The Marriage of Maria Braun Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Marriage of Maria Braun
Year: 1979
Director: Rainer Werner Fassbinder
Country: West Germany
Language: German 

Rainer Werner Fassbinder is one of the greatest German directors in the history of cinema, alongside such greats as Wim Wenders (Wings of Desire) and Werner Herzog (Fitzcarraldo). His well known directing abilities have won him countless awards.An openly homosexual man with serious drug problems, the number of films he made exceeded 40 in only 13 years. One of which was over 15 hours long. The Marriage of Maria Braun is not nearly as long, but it's quite an astonishing work of art.

This incredible film follows the life of a young German woman, married to a soldier in the waning days of WWII. Fassbinder has tried to examine and portray the gritty life after the end of WWII for the German people and the turmoil of the people trapped in its wake.

The very first shot in this film is of Germany in 1943, an allied bombing raid which disrupts a small wedding ceremony in progress with the bride and groom scrambling for safety.The bride is the title character, Maria Braun. Her husband is leaving soon and she is left to survive on her own in post-war Germany. In time Maria Braun begins to use her beauty, sexuality and brains to survive the horrors of the war while her husband is off fighting. During this time she has multiple affairs but is bluntly honest to her lovers. Over the years this woman slowly becomes domineering, manipulative, strong and cruel.If nothing else, this film is a fascinating character study. It's incredible yet tragic poetry in motion.

The Marriage of Maria Braun skilfully depicts the sense of determination and the sheer triumph of will that went towards rebuilding Germany from the ashes of the Second World War through the eyes of a resolute young woman willing to push her own emotional stability to breaking point in order to secure a better future for her and her incarcerated husband. There are also many other different ways you can analyze the character of Maria Braun and the situation that she is in.

In conclusion, The Marriage of Maria Braun is a brilliant film by a legendary director whom would continue to make more great films until his early death in the early eighties. The film speaks volumes regarding sexual politics and features an astounding acting performance by Hannah Schygulla. The Criterion Collection edition of this is fantastic, but may not be worth the $200+ it costs to buy it on amazon. Praise it! 5/5

Star Wars Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Star Wars (aka Star Wars IV: A New Hope)
Year: 1977
Director: George Lucas 
Country: U.S
Language: English

George Lucas' Star Wars is commonly considered the greatest science fiction film of all time, by people who have yet to see Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey and/or Ridley Scott's Blade Runner Adjusting inflation, Star Wars is one of the highest grossing films of all time. Every generation in North America has seen the film, if you have not you will receive very curious looks from your friends, family and peers. Star Wars is a film that absolutely refuses to go away, for better and for worse.

 Lucas' film concerns Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), a simple farm boy who dreams of a better life. He soon gets what he wants when he meets his a curious bunch of filk (Han Solo, Chewbacca, Obi-Wan Kenobi, C-3PO, R2-D2) and attempt to rescue a Rebel leader, Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher), from the clutches of the evil Empire.

Every-time I chat with a person who saw Star Wars when it was released in 1977 they always say the same thing, "It was unlike anything that had been made up to that point in time!" Was it really? Perhaps memory isn't very consistent with reality. The special effects in 2001: A Space Odyssey, a film made nearly a decade earlier, were greater from a visual aspect than the effects seen in Star Wars. This is not to say the effects in Lucas' film were bad, they are certainly very  appealing, but the film can't be credited for being "new" and/or "revolutionary". Many of the characters and senes from the film are just rehashed from older samurai films and re-designed to have a Sci--fi look that will appeal to Western audiences. The plot itself is essentially Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress. While the ability to alter ideas to fit a genre is somewhat impressive, this doesn't make Lucas any more of a genius than James Cameron.

The plot of Star Wars is as simple as its characters. There isn't much complexity in Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader, just the fact that one character is good while the other is evil. Though some films can create complex reflections regarding society with the simple "good vs evil" idea, Night of the Hunter does this incredibly well, Star Wars does not. The script is weak and doesn't help in making the characters seem more "human", the only impressive piece of dialogue is in The Empire Strikes Back when Solo says "I know" after Leia says "I love you", and that line wasn't even in the script!

That being said, in regards to cinematography and effects the film looked quite good. There is a decent amount of detail in the background of every scene and it seems like it would be enormously difficult to create, film & edit the fast paced outer-space battles. The score is fantastic, definitely one of the greatest scores in the history of cinema. It makes the film exciting and worthwhile, without it the film as a whole may not be as loved as it is. Though most of the acting is sub-par, Alec Guiness (who absolutely hated the film with good reason) and Harrison Ford play their roles fairly well.

In conclusion, nowadays there are many people who wonder where Hollywood started to lean on special effects rather than a great plot with realistic characters. I believe Star Wars is the source of this problem. It was, and still is, a cash cow because of its simple story and visual appeal. While Woody Allen's Annie Hall beat Star Wars for "Best Picture" at the Academy Awards in 1977, it is clear that there are less film like Annie Hall being produced by major studios and more films like Star Wars. I cannot recommend Star Wars due to the negative impact it has had on the film industry in terms of choosing technology over intelligence, however I do have to give credit where credit is due. 3/5

The Lord of The Rings Trilogy Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Years: 2001-2003
Director: Peter Jackson
Country: New Zealand/U.S
Language: English

Perhaps it is a little unfair to review an entire Trilogy of films at once, especially a trilogy as expansive as Peter Jackson's epic Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Then again each film is a continuation, each film beginning where the last one ended. I see Lord of the Rings as one 9.2 hour long film, assuming we are basing the length on theatrical release. Between them they have won a staggering thirty Academy Awards, winning seventeen, eleven of which were just for Return of the King.

The Lord of the Rings is about an ancient Ring thought lost for centuries has been found, and through a strange twist in fate has been given to a small Hobbit named Frodo (Elijah Wood). When Gandalf (Ian Mckellen) discovers the Ring is in fact the One Ring of the Dark Lord Sauron, Frodo must make an epic quest to the Cracks of Mount Doom in order to destroy it!

At least that's what the first film Fellowship of the Rings is about. Really this trilogy should be called The Lord of the Rings and His Other Useless Friends. Aside from Frodo, Borimir (Sean Bean), Sauruman (Christopher Lee), Gollum (Andy Serkis) and Samwise Gamgee (Sean Astin) the rest of the characters are either incompetent (Gandalf), comedic fodder (Gimli) or pointless filler (Aragon, legolas). There was no real need for these side stories because the main and most important story is the relationship between Frodo and Sam, and their quest to bring the ring to Mount Doom. A very big theme in this trilogy is "self sacrifice", this is why Borimir is important because he emphasizes the great evil of the ring by attempting to take it, and the great importance of destroying it when he dies for it.

Shot in Jackson's homeland of New Zealand, there is little doubt that this film is of immense technical perfection. The score is not only flawless, but it is memorable. It sticks in the memory, even if you hear a vague tune on the street you'll remember which film it came from. The battle scenes, though mostly filler, are incredibly epic, filled with unique and sometimes startling images that provoke the creative mind. Unfortunately the acting was not as great. While I love Ian Mckellen, his character Gandalf was not impressive though admittedly great acting could not have saved that character. Elijah Wood's acting wasn't good either, everytime Frodo was in trouble the camera would close-up on Wood's face and it was the same expression EVERYTIME! Sean Astin completely stole the show, I'm surprised his career hasn't risen to extreme heights after this film.

In conclusion, while The Lord of The Rings Trilogy is a great cinematic achievements, it just doesn't interest me enough to watch again. There are great "self-sacrifice" and "friendship" themes in this film, Sam and Frodo's relationship, which sometimes borders on the homo-erotic, is one of the strongest in cinematic history, but that's really the only reason to watch the film. I feel most of this film's praise is based on hype and technology, sure it looks good and at moments it has heart, but a 9.2 hour trilogy with 2 hours of heart is just not worth it. 3/5

Note: I haven't read Tolkien's books, so this film review is isolated. It is in no way a reflection of Tolkien or his novels. His own estate didn't even approve of Jackson's adaptations.

Olympia Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Olympia
Year: 1938
Director: Leni Riefenstahl
Country: Germany
Language: German

 
Leni Reifenstahl is a filmmaker that nobody wants to admit they like, but everybody must agree that she's an absolute genius. She is known for being a Nazi propaganda film-maker, though long after the war she denied ever partaking in Nazi politics and was spared imprisonment or death by the allies. She lived until her death at 101 years old in 2002 and left a legacy of controversial yet brilliant films. Olympia is one of them.
 
After being commissioned by the 1936 Olympic Committee to create a feature film of the Berlin Olympics, Riefenstahl did so by shooting a documentary that makes a monument out of the human body. It includes the marathon, men's diving, and American track star Jesse Owen's sprint races at the 1936 Olympic games.The attempts to glorify the male body may come off as homo-erotic for some, but overall this film attempts to show the passion of the human spirit.

Perhaps it's because of political and historical context, but of every documentary about the Olympics Riefenstahl's is the most interesting. The very opening of the film traces the carrying of the Olympic torch from Greece to Germany as some kind of Holy Quest, it really emphasizes the importance of these athletes and of the Olympics itself. The incredible cinematography makes this film look like a lavish spectacle. of grit and determination. Incredibly Riefenstahl doesn't just focus on German athletes, but athletes from every country which included the African-American Jesse Owens who won four gold medals at the games. This film is shocking, but not because of propaganda, it's shocking because the Nazis covered the Olympics better and more fairly than news networks do today.

Though this is not to say that Olympia was never intended to be propoganda. The film was sponsored by Hitler, who gave Reifenstahl the incredible support and funding she needed to cover the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin. Despite the support, this task would prove to be quite daunting. Filming the games, supervising and post-production would take immense effort, even with modern equipment. Reifenstahl had much more primitive equipment, therefore the fact that she was able to make such a great Olympic film is a true testament to her mental stamina and creative prowess.

In conclusion, there will never be another Olympic documentary that's as engaging as Leni Reifenstahl's Olympia. I'm not an athlete and I do not care for the Olympics, but I was able to watch this film without being bored. In 1948, long after Hitler's dream had turned to dust, the Olympic Committee honored the filmmaker with a gold medal for her great film effort. Why? Because she's just that damn good. Praise it! 5/5

Dr. Strangelove Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to To Stop  Worrying and Love The Bomb
Year: 1964
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Country: U.S
Language: English

Stanley Kubrick is one of the greatest and one of the most unusual American Directors to grace the screen. His films, which include A Clockwork Orange and Lolita, have been known to be incredibly controversial for their time. Causing panics and uproars, one film of his was removed from the theater due to enormous negative response. Is he a genius or a madman? I would consider him both. His Dr.Strangelove Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb only adds prestige to his odd legacy.

Dr.Strangelove stars Sterling Hayden as U.S. Air Force General Jack Ripper. A man who  goes completely and utterly mad, and sends his bomber wing to destroy the U.S.S.R. He suspects that the communists are conspiring to pollute the "precious bodily fluids" of the American people. The U.S. president meets with his advisors, where the Soviet ambassador tells him that if the U.S.S.R. is hit by nuclear weapons, it will trigger a "Doomsday Machine" which will destroy all plant and animal life on Earth. Will the bombers be stopped in time, or will General Jack Ripper succeed in destroying the world ?

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is a war room!" Dr.Strangelove is a fantastic black comedy that acts as a political satire. Around this time in history, the American people were terrified about the real threat regarding nuclear annihilation. The cold war had continued to rage on and anti-communist conspiracy theorists like Jack Ripper were surprisingly common. Kubrick not only made this film to mock the "serious" atmosphere of America at that time, but he made it to reassure Americans that everything was going to be alright so we might as well laugh at our fears.

Gilbert Taylor's black-and-white cinematography is outstanding, which goes well with the suspenseful plot. Kubrick's eye for detail goes to extreme lengths with this film, he decided to make the table in the war room green like a poker table because he though the idea that these important men were playing poker with the world was funny, however this was a black-and -white film so the colour wouldn't even show and the detail was a waste. Peter Sellers' acting in this film is legendary. He plays three characters, most notable the twisted Dr.Strangelove who seems unable to stop his arm from doing a nazi salute. Mein Fuhrer...I can walk!

In conclusion, while it can be argued that Dr.Strangelove is not his best film, it most certainly is his funniest. It is full of fresh & witty dialogue, President Muffley's monologue while talking on the phone with the Soviet Premier in Moscow is absolutely hilarious.  We went and did a silly thing. Indeed this is truly Kubrick's most silly film. Praise it! 5/5

Bowling for Columbine Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Bowling for Columbine
Year: 2002
Director: Michael Moore
Country: U.S
Language: English 

About a year ago I reviewed Bill Maher's Religulous and gave it a horrendous "piss on it" rating. Mainly because it was a trashy film that used editing and terrible interviewees (an actor who plays Jesus) to answer incredibly thought provoking questions. Michael Moore essentially does the same thing, yet he's better at hiding his pseudo-intellectualism. Though Bowling For Columbine may have a good message (guns are bad) Moore presents it in a dishonest way.

In Bowling for Columbine, Pseudo-intellectual Michael Moore sets out to explore the roots of gun violence, or violence in general, in the United States. He finds his answer: Guns!

A small synopsis of Bowling for Columbine, but that's essentially what this film is about. Michael Moore saying "guns are bad" in as many different ways as he can. He doesn't bother to go into any deeper issues like poverty, homelessness, racism and various other factors that have been proven to be causes of violence. He points his finger at ONE issue in which he doesn't do much research on. K-Mart sells guns! OMG! You can get a gun at a bank! OMG! This film's entire success is based on the fear and anxiety of the American people.

What Moore didn't mention is that while that particular bank does give out guns, they're much harder to get than the film shows. There is a criminal background check including photo ID check and an FBI background check. Then, to get the gun, you have to open a 10 year Certificate of Deposit. The gun also doesn't come with ammunition. While I don't particularly like the NRA, Moore attempts to link the NRA to the KKK which is dirty considering the founders of the NRA were against slavery. His attempts to belittle the great Charlton Heston are cruel, he was an ill 80 yr old man who has been an active member of the civil rights movement. Moore "cleverly" edits their conversation to make Heston look like an angry fool. If I was Heston I'd be angry at Moore's disrespectful attitude too.

In conclusion, while Moore criticizes the media for being narrow minded on this issue and blaming videogames or music, he forgets that he's doing THE EXACT same thing with guns. I'm not defending the NRA or guns because I strongly dislike them both, I'm just saying that Moore simplifies the issue and even when it's just about guns he doesn't make an intelligent argument. He creates fear through dirty tactics like harrasing a movie star with alzheimer's. All his films repeat the same formula but with a different topic, so only one review of a film of his is necessary. Piss on it! 0/5

Shame Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Shame
Year: 1968
Director: Ingmar Bergman
Country: Sweden
Language: Swedish 

Critics, cinephiles and even casual film-goers will agree that Ingmar Bergman is definitely one of the most prolific Directors of all time. His films have the power to shock, bring you to ecstatic joy and even bring you to tears. I have personally reviewed his Persona, Cries and Whispers, The Seventh Seal, Fanny and Alexander, Wild Strawberries, The Virgin Spring, and Summer Interlude so far, but I am just getting warmed up. I first saw Shame a few years ago and it has been on my mind ever since.

Shame is about two musicians who retreat to a rural island to farm during civil war. They love each other, but there are problems: the war upsets Jan (Max Von Sydow), he is weepy, too sensitive; Eva (Liv Ullman) wants children, he does not. The war suddenly arrives: rebels attack, neighbors die. When the other side restores order, Jan and Eva are arrested as collaborators. They are released, but soon the rebels return and Jan becomes murderous. They decide to flee.

This film is a bit different from every other Bergman film. It is not different due to characters, set pieces nor even cinematography. It is different because the conflict that drives the plot originates from an outside source. Most of Bergman's conflicts are created by his characters' struggle with inner demons or existential anxiety (The Seventh Seal, Persona, Cries and Whispers, Wild Strawberries) The conflict is provided by bombs, which force the characters to cope with their new life.

Bergman originally wanted to call this film The War, but eventually decided on Shame while he was writing the script. Why Shame? Perhaps this film is not about the shame of individual characters, but the shame of God. Perhaps if God were to look down at Earth and see all the misery, bloodshed, and the horrible circumstances innocent people like Jan and Eva are put through then perhaps he would feel great Shame. Though if that's the case then Bergman doesn't make the point clear enough, however it is widely known that Bergman was dissatisfied with this film, so he may have known he didn't make the point clear enough

In conclusion, the cinematography in this film is quite exquisite, brilliantly showing scarred landscaped, buring trees and powerful close-ups. It's a grim and haunting film, a likely realistic film for anybody who has had their town turned into a warzone. Even though Bergman wasn't impressed with this film it is still very well made. Shame is an emotionally gripping character study that's well worth a few views. 3.5/5

The Jazz Singer Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Jazz Singer
Year: 1927
Director: Alan Crosland
Country: U.S
Language: English 

Throughout cinematic history there have always been films that have made huge impacts with their role in the development of Cinema as we currently know it. Such films would include George Meiles' A Trip To the Moon, Orson Welles's Citizen Kane, and Alan Crosland's The Jazz Singer. This film is particularly important because it introduced sound into film which started the incredible crave for "talkies" and inevitably made careers while simultaneously destroying some.

In The Jazz Singer Cantor Rabinowitz is concerned and upset because his son Jakie shows so little interest in carrying on the family's traditions and heritage. For five generations, men in the family have been Cantors in the synagogue, but Jakie is more interested in jazz and ragtime music. One day, they have such a bitter argument that Jakie leaves home for good. However he finds balancing his relationships and his career to be quite difficult.

The Jazz Singer is a film made by Jews for Jews and is about Jews, which is quite interesting when you realize that the sound technology introduced by this film would be later exploited by Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler to assist in his attempts to exterminate the European Jews during the Holocaust. Though commonly considered the first "all sound" movie, many fail to mention that aside from the musical performances and some dialigoue this film is mostly silent.

The plot is relatively simple, a mix of vaudeville and melodrama, though the film as a whole stands for much more. It shows a clear generation gap between Cantor Robinson and his son Jackie Robinson, a shift of ideals and tradition that represent not just these two individuals, but the country as a whole. Silent films were coming to a stop and if you didn't board the "talkie" train then your career would die from the changing of time. A political critic named Michael Rogin would claim that this film also represents a Jewish transformation in our society; the racial assimilation into white America.

In conclusion, The Jazz Singer is a remarkable film which is both historically important and incredibly entertaining. You do not have to be a part of any particular religion to enjoy this film, though it would help if you're not a bigot. One might find Jackie's "blackface" to be a bit racist but this is a film made more than eighty years ago and it doesn't seem like the character is a racist so I'll let it pass. The first few words of this film definitley summarize the future of cinema. "You ain't heard nothin' yet" Praise it! 5/5

Black God, White Devil Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Black God, White Devil
Year: 1964
Director: Glauber Rocha
Country: Brazil
Language: Portuguese

"Oh my God, Eisenstein's been reborn...and he's Brazilian!" said a Brazilian film critic as he marvelled at an early screening of Glauber Rocha's Black God, White Devil. Born in Bahla, the North-Eastern Brazilian state known for the birth of Afro-Brazilian culture, Gluaber is an almost forgotten director with a brilliant yet under-rated film. This film was inspired by the director's fascination of mysticism and American Westerns, and the creation of the influential movement known as Cinema Novo.

Glauber's tale is a fictionalized account of the adventures of hired gunman Antonio das Mortes (Mauricio Do Valle), set against the real life last days of rural banditism. The movie follows Antonio as he witnesses the descent of common rural worker Manuel (Geraldo Del Rat) into a life of crime, joining the gang of Antonio's sworn enemy, Corisco the Blond Devil (Othon Bastos), and the Pedra Bonita Massacre.

Black God, White Devil is shot in a remarkably harsh black and white that almost makes the screen glow. It is full of astonishing montage sequences and wildly energetic camera movements.  Infact Waldemar Lima's weightless, dizzying camera and high-contrast lighting is essential to the film's aesthetics. Glauber shows us a country that is unraveling at the seams, it's about to explode in a chaotic mess. Another remarkable trait of the film is the unique building of a realist/expressionist/ mythological portrayal of Brazilian sertão -- the inhuman labor and life condition of the illiterate, destitute, God-fearing peasants, perennially exploited by landowners, politicians, bandits, Catholic priests and doomsday messianic "prophets"

Glauber, like many Brazilian cinephiles, found himself deeply drawn to the radical politics of his generation. Black God, White Devil is his political film, which explores the connections between historical change and violence. Most of Brazilian history before transition has been free from the incredible violence that could tear the entire nation apart. After transition-from colony to empire and so on- there has been far too much death by incredibly violent actions. Glauber's examples are focused on the many rebellions in Brazil's backlands.

In conclusion, Black God, White Devil is perhaps the most important Brazilian film ever made. It is full of thought provoking politics which will leave its audience in deep discussion long after they have seen the film. It is fair to compare Glauber to Eisenstein because both men made political films about oppressed people who need to stand up for what's right. This film is not only entertaining, but it's a call for revolution! Praise it! 5/5

Beauty and the Beast Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Beauty and the Beast
Year: 1991
Director: Gary Trousdale
Country: U.S
Language: English 

When one thinks of Disney classics their cannon usually consists of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, The Lion King, Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast. This is the first animated film that received a Best Picture nomination at the Academy Awards, unfortunately it didn't win because it lost to Silence of the Lambs. Beauty and the Beast has some controversy surrounding it, many critics of the film believe this is pro-abusive relationships. Whatever the case may be, I have watched it again and have come to two conclusions regarding this film, which will be written about below.

The film is about an intelligent girl named Belle (Paige O' Hara) who is dissatisfied with life in a small provincial French town, constantly trying to fend off the misplaced "affections" of conceited Gaston (Richard White). The Beast (Robby Benson) is a prince who was placed under a spell because he could not love. To be fair the Beast was 11 years old when she pissed off the witch that put a spell on him, A wrong turn taken by Maurice (Rex Everhart), Belle's father, causes the two to meet.

Conclusion #1: Beauty and the Beast is a morally responsible film about the dangers of masculinity. Gaston is the typical masculine stereotype the North American media constantly portrays. He is physically strong, confident to the point of arrogance and he treats women like objects to be skillfully obtained. Despite his "masculinity" he cannot win Belle's heart. In the beginning of the film, The Beast is portrayed as the violent "masculine" man, a take charge "man" who is incredibly aggressive. It is only until The Beast  shows some typically "feminine" characteristics that he becomes both metaphorically and literally more human and Belle begins to fall for him.

Conclusion #2: Beauty and the Beast is not about morals, it is an examination of Stockholm syndrome and abusive relationships. Belle is portrayed as intelligent in the film, but what "intelligent" characteristics does she have? Any indication of her intelligence that we have is that she can read a book, which pretty much anybody can do. Eventually she inadvertently gets herself locked in a castle with an angry Beast, and becomes a hostage/prisoner.  She slowly falls for the Beast, but is this because The Beast himself changed or because her view of the Beast changed? Stockholm Syndrome is essentially a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy, sympathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. Belle mistook some normal, average behavior for niceness. The Beast might not have given her a library, it was his to begin with and he was just showing her another room in his large castle.

In conclusion, while Beauty and the Beast is a fun film to watch and examine, it is also a decently made and entertaining film. The background is meticulously made, some of the characters are pretty funny and the songs like Gaston and Be Our Guest are quite memorable. Wile this isn't the best Disney film, nor the funnest, it still is decent. 3.5/5

Night of the Hunter Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Night of the Hunter
Year: 1955
Director: Charles Laughton
Country: U.S
Language: English 

Shelly Winters seems to have the unfortunate luck of being specifically typecast as a widowed mother who falls for a creepy man, in this case Reverend Harry Powell (Robert Mitchum), and then is murdered due to the villain's interest in her child/children. Charles Laughton was perhaps the first director to fit her into this role, so perhaps he is to blame. Laughton was a powerful actor who starred in classics like Island of Lost Souls and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. He directed only one film, this particular film, and it is absolutely incredible.

Robert Mitchum stars as Harry Powell, a maniacal priest who  marries and murders widows for their money, believing he is helping God do away with women who arouse men's carnal instincts. Arrested for auto theft, he shares a cell with condemned killer Ben Harper (Peter Graves) and tries to get him to reveal the whereabouts of the $10,000 he stole. Only Ben's nine-year-old son, John (Billy Chapin) and four-year-old daughter, Pearl (Sally Bruce) know where the money is. After Ben is executed, Powell finds his widow and makes her fall for him. Though all he really wants is to find the money.

Night of the Hunter is a horror film that plays very much like a fairy-tale from your childhood. John and Pearl symbolize innocence, and the bogeyman comes in the form of an adult, a godlike man who cons the gullible townsfolk including the children's mom. The score, as well as the visuals are rather dreamlike. Charles Laughton was going for in the film was expressionistic and was clearly going for the look of the old silent films of D.W. Griffith. He used very similar camera shots and techniques as well. Lillian Gish, most famous for her silent screen roles in D.W Griffith pictures of the 20's, is a protective mother-goose like figure who can spot wolves in sheep's clothing.

Night of the Hunter is a story of good and evil, of love and hate. There are no shades of grey, which is fine for this particular picture. It is also a truthful story about good religion vs bad religion. There are people like Harry Powell, who use their beliefs as a crutch and to mask who they really are, vile beasts. There are also people like Gish, who are honest and use their beliefs for good and protective purposes. This is a film of caution, we must not look at religious institutions and/or religiously authoritative people (priests, nuns, popes) as gods. Plenty of harm has been done by them, especially in places that have blind faith in religious leaders. Perhaps the reason Night of the Hunter is so frightening is because despite its dream-like look, the film is incredibly realistic.

In conclusion, while Night of the Hunter is a very entertaining film, it also holds very haunting truths that still carry over to this day. Due to increasing awareness we are  hearing more and more similar accusations involving priests and children to this day. Though we must not also forget that there are good religious people in existence. The Criterion edition of this film is excellent, pick it up right away. Praise it! 5/5

Eyes Wide Shut Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Eyes Wide Shut
Year: 1999
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Country: U.S
Language: English 

 Stanley Kubrick is one of the greatest directors in the history of cinema, alongside such greats as Lars Von Trier (Antichrist) and Orson Welles (Citizen Kane). He has a filmography which consists of the frightening The Shining and thought provoking 2001: A Space Odyssey. I have always thought that after The Shining Kubrick simply went crazy and lost his ability to make a great film. This belief led me to regard Eyes Wide Shut as a poor film, but recently I've seen it again and have a much different belief.

Tom Cruise is a doctor becomes obsessed with having a sexual encounter after his wife (Nicole Kidman) admits to having sexual fantasies about a man she met and chastising him for dishonesty in not admitting to his own fantasies. This sets him off into unfulfilled encounters with a dead patient's daughter and a hooker. But when he visits a nightclub, where a pianist friend Nick Nightingale is playing, he learns about a secret sexual group and decides to attend one of their congregations.

Eyes Wide Shut is one of the most controversial and debated of Kubrick's many films. Like his Lolita, made almost 40 years earlier, this film visits very sexual themes of lust and desire. It is also about sexual inadequacy and genuine human jealousy. Cruise's wife's secret, told by an incredibly acted monologue scene by Nicole Kidman, triggers every built up emotion inside Cruise and makes him re-think his relationship. Perhaps the best moral this film offers is sexual honesty. If you are upset, afraid, nervous, jealous then you should discuss it with the one you love.

The sexual content of Eyes Wide Shut is a little extreme, but not excessive or pornographic in nature. Kubrick presents sex and nudity in a manner that is more disturbing than erotic. In a way this film plays like a psychological thriller, reminiscent of Hitchcock's Vertigo. There is an underlying notion of danger and uncertainty in every scene where there is a nude woman other than Cruise's wife. The score adds to this uncertainty very well.

The infamous orgy scene shows Kubrick's re-occuring theme regarding the dehumanization of humanity. Sex is normally the most intimate means of human interaction, yet here it is reduced to a ritualistic, almost creepy form of gratification. They all wear masks, mainly because being seen in that room may have very negative social consequences. While there can be freedom in these masks, there is also great isolation.

In conclusion, Kubrick has made a career of upsetting the public and this film definitely takes the cake. It is controversial yet thought provoking and brilliantly made. Though it was fully completed after the death of Kubrick, it is more than likely that he would have approved of this film. There are many scenes from this film that are simply unforgettable, Kidman's monologue may be the greatest ever written in Cinema. Praise it! 5/5

Natural Born Killers Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Natural Born Killers
Year: 1994
Director: Oliver Stone
Country: U.S
Language: English 

After Bonnie and Clyde there was Natural Born Killers, an Oliver Stone film that I haven't bothered to see. I'm not sure why, I guess I assumed that the film would be full of mindless violence and wouldn't teach me anything. My girlfriend Deny Ferguson requested that I watch and review this film, so I gladly accepted the challenge. I have seen Stone's Platoon, The Doors, JFK and Wall Street, they have all impressed me in various ways. Natural Born Killers is also quite impressive.

The film follows the misadventures of Mickey (Woody Harrelson) and Mallory (Juliette Lewis) They travel across Route 666 conducting psychadelic mass-slaughters not for money, not for revenge, just for fun. They become legendary folk heroes after being glorified by the media. Their story is told by the single person they keep alive after their killing sprees.

Over the years critics have called this film a "great glorification of violence". It has been protested by thousands who deem this film as "disgusting" and "vile trash", many feel this film should be banned based on content alone. People who don't necessarily "hate" this film will avoid it because of the politics surrounding it. Yes the film is violent, but the film is not about the violence. It is not necessarily about the killers, but the media attention the killers inspire. It is a not so obvious satire of the media, it is surprisingly intelligent and very thought provoking.

Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers definitely plays on the "serial killer turns pop culture icon" idea. One teenager in the film tells the TV cameras, "Mass murder is wrong. But if I were a mass murderer, I'd be Mickey and Mallory!" Media sensationalism is quite evident in our modern North American society. More people are caught up in Lindsay Lohan's breakdown or what Lady Gaga is wearing rather than the real deep issues like the civil war in Syria. This films holds a mirror to our face, it exposes our hypocritical love of violence and suggests that we are wrong for making a spectacle out of a train-wreck.

In conclusion, Stone's film is a good slap in the face. Wake Up! Watch this film then look around you, notice that incredibly violent films like Skyfall and Django Uncained are still playing in theatres and realize just how truthful Stone's film is. Natural Born Killers exceeds my expectations and will make me think for a very long time. Is it shocking? Yes, The truth is always pretty shocking. Praise it! 5/5

Hamlet Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Hamlet
Year: 1948
Director: Laurence Olivier
Country: UK
Language: English 

There are many great screen adaptations of William Shakespeare's plays, such as Henry V, Forbidden Planet and Chimes at Midnight. My next three reviews will regard film adaptations of the tragedy known as Hamlet. The first will be Kenneth Branagh's 1996 version, the second will consist of Mel Gibson's 1990 version and finally the third will be Sir Laurence Olivier's 1948 version. I first saw Olivier's version in Matt Meiers' English class a few years ago. My first impression was of pure admiration, I thought this is what Shakespearean adaptation should aspire to be. A couple years later I would buy the Criterion Collection edition so I could watch it whenever I felt like.

Hamlet is about the son of the king of Denmark, who is named Hamlet (Kenneth Branagh) He is summoned home for his father's funeral and his mother's wedding to his uncle. In a supernatural occurrence, he discovers that his uncle, whom he doesn't like that much anyways, murdered his father. He must plot and then unplot against the uncle, while directing a play within a play in order to exact revenge.

Olivier's Hamlet appears to be the most authentic version of Shakespeare's tragedy that is available for home viewing. It is much bleaker that Gibson and Branagh's version and for good reason; This is a tragedy of a man who must murder. This is a story of ghosts & revenge. As the film itself claims "This is the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind" The tone of the film is sombre and gothic, though it needs to be to realistically capture the mood of the troubled Hamlet.

Olivier bring great depth to one of the most complex and perhaps fascinating characters Shakespeare has ever written about. He is subtle in acting yet demonstrates great understanding of the character's inner struggles that tug at his soul. Olivier as a director keeps the film at a nice slow pace, with great tracking shots of the gothic-like castle's staircases & corridors. He emphasizes a great deal on shadows and extreme close-ups. Great fans of the play might be disappointed that many scenes and minor characters are cut (such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) but perhaps the film's strength is that it chooses to focus only on Hamlet's main troubles.

In conclusion, I feel Olivier's Hamlet is not only the best adaptation of Hamlet, but I also feel that it is the best Shakespearean adaptation in existence. It is definitely in my top ten favourite films ever made. Everything about Olivier's film is bleak yet incredibly beautiful. Oliver's performance as the title character is truly unforgettable. Praise it! 5/5

Hamlet Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Hamlet
Year: 1990
Director: Franco Zeffirelli
Country: U.S
Language: English

There are many great screen adaptations of William Shakespeare's plays, such as The Lion King, Macbeth  and My Own Private Idaho. My next three reviews will regard film adaptations of the tragedy known as Hamlet. The first will be Kenneth Branagh's 1996 version, the second will consist of Mel Gibson's 1990 version and finally the third will be Sir Laurence Olivier's 1948 version. I first saw Gibson's version with my father when I was about ten year's old, my first impression was that it was quite long and boring, though to be fair I was probably too young to stay interested. I recently watched it again and shall write about my second impression more than a decade later.

Hamlet is about the son of the king of Denmark, who is named Hamlet (Kenneth Branagh) He is summoned home for his father's funeral and his mother's wedding to his uncle. In a supernatural occurrence, he discovers that his uncle, whom he doesn't like that much anyways, murdered his father. He must plot and then unplot against the uncle, while directing a play within a play in order to exact revenge.

Gibson's Hamlet is much more modern than Olivier's and Branagh's version. Modern in its appeal to audiences today, rather than aesthetic style & look. Gibson plays the title role and plays it differently than expected. He is not a melancholy Dane who is tossed around by fate and ruled by his uncertain emotions, rather he is a physical and almost joyful man. He is a man that could have had a very long life had everything not crumbled around him. This Hamlet does his best to get through the storm until it absolutely overwhelms him. This seems to make a more relatable Hamlet, one who is easier to connect with and one you actually hope will survive.

That being said Gibson's Hamlet was dangerously close to becoming an action film. The acting was a tad bit macho for the character, but it wasn't overdone. The pace felt a little too fast and the mood may not have been solemn enough for this incredibly tragic tale. Glenn Close and Helena Bonham-Carter are not as good as they could be, sure Bonham-Carter can believably go mad as Ophelia but she doesn't give much depth to her character and we don't feel for her as much as we should. However Gibson's Hamlet is wonderfully made from a technical point of view.

In conclusion, while Gibson's Hamlet is incredibly well made from a technical stance it does lack the existentialist dread feel that perhaps the play is best known for. Other than Mel Gibson, the acting is rather sub-par and thus there is a lack of depth to most of the characters. It is a decent film but in no way comparable to Branagh or Oliver's incredible versions. 3/5

Hamlet Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Hamlet
Year: 1996
Director: Kenneth Branagh
Country: UK
Language: English 

There are many great screen adaptations of William Shakespeare's plays, such as Throne of Blood, Ran  and The Bad Sleep Well. My next three reviews will regard film adaptations of the tragedy known as Hamlet. The first will be Kenneth Branagh's 1996 version, the second will consist of Mel Gibson's 1990 version and finally the third will be Sir Laurence Olivier's 1948 version. I first saw Branagh's version in my High School English class, my first impression was that it was a bold and epic vision of one of the greatest of Shakespeare's plays.

Hamlet is about the son of the king of Denmark, who is named Hamlet (Kenneth Branagh) He is summoned home for his father's funeral and his mother's wedding to his uncle. In a supernatural occurrence, he discovers that his uncle, whom he doesn't like that much anyways, murdered his father. He must plot and then unplot against the uncle, while directing a play within a play in order to exact revenge.

Branagh's version of Hamlet is the longest and most complete onscreen version of the play that exists. At 242 minutes (4 hours) one would think that this may be incredibly slow, but it is extremely well paced. You will find yourself glued to the film from start to finish by this deep film that is not particularly difficult to follow. This version does lack the pessimism and dreary mood of Laurence Olivier's Academy Award winning version, which some people (like myself) may find as a fault, while others see it as an advantage. This film balances complete and utter doom with moments of light humour and even joy.

There is no doubt that Branagh's Hamlet is a bold enticing vision that is quite epic in scope. The length of the film holds many advantages that the shorter version's don't, such as a larger character study. Every character's motives in this film become increasingly understandable, every character is incredibly human. Branagh himself plays the title character quite different that Gibson and Olivier. Hamlet is not a depressed man-child, nor is could he be considered "tough" by any means. His acting is remarkable, though I wish I could say the same for Robin Williams in his odd cameo.

In conclusion, it is understandable that many people feel Branagh's Hamlet is far superior to Gibson's and even Olivier's. This version is quite spectacular and incredibly detailed. It also features some interesting cameos by Jack Lemmon, Billy Crystal and Charlton Heston, though I wouldn't consider those cameos to be "great" by any means. I feel this film suffers from a lack of unhappiness and depression, though it is still great. Praise it! 4.5/5

Harakiri Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Harakiri
Year: 1962
Director: Masaki Kobayashi
Country: Japan
Language: Japanese

Ever since I saw my first Japanese film, Akira Kurosawa's Throne of Blood, I have been in love with classic Japanese cinema. Usually when you hear about Japanese Cinema cinephiles will be discussing the works or Yasujiro Ozu, Kenji Mizuguchi or Akira Kurosawa, but today I will discuss Masaki Kobayashi's Harakiri. I was introduced to it by my former film professor Michael Boyce and I recently bought the impressive 2 Disk Criterion Collection Edition.

Harakiri is set in 17th-century Japan where peace causes the Shogunate's breakup of warrior clans, throwing thousands of samurai out of work and into poverty. An honorable end to such fate under the samurai code is ritual suicide. An elder warrior, Hanshiro Tsugumo (Tatsuya Nakadai) seeks admittance to the house of a feudal lord to commit the act. here, he learns of the fate of his son-in-law, a young samurai who sought work at the house but was instead barbarically forced to commit traditional hara-kiri in an excruciating manner with a dull bamboo blade. Tsugumo sets in motion an act of revenge against the house.

Samurai films  have the ability to tell the most complex and challenging stories on the ethical and moral questions of a character in the form of tradition and human tragedy.Harakiri is one of the most powerful and also the most complex because its story not only questions the morality of the individuals within the context of the story but it also questions the way of the Bushido Code that the samurai's have always respected and honored. This film asks of the audience to question tradition and to think for themselves. If a "code" clashes with ones morals or what they think is right then rebellion is the only intelligent way to act.

Harakiri is not only great because it exposes a long honoured code and it's flawed system that hides behind a façade of respect and honor, but because it is well made. Kobayashi makes a film that looks and feels like no other Japanese film before or after it. It's a long film but beautiful in every sense of that word. There are few flaws in this film, even the acting by Tatsuya Nakadai is remarkable. He's no Toshiro Mifune (Throne of Blood) but he definitley is close.

In conclusion, Harakiri should be regarded as one of the greatest samurai films ever made. It is bold in vision, entertaining and political. A swift call for rebellion that will entice viewers of any age. It leaves me wondering if Samurai of that period actually did argue against the code, surely some must have. Regardless, this film is a definite must-see. Praise it! 5/5

2001: A Space Odyssey Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: 2001: A Space Odyssey
Year: 1968
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Country: U.S
Language: English 

Among the general public George Lucas' Star Wars is widely considered the greatest Science fiction film of all time. Personally I think there are many films that are better, such as Blade Runner, Robinson Crusoe on Mars and Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Indeed 2001 is amazing, but it took four viewings for me to realize it. The first few times I became frustrated at how slow it was, then I began to enjoy the pace and melt into the futuristic symphony of cinema.

2001 is a story of evolution. Sometime in the distant past, someone or something nudged evolution by placing a monolith on Earth in an area populated by apes. Evolution then enabled humankind to reach the moon's surface, where yet another monolith is found. There is a third monolith around Jupiter, but computer error (HAL) makes the trip nearly impossible.

2001 is not for the faint of heart nor the weak of mind. It transcends entertainment and becomes a film bigger than itself. It's a film that's hard to describe, there's an entire website dedicated to picking apart this one film. It is incredibly slow, yet well paced for this particular film. The direction & cinematography is awe-inspiring, the sets look so beautiful that they are sometimes used in the "fake moon landing" conspiracy discussions. It is technically more advanced that any film of its generation, it even has better special effects than Star Wars which was made nine years later. The soundrack is mesmerizing and creates the adventurous space atmosphere. The acting and dialouge aren't that great, but I wonder, do they need to be?

In a world of machines & vast technology, does dialouge really mean much? Nowadays there is great emphasis on texting and emails, indirect communication seems quite efficient. 2001 is a world where humans are reduced to babies due to technology, there are even instructions on how to use the toilet. Machines appear to have human emotions, but this is a disadvantage. Paranoia, fear and anxiety are all prominent in HAL and they lead to his/its ultimate demise.

In conclusion, 2001 is a multi-layered film that cannot be understood in one, two or even a dozen viewings. It is an intense exploration of technology, of evolution and time. Can anybody really express what it's about? Not in less than one hundred pages. This film breaks all technological boundaries and expands the imagination. Even if you don't "get it" you will find yourself incredibly inspired at this breathtaking motion picture. Praise it! 5/5

Summer Interlude Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Summer Interlude
Year: 1951
Director: Ingmar Bergman
Country: Sweden
Language: Swedish 

In 1957 Ingmar Bergman became an international sensation with his film The Seventh Seal, which in time inspired Woody Allen to become a director and make classics like Manhattan, Annie Hall and Midnight in Paris. What about Bergman's pre-Seventh Seal films? Are they any good? This review will be about Summer Interlude, a film I avoided until yesterday because I had an assumption that it would be a mediocre Bergman film, but I can happily admit that I was wrong.

Summer Interlude stars Maj-Brit Nillson as Marie. a lonely twenty-eight year-old ballerina. While waiting for a rehearsal of Swan Lake she receives a diary in the mail. She then travels to an island near Stockholm and recalls her first love Henrik (Birger Malmsten) Thirteen years ago, while traveling to spend her summer with her aunt and uncle she meets her first love. Unfortunately tragedy separates them.

Bergman's talent shines in this film and it is very clear that he will be a household-like name less than a decade after this film is made. It is profoundly stimulating, the film is a subtle flashback that explains why Marie has put up walls in regards to her current relationships. Perhaps this plot device, the flashback to happier times, is over-used in modern romantic films but seeing it in a Bergman film is breathtaking. The innocence of both Maria & Henrik (in the flashbacks) is shown beautifully. Bergman's famous close-ups show heartwarming smiles and a love that may be somewhat superficial, but is still incredibly well captured.

Bergman has themes of religious doubt in this film, Marie asks why God is never around in her times of need, but it isn't too complicated of a film in that regard which is why it's likely a great started film for anybody who is interested in watching a Bergman film. The cinematography is well done, it captures the essence of love, Summer, life, death & tragedy. There is a lot of incredible foreshadowing that may only be noticeable during the 2nd or 3rd viewing of this film.

In conclusion, this review may not have given Summer Interlude justice mainly because I have only seen it once. Though I was astonished from my first impression, Bergman does doomed romance well. I'm convinced he could make any film into a brilliant work of art as he has done with Summer Interlude. Praise it! 5/5

The Virgin Spring Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Virgin Spring
Year: 1960
Director: Ingmar Bergman
Country: Sweden
Language: Swedish

 
Ingmar Bergman is undoubtedly one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. He is to Swedish Cinema what Kurosawa is to Japanese Cinema or Fellini is to Italian Cinema.. Many agree that he is an ingenious man, including myself. I have personally reviewed Persona, Cries and Whispers, The Seventh Seal, Fanny and Alexander and  Wild Strawberries so far but I am just getting started. The second film that I saw of his was The Virgin Spring and boy was it challenging.

Bergman's film is set in beautiful 14th century Sweden. It is a sad yet powerful story about a pair of wealthy parents whose virginal daughter is brutally raped and murdered by goat herders after her half sister has invoked a pagan curse. In an odd twist it seems that these murderers ask for food and shelter from the dead girl's parents, who eventually discover the truth about these fiends and decided to exact revenge.

The Virgin Spring is one of Ingmar Bergman's most bleak and disturbing films, it won an Oscar for Bergman and has been remade several times; most famously into the 1972 exploitation horror film The Last House on the Left. Though while The Last House on the Left was made as a cheap shock film, The Virgin Spring  proves to be much more intelligent. It is layed and poetic, combining many themes such as Christianity, Paganism, questioning religious faith, vengeance, sexual innocence and justice. Themes of nihilism also run throughout the film, a displaying lack of human emotion particularly with the herdsman.

Very rarely in films is the theme of "revenge" ever handled carefully with emotional intelligence and incredible seriousness. Films like Django Unchained, Kill Bill and Death Wish are exploitative in their violence, only really serve to entertain and try their best to make the hero look like a...heroic figure. This film shows the consequence of violence and murder in an incredibly realistic way. It is also shot brilliantly with extraordinary pacing. The utmost seriousness of the story combined with the visual beauty of the film make this a rare treat even if you'll need a box of tissues.

 "God, you saw it...you saw it. The death of an innocent child and my vengeance. You allowed it to happen. I don't understand you. I don't understand you. Yet still I ask your forgiveness.

In conclusion, there is a lot to learn about life and humanity from The Virgin Spring. It is a film that may be difficult to watch due to the subject matter but it is necessary to watch. It is quite far from most film that you will see made nowadays, though that isn't necessarily a criticism of newer films as a lot are pretty good. This is a film for the spiritual and non-spiritual, also for anybody who thinks murder is a good revenge. Praise it! 5/5

The Seventh Seal Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Seventh Seal
Year: 1957
Director: Ingmar Bergman
Country: Sweden
Language: Swedish 

The Seventh Seal was my introduction to the films of Ingmar Bergman and The Criterion Collection which distributed this film. Every-time I see it my breath is taken away by how glorious it is. Cynical yet inspiring and imaginative, Bergman asks great philosophical questions that few dare to ask, such as the existence of an omnipresent, omnipotent & omniscient God. I have been very hesitant to give this and a few other films a review because I fear I won't give them justice. Nevertheless, here it is.

The Seventh Seal is about a knight (Max Von Sydow) who returns home from the crusades. The Black Death is sweeping the continent & people are dying left and right. Death (Bengt Ekerot) appears to the knight and tells him it is his time. The knight challenges Death to a chess game for his life. As the seeming Apocalypse approaches we see the different people around them as they deal with their demise.

In most Introduction to Film classes there is usually a screening of The Seventh Seal sometime during the course. This is because, along with Fellini's 8 1/2, it is a staple in art-house film culture and regarded as Bergman's best film among most critics and film-goers. It is an incredibly bleak film that deals with the issues of good and evil and the absence of God. There are many questions, but few answers. Even Death can't precisely answer the questions laid in front of him, he says "you ask too many questions". Every human asks these questions, they eventually must face mortality & confront their own beliefs, this film pushes you forward.

"I want God to stretch out his hand to me, reveal himself and speak to me. But he remains silent, I call out to Him in the dark but no one seems to be there".

 The Seventh Seal is a technically masterfully made film, the performances are incredible. The costumes are astounding, the choice to make death into a literal character in the film was genius. Scenes go from comedic to dramatic very fluidly, a great example of this is when there are two clown-like people on a stage & they are singing a song. The song is light hearted, as is the scene and then all the sudden the actor's faces go from glee to utter horror. Silence fills the scene and moaning erupts, plagued people carry crosses and are wipping themselves, a priest comes up to tell people to repent or die as the apocalypse is night. It's pretty damn amazing.

"Faith is a torment. It is like loving someone who is out there in the darkness but never appears, no matter how loudly you call."

In conclusion, while the majority of the film is incredibly dark I feel the ending is very optimistic. We should not fear death nor religion, we should enjoy living and the good moments life has. It's difficult to write about the film & do it justice, it's not a film you can only watch one or six times for that matter, every time you see it you understand something new and exciting. It's ingenious and much bigger than itself. Praise it! 5/5

A Night to Remember Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: A Night To Remember
Year: 1958
Director: Roy Ward Baker
Country: UK
Language: English

As a child I went to James Cameron's Titanic in theaters in 1997 with my parents and was quite mesmerized by the visual effects during the second half of the film. It would be more than a decade later when I would watch Roy Ward Baker's A Night To Remember on TCM (Turner Classic Movies) . Both tell the story of the Titanic tragedy, but both tell it in very unique ways. A year ago I watched both films back to back and have come to the conclusion of which is the better film.

A Night to Remember is about a glorious ship called the Titanic, thought of as the greatest ship ever made. Made in Belfast, the ship travels to England before its maiden voyage, which it makes loaded with over 2,100 people ranging from the richest gentlemen in first class down to those in stowage seeking a new life in America. Unfortunately a series of human errors results in the Titanic hitting an iceberg and having this "unsinkable" ship meet its ultimate demise.

In this film version of the Titanic's demise, there is no cute love story. The focus is not necessarily on one or two people, but on the lives of everyone on the Titanic. It lets the real facts and horrors of this event take hold and grip our emotions. We hear the screams of thousands, and we watch as most of them perish. It is haunting and works better on an emotional scale than Cameron's film could ever dream of. Admittedly the effects aren't as good, but they don't need to be. This is a film about emotion, about life and about death, not about simple aesthetics.

A great theme in A Night to Remember that isn't present in Cameron's Titanic is the tragedy of surviving. There is great guilt shown by the men who were able to climb onto a life boat when so many people couldn't. There is great guilt shown by the survivors who have to hear the screams of the dying, who have to watch the giant ship sink into the sea. It shows us that even surviving a traumatic experience is a traumatic experience itself. The film doesn't show people in black and white, good or evil terms. Rather everybody is human, even the rich folks aren't snobby when tragedy strikes, a lot of them wish to help as much as they can. Some don't, but the reason they give is understandable.

In conclusion, A Night to Remember is obviously the better film regarding the sinking of the Titanic by far. It is rich with emotion and detail, infused with humanity. If you don't feel anything for any character, I'm afraid your heart may be made of stone. It's devoid of Hollywood garbage and pointless romance. Some argue that it's too bleak, I say it's quite truthful. Praise it! 5/5

Argo Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Argo
Year: 2012
Director: Ben Affleck
Country: US
Language: English

When Ben Affleck is good he is gold, Good Will Hunting, Chasing Amy and Gone Baby Gone have been pierced in my mind and are not easily forgotten films. When Ben Affleck is bad he is utter crap, Gigli, Daredevil and Jersey Girl are films that I and most people in the world would like to forget. Daredevil was so bad that it almost destroyed his career, but Affleck has been proven to be a man who gets back up when he is knocked down. He has revived his career & become a prolific director. Argo is just another one of his Golden moments.

Argo is set in 1979 when the American embassy in Iran was invaded by Iranian revolutionaries and several Americans are taken hostage. Six manage to escape to the official residence of the Canadian Ambassador and the CIA is eventually ordered to get them out of the country. Exfiltration expert Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) devises a daring plan: to create a phony Canadian film project looking to shoot in Iran and smuggle the Americans out as its production crew. With the help of some trusted Hollywood contacts.

The scheme is ridiculous, yet it's based on a true story. Unlike most films that say they are based on "true stories" this one actually took place. Its story is so farfetched that no Hollywood writer would be able to think it up themselves. Argo is one of the rare films that is both suspenseful and humorous, John Goodman gets most of the laughs and has a surprisingly good performance as make-up man John Chambers. The plot is almost a suicide mission for the fake filmmakers, it is an intense film because it is unpredictable, you can't really foresee how they can get away with their phony Canadian film.

The editing and pacing of this film is fantastic, many scenes will leave you on the edge of your seat. The change in tone from different scenes, one scene will be dramatic and the next might be for comedic relief is rather fluid. It is on pace and enhances the film rather than making it awkward and feeling out of place. The production design really captured everything about the time period (the 80's) in which this story took place, from the cars to the clothes. The only negative aspect about the film is that it is far too pro-American. In reality it was a Canadian  who was the hero. It also shows an unrealistic depiction of Iranians, which American filmmakers desperately need to avoid doing.

In conclusion, while an argument can be made that this is indeed a propogandic pro-american film, this is undeniably a well made film that is quite entertaining and smart. It is a film that strays into fantasy and penetrates the imagination, interesting and "original" films can come out of Hollywood. Ben Affleck is three for three with the films he has directed and I hope he makes some more. Will he win Best Picture this year? I doubt it, but I'm not denying that Argo is a really fun film. 3.5/5

Django Unchained Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Django Unchained
Year: 2012
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Country: U.S
Language: English

Quentin Tarantino is quite a polarizing director, he is loved by many and hated by even more. Over the years he has been praised as a genius by critics and fans alike, however he has also been called a scoundrel who makes trashy films. I stand in the middle, I don't think he makes "bad" films but I also don't feel his films are very great. I've seen his entire filmography, from Reservoir Dogs to his last film Inglorious Basterds. Though I've never regarded his films as "intelligent", I have always though they were entertaining. Perhaps Django Unchained can break new ground and be both "intelligent" and "entertaining".

In Tarantino's new film,  Dr. King Schultz (Christopher Waltz) is a former dentist buys the freedom of a slave, Django (Jamie Foxx), and trains him with the intent to make him his deputy bounty hunter. Instead he goes to the site of a despicable plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio) who owns his wife.

Is Django Unchained entertaining? Yes. Infact it is more entertaining than his last four films (Inglorious Basterds, Death Proof, Kill Bill Vol 1 &2 and Jackie Brown) It is refreshing, unpredictable and at times incredibly suspenseful. The soundtrack is fantastic, as well as Tarantino's unique camerawork. It is hard to take your eyes off the screen. Jamie Fox is wonderful in the title role, Samuel L. Jackson as well. DiCaprio was alright, but it feels like Tarantino didn't have much confidence in this character as he doesn't try to hard to get invested in this villain. Though he didn't do that in Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds either.

Is Django Unchained intelligent? That's arguable, personally I think it's pretty irresponsible. The incredible amount of violence serves no real moral purpose, it's violence for the sake of violence. Like Inglorious Basterds, Django is another "re-writing history" film though making a light film about slavery seems disrespectful to a lot of black people. Some of the monologues in this film are pretty pointless, they don't even move the film forward. It's dialogue to make the character seem more hip. The attempts at humor come off as pretty shallow and awkward, if Tarantino is trying to be Mel Brooks he should consider taking some writing classes.

In conclusion, while I found this film quite entertaining there isn't any real reason for me to watch it again. It's all flash with no substance, which is fine for some people, it's better than most Hollywood films. Django Unchained leaves me in the same place as I was before this film, in the middle. I do not think Tarantino is a bad filmmaker, but I don't think he is a great filmmaker either. If you wish to be entertained, see it. If you want a film that will resonate with you and leave you in self-reflection, then this is not the film for you. 3/5

Zero Dark Thirty Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Zero Dark Thirty
Year: 2012
Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Country: US
Language: English

In 2009 Kathryn Bigelow won Best Director for her ambitious and thought provoking The Hurt Locker at the Academy Awards. This year she does the same with the seemingly intense Zero Dark Thirty. Bigelow is an impressive woman, mainly because she's one of the few decent female directors who are in the Hollywood spotlight. Can any casual mainstream movie-goer name a female director other than her? I doubt it. I bring the importance of her gender into the mix because even though it's a film about capturing Osama, it is very pro-feminism.

The film follows Maya (Jessica Chastain) who is a CIA operative whose first experience is in the interrogation of prisoners following the Al Qaeda attacks against the U.S. on the 11th September 2001. She is a reluctant participant in extreme duress applied to the detainees, but believes that the truth may only be obtained through such tactics. She has the single minded determination to capture Osama,though many believe she is crazy.

Lets avoid discussing the obvious cliched lesson that "if you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything" and focus on the character of Maya. She is an intelligent and determined women who doesn't ooze sexuality, this is extremely rare in a mainstream film. When a female co-worker asks if Maya has slept with any of the males she says "no" because she isn't that type of person. Maya can also stand up to the male authority figures, rather than be passive or let them hog the screen. She is powerful and her attitude towards capturing Osama is astonishing. If feminists needed to show a film example of a good female character, Maya would be exactly that.

The film, up until a certain point, is incredible on a technical level. Great editing, acting & pacing are essentially what make this film. Unfortunately this film doesn't have much of a plot, other than Maya confronting male authority figures and insisting that she can find Osama. The shaky cam and rapid movement during the scene in which they capture Osama is both confusing and a letdown because that is essentially the scene everybody came to see and it's the worst made scene in the film. The lack of political revelation was a disappointment too. The film said nothing useful about Osama and his attacks, or about terrorism in general. Just that people don't like America, something we knew a long time ago.

In conclusion, while there are nine films that have been nominated for "Best Picture" at the 2013 Academy Awards, I don't think Zero Dark Thirty is a good enough film to win. While there are certainly some good things about the film, like the feminist aspect, the negative things almost out-shadow them. It's an ok film, but it had the potential to be much better. At least Bigelow has The Hurt Locker in her filmography. 2.5/5

Fake it So Real Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Fake It So Real
Year: 2012
Director: Robert Greene
Country: U.S
Language: English

2012 seemed to be a great year for the ever rising genre of documentary film-making. We have had the empowering How to Survive A Plague, a film about the AIDS crisis. The thought provoking 5 Broken Cameras, the gutsy Iranian film This is Not A Film and the tear inducing Whores' Glory, a film about prostitution around the world. Another documentary worthy of being called "great" yet hasn't had wide distribution is a film called Fake it So Real. Like The Wrestler (2008), it is a film about wrestling that tugs at the heart.

Fake it So Real follows, a group of semi-pro wrestlers in Lincolnton, N.C. On Saturday nights as they rent a hall, set up chair & a wrestling ring, stage a show and then take it all down. They compete for their Millennium Wrestling Federation and every few weeks have a grand championship match. The wrestlers, about 14, all have various problems with jobs and relationships but yearn to be stars, and for one night a week they are exactly that.

Fake it so Real is essentially a film about dreams and ambition. While a lot of people say "I want to be __" and don't actually do anything about it, these wrestlers want to be professional wrestlers and aren't going to wait around for some big company to notice them. They actively go out and do what they want to do regardless of their circumstance in life. "I don't have the money" is not an excuse for them. Some of these people are very poor and/or have problems with their wives. This film encourages people to seek out their dream regardless of how hard it may be to achieve it.

There is a somewhat great nobility in which these people strive for fame and success. Each of them have obstacles to overcome, some more than others. One of the wrestlers was bullied his whole life for having a big butt, now he uses that big butt to his advantage, by winning over the crowd with his "kiss my butt" gimmick. This film reminds me of The Wrestler in many ways, both Mickey Rourke's character and the wrestlers in this documentary use their wrestling personas to compensate for what they lack in real life. All characters seem to have an un-relenting optimism whereas many people would just quit and give up.

In conclusion, Fake it So Real is an insightful heartfelt documentary that will incite you to follow your dreams more than any Disney cartoon or Hollywood film ever could. It is well made and full of in-depth character studies. It is a film that makes you really appreciate what indie wrestling and what they put their bodies through. After all, is "fake" wrestling really "fake"?  Praise it! 5/5

American Beauty Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: American Beauty
Year: 1999
Director: Sam Mendes
Country: U.S
Language: English

Kevin Spacey has been in films like The Usual Suspects and Margin Call, yet I can't see him as anyone either than Lester Burnham. He's such a perfect fit for that role, not that I think Spacey is a creep, but he does look like an older father figure. American Beauty is a film that I've seen over a dozen times and will likely see much more. It is a fun film to analyze and attempt to understand. It is a profound reflection of life and the mood we all feel to just let go and escape from responsibility. It is perhaps the most important American film of the last 25 years.

The film seems to be about Lester (Kevin Spacey) and Carolyn Burnham (Annette Benning) On the surface they are a perfect husband and wife, in a perfect house, in a perfect neighborhood. In reality Lester is slipping deeper and deeper into a hopeless depression. He finally snaps when he becomes infatuated with one of his daughter's friends. Meanwhile his daughter Jane (Thora Birch) is developing a relationship with their next door neighbor who lives with his militaristic and homophobic father.

One theme in this film is the desire for the seemingly unattainable. Lester desires a more free life and his daughter's friend. Carolyn desires a better husband and more success in her job. Jane, as well as her neighbour Ricky Fitts (Wes Bentley) desire a more understanding father. Col. Frank (Chris Cooper) secretly desires a gay relationship and Angela (Mena Suvari) wishes to be perceived as beautiful. The color red frequently and purposely is shown on the screen whether it is on the flower petals in a bathtub or on the handles of Carloyn Burnham's sheers as she gardens. A lot of each character's desire is shown through their problematic sexual relationships. Rarely is sex ever "sex" in American Beauty. Sex can reveal so much more, infact a great sexual revelation in this film is when Lester undresses Angela and chooses not to kiss her. This very moment he realizes that freedom does not necessarily equal irresponsibility, and thus it is a very humbling moment in the film.

Another theme in American Beauty is slightly obvious because of the tagline. "Look Closer" We need to re-examine our lives and ask ourselves "is this who I want to be?" before we have nervous breakdowns or a mid-life crisis. We need to constantly ask this question and if we are not who we want to be then we have to act upon it, but act responsibly. In American Beauty everyone re-examines their life when it's a little too late, worst of all they go about their revelation in a very child-like manner. I love the ending, before the shock, Lester looks at his picture, he had a lot of what he wanted but if he had just reviewed his life more often then maybe he would have had more. What's most shocking about this film is that Burnham's life is the life of milllions of Americans who should have had many retrospective conversation with themselves.

In conclusion, American Beauty is a brilliantly directed and incredibly important film that will remain relevant for decades. Unfortunately many people will not see the deeper meaning of this film, a former friend of mine watched the film with me and said "that's what I should be doing!" referring to Lester's irresponsible actions, completely forgetting it didn't necessarily work out for him. It's a film you NEED to watch again and again. Praise it! 5/5