Mulan Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Mulan
Year: 1998
Country: US
Language: English

 Be a man! Mulan has elements of the typical Disney film (brave heroine, cute animal sidekicks) but tends to stray into material that is much more epic, adventurous and mature. When one thinks of animated films they often think of content specifically made for children, I assure you that this film is much more suited to an adult audience than small children as very few small children can comprehend the messages Mulan attempts to send to its audience. Often under-rated and criticized for it's gender stereotyping, though these types of critics have clearly missed the message of the entire film, Mulan is not only worthy of the prestigious "Disney Vault" honor but it is worthy of being declared one of the best animated films of all time.

Disney's Mulan is based on a Chinese folk tale about a courageous Chinese teenage girl who disguises herself as a boy to fight the invading Huns. The merciless Shan-Yu leads these huns, as they sweep the Great Wall of China. This alarms the emperer who calls up all able men to defend the kingdom. Mulan's father is an old and frail man but he decides that he must "be a man" and protect his country, throwing down his crutch in exchange for a sword. Mulan steals the family sword to save her father from certain death, summons the family ancestors for aid, and secretley goes in his place.

And Lennon. The world needs more Lennon

Mulan is often heavily criticized for its gender stereotyping. There have been plenty of Youtube videos about how Disney screws up our gender expectations within the pivitol learning years of our lives. This film is frequently featured in these videos, usually compared with the clip of the scene in which "Be a man" is sung. This couldn't be farther from the truth, if any Disney film defies gender stereotyping it's Mulan. Mulan defies convention! Throughout the film we are greeted by incredibly manly characters, who have an ego as massive as their arms. They want a "girl worth fighting for", they want to "be a man". Yet these manly characteristics get them nowhere. If it wasn't for Mulan's intelligence these "men" would have died in battle very early in the film. Her small  friend  Mushu, played by the quick witted Eddie Murphy, is also an example of how the film defies gender stereotyping. He is a dragon, yet so petite that everybody thinks of him as a lizard, however what he lacks in strength he makes up for in humor and intelligence. The world doesn't need "tough" men, the world needs intelligent, compassionate and funny men.


The film also has the conventional "be yourself" attitude. Defy the matchmaker, defy societal standards, dress as a boy, and choose your own career.When Mulan is forced to act the gender stereotype (dress pretty, walk nicely, serve men) she is very unhappy with herself. She finds herself asking "When will my reflection show who I am inside?" A question, I think, a lot of transsexual, transgender and in the closet homosexual people are asking themselves. Why stay in the closet? Why not be yourself no matter the consequence. If you cannot accept yourself then who will? Of course, this is MUCH easier said than done. Mulan also had to defeat a whole hun army to get her father to accept him. I personally wish that Mulan was a lesbian, the relationship with Shang is a little too conventional for this unconventional film. It would only benefit from the change in sexual orientation, though I can understand if Disney didn't due to the controversy that would ensue.

In conclusion, Mulan is an unconventional and compelling film that deserves its place among the greats. There are songs like "Be a man" and "Reflection" that are incredibly memorable. It has great heart and has great thoughts about defying gender tradition. Mulan teaches that women are capable of doing greater thingss that the average "brawny" man. It also teaches that men do not need to be strong to make a difference as well. Combining chinese folk tale and American storytelling, this film is a funny, daring and enthralling experience. 3.5/5

Moonrise Kingdom Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Moonrise Kingdom

Year: 2012
Director: Wes Anderson
Country: US
Language: English

Rare is there a bad film starring either Frances McDormand  (Fargo) or Bill Murray (Groundhog Day). Even rarer is to see a bad film made by Wes Anderson (Royal Tenenbaums). If you have come to see Moonrise Kingdom to see a bad film, then I question your sanity and assure you that you will be pleasantly disappointed. The mind of Wes Anderson is quite interesting. The way he deals with people, emotions and confrontations is incredibly imaginative and humorous.  Everything that transpires in the world of Moonrise Kingdom  is quite magical and inspiring. It left me in awe, and made me wish I had more adventures as a child. Now I thirst for the adventures I’ve failed to have.

The story is set on the island of Prospero in 1965. I think placing the story in this period in time is very important for the film. It’s before the boom of technology and after the plight of the first two World Wars. It gives us a nostalgic feeling for every living generation, even those born far after the sixties yearn to understand what it was like to live in a “simpler” time. Indeed, perhaps the feeling of simplicity and nostalgia make room for the plentiful emotion that is captured throughout this film.

Strangely, the only people who seem to live on this island are the people involved in the story. Suzy (Kara Hayward) lives with her family in a lighthouse near a scout camp where her boyfriend Sam (Jared Gilman) seems to live.  Sam is an orphan, solemn behind oversized eyeglasses, an expert in scouting and seems to be the most popular kid in his scout camp. Suzy is a troublesome yet innocent dreamer who has a soft spot for books. They both met the previous Summer and have been great pen pals ever since. However, the boredom in their lives has them searching for something for meaningful. So they plot a sort of jailbreak from their lives during which they could have an adventure out from under the thumbs of adults.

Perhaps Wes Anderson is making a strong point with this film. As time goes by children are expected to handle adult responsibilities at a younger and younger age. The boys scout camp is designed to give children adult responsibilities and make them feel like adults yet be treated like children towards everybody else. Therefore any child who acts like a child, Sam, is ridiculed by the seemingly more “responsible” children. Anderson shows us the beauty of being a child, the ability to go on amazing adventures without a care in the world. Anderson shows us the innocence of being a child. Sam & Suzy’s love is pure and simple, unlike the “love” between the adults. Anderson also shows us the ridiculousness of adults who try to give their children too much responsibility. Sam is an orphan child, when he leaves the camp his foster parent says he is no longer welcome. Sam is not an adult who can survive on his own, he needs  an adult...or does he? In Moonrise Kingdom it seems like the children know how to survive better than the adults.

Bill Murray, Anderson’s go to guy, is the perfect example in this film of an adult who needs to get in touch with his child side. His eyes, his rather old eyes, look upon the world with concern, melancholy and disappointment. The film seems to be about the melancholy of adulthood, the joy of childhood. Sam’s escape seems like a brave attempt to be rid of the responsibilities that lie ahead. The island Sam is on is not a large island but he uses his knowledge to build quite an extraordinary hiding spot. One on a cove, which they call “Moonrise Kingdom”. They sit side by side with youthful innocence, understanding that maturity and possible melancholy is around the corner.

In conclusion, Moonrise Kingdom seems to remind us to not forget our youth. To not get caught up in adult life and to let ourselves be free once in a while. There is still time for innocent romance, there is still time for great adventures. We MUST not let ourselves be overcome with responsibility and mediocrity. We MUST have fun and create stories that will last generations.  Somehow I almost forgot this, somehow I thought my “adventures” were through. The truth is, they have just begun. Praise it! 4/5

The Game Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: The Game
Year: 1997
Director: David Fincher
Country: US
Language: English

For many years I have felt that David Fincher was an overrated, un-impressive hack. The first review I wrote for Piss on It was Fincher's Fight Club, which I called "a mediocre film that celebrates fascism and glorifies violence" and "masturbation material for angry teenagers and testosterone filled men." While I stand by my review of that  film, because I still believe it to be true, Fincher's The Game has made me strongly reconsider my feelings for the director.

First off, the film is very technically well made. You can tell that Fincher is a master of his craft. The film has a dark look, a love for shadows. The pacing of the film, the lighting, the cinematography and the score all contribute greatly to the paranoid and distressing mood of the film. The Game is ingeniously well written, the dialogue adds depth to each and every character. As the plot progresses so does our worry for the main character Nicholas Van Orton, who may not be in a game at all, but in an assassination plot. This film is not for the weak of heart.

The great Michael Douglas plays the main character known as Nicholas Van Orton in this film. He rich man in obsessive control of his life and the lives of people around him. People practically paralyze in fear due to

He can also play men about to get stabbed

 the way lays his demands on them. Van Orton lives alone in an enormous mansion wherein his father committed suicide at the same age his son is now. He is incredibly lonely and at risk of following in his father's depressive footsteps, we can clearly see this when he celebrates his birthday by eating a cheeseburger and watching CNN by himself. Michael Douglas is the perfect actor for this role. He has the natural look of an intelligent and powerful man, his film resume which includes classics like The China Syndrome and Fatal Attraction proves that he can also play very angry, frustrated and sad men.

The plot begins when Van Orton's younger brother Conrad (Sean Penn) visits him and announces a birthday present known as "The Game". This game is operated by a very shady establishment known as the Consumer Recreation Services. The Game never quite declares its rules or objectives, but soon it takes Van Orton into its grasp and makes life incredibly difficult. Conrad promises that the game will``make your life fun again,'' but the game seems to do everything but that.

Soon his life becomes a chaotic and disorienting mess. He finds himself paying for a trashed hotel room that he didn't even stay in. He finds himself blackmailed, his bank accounts are emptied. The chaos escalates when he is left for dead. Is this a game? or is it something much worse? Perhaps the game is a conspiracy hatched to steal all of his money. Regardless of what we think this is, we know that it's a nightmare for Van Orton. A once detached millionaire who has now become reduced to a stumbling, bumbling, desperate man on the run.

I only have two concerns about this film. How re-watchable is it? The film relies on the suspense of not knowing what is about to happen next. When you've already seen the film and know what's going to happen, doesn't that hurt the entire experience? I would definitley recommend this to anybody who likes, or wishes to study, paranoid thriller films as this is one of the best examples of it but I don't think I would watch it again. Another concern is the ending which seems like the most unrealistic and cheesy part of the film. While I like that it gives a film a good moral to end on, Van Orton's reaction seems implausible. Frankly, I'd be furious.

In conclusion, never doubt a film that stars Michael Douglas. He is one of the greatest actors of all time and doesn't seem to pick bad films to be in. The film stays true to its nightmarish paranoia until the very end. Even though the very end is somewhat contrived contrived this film is still one of the best thrillers of the 90's. I also give Fincher credit for creating this great film without the use of excessive violence. 3.5/5

The Great Dictator Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Great Dictator

Year: 1940
Director: Charlie Chaplin
Country: US
Language: English

When sound was on the brink of destroying the world, the most famous silent movie star decided to speak for the first time- against the injustice that seemed to be around every corner. In  1938, Charlie Chaplin decided  to put his career on the line and prepare a film about one of the most powerful monsters mankind has ever seen, Adolph Hitler.

Hitler has been a fan of Chaplin’s for many years, bearing Chaplin’s toothbrush moustache because of how well loved Chaplin was in Europe at that time. Hitler said himself that he would love it if Chaplin would play him in a film. Chaplin was not flattered by this comment, as he despised everything the nazi regime stood for.  However, this resemblance gave Chaplin a grand opportunity to make fun of the Fuhrer. The Great Dictator is a satire in which the dictator and a Jewish barber from the ghetto would be mistaken for each other. Chaplin’s first talkie spoke volumes to the people who were inspired by it as it was the highest-grossing of his career. However, as a consequence for speaking the truth, it would cause him great difficulties and indirectly lead to his long exile from the United States.

Piss on Wizard of Oz!

A lot of people did not want Chaplin to make this film. In 1938 Hitler wasn’t recognized as the essence of evil like he is known today. Anti-Semitism in America was rampant, some welcomed Hitler’s policy of exterminating the Jews. The famous, rich and powerful Henry Ford was a well known Nazi sympathizer and would often send Hitler gifts. America also preached a policy of non-intervention in the already war-torn Europe. The people who had a strong dislike for Hitler before America entered the war were considered “communists”. Film industries would attempt to avoid the nazi topic alltogether by making feel good fantasies like 1939's Wizard of Oz.  Even the speech at the end of The Great Dictator was controversial for pre-World War II America. Though many people at the time felt this film was un-welcomed, today we receive it with open arms. However, if Chaplin knew what we know now about the horrible persecution of the Jewish people in the Holocaust, Chaplin would have not have made the film. Thus it would’ve been much harder for Americans to rid their selfish & often anti-semetic ways.

Oddly a lot of Chaplin’s well known films are comedies based of unfortunate events. The Gold Rush is based on the Donner party, a bunch of people who got trapped in the snow and had to eat each other. Modern Times was about how industrialization was turning men into machines. The Great Dictator is about one of the most evil villains in history. The film's mockery of Hitler got it banned in Spain, Italy and neutral Ireland, but in America and elsewhere, it played with an impact that, today, may be hard to imagine. The universally loved “Tramp” had transformed into a courageous satire of the devil himself.

The plot of this film is quite simple. The hero, a barber-soldier in World War I, saves the life of a German pilot named Schultz and flies him to safety, not knowing the person he saved was the enemy. Their crash-landing gives the barber amnesia, and for 20 years he doesn't know who he is. Then he recovers and returns to his barber shop in the country of Tomania only to discover that the dictator Hynkel has come to power under the double cross instead of the swastika. Hynkel’s storm troopers are at full throttle, terrorizing jews and smashing up windows. The barber is in love with a woman named Hanna, played by Chaplin’s then wife Paulette Godard, but unfortunately love doesn’t save them from the tragedies of a concentration camp.  As luck would have it Hynkel ‘s boat doesn’t float, he then is mistaken for the barber, and locked into the camp just as the barber and his friend escape with Hynkel’s uniform. With uniform on the barber is identical to the dictator.

What would a Chaplin film be without the ingenious gags? “Ah the big booben!” Chaplin obviously did a lot of study and preparation for this film as he gets Hitler’s actions and movements down to a tee. He speaks gibberish, but in the same tone as hitler, and mixes up a few non-sensical English words. “Cheeze n daz crackers!”. Interestingly enough his mockery doesn’t just include Hitler, there is also a bumbling and stumbling resemblance of Italian dictator Mussolini in the mix. There is a funny narration, confusing saluting and many other hilarious jokes mixed in to this film.

All this in the 1940’s would’ve come off as incredibly controversial and, dare I say it, ballsy. Few people in America would dare insult the Nazi regime. Chaplin launched his own comedic torpedo at Hitler and it proved to be a critical hit. It received Oscar nominations, for picture, actor, supporting actor screenplay and music. Interestingly enough, today the film is not as well known as the ending speech of the film which now has a separate Youtube video complete with the soundtrack from 2010’s Inception.

This speech both hurts and helps the film. It is incredibly powerful  but out of the blue and doesn’t fit with the comedic aspect of the film at all. However, at the time somebody needed to say the words Chaplin did in  

The Great Dictator. It was a necessity that could not wait, his goal was not only to bring hope and joy to people but to help bring action against Hitler. Though the speech doesn’t really fit, it has done wonders for generations and generations of people. He made his statement and it found a large audience.

In conclusion, The Great Dictator is a funny and incredibly brave film by one of the world’s greatest actor directors.  When the world was being consumed by a great voice of evil, Chaplin knew silence wouldn’t suffice. He used his money, influence and genius to speak volumes. This film was essential  in reducing American anti-semitism and increasing funding to Jewish refugee centers. It was also essential in helping America see the light through the thick veil of darkness. Chaplin is the embodiment love, and this film proves it. Praise it! 5/5

Men in Black III Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Men in Black III
Year: 2012
Country: U.S
Language: English

Rare is the sequel that is far better than the original.  15 years after the original and 10 years after the subpar sequel, a talking pug couldn't save that disaster of a film, Men in Black III decides to up the ante by introducing time travel into this franchise. The film history of time travel has been filled with a lot of flops (Burton's Planet of the Apes) and a lot of gold (Back to the Future Trilogy) so it's completely understandable if you were worried that this film might be a flop due to its subject. Along with the "flop fear" in time travel movies there may also be great confusion due to huge plot holes, inconsistencies and unanswered paradoxes. I assure you that Men In Black III does a very good job at making their time travel as less confusing as possible.

Incase you are not familiar with the premise of the Men in Black Trilogy, because 15 years have passed since the original began, I will reintroduce you.There is a secret agency assigned to keeping track of all aliens on Earth. They dress in black and thus are known as the "Men in Black" even though there are a few women in this secret service agency. In fact one of the head supervisors is a woman, so I'm not quite sure why they are called "Men in Black" in the first place.Whatever, they're undercover even though they dress exactly like secret service agents...so they're not "really" undercover.

Under the supervision of female supervisor Agent O (Emma Thompson). Veteran Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) and his witty sidekick Agent J (Will Smith) a critical emergency occurs when Borris "The Animal" (Jermaine Clement), a wildly ugly alien, escaped a maximum security prison...located on the moon! He is the last surviving member of his race, he's not only mad because he can't reproduce but because Agent K shot off one of his arms in the past. His solution? To go back to the past and kill Agent K before it can happen. You can already see the time paradox.  Frankly if I was him I'd also save the last female of my soon to be extinct species, but ok, his arm is more important. Guess he's not that smart either.

Men in Black III simplifies time travel complexity.Agent J  tries to travel back in time to prevent Boris the Animal from killing K. This results in a Young K existing in the same time period as J, who is the same age he started as, so the old fella and his sidekick are now equals. Infact Agent J should rank slightly higher than Agent K, but Agent J isn't technically a "Man in Black" yet.

The star of this film is not Will Smith, but Josh Brolin. Brolin plays the young Agent K and is uncannily like Tommy Lee Jones. The way Brolin talks, his facial features and even the way he walks resemble Tommy Jones so much that you forget it's a different actor playing the young Agent K. If Brolin's performance as George Bush in W didn't convince you that he was a great actor, then his performance in this film definitley should. Another interesting actor in this film is Michael Stuhlberg. He plays Gizmo, which is this films main comic relief character.He's an alien who has the ability to see all the possible variations resulting from various events during time travel. "Uh oh" he keeps saying "This is the one where..." I would love to see more of him if there are any more Men in Black films, I'm glad they decided to get rid of the talking pug.

In conclusion, while there is a plot hole resulting from a fight during the spaceship launch on Cape Kennedy, how could millions have not seen them? Men in Black III was a rather simple but fun film that had an intensely emotional closing scene which added great depth to the characters. Even if you were turned off by the first two films, I still say that you shouldn't miss out on this enjoyable ride. 3.5/5

The Hunger Games Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Hunger Games

Year: 2012
Country: U.S
Language: English

I have decided to re-review The Hunger Games as I believe my first review, in which I gave the film a 1 out of 5 rating, was a bit too harsh. I denounced it not because of the quality of the film, or the film’s message, but because I personally did not like it. I felt that it lacked intelligence and depth, it failed to discuss anything about the nature of humanity. After much research and thought, I realized that I was wrong. Hunger Games not only is an important film, especially to teenagers, that presents a very intelligent conversation about humanity, but the plot is extremely plausible.

After the existing nations of North America are destroyed by catastrophe, a civilization named Panem rises from the ruins. It's ruled by a vast, wealthy Capitol and surrounded by 12 “districts. As the story opens, the annual ritual of the Hunger Games is beginning; each district must supply a “tribute” of a young woman and man, and these 24 finalists must fight to the death in a forested “arena” where shaky hidden cameras capture every move. The result is a television production that  holds the nation spellbound and keeps the citizens content. The story centers on a Romeo named Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and a Juliet named Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence). although one or both are eventually required to be dead, romance is quite possible.

We are supposed to read The Hunger Games as a parable for the present. In which the rich, brilliantly satire in this film, are careless and greedy. Human lives do not matter to them, as long as they get their paycheck by the end of the day. The masses are hooked on television, drawn to it and numbed by it. They have bloodlust in their hearts and do not seem to care that 24 teenagers are sacrificed every year. Indeed WE are hooked on television, especially reality tv. People  are obsessed with the idiotic antics of Jersey Shore and various other shows. We also have a bigger blood lust than ever before. Films like Saw would never have been released in theatres thirty years ago. Is Hunger Games a prediction of what could happen when our love of violence and reality tv combine?

A great read!

A very important theme in Hunger Games is the issue of resistance to dehumanization. The main characters got almost through the whole”game” without killing anyone and did not turn on each other like they were supposed to. They also did not participate in the bloodlust many others fell into. This is a pretty strong message, especially in today's world. No matter how bad or extreme things get, we still have our values and we do not have to do things we believe are unethical. There is always a choice. Indeed, in real life resistance to dehumanization saved many Jewish people in the concentration camps during Hitler’s reign.  The Nazis subjected the Jews  to great humiliation and tried everything they could to  rid them of a “self”, to make them feels like animals. Those who were not strong enough eventually acted like animals and therefore died. The Jews that kept their humanity were able to observe the world around them in an intelligent matter and thus could make intelligent decisions that would save their lives. An Italian-Jewish man named Primo Levi did not fall victim to dehumanization techniques and therefore could rationally distinguish between the right line and wrong line (the ones sent to the gas chamber).

A dislike I had from my original reviews is that I felt the “evil” dystopian society was either not so evil or unrealistic because they let two teenagers bend the rules instead of killing them outright and because they did not have complete control of their population. However, I was reminded again of Nazi Germany, I bring them up because they’re probably the closest thing to a “dystopian society” we have had so far. In some cases there was some dissent in Nazi Germany. In the mid 30’s the Nazi regime drove its euthanasia program underground after thousands of Germans protested against it and there was a small group of German women who took to the streets in Hitler's Germany and managed to get their husbands (who were Jewish) released. These actions didn't make a huge dent in the colossal atrocities of the regime but showed that in some cases it was willing to bend, or at least show some mercy. Like Panem, (the society in Hunger Games) Nazi Germany also didn’t have complete control of their citizens. There were many underground groups dedicated the  destruction of the regime and ultimate assassination of Hitler. There were over 300 assassination attempts against the Fuhrer, many people didn’t buy into the Regime and fled, others didn’t agree with the anti-Jew policy and kept Jewsih people to keep them safe.

Perhaps there is more action than discussion, but in a society that thrives on “action” films I suppose the best way to get these messages across is by action. I’m not sure if it’s good to make a very violent film that has a very anti-violent message but I guess it’s too late. As long as people gain something from this, and see the morals within it, then who am I to argue?  The film does feel too long but it does have decent acting. 3.5/5