The Love Goddesses Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: The Love Goddesses
Year: 1965
Director: Saul J. Turrell
Country: U.S
Language: English

Theda Bara, Pola Negri, Lillian Gish, Gloria Swanson, Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, Elizabeth Taylor, Ginger Rogers, Rita Hayworth and even the child star Shirley Temple! These are not only iconic female actors, but as The Love Goddesses points out, sex symbols. Women that have made other women jealous, and men absolutely wild. My personal favourite sex symbol is Rita Hayworth, though an arguement could be made for any of the women featured. The Love Goddesses is an enticing, insightful documentary that has me thinking long after the end credits.

 This sixties documentary features some of the major and most beautiful actresses to grace the silver screen. It shows how the movie industry changed its depiction of sex and actresses' portrayal of sex from the silent movie era to the present. Classic scenes are shown from every era in effort to show just how beautiful and powerful these women are.

The Love Goddesses is a remarkably intelligent film. It does not go the obvious route, pointing out that "sex sells", rather it shows how the female icons of film reflect our view of women, femininity and sexuality in North American society. For instance, in the 30's the depression tightened up the American people's values, therefore a "free-wheeling" approach to sex was not longer accepted and the female stars of that time were innocent in looks and values, which is why Judy Garland and Shirley Temple became big stars.

Turrell's film gives us examples of a large variety of women from a variety of eras. He shows us famous film scenes which help as examples to further illustrate his point. The narrator chosen for this film, Carol King, is neither dull or too energetic, his voice is absolutely perfect for film narration. The film spends some time acknowledging the hardships women like Marilyn Monroe faced because they were primarily viewed as sex objects, but wisely keeps the time brief and manages to stay on subject.

In conclusion, The Love Goddesses is a remarkable odyssey through film and social history. For such a great film, it's strange that I haven't heard of it until I stumbled upon it on Criterion's Hulu page. Hopefully it will soon get the Criterion Collection release it deserves. Informative and bound to start a lengthy conversation, this documentary is a diamond in the rough. Praise it! 5/5

The Master Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: The Master
Year: 2012
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Country: U.S
Language: English

Paul Thomas Anderson is one of the greatest living American directors to grace the screen. His films, which include Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood, have been regarded as modern masterpieces. Though his newest film The Master was released a seemingly long 5 years after his universally acclaimed There Will Be Blood, it seems Anderson has not lost his midas touch.

The Master involves a man named Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix). Returning from Navy service in World War II, he drifts through a series of PTSD-driven breakdowns. Finally he stumbles upon a cult which engages in exercises to clear emotions and he becomes deeply involved with them.

The Master marks the return of Joaquin Phoenix from a self-imposed acting break. He plays his character, a man  who is experiencing excruciating pain and mental trauma from his wartime experiences, quite brilliantly. The way Phoenix portrays Freddie's pitiful, perverted mental state is quite disturbing, yet you'll find yourself absolutely fascinated. Can anybody play a broken man better?  Philip Seymour Hoffman is also outstanding in the role of Lancaster Dodd , nearly stealing each and every scene he is a part of.

What is this film about? It's difficult to say.  No easy answers are given, many questions remain mysteries, and we never get a firmly grounded sense of reality. Anderson keeps us aimlessly drifting through the narrative. Some scenes are linked, others are not. Many events are ambiguous. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey, this film that is needed more than one viewing to fully understand it. There is the possibility that this is a film that cannot be understood.

In conclusion, while The Master is a curiously mysterious film, there is no doubt that it is a technically superb film with incredible acting by the entire cast. Though many viewers will likely have difficulty immersing themselves in the film without the typical sense of narrative progression and character goals, it will definitely capture the attentions and fascination of  many other viewers and critics. The Master may not be Anderson's easiest film to grasp, but it certainly is full of emotion and great character studies. 3.5/5

The War Room Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The War Room
Year: 1993
Director: Chris Hegedus & D.A Pennebaker
Country: US
Language: English

 I remember the famous line in Stanley Kubrick's Dr.Strangelove, "You can't fight in here, this is a war room!" Indeed The War Room is all about a fight, not a physical fight but a political fight, to be President of the United States of America. Throughout cinematic history there have been a vast amount of good political films, from Battleship Potemkin (1925) to Milk (2008). The War Room may hold the most truth about politics, at least American politics, out of all those films.

The War Room is a A behind-the-scenes documentary about the Clinton for President campaign, focusing on the adventures of spin doctors James Carville and George Stephanopoulos. Though Bill Clinton is the subject, he is only in one or two scenes.

While most documentaries use plenty of traditional voice over narration and talking head interviews, directors Chris Hegedus and D.A. Pennebaker make great use of their limited time & limited access they were granted to engage in a handheld visceral approach. This provides an engaging and intimate feel. For the most part stripped down meetings in the war room make-up the majority of this film. The tremendous editing transforms these meetings into a straightforward experience which forms its own structure.

The War Room is a documentary unlike any other, it is surprisingly unconventional for a film about a conventional subject. The topics talked about the "war room" range from the sensational to the mundane. At times you'll be wondering why certain topics are discussed (the usage of certain types of signage), however you'll be amazed at the attention to detail this film has. It's a kill or be killed atmosphere where everything is put on the line and things can turn sour at any moment.

In conclusion, while The War Room is gripping, there is also a certain level of humour in it. James Carville (a.k.a "The Ragin' Cajun") absolutely explodes with personality. He has a fiery enthusiasm. a great will to win and a big heart. Some of the sentences that come out of the man's mouth with make you laugh out loud. While this film may not appeal to every film-goer, especially those who dislike Clinton, it certainly is an important documentary that deserves great recognition from cinephiles and critics alike. Praise it! 4/5

Things to Come Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Things to Come
Year: 1936
Director: William Cameron Menzies
Country: UK
Language: English

From A Trip to the Moon (1902) to Melancholia (2011), world cinema has been filled with thought provoking, exciting and audacious Science fiction films. Though I would claim that the greatest of these is Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, a fantastic epic filled with enticing visual imagery, William Cameron Menzies' apocalyptic Things to Come is definitely in the top ten. Strangely under-rated, I had not even heard of this film until I stumbled upon it on Hulu+.

Based on a novel by H.G Wells, Things to Come consists of  a global war that begins in 1940. This war drags out over many decades until most of the people still alive (mostly those born after the war started) do not even know who started it or why. Nothing is being manufactured at all any more and society has broken down into primitive localized communities. In 1966 a great plague wipes out most of what people are left but small numbers still survive. One day a strange aircraft lands at one of these communities and its pilot tells of an organization which is rebuilding civilization and slowly moving across the world re-civilizing these groups of survivors.

Things to Come started with the great science fiction writer known as H.G Wells claiming Metropolis to be "quite the silliest film". Metropolis is, of course, one of the most acclaimed sci-fi films ever made. Directed by German Director Fritz Lang, it is quite unusual for one to claim the film is "silly". A decade later Alexander Korda (The Private Life of Don Juan) would give Wells enormous creative freedom to write a movie version of his novel The Shape of Things to Come. 

The film is not only better than Metropolis, but it's a new landmark in the genre. It is a spectacular production, visually stimulating and filled with great detail of its apocalyptic universe. It presents opposing points of view on the issues it raises, examining the nature of progress. However, while most films like this would degrade into either a chatty or action-filled mess, Things to Come remains provocative the whole way through.

In conclusion, while some of Wells dialogue is not very convincing and a bit too heavy, William Cameron Menzies is quite skillful in his direction and the acting is excellent overall. It is absolutely fascinating to watch a film from 1935 that predicted another World War by 1940. It is also remarkable to realize that war was definitely weighing heavily on the minds of the English. While World War Two wasn't the end of the world, it was certainly the end of an empire. Praise it! 4/5

In the Heat of the Night Review-By Michael Carlisle

Title: In the Heat of the Night
Year: 1967
Director: Norman Jewison
Country: U.S
Language: English 

Cinematic history has been filled with great African American actors like Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman and Jamie Foxx. Perhaps the greatest African American actor to grace the screen is Sidney Poitier, a man who paved the way for the black actors of the future. Despite the incredible racism at the time in his country, Poitier would overcome and make a great career out of playing prominent black characters who would triumph despite being born disadvantaged. In the Heat of the Night is not only one of those films, but it's perhaps his greatest film.

In the Heat of the Night revolves around Detective Virgil Tibbs (Sidney Poitier), who is caught up in the racial tension of the US South when he is arrested after the murder of a prominent businessman. Tibbs was simply waiting for his next train at the station in Sparta, Mississippi and the confusion is soon resolved but when local police chief Gillespie (Rod Steiger) learns that Tibbs is the Philadelphia PD's number one homicide expert, he reluctantly asks for his assistance. There is no doubt that Tibb's life is in danger, but he wishes to stay in the racially charged environment until the killer is found.

In the Heat of the Night is a well-crafted murder mystery with a racial twist. It's a solid, unpredictable "whodunit" with beautiful cinematography and crisp direction from Norman Jewison. The acting is quite well done, not only is Poitier convincing but Steiger as well. Both actors deserved an Academy Award, but both actors could not win it so it's understandable that Steiger would come out on top. The dialogue in this film is well-written. It provides the film with a tense, suspenseful atmosphere, and its incredibly memorable line "They call me Mr. Tibbs!"

Some people criticize this film by suggesting that its message is far from subtle, that the lines are too clearly defined, that the racism is too overt. Indeed the racism is very out in the open, however this seems to be realistic when reading about and understanding the historical context of this film. This was 1967, this was the south; this was how it was. It was only a few years after Martin Luther King had a dream, and a few years before The Civil Rights Bill was passed. If anything, In the Heat of the Night didn't portray southern racism realistically enough. Though if it did, it might have turned into a horrific torture film.

In conclusion, In the Heat of the Night is a tension filled mystery that will have you on the edge of your seat throughout its entirety. It could be preachy, but it isn't. It could be fast paced action movie, but it isn't that either. It is well thought out and is perfectly paced. The film is definitely one of the most important Academy Award "Best Picture" winners of all time. Praise it! 5/5

Safety Last! Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Safety Last!
Year: 1923
Director: Fred C.New Meyer
Country: U.S
Language: English

When cinephiles discuss the masters of silent comedy, usually only two names come to mind: Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin. Both were absurd actor directors who mastered the art of physical slapstick comedy. However, there is a third comedic genius of the silent era; Harold Loyd. The actor's films are less well known nowadays than Keaton & Chaplin, but still resonate amongst critics and are preserved well.

The film concerns a country boy (Lloyd,) as he heads to the big city to seek success. While working as a clerk in a department store, he talks the manager into offering $1000 to anyone who can bring more customers to the store. He then arranges for a friend, a "human fly," (Strother) to climb the face of the store building as a publicity stunt. Unfortunatly the "human fly" is a wanted man, and when "The Law" (Young) shows, our hero must make the climb, himself.

Safety Last! is considered Harold Lloyd's signature work, not only is it incredibly funny and full of hilarious gags, but it also is ahead of its time in a technical aspect. Lloyd climbing the store building looks shockingly real, even while watching the film today. Every shot of the climb keeps the street view below, implying that a real drop for both actor and character could be fatal. Of course, film critics have analyzed the camera angles  and have suggested that the height was exaggerated.

Though what does "exaggerated" mean? Especially in 1923 when health and safety standards weren't almost non-existent and people really did die due to lack of safety while doing stunts. In some ways this "danger" creates more suspense and utter fascination than comedy, it doesn't seem possible to duplicate the experience of watching this film. It may be an odd fact, but after watching this film I could see how Lloyd was a bigger draw than Chaplin & Keaton in the 20's.

In conclusion, Safety Last! can be seen as a direct criticism of the fast-speeding society which increased during the 1920's.The man's desire for success causes him to take incredibly stupid life threatening risks, but I guess there are no big rewards without big risks. While Lloyd wasn't a perfectionist like Chaplin, he certainly put a lot of effort into preserving his films so they could be seen long after his death. The Criterion Collection should be releasing a special edition of this film pretty soon, I can't wait to see how a new print of this 90yr old film looks!

Bride of Frankenstein Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Bride of Frankenstein
Year: 1935
Director: James Whale
Country: US
Language: English

Rare is the sequel that tops the original. Bride of Frankenstein feels curiously superior to the 1931 original, it certainly is campier. It is my second favourite film from the Universal monster era of the 30's and early 40's, the first would be Erle C. Kenton's Island of Lost Souls. Bride of Frankenstein is certainly less shocking that the original, who can forget the monster drowning a child in the river or the mad doctor claiming "Now I know what it feels like to BE GOD," but it does have its great moments.

This sequel concerns Dr. Frankenstein and his monster who both turn out to be alive, not killed as previously believed. Dr. Frankenstein wants to get out of the evil experiment business, but when a mad scientist, Dr. Pretorius, kidnaps his wife, Dr. Frankenstein agrees to help him create a new creature, a woman, to be the companion of the monster.

After initially refusing to do a sequel to Frankenstein, director James Whale would eventually cave in when Universal agreed to let him have complete artistic freedom. Production was much-publicized as early as 1933, however, Whale, who was following his towering success with Frankenstein and his other fims, did not start to begin filming until 1934. Whale has not only been recognized for his horror films, but also his homosexuality. While everyone in Hollywood was either straight or in the closet, Whale was unafraid of showing his sexuality in real life and in his work. Indeed, some critics interpret Bride of Frankenstein as a subtle gay parable.

From a technical perspective, the gorgeous sets show a heavy influence from German expressionist films, but here they are even more grand in scale and they are also more numerous and varied. The cinematogray is wonderful, the atmosphere is quite gothic and the score works well despite the fact that the film would work well without it. Bride of Frankenstein is full of surrealism, fantasy, absurd-ism and camp; while some scenes are dark in nature, others are completely hilarious.

In conclusion, it seems that monsters don't even want wives. Elsa Lanchester plays the memorable of the monster's bride, an immortal image of the cinema with lightning-like streaks of silver in her weirdly towering hair. Often parodied, most notably in Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein, but never outdone. Bride of Frankenstein is a "must-see" for any horror fanatic. Praise it! 4/5

Elephant Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Elephant
Year: 2003
Director: Gus Van Sant
Country: U.S
Language: English

To most people, Gus Van Sant is mostly known for his Academy Award Winning films like Milk, My Own Private Idaho and Good Will Hunting. While his Trilogy of Death is also well known, it seems to get much less acclaim. The trilogy consist of three films: Gerry, Elephant, and Last Days. Strangely I started watching his filmography with Gerry and Elephant, two incredibly polarizing films that will leave you breathless for better or for worse.

The film follows a day in the lives of a group of average teenage high school students. We see every character and are shown their daily routines. However two of the students plan to do something that the student body won't forget, shoot up the school.

 Winner of the Golden Palm at the 2003 Cannes Film Festival, Elephant can be thought of as a slight re-telling of the Columbine high school massacre that shocked North America in 1999. Gus Van Sant has been criticized for not taking a stance on what provokes school shootings, but I feel this is an admirable trait. Documentary film-maker Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine points the blame at guns, Sants' film is not quite sure but it has a few suggestions. The theme of alienation is present throughout the film, though at best it is a symptom of a much deeper societal sickness.

The camera is a detached observer, and the strength of the film lies in its acute power of observation and detail. Van Sant's stead-cam tracks the many characters as they go about their day, following them through hallways that seem endless. It is a slow paced film, but not at all boring. We learn to care for the characters we meet, but unfortunately we feel a sense of doom for everyone we have met and when they perish we feel almost as if we lost a friend.

Elephant is a violent film, in the sense that many innocent people die, but takes the violence very seriously. There is no bravery in Van Sant's violence, nor is there a climax or exaggeration through acting. It's unflinching and flat, there is nothing exciting about it. Sant drains the violence of any reward or glamour and puts it in a social context. Though it will shock, it is very anti-violent.

In conclusion, though Elephant is a great film, it may be too depressing of a film to watch again. Very few people enjoy developing an emotional connection with people only to have them die by some very disturbed individuals. Because of his financial independance due to the success of Good Will Hunting, Gus Van Sant has made a provocative and Unconventional film that is free from Hollywood's clammy hands. Praise it! 4/5

Dancer in the Dark Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Dancer in the Dark
Year: 2000
Director: Lars Von Trier
Country: Denmark
Language: English

Lars Von Trier is definitely one of my favourite Directors who is still alive and creating art today. He is known for his incredibly moody films that are often undeniably tragic in every sense of the word. Dancer in the Dark is no exception to his brooding style. It is a musical that defies the entire genre because it is full of depressing tunes that tear at the heart, rather than happy-go-lucky show-tunes. The first time I viewed this film I was in shock, and I remain in shock.

The plot concerns Selma (Bjork), a woman  who has emigrated with her son from Central Europe to America. The year is 1964. Selma works day and night to save her son from the same disease she suffers from, a disease that inevitably will make her blind. But Selma has the energy to live because of her secret! She loves musicals. When life feels tough she can pretend that she is in the wonderful world of musicals.

Dancer in the Dark is the third film in Von Trier's "Golden Hearts Trilogy", in which the heroines remain optimistic and naive despite the fact that their world is crumbling around them, the other two parts are Breaking the Waves and The Idiots. Considering Bjork and Lars Von Trier's relationship, it was somewhat of a miracle that this film was completed. They had a contempt for each other which made each day of shooting a negative atmosphere, everyday Bjork spit on her director and I suppose she would have left if she hadn't had signed a contract. However, they both needed each other in order to make a great film and indeed they did. Bjork plays her role perfectly, her singing is beautiful. Trier is a master with his shots, using over 100 cameras to get each scene perfect.

The film is gut wrenching - an absorbing tearjerker - but not sentimental. The plot is a bit ludicrous, therefore not really possible to watch on a literal level. It is impossible to believe this is a mistake by Trier though, he's intelligent enough to know when he is making an implausible film, therefore we are viewing a fantastic nightmare scenario. This does divide cinephiles, but my own personal feelings are that it's a well made melodrama.

In conclusion, Dancer in the Dark is pretty great, but very bleak. So bleak that you may only view it once, run out of tissues, and then not watch it again. It's quite brave and it seems to be a dark homage to the classic soap-opera-esque films of Hollywood. This film is not the greatest of Von Trier's work, I would give that title to Breaking the Waves, but it sure is good. 3.5/5

Le Havre Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Le Havre
Year: 2011
Director: Aki Kaurismaki
Country: Finland
Language: France

When one thinks of the "fantasy" genre, what usually comes to mind are films like Lord of the Rings and Pan's Labyrinth. A film that is set in modern day France, which doesn't consist of supernatural beings, is not exactly the type that incites Directors to make fairy-tales about. Yet Aki Kaurismaki does and he makes a wonderful enchanting  film, despite the fact that the Finnish man has never known a word of French.

Le Havre is set in the nearly forgotten town in France with the same name. It concerns an aging shoe shiner named Marcel Marx (Andre Wilms) who finds an African boy and welcomes him in his home. Meanwhile inspector Monet (Jean-Pierre Darroussin) is on his trail, because the African boy is an illegal immigrant who arrived via cargo ship a few days earlier.

"I think the more pessimistic I feel about life, the more optimistic the films should be," said Kaurismaki at a conference at the Cannes Film Festival. Indeed Le Havre is an incredibly optimistic film about the triumph over the human spirit in times of adversity. It is so technically well made and well acted that it could also pass for a great silent film. While not Chaplin-esque in slapstick humor, the comedy in this is very deadpan, it is similar in sentimentalism. Like Chaplin, Kaurismaki favors the under-dog, specifically the proletariat working class.

Le Havre is a refreshingly different film for 2011, for instance there is no CGI in sight. It is not over-stimulating, rather it is slow paced, reasonably short and incredibly expressive. It's a very fluid film that mixes comedy and drama in a remarkably natural way. To pull of a mixture of dark and ironic humor while still maintaining and upbeat and cheerful mood is incredibly difficult, but the Director pulls it off.

In conclusion, Le Havre is a brilliant blend of poetry and realism. It's quite an inspiring film that incites creativity and, more importantly, hope in mankind. Kaurismaki portrays a world that isn't, but that he would like to exist. It's not an impossibly hard world to imagine, perhaps in a few years it will exist. I guess the most important "lesson" you can take from this film is that miracles do happen. Praise it! 5/5

Across the Universe Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Across the Universe
Year: 2007
Director: Julie Taymor
Country: U.S
Language: English 

John, Paul, George and Ringo, pretty much every North American over ten years old knows about The Beatles! They are a fantastic 60's pop band with memorable hits like Eight Days a Week, Come Together and A Hard Day's Night. It is incredibly hard to find anybody who doesn't like the Fab Four. 36 years after their breakup Across the Universe, a musical based on their music, is released and met with much acclaim. I was quite impressed as well.

Across The Universe is a fictional love story set in the 1960s amid the controversial  years of anti-war protest, the struggle for free speech and civil rights, mind exploration and rock and roll. At once gritty, whimsical and highly theatrical, the story moves from high schools and universities in Massachusetts, Princeton and Ohio to the Lower East Side of Manhattan, the Detroit riots, Vietnam and the dockyards of Liverpool.

An admirable trait about this film is that it isn't just made for spaced-out stoners, it is bizarre at times (especially during the For the Benefit of Mr.Kite number) but it also has a relatively easy to follow love story. While most songs in modern musicals distract from the overall quality of the film and just seem like filler, the numbers in Across the Universe greatly enhance the experience of watching it. They also provide new understanding, for instance I didn't realize I Want to Hold Your Hand could be so heartbreaking, nor that I Want You (She's So Heavy) could be so terrifying and not about a woman. 

The film is not perfect, it is poorly paced at times and not well structured. As a socio-political film it hits a flatline, as a film about love it has a pulse. Though Across the Universe is more of a fun ride than anything to be studied and greatly examined. Despite a few flaws, the production design and cinematography are impressive, it's visually stunning and filled with great detail. The cast is wonderful, Martin Luther shocked me with his version of While My Guitar Gently Weeps.

In conclusion, while there are a few imperfections, overall Across the Universe is a fun and beautiful film that will provide a new context for your favourite Beatles' songs. It may also give you new goals in life, for instance after seeing the on-screen relationship between Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood) and Jude (Jim Sturgess)  I've decided that I want something quite similar. I insist you watch it, if only for the reason that Bono of U2 makes an wonderful cameo. 3.5/5



 

Wings of Desire Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Wings of Desire
Year: 1987
Director: Wim Wenders
Country: West Germany
Language: German 

Wim Wenders belongs to a class of elite New German Cinema film-makers. His peers include the eccentric Werner Herzog (Fitzcarraldo) and the enigmatic Rainer Werner Fassbinder (Berlin Alexanderplatz) Fortunately he has lived much longer than Fassbinder and lacks the mental health issues that plague Herzog's life. Wenders consistently makes incredible films, the wonderful Pina hit theatres a year ago and was met with great acclaim. His Wings of Desire is an earlier film, made in the middle of his career, the first time that I viewed it I was absolutely amazed.

The film centers around the story of two angels wandering in a mixture of post-war and modern Berlin. Invisible to humans, they nevertheless give their help and comfort to all the lonely and depressed souls they meet. Finally, after many centuries, one of the angels becomes unhappy with his immortal state and wishes to become human in order to experience the joys of everyday life.

Wings of Desire can certainly be considered one of the most spiritual and poetic films ever made. When watching the beauty of the film it quickly gets you seduced under it's spell and you become entranced by its visual beauty and meditating power. Photographed by the legendary cinematographer Henri Alekan, who made the characters float weightlessly in Cocteau's masterpiece Beauty and the Beast. Much of Wings of Desire brings a mood of calm medication as we the audience observe the people and the world they inhabit just as the angels do. Though the story unfolds slowly and the plot doesn't really start taking shape until an hour and a half in the film, the story is very simple and yet profound.

 In the closing titles of the film it says: "Dedicated to all the former angels, but especially to Yasujiro, François and Andrei." This is a reference to Yasijuro Ozu, Francois Truffaut and Andrei Tarkovsky, legendary filmmakers who paved the way for Directors like Wim Wenders to make films like Wings of Desire. Wenders' film has a similar pace to that of Tarkovsky and Ozu, slow yet poetic. It's about observing the characters and the environment created for you rather than fast-paced action. If this film has anything to say it's that humans are not alone and there is great hope and love in this world.

In conclusion, Wings of Desire is an experience you'll be likely not to forget. It is a breathtaking film that will fill you with optimism and give you a new outlook on life. It is a kind of visual poetry that seems to be lost most modern films, though at least we still have Wenders to remind us about the beauty of life. Praise it! 5/5

The 400 Blows Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The 400 Blows
Director: Francois Truffaut
Year: 1959
Country: France
Language: French 

In the British magazine Sight and Sounds' list of the greatest films of all time according to critics, Francois Truffaut's The 400 Blows reached the top 50 with the spot of #39. Indeed it is a remarkable film, the launching pad of Truffaut's celebrated career in which he made many memorable films like Jules and Jim, The Last Metro and Shoot the Piano Player. I first saw this masterpiece a few years ago and was startled by how much a could connect with a 50+ year old film.

400 Blows is about a young Parisian boy, Antoine Doinel (Jeanne Pierre Leaud), who is neglected by his derelict parents, skips school, sneaks into movies, runs away from home, steals things, and tries (disastrously) to return them. Like most kids, he gets into more trouble for things he thinks are right than for his actual trespasses. He is a rebellious child and this film is essentially about the complexity of growing up.

French director Frances Truffaut's masterpiece, The 400 Blows was his introduction to the world of film-making. It is incredibly touching and perhaps the greatest of all films about childhood adolescence. Inspired by Truffaut's own early life, in which he was also a young rebellious boy who seemed like he was on a fast track to nowhere, the film is almost completely autobiographical, one would guess it's 90% true. Modern filmmakers are incredibly influenced by this film, the great Canadian Director Guy Maddin has said that Truffaut's work inspired his well received Brand Upon the Brain, a film also about adolescence but much more Gothic in mood.

The film's major theme is about loving, yet being pushed away. Everytime Antoine feels close to his parents, or any type of adult figure, they seem to push him away and neglect him of the closeness he feels he deserves. Antoine is not necessarily a bad kid, it just seems like the authority figures in his life are stuck in their own little world. Failing to help in life by giving guidance or some sort of respect. Why respect those who treat you terribly? In many ways I could connect with Antoine and thus sympathize with him, there were a few scenes in the film that seemed right out of my own life.

In conclusion, The 400 Blows is a unique film that deserves the recognition is has as one of the greatest films of all time. Antoine Doinel is a tragic, yet universal character that almost everyone can relate to. Truffaut's film is a wonderful character study, as well as a excellent lesson on how to make a great film. Praise it! 5/5

Jules and Jim Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Jules and Jim
Year: 1962
Director: Francois Truffaut
Country: France
Language: French 

When critics and cinephiles tend to discuss the "New Wave" era of French Cinema the filmmakers they tend to focus on are: Jean Luc Godard, Claude Chabrol and Francois Truffaut. Godard is usually considered the better of the three, however I am slightly more astonished by the work of Truffaut. The 400 Blows was my introduction to his genuis and shortly after, meaning less than a week ago, I viewed Jules and Jim and as quite astonished.

Jules and Jim revolves around two friends, the Austrian Jules (Oscar Werner) and the French Jim (Henri Serre) , who fall in love with the same woman, Catherine (Jeanne Moreau). However, Catherine loves and marries Jules. After the war, when they meet again in Germany, Catherine starts to love Jim. This is the story of three people in love, a love which does not affect their friendship.

Many cinephiles assume Jean Luc Godard's Breathless is the most influential of the French New Wave Films, but a great case could be made for Jules and Jim.Truffaut's film is one of the most beautiful, yet tragic, love triangles that has ever been filmed. It was Truffaut's third film after the success of his debute The 400 Blows and Shoot the Piano Player in 1960. In this Truffaut's trademark style emerges with fast cuts between scenes and naturalistic camera movements, which is owed to  Raoul Coutard's fluid cinematography.  George Delerue's animated music score and Michel Subor's voice-over add to the evocative atmosphere. It is a film of technical perfection, which adds to the visual poetry of this film.

While the film is called Jules and Jim, the most interesting character is Catherine. When watching Truffaut's picture you may find yourself asking, "why are these two men falling for a completely unstable woman?" Catherine is a woman who on one hand is spontaneous and full of life and yet on the other hand is selfish, narcissistic and clearly takes advantage of the weak. She's a woman who has a exciting love for life and yet at the same time suffers from depression and several severe personality disorders. She doesn't let people take advantage of her, yet thinks she has the right to wrong others. She brings joy and sorrow, yet also happiness.

In conclusion, Jules and Jim is a very thought provoking film with very interesting characters who can be intensely studied. It is brilliant, but not for people who see life in simplistic black and white terms. I recommend buying the fantastic Criterion Collection edition and viewing it many times in attempt to get the most you can out of it. Unconventional, complex and brilliant. Praise it! 5/5

Scarface Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Scarface
Year: 1983
Director: Brian De Palma 
Country: US
Language: English

 When critics, film commentators and casual moviegoers enter a conversation about the greatest "post modern" gangster films of all time, their list usually consists of Martin Scorsese's Goodfellas, Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction and Brian De Palma's Scarface. De Palma's film is quite a commentary regarding the nature of success and the self-destructive nature of masculinity. It is incredibly violent, but the violence is used in a morally purposeful manner. Oddly enough, I first saw this film in my grade 10 French class, and it made quite an impression.

In Scarface,  Tony Montana (Al Pacino) and his friend Manny (Steven Bauer) arrive in the United States and start in small time jobs. Soon, they are hired by Omar Suarez (F.Murray Abraham) to pay money to a group of Colombians. When the deal goes wrong, Tony and Manny leave with the money and succeed in their job. Soon Tony meets with drug kingpin Frank Lopez (Robbert Loggia) and falls for his boss's girl, Elvira (Michelle Pfeiffer). Eventually Tony will know that those who want it all, do not last forever; that is the price of power.

Brian De Palma's remake of Howard Hawkes' 1932 version of Scarface is almost Shakespearean in the way the film concerns a man who is doomed from the beginning. Much like Macbeth, we see a character who is blinded by his lust for power and will do anything to reach the top, even if it means killing the king/drug kingpin. Scarface is an urge against greed and the need for power, it is a more adult version of Will Success Spoil Roch Hunter? Tony Montana consistently states "I want the world, and everything in it" In the end he has nothing, not even a soul. Ironically dying next to a globe that says "The world is yours".

Al Pacino plays this modern Macbeth perfectly, energetic and restless. Even if you adore Pacino the actor, you will absolutely loathe the character Tony Montana. A character who is never necessarily shown in a good light, he is always a snake. In many ways Montana is the exact opposite of Pacino's other character Michael Corleone in The Godfather. Another point De Palma is trying to make in this film is regarding the self-destructive nature of masculinity. In our society the typical male is supposed to be aggressive, ambitious and confident to the point of cocky. Here we see the embodiment of that ideology in Tony Montana, and it definitely does not work out for him. A good man needs some typically "feminine" traits as well to balance things out.

In conclusion, while this film is almost excessively violent, the violence is used as a warning against violence and therefore is morally responsible. Scarface is filled with excellent cinematography and suspenseful moments. The soundtrack is decent and the dialogue is memorable.  Unfortunately some of the messages in this film seem to be lost on modern youth and Montana is becoming more of an icon than a warning. Though there are better films with similar messages (Sweet Smell of Success) I would still recommend seeing this film at least once. 3.5/5

Groundhog Day Review: By Michael Carlisle

Title: Groundhog Day
Year: 1993
Director: Harold Ramis
Country: U.S
Language: English

Harold Ramis' Groundhog Day is a film I have seen over and over and over again. On the surface it's a comedy, but it is incredibly deep. This film is full of wisdom, intelligence and remarkable life lessons. Every-time I view it I see something different, it speaks to me in new ways and tugs at my soul. It is a gem with a clown's face and isn't afraid to be pessimistic at times.

Groundhog Day centers on  a weather man (Bill Murray) who is reluctantly sent to cover a story about a weather forecasting "rat" (as he calls it). This is his fourth year on the story, and he makes no effort to hide his frustration. On awaking the 'following' day he discovers that it's Groundhog Day again, and again, and again.

"Ok campers, rise and shine. It's cold out there today, it's cold out there everyday." If the great American Director Frank Capra lived long enough to see Groundhog Day he wold have left the theatres in a jealous rage. It's a capra-esque film that is full of charm, wit, integrity and depression. The lead character named Phil is played by the great Bill Murray, who makes this film a pleasure to watch. His sarcastic sense of humor is absolutely perfect for the film, any other actor may have made the character a bit too goofy and unrealistic therefore completely ruining the film. His detached personality makes him, as Ebert says, "the Hamlet of the sitcom world."

"What would you do if you were stuck in one place, and everything that you did was the same, and nothing mattered?"

The Independant, a well known British newspaper, has claimed that Groundhog Day is "hailed by religious leaders as the most spiritual film of all time." Indeed the Vatican once named this film one of the most spiritually important films of all time. Ramis' film contains a remarkable amount of truth about life. For instance there are a lot of people like Phil, who are pessimistic about life and physically live the same routine over and over, therefore everyday is pretty much the same. Groundhog Day teaches you to be optimistic and make the most out of life, if you wish to learn the piano or write a book then do it! At the very least you should rebel against a highly scheduled life, be different and find your own happiness, whatever that may be.

In conclusion, while this review likely only touched the surface regarding what Groundhog Day is about, it's impossible to deny that this is a really important film. The plot could have just remained a novelty, but Ramis and Murray do something incredibly special with it by making it meaningful. The film never degrades into a soppy mess, it is emotionally honest from the very beginning. Praise it! 5/5

Spirited Away Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Spirited Away
Year: 2001
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Country: Japan 
Language: Japanese

Animated films have had the unfair history of being labelled as "children's films". While there are some animated films like Cars and A Bug's Life that don't quite reach the adult demographic, there are certainly very intelligent animated films that go above and beyond. Films like The Prince of Egypt, Grave of the Fireflies and Spirited Away are surprising in their bold and serious vision.  I first saw Spirited Away about a year ago, the film has been stuck on my mind ever since.

Spirited Away concerns a young girl named Chihiro. Her parents are moving to a small Japanese town in the countryside and Chihiro is missing her old house. Chihiro's father makes a wrong turn and drives through a lonely land road with dead end in a tunnel. She meets a boy named Haku who tells her that her parents and she are in danger and they must leave the place. She runs to her parents and find that they have turned into pigs. Further, the place is a bathhouse of spirits, monsters, gods and ghosts owned by the witch Yubaba. Now Chihiro counts on Haku to save her parents and return to their world.

With every film Hayao Miyazaki makes, he sets the bar higher and higher. He is the undisputed King of Japanese Animation, constanly delivering beautiful yet strange stories that are a delight to the senses. Spirited Away is an intoxicating wonder that is filled with astonishing visuals and enticing characters. Miyazaki's world is as strange as it is unique, an unfailingly intelligent film that is full of curious nightmares and stirring fantasies,

In many ways Spirited Away is the Japanese version of Alice in Wonderland, however it can be argued that this film is more imaginative and thought provoking. The hand-drawn animation burst with energy and excitement, it is a detailed world without boundaries or limitations. Anything and everything is possible in this film, which is quite unpredictable. We see a dragon, a river spirit, a giant baby that has incredibly destructive temper tantrums.Through these spirits she must change her outlook on life in order to get home, it is quite fantastic.

In conclusion, while in North America Pixar, Dreamworks and Disney are recognized as great animation studios, perhaps the greatest animation studio in the world is Studio Ghibli. They have given us such classics like Castle in the Sky, Princess Mononoke and the incredible Spirited Away. This particular film shows that the imagination has no limits, and is perhaps the greatest animated film ever made. Praise it! 5/5

Looper Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Looper
Year: 2012
Director: Rian Johnston
Country: U.S
Language: English

Time Travel films are a curious bunch. They're either incredibly well made like Back To The Future, or horribly conceived like Black Knight. Every time travel film has a paradox or two, but the great films usually are very minimum and avoid great stress on the viewer's brain. 2012's great time travel film was Safety Not Guaranteed, though I have heard Looper was a close second so I decided to watch it tonight and...boy, there were a LOT of paradoxes.

Looper is set in the year 2044, where a man named Joe (Joseph Gordon Levitt), who is working for a group of killers called "Loopers" (they work for the mob and kill people who are sent blindfolded back in time from the year 2074 by their bosses,) recognizes a victim as himself. He hesitates resulting in the escape of his older self (Bruce Willis).

It's very hard to comprehend why such a film is getting so much praise. It's not a very intelligent film, infact in many ways this film completely steals the plot of The Terminator. While the film starts with young Joe attempting to capture old Joe, the plot soon changes to young Joe and his desire to protect a child that old Joe is trying to kill (because in the future the kid kills his wife). There's also some X-Men 3 thrown in there. The plot holes are tremendous, to explain them all would take a few hours and the film just isn't worth the time.

Looper is also morally irresponsible in the way it glorifies violence. While I suppose it should get credit for the remorse scenes after Bruce Willis murders a few children, there is still a shocking amount of pointless violence that does nothing but make the character look "manly". The film's view regarding the nature of evil is incredibly shallow. (SPOILER) The ending is reliant on the child having a good mother, the writer's of this film actually think that a good mother will stop somebody from being evil. What the hell? It's the most contrived ending in the history of cinema!

In conclusion, while Looper was entertaining for the first twenty minutes, it soon became an all too familiar Terminator-esque film, though even The Terminator contained more depth than this! Paul Dano and Jeff Daniels were a treat to see as their acting is always impeccable. Unfortunately even they couldn't save Looper. Piss on it! 1.5/5

Lincoln Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Lincoln
Year: 2012
Director: Steven Spielberg
Country: U.S
Language: English 

Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the greatest, and most well known, President of the United States of America. Steven Spielberg has been regarded as one of the greatest American film-makers of all time, alongside Martin Scorsese (Raging Bull) and Woody Allen (Annie Hall). So what happens when one of the greatest film-makers of all time makes a movie about one of the greatest presidents of all time? Well, it certainly gets nominated for an Oscar.

Lincoln is set in 1865, as the American Civil War winds inexorably toward conclusion, U.S. president Abraham Lincoln endeavors to achieve passage of the landmark constitutional amendment which will forever ban slavery from the United States. However, his task is a race against time, for peace may come at any time, and if it comes before the amendment is passed, the returning southern states will stop it before it can become law.

I had many expectations about Lincoln before I saw it, none of which were met, though that isn't necessarily bad. The history books describe Abraham Lincoln as a practical down to Earth man from Kentucky. What he lacked in social polish, he certainly made up with his incredible intelligence and vast knowledge regarding the nature of man. Lincoln was completely against slavery, and while some Directors might make Lincoln looks like a saint because of this trait, Spielberg doesn't. His Lincoln has a few flaws, he is not against buying votes and is not above playing by cheap tactics. While one might expect the White House to be seen as some sort of holy place in this film, it is not. Rather it's merely a place where dealing & negotiations happen. It's a place of talk rather than action.

There is great credit to be given to Spielberg, as he makes a film that is enormously set around politics & political discussion. One could easily make Lincoln an melodramatic action film where most of the film Abe yells for freedom. The acting in this film is remarkable, Tommy Lee Jones is incredible as  Rep. Thaddeus Stevens, the most powerful abolitionist in the White House. Daniel Day Lewis will surely win an Oscar as the soft-spoken title character. The best performance in this film is Sally Field as Mary Todd Lincoln, she is almost a stronger character than Lincoln himself!

Of course, Sally Field's character is a cliche that we are starting to see in more and more films. "Every great man has a great woman beside him." It is similar to 2012's Hitchcock in dynamic. This cliche will only continue as it seems Hollywood likes to pander to the female demographic in anyway they can. While most people know of Lincoln, they really only know two things about him: He freed the slaves and he was assassinated in a movie theatre. Unfortunately if you go into the film thinking you'll see a grand assassination scene you will be disappointed, Spielberg left that out.

In conclusion, while Lincoln  may be too sentimental & pro-american for some, there is no doubt that this is a well crafted film which takes its politics very seriously. It is a film that  sacrifices some entertainment for a somewhat realistic depiction of Lincoln and the world around him. Filled with strong performances and wonderful cinematography, it deserves to be nominated for an Oscar, but I don't see how it will win. 3.5/5