Halloween Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Halloween
Year: 1978
Director: John Carpenter
Country: US
Language: English 

Born on January 16, 1948 in Carthage, New York John Carpenter would grow up to be one of the most respected horror/fantasy film-makers of the late 70's to late 80's. His film Escape From New York (1981) would make even George Orwell blush, it was an Orwellian picture regarding the shattered state of New York in the near future of 1997, thankfully 1997 was nowhere near like that. The film currently being reviewed, Halloween, changed the face of horror for the next generation.

In 1963 police are called to the Meyers house, only to find out that Judith Meyers has been stabbed to death by her bother Michael. 15 years after being institutionalized Michael breaks out the night before Halloween. Nobody knows what the killer will do on October 31st, 1978 besides his psychiatrist. Meyers is going back to his hometown, but by the time people realize it, it may be too late.

Carpenter's Halloween is the blueprint of all modern slasher flicks, in a good and and way. The meticulous use of lighting and claustrophobic cinematography create a perfectly eerie atmosphere full of tension and dismay. The suspense is unrelenting when combined with Carpenter's well regarded score. The villain of the picture, Michael Meyers, is well constructed. He is a creepy, demonic, monster of a man who cannot possibly be deciphered.

Unfortunately, like most slasher films, Carpenter focuses too much on the villain and not enough on the victims. Jamie Lee Curtis' character is a one dimensional heroine, her actions are that of the cliche horror victim and it seems like she only exists to heighten the intrigue of Meyers' character. Some of the dialogue is sloppily written and feels very campy when watching 30+ years later.

In conclusion, while Halloween does have many flaws, it is ultimately a very entertaining film that may have gained a bad reputation because off its many truly awful sequels like Halloween H20. It is definitely a scary picture that deserves to be seen at least once. 3/5

House of 1000 Corpses Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: House of 1000 Corpses
Year: 2003
Director: Rob Zombie
Country: US
Language: English

Beginning his career in White Zombie, a heavy metal group that was active from 1985-1998, Rob Zombie had always been a master at combining music with well known and obscure horror films. His music videos were an endless homage to the genre, even some of his songs are inspired from film and television, for instance his hit Dragula is about a racing car from The Munsters. When Zombie wished to break away from music in 2003, directing and writing a horror flick seemed like an intelligent career move.

House of 1,000 Corpses begins with a duo of young couples who take a tour onto the strange roads of America in search for a man called Dr.Satan. Unfortunately when they become lost and stranded, they come upon a family of psychotic maniacs. Murder, cannibalism, necrophilia and literally 1,000 corpses are some surprises that are in store for the couples.

Rob Zombie's picture is essentially an homage to 70's exploitation/horror films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Last House on the Left, with little bits of Zombie's own creativeness thrown in the mix. It is scary, but it is also very fun at the same time. 1000 Corpses gets weirder as time goes by and has an out of control freight train kind of feel. As an audience you'll never know where the film is going to end up, and even though there are many twists and turns they always make sense. 

The camera tricks, such as negative coloring and split screens, are very "off-the-wall" but work to heighten the uniqueness of Zombie's film. His actors, especially Sid Heig and Bill Moseley, are pretty great for a horror film, they're ridiculously creepy and alarmingly sick. House of 1,000 Corpses doesn't have a lot of purpose, it's merely shock entertainment, but it's quit good shock entertainment. 

In conclusion, this picture is not for the squeamish or faint of heart. Overall it is very unpredictable, taking its audience on a ride straight to hell. It is not unusual to laugh while watching Zombie's movie either, I found it quite amusing, but perhaps that's because of how strange and fun it was. 3/5

Sicko Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Sicko
Year: 2007
Director: Michael Moore
Country: US
Language: English

Who is the greatest propaganda film-maker of all time? During the late 30's and early 40's Frank Capra made a great number of pro-war films designed to make Americans hate the enemy and be filled with pride for their own country. Around the same time Nazi Director Leni Riefenstahl made grand epic documentaries like Olympia and Triumph of the Will. Though these directors could win people over, nobody has grabbed people's attention quite like Michael Moore. 

Sicko is a "documentary" that looks at private health care in the United States and compares it to the Universal health care in Canada and Europe. He talks to various people from each country, as well as American veterans, 9/11 volunteers and doctors in Cuba.

I put documentary in quotations because Sicko is more like a travelogue. Throughout the film Moore doesn't get any actual facts or statistics, rather he interviews people who already have his bias point of view. He says "Canada has great healthcare" then makes a parrot out of someone. The Canadian healthcare system definitely isn't perfect, and there are a lot of well educated people who would say that, but does Moore care? No. He shouts the same slogan throughout the film "American healthcare is evil!" 

His documentary is far from balanced; during the entirety of the film Moore doesn't show one person who disagrees with him. However he has never done this in any of his films and he has never bothered to look deeper into any given issue. He blatantly lies about the UK system, showing it as a safe haven when in reality most of the  British feel the opposite. 

In conclusion, though Moore's heart is in the right place, it's hard to enjoy such a dumbed down "documentary" about healthcare systems. It's frustratingly far from accurate and shocking that so many people have felt pray to the man's deceit. Though the opinion is correct, American healthcare is far from perfect, the execution is incredibly shallow.

 Piss on it! 0.5/5

Raiders of the Lost Ark Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Raiders of the Lost Ark
Year: 1981
Director: Steven Spielberg
Country: US
Language: English

Harrison Ford is the greatest American action hero in the history of Cinema. For me, he is the only worthwhile reason to re-watch George Lucas' Star Wars franchise. He also impressed audiences in Ridley Scott's Blade Runner (1982) and Andrew Davis' The Fugitive (1993), but his most significant role will always be in Spielberg's Indiana Jones franchise, even despite terrible sequels like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. As Indy he propelled adventure to new heights, inspiring generations to fill his shoes. 

Raiders of the Lost Ark is set in the year 1936, when the Nazi Regime is at its most powerful. Though he covers his secret identity by working as a professor of archeology, Indy loves traveling the world for rare and valuable items. When he hears about the Ark of the Covenant, an item that holds the key to human existence, Indy decides to travel across the World to get it, however he must reach it before the Nazis or else life as we know it will crumble.

Raiders is exhilarating, a unique spectacle of cinema that is full of fast paced adventure and death defying cliffhanger situations. It is an homage to the old comic books and serials many grew up with. Unlike most action/adventure movies made today, this isn't full of CGI and it doesn't cling to special effects to win the audience over. Rather it tells an interesting story with remarkable characters. Spielberg isn't afraid to take some time and build up suspenseful moments, making us truly wonder if Indy can make it our of the scene alive.

Spielberg also sprinkles some humor into the film to make it more enjoyable. Who can forget the sword fight that lasts mere seconds, because Indy pulls out his gun and shoots the man? The editing and sound design is remarkable, never has a film bullet sounded so real than in Raiders. The score is memorable, it's the kind of tunes you'd imagine hearing if you were on an adventure. Ford's acting is incredible; with his charisma and sarcasm he embodies Indiana Jones.

In conclusion, Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of those rare films that gets everything right. From the acting, to the cinematography and all the way to the stunt work. Could a film like this be made in any other era with any other film crew? Absolutely not. This is escapist entertainment Cinema at its finest. Praise it! 5/5

Man of Steel Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Man of Steel
Year: 2013
Director: Zack Snyder
Country: US
Language: English 

The superhero genre has had its ups and downs, its masterpieces and the occasional embarrassment which would rather be forgotten about. While films like Spiderman 3, Daredevil, and Batman and Robin have left us groaning in agony, at least pictures like Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy exist to give comfort to super-nerds. Many people have a favourite superhero, not surprisingly Superman tops many fan's lists. X-ray vision, super strength, muscular physique, who wouldn't want to be him? Perhaps the people who saw the terribly cliche Man of Steel.

Henry Cavill stars as Clark Kent/Superman in this picture, which depicts the hero from birth to adulthood while ignoring his melodramatic high school days as examined by the hit television show Smallville. As a young man he wishes to discover what he was sent to Earth to do, as an adult he must become the hero Gotham needs him to be.

Man of Steel is everything Superman isn't, but everything batman is. It attempts to be dark and brooding,as well as giving great effort in attempt to be existentialist but, unlike Nolan's Trilogy, it doesn't have the screenplay or character development to back it up. It's a film with incredible cgi fight scenes and Michael Bay-esque explosions, but not much else. We don't get great scenes regarding Superman's origins, rather they feel rushed and poorly edited.

It's unfortunate that the film is 98% mindless violence and 2% character study, Clark Kent is a psychologist's dream subject but Director Zack Snyder doesn't give a damn about that, instead he paint's superman as a Rambo-Terminator hybrid who violates even his most basic principles. Not even the relationship between Lois Lane and Kent is given a fair glance. Sure the "Superman is Jesus" metaphor makes the film somewhat interesting, but it's cliche, it has been done in almost every superhero movie including Dark Knight Rises.

In conclusion, Man of Steel is easily one of the worst adaptations of the Superman comics. It is certainly a far fall from Christopher Reeve's films in the late 70's and early 80's. Though the trailer makes the picture look like a complex tale about Superman's origins, it is anything but. This movie should be called Man of Steal Your Money. Piss on it! 1/5

V For Vendetta Review-By Michael Carlisle

Title: V For Vendetta
Year: 2005
Director: James McTeigue
Country: US
Language: English

Born on April 17th, 1570 Guy Fawkes was a member of a group of English Catholics who planned the infamous Gunpowder Plot, a scheme to assassinate King James I and restore a catholic monarch to the throne. Unfortunately for Fawkes his plan failed; he was then discovered, arrested, tortured and executed. After his death folklore was written about him and during the 20th and 21st Century he became a major icon of rebellion in North America. Director James McTeigue's V For Vendetta is not a biography about this man, but rather a statement about Fawkes' influence. 

The film is set in the future, Great Britain has become a fascist state. V (Hugo Weaving) is a freedom fighter who uses terrorist-like tactics to fight the oppressive and overbearing society. When he rescues a woman named Evey (Natalie Portman) from the police, she becomes his ally

V For Vendetta is a conspiracy theorist's wet dream; it confirms all their beliefs regarding the ne're-do-well police, cartoon-ishly corrupt politicians and big brother's overseeing eyes. The philosophy in this film is half-baked at best; V comes off as more of a condescending prick than any form of "freedom fighter". He openly admits to torturing innocents, yet claims the means justify the end. Of course the Director uses the most cliche tactic used to make the audience like a character: the arts. He loves paintings, sculptures, poetry and literature so he must be a swell guy! 

I have never used this word to describe any movie, but V for Vendetta is pretentious. It's a film that attempts to come off as more important and intelligent than it actually is. To make up for a lack of coherent script, the director has his actors rambling about, giving Shakespeare quotes and citing poetry whenever they see fit. The acting is atrocious, while Natalie Portman is known to be great (Black Swan) she has also flopped from time to time (The Phantom Menace)

In conclusion, the film is so bad that even V For Vendetta's original graphic novel creator Allan Moore has denounced it. It's a rather silly picture that has nothing going for it, even the editing is sloppy and inconsistent. It's unfortunate that so many Fawkes worshipers have flocked to this movie, but maybe I can silence some voices. This movie is V for VERY VERY VERY BAD.  Piss on it! 0.5/5

Freaks Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Freaks
Year: 1932
Diretor: Todd Browning
Country: US
Language: English

There are many films that are so shocking that it leaves the viewer in wonder about how that picture was even made. Some, like A Serbian Film, Saw and The Human Centipede, have an entire fan base solely because of the gruesome visuals within the film. Others, like Salo: Or the 120 Days of Sodom and Videodrome are incredibly difficult to watch but at least have very intelligent things to say about society. Made during the "Golden Hollywood" era, which makes the creation of the film incredibly puzzling considering it had to adhere to the strict censorship code,Todd Browning's Freaks is the latter.

The film is about a circus trapeze artist named Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova) who takes interest in a midget named Hans (Harry Earles) However her main interest is not in him, but the money he is inheriting. Together, Cleopatra and her lover Hercules (Henry Victor) plot to rob Hans of this inheritance.

Freaks was the most controversial film of the 30's. Several higher up MGM employees didn't want the picture to be made, many left-wing protesters claimed that it was inhumane exploitation. When it was released Irving Thalberg re-cut the picture because of a disastrous test screening and it was banned in the UK for many decades, one woman even claimed she suffered a miscarriage because of this movie. Unfortunately many motion picture companies also decided to blackball Todd Browning, making it impossible to find work and ruining his career.

Even in 2013, the film can be considered "shocking" and "unsettling". Though Freaks is actually a sympathetic look at genetic abnormalities, closely analyzing how "normal" people treat those who are different. It's pretty depressing when you realize just how relevant the film is today, just like the 30's we tend to ostracize people who aren't our ideal body image, even if we aren't the ideal body image ourselves. Our obsession with physical perfection makes us "freaks", more than it does to the people who are imperfect.

In conclusion, Freaks is an astounding picture that will always get a bad reputation because it isn't the glossy Hollywood film that you've come to expect out of the "Golden" era. It is a film that redefines what a "freak" is and boldly challenges the status quo like few films dare to do. Praise it! 5/5

The Godfather Part II Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: The Godfather Part II
Year: 1974
Director: Francis Ford Coppola 
Country: US
Language: English

During the 1970's there were few American Directors producing masterpieces at the rate Francis Ford Coppola was making them. With The Godfather (1972), The Conversation (1974), The Godfather Part II (1974) and, perhaps the greatest war movie ever made, Apocalypse Now (1979) he was seemingly unstoppable. All his films were nominated for multiple Academy awards and both Godfather films won the Oscar for "Best Picture" in their respective years. His seventies films have made a huge impact on American movies and American culture. This review will look at The Godfather Part II.

A continuation of The Godfather saga, Part II tells the story of  a young Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro) as he grows up in Sicily and 1910's New York. At the same time we follow his son Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) in the 50's as he attempts to expand his business in various regions of America. 

Many cinephiles and film critics claim that this is the best film ever made, and it's not hard to understand why. The intricate weaving of two tales ; A flashback of young Vito and a current portrait of his growing son  Michael Corleone, not only allow us to see parallels of the two men, but also their differences, which emphasize how far Michael has fallen from grace. Often flashbacks are not used at the right moments in movies, but Coppola uses them at precisely the right moments. 

Coppola's camera is a voyeurs dream; giving us access to an intimate and detailed mob family that is anything but stable. The sets are remarkable, the film's depiction of 1910's New York looks exactly as it does in pictures and videos from that era. The dialogue is tremendous, each line is solid and packs a mean punch to the gut "I knew it was you Fredo. You broke my heart!" Lastly De Niro certainly deserved his "Best Actor" Oscar at the Academy awards; his portrayal of Vito Corleone was better than Marlon Brando's depiction in the first installment, which is truly saying something.

In conclusion, The Godfather Part II is certainly one of the greatest movies ever made. Only a genius like Coppola in the 70's could pull off something so grand. The film has influenced the way modern Directors produce Gangster flicks and tv shows, Vince Gilligan's Breaking Bad  wouldn't be half as good without Coppola's influence. This picture will certainly remain relevant and groundbreaking for decades to come. Praise it! 5/5

Tiny Furniture Re-Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Tiny Furniture
Year: 2010
Director: Lena Dunham
Country: US
Language: English

Prior to her critically acclaimed television series Girls, Lena Dunham won film audiences over with her second feature, 2010’s Tiny Furniture. Deciding to make a film at any age is bold, but at only 27 years old she proves to be especially audacious. Despite having more than a few more decades to make pictures, Tiny Furniture may be her magnum opus. It is a wonderfully crafted and thought provoking film that will greatly appeal to the youth of this generation.

Dunham’s film is about a young woman named Aura (played by the writer/director). She is a frustrated young adult who has just graduated a college in Ohio. She has no boyfriend, no job and is only recognized for an embarrassing YouTube video. She is discontent about living at home, but has no money to move elsewhere so she lives with her mother; an artist who photographs tiny furniture.

Tiny Furniture is essentially this generation’s The Graduate; both films are about indecisive characters who just received a degree, yet have no idea what to do with their lives. Both films are about a life crisis; the transition between childhood and adulthood, knowing what you want but not knowing how to get it and being frustrated at a lack of direction in life. Dunham’s film depicts our society’s need for instant gratification and demonstrates that it is quite an unhealthy attitude.

Unlike Benjamin Braddock in The Graduate, Aura is a woman-child you would never like to meet but likely have. She’s whiny, passive aggressive and incredibly moody. It’s difficult to sympathize with her, which is the genius of the film; it’s a warning against this behavior.

The film lacks a clear narrative but in this we focus on the nuanced characters and this works. Every detail is there for a reason. It flows flawlessly; even the dialogue, which could be considered acerbic, actually serves to improve the experience of truthful realism that is the triumph of Tiny Furniture.

In conclusion, though Dunham's film is often considered the redhead stepchild of the Criterion Collection, it is actually one of the strongest contemporary films in their vast library. I foresee that thirty years from now Tiny Furniture will be used in sociology and film classes to examine the folly's and struggles of Generation Y. Praise it! 5/5

Gravity Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Gravity
Year: 2013
Director: Alfonso Cuaron
Country: US
Language: English

Among the cinephiles of the world, Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey is considered the greatest Science fiction film of all time. A general public opinion might cite George Lucas’ Star Wars as worthy of holding the title. Other classics such as Blade Runner, Metropolis and Solaris would definitely make the top ten.  2013’s Gravity could certainly make one of those lists as well. Even in an age where CGI can show us everything, it’s quite inspiring that there are still movies that can leave us in awe.

Alfonso Cauron’s Gravity stars two A-list celebrities known as George Clooney (The Descendants) and Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side). After debris from a Russian satellite comes speeding through their orbit, ripping their space shuttle to shreds, they must work together to survive and get back home. If they don’t help each other, they risk floating in space for the rest of their mortal lives.

Alfonso Cauron is the Mexican-born Director of films like Solo Con Tu Pareja, Children of Men and Y Tu Mama Tambien. These films are the exact opposite of the content seen in Gravity, which is why it’s unusual that Cauron took on the project. Howecver, I can say in full confidence that Gravity is the best sci-fi film of the 21st Century (so far). The cinematography is unbelievable; giving us a sense of overwhelming claustrophobia and panic, as time is running out for the characters,

The Director makes us immersed in this vast Outer Space. The actors are certainly doing their absolute best, as an audience we not only want them to survive, we need them to survive. The pace is absolutely perfect for this type of film. There are long 13 minute plus shots, but they are never boring, they are incredibly suspenseful and stomach churning. As a film-lover, I live for these types of films. Gravity is sensational, a wake-up call for the senses.

In conclusion, before I wrote this review I have seen the film twice because of how amazed I was at the technical quality of the film.It's not the most scientifically accurate film, so space-geeks and NASA officials beware, but it is thoroughly entertaining. Cauron has never made a disappointing film and with this his streak continues, Praise it! 4,5.5