The Prince of Egypt Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: The Prince of Egypt
Year: 1998
Country: U.S
Language: English

Move over DeMille! The Prince of Egypt has arrived! Based on the same scripture as The Ten Commandments  and made 48 years after DeMille’s epic, The Prince of Egypt is ultimately a more free film, based on the story in Exodus, that takes imagination to new heights. This film is limitless, far from the bondage of reality.  Animation really helps this film soar, if DeMille had seen it he probably would’ve dropped to his knees in awe. Prince of Egypt is the best film that will ever come out of DreamWorks Studios.

The Prince of Egypt has a unique way of deploying its computer animation. Instead of the film being completely computer generated,  the style aids  the traditional hand drawn technique. The two techniques/styles blend together perfectly to show the incredible beauty of the desert and the people who dwell within it. In most animated films the animation lends itself mere entertainment for children, however the animation in this film is quite mature and helps to draw in complexity and seriousness. As a child I saw The Lion King, Aladdin, Pocahauntus and many other animated films, yes they did have their morals, but Prince of Egypt shook me in a way that few would expect an animated film to.

Though both Red Sea partings are pretty cool

A noticeable difference between Prince of Egypt and every other film about the book of Exodus is the emphasized relationship of Moses and Ramses (Ralph Fiennes), the son of the mighty Pharaoh.  They do everything together, including getting into trouble. When Ramses is given power, he shows his love by giving Moses some power. However, Moses soon realizes that he is not an Egyptian and searches for some meaning in his life. In the desert he meets God in the form of a burning bush, who says “I am that I am, the God of your fathers.”  Moses tells his best friend Ramses about everything he experiences, not only does he Ramses disagree in anger but he makes the slaves work harder. God then unleashes his fury. Fire pours from the sky, locusts come swarming and all the first borns are killed, the second borns feel rather lucky. Everything eventually leads to the epic parting of the red seas, which looks much more spectacular than in Demille’s The Ten Commandments.

The exodus story is an important story of rebellion. It is about standing up for yourself and your people even if this can result in death. To stop tyranny you must fight tyranny.  If you know something is wrong, then something must done about this. What would happen if we just allowed Hitler and the Third Reich to take over the World? What would happen if we didn’t help the Jewish people be freed from the concentration camps? Perhaps rebellion may cause great disruption and chaos but the chaos is necessary, to be free from evil is an important and necessary thing. We should not look up to evil rulers but to the people who fight against them, this is why Gandhi and Che Guevera are very important figures in history. They fought a fight that many people would be too cowardly to do,  great courage produces great results.

In conclusion, while there is some comic relief in Prince of Egypt, I believe this film is one of the first animated films to transcend the genre from a children to adult for Americans.  I am astounded by how well made this film was, usually this is on the bottom of people’s lists when they think of good films about the Exodus, however I feel that it should be at the very top. While it is based on a biblical story, I do not believe you have to be religious to enjoy it. Prince of Egypt is  a soaring piece of imagination, vision and skill. Charlton Heston must have peed himself after he saw this. 4/5

Hercules Review- by Michael Carlisle

Title: Hercules

Year: 1997

Country: U.S

Language: English 

Who put the glad in gladiator? Hercules is not the typical Disney fare and perhaps it has suffered from being different but it’s quite a great under-rated Disney gem of the 90’s. Indeed, when one thinks of 90’s Disney classic there is a typical list: Beauty and the Beast, Alladin & The Lion King. Even Disney does not feel  their film is vault worthy! I’m here to tell you that all Hercules is not only vault worthy, but it should be considered one of the best Disney film of all time. Hercules is so hot, steam looks cool.

Hercules aka Herc, who’s world is uniquely drawn by British animator Gerlade Scarfe, is portrayed much differently than in the well known stories of “Bullfinche’s Mythology” and justly so. A man who murders his wife and children is not necessarily a good choice for a main character in a film that will likely be seen by a generation of children. Like most of Disney’s heroes, Hercules is an orphan, kidnapped from his father/God Zues by the Lord of the Dead’s evil minions Pain and Panic. He is also incredibly strong and unaware of his incredible strength, shown in a scene where he accidently knocks over temples, though his good looks and youthful innocence make him a very likable fellow.

Disney takes a page out of Shakespeare with this film, mainly the play Macbeth. Like the character Macbeth, the villain of Hercules, known as Hades (James Woods), has an insatiable thirst for power which will only stop once he reaches the very top. Both characters are also ultimately doomed but are not initially aware of this. Hades is told by three fates that when the planets align he should attack the Gods of Mount Olympus, however if Hercules fights he will fail. The fates have tricked him, like the witches did to Macbeth. They have given Hades an ego, but not completely told the truth. Hercules WILL be at this battle, but Hades thinks he can kill him as a child. Therefore he sends his minions Pain and Panic to do the dirty job, but they are unable to kill him and nobody informs Hades about this.

This film is a great study of “masculinity”. Hercules is a human, but the child of a God in Heaven. He must on Earth, around the imperfect immortals, to eventually earn his way back to Heaven and into the arms of his God/father.  His adolescence is a very clumsy one, which earns the nickname “Jerkules” among his peers, but after he questions his existence his father appears before him and tells him that in order to come back he must be a “hero”. What does it mean to be a “hero”? Well in most films the “hero” is a muscular masculine figure who  can save a damsel in distress without starting a sweat. Hercules tries this way, he becomes the idealistic muscular “masculine” figure. He has groups of girls head over heels for him, he’s so popular that he is an action figure! Yet when he tells his literal and spiritual father this he merely says “You’re not a hero yet”. Perhaps if Hercules looked tried out some more typically “feminine” traits, the movie would over much sooner. Indeed it is love that is more powerful than brute strength.

One may compare Hercules with the average Christian’s messiah Jesus Christ. Both are children of Gods, both have a mission of Earth, both are saviors (saving the world from a giant volcano dude should qualify you as a savior), both realize that the more “masculine” aggressive characteristics get them nowhere and both have to sacrifice themselves to be with their father in Heaven. Indeed there are more than a few parallels between Herc and Christ, I don’t think this is a coincidence. Hercules is also a discussion about the meaning of life. The song “Go the Distance” is essentially about man’s want to belong, our want for meaning, our want for challenge. We want love and acceptance and we will go almost anywhere to truly belong, to  feel unique and special.

In conclusion, Hercules is a funny yet deep Disney film that deserves a place among the greats. There are memorable songs, such as “go the distance” and “zero to hero”, and  wonderful voice actors.  It has great heart and great thoughts about man’s search for meaning in life. Hercules teaches that masculinity is not merely brute strength and that it would only help men if they acquired some “feminine” traits. While it takes pages from Orpheus and Shakespeare, this film is a wonderful, entertaining and memorable experience. 3/5

Next Review: The Prince of Egypt

Emperor's New Groove Review- by Michael Carlisle

Title: The Emperor's New Groove

Year: 2000
Country: US
Language: English

Boom, baby! The Emperor’s New Groove may have come out after I hit the double digits, in my change from childhood to tweenhood, but that does not mean this underrated Disney gem did not have a profound effect on me. Testify! My brothers and sisters, I present to you one of the best  Disney films of this millennia! Boo-yeah!  I promise that you will be engrossed in this epic journey about a snooty Emporer named Kuzco (David Spade), his aging Arch nemesis Yzma (Eartha Kitt) and the happy peasant Pacha (John Goodman ). This not just an animated film, it’s an animated adventure through the soul.

“Animated?” you say with your nose in the air, “Aren’t those films for children?” Neh! Throughout history there have been plenty of animated films that tugged at your heartstrings and stirred your soul. The Lion King was Disney’s take of Shakespeare’s famous tragedy Hamlet, Bambi had you crying within the first 10 minutes as you see a poor deer becoming an Orphan, Aladdin taught us that love conquers all if you have a magical genie by your side. Animation is as much a child’s love, as it is an adults. The subject matter in these animated film which are often associated with children are often too deep and meaningful for them. Such is the case for The Emperor’s New Groove.

Emperor Kuzco plays a tyrannical, egotistical smart-ass who rules over a small kingdom in a temperate area of the world, probably South America. In one of his ego-maniacal fits he decides to fire an aging bitter ,old, power hungry woman named Eyzma who then has fantasies of great revenge against her former employer. She has a dim-witted sidekick named Kronk who would rather work on his cooking skills than do great villainy.

In his tyranny Emperor Kuzco decides to build a summer resort called “Kuzcotopia” on top of a high hill, the problem? People live on this high hill. When the people, particularly the villager known as Pacha, decide to protest against the building of his resort, because they will be essentially homeless if this place gets built, he orders a banishment on them. Eyzma eventually gets her revenge plan in order, however she mistakes the “death” potion for the “llama” potion. Therefore llama Kuzco decides to hide in the jungle, fearing for his life, until Pacha rescues him and decides to help him. Interesting that unlike most Disney films, the main character is a jerk who we initially don’t care for, and the sidekick eventually saves the main character from a life of loneliness and misery.

The Emperor’s New Groove is a very good study about the stages of Grief. When Kuzco is turned into a llama, therefore losing his palace, his money, his body and every right as a human being,  he feels great loss. Initially he constantly cries in the jungle and begins the Kohbler-Ross model regarding the stages of grief.  First denial, then anger, bargaining, depression and finally acceptance. Kuzco hates his llama body, initially he feels that it’s a dream, this can’t be happening, he’s the emperor! He feels that there is no hope in getting out of this body and he refuses to adapt. Eventually he becomes accepting of the fact that he’s now a llama and the only way he can possibly become a human again is by using his llama body to help himself and his newfound comrade Pacha, get through the treacherous obstacles of the jungle.

This film should appeal to all religious people as it follows the Golden Rule to a tee, “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.” Pacha has no reason to help the egotistical Emperor Kuzco become free from his llama body, in-fact if Pacha left Kuzco to die in the jungle all his problems would be solved. He would no longer have to worry about being homeless because of the upcoming demolition of his home due to “Kuzcotopia”. Pacha helps the tyrannical emperor because he believes it is the right thing to do. He believes, of all else, in the goodness of mankind. Perhaps this film is supposed to assure us that not all men are evil, not all people think about themselves and that mankind is redeemable. Surely the somewhat sociopathic Kuzco is able to turn a new leaf, what is stopping you?

In conclusion, I feel that The Emporer’s New Groove is a fascinating and funny yet underrated Disney film. It has great heart and generates great hope for the future of mankind. Good can overcome evil and good can overcome tyranny.  Perhaps many can disagree, but I hope you don’t disagree just because you feel this is a “children’s” film. Do not underestimate the power of animation in relation to the soul. 3/5

Life of Brian Review- by Michael Carlisle

Title: Life of Brian

Year: 1979

Director: Terry Jones
Country: UK
Language: English 

Does Christ have a sense of humor? If not, then the cast members of Life of Brian are in for some big trouble down the road. Indeed many religious authorities did not take this film lightly, as no film about Christ ever is. Like Last Temptation of Christ, Passion of the Christ and many others, Life of Brian has been a source of great controversy since it has been released. Unlike those films, Python is not directly about Christ, rather it is about Brian, a man who is mistaken for Christ. Though Christ does appear in this film, we aren’t necessarily laughing at him but the people who cannot understand him or are bickering during His famous “sermon on the mount” speech.  “Blessed are the Greek??”

While Life of Brian does make fun of religion, I don’t believe it has done so in an incredibly disrespectful way. Infact I would argue that they make fun of religious movies more than religion. Usually religious films are incredibly serious films, heavy in drama that don’t dare make a joke in fear of an audience uproar. This film decides that all that all this fear is silly nonsense and decides to go all out. After all Brian is not the messiah, “he’s a very naughty boy.” It also asks questions that we’ve been dying to know, like how did people know that Jesus’ mother Mary was a virgin? Isn’t that a very personal question?

I’d say Life of Brian also makes fun of arthouse film audiences. I remember a scene in Life of Brian where Brian drops his shoe in the desert and the followers of his pick it up. They argue what the shoe symbolizes when in reality it symbolizes nothing. “It’s a sign that is the sign”, “we must cast off our shoes”, “cast off the shoes and follow the gourd!” Indeed I remember reviewing Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange stating that it was an abhorrent film, however many people disagreed scrambling to find some meaning. Why can’t it have no meaning? Why does its meaning have to be the meaning you gave it?

Life of Brian’s Monty Python troupe realizes that religion is taken very seriously and wished to lighten things up with this film. It’s odd to think of this film as an attack on anything because any Monty Python fan isn’t going to be taking the jokes to seriously. This film will not inspire religious ignorance, nor will it cause people to drop out of their religion. I think the point is said best during Brian’s song on the cross, “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” We should not find ourselves filled with rage at people who disagree with us, instead we must find the humour in life and keep loving each other despite our differences. Does Christ have a sense of humour? I think so and I think he would strongly agree with the films overall message. Unlike Bill Maher’s Religulous, Life of Brian does not wish to separate people but bring them together by laughing at religious seriousness. In-fact  It almost seems childish for someone to take a film like this seriously. After all, it’s Python. 3/5

Full Metal Jacket Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Full Metal Jacket

Year: 1987
Director: Stanley Kubrick

Country: US
Language: English

Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket would be a masterful short film, as the first half of the film is quite visionary. In the second half it seems like Kubrick does not know what he is trying to do with this film, it seems directionless and definitely lacks in emotion. It is set in Vietnam,  yet looks less stunning than many other Vietnam films such as Cimino’s The Deer Hunter and Coppola’s Apocalypse Now . It certainly lacks the intensity and character development both these better Vietnam war based films have.

The film opens to great promise. It starts out as a story of marines going through basic training, mainly about the rivalry of the cruel sergeant played by Lee Emery and the slow soldier nicknamed Gomer Pyle who is played by Vince D’Onofrio. This is the most interesting point of Full Metal Jacket which comprises of the best acting in this film. Emery is the most interesting drill instructor in the history of film, he is exciting, bold , humorous and obscene. In one scene Emery tells his soldiers to go to bed with their rifles and whisper poems of love to them.  Emery’s hard hearted nature eventually gets to Gomer Pyle, who is slowly going insane from the insults thrown at him and thus this results in great danger for both men.

War is Hell

The film ends, or this is where the film should end. There are great shots in the second half of the film, as Kubrick is a master with the camera , and set pieces but no point to any of the scenes after  the Pyle/Sargeant beginning.  The fight scenes look average, men crouching behind barriers breathing heavily, waiting for their turn to shoot, almost every war film ever made has a scene like this. Kubrick, you are supposed to be a film God, where is the innovation? You have close-ups and great angle shots but in the end they mean absolutely  nothing. At least in A Clockwork Orange you were using these shots to eventually build sympathy with the main character.

 After the Pyle segment, who is the main character? Perhaps Kubrick intended to make the second half about several individual characters and their how they’re becoming desensitized from this war but he spends so little time on these new individuals that we don’t really care about them. We can’t connect with them in the way we could with Gomer Pyle, when they are losing their sanity it really doesn’t matter to us. Want to see a good Vietnam film where you actually care about the multiple characters? Watch The Deer Hunter.  The first half of Deer Hunter actually contributes a great deal to the film, unlike Full Metal Jacket. This is why I feel Full Metal Jacket would work amazingly as a short film.  Whenever I’ve seen it on television I shut it off immediately after the first half, because to watch more would be a complete waste of time.

In Conclusion, while Kubrick has made a great deal of good films (2001, The Killing) he has also made some flops. Full Metal Jacket is a flop, it had a spectacular beginning  but a sub-par middle and end. It was made after all the great Vietnam films have been made and does not hold a candle to such classics as Platoon and Deer Hunter. The only reason this film isn’t forgotten is because it was directed by Stanley Kubrick, if it was made by a lesser known director it probably wouldn’t have made DVD.  Piss on it! 2/5

Religulous Review- by Michael Carlisle

Title: Religulous
Year: 2008
Director: Larry Charles
Country: US
Language: English

As a man of no religion, I feel I can review this film objectively.  I am aware of the evils organized religion can cause, yet I tend not to forget about the good organized religion has done.  Bill Maher’s Religulous is a ridiculously one sided “documentary” about the major organized religions such Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism and also includes many other smaller developing religions like Scientology.  Bill Maher feels that they’re all crazy and fears that they may lead mankind toward its doom.

Sure the film is funny, but intelligent? No. This film could only appeal to shut-in atheists who know very little about religion and could care less about respecting others who have beliefs that are somewhat different from theirs. He visits many places across the world such as Israel, Great Britain, Utah and the Vatican, you think Maher would find at least one intelligent religious person to converse with, but no. Maher intentionally picks the dumbest people he can find to have an “intelligent conversation with. I say “intelligent conversation” because it’s more like he asks them a question only to shoot them down and make them feel like idiots. He likes to ask stupid questions to stupid people and then insult them, talk over them,  interrupt them. He edits the film to make the people he interviews look stupid.

Who are the people he interviews?  A rabbi who regularly attends holocaust denial conferences,  “Jews for Jesus”, an actor who plays Jesus, a man who thinks he’s the messiah just because his name is Jesus. Really?  Maher, you can’t preach against religious ignorance if you are religiously ignorant yourself. Maher is a hypocrite who lacks any basic knowledge about organized religion, other than “religion can cause hurt”.  This is why he chooses not to interview intelligent people, because if he got into any type of religious debate with an intelligent theologist, he would be easily crushed. He asks the actor who plays Jesus, “Why doesn’t God just wipe out the devil?” and when the actor can’t answer the question, because he’s an ACTOR, Maher acts all smug. There is an intelligent answer to this question, though I don’t want to get into a big religious debate here, and I’m sure Maher would be stumped if somebody intelligent gave him that answer.

While Maher points out one side, though very poorly, that religion can cause great pain to people. He doesn’t acknowledge the good that religion has done. He doesn’t acknowledge that people are the problem, and that people regardless of religious affiliation can be corrupted. Though not all people are corrupt, not all people use religion as a crutch or barrier. Some people use religion as a way to better understand mankind, to better help mankind.  To dismiss all religions and followers of that religion as “foolish” or “crazy” is extremely ignorant. Mankind cannot progress with extreme fundamentalist atheists like Bill Maher who attempt to push people apart because of their religious ideals. 

In conclusion, don’t watch this crap. This is easily one of the worst documentaries I have ever seen. Maher uses sleazy editing and ignorant ideology to tear his slow witted (he chose the people he wanted to interview) interviewees apart. It holds no truths and exposes Maher as a true hypocrite. I belong to no religion, yet I am greatly offended by how blatantly ignorant he is. If you don’t like the religion, at least you can be respectful of the people who believe it. 0.5/5

Black Swan Review- by Michael Carlisle

Title: Black Swan

 Year: 2010
Director: Darren Aronofsky


Country: U.S
Language: English

Until Darren Aronofsky (The Wrestler)came out with Black Swan I would have never thought a film about ballet could be so dark, gripping, emotional and intense. Black Swan takes you on a wild ride of emotions, especially of paranoia and fear. It shows the dark side of perfection, control and ego.  It's a masterpiece of great madness and great beauty. It is truly a great artistic accomplishment ,


The nature of Ballet is one of perfection, it demands the kind of physical and mental training that could potentially consume one’s life. Ballet is a grand art, built on destroying boundaries and distorting reality. To perform even the simplest of ballets is no easy task, for it is extremely draining to even the person with the smallest of roles. We wonder why we see so many anorexic ballet performers, we ponder the idea; do madmen take ballet or does ballet make madmen?  Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) is one who is slowly crumbling from her fight between the ideals and realities that Ballet presents to her.

Was ballet Nina’s choice? Surely when we meet her mother, played by Barbara Hershey, we get the feeling that Nina has been sheltered most of her life. Indeed the apartment they share feels more like a cell to Nina and when she has a conversation with her mother it seems that she is not quite in tune to reality. Nina has been practicing ballet most of her life, but it is very doubtful that it was always her personal choice to practice ballet. Indeed there are many parents nowadays who have great expectations about their children and will do anything to make sure these expectations are met, regardless of how the expectations affect the child or conflict with reality.

Natalie Portman’s performance as the slowly self destructive Nina is quite impressive. She manages to go from one emotional extreme to the other without skipping a beat. Her role was very physically demanding yet she was able to conquer the challenge. I had some doubts about her, as I’ve only seen her as Padame in the Star Wars prequels, but her performance in Black Swan reminded me that I shouldn’t judge an actress just because of a few bad films they have been in.

Nina dances for a company at the Lincoln Centre in New York which has decided to master the old Ballet classics, among these is the well known Swan Lake. Nina wishes to be the lead for this production but the director, Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel), thinks she’s too sweet to play the lead, the black swan. Thomas Leroy is an egotistical man who is very sexual, and uses his power over the ballerinas to get them n bed. Nina is posed with a problem; does she let go off her innocence in order to get the part or remain attempting to be a “perfectly” good. What is perfection?

Like the other Aronofsky film I reviewed, The Wrestler, the main character in this film has such a need for greatness that it becomes self destructive. Tragically many people find a need to be “perfect” in one area in their lives, which leads to being worse off in many other areas of their lives. I’ve met people who desire to look “perfect” only to become anorexics who need to miss school to go to therapy, or doctor’s appointments because of malnutrition. I’ve met people who are so obsessed with doing well in school that they miss out on a social life, and more importantly (in terms of health) sleep. When one becomes obsessed with perfection, they dig themselves into an early grave. For there is no such thing as “perfection”. Perfection is a mountain that has a summit which cannot be reached, the higher you climb the higher the summit becomes.

Lily (Mila Kunis) is a new dancer who recognizes the beauty in imperfection. She is confident, bold and loose. She does what she wants, when she wants, with whoever she wants. Lily is the exact opposite of Nina and this fascinates her. Lily should be the role model for every ballerina who strives to be great, as in the traditional sense, Lily should not be considered “great”. Although, at least she doesn’t lose her mind from trying to achieve a false sense of “perfection” She knows it’s bullshit and she doesn’t care.

 The lighting is very essential to the makeup of the emotions of this film, as well as the incredible score. The score is perfect for setting up the emotional intensity of the scenes, it made Black Swan much more creepy. Aranofsky brings a lot of  dark mood to the film with his fluent and poetic use of the camera which is as graceful as the dancers on the film are. I can't say enough about the Mise-En-Scene and how well it contributes to the atmosphere of Aranofsky’s genius because there are so many spectacular things about this film, the costume design, the makeup, the use of colour.

In conclusion, Black Swan not a very simple film and there are edits that make some scenes somewhat confusing but a masterpiece is not simple entertainment. It seems impossible to make a good film about insanity without confusing the viewer a little bit, who completely understand inanity? Black Swan is a dive into the soul, it is a deep search for morality and understanding. It is a film that will remain on people's minds for years to come. I suggest watching The Red Shoes first however as it’s quite similar, though I feel Black Swan discusses the nature of ballet more thoroughly that its 40’s counterpart.  It is the answer to the question "is perfection worth the price? Praise it! 4.5/5

The King's Speech Review- by Michael Carlisle

 
Title: The King's Speech
Year: 2010 
Director: Tom Hooper
Country: UK
Language: English

 

Usually I brush off British royal time period film as I find them completely pretentious and boring. The King's Speech however is quite an exception. The writing is witty,clever and very dramatic and the acting is spectacular. The King's Speech is a noteworthy biopic about how King George VI, played by the awe inspiring Colin Firth, overcame his speech impairments in a time when radio broadcasts were abundant and great speech was not only useful but absolutely necessary for the leaders of the world. Overshadowed by powerful speakers such as Adolph Hitler, Mussolini and even his brother, King George VI seeks help from a controversial Australian speech therapist named Lionel Louge (Geoffry Rush) so that he can overcome his problem and lead his people through WW2.

 Colin Firth blew me away as King George VI, he had a certain depth to his character that I didn't realize could be portrayed in a British Royal. I forgot that British Royals were human until I saw Firth portray the King and display the suffering that King George VI had. He not only did suffer because of his speech problem but because of his family problems (his nanny was neglectful, he was emotionally distant with his father), his want to be heard but not able to because he's a royal and royal's shouldn't have such worries, they should be powerful. I found a scene quite interesting in the film, it has to be my favourite scene. Firth is watching Hitler making his speeches and admired him saying "I don't know what he's saying, but he is a very good speaker." his face is that of admiration but as he keeps watching he realized that something is horribly wrong and within seconds his face changes from great admiration to great worry. It is a transition that only a great actor could make. He will win an Oscar for his acting I am sure of it.

 There are many themes in The King's Speech all of which all slowly surfaced throughout all of the film. I've never quite understood how hard it was to be a royal until this film, it must be a somewhat hard life to fake almost everything you do, to lie to yourself and keep everything held inside. You can do what you want...or you can do what is right for the people. However, what is right for the people is not really in the best interest of yourself. It is a clash of personal happiness vs overcoming your fears on behalf of your country. The most notable theme that I found in this film was "everyone has a voice." I loved the part where Lionel tells King George VI about how he met some WWI veterans who were having heavy cases of post traumatic stress disorder all because they felt nobody was listening and nobody cared. It was beautifully touching.

We should also note the severity of speech disorders, it not only causes great embarrassment but could also ruin that particular person’s life. What would’ve happened to King George VI if he couldn’t get over his stammer? How could anybody hold any type of non-physical labour job with speech problems? Therefore they should be taken much more seriously, as it is particularly life threatening to have a speech disorder and they are not so easy to rid.

 In conclusion, you can view King’s Speech as pure entertainment, you can enjoy it for the various humanistic themes, or you can view it as a window into British history during the tensions leading up to WW2. Anyway you choose to look at King’s Speech will work and it will work well. 3.5/5

Kind Hearts and Coronets Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Kind Hearts and Coronets
Year: 1949
Director: Robert Hamer
Country: UK
Language: English

Robert Hamer’s Kind Hearts and Coronets is a brilliant Poe-like dark comedy about greed and dark
ambition. It is about a poor man who plots to inherit the title of Duke of D’Ascoyne by murdering the eight other heirs that stand ahead of him in line. Starring Dennis Price as Louis Mazzini and Alec Guiness as the eight heirs Louis must kill in order to become duke Kind Hearts and Coronets has many elements that comprise an Edgar Allen Poe Story yet it is very comical at times.

I found myself laughing when Louis attempts to kill Lady Agatha (Alec Guinness in drag) by shooting the hot air balloon that she/he is in  with an over sized bow and arrow. I noticed elements of Stanley Kubrick’s Lolita in this film. The narration and dark ambitions remind me of the character Humbert Humbert, however where Louis kills to inherit a throne, Humbert kills to keep a young woman to himself. One would argue that even though they do the same action, Louis is still the more humane person.

The makeup in this film is rather brilliant; Guiness has to portray an age range of 30-90 as well as woman. He had to look completely different  for each of the eight relatives he portrayed, this .would seem hard because of lack of CGI in this era but Guiness pulls it off and he pulls it off well. It somewhat reminds me of Peter Sellers’ roie in Lolita as Claire Quilty. However there is a slight difference as Peter Sellers’ is one character in Lolita who pretends to be many other characters and Alec Guiness plays many characters.

This film could be viewed as a social commentary on post WWII Britain. It could be seen as a social commentary about how not everything is right in Royalty, that dark ambitions have guided society into a dark path of anarchy and disorder. That even the highest of class are disorganized and capable of self destruction. I’ve noticed that every character Guiness plays is a lot older than Louise. Perhaps this is a commentary about how younger generation will overthrow the older generation that robbed them of their luxury.

 It’s strange to sympathize with such a character who would murder his family members in order to inherit a great throne. It’s also somewhat strange to laugh at the misfortune bestowed on his family members. Should I be laughing at this? The writing is clever and witty, and the social commentary is stunning. The acting, the makeup and everything else is quite great. Indeed I am a younger generation and I know what it’s like to feel that the older generation has screwed you over (global warming ect.) So I will laugh, because of the truth within the film. Praise it! 4/5

Being John Malkovich Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Being John Malkovich  
Year: 1999

Director: Spike Jonze 

Country: U.S
Language: English

 

Incredibly strange, odd and quirky. Being John Malkovich is one of the most unique and inventive films I’ve seen in a while. Even the basic plot is intriguing enough to fill a collection of films and still have enough ideas and audience interest to make a television series or two. Rare is the film where the writer, Charlie Kaufman, deserves more acclaim that the director, Spike Jonze. Rare is the film that surprises you over and over again, continuing up a staircase of oddity without losing its intelligence or surprising humour. The plot unfolds in a rather relaxed way, while the film itself is a strange ride we never feel the urge to jump out of the car.

John Cusack stars as Craig, the power hungry puppeteer who’s puppets themselves are pessimistic and dark, much like Craig’s attitude towards life. His animal obsessed wife Lotte is played by the usually gorgeous Cameron Diaz,  however in this film she looks and acts equally as strange as John Cusack’s character. This film has given me a fond respect for Diaz as this role seems far from the characters she usually plays. Craig’s co-worker Maxine, played by Catherine Keener, who is slightly self obsessed. She’s the lusty girl who you can never get and would make you feel like an absolute fool if you tried.

Craig’s job, and the location of his job,  is rather strange. He works on the 7 ½ floor, a floor so small that he and the rest of his co-workers  have to bend down in order to walk around it, as standing up straight would cause the low ceiling on a collision path with their heads. The uniqueness of the film arrives here, as behind a cabinet in Craig’s office there is a portal. This portal takes you inside the brain of John Malkovich for exactly fifteen minutes, after that  you fall from the sky and land outside a New Jersey turnpike.

Thus a business is born!  Craig and Maxine decide to charge people for this unique and life altering experience. Why would people want to become John Malkovich? Why not? It’s an escape from their boring everday lives. It’s also such an intriguing experience that it would almost be an impossible opportunity to turn down. Who wouldn’t want to go inside the mind of a famous actor? This of course brings loads of philosophical and paradoxal questions.  For instance, what if John Malkovich decided to go into the mind of John Malkovich? To my excitement he does and the result of Malcovich going into Malkovich’s mind is one of the most odd scenes I have ever seen in the history of film. There are of course, many other complications and interesting interactions  with Malkovich’s mind but explaining them would be too complicated. For instance Maxine is bisexual and wishes to have sex with Lotte but only when Lotte is in Malkovich’s mind. Craig becomes jealous and decides to trick Maxine by pretending Lotte is inside Malkovich’s mind when Craig actually is. Sound weird? Yeah, I thought so.

John Malkovich is outstanding in his role as John Malkovich, which doesn’t sound like much at first. However you have to remember that he’s playing  the public image of himself and a possessed version of himself. It’s hard to explain but at times you forget that Malkovich is playing Malkovich. He’s such a good actor that he can convince you that he’s not himself, while playing himself. Taking this role required the high calibre of acting that Malkovich can proudly say he has. If this film was called Being Tom Cruise I assure you that the film would be rather dull.

In conclusion, there are few films with the courage to be as different as Being John Malkovich is. I cannot think of any film that is similar in anyway, this film is truely in a class of its own. It can be strange but not too strange, dark but not too dark and witty  but can’t fully be classified as a “comedy”. There are great philosophical questions this film can inspire, I assure you that you will be thinking about this film weeks after you have initially seen it. Malkovich, Malkovich, Malkovich. Praise it!  5/5

Coriolanus Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Coriolanus
Year: 2011
Director: Ralph Fiennes
Country: Canada
Language: English

Film history is ripe with unique and sometimes awe inspiring Shakespearean adaptations, from Akira Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood (Macbeth), The Bad Sleep Well (Hamlet), and Ran (King Lear) to Disney’s own animated version of the fateful tale of Hamlet called The Lion King. Some, like Buz Luhrmann’s  modern adaptation of Romeo and Juliet have been a sink and others, like Sir Laurence Olivier’s  Richard III, have been a swim. The point is that when you make a Shakespearean adaptation you are running a fine line between making a great piece of art and making trash, this line is especially thin when attempting to modernize Shakespeare’s work.

Ralph Fiennes (Schindler’s List) proves he has great courage as he directs and stars in one of Shakespeare’s great roman tragedies Coriolanus. However Fiennes seems discontent in making his film line for line like Shakespeare’s work,  instead of the location literally being Rome during the time of the Roman empire it is set in a place that calls itself Rome and is in the present time period. Explosions, death, madness Coriolanus looks like the average macho action film and in a way it is.

The lead character Coriolanus looks like the typical macho action movie star, he is lean and muscular sporting a bald head and tattoo on his neck. He struts with an AK-47 by his side. It almost seems out of place when Coriolanus speaks Shakespeare’s language. Am I watching an action film or a Shakespeare film? While Fiennes is likely much more swooned by Shakespeare that I and he probably has much more love for Coriolanus than most scholars of Shakespeare, but it seems like this film tries to pander too much to both Shakespeare and action film fan. He tries to please everybody but ends up pleasing  nobody. Famed critic Roger Ebert says “As Shakespeare, it has too much action footage and as action, it has too much Shakespeare.” Although, Fiennes is in a money making business and perhaps to make money on this film he felt he needed Coriolanus to appeal to as much people as possible.

Caius Martius is a battle obsessed man from war torn Rome,supplies are cut off and there are riots everywhere.  He leads Rome in battle against their Volscian enemies, leaves Rome for another battle, named Coriolanus when he wins and then comes back to run for consul. He becomes banished from Rome and as a result decides to help his former enemies, the Volscians, in their attack against Rome.  Slaughter, mayhem, death and explosions occur as a result of Rome’s banishing  of Coriolanus. There is great emotion in this film, especially between Coriolanus and his mother, but perhaps the intense action overshadows this.

In conclusion, though I admire Shakespeare and Shakespearean adaptations I would not say this was necessarily  “good” or “bad” . It is much better than the bad Shakespearean adaptations like Buz Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet but would make very poor company with Sir Laurence Olivier’s Richard III, Henry V and/or Hamlet. It’s unfortunate when the financial aspect of a film gets in the way of the creative aspect. Fiennes has the creative capacity to make a great Shakespearean film, but his need to please the masses led to the downfall of Coriolanus. Piss On It! 2/5

The Artist Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: The Artist
Year: 2011
Director: Michael Hazanavicius

Country: France
Language: English

Right off the bat The Artist has a limited audience. Why? Because The Artist is a film that many of today’s film-goers hate; it is silent and black and white. I say too bad for them, to limit yourself and the films you watch is to miss out on a few of the best films of all time. If you object to black and white you’ve missed out on such brilliant films as Citizen Kane and Casablanca. If you object to silent films then you’ve missed out on the hilarity of most Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton films, not to mention the emotional intensity of classic silents such as Broken Blossoms and Passion of Joan of Arc. If you choose to limit yourself then you are a fool and I pity you’ve limited the amount of spiritual experiences you could have through film.

Well known French actor Jean Dujardin  plays a silent film star known as George Valentine that seems as beloved as Chaplin in his early days. If Dujardin was alive in the 20’s he likely would’ve been one of the greatest silent film stars of all time Valentine has a smile that dazzles the world and an ego big enough to fill any room. but a voice that is extremely lackluster for Hollywood during the transitional era from silence to sound.

 Indeed after  1927’s The Jazz Singer’s revolutionary success with using sound in film, the film industry decided to abandon  silence. Therefore anybody who was not able to speak in the proficiency needed or who refused to accept the change lost their career and in some cases became horribly broke. There are some exceptions, like Charlie Chaplin who was able to make silent films until the late thirties, but this was because of his enormous success and wealth, eventually he decided to transition into sound.  He has nightmares about this, in-fact a brilliant scene in this film is his nightmare. He dreams that everything is making a sound but him, he can hear some girls laughing in the distance but when he screams no words come out. George Valentine’s French accent made him unsuitable for American talkies, therefore he was cut. Left in a dumpy apartment with little money and only his dog Uggie to keep him company.

Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) meets George Valentine during an autograph signing. He takes a picture with her and she uses that to get a leg up in auditions. There seems to be a great romance between the two, the film shows a neat visual effect when Peppy is dancing with Valentine’s coat in his dressing room, it almost looks like Valentine is holding her.  While Valentine’s career is sinking from the transition of silent to sound, Peppy’s career  is rising. She is becoming the next big star, an almost Marilyn Monroe kind of figure. There is a neat shot in the film where both Valentine and Miller meet on a staircase, Valentine is going down the stairs while Peppy is going up, this is very symbolic of their status in their individual careers.

One of The Artist’s strengths is the simplistic story, its plot is somewhat similar to Singin in the Rain but different enough to make the film unique. There are many memorable shots and great edits, one of the edits which occurs later in the film (discussing it would spoil the film) is perhaps the greatest edit I have seen in any film ever made.  The score is beautiful, certainly adds comedic value as well as emotional intensity. I would argue that Bernard Herrmann’s noticeable Vertigo piece is better in The Artist for creating a certain mood that the film it was originally made for.

In conclusion, The Artist is a brilliant homage to silent era film. It’s incredibly refreshing to see a mainstream silent film made in 2011, it was astounding to see this silent film win the Best Picture Oscar at the Academy Awards. I hope that the success of The Artist brings a wave of silent films, or at least inspires a generation of people to watch films older than their grandmothers. I’ve seen it at least six times since it has been released and plan to see it much more. Praise it! 5/5

Antichrist Review- by Michael Carlisle

 Title: Antichrist
Year: 2009
Director: Lars Von Trier
Country: Denmark
Language: English

Lars Von Trier’s Antichrist is definitely in the running for the most controversial film of the 21^st Century. Von trier, known for his dark and rather depressing film has topped himself through this film, what else could you expect from a film called Antichrist? This film is not for the weak of heart yet should not be judged on the images alone. The conflict in this film is not supernatural, but it is within the minds of the two main characters, known only as “he” and “she”.  It is about two people who lose all common sense and moral values, it is about people who become the embodiment of evil. It is about the nature of grief, and how horribly life can get if grief is not dealt with appropriately.

He  is played by Willem Dafoe (Last Temptation of Christ), She is played by Charlotte Gainsbourg (Melancholia).  Their problem is established during the prologue, perhaps the most well made and edited scene in all of Von Trier’s films, when He and She are distracted passionately making love while their infant son crawls out of his crab, walks towards and open window and falls to his death.  This moment is their fall from grace. She becomes engulfed in guilt because of this incident and falls into a depression so bad that she needs to be hospitalized. He insists that she leave the hospital and he cure her himself, he is full of the sin of pride. She is full of the sin of despair.  The film has three stages: Grief, Pain and Despair.

Grief is the first stage of this film, it is perhaps the most medically accurate of the three stages. He and She attempt  to help themselves get through their loss instead of accepting it and moving on. They punish themselves for having sex while their infant was on the verge of death. She, like many victims of grief, mentally harms herself. He detaches himself from this problem, he is no longer the father who lost his son but his wife’s psychologist. Her problems with grief is something that he has to deal with. He inflicts psychological harm to her by exposing her deepest self issues at a time when it is not necessary. Willem Dafoe was once being tormented by evil self doubting voices in Martin Scorsese’s  The Last Temptation  of Christ, now he has become the evil voice.

All this psychological pain He inflicts on She leads to the second chapter: Pain. This chapter is a critic’s feast as it is the most controversial part of the film. They arrive at their cabin named Eden in a remote forest  habited by normal looking creatures, such as a deer and a fox , that are quite unusual and possessed. The fox tears himself apart saying “chaos reigns”. Indeed chaos does reign in this chapter, as does it reign when grief isn’t taken care of properly. Here we go from mental violence to shocking and explicit physical violence. The rage built inside She from her grief reaches its boiling point and she snaps. 

Is this “torture porn?” Is this merely Von Trier’s attempt to be  shocking? I feel, though the violence goes a bit too far, it certainly is within reason. Sex destroyed their lives, sex killed their only child. In order for her pain to stop, perhaps she needs to rid of anything that reminds her of this day. Still I feel “pain” is not as intelligently made as “grief”. Still I find it very hard to watch the film all the way through because of this “pain” chapter.

Not all movies can ignore Mr. Potter

Von Trier has made a very honest film with Antichrist, writing this film when he was in an incredible state of depression and not sure if he would ever make a film again. It reflected his own feelings towards mankind as he believed that it was capable of doing great harm towards one another. Antichrist seems like a perfect title for this film as Von Trier’s own thoughts were Anti-Christ, anti-love. As much as we would like to see a film about  a couple comforting each other over the loss of a child, we must not ignore the reality that not all couples will do that. A few couples will be like the main characters in this film and harm each other until there is nothing to harm. Our world is full of great hope and great despair, most films show us only great hope. I feel that it is helpful to show a film of great despair, because only when we face evil head on can we overcome it.

In conclusion, I feel Antichrist will be loved and hated because of the violence in this film. I’ve heard many people tell others to watch the film because of its graphic nature, I’ve heard others dismiss the film because of the same reason. While I am not impressed with the violence in this film and while I do think it can take away from the intelligent observations on grief, I don’t think this film should be judged based on the violence.  Watch the film because it contains a very thoughtful investigation into the nature of grief and how things can go wrong if grief isn’t treated properly. 3.5/5