The Good, The Bad and The Critic

Established on March 19th, 2012 and pioneered by film fanatic Michael J. Carlisle. The Good, The Bad and The Critic will analyze classic and contemporary films from all corners of the globe. This title references Sergei Leone's influential spaghetti western The Good, The Bad and the Ugly.

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Ides of March Review- By Michael Carlisle


Title: Ides of March
Year: 2011
Director: George Clooney
Country: U.S
Language: English
As you can tell from my reviews on Moneyball and The Help I’m not really a fan of recycled material that is not used in an interesting or innovative way. Harold and Maude is an example of a film that had the recycled rich and poor person love story however the way it was used was absolutely fascinating. Ides of March is a recycled story about the corruption of politicians and the crushing experience of running an American political campaign. Hey everybody, did you know that politics can often be crooked? You did! Wow! Ides of March tells us something everybody already knew about American politics. It’s corrupt, we get it. If this was made back in 2000, when George Bush stole office from Al Gore, then perhaps this film could have had some steam. It might’ve been incredibly controversial and still known to this day. However this is 2012, we are near the peak of the information era, this film presents old news.

Forget republicans, this film is really only about democrats. Because surely a democrat can’t be corrupted right? Enter Stephen Myers (Ryan Gosling), a press secretary who’s job is mainly to lie. He works for a fella named Mike Morris (George Clooney) who’s campaign manager is Paul Zera (Phillip Seymour Hoffman). They’re running against Michael Mantell and Paul Giamatti. Wow, this film has a noteworthy cast selection. Many people will see this film, just because of the great cast. I would argue that, like in many films, a huge ensemble cast likely means that the film is utter crap.

Surprise, surprise. Every character except the young fella (Ryan Gosling) is cynical and underhanded. Well, for a short while at least. See the theme in this film is that even good democratic politicians can become corrupted by their ambitions and the world around them. You might think of Ides of March as a less interesting and less funny political version of All About Eve. There seems to be a great resemblance between Ryan Gosling/Stephen Myers and Anne Baxter/ Eve. While this film may evoke discussions on the nature of man, it has done nothing that every other political film has done before.

Like I said, the film reveals no new information. In the era of information everything this film presents has already been well known. The story has been written several times, and that “insider story” is completely lost. The dirty laundry that’s attempted to be exposed has already been out years ago. The acting in this film, because it is filled with established actors, is well done. There are few films, if any, that Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti have acted poorly in. Ryan Gosling is incredibly convincing, as he is in many of his films like Blue Valentine and Lars and the Real Girl.

In conclusion, I think George Clooney was too aware that he was trying to make a serious political film. He thinks this film airs more dirty laundry than it actually does. This is 2012, the era of making dirty political films is over. Quite shoving the idea down our throats, we understand that politics is a dirty minefield. We understand that politicians can become corrupted. Recycled material can only be fresh if you do something creative with it. Piss on it! 1/5

Next 5 Reviews
1. Midnight in Paris- 2011
2. The Hunger Games- 2012
3. 50/50- 2011
4. Inception- 2010
5. Keyhole- 2011

Moneyball Review- By Michael Carlisle


Title: Moneyball
Year: 2011
Country: U.S
Language: English

Going into this baseball underdog film I had two thoughts in mind: A) This film is going to be an innovative sports film that will renew my faith that not all underdog films are the same or B) This film is going to be the exact same baseball underdog movie that I’ve seen one hundred times over. After I watched Moneyball  I concluded that it was the exact same Baseball underdog film that I’ve seen one hundred times over with a few exceptions. The acting was good, the humour was well used and the serious scenes were not at all cheesy. Therefore this underdog sports film is better than Benchwarmers, Bad News Bears and Underdog: A Dodgeball Story but failed in comparison to Field of Dreams, though currently I’m not sure if Field of Dreams was an underdog story as the only thing I remember is the quote  “If you build it, they will come”.

Moneyball begins by trying to tell us a deep and dark secret about baseball that we all already knew already. No it’s not that some of the star players are on steroids, that would be too obvious. It’s that Baseball is run on money. Money is what makes the world go round, money is what baseball goes around. If you don’t have money you can’t get the star players, if you can’t get the star players then you have to settle for poorer players. If you settle for the poorer players you most likely won’t win the World Series. Well duh. Please tell me something useful. Please assume that I haven’t been living in a while in the ground for the decade. Baseball is run by money. Brilliant.

The film centers on Oakland Athletic’s manager  Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) who used to be a MLB star but couldn’t make the cut anymore. He became manager and was fuled over his hatred of losing. Sound like the typical baseball movie manager? Yeah, I thought so too. He also is a lonely man who is recovering from a failed and doesn’t have the best relationship with his daughter. He faces incredible criticism from the everybody even remotely in charge of his team. There is great pressure on his shoulders. His job is on the line but he knows of a way to win. Yes, he still sounds like the typical coach/manager of an underdog baseball team but surprisingly Pitt’s acting saves this character. He makes us feel sympathy and get us to root for him. Pitt’s acting in this film is probably the only good quality of this film.

Billy Beane’s secret tactic to winning is Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a nerdy fella who can crunch numbers like a pro and therefore obtain a cost efficient way to analyze baseball players and win games. The film is about business and numbers. It is about abandoning tradition in favour of numerical analysis. To win they must go against many centuries of baseball tradition. Human calculation is supposed to win more games than human instinct. This is supposed to be a brave film about abandoning tradition yet it is a traditional sports film. It is a film that does not criticize the idea that “winning isn’t everything”. Infact in Moneyball winning is everything. Everyone is hell-bent on winning. People do not matter in this film, people are pawns in a numerical system. This is the kind of thing Chaplin warned us about in Modern Times and The Great Dictator. Why are we celebrating a film that celebrates human detachment and human ambition? Why do we people think this film says anything intelligent at all? Does anybody even watch baseball anymore?

In conclusion. Moneyball is a well acted clone of every other underdog sports film, except that this may have worse morals. Is baseball that important anymore anyways?  Regardless of the answer, I still feel that I have wasted my time watching the film AND reviewing the film. Although at least if people read my review I can save them from two hours of something they probably already saw when they were five. Piss on it! 1/5

Next 5 Reviews:
1. Ides of March- 2011
2. Midnight in Paris- 2011
3. The Hunger Games- 2012
4. 50/50- 2011
5. Inception- 2010

Hugo Review- By Michael Carlisle


Title: Hugo
Year: 2011
Director: Martin Scorsese
Country: US
Language: English

Martin Scorsese is usually known for making either gangster epics like Goodfellas and The Departed or dark brooding films like Taxi Driver and Mean Streets. Though he has been known to stray from them once in a while, as in the Christ bio-pic Last Temptation of Christ and  Rolling Stones’ documentary Shine a Light, he has never ventured into an epic, bug budget, 3D, family film. Indeed it is the family film to top all family films, Scoreless once again proves that he is a master at his craft with Hugo. This is 2011’s second film, the first is The Artist, to be a celebration of silent film.

The film’s plot is about Hugo Cabaret, a boy in the 30’s who self learns the workings of mechanics.  His father’s dream is to complete an automaton but unfortunately he dies before this automaton is completed. Instead of being treated like an  orphan, which in the 30’s is usually subject to being treated like crap, he hides in a large clock tower in the Paris Train Station. The train station is complicated by a grumpy old man who seems incredibly bitter. This man, played by the great Sir Ben Kingsley, happens to be George Melies. The inventor of the automaton and an extremely  important  figure in film history.

George Melies? You ask. Who is George Meiles? George Meiles is the grandfather of special effects. He is most famous for 1902’s A Trip To the Moon, a wonderfully odd film about a group of people who travel to the moon and encounter various aliens. Through flashback we see how he had made these wonderful films and his inspirations for them. Meiles is often a forgotten director in the history of the film, and this is a shame. For without Meiles we would probably not have any of the films we see in theatres today. Film would not have rose above a near novelty, it would not have penetrated the imaginations of people like Scorsese or Chaplin. I feel film history should not be taken for granted, we should not merely watch films out of enjoyment but we should study them and write about them. We should analyze them and appreciate them. Film is an art that goes all the way back to the 19th Century and we should not be stuck merely watching films as they come out.

Scorsese himself is a great appreciator of the art of Cinema, constantly watching films at his local theatre, learning from great directors on how to make his own great films and, in a few cases, resurrecting the careers of forgotten or underappreciated film makers.  His own personal cause is to preserve old films so that generations upon generations can learn from these films. Scorsese has made many documentaries about great films and great directors, he uses his vast cinematic knowledge to resurrect the appreciation of George Meiles. Indeed Hugo is a celebration of the birth of film and how far it has gone from the time of the Lumiere Brothers, George Meiles & Charlie Chaplin. From silence to sound, from b/w to colour, film has always been a great spiritual art form.

In conclusion, Hugo is a wonderful film about the history of film. It has helped me renew a great love for the art form. Films for me are not merely “entertainment” but a great spiritual experience where much knowledge about life and death is to be gained. Films like Black Swan  can teach you the price of perfection, films like Throne of Blood can teach you about the nature of power. Film can fill you with great hope and great despair, they can make you feel emotions that you’ve never felt before. They can give you a whole new outlook on life. Film is beyond art, it is beyond imagination, it is beyond life. Hugo is an incredible masterpiece. Hugo has restored my faith in film. Praise it! 5/5

Next 5 Reviews:
1. Moneyball- 2011
2. Ides of March- 2011
3. Midnight in Paris- 2011
4. The Hunger Games- 2012
5. 50/50- 2011

Friday, May 11, 2012

The Help Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Help
Year: 2011
Country: U.S
Language: English

There’s something I’ve never understood about film. Why can a film regarding black enslavement be a light comedy whereas a film about the holocaust always has to be extremely serious. I am not suggesting that the Holocaust be satirized or joked about but there needs to be some consistency. Black slavery and segregation was a horrible thing that still affects white and black relations today. It was not taken “lightly”, I’m sure no black person ever thought it was funny when they were raped by their white masters, forced to pick cotton all day for no pay, and whipped whenever they strayed from their duties. The suffering of the black man should not be perceived as less than the suffering of the Jews, both were horribly mistreated.

The Help is a disgustingly safe film about a subject that should not be taken lightly. I am sick of light hearted comedies about an era engulfed in complete darkness. It’s completely repulsive and sickening to the stomach, Martin Luther King would definitely have a fit about this to. It is 2011’s white guilt fantasy, that somehow has the idiotic show white people in a decent light. Yes, during the slavery period not all the white people were bad but most of them were and I don’t think there needs to be any more “white hero” films. I feel this “white hero” mindset does not advance society in anyway, I think it leaves more room for hate and self entitlement. We, the whites, need to save them because we are more sophisticated. It’s some macho bullshit superiority game.

The story centers on our “white hero” Skeeter Phalan (Emma Stone) when she graduates college and finds out that she doesn’t hate black people like all the others around her. Her family has two black maids named Aibileen Clark (Viola Davis) and Minny Jackson (Octavia Spencer). White people are dicks yadda yadda, Aibileen and Minny are mad yadda yadda. Skeeter, the white girl who doesn’t hate black people, writes a book about black people’s feelings . As she writes the book she becomes more frustrated about the mistreatment of black people. Thus it is up to this white woman to make sure the black people’s stories are heard. Sorry, but this is bullshit.

The film has great performances out of the cast, and perhaps the film is well meaning, but it’s safe and typical. The film does nothing, besides the shit pie scene, to separate itself from any other mediocre racism film I’ve seen. It’s about pain but doesn’t go far enough.  It’s a “feel good” film that left me wondering why I watched it in the first place. There is not truth in this film, it hardly makes amends for the cruelty that we’ve done. It’s fake, overdone and rotten to the core. Perhaps not every film should be serious, but I feel it’s about time that white people started taking films about slavery in a serious way. It’s 2012. Grow up!

In conclusion, I hope “white hero” superiority exploitation films die out immediately. This has been done over and over and over. Yes there’s great acting but acting cannot save this film. This film exploited the dark era of slavery to make money. It lacks the intelligence to be anything but a child’s film. I’m sick of it, the world is sick of it. Malcolm X would be spinning in his grave if he saw this film. Piss on it! 1/5

Next 5 Reviews:
1. Hugo- 2011
2. Moneyball- 2011
3. Ides of March- 2011
4. Midnight in Paris- 2011
5. Hunger Games- 2012

Melancholia Review- By Michael Carlisle


Title: Melancholia
Year: 2011
Director: Lars Von Trier
Country: Denmark
Language: English


Danish filmmaker Lars Von Trier is known for making incredibly depressing yet well made films like Antichrist and Dancer in the Dark, so when I heard that he was making an apocalyptic film known as Melancholia I just had to watch it. Von Trier seemed to be born to make this film, his career built on female characters who go through great trials and tribulations.  Indeed, because he focuses more on the female characters in his films, he often inspires great  award winning performances out of them. He is truly a feminist filmmaker, whether he intentionally attempts to be or not. To Von Trier women are filled with great emotion, great passion and great suffering, they can evoke more feelings on the screen than their male counterparts. Such emotion is needed when making a film about the end of the world.

This “end of the world” film does not feature many apocalyptic signs of destruction. There are no tsunamis, no earthquakes , no buildings being destroyed. There aren’t massive amounts of people fleeing in a giant panic, there aren’t animals behaving in an unusual way. .  He avoids every typical thing a  sci fi apocalypse film should have such as blaring radio broadcasts and constant news coverage. Melancholia is a rather slow paced film compared to every other  apocalypse related films. It takes its time and delivers a slow impending doom. We know what’s going to happen, the characters know what’s going to happen, there is some sense of hope but all we can do is watch out of curiosity. Von Trier shows a brilliant shot of the lead characters staring at the planet that is about to collide with the earth, portraying the sense of doom that is washing over them.

A prologue to the tune of Wagner’s “Tristan and Isolde” opens the film. It gives us a sense of dread, fear and uneasiness. The world is not right, and everything that is will come to an end.  We are sucked into the mood of the film right away, we understand that this is not for the faint of hearts.  Hovering in the sky is another planet, Melancholia. We know that this is the way humanity as we know it will end.  Every moment in this film is soaked with the knowledge that the world is going to end.  The wedding scenes between Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and Michael (Alexander Skarsgard) doesn’t seem to matter, though it seems to exist to show the detachments of every character and the depressions that already plague them. There is some bickering, but we realize that none of this matters compared to the “big picture”. Justine is the first person who sees the planet hovering in the sky, which will grow larger and larger over the next few days until it fills the sky. Nobody seems to care about it or talk about it much.

Perhaps this film is about death in general. Everybody seems to avoid talking about it, they either don’t care about Melancholia or assume that somebody else can deal with it. I find it curious that there is a lack of violence and gore in this film. Lars Von Trier was constantly criticized because his last film, Antichrist. had too much violence and therefore was proclaimed “torture porn”. Melancholia is a film where everybody on Earth will die, yet the death within this film isn’t violent. Von Trier might be saying that there is great beauty in death, if you accept it and not struggle against it. Justine sees her fate coming, instead of panicking or becoming furious, she learns to accept it and face it head on. The planet known as melancholia will ultimately not bring her down.  Every person who has ever existed has died, thus this is her time to die.

In conclusion, I feel there is a lot to be understood from the film. I intend to watch this many times as I fully do not understand it myself, Melancholia is one of those films that demand multiple viewings. It’s quite abstract and very different from any apocalyptic film you will see in your life.  This is the performance of Kirsten Dunst’s career, I doubt that she can act in anything else that will top this. This film can have many interpretations, many ways of understanding it. Melancholia is truly art at its most apocalyptic. Praise it! 4/5

Next 5 Reviews:
1. The Help- 2011
2. Hugo- 2011
3. Moneyball- 2011
4. Ides of March- 2011
5. Midnight in Paris- 2011

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

The Redemption of General Butt Naked Review- By Michael Carlisle


Title: The Redemption of General Butt Naked
Year: 2011
Director: Danielle Anastasion
Country: U.S
Language: English
 

The Redemption of General Butt Naked has been described as a “compelling portrait of an extraordinarily complex personal odyssey” (Turan, K) Indeed this film is an incredibly thought provoking documentary that is definitely a challenge to get through, and in no way do I mean that in a negative way. It will force you to confront more than one demon, and make you question the nature of forgiveness. Can you forgive a monster? Can you forgive a boogeyman? All the while you will find yourself soaked in tears at this numbing film. Numbing because it completely shock you and absorbs you like few films can. Will you be the same after this experience? Definitely not. Your world will have been shaken, your faith distraught. Should you not moved by this, I would suggest that you are made of stone.

Forgiveness is a central theme of this film, as it is in the core of life. If you have not had any personal troubles with someone then you might not have lived. For in living, there is always a chance of ruffling up some feathers. Everyone who has ever lived has apologized and had to forgive someone for certain actions. People feel a certain pride in themselves when they forgive, possibly because they think they are a better person. Indeed the center of Christianity is forgiveness, Jesus taught that everybody should “forgive” and turn the other cheek. However, forgiveness is not always easy, in-fact in many situation it can be damn hard to do. In a family abuse situation, where the parents have horribly abused a child, the child may never forgive the person. Though, many people will point out that not forgiving someone when they have apologized is the wrong and slightly inhumane thing to do. Those people, who claim that forgiveness is always easy and right (which included myself until I watched this film) have never met Joshua Milton Blayhi.

Joshua Milton Blayhi- aka General Butt Naked- is what the boogeyman is afraid of. Don’t let the name fool you, General Butt Naked was one of the most ruthless and destructive warlords during Liberia’s decade plus Civil War. He was called General “Butt Naked” because he fought literally butt naked. He roamed Liberia only with a pair of leather shoes and an AK-47, if you saw this naked man you’d likely be dead within a matter of seconds. He believed being naked in battle would give him supernatural powers and make him indestructible, bullets would not penetrate him. As early as twelve he would give a monthly sacrifice to Satan, who he claimed he often met, this sacrifice would  regularly include eating the victim’s heart. He led an army of child slave soldiers and is said to have killed thousands.  Then when the war was coming to a close, and he was losing, he had an epiphany and converted to Christianity. From there he traveled far and wide, spreading the Gospel s and the words of God wherever he went.

He of course faced great scrutiny and hatred from many. A lot of people refused to accept this change and wanted his head on a platter- and who can blame them? Do we even know if General Butt Naked is telling the truth when he says he converted? He did so, when he was losing the war. He suddenly abandoned his child soldiers, perhaps this great epiphany is a hoax to assure him that he won’t be killed? What I like about the film, is that it doesn’t give us a definite answer, it lets us ponder these questions. However, if he has truely changed then why should we always bring up his past? Isn’t forgiveness about trust? Can we stay angry at a situation forever? This is the great challenge The Redemption of General Butt Naked presents. I’ve seen this film about five times now, and I still can’t make a decision. It’s very hard to get out of my head.

In conclusion, if you want a very challenging and thought provoking film this is definitely for you. Your mind will absorb this film, and even if you think of yourself as a very forgiving person, you will have many doubts after this. A great documentary changes your views, and this is definitely mind altering. Not for the weak of heart, not for the weak of mind. Praise it! 4/5

Monday, May 7, 2012

Shallow Grave Review- By Michael Carlisle


 Title: Shallow Grave
Year: 1994
Director: Danny Boyle
Country: UK
Language: English


Danny Boyle has been the mastermind behind such great works as 127 Hours and Slumdog Millionaire, however when I heard that he had made a dark comedy, noticing that a  Criterion Edition is soon to be released, I was quite surprised and slowly became very intrigued. Could this match up to the many dark comedies I had seen? Was Danny Boyle in his element?  The film stars the fantastic Ewan McGregor, surely on paper this looks like a delightful treat. Unfortunately, this is not so. Ewan certainly holds up his end of the stick, but the writing is so sub-par that the films becomes an un-interesting wreck. I guess when one attempts to climb the ladder of success they encounter some falls every now and again. Shallow Grave was quite a fall indeed.

Set in Glasgow, Scotland, the film starts with three roommates who are interviewing a fourth person to join in splitting the rent. They take great joy in humiliating all the interviewees until they stumble upon a man named Hugo, who seems interesting enough to join their crew of misfits and jerks. Hugo moves in, then dies of an overdose the next morning. His roommates are quite annoyed until they find a suitcase full of cash in his room. Like most people in dark comedy situations, they decide that it would be best to dispose the body and keep the briefcase full of cash, because nobody else knows that the man is dead or that he has all this money . This “disposal” involves doing things that most people wouldn’t dare dream of doing, such as cutting off various body parts so the corpse can’t be identified. Once this is done, the three get unimaginably paranoid. Visitors come in to check in on the house, but alas all are murdered, they become victims of the three inhuman people.

Danny Boyle tries hard to make this film as funny as it can be, but it’s just not. The attempts at humour come off as extremely weird and uncomfortable. Don’t mistake this as a dislike for dark comedy, I love dark comedy. The wood chipper scene in 1996’s Fargo “Is that you partner there...in the wood chipper” was hilarious. However one thing Fargo and many other dark comedies had, which is why I think Boyle’s Shallow Grave is a definite fail for me, is that they all had relatable and likeable characters.  You could feel bad for William H. Macy’s character when his wife’s fake kidnapping doesn’t go the way he wants it to  in Fargo, in this film I felt nothing for any of the characters. They all were complete assholes  who would berate and abuse people for fun. Even when Ewan McGregor’s character is at his most paranoid we are unsympathetic.

We need to be sympathetic about these characters as the whole film is based on the tension of being caught. We need to care that they could go to jail for a really long time if they are caught, but we don’t. Therefore the suspension is gone, I was actually rooting that the three jerks; Alex (Ewan Mcgregor), David (Christopher Eccleston) and Juliet (Kerry Fox) get caught. Is this the point though? Is this film supposed to be an anti-dark comedy? If so then he has done a great job, but I strongly doubt it. Even Edgar Allen Poe felt his murderers needed some hint of humanity.

In conclusion,  though Danny Boyle is one of the best directors of the 21sr Century, he definetley had a few flops in the 90’s. This is one of those flops. The attempts at humor were, at best, incredibly uncomfortable and awkward. It likely would have worked better if the characters portrayed more humanity. Every dark comedy needs a sympathetic character you can root for or sympathize with. This film did not satisfy the demands of the genre. Piss on it! 1/5

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary- By Michael Carlisle


 Title: Dracula: Pages From A Virgin's Diary
Year: 2003
Director: Guy Maddin
Country: Canada
Language: English

The mad poet of Manitoba strikes again with this wildly atmospheric take of the seductive and horrific life of Count Dracula. Again Guy Maddin uses his unique silent style of filmmaking to make Dracula: Pages From a Virgin’s Diary, which is arguably the best filmed account of Dracula since the 1922 classic Nosferatu. Living in an era where vampires have been reduced to teenage heartthrobs via Twilight, it is incredibly refreshing to see that older visions of what a vampire could and should be have not necessarily died or faded away. The most incredible thing about Maddin’s Dracula is that it is a ballet. The actors express great emotion on their faces and bodies, as well as transfer speech into movement. If Black Swan is the greatest film about ballet, then this film is the greatest ballet film. Though, how many ballet films are there? A unique man has made an incredibly unique film.


Dracula: Pages from a Virgin’s Diary looks and feels like a silent film of the late 20’s, yet also has the feel of an odd Salvador Dali film. It contains the Royal Winnipeg Ballet’s  production of “Dracula”, which is choreographed and produced by Mark Godden. The silent era-like music and visuals are incredibly effective to adding to the gothic mood to this film. If you were to make a frightening yet poetic and graceful film about Dracula’s legend this would definitely be the way to do it. Unfortunately, there have been too many satires and poor films about the head honcho of vampires that we tend to forget how amazing a film about Dracula could be. Do not pass on this film, just because you’ve seen too many poor takes on the subject matter.
Maddin’s Dracula sometimes feels like a scene or two is missing, not because there is missing footage, but because it does not care about chronology. You will not have a realistic A to B movie, instead you’ll be faced with a film that works like a dream, jumping from A to C to Z without hesitation or remorse. It’s a film based on something familiar, but works in a way that no film could ever dream of. He also takes advantage of his silent-era style of film-making by capturing images that evoke great emotion. He uses tinting to show an eerie- blood filled scene.

The film is about Count Dracula’s seductiveness. Indeed, there is a whole counter culture that deals with the erotic implications of vampires. Somehow it is orgasmic to have a pair of fangs sink deep into your neck. Maddin jumps on this theory and uses it to the film’s advantage. Maddin’s bold imagery show us the legendary vampire, his seemingly sexual encounters, and the man known as Van Helsing who is determined to take Dracula down. Though, this is less about a battle of good versus evil and more about the secret world of the Vampire. I have seen many films about Vampires, but none like Maddin presents.

In conclusion, though this may be an incredibly hard film to find, I recommend to watch it and analyze every scene. Examine how Maddin has taken a familiar story and taken it to enormous heights. Then I suggest you buy a ticket to Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada and check out the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra live, perhaps when they play their version of Dracula again. While Maddin’s Dracula is not his best film, it surely is a treat to see. Praise it! 3.5/5

My Winnipeg Review- by Michael Carlisle


Title: My Winnipeg
Year: 2007
Director: Guy Maddin
Country: Canada
Language: English
  

Being raised in Winnipeg I can tell you that it is both a magical and quite boring place. The slurpee capital of the world, the murder capital of Canada (though there’s less murders that the peace capital of the U.S) and the coldest major city in the World. You’d have to be quite the champ to live here year after year, knowing that when winter comes it’s going to get really hard to get around whether you have a car or not. Indeed a lot of people in Winnipeg take Winnipeg for granted, like the character in My Winnipeg they wish to leave this city forever. Perhaps because they think nothing great can come out of the city, which is not true, we have spawned many great people such as The Guess Who, Chris Jericho, Neil Young and of course, Guy Maddin. Many people are unaware of the great history of this remarkable city, which is a shame but this is one of the reasons Maddin decided to make this film. How do these people wish to leave Winnipeg?  By becoming the best in whatever their field is and making a lot of money of course. Some wish to sing their way out, others would like to educate themselves out, Maddin’s character thinks he can film his way out.

Maddin’s films are not that easy to find. It is very unlikely that you’ll be able to download them off a torrent site, or find them at your local theatre. However, if you search and eventually do find his films  I recommend watching the hell out of them. Absorb as much as you can, for all Maddin’s films are a unique treat that will surely stir the soul and inspire limitless creativity. My Winnipeg is a film where Maddin’s limitless creativity and boundless imagination thrives. He uses the editing techniques of old films, recycled news footage, shock cutting, startling camera shots, melodramatic acting & re-introduction of the iris shot to modern cinema to create a dreamlike portrait of our hometown Winnipeg.  Maddin re-writes Winnipeg history, and then creates more with his mind. My Winnipeg truely transcends the genre of documentary.

1955-2004
Coined as the “mad poet of Manitoba” Maddin has always loved his hometown Winnipeg, yet as things have changed throughout history he has become more disappointed  with it, like a mother whose son decides to quit school and become a drug dealer. My Winnipeg is indeed Guy Maddin’s love story, but like all good love stories there must be a great degree of drama, tragedy and mental separation. He expresses great anger at the fact that the beloved Winnipeg Arena was torn down after the decision to disband from the National Hockey League, which strangely we re-joined in 2011, the only colour footage in this film is when the arena is torn down. Maddin claims that he has fond memories of it because he was born in the women’s locker room, perhaps this is fiction, but how could we prove that it’s false? Personally, I don’t have as much fond memories of it, the washrooms were hard to find and you had to be in troughs lined on the floor, such an odd place.

The unique aspect of the film is that it blends fact with fiction and makes it impossible to tell the difference because often the fact is stranger than fiction. For instance, there is a segment in the film in which Maddin discusses the séances at the Legislative Building. He builds it as nightmare-ish and satanic all the while showing almost hallucinary imagery. You would think this part of the film would be false, why would government officials join in on something so cult-like? Then you do some research and you become startled to find out that this is truth. Maddin points out a lot of “facts” that seem impossible to believe, yet you have to be wary, because he will also trick you with fiction. This kind of “documentary” filmmaking is in a class of its own.

In conclusion, any review about Guy Maddin’s My Winnipeg will fail to give you an idea of the magic within this film. I could sit and write pages and pages about how good the film is but it wouldn’t suffice. This is a film beyond words and beyond the realm of documentary filmmaking. It changes the way we think about Cinema, it will change the way you think about history. An innovation  in every sense of the word. Watch it! You will surely be pleased at Maddin’s ode to his beloved city.  Praise it! 5/5