The 90’s were a decade, where you got a few smaller movies, that are considered almost untouchable cult classics nowadays, where even if you haven’t seen the movie, you’d know some quotes, or even memes. Office Space (1999) comes to mind instantly and Friday is definitely in this conversation too. We all have seen/used the meme and many people on “the Internets” have used the “Bye, Felisha!” quote, that comes from this movie. It is safe to say that Friday definitely made an impact on our pop-culture.

And yet, it’s such a simple movie. Which is kind of the point, the day in the life of a few people, who just want to chill, maybe smoke some weed, but things get in a way. What I liked was the vibe of this movie. It doesn’t rush anywhere, it takes its time, trying to establish some characters, even a few instances of foreshadowing, which I appreciated. Plus, this is the movie that gave us Chris Tucker. And that depends on you, whether it’s a plus or minus, as I know certain people love him and certain people don’t really like him, as he can be a bit over the top with his delivery. But in this movie, he shines and I finally understood how he came about. If you ever wondered why he had a career, watch Friday. Ice Cube might be the main protagonist of this movie, but Chris Tucker is the one, who stole this movie for himself in every scene he’s in.

I was slightly surprised how many jokes don’t really land (or didn’t land for me) in this comedy. Maybe it’s because I don’t really like weed, so I can’t relate to that aspect…? Don’t get me wrong, there are some funny scenes, but there isn’t one that stands out, or good few where I would laugh really hard. Sometimes I chuckled a bit, but mostly I was just enjoying the story and some characters in this movie. What I am trying to say, if I were to judge this movie as a comedy first and foremost, my rating would have been lower.

But I try to judge the films I see as whole packages, and for me, Friday mostly worked. Again, don’t expect any Oscar drama, after all, this is meant to just be a simple stoner(ish) comedy about a guy, who manages to get fired during his day off and then he’s trying to help out his friend, who happens to owe $200 to a local drug dealer. And of course, the dealer wants the money by the end of Friday, otherwise there won’t be any Saturday… And that is pretty much it. Only thing I left off is the fact you get to meet a lot of interesting characters along the way, and when the movie is over, you kind of end up in this mindset, where you feel like it wasn’t bad, but something was missing and it didn’t hit the spot for you.

Overall, if you happen to love the occasional weed and can relate to people who just like to chill, let’s say on Friday, doing nothing but smoking some weed and trying to get some money, this movie might be for you. Or if you fancy a really straightforward movie, where you don’t really have to use your brain, where the story is nicely self-contained within one day, Friday is also the movie for you. But if you are in the mood for a movie, that gives you something extra, this ain’t it, chief.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Watching Showgirls is like watching a car accident during a train wrack, while there is a tornado full of sharks, that is keen on spreading fake news & COVID-19 at the same time, somehow. It’s a bizarre, bizarre movie, that went from really bad to a cult classic within two decades, where the main actress acknowledged, that this movie was the main reason her carrier stalled and her agent actually dumped her right after this movie flopped so hard. Yes, how often do you hear about an agent leaving their client because of a single movie…?

I’ve recently had the… pleasure (?) re-watching this, as I’ve only seen this film once before, when I was really young, for… ehm… reasons. Ok fine, Elizabeth Berkley is a great looking woman, and I am really simple man, so there is that. I was too young to grow up on Saved by the Bell (1989 – 1992), so I wasn’t as attached (or shocked?) as many by seeing her naked. By the way, while researching this I’ve discovered there will be new Saved by the Bell, that’s supposed to premiere this year…? Is creativity truly dead? Is 2020 just a bad simulation that just got out of the control? Will Kanye be president? Plenty of questions, but we will never know the answers to them (well, maybe except the last one).

Prior re-watching this movie I’ve read a lot about it, I’ve seen a lot of videos mocking it, exploring its cult status, or how Elizabeth is in totally different movie than rest of her cast members, as she overacts the fuck out of every scene she’s in. Seriously, EVERY scene. But it’s only when you properly watch it and you actually see it right in front of your eyes, it becomes apparent, that the 90’s were truly the “anything goes, God that’s some great cocaine” decade. This movie is over the top with pretty much everything – nudity, violence, dance sequences, but Elizabeth Berkley unfortunately turns everything up to… let’s say 28. Out of 10. And I’ve always found that weird, as everybody around her seems like they somehow knew what this movie was while they were making it, so they just went with it. But not Elizabeth. Well, as I’ve learned after reading the IMDb’s trivia, she’s actually done exactly what’s been asked of her by the director Paul Verhoeven:

In 2015 Paul Verhoeven said the film ruined Elizabeth Berkley‘s career. He said, “Showgirls certainly ruined the career of Elizabeth Berkley in a major way. It made my life more difficult, but not to the degree it did Elizabeth’s. Hollywood turned their backs on her. If somebody has to be blamed, it should be me because I thought that it was interesting to portray somebody like that. I had hoped the end of the movie would explain why she acted that way, when it’s revealed she has convictions linked with drugs, but that too turned out to be a big mistake. I asked Elizabeth to do all that – to be abrupt and to act in that way, but people have been attacking her about for that ever since. I did consider that people would think she had a borderline personality, but that was because her character had a history of drug abuse, so I tried to express that through her abruptness.”

Paul Verhoeven about Elizabeth’s performance, source: IMDb.com

Knowing this, I do feel bad about Elizabeth and her having the target on her back, for getting the blame for this movie. I honestly didn’t get anything remotely close to Paul was trying to say, but I don’t think any other actress would have made it work either, as that’s not something that can come through in that kind of movie even in 2 hours. It’s like that infamous rape scene – while it might have been based on a real event (as another IMDb trivia states below), it totally stuns you, as the movie prior is wanna be satire of Las Vegas (or Hollywood, if you wish) and it’s glamorous lifestyle (“you are a whore, darling”) but until that scene, it didn’t go to such a drastic dark place. It honestly felt like it was there for a pure shock factor, something like “Gotcha, see! This movie can be dark AND serious!”

The rape scene, and the subsequent refusal of the Las Vegas big shots to punish those responsible, is based on a real incident that Joe Eszterhas learned of while he worked for Rolling Stone magazine.

Why the screenwriter felt the need for the rape scene… I guess…? Source: IMDb.com

It almost feels like the movie didn’t know what it wants to be, so it’s trying to be both, sexy, violent low-stakes “fun”, that takes a dark turn just so we get a message and that message is… things like that happen? Big celebrities can get away with pretty much anything? I mean, yeah, I guess…? Showgirls is truly a movie that somehow feels like it came both little too early and too late. I wouldn’t be surprised, if somebody rebooted it into some sort of dark HBO mini-series where we could actually see the original concept behind Nomi’s behaviour, past, drugs etc., being explored properly, with more time and nuance, as that might work…? Would it pay off in some sort of massive way that it’d be worth getting back to this material instead of coming up with something new? That’s a question for the audience, but I guess if people are willing to watch reboots/remakes of most shows/movies from the last 20/30 years, why not this one?

That would be the ultimate challenge, wouldn’t it? To me, remakes of successful movies never made sense – why reboot/remake something that’s already worked and was successful? Why not take something that had potential, (and from that IMDb trivia, something like that would intrigue me), but because of variety of reasons failed (horribly failed) but somehow, it managed to find an audience that seems to be enjoying it without labelling it as guilty pleasure? You’d still get the audience of the original that loves the original property, and its name without any of the heavy burden on your shoulders, because if you fail, you won’t fail as spectacularly as the original (at least I can’t even imagine how that would look like) so there is no pressure, and if you succeed, congratulations, you’ve improved something that existed and was… questionable to say the least.

When I started this review, did I think it will turn into me basically advocating for a reboot of this property? No, I can’t say I did see that coming. But that’s what movie like Showgirls does to you – you start thinking about it and you never know where you’ll end up. Truly one of the most bizarre, big budget Hollywood disasters of all time, but yet… I couldn’t look away.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

It’s not that long ago I have re-watched the original Sabrina (1954), so I’ve decided to give this remake a go, after all, look at that pedigree! Harrison Ford, Julia Ormond, Greg Kinnear and many more, being directed by the one and only Sydney Pollack? Movie like that deserves a watch.

And I need to say, I was pleasantly surprised, even though at times, slightly confused. Sabrina is definitely not the worst remake I’ve ever seen, even though it is at least 80% the same exact movie. There was some minor changes (like Sabrina going to France, but not to learn to be a cook/chef, but to work for Vogue, being involved with fashion world) and for me two major changes, and paradoxically, one made the movie better and one slightly worse, even though it was necessary.

Beware, SPOILERS are coming!

Let’s start with the good change – in the original movie, I didn’t get the “transformation” of the playboy brother to the “alright, I’m going to take the reigns now” guy at the end. Whereas in this movie, Greg Kinnear sold it better, where you can see his character more throughout other characters in this movie, so when he steps up, and shows everyone, that it’s not just his older brother, who knows thing or two about the business, it doesn’t feel as sudden. I did like it and I thought Kinnear’s performance might sneakily be the best in this movie, but as his role isn’t as big, it’s easy to forget about him.

The “bad” thing was Harrison Ford’s character, as they made him more cynical and jaded (at least it seemed like that to me) than in the original movie. The reason for the word bad being in quotes is, I do understand why they have done it, as his character (until he falls for Sabrina almost at the end) is really a bad person, who’s putting his company first, no matter what. And again, I totally understand why, as his character motivations were stated quite clearly in the movie, about filling out his dad’s shoes and making sure he’s a good fit for this company, but when you think about it, he’s the antagonist (villain) of the story, that only becomes the protagonist (the good guy) maybe 20/30 minutes before the end. But Harrison definitely was good in this movie, no question about it.

Julia Ormond was charming, but to me, she’s had the toughest job of all the actors, as playing the same role as the icon whom Audrey Hepburn unquestionably was, must’ve been terrifying. Look, nobody can’t really compare to Audrey, as she was the total package – charisma, charm, beauty, elegance, wit… but Julia managed, and I thought she did well.

The movie overall won’t really surprise you, even if you haven’t seen the original from 1954, as it follows what became one of the most copied story structures – poor person (usually a woman) watches/works for rich people most of her life, than she’s sent someplace for a year or two, comes back, but now she’s sophisticated, and changed, to a point where some of the rich people don’t even recognise her for a bit, and once they do, they fall for her and realise, what they’ve had right in front of them the entire time. It became a cliche, but it became a cliche for a good reason, as most of us can relate to watching the rich people having good time and secretly wanting to be them.

The only other thing I need to say is, this might be one of the rare instances, where a bit of fairy tale storytelling works a bit better for a movie (the original) rather than the shot of cynicism that (even though is needed) slightly puts the movie down a bit. That’s why I’ll prefer the original over re-watching this remake of Sabrina any time soon, even though it’s not a bad movie at all. It’s just more realistic, mainly when comes to the characters and sometimes, you want that, and sometimes, you just want the fairy tale, with the lovely Audrey.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke