Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?
Year: 1957
Director: Frank Tashlin
Country: U.S
Language: English 

I believe I was checking out the Masters of Cinema DVD catalogue when I came across Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? I have never heard of the actors in the film nor the Director Frank Tashlin, but something about this film intrigued me and I just had to see it as soon as possible. I did not expect much, in fact the plot reminded me of an old Simpsons episode where Selma marries movie star Troy McClure to help him land a big movie deal, but I was quite surprised by how witty and charming this film was.

Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter is a satire of TV advertising agencies. It stars Tony Randall (The Odd Couple) as Rockwell Hunter, a man who is in a serious low point in his career. That is, until he finds the perfect spokes model for "Stay-Put" lipstick, Rita Marlowe (Jayne Masnfield), an incredibly famous actress with the trademark "oh so kissable" lips. In exchange for the publicity Rockwell Hunter must do something else in exchange, become her "lover doll".

While Director Frank Tashlin made a career out of animated films, his live-action feature films seem to be terrible at best. His resume of films, which include Cinderfella, Son of Paleface  and The Private Navy of SGT. O' Farrell, are often subject to harsh criticism and great yawns by bored film-goers. Even his second greatest achievement The Girl Can't Help It is mediocre at best. So why is this film so good? Well it's visually clever, incredibly witty, engaging and incredibly well paced. The satire hits the target while never seeming to be overwhelming. It's clearly an anti-television show, a scene in which Rockwell Hunter interrupts the film to jokingly pander to the television audience is a bit bitter but quite funny.

This film reminds me of Alexander Mackendrick's Sweet Smell of Success, except that it's much lighter and a bit funnier. They both made their cinematic debut in 1957 and they both were about the nature of success. Ultimately both arriving at the same conclusion, success is not about selling your soul for material gain, it is about personal happiness and being content with life regardless of where you are in your career. Unfortunately too many people get caught up in society's major view of success and it gets stuck in their head, they'll do anything to be "successful", regardless of who they step on. Fortunately, since this is lighter in content, Rock Hunter never falls as far as Sidney Falco (Tony Curtis) did in Sweet Smell of Success. 

In conclusion, though I found a bit of the dialogue near the end of the film to be a bit cheesy as it seemed to try to hard to pander to the audience, Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter was a thoroughly enjoyable film that I would definitely watch over and over again. The cameo by the great Groucho Marx was a fantastic surprise, I was thrilled to see him in a film like this. I hope and review more "hidden" comedy gems in the future. Praise it! 4/5

Hearts of Darkness Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse
Year: 1991
Director: Fax Bahr
Country: US
Language: English 

Immediately after I saw Francis Ford Coppola's Vietnam masterpiece I watched Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse. Like Burden of Dreams was for Werner Herzog's Fitzcarraldo or The Battle Over Citizen Kane was for Orson Welles' Citizen Kane, Hearts of Darkness is an educational companion piece that helps the viewer not only understand Coppola's film & Coppola's mind, but the nature of film-making itself. Making a film is not easy, anybody who thinks it is will soon find themselves in much more that what they bargained for.

Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse is an enticing and insightful documentary that shows the sensational events surrounding Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now. It features narration by Elanor Coppola, Francis' wife, as well as footage she secretly documented. We see the struggles and triumphs, the battles and the labors, the war that was about the creation of the film.

Many of the stories described in the film are quite astounding. They paid the great Marlon Brando one million dollars in advance to act in Francis' film only to find out that instead of the skinny actor Francis thought he would be; he was incredibly fat and didn't know any of his lines nor did he read the book of which the film was based on. The film was over-budget, over schedule and all the actors were on drugs. The lead actor Martin Sheen had a heart attack and nearly died one night, causing even more chaos during production. The making of the film about war became a war of itself. While Martin Sheen was bordering on the edge of madness on screen, Coppola was doing the same offscreen.

Hearts of Darkness is a decent documentary about one man's many sacrifices for his art.It is a film with a simple yet powerful message: Never give up. Even if times become extremely hard and you feel like you are struggling just to see the next day, don't give up. Keep on trying, keep on going no matter what because eventually your hard work will eventually pay off and things will get better. This film also shows that art is difficult, if you're writing a novel and expect it to be easy then you really need to think again.

In conclusion, Hearts of Darkness is a wonderful companion piece to Apocalypse Now if you watch the documentary shortly after the film. Otherwise I'm not sure Hearts of Darkness can stand well on its own.The message is quite powerful, though there are likely more messages from this film that I haven't see yet. 3.5/5

Apocalypse Now Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Apocalypse Now
Year: 1979
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Country: US
Language: English

I have seen Francis Ford Coppola's great works like The Godfather and The Godfather Part II and I have seen the great Vietnam films of our time such as Oliver Stone's Platoon and Michael Cimino's The Deer Hunter, but oddly enough I have never seen Coppola's Vietnam epic Apocalypse Now until a few days ago. Why have I avoided it? I can't recall. Like Werner Herzog's Fitzcarraldo, this is a film that nearly destroyed the filmmaker and the crew involved. The stories about the making of this film are so enticing an entire documentary called Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse was made about it.

The film is set during the height of the Vietnam war U.S. Army Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) is sent by Colonel Lucas (Harrison Ford) and a General to carry out a mission that, officially, 'does not exist - nor will it ever exist'. The mission: To seek out a mysterious Green Beret Colonel, Walter Kurtz (Marlon Brando), whose army has crossed the border into Cambodia and is conducting hit-and-run missions against the Viet Cong and NVA. The army believes Kurtz has gone completely insane and Willard's job is to eliminate him..."with extreme prejudice".

Francis Ford Coppola should be applauded for his efforts in creating this film. He risked his house, his family, his money, his career and his life in the hopes that he could actually complete this astonishing epic. His shooting schedule went from 6 months to 16 months, he went over budget, his lead actor had a heart attack and Marlon Brando was incredibly difficult to work with. Coppola was edge of insanity due to the stress of making this film, he pushed himself harder than any-man should and contemplated suicide far too often. He pushed the creative envelope whereas most directors might have either a) given up or b) compromise their film by working in a studio.

Coppola's directing makes you feel as if you're actually in the Vietnam war. Everything is realistic, everything mirrors the insanity of the Vietnam war. All innocence has been thrown out the window, death is everywhere. Every scene is important and incredibly well made. Even the first improvised scene where Willard has an emotional breakdown is quite impactful and leaves a lasting impression.I found the homage to D.W Griffith's controversial Birth of a Nation quite amusing, instead of the KKK riding horses there are Americans flying helicopters about to kill some Vietnamese.

In conclusion, I wish I could say something about the philosophy within Apocalypse Now but the film will take a few days to digest and this is probably a film I will have to see quite a few more times in the next few weeks. It is better than most "war" films I have seen, because this isn't necessarily about a physical battle but a battle of the mind and of the soul. It is one of the finest American films that I have ever seen. The acting by Martin Sheen is haunting and spellbinding, while I didn't buy Brando as entirely evil, I certainly bought him as an American soldier gone completely mad. Praise it! 5/5

Liz and Dick Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Liz and Dick
Director: Lloyd Kramer
Year: 2012
Country: U.S
Language: English 

Elizabeth Taylor is one of the greatest actresses in the history of cinema, alongside such greats as Bettie Davis (All About Eve) and Meryl Streep (Sophie's Choice). Her well known acting abilities have won her two Academy Awards, one for Who's Afraid of Virginia and another for Butterfield 8. She has had an enduring appeal that has stood the test of time. Which is why I was quite intrigued when I heard a film about her was being made.

Liz and Dick is essentially about the relationship between two great Hollywood icons. On one side we have Elizabeth Taylor (Lindsay Lohan) and on the other we have Richard Burton (Grant Bowler). Their love affair  gave rise to the dreaded paparazzi and their rocky unstable relationship was often captured on camera, most notably Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

On IMDB they call this this film the "no holds barred" account of Taylor and Burton's relationship, whoever wrote that must have not seen the film yet. Honestly I only watched it to see how bad it would be, and I was not disappointed. It's a tragedy in every sense of the word, and not in a good way. Unrealistically I was actually rooting for Lindsay Lohan to do a great job even if it was a bad film, I though it could be her "comeback"However if she's not mumbling through her lines, she is incredibly inconsistent with her accent. She switches from British to American accents in MID SENTENCE! Sometimes she delivers her lines with a Boston accent. Physically she might resemble Natalie Wood more than Elizabeth Taylor, there seemed to be no real resemblance. Lohan did not emit any of the sexuality Liz had.

While there aren't as many problems with Grant Bowler, his character looks MUCH older than Elizabeth Taylor and thus their relationship almost resembles that of Lolita and Humbert Humbert in Lolita. In other words, it's a bit creepy and off-putting. For a film that takes place over a period of decades the time progression was very strange. Even though the scenes changed often you would have no idea how much time had passed until it was mentioned in the dialogue or in text. Most of the scenes looked the same, the characters didn't looked like they aged at all and the editing in this film was poor.

In conclusion, Liz and Dick is a sleazy film that seems like it was carelessly put together. Even if Lohan's acting was flawless it still would not be able to save this mess of a film. I found it fun to watch, only because I enjoyed how bad it was. Even the dialouge ("I don't loathe you, I hate you!") was absolutely dreadful. Though what do you expect from a film that was only aired by a second rate television station? I didn't even know Lifetime existed until I saw that Liz and Dick would be playing on it. Piss on it! 0.5/5

Hitchcock Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Hitchcock
Year: 2012
Director: Sacha Gervasi
Country: U.S
Language: English

Alfred Hitchcock is one of the greatest British film Directors there ever has been, alongside such legends as Charles Chaplin (City Lights) and Mike Leigh (Topsy Turvey). His well known espionage and psychological thriller films like The 39 Steps and Vertigo have kept me in awe for years. His films have an enduring appeal that stretches across Hollywood and art-house audiences alike. Therefore I was quite intrigued when I heard about that a film was being made about his life and creative process.

Hitchcock is essentially about Alfred Hitchcock's (Anthony Hopkins)  trials and tribulation regarding the messy creative process involved with the making of Psycho. It is also about the relationship between Hitchcock and Alma Reville (Helen Mirren) and a psychological study on the mind of Hitchcock and his need to control the women around him.

The making of Hitchcock's Psycho is actually just a framing narrative for the main story, the shaky relationship between Hitchcock and his wife. This is a bit of a disappointment, because fans of Hitchcock will definitely be attending the film to see more details regarding the production of Psycho. One wonders why the framing narrative wasn't about the making of Vertigo since that film is considered Hitchcock's greatest achievement and the themes of obsession and need to control women definitely carry over onto this film.

Director Sacha Gervasi makes some great criticisms about society with this film. Even though women raise the next generation, support their men and do a ton of other work we don't seem to give them enough credit. In-fact we often look past them and only see the success of their husbands. When a woman gives up a career to be with her children we don't say anything because we expect it, but when a man does the exact same thing he is constantly praised. Hitchcock needs his wife, but the main problem is that he doesn't give his wife any credit for her help. While Hitchcock is about a man, it is definitely a feminist film.

While there are many themes present in this film  they barely scratch the surface. It's a film that is afraid to become too dramatic and thus compromises its potential to be incredibly intelligent by being far too optimistic. As a biographical film the ending is silly because Hitchcock's treatment of women didn't get better, it got much worse. The HBO film The Girl is essentially about how Hitchcock harassed Tipi Hedren on his post- Pyscho film called The Birds.

In conclusion, if you wish to see a great film about the creative process and relationships see Mike Leigh's Topsy Turvey. That being said Hitchcock isn't necessarily a "bad" film, it just isn't "great"The acting by Anthony Hopkins is good, but I think James D'Arcy stole the film with his great impression of Anthony Perkins.  Also, the separation of the beds in the master bedroom, done because in the 50's film censorship code required beds to be seperate, is only clever when it's shown in one 3-5 second  shot. When you have whole scenes in the master bedroom the "seperate beds" become distracting and incredibly cheesy.  2.5/5