The Passion of the Christ Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Passion of the Christ
Director: Mel Gibson
Year: 2004
Country: US
Language: English

For this review I'm going to disregard my opinion of Mel Gibson as a person (I think he's a jackass) because it does not reflect Mel Gibson as a film director. This film was engulfed in controversy when it was released, though pretty much every major religious film about Christ has, from Monty Python's Life of Brian to Martin's Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ. This timem instead of being deemed "sacrilegious" like Scorsese's film, it was thought of as an extremely violent, anti-semetic film.

Passion of the Christ is a depiction of the last twelve hours in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, on the day of his crucifixion in Jerusalem. This is after the Last Supper and after he has been betrayed by Judas (though biblical scholars still argue about Judas' intentions). The ever controversial Jesus-who has proclaimed that he is the son of God- is arrested, put on trial and then condemned to his death. He is brought to Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor of Palestine, to hear how he will be executed. However, Pilate finds this matter to be too political and gives the choice to King Herod.

I think it's quite unfair to accuse Mel Gibson of being anti-semetic because of this particular film. It's about Jesus Christ, a Jewish man who freed the world from our sin. It is about the most important Jew in the world, according to Christianity. It is the opposite of anti-semetic. Also, to those who say it is "too violent", grow up. This is not a cartoon, this is about the suffering (passion) of Christianity's messiah! It is violent because what happened to Jesus was violent. The point of the extreme violence is to make you uncomfortable and uneasy because you should be uncomfortable and uneasy.

However, it is not perfect as there are some scenes that don't work. My friend Phillip Olson reminded me about a flashback where Jesus is showing his mother a table that he has made which she doubts will become popular, this is implying that Jesus invented modern furniture. It not only doesn't belong and isn't in the New Testament, but it's quite absurd. It seems like a deleted scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian. Still this film is a labor of love, Gibson's great testament of his faith. Even if you aren't a Christian you will likely find the film moving and packed with emotion.

In conclusion, while I find Martin Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ a more thought provoking film, I cannot deny that Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ has great spiritual value. I respect that courage it took for Gibson to display his raw feelings about his savior on screen, it is a deep profession of love that, regardless of your religious belief, you have to respect. This film was made with the utmost care and sincerity. Praise it! 4/5

The Rules of the Game Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Rules of The Game
Director: Jean Renoir
Year: 1939
Country: France
Language: French

In polls of the greatest films of all time, Jean Renoir's Rules of the Game usually comes in first or second. Back in 1939 it was considered risky, relevant and incredibly controversial. Edited and Re-Edited, no amount of change would stop this film from being banned in its home country because it was considered a danger to public morale. I first saw this film about a year ago when it was re-released by the Criterion Collection. I was in awe, and continue to be in awe as I learn more about this astounding film.

The story of the film concerns a weekend gathering of wealthy French socialites at a country estate. The focus is on various romantic flirtations and infidelities, involving servants and gentry alike.It has all the external trappings of a light comedy of manners. However, Renoir turns this seemingly conventional material into a multi-layered and profound commentary on the nature of love, society, and the human condition.

When this film was released in 1939, it was quite clear that France was going to war. There was the generally shared feeling of impending catastrophe and social breakdown that would accompany another devastating world war. Left wing people like Renoir clashed with Nazi sympathizers who obviously did nothing to prevent the Nazi Regime's occupation of France. Rules of the Game is a scathing critique on the upper class, showing them as adulterous, child-like, selfish and incredibly ignorant. These thoughts and anxieties toward the upper class are just as valid today. One very memorable scene in this film is when the lead characters hunt rabbits mercilessly, like it's a game. It highlights the nonsensical slaughter of sentient beings for "sport", it is a metaphor for the unreflective way we let our lives be governed by conventional rules that compromise our humanity.

For any human who has lived in our society there are "rules of the game". Social norms and mores, both written and unwritten  that direct our behavior and specify what we can and can't do. For example, a common rule on an elevator is to be silent. Why? However Renoir suggested that in his society the upper class were able to bend these "rules" whenever they pleased and few would stop them. Unfortunately he was correct, and because of the upper classes' ignorance combined with the fact that the masses didn't have the same sense of entitlement and were too afraid of straying from "the rules of the game" horrible things came about in Europe.

In conclusion, while my analysis may make the film seem depressing, I found it inspiring. It taught me not to be careless with love and humanity. It taught me not to abide by silly rules if they didn't make any sense. It taught me not to be afraid, and to stand up against oppressive authority figures. Rules of the Game is also incredibly well made, the cinematography is remarkable. Surely I will need to watch this a few more times to absorb the technical beauty that is a Jean Renoir film. Praise it! 5/5

The Children of Paradise Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Children of Paradise
Director: Marcel Carne
Year: 1945
Country: France
Language: French

Marcel Carne's The Children of Paradise is an extraordinary piece of work considering it was made during an extremely volatile time. Shot in Paris and Nice during the Nazi occupation, the sets often had to be moved between the two cities. Since the Nazis banned films over 90 minutes, though Adolf Hitler often banned films he just didn't like as was the case for Tarzan films, Carne had to split this into two separate films. He worked with Jews who were tired of hiding, and he was forced to collaborate with Nazis, who were not aware that they were making a film which was critical of Nazi occupied France.

Children of Paradise is a rather tragic tale centering around the ill-fated love between Baptiste, a theater mime, and Claire Reine, an actress and otherwise woman-about-town who calls herself Garance. Garance, in turn, is loved by three other men: Frederick, a pretentious actor; Lacenaire, a conniving thief; and Count Eduard of Monteray. The story is further complicated by Nathalie, an actress who is in love with Baptiste.Garance is forced to enter the protection of Cont Eduard when she is falsely accused of stealing jewelery. Both Garance and Baptiste cheat on each other during their separation.

Again it is quite astonishing that this film was made, the incredible imagination of Marcel Carne survived even through the tough times of the Nazi occupation when one might think his hopes would have been crushed under the fascist shadow that loomed over him. There were many bumps in the road toward making this film. After Italy fell to fascism an Italian co-producer pulled out, another French producer was arrested by Nazis, a lead actor fled to Germany and material for costumes and sets were largely scarce. A perfectionist in every sense of the word, Carne's Children of Paradise involved the building of the largest studio set in the history of French Cinema. Representing a theater district from the 1830's, it was reproduced in marvelous detail.

this is a stylized allegory dealing with the paralysis of an occupied France. This is the kind of film people make when they may die tomorrow:  every word puts us on the edge of our seat, every moment we feel great anticipation that something wondrous or tragic is about to happen. It can be compared to Gone with the Wind, but only in scope and the similarity between the  female characters. Children of Paradise is more cynical and realistic. Even though the film has a running time of three hours, it never seems a minute too long. I am willing to watch this over and over again because it is just that good.

In conclusion, Children of Paradise, like Jean Renoir's Rules of the Game,  is often regarded as the greatest French film of all time. Rumor has it that it plays in Paris every single day because of its entertainment value and historical importance. I tend to agree with this claim as it is definitely in my top ten. It is a great mix of humour, melodrama and tragedy and the pinnacle of "poetic realism," Praise it! 5/5

Salo: Or the 120 Days of Sodom Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Salo or the 120 Days of Sodom
Director: Pier Paolo Pasolini
Year:  1976
Country: Italy
Language: Italian

Salo: Or the 120 Days of Sodom is easily the most disturbing film I have seen, both emotionally and visually. It was the first part of director Pier Paolo Pasolini's Trilogy of Death which was intended as a complementary to his previous Trilogy of Life (The Decameron, Arabian Nights and The Canterbury Tales) but unfortunately he was murdered before the two other films could be completed. Often called shocking and pornographic, this film and its message is often shrouded in controversy. I usually dismiss films with this level of depravity, calling them merely "torture porn". However I cannot do this with Salo because it has an important political message about the dangers of living in a facist society.

Pier Paolo Pasolini's first and only induction into his Trilogy of Death  is set in a Nazi controlled, Northern Italian State of Salo in 1944. The film is about a group of rich Fascists who kidnap a group of 18 youngsters, allowing only physically perfect specimens to stay, and subject them to various forms of mental, physical and sexual torture over the next 120 Days. The torture starts off in a sexual nature--Sodomy, rape, humiliation and so on-- and slowly degrades and descends into mental and physical torture.

 First of all, this film made me realize how absolutely disgusting it is to make extreme horror and violence into entertainment. Saw is a prime example of this, we are watching people being tortured for what? There is no important message that the film is trying to convey. It is shock for the sake of shock. Unfortunately it isn't even realistic violence. The violence and horror of the film is shown very realistically in Salo: Or the 120 Days of Sodom and that it why it is in no way meant for entertainment purposes. Unfortunately a lot of sick people don't care for the message it presents and see it just because it has shock value.

While watching this film it is quite clear on what Pasolini's views toward his country that at one time supported the evil Nazi Regime. He hated Mussolini and was absolutely disgusted by fascism. This whole flm shows the evil that Fascism induces. He felt that that particular ideology worshiped power for it's own sake. It is a blunt warning about how far humanity can fall and a powerful message about the nature of power when in the wrong hands. It is a film that makes you disgusted, but also angry at the people who let this slide by. It is important not to forget, because forgetting or ignoring  the evils of the past allow it to manifest itself in the future.

In conclusion, I'm not exactly sure how to rate this film. It is incredibly important in terms of politics and history, but it not a film I would watch again nor would I show to anybody I know. I am greatly impressed that it does show violence for what is (disgusting, repulsive) instead of glorifying it for entertainment purposes like so many Hollywood films do. Praise it! 4/5

The Nightmare Before Christmas Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Nightmare Before Christmas
Director: Harry Selick
Year: 1993
Country: US
Language: English

Harry Selick's The Nightmare Before Christmas defies holiday genre films. Is it a Christmas film or a Halloween film? Surely great arguments could be made on either side, I would say that it is suitable for both holidays. I would much prefer seeing this over Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life during Christmas season. Strangely, the first time I saw it was Christmas eve when I was about 10 years old. Expecting the usual Disney-like cartoon, I was quite shocked and somewhat horrified by how different this Burton's creation looked compared to everything else I have seen. When I see it I am reminded by The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari in how different the aesthetics are.

The film is about Jack Skellington (Danny Elfman) who is the king of Halloweentown. Unfortunately he is completely bored of doing the same thing every year for Halloween. One day he stumbles into Christmas Town and finds himself amazed with everything that goes on in there. When he comes back his own town he convinces all the ghouls, goblins and monsters to put up Christmas decorations and call their new holiday "Christmas" the town becomes confused and isn't really able to get anything quite right.

When directors approach the look and setting of a film they go for realistic places that the audience can recognize and relate to. Harry Selick completely throws that thought out the window and creates an unrecognizable landscape that intrigues our mind and puts our imagination into a frenzy. The world of Jack Skellington is both haunting and beautiful, strange yet captivating. Where traditional animation at that time was hand drawn, the animation presented here is called "stop-action animation" and it allows for an incredible three-dimensional world to be shown.

The film is charming and enjoyable, there is humor but it doesn't come from cheap one liners nor is the film consistently trying to make us laugh. The songs are a clear reflection of the mood range, in one scene we hear Jack singing a long sorrowful song and in another we hear the delightfully energetic song by the Oogie Boogie Man. Despite the "scary" Halloween images, Nightmare will bring entertainment to both children and adults because it never excludes nor panders to either generation. It is one of the rare animated films that can be loved by any age of person.

In conclusion, though the morals of this film seem poorly executed there is very little doubt that The Nightmare Before Christmas is a visually unique film from a veteran in stop motion animation, Director (Harry Selick) and a Producer (Tim Burton) who clearly went insane after producing this film. This is quite an achievement, hopefully it becomes both a Halloween and Christmas tradition for television stations to play. 3.5/5

Divorce Italian Style Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Divorce Italian Style
Director: Pietro Germi
Year: 1961
Country: Italy
Language: Italian

Very recently I watched Federico Fellini's La Strada and was absolutely amazed by it. I then decided to check out more Italian films and came across Pietro Germi's controversial dark comedy Divorce Italian Style. It reminded me of British director Robert Hamer's Kind Hearts and Coronets in its use of murder to create absurd comedy. This film was made during a time in which divorce was illegal in Italy and openly makes fun of the forced catholic lifestyle the Sicilian people had to endure. Divorce Italian Style is very feminist friendly as it is also a clear satire on macho masculinity and the patriarchy that follows it.

Petro Germi won an Academy Award Oscar for writing this darkly funny tale about Baron Fefé Cefalù (Marcello Mastroianni). He is a Sicillian who is bored of life and of his wife Rosalinda (Daniella Rocca). He is a man who is quite in love with his young yet beautiful cousin Angela, who spends the Summer in the same palace. Since divorce is illegal in 1960's Italy, he decides to kill his wife. He knows that he will get a lighter sentence if he proves that he acted out of honour, catching his wife with another man. So he decides to recruit a friend to seduce her.

Interestingly enough the plot of the film sounds incredibly realistic, I'm sure many men in Italy have tried this, because the loop-holes of the Italian penal code are quite obvious and unfortunately not even close to the woman's favour. In the Italian penal code of the sixties, men really could plea guilty to murder, say they were trying to avenge their honor and would get lesser sentences. In the complete Catholic society, people would get married for life, there was really no way out. Some religious people might think this is great, but Germi obviously knew better. Couples who became incompatible overtime weren't able to leave, women who were being abused couldn't find help. This film may be a satire, but it also a loud cry of disgust.

Marcello Mastroianni, best known for his role in Federico Fellini's 8 1/2, plays his character, the sarcastic and over the top macho Baron Cefalu wonderfully well. He is Chaplin-esque in the way that he doesn't have to say a word to make you chuckle, his facial movements are enough. Rosalinda is somewhat annoying, and it is easy to see why her husband would want to get rid of her. On some level this film is vulgar and low brow, but on another it is wonderfully political. Knowing that the Italians weren't happy about the system put in place, is uplifting and created hope.

In conclusion, this is a both important and wonderfully entertaining film. One of the best dark comedies I have seen in recent memory. Astonishingly devious, you will find yourself engaged in this film from start to finish. If you understand "satire" then you will love Divorce Italian Style. Praise it! 5/5

Fight Club Re-Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Fight Club
Director: David Fincher
Year: 1999
Country: US
Language: English

Fight Club was my first review on this site on March 19th, 2012. I gave this film a 1/5 , claiming that it was  "A celebration of fascism, shady philosophy and gratuitous violence" I recently found the will to watch the film just one more time. I was not only trying to find a redemptive quality to film, but also attempting to alter my opinion and write a more coherent review that will hopefully reach more people. This time, I will do my best not to criticize the writing as it is more the author's fault than anybody involved in making this film.

Fight Club is about a nameless narrator (Edward Norton) who attends support groups in attempt to overcome his emotional state and relieve his insomnia. There he meets Marla (Helena Bonham Carter) who attends for many similar reasons Soon he begins to associate himself with Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) and gets dragged into creating an underground fight club which turns into a cult. Oh, and there's a plot twist mixed in there, because many mainstream films in the 90's had some inexplicable desire to cash in on The Usual Suspects' (1995) success.

Once more, from a technical standpoint this film is extremely well made. The lighting highlights the mood and atmosphere of the film, which is dark and gritty. The shots make us feel claustrophobic, the special effects are quite exquisite. There are many scenes, such as Norton shooting himself in the face, that left me asking "how did they do it?" The casting was well chosen, and even though the acting wasn't great, it didn't need to be. The cold, stale acting of Brad Pitt contributed well to his shady character. I suppose could be used to analyze what an almost neo-noir-ish film should look like, though Fincher's early film The Game is actually bearable to watch

My favourite line in famed critic Roger Ebert's scathing review of Fight Club is "It is not without irony that the first meeting he attends is for post-surgical victims of testicular cancer, since the whole movie is about guys afraid of losing their cojones," He is also correct when he calls this film "macho porn" It is masturbation material for angry teenagers and testosterone filled old men. The book in which this film is based does show Durden's actions as too extreme and wrong, but the film completely misses the point through its poor execution. It spends far too much time trying to make Edward Norton and Brad Pitt, who were at the peak of their popularity back then, look as cool as possible. It also spends too much time on the fighting aspect and dumb "minfuck" aspect to be anywhere close to sensible.

In conclusion, my statements are crystal clear when you see the "fight clubs" that were formed soon after the film was released. You can see that I'm speaking the truth when you talk to a fan on Fincher's Fight Club and they shout a mindless philosophical slogan. The decent message of the book was terribly executed by the film, it did not get any remotely intelligent point across and therefore even though the film is technically well made, it is complete trash. Do yourself a favor and follow the first rule of fight club, do NOT TALK about Fight Club! Piss on it! 2/5

Koyaanisqatsi Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Koyaannisqatsi
Director: Godfrey Reggio
Year: 1983
Country: US
Language: Hopi

Wow. There are dozens of words I could use to describe the beauty of Koyaanisqatsi, Hopi for "life out of balance" but "wow" could definitely summon it all up. Director Godfrey Reggio certainly has a visionary mind as this is quite... brilliant? adventurous? courageous? It is unlike any film I have ever seen and I mean that in a most sincere and complimentary way. It is the first of three films, the other two are Powaqqatsi (1988) and Naqoyqatsi (2002). Combined they are known as The Qatsi Trilogy. Reggio's avant-garde labor of love took six years to make, but it was definitely worth it.

Koyaanisqatsi is somewhat strange yet incredible documentary. While there is no plot in the traditional sense, there is a definite scenario. The film opens on ancient native American cave drawings, while the soundtrack (which took three years to make itself) chants "Koyaanisqatsi".The film uses time lapse photography and slow motion photography to make comparisons between images. Through this technique we learn more about the world we live in, and how it has been affeted by man.

From the start Godfrey Reggio acknowledged that this 1983 production was only the start of his initial phase of a trilogy that would be shot on 35mm film and hopefully released in theatres that would normally show only mainstream releases like Brain De Palma's Scarface released earlier that year. He was gutsy in his vision, though it seems dangerous to assume film audiences would support a non-narrative film even if it has a serious socio-political message. Though to be fair, this film shows its message in an appealing manner that is in no way pretentious.

I admire the incredible photography, I wish I had Reggio's talent for finding great images. I also find myself in astonishment with the score composed by Phillip Glass, who at first wasn't too excited to make "film music" but grew to love the project. The message of the film is quite clear from the start, man is destroying nature. It warns us about man's love of technology and how that love can spin out of control and bring us in danger of completely harming the environment to the point of no return. I think this film's message is much more effective than Al Gore's MUCH more well known An Inconvenient Truth (2006)

In conclusion, though there are much more man-made problems than our harm to the environment, such as racism and inequality, we cannot be upset at what the film doesn't do as no single film can tackle every human problem. We must appreciate it for what it says about the environment, especially how it shows that. I have never seen a film like this and I likely won't see one like it again. Praise it! 5/5