching because of many valuable messages. Oh and I love their daughter-grandma relationship in this film. Amusingly adorable!

My rating: 6.5/10
S.

We didn’t discuss the cat. “The Squid and the Whale” (2005)

SashLeave a comment
directed by Noah Baumbach
© 2005 Samuel Goldwyn Films. All Rights Reserved.

Noah, oh Noah. Not sure how familiar you are with Noah Baumbach and his productions, but each time I watch his films, I feel empty inside. It’s not like those films are bad, but they are definitely emotionally draining and quite depressive. So even though I appreciate the work, I wish I could eat a bucket of ice cream to sweeten my day after a “film meeting” with Noah Baumbach. Anyway, today I have an interesting film about… oh well, hard to say. Because even if you can find descriptions of Baumbach’s films, it’s always about more than that. But I will let you discover the deeper meanings yourselves. Basically, the story goes like this: Bernard and Joan (Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney) are a married couple and they have two sons, Walt and Frank (Jesse Eisenberg and Owen Kline). One day, the parents inform the boys that they are going to get divorced. From now on, Walt and Frank need to accept their new reality. Sharing their life with two individuals, moving from one house to another and generally learning to be children of two “strangers”, not a loving couple. I’m not the biggest fan of the way Baumbach presents life in his films, I find them very personal and not much universal, if you know what I mean. I guess only some people could really feel the same watching as him producing those films. Personally, I cannot connect with the characters that much, but I still appreciate such topics presented on the screen. In this production, the focus in on the boys, who experience their parents’ divorce in two different ways. And I think it’s something we need to see, because a divorce isn’t just two people splitting. It’s always much more complicated and it affects more people. And even the cat. Oh, and in this film you can also see young Jesse Eisenberg before he created Facebook. *wink, wink*

My rating: 6/10
S.