The Shining Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Shining
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Year: 1980
Country: U.S
Language: English

After 2001: A Space Odyssey I thought Kubrick had lost his touch. Films like A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut left me un-impressed and un-inspired despite them being praised as "great" films by just around every one I knew. I've heard of The Shining, but was very hesitant to watch it given my history of disliking Kubrick's post 2001 work, however for an English class I was asked to compare Stephen King's book to Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation noting the similarities and differences between the two. Expecting the worst, I rented the film and popped it into the dvd player. What I found is an incredibly effective "horror" film about madness, isolation and alcoholism. Even though King's book was great, Kubrick's film was far superior.

The Shining starts with a breathtaking helicopter landscape shot of a lone vehicle driving along a mountainside. Creepy music plays, giving us a sense that this is not a happy roadtrip film, this will likely end in the death of more than one character. Jack Nicholson plays the foolish Jack Torrance, a writer who thinks isolating himself and his family in a hotel located miles from the nearest town will help him with his writing. He wishes to be the caretaker for the Overlook Hotel in the winter, despite his employer telling him that the former caretaker went insane and killed his wife and two daughters.

Being isolated with family for the winter wouldn't be that bad, if there is a healthy family dynamic. Unfortunately the Torrances seem anything but healthy. Danny has a friend named Tony, who apparently lives in Danny's mouth and speaks in a lower register. We hear Jack's wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) tell a doctor that his father once accidentally broke his son's arm while drunk, She is quick to make excuses for her alcoholic husband and likely is withholding more information. Was this an isolated incident? Unlikely. Danny may have been abused by his father on more than one occasion, this would explain Danny's odd behavior. Wendy seems like a passive enabling woman, a servant for her husband and a friend for her son. When Jack and Wendy are among people they seem like a healthy couple but when alone in the hotel it almost seems like they're estranged. Jack sits at his typewriter all day attempting to create a masterpiece, Wendy watches movies with her son. They barely speak and when they do Jack is usually yelling at his wife to shut up so he can finish his work. The shocking revelations of what he was working on show insight into his madness.

Yes madness. There are ghosts in the film but they are not real, they are a product of a mind gone mad. Consider the fact that whenever Jack seems to be talking to a "ghost", regardless of where his coversation takes place, he is always facing a mirror and the mirror is always at ace level. Is he talking to a ghost or his own reflection? Jack Torrance is an alcoholic who likes to say the he hasn't had a drink in 5 months, that he is better than the drink but his mind speaks louder than his words. Many of his encounters with ghosts include drinking, he drinks with the bartender ghost then acts as if he actually was drinking. The same anger and self destructive behaviors arise. The insatiable thirst for booze combined with isolation and the frustration of trying to make his novel perfect make a dangerous cocktail.

I appreciate the changes Kubrick made while adapting Stephen King's novel into a film. Some are fairly noticeable like Jack freezing to death in a maze instead of being trapped in the hotel while it blows up or Dick Hallorann (Scatman Crothers) being murder via axe in back instead of saving the family and being the hero. Others are small and subtle like Wendy smoking instead of Jack or Wendy using a real knife instead of a butter knife to defend herself against Jack. These differences, big and small, are very important and definitely ensure that the film is superior compared to the novel and much more realistic. Kubrick is the king of detail. I also appreciate the homage to Swedish Victor Sjostrom's 1921silent classic The Phantom Carriage. Yes the most memorable scene in Kubrick's grand horror film, the scene in which Jack puts an axe through the door and shouts "Here's Johnny!" isn't original but it's still wonderful.

In conclusion, The Shining is one of those rare films that are better than its original source material. Filled with small subtle details that make the film great, it was directed by a master. The acting by Jack Nicholson is phenomenal as well as Shelly Duvall's acting. The cinematography, pacing, editing and soundtrack is top notch. Aside from the somewhat confusing ending, I see no faults with this film. The stories behind the making of The Shining are incredibly interesting, Scatman Crothers had to re-shoot his scene a record 160 times! Shelley Duvall was nearly driver to madness by Kubrick's demands on the actress. An effective horror film and a decent study on the nature of alcoholism. Praise it! 4/5

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
Director: Milos Forman
Year: 1975
Country: US
Language: English

There is no doubt that One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest has stood the test of time. After thirty seven years critics and casual filmgoers alike find themselves drawn to Jack Nicholson's portrayal of a rebellious man sent to a mental institution for "evaluation". When I first saw the film I was amazed and inspired. I grew to love the acting of Jack Nicholson and I would tell all my friends that they MUST see it. I thought I was doing some service to them, however after watching it again and really thinking about it, I realize that it was a mistake. Through the following paragraphs I will explain why I completely changed my mind about the One Flew Over the Cuckoo\s Nest. 

This Oscar winning film stars the great Jack Nicholson as McMurphy, a 38 year old rebel who just wants to let loose and live free. Sent to an institution to be evaluated after assaulting an underage girl, McMurphy feels the mental institution is a prison for the mentally disabled and he will use all the energy he has to fight against it. His enemy is Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher in an Oscar Winning performance) who supposedly contains all the qualities we fear within a female authority figure. She is stern and strict, less about humanity and more about duty and righteousness. She is calm, assertive, impassive and inflexible to the rules. The exact opposite of McMurphy and obviously is set up to be the villain of this place.

Wait? What? Stern, strict, dutiful, calm, assertive, impassive and righteous? This is the villain? They're in a mental hospital! The nurse NEEDS to have those qualities in order to do her job without finding herself in the institution as a patient. She is only looking out for people's needs. She needs to be strict and lay down the rules. She needs to be inflexible when it comes to schedule. She is trying to make the patients' lives a little better so they can be safe enough to leave as some of them  are not supposed to stay there their whole lives. She NEEDS to create a safe environment, she NEEDS to create routine. Sure she could create a strong emotional connection with her patients but maybe she's not supposed to do that, maybe it's not the best thing for the patient's health . However, McMurphy is pissing all over any kind of progress with his mindless rebellion.

Words of a man with no mental health education

I dislike how Murphy is made into the hero of the film. What kind of a hero is he? He uses mental patients as cheerleaders against Nurse Ratched and completely disregards their mental health. He sees mental disorders as a choice rather than an illness, something that can be cured if you want it to be cured. "You're no crazier than the average asshole" he says, thinking he just said something intelligent regarding mental health. He uses them for comedy fodder and self gratification. He also has a strong hate towards women. Think of all the women mentioned in this film, who are they? The girl he assaulted, the "evil" Nurse Ratched and his two prostitutes he brings into the building. McMurphy seems like the most insane person in the ward, his complete disregard for everybody and everything around him harms the entire system put in place and like a rabid dog, he must be put down in order to ensure the safety of others.

I understand the "message" of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest which is "rebel against authority" but I still think it could have done a much better job at making mental illness realistic. Every mental patient is one dimensional, they all seem a little odd but they all act very similar: slow with a hint of speech or mind problems. Unfortunately their illnesses are occasionally  used in comedic fashion, to make McMurphy seem like a fun guy to be with. I think this film hurts the mentally ill, by placing stereotypes left and right.The system is making them insane! Umm...no. The system is trying to make them better so they can actually live in the real world. The system is strict because it needs to be.

In conclusion, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a poor man's "rebellion" film. It attempts to make villains out of honest people, and heroes out of jackasses. While it is amazingly acted by Jack Nicholson and Louise Fletcher, it is a film that fails on so many levels. A film seen by so many people needs a more realistic approach on mental illness, otherwise it will skew people's perception of mental illness and slow down scientific progress. I'm not sure why critics like this film so much, maybe they buy into the idea of McMurphy as a hero. Looking at it in an analytical/progressive sense I feel that McMurphy has done more harm than good. Piss on it! 1/5

Ferris Bueller's Day Off Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Director: John Hughes
Year: 1986
Country: U.S
Language: English

While my grandfather has seen a wealth of films and has seen many of the highly praised greats like The Godfather and Raging Bull in theaters, he as always consistently said that his favorite film is Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Not just because of the "Don't stress yourself out" message but because of its surprising anti-authorty messages as well. I too have seen this film quite a number of times and I completely agree. It has similar messages to wrongly praised films like Fight Club and A Clockwork Orange, but does it without the use of sympathizing with a rapist or having angry men beat each other up while shouting cheesy phrases at each other. It is also highly accessible for all ages.

Ferris Bueller's Day Off is an innocent, heartwarming movie with a load of important messages. The first is obvious, have fun. "Life goes by so fast, that if you don't stop to look around, you might miss it" says Ferris Bueller (Matthew Broderick), a teenager in High School who skips school because he wants to have fun and wants to help his best friend Cameron (Alan Ruck) get out of his shell. Indeed he does have a good time, stopping by the many interesting places in Chicago like the Art Institute, the Board of Trade, Wringley Field, Sears Tower and get to sing "Twist and Shout" in glorious fashion at the American-German day. The film recognizes the fact that far too many people take themselves too seriously and are corrupted by greed and a need for power and control. I've worked for many places, mainly because I quit, because my bosses were all jerks. Why can't people learn to be laid back once in a while?

The film also has a very anti-authoritative message. Every adult in this film is a bumbling idiot who seem to be constantly tricked by Bueller . Do they fail to catch Bueller because Bueller is very smart or because the authorities are very stupid. I would say the latter. This suggest that there is no need to have a crippling fear of authority because authority doesn't really mean anything. You can skip school if you want and you likely might not get in trouble. The film also recognizes that authority can also do more harm than good. Cameron's dad is a controlling brute of a man who doesn't let his son do anything. The result is a spineless teenager who fakes illness in order to get out of going to school and getting bossed around by more cruel authority figures. However, unlike Bueller, Cameron fakes illness he just stays in bed all say, afraid to leave the prison of his house in which his father held him captive. The scene in which Cameron destroys his father's red ferrari, is an applaud worthy act of defiance. It shows his progression, it shows that we can overcome the tyrants in out lives.

Ferris Bueller's Day Off is a great study on materialism and the negative effects of it. Cameron's father has beautiful exquisite cars that are like art to him; They must only be looked at, never touched. He seems to value his car more than his son. Bueller's father seems like a workaholic, focusing more on increasing his cash flow more than his son's love. If he would have been more focused on family perhaps he could have caught Ferris skipping school, as there were scenes when his son was literally right behind him. Their focus on material gain has alienated them from their sons, much like the materialism in most families nowadays. Would this film be different if Bueller and his friends were as materialistic as their fathers? Yes. Instead of going out and exploring Chicago they would be stuck inside playing video games and ignoring their real problems. Ferris Bueller's Day Off shows how wonderful a day would be if we were not focused on gaining material posessions and our only goal was to go out and have fun. Indeed, the film is quite fun. I appreciate the charm that comes with this film, if it were more modern Ferris Bueller's Day Off might be a stoner comedy or a drunk outing. The family oriented nature of the film helps in creating a deep emotional connection with the characters/

In conclusion, Ferris Bueller's Day Off is one of the most charming anti-authority films I have seen. It is not bleak nor does it take itself too seriously, it is a fun emotional adventure that will inspire you to take off some days of school or work and have a memorable time. Explore the world and don't get too caught up in material gains. Defy authority, don't let overbearing bosses or teachers get the best of you. Even if you aren't a fan of family friendly films, I'm not, you will love this film. Praise it! 5/5

Annie Hall Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Annie Hall
Director: Woody Allen
Year: 1977
Country: U.S
Language: English

In 1977 Annie Hall was up for Best Picture at the 1977 Academy Awards, however nobody really expected it to win. The problem? Star Wars. The big budget Hollywood Blockbuster that became the highest grossing film of all time (not adjusting inflation). The Sci Fi epic changed the way major Hollywood studios wanted films to be made, not as intelligent art but as mindless blockbusters like Avatar. Why? Greed. It effectively ended the golden age of American movies. Star Wars promised to rule the cinematic world by winning every award possible, but one little film stood in its way. This film was Annie Hall

Unfortunately, Annie Hall is not as well known as Star Wars, but why? The characters are very human, they express real emotions and are almost far to intelligent for today's audiences. Characters driven by desires and emotions, they use references that would fly by most people. Though Annie Hall is built upon a brilliant screenplay that provides great dialogue and brilliant monologues. It is the opposite of its 1977 rival, where Star Wars was built on action, this film is built on talking. Everywhere the two characters known as Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) and Annie Hall (Diane Keaton) go there are constantly talking. About life, love and death.

This film was saved by editing. Originally it was 140 minute murder mystery. The editor of this film thought it was junk, cut 45 minutes of the original film and thus the Romantic Comedy genre was never the same again. Annie Hall stars Woody Allen as the neurotic stand up comedian Alvy Singer. Raised under a rollercoaster, he both hates and loves New York City, often expresses it with short witty lines of contempt, and has a various amount of relationship worries. Though it's ok, he sees a therapist for his anxieties. His love interest, Annie Hall (Diane Keaton) is a cute, intelligent, scatterbrained woman. She is at first eager in love, but then becomes disinterested and emotionally exhausted from her relationship with Alvy.

There are funny conversations, sad conversations, angry conversations and awkward conversations and all serve a great purpose, to analyze the average relationship. When Alvy and Annie meet each other for the first time, at a tennis match with friends, their conversation starts awkwardly like all conversations do but eventually builds up into something more. The dialouge is important and meaningful to understand the average relationship and the misunderstandings around language. Alvy says one thing and Annie gets upset, worrying about something that wasn't even mentioned in the conversation. It explains how "reading between the lines" in a relationship doesn't work all the time. It explores how important conversation is to the relationship and how interpretation can make or break it. It explores how crazy a relationship can be. You would think that since Alvy lived under a rollercoaster during his childhood he would be used to the ups and downs of life.

It also examines the breakup and  the death of a relationship. As Alvy says "Our relationship is like a shark, and I think what we have on out hands here is a dead shark". Unfortunately love tends to fade over time and unless you've found the right person your love will end. Alvy finds little comfort in the dating scene, making jokes that just don't connect with people. "I don't understand, is that a joke?" It is depressing yet truthful. Nobody wants to be dumped, but it happens to the best of people. He asks a question to the audience, breaking the fourth wall which he does throughout the film, why do we keep searching for relationships when we know that it'll be a rollercoaster of emotions? They're totally crazy, absurd and irrational but maybe it's better than being alone. The end scene is rather optimistic, a green signal at a stoplight as if to say "go for it", "don't be afraid to get the relationship you want."

In conclusion, I was always worried about getting into a relationship until I saw Annie Hall, like Alvy I always thought they were emotionally destructive and irrational. Even though I'm currently where Alvy is at the end of the film, I can't help but see that green light. Go for it! Life is odd but too short to worry about the many possible dramatic situations that can result from a relationship. The film is funny and obviously better than every romantic comedy after it. While most rom coms are about how to people fall in love, have an arguement, then fall in love again in a hopelessly cheesy way this is quite different. Annie Hall is a surprisingly accurate study on the North American relationship that just might inspire you to find the love of your life, or improve your current relationship. Praise it! 5/5

The Godfather Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Godfather
Director: Francis Ford Coppola 
Year: 1972
Country: U.S
Language: English

 Whenever I go to my grandparents house they are literally always watching The Godfather. I lived there for a month as a child and I swear they saw that film every second day.  They know the three hour gangster epic line by line and yet are still surprised by the way the film ends. I can say that I've seen director Francis Ford Coppola's masterpiece an upwards of 50x. I can even notice the most obscure homages to the film in other tv shows & movies. I swear the end of fourth season of Breaking Bad ended quite similar to The Godfather. While actor Marlon Brando was a great actor in the 1950's, he truly is something special when he portrays his character known as the mighty Don Corleone. I love the controversial Academy Award moment when Brando won "best actor" but refused to accept, instead and Indian lady told Hollywood that if they kept mocking Indians that they could shove it. That's not line for line, but I'd like to think it's close. .

The cinematography in this film is rather expressive. It's dark and uses lighting to highlight facial features. It makes the characters seem extremely important. Their gestures grand and exquisite. When we meet Don Corleone (Marlon Brando) for the first time we automatically know that he is the most powerful man in the story. When we meet Michael (Al Pacino) we assume that he has power but isn't the same man as his father. The Godfather is a high class mafia film that completely changed the public's outlook of the mafia business. While once they were seen as criminal scum, rats terrified of the law, we now see them as  prideful family where honesty, respect and loyalty are proud virtues. Who wouldn't want to be in a family this neatly wrapped?

Vito Corleone represents the moral sanity of this film. Under his watch he sees that his family is not exposed to the dirty underground world. that civilians aren't a part of the casualties, no women be held prisoner as a prostitute and no men shall fall under gambling addictions. He feels that drugs are a dirty man's game and that justice will be served equally and to those who deserve it. He's an honourable man, and when he dies we feel great sadness despite the fact that he likely has murdered a lot of people. Brando's performance as Vito, is really quite amazing. He uses props but does not depend on them, he embodies the character so well that we forget he's an actor. We think he's an old man playing himself, his body movements in regards to acting his character are some of the best I have ever seen.

The film is a study of the nature of power and how too much power can corrupt in the wrong hands. Vito is a smart man, he knows about what power can do to the soul and therefore he does his best to use his power for rightful justice and the good of the family, but what about his sons? What about Michael? At first Michael does not want to be in the family business, he wants to marry his loving girlfriend Kay (Diane Keaton) and raise a family outside of violence, but as his willingness to save his father from almost certain death increases, so does his lust for power. I'm not sure I can say more as it would spoil the film.

In conclusion, there's a good reason The Godfather is regarded as one of the greatest mafia films of all time. It's technically one of best films ever made and it completely changed the public's outlook on the crime organization If you liked The Sopranos at all, you owe it to yourself to see this. A stunning study on the nature of power and Marlon Brando's greatest onscreen role. References to this film are nearly everywhere. Watch this film or "I'll make you an offer you can't refuse". Praise it! 5/5

Wizard of Oz Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Wizard of Oz
Director: Victor Fleming
Year: 1939
Country: U.S
Langage: English

"Somewhere over the rainbow..." Wizard of Oz, like It's a Wonderful Life, seems to be one of those timeless movies that has been seen by generations among generations of people. By the age of ten I had seen this film at least ten times. It seems to always be a movie special on kid related television networks. A fantasy that both young and old enjoy, surprisingly I've never seen a kid complain at how old this film is. At 73 years old, it often baffles us with its surprising lack of age. Wizard of Oz is a film that sees boundaries and breaks them, laughs and then goes on its merry way.

Dorothy (Judy Gardland) is faced with a crisis, give up her dog or lose her farm. Any adult would pick the obvious decision, move the hell away from a sociopath that loves seeing children cry. However Dorothy cannot make such adult decisions, so she attempts to run away. Soon comes a monstrous Tornado, running back to speak to her family she ends up trapped in her home as it's picked up in the fierce wind. Enter head trauma. She wakes up to find herself in a mysterious colorful world in the strange new land of Oz. Accidentally murdering the Wicked Witch of the East she finds herself being worshiped by midgets and hunted down by the Witch of the West, which I find understandable as Dorothy did kill her sister and steal her shoes. Wouldn't you be upset? She meets adults in the land of Oz but they have enormous problems of their own. It isn't until Dorothy breaks bad and becomes an adult that she finally is able to come home.

While watching Wizard of Oz again, I kept saying aloud "Boy, these adults are really stupid!" Then it hit me with a bolt of lightning. That's the message of the film! Someday a child will be on their own, they won't have adults to guide them, they won't need adults to guide them. Children look up to adults as all knowing and all powerful, like the "great" Oz, but in reality adults are only human. They make mistakes and have troubles of their own. Wizard of Oz is about the transition from childhood to adulthood and the important decision a child must make. Dorothy must make all her decision on her own because the adults in charge of her well being are incredibly stupid. The midgets have insatiable bloodlust, the tinman has no heart, the lion has no courage, the scarecrow has no brain, the wicked witch of the west and the "good" witch can't keep their own personal rivalry to themselves without playing headgames with some poor little girl.

Judy Garland was perfect for the role of Dorothy, because like her character she had spent her childhood among foolish adults. MGM nutjobs who would shoot her full of speed to be prepped up for the morning and feed her tranquilizers so she could get a "good" rest. She had the perfect projection of a young lady who deperately wanted to escape. Vulnerable and uncertain, any other child star would be the death of this film, as they might approach the role with too much optimistic energy.

While the special effects are fairly noticeable, it helps create the dream-like structure of Oz. If the film was made with modern effects, it wouldn't have the same impact and emotion we feel. CGI these days either makes the film look too realistic or too cartoon-ish. This film's set is a positive medium of both. The simple story elements in this film, such as the want to go "over the rainbow" certainly is quite appealing to children. For anywhere away from home, their safe haven, is a thrilling adventure full of danger and fun. A child's imagination runs wild when they are anywhere but home. The use of colour and sepia tone to contribute to the film's story is quite brilliant and works really well though it might be lost on the children who likely don't notice the difference. I can only think of two films that have used this technique to heighten the story: Wizard of Oz and Schindler's List.

The only problem I have with this film is that 1939 was an uncertain time in the world. World War II had just begun, the nazis were taking out countries left and right. The horror of the concentration camps were becoming more and more known in America. I feel the studios had a certain responsibility to address these issues, but then again film is often used as escapism. Can I blame MGM from helping people escape from the horrors that were about to unfold? Not every film can be like Rules of the Game.

In conclusion, Wizard of Oz is a brillaint coming of age story about the transition from childhood to adulthood. It is a fantasy that will likely be seen by generations living a hundred years from now. Well made & well directed there is no wonder why this is regarded as one of the best films of the 1930's. While I'm sick of seeing this film, I have seen it over 20 times, I urge that anybody with a child to show this film to their kid.Praise it! 4.5/5

Taxi Driver Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Taxi Driver
Director: Martin Scorsese
Year: 1976
Country: US
Language: English

Taxi Driver was my introduction to the films of the great Martin Scorcese and boy was I surprise. It was like a hit to the gut, this introduction to a grimy imperfect New York City where creeps lurk and danger is around every corner. Never before have I seen such a well made, cold existential film about a loner and his obsession with being loved. This film was at the center of controversy when a man named John Hinkley Jr., a man who had watched Taxi Driver 15 times in a continuous loop, planned to mimic a scene from the film. This scene contained disturbed Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro) planning to kill a presidential candidate. Hinkley's motive was obsession. He had become obsessed with the young Jodi Foster, stalking her and trying to get her attention. He felt the best way to get her attention was to shoot Ronald Reagan, and so he did. Fortunately Reagan survived the attack and Hinkley is no longer allowed near Foster.

The film is a series of failed communications and attempts to belong, if Woody Allen had directed this film it would likely be one of his usual comedies, however Scorsese is at the helm and makes this very dark. "Are you talkin to me? Well I'm the only one here" this line haunts the drifter known as Travis Bickle as he searches for social interaction. His attempts at making friends are futile, when he actually gets a date he takes her to a porno theatre. When he makes friends with a child prostitute, she is scared off. We sympathize with this man, because we know what it feels like to be lonely.

Bickle is far from the heroes of previous films. Can we even call him a hero? I prefer not to. He is the exact opposite of what you would expect a good guy to be. It's different and I admire Scorsese for trying. Unlike most heroic fables, there is no damsel in distress. Bickle think there is, he sees a young prostitute (Jodie Foster) and he desperately wants to help. Why? Likely because he knows what the streets are like, he knows how alienated and lonely the prostitute will be if she continues her lifestyle. I think all of us have that "hero" instinct, we see something that might me a problem and we attempt to help people regardless of if they want our help or not.

Through Bickle's cab discussion we can see that there is something quite wrong with Bickle, and other people can see it too. He hates his city as much as he hates himselves. Through slow motion technique we can see the prostitutes and pimps that fill the streets as he drives by them. A Taxi Driver with insomnia, even when he speaks you can feel his disgust for the world around him. The people that enter his cab are just as shady, men who contemplate killing their wives. Men who have sex with diseased prostitutes in the back of his cab. Bickle's world is sad and unfortunately a mirror for many who view their world as dark and cruel. There are plenty of Travis Bickle's out there, misunderstood and waiting for the opportunity to connect and feel loved.

In conclusion, while Taxi Driver may be one of the darkest films I have seen, it serves for a great psychology lesson. It is about the nature of loneliness and alienation, what can happen to the soul and mind when one can't find a way to belong  There are likely a lot of themes I have missed in this review, but there are only a certain amount of times one can watch this film. Would I recommend it? Yes. But be sure to have some Ice cream and Chaplin films ready when you're done. Praise it! 4/5

It's a Wonderful Life Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: It's A Wonderful Life
Director: Frank Capra
Year: 1946
Country: US
Language: English

It's a Wonderful Life is one of those ageless films like Wizard of Oz or Citizen Kane. It's a film that is watched dozens of times whether film enthusiast or not. It is loved for its intriguing story about an honest man who falls on hard times. A timless fable that is often known as "that movie shown every Christmas". The reason it has been shown on every Christmas is simple, it went public domain. Television stations could air the film at no cost to them and in the 70s that is exactly what happened. PBS gave birth to a tradition of showing this film as a holiday special to counter its rivals. Therefore a growing audience gave way for this film to be as well known as it is.

Though Director Frank Capra never intended this film to be a Christmas special, he didn't even think of it as a Christmas film. He made this after fighting bravely, and surviving,  in World War Two. It was meant to be a celebration of the American Tradition. The American spirit that would not quit and the American hearts that would beat through eternity. Its message about how the common man could inspire many people's lives was apparent throughout the film.

The hero is George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) a common man with a common job and a common dream. He lives in Bedford falls but dreams of off wandering off to a far off land (Luke Skywalker anyone?) but things keep piling up on top of each other and he can never seem to find his way out. The responsibilities of his Savings and Loans store are just the tip of the iceberg, of course he also has to deal with the greed of mean old Mr.Potter (Lionel Barrymore), a dirty banker. The plot thickens when George's uncle loses some very important bank funds, which makes Potter chuckle. Bailey gets depressed and tries to kill himself, thinking his life and the lives of the people around him would be better if he had never been born, attempts a jump off a bridge but then an Angel named Clarence saves him and shows him Bedford Falls, as if Bailey had never been born.

This is where the film loses me. Bedford Falls is now called Pottersville, because Mr.Potter owns the place. It's supposed to be a wicked place, because Potter is a wicked person and if Bailey stayed alive he could've stopped Bedford Falls from being Pottersville but everything looks more bright and vibrant. People are having fun, Bailey's wife (Donna Reed) actually has a decent job as a librarian. Because of an absent minded bartender a lot of angels get wings (every time a bell rings an angel gets its wings). It looks like a fun place that I would go on vacation to. Of course, because Bailey hasn't been born he doesn't save his brother from slipping through the ice but so what? America STILL won World War Two.

I know this isn't Capra's idea, but it's almost as if the film has something to say about the North American ego. That because of the way North Americans are raised, especially nowadays with all the superhero films, we think we can change the world with one mighty thrust of our hands. That when America comes to play, the rest of the world better look out. Nazis? Meh. The ending is supposed to be cheerful and bright, but is it? Nothing happens to Mr.Potter and George is still stuck in Bedford Falls. What is to stop the rich man from doing the same thing? What is to stop George from going into a manic depression after he realizes nothing has changed? Will Clarence help him after he already got his wings? There are still loose ends and every-time I see this film I'm not thinking "way too go Bailey!", I'm thinking "Bailey, you poor sap"

In conclusion, It's a Wonderful life may be a great simplistic American Christian "hurrah, hurrah" drama but it shouldn't be recognized as one of the great films of all time. Simply, because it relies on ignorant bliss and wishful thinking. Though the cynicalness of the great post-war European films has probably got to me. I also like Jimmy Stewart MUCH more when he's playing a villain. A decent "fantasy" but that's all this film can be, "fantasy". Piss on it! 2/5

Raging Bull Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Raging Bull
Director: Martin Scorcese
Year: 1980
Country: US
Language: English

Truthfully, I have never been a fan of sports films, they have all felt the same. An underdog team/person decides that they want to win the championships n their sport, they change something about the team (usually a coach) or they find something within themselves, and they either win or lose but learn a corny heartwarming valuable lesson. I became sick of these films, and therefore sought out something more when I decided to watch Scorsese's Raging Bull. After I saw it, I knew I found a gem. Who would've thought a director known mainly for epic gangster films like Casino and Goodfellas could make a boxing film so beautiful and destructive as this?

Raging Bull is not merely another sports biography. It is about Jake LaMotta (Robert De Niro) and the jealous obsession and sexual insecurities that drive him both inside and outside the ring. In one scene his wife comments that another boxer is decent looking, in another the boxer's face is beaten ugly by the enraged husband. "He ain't pretty no more!" the commentators of the match exclaim. He then looks at his opponent, then his wife, she know fearfully understand the consequences of looking at another man and perhaps is worried that she too will share the same fate.  LaMotta's boxing tactics are not driven by intense training, but by his mind and emotions. If he was angry, you better watch out. When he is raging, he is dangerous. De Niro won an oscar for his frightful performance, and I must say that it is well deserved.

The fight scenes within this film are the most intense, beautifully shot scenes I have ever seen in a sports film. Edited by Schoonmaker, the camera is always inches away from the boxer's fist. Sometimes the scene is meant to feel claustrophobic, as I'm sure a boxing fight would be, sometimes a scene is stretched. Slow motion is used to heighten awareness so we feel the anger and frustration Jake feels. The film is black and white, because the amount of blood in this film if it was in colour would distract from the emotional intensity of the film. Finally subtle noises are heard in the backround. Sounds of chants, cameras,shreiking. It helps us feel like we are in the arena, watching these brutal matches.

However, despite how intense and ingenious the boxing scenes were made, the film is not about the sport, that is not what fuels LaMotta's anger. His inability to communicate and trust women is what infuriates him, drives him to his boiling point. For the enraged boxer it seems that women are untouchable virginal beings, until they start to be flirty with him. Then they should not be trusted, any man she talks to could be a threat to his manhood. It's a complexity that doesn't even stop at his brother. "Did you f*ck her?" he dares ask his brother, who was recently seen innocently talking to his wife Vickey. Though LaMotta has no evidence of adultery she MUST have cheated. It's a suffocating self-destructive behavior that unfortunately a lot of men are prone to.

In Conclusion, Raging Bull is a startling study about the nature of jealousy. About how it is a self-destructive force of the mind that rips you from everyone you love. I have met people like LaMotta, who can't seem to let their girlfriend's out of their sight. Who seem to be driven by rage and let that aspect control their lives. I have been that jealous person before, worried that my girlfriend was cheating because she had been out with guys the night before. It is an incredibly unhealthy and dangerous state of mind. One that everyone has experienced. This film serves as a warning for those who stray too far off the path, that if you are determined to fully control the lives of others, you will end up not even being able to control yourself. Praise it! 5/5

Vertigo Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Vertigo
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Year: 1958
Country: U.S
Language: English

Recently Vertigo was named the greatest film of all time by sight and sound magazine. Since this is my favourite Hitchcock film and the only one I own (though I am interested in obtaining the Criterion edition of Hitchcock's 39 Steps) I decided to re-watch it to see if it really is as good as the magazine implies. Technically the film is incredible, even though I haven't been a fan of all of Hitchcock's work I always been in awe of his technical mastery. Jimmy Stewart's role as the former detective who accidently involves himself in a mystery is the best I've seen Stewart in. I think the shock alone from seeing him go from happy American movies like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and It's a Wonderful Life to a classic Hitchcock thriller is enough to get you interested in this film.

From the first time I saw Vertigo in my high school Video Production class I was intrigued by its visual style. Hitchcock zooms the lens at the same time he pulls the camera back, giving a nauseous "vertigo" like feel. The lighting and many camera angles make the film feel eerie and mysterious. They reveal the great madness and sadness Stewart's character goes through. The music is of intrigue, love and lore. It is haunting and unsettling. It manipulates our emotions and crafts the story. Each shot meant something great, it was of technical genuis. Hitchcock had complete control of how his film was made, with shots so complex that film scholars are still analyzing how he made them.

While a master with the camera, Hitchcock was also known as the master of women. Blond, cold and isolative, the qualities of his female leads would always stay the same. They were the subject of most men's desires, whose lust for them often would drive them mad. A criticism of Hitchock is that he doesn't use emotion well in his films,  perhaps because he was born in the UK, a country infamous for the "stiff upper lip" attitude. Men just didn't show emotion in Hitchcock\s time, it was viewed as weakness. However, in Vertigo Hitchock uses emotion amazingly well. Fear, guilt, frustration, ordinary emotions that are not often used well in the Hollywood films made today.

Vertigo has a plot within a plot. The important plot is centered on Scottie (James Steward), a man who has both a physical handicap (back problems) and a mental handicap (vertigo) who slowly becomes obsessed with a blond, cold, isolative woman. When he finds that he can't have her he creepily molds another woman into the woman he wants. Much like how directors mold actresses into the character they want her to be, except much more insane. Of course this woman, known as Judy (Kim Novac) is involved in a murder plot and needed to somewhat look like Scotty's "Madeline" in order to kill her. Scotty is outraged. Is this hard to follow? The first time I saw Vertigo I was a bit confused, it's a film you need to watch more than once to completely understand. Judy falls in love with Scotty as well, even though she knows she only loves him because he thinks she is Madeline she decides to pretend to be her because that's the only way she can be with him. Both Scottie and Judy are puppets to Gavin, the man who created the madeline character to murder his own wife.

Vertigo's theme about the danger of "falling" is present throughout the film. Scottie "falls" in love with Judy, the dangerous consequences are present to the viewer but not the character. Judy "falls" in love with Scottie but can never reveal who she truely is. They both "fall" for Gavin's game, Scottie's fear of "falling" prevent him from saving the real love of his life. They "fall" from grace and "fall" into madness.

In conclusion, is Vertigo the best movie ever made? It certainly is important, entertaining and well made but "best" still seems subjective to me. It is definitley in my top ten, but I wouldn't say it's my favourite nor would I say it's the "best". If I was making a mystery, I would study Vertigo for days, trying to see how I could make it as good as possible. Vertigo is easily the creepiest film I have ever seen. After finishing this review, I will definitley watch it again. I wouldn't suggest watching it once, watch it at least 5 times and if you aren't impressed, watch it 5 more times and then watch your jaw drop as you sit in awe of a master and his film. Praise it! 5/5

The Third Man Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Third Man
Director: Carol Reed
Year: 1949
Country: UK
Language: English

The Third Man is often recognized as a brilliant Orson Welles' film, even though Welles did not direct it nor did he star in it. He does have a brief appearance as the bone chilling child killer Harry Lime and boy does he use that onscreen time well. So well that a radio show called The Lives of Harry Lime spawned into existence. Not only is the acting great, but the visual style as well. The king of the film noir, The Third Man is a story of men and children, of heroes and villains. It is number one on BFI's (British Film Institute) list of the greatest british films of all time and deservedly so. I just regret not buying the 2 Disk Criterion DVD before it cost $200+.

Director Carol Reed knew the destruction World War Two had left on his country, serving in the British Army's documentary crew. He as well as his screenplay writer, a former British spy known as Graham Greene, set on a quest to make a film set in the apocalyptic remains of post war Europe. Indeed he defied European film making convention by refusing to shoot on a set, instead shooting on location around crumbled buildings and streets filled with craters where bombs once blew. The shattered European city, divided into various zones for various countries, would be the perfect place for Reed to begin filming.

Holly Martins (Joseph Cottons), an innocent American Western writer who is clearing in the wrong place at the wrong time, comes to the torn Vienna to meet his friend Harry Lime but unfortunately for both men Lime is dead...or is he? How did Lime die? This question fuels Martins to play American Detective in a place that has no time for games. Of course in every noir there needs to be a love interest , in comes Anne, a woman he meets at his friend's grave. Maybe she has the answers he is looking for. Of course this romance will never work, she is a woman who is in love and in denial. She sometimes calls holly "harry" in reference to her "dead" lover.

Enter Harry Lime. Orson Welles makes the most iconic entrance in history. His character alone is why most people watch this film again and again. He is evil, yet appears to have child-like innocence. One could say he also has the mind of a child, always playing games, always playing hide-and-seek. Welles also makes the most famous speech in this movie AND the famous chase scene. A brilliantly edited chase through the sewers to find the rat that is Harry Lime.

Not only is the editing, script and acting in this film brilliant but the music is well. Once you hear it, you will never forget it. It's unique, upbeat but without happiness. It sets the tone, the film feels like it will be a fun mystery but we soon find it will be darker than we thought. The incredible lighting is essential for this film, Reed must have had a wealth on lighting technique. It presents the ultimate war torn city, a place where nothing is certain and evil could lurk around every corner. Finally the shots distort locations and faces, make things feel uncertain. Make us get lost in this mad world.

I suspect The Third Man has a lot to say about American and European ideals on good and evil. Americans, like Lime, are childish when it comes to "evil" it is their weakness. They trusts in evil men because they appear to be good. I suspect this is why Americans didn't enter the war until 1941. Hollywood Films like Star Wars and Avatar try to do a decent job on spotting what is good and evil , but they are only making the American mindset weaker. The European mind has been devastated by wolves in sheep's clothing. Shortly after Hitler, you would think the European mind wouldn't think twice. Indeed Calloway, a British detective set on finding Lime, doesn't involve emotion on his pursuit. However he does get angry when he finds the bumbling American getting in the way.

In conclusion, I'm surprised at how anti-Hollywood this film is. It is not happy, it is cynical. It is about betrayal, loss and death. It was made in a city of ruins during a dark period in History. While America was celebrating the war, Europe was rebuilding from it. While America had cast out Orson Welles (the controversy after Citizen Kane left him without an American studio to back him), Britain embraced him. Carol Reed is a master of the British film noir, one that is far better than any American film noir to come out before or after this. Double Indemnity is a joke compared to this. Praise it! 5/5

Citizen Kane Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Citizen Kane
Director: Orson Welles
Year: 1941
Country: U.S
Language: English

I have seen this masterpiece over a dozen times and I know I will see this dozens more. Every view I learn more about the art of film. Every view I come closer to weeping about the tragedy of a man ripped from his childhood. Citizen Kane, the legends surrounding this glorious film are almost too strange to be true, yet they are. A film so big that it nearly destroyed the life of its creator and its subject. Orson Welles, a messiah of the Cinema,  took on a challenge that seemed like an incredible risk. Though it was once hated, it is now universally acclaimed as one of, if not the, greatest film of all time.

The director of this brilliant film is none other than Orson Welles. I doubt anybody reading this doesn't know about Orson Welles. Even if you haven't seen his films, you must have heard about the infamous "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast that brought the nation to a panic. This newfound American attention brought him to RKO Studios. The current king of the stage was given total freedom to make any picture he wished. This is the first and only time he was given complete control from a Studio for a picture. He chose to collaborate with legendary screenwriter Herman Makiewics and chose the subject for his film: William Randolph Hearst. This man built an empire out of newspapers, radio stations and magazines. The richest man in the world at the time, he pretty much controlled the media. It was the perfect storm.


Citizen Kane opens with a dying man, seemingly alone with his many possessions in the dreary palace known as Xanadu. "Rosebud" he whispers as he slips into a sleep he will never wake up from. We cut to a   newsreel, a nod to the "News on the March" newsreels being made at that time by media genius Henry Luce. It describes the life and death of our character, the great and powerful Charles Foster Kane. The editor of the newsreel demands a front page story, he hears rum ours of the billionaire's last word and wants to find out exactly what "Rosebud" is. A reporter known as Thompson is sent to find the scoop  and through the many people he talks to we are sent on a journey through time.

"Maybe Rosebud was something he couldn't get, or something he lost," says Thompson as he ponders the mystery of the Tycoon's last words. Indeed it is revealed that rosebud was his sled, that he lost as a child. Is this a spoiler? No. Orson Welles' creative genius wouldn't let Citizen Kane be a simple film about a man who lost his sled. Kane's want for "Rosebud" is incredibly symbolic and adds great depth to his character. It shows him not as a powerful man, but a frail man who lost his innocent. Even if you hate this character for the wrongs he does throughout the film, you can't help but feel sympathetic. "Rosebud" and the deep meaning behind it makes the man human and incredibly beautiful. Everytime I see this film, I learn more about what "Rosebud" truely means, and I gain more empathy for now only Charles Foster Kane but for mankind in general. It also inspired me to become a better person, to not stray to far from my own "Rosebud"

In reality, Orson Welles insinuation that William Randolph Hearst was not as powerful as he appeared and he had lost his innocent upset the old man. Including "Rosebud", the alleged name Heart gave his mistress' vagina, in this film also made things much worse. Hearst did everything he could to stop people from seeing Citizen Kane. In his newspapers he called Welles a communist who hated American ideals. Welles once recieved an anonymous tip that Hearst hired a prostitute to fling herself at the directed once he opened the door of his hotel room, the implication being that Hearst also hired his own reporters to take pictures of Welles while this happened thus trying to force him into a scandal that he would never recover from. Needless to say Welles did not go to his hotel room that night. While the studios were eager to get rid of this film, not because it was "bad", but because Hearst had the power to end careers, Welles was confident that the film needed to be shown and he was incredibly correct.

Citizen Kane is a marvel, not only for its incredible plot or the story behind the making of the film but also because of the innovative camera techniques Welles used that still amaze people to this day. Cameras that swoops through a skylight towards a nightclub. A young Kane playing in the snow as his parents are making a fateful decisions. Kane's many reflections through mirrors and an iconic snowglobe shot, I'm still not sure how it was made, are one of the many ingenious movements of camera in this film.

In conclusion, it's no wonder Citizen Kane is often regarded as the best film of all time. Orson Welles is a master with his camera, he truly is a God of the cinema. His film is entertaining, insightful and a great study of how to make a film. If you have not seen this film, you NEED to. If you do not like this film, what is wrong with you? I'm glad that even though there are bad films out there, great films are still admired and respected. I look forward to seeing Welles' masterpiece many more times in the future and I hope that if I ever make a feature length film, it could come somewhat close to this. Praise it! 5/5

Birth of a Nation Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Birth of a Nation
Director: D.W Griffith
Year: 1915
Country: US
Language: English

"It is like writing history with Lightning!" said American President Woodrow Wilson after seeing it at a private White Souse screening. Like Triumph of the Will I was quite hesitant to watch this silent classic, knowing that it has had tumultuous history of racism and violence. It assisted in the rising of the KKK, which in time inspired the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to grow stronger. The outcry from this film, and director D.W Griffith's need to attain credibility as a serious filmmaker, contributed to some of the greatest silents ever made. From Broken Blossoms to Intolerance. It's a shocking film, even though the 1910's were still a racist time in America's history, long before the civil rights movements in the 60's many people back then were disgusted at the racism portrayed on film.

I propose a question, does Birth of a Nation present an argument in favor of evil? If so, why is it adored by the majority of critics? Perhaps this "racist" film has an intelligent point, to identify the nature of evil and to attempt to abolish the root cause. It seems unwatchable now, mainly because it is very hard to comprehend what Griffith was thinking while making the film. We are so far removed from the society in which Griffith desired to make a point about. I admire the guts it took to make this film. When we see a film about racism nowadays we are not shocked because it's usually a light hearted comedy (see The Help) that chooses not to deal with the harsh reality of how cruel the white man has been to other races. In that sense, 2011's The Help should be seen as more disturbing as it is merely masturbation material. We like to think that we are far removed from our racist roots, but there is still racism looming in America, we just deny it.

 Birth of a Nation is a frightening look at American history in an all too real light. The fact that people are unnerved from this film is not only a good thing, but a great thing. It shows that we have evolved into a more accepting society. You're not supposed to find this film entertaining, for not all films are about entertainment.Birth of a Nation can be compared to Salo: or the 120 Days of Sodom in that respect. Birth of a Nation is without apologies. If film should be recognized as high art, then we must acknowledge that art contains truth and within that truth, beauty. It holds a mirror to the face of the average American and exposed their deep rooted racism.

This film is also one of technical mastery. When it was shown in theaters in 1915 audiences were amazed at the groundbreaking narrative and visual effects. Without this film, we may never have seen the breathtaking car chase scenes shown in many action films because this is the first film to show a well made intercut chase scene. Griffith made it conventional for directors to use close-ups, color tinting, medium shots and certain establishing shots. Without this film and Griffith's genius we wouldn't have most of the films in theaters today. Great action scenes are shot with ease, elevated shots help show a full battlefield, intricate cuts make the battles interesting. Birth of a Nation was ahead of its time, where films back then were afraid to go technical wise, Griffith took a giant leap. A bold and brave man who deserves nothing but utmost respect.

In conclusion, Griffith had an enormous amount of guts. He held a mirror up to society and exposed the racism that plagued within. If you want to see a truthful film about what the white man has done to the black image, see this film. If you are shocked, then great, you should be. Only masturbatory films about racism, like Avatar or The Help, will entertain. Segregation is ugly and there is no humor about it.  Birth of a Nation IS history and it will be impossible to make this film go away. Like I said in Triumph of the Will, if you find this film entertaining you should probably see a psychiatrist.. Praise it! 5/5

Triumph of the Will Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Triumph of the Will
Director: Leni Riefenstahl
Year: 1935
Country: Germany
Language: German

Terrifying, shocking and profane. A paralyzing punch to the soul. Leni Riefenstahl proves that art can not only be serviceable to great evil but great propaganda. Yet, even though I am disgusted that a documentary glorifying the Third Reich has been made. I must admit that it is an important documentary with groundbreaking cinematography. The visuals within this film are so good that other filmmakers have paid homage to it in their films. The most famous homage being the medal ceremony at the end of Star Wars: A New Hope. As "entertainment" it is quite dull, perhaps if you are a historian or a nazi you would be intrigued but as a study of flawless camera work it is absolutely amazing.

Triumph of the Will  records what it seems like millions of Nazi supporters at a Nazi rally on September of 1934 in Germany. Long stretches of soldiers of various duties line the hall in strict rigid formation, they are like cattle. They salute Hitler, he salutes back. Then the great evil speaks and they eat it up without question. We do not see how this rally was planned, it is not important. The propaganda film serves to show how organized and obedient Hitler's army was. Indeed it is frightening, at least from an anti-nazi perspective. Not a single person is seen in the wrong formation, or scratching their heads. They are like robots. Indeed so much like robots that they don't have a reaction when Hitler walks past them, stern and serious despite at least one of them likely needing to seriously use the washroom. If I was on the allied side in the 30's and saw this film I would have peed my pants in fear. This is an army that seemed united in its cause for world domination.

"Uncompromisingly the one and only power in Germany." this one quote showed exactly how mad Hitler was, and why the atrocities of the Holocaust were happening. Anybody who argued with the Fuhrer would meet his wrath. Is it surprising that all his soldiers were emotionless? No. For emotions would result in death. I feel incredibly bad for the people of Germany who had no real choice in the matter. Die in the concentration camps or work for Satan? A tough choice with no positive solution. Of course Riefenstahl has no eye for sympathy, her interest is showing mass conformity. The individual is dead and the perfectly framed shots of Hitler make him out to be somewhat of a messiah for the German people. Again, this is more a film for film & history scholars than the average filmgoer.

Riefenstahl used 30 cameras for her visual nazi epic. Only one is seen, none of her crew was visible either. Triumph of the Will is the ultimate propaganda film for the brainwashed masses. Every shot is made to seem like the nazi party was an incredibly well organized, well run group of robots who would do anything their master said. When "Seig Heil" is said by Hitler, a mass shout of voices echoes those words in perfect unity. Not a single voice is off, not a single voice can afford to be off. Though I'm sure Hitler's enormous ego would tell Riefenstahl to reshoot the scene again and again until it was perfect. It's very likely more than a few soldiers met their fates by the end of this picture.

In conclusion, Triumph of the Will is (sadly) one of the best made documentaries/propaganda films ever made. I'm sure in the late thirties it did wonders to help the self esteem of the nazi party as well as strike fear into the hearts of those opposed to them. Who wouldn't be afraid of a massive army of zombies that was slowly sweeping the globe. If you are involved in any aspect of film, you might find inspiration in this. If you are a history buff you might find this rather intriguing. From what I know about nazi Germany I can't help but be extremely sympathetic towards the masses of soldiers, who likely didn't choose to join Hitler. It's definitely not for everyone and if you find you are entertained while watching I would advise you to see a psychiatrist. Praise it! 4/5

Patang Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Patang
Director: Prashat Bhargava
Year: 2012
Country: India
Language: Hindi

While watching Patang, I was reminded of another joyous film known as Amelie. Both are sweet, wonderfully constructed pieces of art. The film almost looks like a documentary but surprisingly it's not. It is about culture, family, love and tradition. Perfectly crafted, the director Prashat Bhargava had a vision and sought to make it complete. If he is a perfectionist then he should not be ashamed, this film is what most filmmakers dream to accomplish. The story on paper would seem simple, but it is rather beautifully complex.

Patang draws us into a family based in Ahmendabad, a crowded city with insane traffic that somehow remains sane because of the thriving culture. The story takes place during the annual kite festival and involves a man from Delhi known as Javesh (Mukund ShuklaO who brings his daughter Priya (Sugandha Garg) on a long awaited visit to their relatives. This creates power struggles and tension within the family, as Javesh feels he has the right to involve himself in family decisions while others feel he has distanced himself from the family so much that he should be considered a stranger.

The colours and graceful architecture of the family\s house is more than inviting. Majestic, it seems like you would rather be in Ahmendabad than your own home. Despite how crowded the city is, it seems there are no strangers. No incredible acts of violence. Community that most of us would envy is shown. The film almost seems too happy and spirited, but alas there is heartbreak  and trouble brewing. A beautifully filmed romance, shown in sensual and intimate closeups. doesn't work out. Though that's life I suppose and life goes on.

The kite flying itself is majestic. Trancending boundaries and worries. Trancending fear and doubt. It is peaceful to see these mighty kites dancing without inhibition and forget that we have very human problems. Patang is a wonderful story about healing and mending broken relationships. About making up for lost time and becoming better people. Brilliant, sad, but ultimately a great self reflection piece. Maybe if we watch more films like this we will forget about our differences and learn to respect one another as human beings.

In conclusion, Patang is a masterfully made film from India. It reaches the heart and mind, inspiring and uplifting those who watch it. I can certainly see it winning many awards, perhaps even a "Best foreign film" Oscar at the 2013 Academy Awards. Director Bhargava should be as proud of his film as I am. Praise it! 4/5

Searching for Sugarman Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Searching For Sugar Man
Director: Stephen Segerman
Year: 2012
Country: UK
Language: English

Searching for Sugar Man is an odd and unique documentary that takes us on an incredible journey that gets more difficult as time passes. The immaculate use of archival footage make agents of the audience, filmmaker Stephen Segerman enlists us on his thrilling quest to find one of the world's most mysterious musicians. Shrouded in strange stories we attempt to look for a musician named Sixto Rodrigues. He is as much an enigma as he is a legend. If you are like me and haven't heard of this man before, you will be quite surprised at the twists that unfold before your eyes.

Sixto Rodruigues' legend can be compared to that of Elvis Presley, though he does not have as much fame or worldwide fans. He signed with A&R records, got amazing reviews, dropped to albums and then seemingly vanished only to appear in the spotlight years later. This time he appeared in Cape Town, South Africa and was a sensation. 500,000 copies of his album sold and his music was used for anti-apartheid rallies.As his impact grew so did the stories. What happened of this man?  Did he kill himself? Was he murdered? Is he still alive? Many theories but no answers. This of course helped spring forth Rodrigues reputation, a mystery wrapped in a riddle served with a side of enigma.

The rise of social media has made it easier to find Rodrigues. He appears to have been a great man with a great message. Someone who spread the gospel and helped the poor and beaten down. It is no wonder that his songs were used in anti-apartheid rallied. Rodrigues was a great humanitarian. I don't feel this small summary is a spoiler, mainly because there is far more great story that I have omitted for the sake of intrigue.

The film itself is inspiring and bold. It tells the story of a great man who was often misunderstood. The rumors about him nearly destroyed his reputation. Like Schindler's List this film has inspired me to be a greater person, a kinder person who will help those less fortunate. I have nothing to say but good things about this film. It is incredibly  bold in it's vision of finding this "sugarman". A beautifully made film about a beautiful human being. Few documentaries are as emotionally powerful and will make you self reflect afterwards like this one.

In conclusion, 2012 has been an amazing year for documentaries. From This is Not a Film to Whores' Glory, this year shows that documentaries are truly astonishing art.forms. Searching For Sugarman is not an exception, informative and uplifting for all the right reasons. If you are not affected by this film you may have a heart of stone. Watch it then watch it again. Praise it! 5/5

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Seeking A Friend For the End of the World
Year: 2012
Country: US
Language: English

The end of the world has been a subject of many films, moreso nowadays because of the real paranoid delusions of the world ending in December of this year. What would you do if the end of the world was coming soon? Would you fight your fear of death? Would you become a reckless looter? Would you tell how much you love your friends? Personally I would probably contemplate so much during those wee hours that I wouldn't have time to do anything. This is, of course, if I have per-concieved knowledge about the event before it happens. To know that everything that ever lived on Earth would be completely destroyed on one catastrophic event would be both terrifying and depressing.

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World has the opportunity to be incredibly depressing on subject matter alone, yet it avoids that and is somewhat of a romantic comedy with a dark twist. A happy ending for the characters involved doesn't really seem possible, unless some divine miracle happens.  The main character Dodge (Steve Carrell) is a little gloomy about hearing the sad news, as most people would be, to make matters worse his wife walks out on him for another man and missions to destroy the asteroid of doom have only made things worse

Everything you would expect during an apocalypse happens; people go absolutely nuts. Looters, baptisms, intense news coverage, apocalypse obsessed radio stations and orgies fit for a Roman king. Dodge is alone, the only friend he has is a shadow...and a cute dog. Then he meets Penny (Keira Knightly) and the two become almost inseparable. They talk about a road trip that should ultimately bring them to the people they love.

Like most road trip movies, this film settles on a cliche. It's not about the destination, but the journey and the people you meet along the way. They meet survivalists who think they can outsmart death and loads of desperate people who just want a friend to die with them. I suppose the behavior of the people in this film would be quite appropriate for an apocalyptic scenario. There would be loads of people converting to Christianity just in case there's an afterlife. There would also be loads of people who just need a friend to guide them, some will find God, others will find comfort in people and pets.

There is some real human beauty in this film, a positive film regarding the end of life is welcomed and a relief  from the loads of depressing films Hollywood dishes out. I feel this film had the potential to be something great but dropped the ball with a poor third act and not so interesting character revelations. However I admire the effort and I am inspired by this more positive outlook regarding death.

In conclusion, if you are depressed and wish to be cheered up then this is the film for you. I found the message regarding the spirit of human endurance and the want to be loved very uplifting. Sure it isn't the best made film and I think a few changes needed to be made but it's forgivable. Not worth buying, but definitely see it once. 2.5/5

Safety Not Guaranteed Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Safety Not Guaranteed
Director: Colin Trevorrow
Year: 2012
Country: US
Language: English

WANTED: Someone to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. I have only done this once before. SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED.

This mysterious newspaper ad begins a film that at first glance might seem like a low brow, low budget comedy but turns out to be one of the most ambitious and touching films of the year. I was quite surprised and thrilled about how well this film played out, as time travel films usually are a hit or a miss. This is indeed a hit on many levels, including emotional. The time travel aspect of Safety Not Guaranteed is held with the utmost sensitivity. It is not used as a gimmick, nor as a joke, but a canvass in which art is made.

The ad in question that drives the film is first brought up by a writer known as Jeff (Jake Johnson) at Seattle magazine during a story conference. He is quite intrigued by it, and is determined to track down the writer of this odd add thinking that it will help him get with his high-school crush . He employs two awkward interns  known as Darius (Aubrey Plaza) and Arnau  (Karan Soni). When they finally find the writer, known as Kenneth (Mark Duplass) we see he is a semi-awkward person as well. Jeff  thinks he's a looney, but Darius wants to know more and does. Though Jeff's ideas regarding time travel seems looney, he seems to understand them with great sincerity.

An amazing quality of Safety Not Guaranteed is the attention the writers have given in character development and dialouge. There is rarely a spoken word that does not hold importance. The film is essentially about vulnerable people in vulnerable times of their lives. Looking for love, friendship, truth and honesty. The characters really stir your soul and get you emotionally invested. Can Kenneth actually time travel? You doubt it but you really want to believe it to be true. The only other time travel film that had close to this much emotion is Back to the Future and that still missed the bar Safety Not Guaranteed has set. Another worthy note is how well time travel cliches are avoided, too often do we see the same time travel schticks in movies. This is almost in a different class.

In conclusion, Safety Not Guaranteed is one of the more emotionally intelligent films of 2012. It's a shame it's not being as advertised as many other 2012 films but I guess that's why I've decided to review this. It's high art, art that has the power to change your entire outlook on life. Can Dark Knight Rises do that? No. If you are intrigued by time travel movies but don't want to watch some dumb stoner comedy, see this film. See this film even if you aren't a fan of time travel. 2012 isn't over, but so far I can definitley say that this film will be in my top ten by the end of the year. Praise it! 4/5

Gone With the Wind Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Gone With the Wind
Director: Victor Fleming
Year: 1939
Country: US
Language: English

To say Victor Fleming's 1939 masterpiece Gone with the Wind is a film merely about the civil war, a war fought to free the slaves and defeat the confederacy, would be much to simple. It is a landmark film about sexuality, lust, love and destiny. It is a film that raised quite a few eyebrows back when it first was screened, it took chances, dropped a "damn" bomb and has become the highest grossing film of all time adjusting inflation. For a film that has passed its 70th Anniversary, many will agree that it's still "damn" good.

One of the highlights of this film is the joy of seeing Scarlette O'Hara (Vivan Leigh) strut her stuff. Leigh is a bold actress, the harsh realities of the Great Depression  are likely what shaped her to be this way. She approaches her character with a free-spirit, someone who has not been broken by the system but someone who flourishes in it. Leigh is perfect to fill the role of a lusty woman who desires control over her sexual conquests.She also sought for control over her economic fate. She is a strong woman who seems extremely defiant in a male ruled world. Unfotunately, she was too defiant for the 30's, we are STILL fascinated by what a strong character O'Hara is, and therefore a lot of people really wanted her to be taken down a peg. In comes Clark Gable as the handsome Rhett Butler. A strong man himself who's dialogue, if written today, would be absolutely filthy. A southern gentleman? Maybe by today's standards. He is the Romeo to her Juliet and brings forth the inner sexual struggles of Ms. O'Hara.

It's not a surprise that Leigh and Gable decided to take part in such a controversial and ground-breaking film. Gable was well known for his drinking and womanizing, Leigh was a drug abusing man-eater. Both were surrounded in controversy, both had great egos, but both had great sexual chemistry. Their body language could speak volumes, their eyes would often be better than dialouge. Every move these actors make in front of the camera is incredibly important.

Yes, Gone with the Wind seems to skip the very important matters of the Civil War such as slavery, though the most sensible woman in the film is a black slave known as Mammy (who won an Oscar for her amazing performance) and it isn't entirely politically correct but to make GWTW politically correct would be dishonest to the time period of the 30's. GWTW was made during a time entirely different from 2012, when watching this film we must attempt to understand that particular time period, therefore we understand how much guts it took to make this film. "Damn" might mean nothing today, little kids are able to say "damn" it's not even considered a swear anymore, but back then to say it in a film was a HUGE deal.

By linking melodrama with epic production values the producer David Selznic realized he could make something incredible. The burning of Atlanta leaves you in admirable awe. The visual style is a complete joy to see, especially when so many "epics" nowadays seem so lackluster and fake. The cinematography is pure genius. CGI has nothing on this film.

In conclusion, you NEED to see Gone With the Wind. Visually it is one of the most beautiful films you will ever see. There is strong dialouge, wonderful characters and plenty of history behind this film. A triumph that still knocks modern epics out of the park. A grand film that doesn't need phoney CGI and doesn't apologize for being controversial for all the right reasons. It is magic, it is History! Praise it! 5/5

Project Nim Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Project Nim
Director: James Marsh
Year: 2011
Country: US
Language: English

Can a chimpanzee learn Sign language? Better yet, can a chimpanzee be taken out of the wild and learn to live like a human? Project Nim is an interesting documentary about the life of a chimp known as Nim Chimpsky, a play on "Noam Chomsky", as he's raised like a human baby under care the of CFS. Switched from "home" to "home", "parent" to "parent". Nim is a reverse Tarzan and this proves quite difficult for the humans involved in this project.

Made by James Marsh, known for his Oscar winning documentary Man on Wire, Project Nim traces the life of a monkey, born in captivity and ripped from his mother at an early age. A Columbia professor known as Herbert Terrace used him for a world-altering experience that would make monkey-human relationships quite possible.He used his student,  Stephanie LaFarge, to be the foster mother. She was more the hippie type, allowing Nim to do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted. Surprisingly, like most humans, Nim thrived in this environment and actually learned a few signs. Terrace is shocked that Nim has been subjected to this "free" lifestyle and is sent to a more strict foster parent. Though he learns more at this new foster parent's place, it seems like he's very restricted and it shows in his less happy mood.

I feel this film holds a strong emphasis on the nature of knowledge and how knowledge can be gained. One foster parent feels that knowledge is gained through experience and relationships, where another feels that knowledge must be gained through strict classes. Although, if you have no motivation to learn, if you are depressed and just going through the motions what are you really going to learn? Happiness and freedom are more important in terms of gaining knowledge than strict routine. More work gets done when there is more freedom given to do the work.

Unfortunately, due to evolution Chimpanzees develop intense anger issues after a certain age and therefore it is extremely unsafe to keep one of them as a pet. Intense anger issues combines with strength 5x that of a human make for one hell of a disaster. Many handlers show the scars from their dangerous encounters with Nim. He signs "sorry" afterwards, but as his handlers speculate, is he really saying sorry? Does Nim really understand the language being presented to him. It would be nice to think that Nim knows what he did was wrong, but maybe it's just routine. He sees someone hurt or angry and he does that sign.

The dramatic re-creations in this film are so good that we are convinced we are seeing actual documentary footage when we're not. Sometimes there are actors substituting for the people that couldn't be there, sometimes there's animatronics, but Marsh always keeps you emotionally involved in the story of Nim Chimpsky. He makes you feel for the chimp the same way you would for any other human being. He also brings awareness to how cruely monkeys in labs are being treated and I'm sure has made an activist out of a few people. Free the monkeys!

In conclusion, Project Nim is a beautiful documentary that will keep you emotionally gripped from start to finish. It contains a strong look on the nature of language and knowledge. A fascinating film that shows you can take the monkey out of the wild but you can't take the wild out of the monkey. 3.5/5

Tabloid Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Tabloid
Director: Erroll Morris
Year: 2011
Country: U.S
Language: English

What is Tabloid? A love story? A conspiracy? A tale of religious morality? It is certainly a unique documentary made by a talented filmmaker about an eccentric woman with an incredible story that turned her world topsy turvy. Where most documentaries offer some sort of truth, this one does not. It will remind many viewers of Legendary Japanese Director Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon, in which there are many stories about the same event in question but it is not revealed which is truth. Is this a spoiler? I think not. Mainly because the stories you will hear while watching Tabloid are among the strangest you will ever hear.

The year was 1977, a lot of things happened this year. Elvis died, Chaplin died, Punk took the UK by storm and Joyce McKinney, the subject of this documentary, was involved in an infamous scandal that nearly left her life in shambles. The tabloids dubbed it "The Case of the Manacled Mormon", though the stories spread because of this headline seems stranger than the headline itself. A former model, she was said to be a desperate and crazed woman who kidnapped an American Mormon missionary from the U.K, handcuffed him to a hotel room bed and made him her weekend sex slave. Of course McKinney insists that the stories of her being a sex-crazed rapist are entirely false. She was rescuing the man she loved from a wicked cult, then fled the country to Canada as part of a mime troupe.

The tabloids' attempts at making her seem like a lunatic didn't end there, They also picked up a story on her years later when she attempted to clone her dead dog...and when she robbed a few people in Tennessee because she wanted money, to buy a false leg for her three legged horse. Why would someone buy a three legged horse? I guess these stories will lead to questions that make you doubt her sanity.

Both stories seem very plausible, yet only one can be true. Which one is it? Can both be false? There are many questions that this film brings up, many reasons for why we should think McKinney is a bit nuts, but also many reasons for why we should think McKinney is telling the truth. For a woman who has been accused of so much and basically had her life ruined because of these stories she seems to handle her self pretty well. It is possible that Director Erroll Morris wants us to sympathize with McKinney but I think his genius is making us really think about the nature of truth, celebrity, sex and cult.

I found it quite interesting that this film emphasizes the lack of difference between "religion" and "cult". Is "religion" all that different from "cult"? McKinney says she was saving her lover from a cult, the press says that he was merely a Mormon missionary performing his duties. Yet he is a man and men have desires that are quite sexual. Mormon missionaries were not only forbidden to have sex, but they couldn't be in the same room alone with another woman. I worked at a place where you couldn't be alone with a girl because they wanted you to "avoid the appearance of evil". What is "evil" about love? Perhaps when religions make rules that are contrary to human nature they become "cults". Was McKinney's lover raped or was he so afraid of being persecuted by his mormon "cult" that he made up a story to save himself?

We are never sure what Erroll Morris thinks, he baffles us with twists, turns and the strangeness of reality, yet his opinion is not apparent. His film is incredibly personal and seems to be more than a documentary. It gets us asking questions about reality itself, something I truly unique in documentary filmmaking.

In conclusion, Morris' film Tabloid is unique because it is non judgmental and makes us question the nature of sex, religion, cult, love, reality and many other topics. I can definitley see this being shown in philosophy classes along with Kurosawa's Rashomon. There are many documentaries out there, but few that can actually make the viewer really thing. Was McKinney telling the truth? I'm still not sure. Does it matter? Praise it! 4/5