Iron Sky Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Iron Sky
Year: 2012
Director: Timo Vuorensola 
Country: Finland
Language: English 

Occasionally you come across a movie that seems so bizarre and unusual that you just have to see it out of great curiosity. Films like Alejandro Jodorowsky's surreal spiritual Western El Topo and John Water's strangely inspired Pink Flamingos are definitely just a couple of examples of oddly alluring films. Recently for me it was a 2012 film called Iron Sky. If I could sum up in two words why I was intrigued by the film  it would be this: Space Nazis! 

According to Iron Sky's world history, during the last moments of World War II, a secret Nazi space program evaded destruction by fleeing to the Dark Side of the Moon. During 70 years of utter secrecy, the Nazis construct a gigantic space fortress with a massive armada of flying saucers.

Yes, that's right: Space Nazis. Though the Third Reich did not have the advanced technology needed to win World War Two, they certainly had enough to fly to the moon and live there for seven decades. If your beliefs are suspended then they should be; Iron Sky is a fantasy/Science Fiction hybrid that is remarkably fun because the plot is completely illogical. The film is intentionally campy and satires to a number of stereotypes. It is a unique labor of love; there is a very human quality to this expressive film that you don't get in the typical Hollywood Studio production.

While Iron Sky is somewhat funny and somewhat entertaining, it seems to drag during the last 30 minutes. As I was wanting the film to end because the space nazi gimmick eventually wore out, I found the film to become a pain and it took away some of the joy I had during the first hour of the film. Some jokes can be a little dull and the acting isn't very impressive. Nor would I say that there is any depth to the characters or that the dialogue is amazing. However its absurdity is a redeeming quality, it's a film that I would recommend watching once.

In conclusion, while Iron Sky fails on most technical levels and I certainly wouldn't call it a "good film", it certainly isn't a "bad film" either. It's an hour of entertainment followed by thirty minutes of tearing your hair out because you want it to end. On the other hand, it's more unique and human than most Hollywood films that are being released. If the choice is Iron Sky or superhero movie #10000007 then choose Iron Sky. 2.5/5

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Year: 1966
Director: Mike Nichols 
Country: US
Language: English

Too often do we see the perfect relationship unfold onscreen. Guy meets girl, girl meets guy and though they might have a few quarrels, nobody really gets hurt and they live happily ever after. Fortunately Cinema is not all fantasy; many filmmakers are not afraid to show us the darker side of human nature and make us realize that our own lives may not be that bad compared to the lives on the silver screen. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is most definitely one of those films. 

The plot of the film involves George (Richard Burton) and Martha (Elizabeth Taylor), a middle aged married couple, whose charged relationship is defined by vitriolic verbal battles, which underlies what seems like an emotional dependence upon each other. This verbal abuse is fueled by an excessive consumption of alcohol. Late one Saturday evening after a faculty mixer, Martha invites Nick and Honey, an ambitious young Biology professor new to the university and his mousy wife, over for a nightcap. As the evening progresses, Nick and Honey, plied with more alcohol, get caught up in George and Martha's games of mental abuse.

The themes of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? are apparent throughout the title, which comes from re-writing the words of the beloved children's song "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf". This comes up as a joke during Martha's party and is significant because it connects themes of adulthood and childhood, fantasy and reality, and the desire for success. Though both George and Martha are full grown adults, they still rely on Martha's father for support because he is the president of the University George works at.  George and Martha also function more like children than adults; their nonstop bickering is more emotional than logical and it shows how incredibly immature they both are. "Virginia Woolf" is signifigant because she was a writer who attempted to reveal the truth of human experience, emotion, and thought; everything the couple tries to cover up.

The acting by both Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor is tremendous and memorable, though I wonder if you could call it acting considering their offscreen relationship was going through a similar type of hell while the film was being made. The great success of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is its screenwriting; the film never as a dull moment, even though the characters are basically talking for the entire two hours. The dialouge is sharp, cruel and at times shocking. Even though it's rather difficult, the film makes us care for characters we probably couldn't stand in real life.

In conclusion, a psychologist would have a field day dissecting the characters in this film because they are so complex and have many layers to them. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf  is a warning about the horrifying dangers regarding the lies we tell ourselves. It's best to live life truthfully and admit uncertainty until it bottles up and becomes self destructive. Praise it! 5/5

Garlic Is As Good As Ten Mothers Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Garlic Is As Good As Ten Mothers
Year: 1980
Director: Les Blank
Country: US
Language: English 

Throughout cinematic history, great documentaries have been made to stir the hearts and minds of its audience. Films like The Redemption of General Butt Naked (2011) have us thinking about the nature of man and forgiveness, Whore's Glory (2012) shows the gritty underworld of prostitution throughout the world and Heart of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse (1991) shows us the struggles one has to go through to achieve their dreams. Indeed the subjects of each documentary can differ greatly, Director Les Blank makes a film about a rather strange subject: Garlic

Les Blank's Garlic Is As Good As Ten Mothers is a documentary about the love of Garlic. He interviews chefs, garlic lovers, and historians about the their love of the 'stinking rose'. He also charts the history of Garlic and its many uses, which includes the use of garlic to fight off vampires and other demons.

Les Blank is a rather peculiar film-maker; often making documentaries about subjects that seem too strange to be a commercial success. He is most well known for his fascinating Burden of Dreams. A film which charts the chaotic production of Werner Herzog's Fitzcarraldo.  A couple of years before that film Blank would make Garlic Is As Good As Ten Mothers. The film is essentially a comprehensive guide to garlic provided in a somewhat entertaining fashion. A lesser filmmaker might just center the film about the connection between vampires and garlic, but Blank only dissects that for amount of short time, instead spending most of the film discussing its healthy quality and interviewing somewhat obsessed people.

Garlic Is As Good As Ten Mothers is a rather short film; clocking in at 50 minutes, Blank doesn't bore us nor load us up with too much information with the time given. The film is neither too short nor too long which is absolutely perfect. Many documentaries, like Forks Over Knives (2011), have a running time that is a bit short for the subject matter and thus try to overload us with so much information that we forget to enjoy the film. Blank's documentary shows that he has a knack for taking seemingly insignificant subjects and making them profound.

In conclusion, while Blank did not successfully convince me that Garlic is as good as ten mothers, he did show me that Garlic should be taken much more seriously as a healthy vegetable. No more should garlic take a backseat to broccoli, celery and carrots. While it's a good documentary, it's only as entertaining as the individual audience member makes it. Praise it! 3.5/5

Arrested Development Season 4 Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Arrested Development Season 4
Year: 2013
Creator: Mitchell Hurwitz
Country: US
Language: English 

Ah, Arrested Development. Admittedly I had only watched a couple of episodes of Season 3 during its original run from 2003-2006, I didn't even know Buster lost his hand until I re-watched the series on Netflix just over a year ago. It was upon hearing that a new season was in production that I decided to binge watch each season; this took me a week to accomplish. I just binge watched Season 4 over a period of three days and here are my thoughts.

The plot involves the antics of the wildly dysfunctional Bluth family; Michael (Jason Bateman), George Michael (Michael Cera), Maeby (Alia Shawkat), Lindsay (Porta De Rossi), Lucille (Jessica Walter), George Bluth Sr. (Jeffery Tambor), Gob (Will Arnett), Buster (Tony Hale) and Tobias (David Cross). Each episode of Season 4 focuses on the plights of a different character of the Bluth family, all intertwining with each other.

When Arrested Development originally aired from 2003-2006 on Fox it was met with great praise by critics, but not enough people tuned into the show to watch it and therefore it would be unceremoniously cancelled. Soon after it was cancelled it gained a cult following larger than most television shows that are still on air. There was great demand for another season and eventually, a decade after its birth, online streaming powerhouse Netflix provided. Season 4 has an unusual Rashomon-like narrative structure; it's different from the original series, which was pretty straight forward, but it's refreshing as well.

The show is very funny, but like the latest Seasons of Matt Groening's The Simpsons it's very self referential. Meaning that to get most of the jokes, especially the ones involving Steve Holt and that girl Gob wants to marry, you have to already be a fan of the series and have seen all three seasons before. With Season 4 you can't be new to Arrested Development. It also seems that the characters are a bit watered down. In Seasons 1-3 each character was very complex and had the audience's sympathy. In this Season each character is quite shallow, throughout the series the writers have wanted you to be on the side of Michael Bluth (Jason Bateman), but now he comes off as far too creepy to be likeable. However despite some faults, it is still an entertaining show that will please many of its diehard fans.

In conclusion, though Season 4 of Arrested Development was a joy to unravel, when I decide to re-watch the show again I think I'll skip this Season. While it's not bad, it certainly didn't re-capture the tone of the original series and didn't make any great attempts at making new jokes. Though I still have to give credit to it for being one of the smarter comedies on television. 3/5

The Kid Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: The Kid
Year: 1921
Director: Charles Chaplin
Country: US
Language: English

Along with Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton, Charles Chaplin was a master of comedy and an absolute genius at his craft. Chaplin began his comedy career in Vaudeville, then set out to work for the self proclaimed "King of Comedy" Mark Sennet at The Keystone Film Company in 1913. However, eventually he began to dislike the fact that he was making simplistic comedies with no real value, thus leaving the company and becoming his own director. He mostly made intelligent yet funny shorts until 1921, where he would embark on his first feature length film known as The Kid.

The opening title of the film reads: "A comedy with a smile--and perhaps a tear". As a woman named Edna leaves the charity hospital and passes a church wedding, Edna deposits her new baby with a pleading note in a limousine and goes off to commit suicide. The limo is stolen by thieves who dump the baby by a garbage can. Charlie the Tramp finds the baby and makes a home for him. Five years later Edna has become an opera star but does charity work for slum youngsters in hope of finding her boy.

Many regard The Kid as Chaplin's first silent masterpiece. It is an emotionally powerful tearjerker with a lot of heart; a comedic film with a substantial amount of drama. Chaplin transcends the simplistic notion of what early 1920's comedy should be and takes it higher than any thought possible. It's quite groundbreaking in that sense, surely Chaplin should be thanked for the more emotionally complex comedies that we have seen throughout time

The Kid is an intense mixture of all the right ingredients to make a silent film star. Like always his gags are of perfection, even the most difficult of scenes can look quite fluid and natural. Though the parent-child relationship has proved sentimental in film, few formulas are as emotional as Chaplin's; the scene where the child is taken away from Chaplin is devastatingly powerful. Child actor Jackie Coogan greatly impresses me, usually you don't get such fantastic acting from child actors, but he helped in making the film a believable success.

In conclusion, though the films is imperfect, portraying the kid's mother as a Christ-like figure seems a bit silly & at times the story can be too melodramatic, overall it is a very important and entertaining film that stands the test of time. There are very few films that will stir your soul as much as this one does. Praise it! 4.5/5

The Golem Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Golem
Year: 1920
Director: Paul Wegener 
Country: Germany
Language: German

If Cinema is the art of dreams, then surely German Expressionism is the art of nightmares. It all started at the end of World War One; Germany suffered a humiliating loss, as well as a declining economy, it would prove difficult for German filmmakers to compete with the lavishness of American Hollywood. Disillusioned by the "War to End All Wars" and needing films to be made artistically and cheaply, German Expressionism seemed a natural fit for a country with such loss. Cabinet of Dr.Caligari (1920) and Nosferatu (1922) are the most well known of thee films, but another film known as The Golem would also make its mark.

The Golem is set in 16th-century Prague, where a Jewish rabbi creates a giant creature from clay, called the Golem, and using sorcery, brings the creature to life in order to protect the Jews of Prague from persecution.

Almost a century after German expressionism was born, the films are still loved by film buffs and casual film goers alike. Many have undergone painstaking restorations from their original prints, so they can be preserved for future generations.Unfortunately there is always a film that goes under the radar, in this case it's The Golem. Originally named The Golem: How He Came into the World, it is the third in a series of films about a clay golem that comes to life and murders hapless victims. Unfortunately this is the only part of the series that still survives to this day. It is a prequel to the original Golem film, made in 1915, and it works well by itself.

Like any German Expressionist films, The Golem can be seen as a prophetic warning against the upcoming fascist takeover of Germany. The golem, originally designed to protect the Jewish community from destruction, ends up almost annihilating them himself. Out of desperation and in order to save themselves in the 30's, the Germany people elected Adolf Hitler to lead them. The man they elected eventually plunged them into Wold War Two, another war they would lose, and leave the population decimated.

In conclusion, though the film is a bit uneven and oddly paced at times, overall it is certainly well made. The Golem maintains a horrific atmosphere of fear, suspicion, terror and uncertainty. Director Paul Wegener immerses us into a world that we've never seen before. Golem is a prototype of the movie monster we would be accustomed to seeing in the Universal horror films of the 30's. Even if you are not entertained by the film, it isn't for everybody, you certainly should give it the respect it deserves. Praise it! 4/5

Speedy Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Speedy
Year: 1928
Director: Ted Wilde
Country: US
Language: English

During the silent era, three film comedians stood out from the rest; Charles Chaplin (The Gold Rush), Buster Keaton (The General) and Harold Lloyd (Safety Last!) All three were immensely popular with the crowds and incredibly wealthy, making more money than they could dream of. All three had unique characters; Chaplin had a Tramp, Keaton was stone face and Lloyd had thick glasses and a straw hat. While most credit Chaplin as being the silent humanitarian, it is worth noting that Lloyd had very similar themes. These themes are very apparent in Speedy.

The lead character "Speedy" (Harold Lloyd) loses his job as a soda-jerk, then spends the day with his girl at Coney Island. He then becomes a cab driver and delivers Babe Ruth to Yankee Stadium, where he stays to see the game. When the railroad tries to run the last horse-drawn trolley (operated by his girl's grandfather) out of business, "Speedy" organizes the neighborhood oldtimers to thwart their scheme.

Made one year after The Jazz Singer captivated studios to produce "talkies", Speedy would be Lloyd's last silent picture. Arguably it can be seen as Lloyd's greatest film, though many would give that prize to Safety Last (1923). Speedy is a tale of love vs greed, humanity vs corruption, people vs corporation. Lloyd stands up for the oppressed people of soon to be depression era New York. It is quite beautiful and astonishingly powerful.

Speedy is also remarkably funny.  His impeccable timing and elaborate stunts are abundantly on display and his athletic abilities are of razor sharpness. Some gags are very unique, never thought of before in a silent film. Other gags have been used, but are slightly more shocking and funny in the hands of Lloyd. Much of the film was shot on location in Manhattan, so even the background is full with small yet interesting details about America in the 20's.

In conclusion, Speedy is a breathtaking and clever film that can be watched many times. In this you will find yourself rooting for the hero with more intensity that you ever had with a film. It will give you great hope in humanity, as well as a passion for standing up for the common man. Praise it! 5/5

Summer With Monika Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Summer With Monika 
Year: 1953
Director: Ingmar Bergman
Country: Sweden
Language: Swedish  

Ingmar Bergman is one of the most powerful directors to ever grace the screen. He has given us a career full of heartbreaking classics, all of which I intend to watch and review. So far I have personally reviewed Persona, Cries and Whispers, The Seventh Seal, Summer Interlude, Shame, The Virgin Spring, Fanny and Alexander and  Wild Strawberries, all of which received high praise. Summer With Monika is the most recent Bergman film I've watched, and it is quite astounding.

The main character Harry Lund (Lars Ekborg) is a nineteen year old young man who meets Monika (Harriet Andersson), a romantic, reckless and rebellious seventeen year old, and they fall in love. They leave their families and jobs in their small town, Harry gets his father's boat and they spend the summer together in an isolated island.However as time moves forward, their personalities clash.

Summer with Monika is definitely one of Bergman's finest achievements. It is a cautionary tale about the self destructive nature of escape into alternate states of mind or being seemingly cut off from the rest of the world; the troubled waters that the inability to deal with issues that need affronting lead onto. The inability to mature is ultimately a set back in this world. Not even the love between Harry and Monika can keep them together.

Some call this a pessimistic tale about love, I find this to be rather realistic. What happens when one person in a relationship matures and the other doesn't? Ultimately Summer With Monika is beautifully photographed by early Bergman collaborator Gunnar Fischer. Particularly during the boating scenes. The cinematography is breathtaking, perfectly capturing the freedom of young love and the outdoors, then portraying the isolation of a relationship gone wrong. It is a brilliantly written and wonderful character study.

In conclusion, while many won't feel that Summer With Monika is his best film and it certainly is not his most well known, it is certainly superb. Bergman never disappoints, he is surely a cinematic God. This is a film that can be watched over and over, I will definitely be buying the Criterion Collection Edition. Praise it! 5/5

The Exorcist III Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Exorcist III 
Year: 1990
Director: William Peter Blatty
Country: US
Language: English

Usually in a trilogy of movies, the third and final picture is the worst of all. In Francis Ford Copolla's The Godfather Trilogy, Part 1 was considered a flawless masterpiece that went on to win numerous Academy Awards, Part II was seen in a very similar light, and Part III was overlooked by critics and seen as the worst. The Exorcist Trilogy  has a different path; Part I transcended the genre, Part II was complete and utter crap and Part III...well here it is.

In The Exorcist III Lt. Kinderman and Father Dyer cheer each other up on the anniversary of the death of their mutual friend, Father Damien Karras, by going to see It's a Wonderful Life at the local theater in Georgetown, near Washington D.C. But there's no cheering Kinderman while a particularly cruel and gruesome serial killer is at large. His murders resemble that of the Gemini Killer, who has been dead for fifteen years.

In 1971 The Exorcist became a landmark in the genre of horror film, becoming critically acclaimed as well as financially successful. Six years later Exorcist II: The Heretic followed and was regarded as one of the worst horror films of all time. Thirteen years later came The Exorcist III and remarkably it's even better than the original. The Exorcist III both honors and respects the legacy laid down by the first film while looking ahead towards new horizons. It blatantly ignored the events from The Heretic, so you can be joyful that you don't have to watch II to understand III.

Like the original film, The Exorcist III is not just a horror film, but an investigative mystery as well.  In a sense, it was a kind of priest procedural. For the first hour or so, everything is up in the air.  It could be a deranged copycat serial killer or a case of the spirit of The Gemini Killer possessing people. While supernatural forces may be at work in this film, they're not what you expect. Another great thing about The Exorcist III is that we care about the characters therefore become legitimately worried if something bad happens to them. Too many modern films make their characters so unlikeable that we almost want to cheer for the killer.

In conclusion, The Exorcist III is also great because it has authentic fear. It does not rely on gross out special effects or random people jumping out of shadows, the horror is all atmosphere;  the incredibly claustrophobic shots and eerie lighting. Everything mentioned make this a worthwhile film to watch over and over. Don't overlook it, because it may as well be greater than the original. Praise it! 4,5/5

Back to the Future Trilogy- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Back to the Future Trilogy
Year: 1985-1990
Director: Robert Zemeckis
Country: US
Language: English 

Science Fiction films come and go, some remain revered classics while others are completely forgotten about. In the realm of Sci-Fi there are many sub genres: Post apocalypse, space, time travel etc. My favourite of these would be Time Travel movies. Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris, Duncan Jones' Source Code and Sam Raimi's Army of Darkness are great examples of time altering films, but when people normally think of this particular sub genre one trilogy comes to mind: Back To The Future.

In Part I (1985) a teenager named Marty Mcfly (Michael J.Fox) is accidentally sent 30 years into the past in a time-traveling DeLorean invented by his friend, Dr. Emmett Brown (Christopher LLoyd) there he must ensure his parents get together so he can get back to the future. In Part II  (1989) Marty is sent to 2015, where he must save his unborn son from serious jail-time, however plans don't go as...planned. In Part III Doc Brown is accidently sent to the Old West and Marty must go back to save him.

Overall this trilogy of films doesn't make much sense. There are an incredible amount of plot holes and time paradoxes that would likely destroy the entire Universe. For instance Back to the Future Part II is kind of pointless when you think about it. If Doc and McFly went to the future to save Marty's son and then went back to the past, wouldn't it undo everything they just did? If Doc chooses to stay in the West in Back to the Future Part III then how would Doc and Marty have met in 1985? Was Chuck Barry a pervert and a plagiarist? Back to the Future is more of an entertaining film than one to really think about, unless you want to end up like the head exploding dude from Scanners.

Part I is the greatest film of the trilogy. It has great energy yet remains an "innocent" Family film. It is well written and contains a great deal of humor, Zemeckis isn't afraid of being a little cheesy when he needs to be. Freudian themes run wild in this generation's version of It's a Wonderful Life. This is definitley the most sincere and heartfelt of all three.

Part II is perhaps the weakest film of the trilogy. It is poorly paced and relies too much of technology. The heart the original film had is replaced with a computer chip; it's display of futuristic modes of transportation (hover cars, hover boards etc.) really take away from great emotional depth. Zemeckis is very ambitious with this one, but the story drags on for far too long.

Part III is a healthy middle. It has a decent pace and its setting doesn't distract too much from the emotion of the story. Here there is humor, but both Marty and Doc have greatly matured. The character development throughout this film is great. A critique I and the late Roger Ebert have with the film is that the Western Marty and Doc go back to is a cliche movie Western. It would have been nice to see a more realistic western with realistic characters.

In conclusion, while the Back to the Future Trilogy has some flaws, it can definitely be watched and enjoyed in one sitting. Both Michael J.Fox and Christopher LLoyd are incredibly funny and charismatic, it is a treat to watch them perform. Part I is the only film I would recommend watching by itself. 3.5/5

Back to the Future Part I- Praise it! 4.5/5
Back to the Future Part II- Piss on it! 2/5
Back to the Future Part III- 3/5

The Immortal Story Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: The Immortal Story
Year: 1968
Director: Orson Welles
Country: France
Language: French

Orson Welles: Genius, creator, madman. His very name gets a reaction from anybody who is associated with film. Known for broadcasting "War of the Worlds" on the radio and his controversial classic Citizen Kane, Welles had a magnificent career full of absolutely stunning films. An overlooked creation of the great man seems to be The Immortal Story (1968). While it is not as well known as his other works, I assure you it is just as great.

In the Portuguese colony of Macao in the 19th century. Mr. Clay(Welles)  is a very rich merchant and the subject of town gossip. He likes his clerk Levinsky to read the company's accounts to him at night for relaxation. Tonight Mr. Clay recounts a true story he heard years before about a rich man who paid a poor sailor 5 guineas to father a child with his beautiful young wife. Levinsky says that's a popular old sailor's legend and not true.  He resolves to make the story true. 

The Immortal Story is remarkably Wellesian and in some ways will remind its audience of Citizen Kane. Both are essentially about old men who have amassed great wealth at the unfortunate expense of an emotional life. It paints the idea of the author as repressive God-like figure, forcing the characters to conform to his will. Clay is certainly a dominant and controlling man; while re-enacting a story can seem to be a creative display, Clay is anything but an artist. Though he desires what many other artists desire: Immortality.

 In every Welles film there is great cinematography and lighting, this is no exception. Even the dark lonely lighting in Clay's house appear to be a window into his fractured soul. Being the Director's first non black and white film, it appears that Welles knows how to use color to evoke great emotion and add to the film's great storytelling. Each character has a rather tragic story, but is wonderfully acted. Perhaps the only flaw in this film is that though it is set in the Macao, it is a remarkably European film.

In conclusion, though The Immortal Story is a bit slow paced even for a Welles film and was too literary to be a commercial success, Orson Welles delivers a stunning success once again. I've seen many of his films and I can easily say that this is my second favourite behind Citizen Kane. Thought provoking and entertaining, it is a definite must see. Praise it! 4.5/5

Daisies Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Daisies
Year: 1966
Director: Vera Chytilova
Country: Czechoslovakia
Language: Czech

Ask most people to name a Czechoslovakian New Wave film and you will likely not get an answer. Ask people to name a "feminist" film and you will receive many answers. Films like Thelma and Louise, Angel at My Table and even Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! are all quite groundbreaking in their respective eras. While Daisies is a much stranger film, there is no denying its importance in the world of feminism,

The plot of the film involves two teenage girls, both named Marie, who decide that since the world is spoiled they will be spoiled as well; accordingly they embark on a series of destructive pranks in which they consume and destroy the world about them in attempt to understand the world around them.

Unfortunately the Czech government banned this great film immediately following its release. It's a quite strange non-linear avant garde movie which has no plot or character development, it's simply two women causing chaos in their world. Nothing is sacred and all is not taken even remotely seriously. It parodies the notions of work and war, of love and romance, of Western notions of Humanism. It's very Chaplin-esque in its use of slapstick and comedy to take down the system.

I say this is a feminist film because the women in the film are so expressive and powerful. They aren't tied down to any man, in fact they often leave their dates on a train, and they don't take crap from anybody. Daisies director is also a very powerful and successful woman herself.  Ultimately this is fun and definitely one of a kind. One could watch this over and over without losing any enjoyment.

In conclusion, Daisies is an absolutely remarkable hidden gem. Though it was banned and had the Director blacklisted by the Czech government because apparently the food was too carelessly used, Chvitlova's masterpiece is timeless and will continue to impress for generations. This is an example of what feminist film should look like. Praise it! 5/5

Inglourious Basterds Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Inglourious Basterds
Year: 2009
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Country: US
Language: English

World War Two films have come and gone in the History of Cinema. Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan captivated and shocked us in the late 90's, Rome:Open City was an Italian Neo-realist masterpiece that made us weep for every character involved. Lately the "controversial" Quentin Tarantino has been on a re-writing History binge, in 2009 he dived into WWII history with Inglorious Basterds...and it fell flat.

In Nazi-occupied France, young Jewish refugee Shosanna Dreyfus witnesses the slaughter of her family by Colonel Hans Landa. Narrowly escaping with her life, she plots her revenge several years later in a movie theater with Nazis in attendance. The event catches the attention of the "Basterds", a group of Jewish-American guerilla soldiers led by the ruthless Lt. Aldo Raine.

Perhaps this is just my view, but I feel that if a Director makes a film about World War Two they should tread very carefully. Over 60 million people died from this war, 6+ million died in the Shoah and many more people were affected by the loss of their loved ones. Inglorious Basterds shows that Tarantino couldn't care less about history. It's shameless in its unrealistic collection of mindless and cartoon-ish violence.

The key characters in this film are very one dimensional. They maintain the same lack of characteristics one typically sees in an Arnold Schwarzenegger film; angry but unable to connect emotionally with the audience. They are simply quite half-assed.  You don't even have to be a great writer to make Nazis utterly despicable, but Tarantino can't even do that right! The acting, especially by Brad Pitt (who is great in Coen's Burn After Reading) is horrendous and wooden. It's a film known for Waltz's performance, but after a few of the character's monologues I started not to care. Col.Hans Landa is a terribly written villain that is not the least bit frightening.

In conclusion, I don't even think Tarantino knew what he was trying to make. A drama? A satire? a parody? A serious film? Regardless, the tone of the film is not consistent with the written material and it is not even remotely funny. His blend of old cinema and new cinema just does not work in Inglorious Basterds. The modern score tears down the illusion of a period piece. There is not a redemptive quality to Tarantino's picture; while I usually say "at least it's entertaining" I wasn't even entertained this time. Tarantino fans like to say he's "different" from other Mainstream Hollywood directors, but Basterds was an exercise in pandering to the masses. Piss on it! 0,5/5

Tiefland Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Tiefland
Year: 1954
Director: Leni Riefenstahl
Country: Austria
Language: German

Leni Riefenstahl is an enigmatic and controversial figure in the world of Cinema. Unfortunately she is best known for her Nazi propaganda films Triumph of the Will and Olympia, a documentary which highlights the Olympics in Hitler run Berlin. Before that period in time she was an actress who starred in a few popular Wiemar era mountain films. Lowlands is a film that was finished a decade after the war, perhaps showing her true feelings about fascism.

The film concerns a despicable Marquis (Bernhard Minetti) living in the Basque region of Spain. The man is thoroughly awful in every way. The peasants in his village are starving and their crops failing because he's taken all the water for his cattle. Yet, despite their resulting poverty, he demands payment of their yearly rent. He also has run up huge debts and plans on marrying the rich Mayor's daughter (who he doesn't love) to pay off the debts if he has to. But in the meantime, he treats her terribly and is just an all-around jerk.

Tiefland has quite a bit of history attached to it. Reifenstahl claims that the film was made because of her miserable time working with the Nazis. She claimed that she had no choice in regards to making her previous German propaganda films because if she refused she would have been sent to a concentration camps. Whether this claim is true or not is up for discussion as Riefenstahl has often lied to further her own career. When the allies defeated the Germans the director was detained for four years; the rolls of her film were stored carelessly. When she regained possession of the film she found no support to help its completion. Once she completed it herself nobody wanted to distribute a film by an ex-nazi, so it remained unseen for years.

Tiefland is one of cinema's greatest on-screen tragedies. It was filmed during WWII, under the watchful eyes of the Nazi administration, though perhaps they didn't fully understand what the film was about. Riefenstahl's film seems to be a grand statement against the evil of authoritarianism and a call for freedom of the common people from tyranny. There is no doubt that the unloving Marquis is a metaphor for the fuhrer himself. Like all Riefenstahl films, it is incredibly well made. There is great acting, wonderful cinematography and superb editing. However it can feel like a long film and it's pretty predictable. 

In conclusion, Riefenstahl's Tiefland is not perfect, but it is remarkably beautiful. It is one of the director's under-appreciated films; always overlooked in favour of her shocking propaganda. Tiefland may be propaganda as well, but at least it's propaganda in favour of the oppressed. 3.5/5

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Scott Pilgrim vs the World
Year: 2010
Director: Edgar Wright
Country: Canada
Language: English 

Like Woody Allen and John Wayne, Michael Cera is a character actor who strikes a chord with everybody who comes across his work. Some people love him while others absolutely despise him. I'm on the fence about him; sometimes his character is fresh and funny like in the television series Arrested Development (2003-???) , others times the character falls flat like in Year One (2009). Certainly Scott Pilgrim vs the World  is one of his better films.

In the film Scott Pilgrim plays in a band which aspires to success. He falls for a girl named Ramona Flowers and finds it difficult to breakup with his current girlfriend Knives.  As if juggling two women wasn't enough, Ramona comes with baggage: seven ex-lovers, with each of whom Scott must do battle to the death in order to win Ramona.

Scott Pilgrim vs the World is a refreshing and unique modern film that will take you by surprise. Of the hundreds of films I have seen, there is none that uses its visuals quite like this. It's a strange mix of video game, comic book and live action film that blends perfectly. Wright (Shaun of the Dead) has made a film that is stimulating, inventive, surreal and quite funny. Overall it's quite an impressive achievement.

While Michael Cera's character remains the same for every film he is in, the "awkward" geek hero works perfectly in a film made for geeks.The made up band in the film has some music that is actually worth listening to.  Unfortunately the film itself is not perfect. The script definitely is inadequate in some areas, especially towards the end of the film. Some of the characters are a bit dull and the film itself feels about 10-20 minutes too long.

In conclusion, Scott Pilgrim vs the World is definitely worth more than one viewing. While it's not flawlessly executed and has some shady morals it is pretty unique; it's not just another Hollywood film. Wright's movie is not for everyone and is flash over substance, but the flash is worth a peek. 3/5

The Times of Harvey Milk Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Times of Harvey Milk
Year: 1984
Director: Rob Epstein
Country: US
Language: English

Films with homosexual themes have always graced the screen, whether overt or subliminal. Even in the classic Bonnie and Clyde (1967) it is hinted that Clyde Barrow bats for the other team. Throughout history the LGBT community has been a controversial topic, though it is gaining more acceptance as time goes by. A great pioneer in this community is the enigmatic Harvey Dent; a man who spent his life seeking equality within his society.

The film documents member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Harvey Milk and San Francisco Mayor George Moscone, who were assassinated by Supervisor Dan White on November 27, 1978. Milk's life leading up to his election, his successful efforts to politically represent San Francisco's gay community, and the city's reaction to the assassinations are documented with  news footage and personal recollections.

A lot has changed since the 80's in regards to society's treatment towards homosexuality. Many people are unafraid of "coming out", AIDS is no longer a death sentence or a "gay disease", gay marriage is becoming legalized in more and more places and it is becoming less acceptable to ostracize somebody due to their sexuality. However to get to this point in time, a lot of people had to suffer and stand up for what is right. The Times of Harvey Milk paints Harvey Milk as a martyr for his cause and in many ways he is exactly that. Murdered before he could see the full extent of his influence, the film perfectly captures the triumphs and tragedy of this man's life.

Mainly constructed by news footage and personal recollections, Epstein gives us a great idea about the many tensions and moods surrounding the gay plight in 1980's America.  It gives us a heightened sense of revolution and injustice and will definitely encourage the viewer to help their fellow man. Unfortunately the film is very bias, it assumes one viewpoint and goes with it. We see Milk as a perfect being, but not much else. Supporters of Harvey Milk are interviewed extensively, but not his opposition or bystanders.

In conclusion, The Times of Harvey Milk is an incredibly absorbing film. It makes a monumental decade even more interesting. While the 80's wasn't the most intriguing decade, at least in comparison to the 70's and 60's, the film will definitely make it more exciting. Epstein made a very important film that should not be forgotten. Praise it! 4/5

Kill Bill: Vol 1 & 2 Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Kill Bill Vol. 1 & Vol. 2
Year: 2003-2004
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Country: US
Language: English

 
A lot of thoughts come up when Quentin Tarantino's name comes up; Violent, Brilliant, Controversial, Trash, Talented, Hack, Artistic, Repulsive. Tarantino is a polarizing man who brings about deep conversation in cinephiles and casual film-goers alike. Personally I think Pulp Fiction (1994) was the pinnacle of his career and he has never made anything quite as great. In 2003 Tarantino would make the ultra-violent Kill Bill, and it would shock the world.

The lead character, called 'The Bride,' (Uma Thurman)was a member of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad, lead by her lover 'Bill.'  She fled to Texas, met a young man, who, on the day of their wedding rehearsal was gunned down by an angry and jealous Bill (with the assistance of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad). Four years later, 'The Bride' wakes from a coma, and discovers her baby is gone. She, then, decides to seek revenge upon the five people who destroyed her life and killed her baby.

If you're looking for realism in a Tarantino movie then perhaps you need to check yourself into a mental health ward. Kill Bill is a complete fantasy; an intricate homage to kung fu, samurai and Japanese Cinema with a side dish of Western. Unlike in Tarantino's later films, his mix of old cinema and new cinema blend perfectly. It works as irony, satire, drama and pure action. The score and pacing of the film are impeccable, the action sequences are extremely well choreographed and shot. I especially love the strong female lead character. In mainstream cinema, too often men are the dominating heroes who save the damsel in distress. Beatrix Kiddo doesn't need a man, she kicks butt all on her own.

Unfortunately Kill Bill is not perfect. Like all Tarantino films (with exception of Pulp Fiction) it is very entertaining but lacks social and historical importance. The characters are interesting but their motivations have no psychological depth or resonance. Aside from the technical aspects of film, there is nothing to learn from it as it's simply a revenge story. The ending was completely disappointing. We spent about 4 hours waiting for Beatrix to "kill bill" and that's how it ends? Not with a bang, but with a whimper? It has certainly turned me off from trying to watch the film again.

In conclusion, Kill Bill was one of the more enjoyable Tarantino films. This film  is one of the very rare cases where its censored television version actually makes the film more enjoyable due to how funny it is. Oddly enough the violence isn't censored, but some of the dialogue is. "My name is Buck and I like to party" and "Flunk you!" Watch both and compare the versions yourself. 3/5

The Negro Soldier Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: The Negro Soldier
Year: 1944
Director: Stuart Heisler 
Country: US
Language: English

During World War Two both ally and enemy were making many propaganda films to help in war effort. Many of these film showed their creator's side and opinions as civilized and lawful, and their enemies as brutal savages. In Germany, Leni Riefenstahl was responsible for the now legendary yet controversial propagandist films like Triumph of the Will and Olympia. In America, films like Der Fuhrer's Face, The Great Dictator and The Negro Soldier were equally, if not more, helpful.

Produced by Frank Capra (It's A Wonderful Life), this documentary focuses on the contributions to the American war effort of African-American soldiers. It paints a picture of the Army as a massive machine full of men of every race fighting an unspeakable evil. Of course this evil consists of the Nazi Regime, the Italian government and the Japanese government.

During the uncertain wars of World War Two, the Americans realized that their enemies were not to be underestimated. The Germans were slowly taking over all of Europe and the Italian & Japanese had a vast amount of manpower. For America, it was time to recruit as much people as they possibly could, even if that meant moving past previous racial boundaries, The government went so far as to hire American film Icon Frank Capra to produce this film that would revolutionize society's depiction of the African American.

As a film, it's quite contrived. It reeks of desperation as it completely ignores the racial unpleasantness of slavery and civil rights violations; instead emphasizing the African American's essential influence over the development of the country. The film is illusion, but it worked. Activist groups such as the NAACP and the National Negro Congress called The Negro Soldier “the best ever done” and clamored for it to receive a widespread distribution.

In conclusion, while The Negro Soldier is not as entertaining today, it has as much historical importance as D.W Griffith's Birth of A Nation in regards to black history. The film enticed African Americans to participate in WWII, the participation of African Americans in WWII was a key element in the Civil Rights movement. When they came back from the war, they started questioning their place in society. From there a revolution sparked. Praise it! 4/5