Life and Death of Colonel Blimp Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Life and Death of Colonel Blimp
Year: 1942
Director(s): Powell & Pressburger
Country: UK
Language: English

 "War starts at midnight!"

Michael Powell was born in Canterbury, England in 1905. He began his film career in Southern France as an actor under the direction of the legendary silent film Director Rex Ingram. Eventually having an encyclopedic knowledge of the craft he returned to England to work for British International Pictures during the advent of sound. Born in Hungary in 1902,  Emeric Pressburger had been a professional violinist, journalist and writer which captured the attention of famed German producer/director Erich Pommer, leading to a film contract in Berlin. He left Germany when the Nazis came into power. The two would meet and become an unstoppable creative force which made hit after hit. Life and Death of Colonel Blimp is perhaps their most critically acclaimed picture.

From the Boer War through World War II, Clive Wynne-Candy rises through the ranks in the British military. We first meet him as an old man, the epitome of stuffy, outmoded values. However as we travel backwards in time we see a different man entirely.

Life and Death of Colonel Blimp was produced in 1942 at the height of the Nazi threat to Great Britain. Production was far from easy, even though they were able to utilize the immense resources of Denham studios.  Great Britain was under aerial attack by Nazi Germany, the “Blitz” was laying waste to London, shortages of men and material had to be overcome daily, and the situation was not helped by the Government’s attitude toward the film. Winston Churchill rejected the picture, his administration sought to kill it as they felt would make people unhappy with the British military. Though the film was completed, it would be years before the film was released internationally (when it was it would be cut). During production Powell was told that if he made the picture he could forget about being knighted. Powell pressed forward anyways as he was a brave man, certainly not one to back down due to authoritative pressure. 

The magic of Colonel Blimp is the Directors' ability to transform a stuffy, pigheaded old man into one of cinemas most beloved characters. We look past the walrus moustache, to see an idealist and romantic. This is a civilized film about war and soldiers, one that defends the old against the young. It is about the loss of fair play and a sense of decency among military classes. It is about growing old, falling in love and so much more. Powell & Pressburger not only clearly show us that attitudes and morals have changed, but they tell us why. 

Photographed by Georges Perinal, Colonel Blimp is one of the most gorgeous looking technicolor pictures ever made. Its rich period detail in sets, costumes and manners, makes the audience feel like they are part of that time period even if we are actually 100 years removed. The cinematography is as outstanding, similar to how the acting is. Soldiers will never again play so fair as the past, unfortunately war has become a lawless game. Praise it! 5/5

Signs Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Signs
Year: 2002
Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Country: US
Language: English

M.Night Shyamalan's fifth picture, Signs features a lot of crop circles; huge geometric shapes in fields of corn and wheat, which were seen all over the world in the 1970s. Many conspiracy theorists thought it was the work of aliens who were sending various messages on our planet. Their origin was explained in 1991 when two hoaxers came forward and demonstrated how they were made. Despite this the crop circles lives long after its unmasking, with many people forgetting or not knowing that they were explained. The director explores this phenomenon, as well as the idea that we may not be alone after all.

Preacher Graham Hess (Mel Gibson) has lost his faith in God after his wife dies in a brutal car accident. He along with his son and daughter and his brother Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix) moves into a farmhouse. Soon they find the appearance of mysterious crop circles, which suggest more frightening things to come.

The strength of Signs lies in the Director's unwillingness to explain what is happening. Shyamalan doesn't bother with labored explanations and a climax wrapped in a nice little package. Why do the aliens come to Earth? We aren't quite sure. This adds to the suspense and overall fear of what is about to happen. Rather relying on gore or jump scares, the film evokes us through pure emotion. We must listen intently, even when nothing is to be heard. We are on the edge of our seat, even when no action happens onscreen. 

The biggest fear Shyamalan sells us on is the collapse of the family unit. We do not fear the aliens because they are strong, rather we fear the aliens because the humans are week. Preacher Graham Hess is emotionally, physically and spiritually drained. He tries to be a role model, but sees that he is not in control of anything and thus must face the consequences of his inaction. As his faith gets stronger, his outlook does as well. Though the twist involving water is absurd, because why would aliens land on a planet made mostly of water, the film has a promising human climax

In conclusion, Signs is the greatest work of M.Night Shyamalan, though oddly enough he almost ruins it with his own cameo appearance. It's a picture about grief, dread and suffering. It has an atmosphere of ominous dread with very little explanation. Those who wish to make suspense nowadays ought to watch this picture.  Praise it! 4.5/5

The Happening Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Happening
Year: 2008
Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Country: US 
Language: English

M.Night Shyamalan started his career strong with the 1999 classic The Sixth Sense which won the praise of critics and cinephiles alike. He would follow this with another hit, Unbreakable, a film about a man who seemingly cannot die, then slowly make worse pictures throughout the rest of his life. He compares himself to Hitchcock, which is quite baffling, as he has none of the technical master that Hitch did.  He is mainly known for his twist endings, which often don't make any sense. Why would aliens, who are allergic to water, come to a planet  made mostly of water?  His career hit an all time low in 2008, so why not review the picture that sank the tugboat?

In Shymalan's The Happening, a science teacher (Mark Whalberg), his wife (Zooey Deschanel) , and a young girl (Ashlyn Sanchez) struggle to survive a plague that causes those infected to commit suicide.

Rotten Tomatoes gives The Happening a 17% rating, even Mark Whalberg has gone on record saying that the film is "complete shit", only signing onto the project because he wanted to play a scientist. Unfortunately there is no science in this movie, the scientist just dismisses everything by saying "it's nature". Shyamalan tries to give us an explanation for why people are randomly committing suicide (is it the wind? the plants? are the clouds in on it?) but it's very conflicting and still not clear by the end of the film. Perhaps he was trying to instill a sense of realism. In reality, nobody would understand the cause of the sudden suicides and everybody would be trying to connect the dots. Citizens and news stations would voice conflicting beliefs as science races to put an end to the hysteria. That being said, if nature is killing you why wouldn't you just stay inside?

Shyamalan tries to stick an enironmental message in his picture, don't harm the environment or else it will harm you,  but it falls flat. The acting is atrocious; as bad as the script. I do think there are many memorable and frightening scenes, including a man purposefully laying in front of a tractor and an old woman going insane. It is very well paced, slowly unveiling the climax. If the Director intended The Happening to be a campy B-movie then I'd say he did a great job as it is very fun to watch, but as an intelligent thriller it fails on many levels. Great premise, lousy execution.

In conclusion, The Happening is worth watching, but only as brainless entertainment. It is not boring, but it's not full of substance either. This flick could have been far better in the right hands, but Shyamalan doesn't know what to do with the material and thus it cannot bloom. Does it deserve the low ratings? Yes and no. You'll enjoy yourself, but for all the wrong reasons.  2.5/5

Ace in the Hole Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Ace in the Hole
Year: 1951
Director: Billy Wilder
Country: US
Language: English

"I was attacked by every paper because of that movie. They loathed it. It was cynical, they said. Cynical, my ass. I tell you, you read about a plane crash somewhere nearby and you want to check out the scene, you can't get to it because ten thousand people are already there: they're picking up little scraps, ghoulish souvenir hunters. After I read those horrifying reviews about "Ace in the Hole", I remember I was going down Wilshire Boulevard and there was an automobile accident. Somebody was run over. I stopped my car. I wanted to help that guy who was run over. Then another guy jumps out of his car and photographs the thing. 'You'd better call an ambulance,' I said. 'Call a doctor, my ass. I've got to get to the L.A. Times. I've got a picture. I've got to move. I just took a picture here. I've got to deliver it.' But you say that in a movie, and the critics think you're exaggerating." - Billy Wilder

Kirk Douglas stars as a frustrated former big-city journalist named Chuck Tatum who is now stuck working for an Albuquerque newspaper. He exploits a story about a man trapped in a cave to re-jump start his career, but the situation quickly escalates into an out-of-control circus.

Billy Wilder's Ace in the Hole is a unique film noir; there are no private eyes in rundown offices, nor any femme fatales, nor are there any heroes. In this picture there are only victims. Douglas is a victim of his own greed and ambition, the man trapped in the cave is a victim of  fate, and everyone is a victim of the media. This satire of the media circus that would envelop us all goes beyond noir and falls into something more deep, more personal and more honest. Douglas' chilling over-the-top performance will chill its audience to the very core. 

The story, inspired by a 1925 incident in which a Kentucky man, trapped in a mine, was turned by reporters into a nationwide sensation, and eventually given to Wilder as a treatment by radio writer Newman. The media circus is only made possible by an apathetic society, under the guise of empathy. Essentially everyone is out for themselves, even when real lives are on the line. It is as true in post-war America as it is today, though nobody would make a film about the same kind of greed today because all the money is in Star Wars and the newest Comic Book adaptation. 

In conclusion, Ace in the Hole is a remarkable picture that expands the definition of "film noir". Billy Wilder has made a picture so grotesquely uncommercial that it is satisfying to see for the first time. It is a fundamental critique on North American society that must be viewed. Chuck Tatum is the most vile Wilder creation ever put to the screen, even he succumbs to his own self-hatred. Praise it! 5/5

Shallow Hal Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Shallow Hal
Year: 2001
Director(s): Farrely Brothers
Country: US
Language: English

"Hot young tail," his father says while on his deathbed. "That's what it's all about." Hal (Jack Black) promises his father that he will only date beautiful women. The Farrelly Brothers are the raunchiest Directors of the 90's, often pissing people off with their lowbrow and immature humor. They are not afraid to seek jokes where few would dare, like a children's burn ward. Despite this, they can occasionally made decent films. . Shallow Hal might be one of their better outings.

Hal is a very shallow individual who can only see a person's outer beauty. Then one day he is hypnotized by a self help guru and can only see the inner beauty of women. Thus he falls in love with Rosemary (Gwyneth Paltrow) , a 300 pound woman.

Some have criticized the Farelly Brothers for mocking the obese. While I can somewhat see where they're coming from, I'd argue that they are making us empathize with Rosemary, rather than laugh at her. While we are clearly seeing Rosemary's exterior beauty, it is necessary because visually it is the only way to see Hal's point of view. Due to this, we come to loathe Hal's buddy Jason Alexander for being so shallow that he breaks up with women because their big toe's are too big.

For Jack Black's first starring role, he has done a pretty good job at being a delusional bachelor desperately fallen in love with a girl who seems to not have had much luck in that department. I'm not a fan of how the directors treat Walt (Rene Kirby), a man who has spina bifida, as his disability is a source of many low-brow jokes. However, he is eventually treated with dignity. Shallow Hal is a mixed bag, but we can be certain that it is full of nuts.

In conclusion, Shallow Hal is very polarizing. It has as many people laughing as they do cringe. I'm on the fence about this, because while I do see their intention (don't judge a book by its cover) they often go too far and sometimes it seems like they're achieving the opposite of their goal. 2.5/5

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Year: 2004
Director: Spike Jonze
Country: US
Language: English

Charlie Kaufman was the most gifted screenplay writer of the 2000's. Even in the 90's he was making superb scripts like 1999's Being John Malkovich for director Spike Jonze. He was clearly fascinated by the process of thought and memory, many of his characters were curiously complicated because of this. Sometimes heavy with symbolism, Kaufman knew how to dissect modern life and strip it to the bare. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind delivers the normally wacky Jim Carrey in his most serious role yet.

When their relationship turns sour, Joel (Jim Carrey) and Clementine (Kate Winslet) undergo a procedure to have each other erased from their memories. However, it is only through the process of loss that they discover what they had to begin with.

The film begins like a melancholic romantic comedy; extremely depressed Joel meets quirky Clementine and they fall in love. It has Sci-Fi elements but nothing in the picture suggests that they live in the future, not even the near distant future. The film is non-linear which is confusing at first, but as Eternal Sunshine progresses the chronology becomes a little more clear. Much of what happens is in Joel's memory, and as we know from psychology, the memory is very fickle. 

While the main plot is ingenious, the subplot involving Mary (Kirsten Dunst), Dr. Mierzwiak (Tom Wilkinson) and Patrick(Elijah Wood) is mediocre at best. We don't care at all for these characters, rather they are an inconvenience to the audience and only serve as some odd form of comedy which distracts from the main problem. Kaufman shows wisdom in the way he illuminates memory and love. Too often we focus on pain, which distracts us from the amazing experiences we have had. If Joel was not so focused on revenge and all the bad in his life perhaps he would have stayed a happy man.

In conclusion, such a unique concept like this would have gone to waste with any other director, screenwriter and cast but this near perfect ensemble manages to make a memorable picture. It is a feast for the mind, analyzing how memories are assembled and disasembled while simultaneously dissecting how the heart and mind work together. What would you choose if you could completely erase the memory of your ex? Praise it! 4/5

The Aviator Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: The Aviator
Year: 2004
Director: Martin Scorsese
Country: US
Language: English

Perhaps the most interesting man to have ever lived, Howard Hughes was an enigma wrapped inside a mystery. During his lifetime he was the richest man alive, yet struggled to overcome his extreme OCD. There are stories of him locking himself in his theatre, watching Ice Station Zebra dozens of times in a row and peeing in glass jars rather than seek a washroom. He rarely spoke to the public, only doing so via telephone when trying to dispel rumors made about the mad genius.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays the eccentric figure. The film opens with the shooting of Martin Scorsese's favourite flick; Hell's Angels. Even in his early years we can see Hughes' desire for perfection to come at a cost. We follow the man's life, uncertain that he will ever get the help he needs. 

The Aviator focuses on Hughes' golden years, when he has not yet bought a bungalow  behind the Beverly Hills Hotel and refused to leave. Like most Scorsese characters, we see his time at the top. Spending lavishly, dating Hollywood's greatest beauties, an heir to his father's fortune. Life seems dreamy, but he slowly fights to be mentally healthy. At times he can see what's normal, but unfortunately it grows out of his reach. 

Leonardo DiCaprio pulls off a great performance as he endures two simultaneous emotional storms; one where Howard Hughes is a success professionally, another where he is a failure personally. Though even trapped within his own mind, he is able to pull off a great public act without revealing too much about his private life. Unfortunately DiCaprio is nobody's ideal look-a-like for Hughes, but he does capture the spirit of a genius. Scorsese should be applauded for perfectly capturing the look and feel of the Golden Age of Hollywood. His use of special effects greatly enhance the picture, rather than destroy it with phonyness. 

In conclusion, while Cate Blanchette didn't strike me as a convincing portrayal of Katharine Hepburn, I felt the film was vibrant with energy and captured all the excitement of that particular era. Scorsese rarely makes a poor picture, and this was no exception. The Aviator is a film I would watch many times over. Praise it! 4.5/5

Vengeance is Mine Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Vengeance is Mine
Year: 1979
Director: Shohei Imamura
Country: Japan
Language: Japanese

Curious about the film, I asked one of my friends about it. He said that Shohei Imamura's Vengeance is Mine was like a "Japanese version of American Psycho". This immediately sent me to the store, as I wanted to own a copy. Imamura was an innovative director, who spent much of the 60's and 70's making pictures regarding the displacement felt by Japanese Citizens following World War II. He transformed a stale film industry, pouring his heart and soul into his fiction and non-fiction works.

Basing his screenplay on a true crime novel by Ryuzo Saki. The story follows killer Iwao Enokizu (Ken Ogata, Mishima, a small-time con man who went on a five-person killing spree, eluding police for over two months. 

The plot is non-linear, it weaves out of present and past, and is all the better for it. There is no real reason for Enokizu's killings, although some suggest his run is a suicide-by-cop scheme while others contemplate if it's a rejection of the old ways of the samurai, which was death by honorable hara-kiri.  A modern psychologist would claim Enokizu is simply a sociopath. His victims are all powerless, he shows great weakness against any authority, including his own father, whom he has every notion to kill.

It is not clear where the vengeance is in the picture. Enokizu's murders seem random and their death proves no point. He doesn't even seem to have strong feelings for the people he kills. When the cops ask for a confession, he has no important statement to make. Although he seems to not care what happens to him or the people in his society, so why devulge important information at all? He only shows passion when he is having sex, which says a lot about the animalistic nature of man. He claims to be a catholic, yet is far from it in practice.

In conclusion, Vengeance is Mine is a great film that I hope to watch many more times so I can get a better idea of the symbolism in it and what it has to say. The performances are astounding and the cinematography is intelligent. Imamura never ceases to amaze me, his direction is simply perfection. Praise it! 5/5

The Deer Hunter Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Deer Hunter
Year: 1978
Director: Michael Cimino
Country: US
Language: English

I first saw Director Michael Cimino's three hour war epic on a Remembrance Day many years ago. I expected the usual anti-war film, but instead witnessed an intellectual masterpiece with great depth. It discussed the alienation of fighting in a foreign country, along with the depravity of violence. Though it didn't give us the Vietnamese view of the Vietnam War, unlike Peter Davis' documentary Hearts and Minds, it did show the true horrors of battle. 

Michael, Steven and Nick are young factory workers from Pennsylvania who enlist into the Army to fight in Vietnam. After some time and many horrors the three friends fall in the hands of the Vietcong and are brought to a prison camp in which they are forced to play Russian roulette against each other. Michael makes it possible for them to escape, but they soon get separated again. 

The Vietnam war brought havok unto millions of lives, in ways none of us can fully understand. Many civilians and soldiers died, the majority of Vietnamese women became prostitutes for American soldiers. A generation was called upon to enlist in a war that they didn't understand. They faced terrible choices, and if they did return home they would never be the same again. Cimino wraps us in this uncertain time delivering brilliant photography and haunting cinematography. The picture is told in three parts; pre-war, war & post-war. It is excellently paced, driving the fact that American society had changed drastically due to war.

Michael's determination allows the group to survive and make it home. However when he arrives home, with medals on his chest, he cannot face the welcoming party that consider him a war hero. War has made everyone a victim of chance, it made every party guilty and emptied their humanity as well as taken their soul. While Michael is not physically crippled like his friend Steve, he is mentally destroyed. The very idea of innocence is lost on him. A warm and beautiful world has become a sinister wasteland of oppression.

In conclusion, the picture is also a warning against blind patriotism. Perhaps we should not be too attached to our own country, specially if they seem content on blowing foreigners to bits for no plausible reason. Each character is treated with respect, all are detrimental to the plot and all have a mind of their own.The Deer Hunter ends  with the singing of God Bless America, which is quite curious. Never before has a song meant so much and yet so little. Praise it! 5/5

The Jungle Book Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Jungle Book
Director: Wolfgang Reitherman
Year: 1967
Country: US
Language: English

I have seen many film adaptations of Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book, my favorite is Zoltan Korda's 1942 version which features Indian actor Sanbu.  A close second would be Disney's 1967 animated classic, which most North Americans are familiar with. It was the final Disney animated film that Uncle Walt produced himself, having died before its theatrical release in 1966. It is among Disney's best post-war films, but is more sentimental than the original source material.

Mowgli is a boy who has been raised by wolves in the Indian jungle. When the wolves hear that the fierce tiger, Shere Kahn, is nearby, they decide to send Mowgli to a local "man tribe". On his way to the village, Mowgli meets many animal characters in this musical tale

As with many of the Grimm Brothers' fairy tales, Walt thought the original source material's tone was too dark and too serious for children of the late 60's. He did his best to make sure his writers, animators & composers didn't read Kipling's work as it might influence them to go another artistic direction. The Jungle Book became a Peter-Pan like coming-of-age parable about carefree childhood and adult responsibility. The main song of the film "Bare Necessities" stresses the importance of the theme. 

The Jungle Book is one of Disney's most entertaining, and enduring, classics. A vivid, energetic, funny and touching fable that undoubtedly will undoubtedly be remade in the near future for a new generation. The songs are among the most memorable of that period, it's difficult to forget the jazzy "I wanna Be Like You" sung by a wacky Orangutang voiced by Jazz legend Louis Prima. From what we know of Disney during this time, creating Jungle Book was not an easy task. He was a perfectionist that demanded the best of everyone involved in the creative process. He wrote and re-wrote the script numerous times before the picture evolved into something that he was satisfied with. 

In conclusion, The Jungle Book's bold colours, excellent character designs and nuanced animation makes it a film of real visual beauty. It is not the most fleshed out animation by today's standards, but it is unique and reminiscent of late 60s animation. Though it does have some dated racial stereotyping in the form of King Louie, it doesn't fall into the same  gender stereotyping that Disney pictures often do. Infact it provides us with same-sex parenting in form of Bagheera the Panther and Baloo the Bear. Praise it! 4/5

Robin Hood Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Robin Hood
Year: 1973
Director: Wolfgang Reitherman
Country: US
Language: English

He steals from the rich and gives to the poor. Disney's Robin Hood tells the animated story of the heroic outlaw from English Folklore who, according to legend, was also a highly skilled archer. I saw this film many times as a child, always entertained by the spectacle of a fox taking arms against an evil...Lioness? Prince John and his dastardly snake. The film is very popular with furry fandom, with its characters being design inspiration for the furry community.

Robin Hood is the story of the swashbuckling hero of Sherwood Forest and his valiant Bear sidekick, who plot one daring adventure after another in order to outwit the greedy prince and his partner as they put the tax squeeze on the poor.

Generally considered by film critics to be one of the weakest pictures in the company's history, the film was successful with audiences upon its release. It has a strong storyline with an abundance of humor. Who can forget the bear dressed in drag, filling his/her bra up with gold to reveal enormous boobies which then arouses the rhino guard? The animals each character represents has a strong symbolic significance.  The lion is a symbol of regality, the male fox is cunning, the lady fox is, well, foxy and so on. 

Unfortunately Robin Hood is not perfect; much of the animation is recycled from older Disney pictures. The few dance scenes are taken directly from Jungle Book (1967) and Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (1937). It is also a feminist/queer theorists' nightmare. The views regarding femininity and masculinity are extremely narrow, though typical for a 70's Disney flick. The male fox is the typical masculine figure; strong, brave, smart and in charge. The women of the film are completely helpless. With the villains, Disney goes out of its way to show that femininity in men is wrong and therefore should be punished. Prince John is not depicted as a male lion like his older brother King Richard, but as a female lion. His actions are what only can be described as "sissy".

In conclusion, I found myself both entertained and disturbed by this movie. It is both mindless entertainment and patriarchal propaganda. It doesn't really fit in today's politically correct era of animation, though it does have a better story than Frozen. When read in a purely Marxian context one could consider this a "great" film, but I'm still not sure I'd show it to future generations. 3/5

Il Buono, Il Bruto, Il Cattivo Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
Year: 1966
Director: Sergio Leone
Country: Italy
Language: Italian

Italian Director Sergio Leone is a legend; even those who are unfamiliar with the Western genre know his name,  more-so than John Ford and Sam Pekinpah. Influenced by Akira Kurosawa's samurai flicks (mainly Yojimbo & Sanjuro) Leone set out to make a unique type of Western, which American critics coined as "Spaghetti Western". His Dollars Trilogy (A Fistful of Dollars, For A Few Dollars More and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) changed the face of Cinema forever, as well as made Clint Eastwood a household name.

A bounty hunting scam joins two men in an uneasy alliance against a third in a race to find a fortune in gold buried in a remote cemetery during a civil war. Blondie (The Good) is a professional gunslinger who is out trying to earn a few dollars. Angel Eyes (The Bad) is a hit man who always commits to a task and sees it through, as long as he is paid to do so. And Tuco (The Ugly) is a wanted outlaw trying to take care of his own hide. 

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is the third installment, and the most ambitious part of Leone's trilogy. It is deeply rooted in the tradition of the picaresque novel and the commedia dell’arte, two Latin literary traditions. The picaresque story of three adventurers chasing the same treasure is punctuated by brief but poignant images of the war. We see shocking instances of death, humiliation, degradation  and torture. The cruelty of the war defines the morality of the people in it. Sure the three main characters are bastards, but in comparison to their surroundings they are not the catalysts of pain and destruction. 

John Wayne couldn't dream of acting in a Western this good, Howard Hawks couldn't possibly direct such a complex picture under the old studio system. Leone is bigger, more brutal and more stark. The film's score by Morricone is iconic; I find myself in awe whenever I hear it. It fills the gap of silence, as the picture's character study is of artaud style; meaning the characters are illustrated by means of their actions and by confronting them to each other. We feel we understand each character's motives and mind, even when nothing is said. The mexican standoff in the cemetary is pure gold, perhaps the greatest scene put into film. It is incredibly tense, mainly because the camera fills the frame with the character's desperate eyes and shaking fingers.

In conclusion, Leone's Dollar Trilogy is a must watch even if you despise the acting of Clint Eastwood or aren't a fan of Westerns. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly breaks all the traditional rules of what people thought a Western should be, and becomes both a groundbreaking and inspiring work of art. Violent, Funny and intelligent, there's a lot to uncover in this treasure. Praise it! 5/5

Bigger than Life Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Bigger Than Life
Year: 1956
Director: Nicholas Ray
Country: US
Language: English

Many consider Rebel Without A Cause to be American Director Nicholas Ray's Magnum Opus, but I would disagree. Though that work is a masterpiece. Bigger than Life's startling depiction of the 50's nuclear family is even more remarkable. It's one of the greatest American films of that era, describing that particular decade in a way that would make even Edgar Allen Poe shiver. Does father really know best? Perhaps not. 

Schoolteacher and family man Ed Avery, who's been suffering bouts of severe pain and even blackouts, is hospitalized with what's diagnosed as a rare inflammation of the arteries. Ed agrees to an experimental treatment: doses of the hormone cortisone. Unfortunately the miracle drug turns his plain family life into a nightmare. 

In the 21st Century we often look at the 1950's as a Golden Age for the typical American family. Unfortunately this nostalgia is far too romanticized, we often forget the dangers that a single income nuclear household imposed upon society. The "father knows best" generation often had to learn the hard way that father didn't know best. For instance, what if the father had been abusive? what if the father was neglectful? In this particular case, what if the father had an addiction? Could the female of the house save the family? It was unlikely that she would even be able to get a divorce, as it was a logistical nightmare. One had to have a lot of time and money to remove themselves from a dangerous domestic situation back in the day. 

Bigger than Life depicts the patriarchal family system at its worst. At the beginning of the film Ed's family seems well adjusted, but there is always something off about them. Even when Ed tries his best to be the cheerful smile, we get a sense that there is something dangerous about him. Ray flips the American Dream on its head as the ideal class/race/family is thrown into chaos due to the institutions that bind them. Even the institution of religion is exposed as the masochistic Ed recites lines from the Bible in order to justify murdering his only son.

In conclusion, even though the picture ends with the family hugging as the father moves past his addiction it is not a satisfying climax. The family is still alienated; their isolation does makes it seem like another accident could happen. The dependency on the father as sole provider must cease if any American wishes to live a happy life. Praise it! 5/5

Alien Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Alien
Year: 1979
Director: Ridley Scott
Country: US
Language: English

"In space no one can hear you scream" Alien's chilling tagline is still commonly quoted amongst the film community 35 years after its original theatrical debut. The picture has become a franchise; inspiring 3 movie sequels, many spinoffs and a terrible Alien vs Predator crossover. Building on the seminal opening shot of George Lucas' Star Wars it was a direct defying response to the science fiction craze at that time. Ridley Scott wished to resurrect the cheeky genre of scary monsters in space, introducing high budget visuals and adult orientated horror in the process. 

In Alien, the commercial vessel Nostromo receives a distress call from an unexplored planet. After searching for survivors, the crew heads home only to realize that a deadly bioform has joined them.

At heart, Alien is a feminist film because of its representation of the workplace as an egalitarian place where traditional roles have been extinguished. Made during a time where women in America were constantly overshadowed by men - in 1979 they were earning annual wages that amounted to just sixty percent of the earnings of their male counterparts- the character of Ripley (played by Sigourney Weaver) is a refreshing step forward. Certainly she is one of the strongest female characters to ever grace the silver screen. 

Alien is also terrifying because  the gender roles are reversed and now men are the most vulnerable of the sexes. Haunting sexual imagery is abound throughout Alien. When Kane explores the cavern- a stand in for the female reproductive system- he becomes impregnated by a scorpion-like monster that attaches itself to his face. It is a textbook Freudian scene of his symbolic castration. Later he gives birth to a phallic Alien- the symbol of the male's anxiety towards feminism. With Alien Director Ridley Scott suggests that the ultimate unconscious male fear is that he will be equal with women. The penis is no longer the object of male power and men will have equal distribution of reproductive duties, including the burden of childbirth.  

In conclusion, Alien is a remarkable horror flick that is interesting to dissect. It is well paced, remembering to rely on atmosphere and symbolism rather than cheesy jump scares and cheap effects. It is enthralling and memorable, influencing current horror movies which unfortunately are rarely ever as intelligent as this picture is. Taking us back to the pinnacle of late 70's  second wave feminism, Ridley Scott's masterpiece is far greater than any review can give it credit for. Praise it! 5/5

Dances With Wolves Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Dances With Wolves
Year: 1990
Director: Kevin Costner
Country: US
Language: English

Kevin Costner's Directing debut won a total of seven Oscars at the 63rd Annual Academy Awards; Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Sound, and Best Original Score. Its main competition was the Martin Scorsese masterpiece Goodfellas, which frankly should have given Dances with Wolves the beating of a lifetime. Seriously, what were they thinking? Perhaps Scorsese's moral ambiguity left them cold?

Kevin Costner stars as Lt. John Dunbar, a man who is dubbed a hero after he accidentally leads Union troops to a victory during the Civil War. He requests a position on the western frontier, but finds it deserted. He soon finds out he is not alone. He befriends wolves and Indians, making him an intolerable aberration in the military.

Does anybody watch this film anymore? For a picture that is only 24 years old it has aged horribly, worse than some silent movies! It's a historical epic that is far too long and tedious to be considered entertaining. It's the typical white guilt movie that Hollywood loves to shove down our throats every year, except with a considerable lack of CGI. Why see this picture when we have Avatar? Or the considerably shorter Ferngully/Pocahontas/ The Help/The Last Samurai/Django Unchained?

It seems like in the 90's The Academy Awards had a stiffy for historical epics. Consider the fact that Dances With Wolves, Braveheart, Schindler's List, Forrest Gump, The English Patient, Titanic and Shakespeare in Love all won "Best Picture" that decade. Perhaps Wolves was a safe movie, that attempted to right some Hollywood wrongs. Perhaps it was an admittance that we had not treated Native Americans very kindly in our pictures. Then again, the attempt at dealing with race relations is painful to watch at times. In 2014 it feels condescending rather than honest. Its poor pacing, lack of structure & dismal conclusion left a bitter taste.

In conclusion, it's best to stay away from Dances With Wolves. Let it die and be forgotten by the masses. Watching it left me uninspired and unfulfilled. I felt like I had wasted a decent portion of my life on a picture that nobody cares, or should care about. If you're looking for a decent movie about race relations see either Lawrence of Arabia or 12 Years A Slave. Both are phenomenal. Piss on it! 1/5

The Wolf Man Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: The Wolf Man
Year: 1941
Director: George Waggner
Country: US
Language: English

Universal Horror is the name given to a series of unique horror, suspense and science fiction films made by Universal Studios starting in 1923 (Phantom of the Opera) and ending in 1960 (The Leech Woman) The most successful era was the 30's, when in- spite of the depression- audiences flocked to see the newest Bela Legusi or Boris Karloff flick.The german expressionist style would follow through the 40's as a new star was being made; Lon Chaney Jr. His most successful feature was 1941's The Wolf Man

A practical man returns to his homeland, is attacked by a creature of folklore, and infected with a horrific disease that turns him into a werewolf during each full moon. The local villagers become unruly, and go on the hunt for the wolf terrorizing their village. 

Most cultures around the world have their own legend to explain the equal parts good and evil present in every person. In a lot of these legends the susceptible human shape-shifts into some horrid monster, or other fiend. Some legends prove to be allegories regarding puberty, sexual drives or catholic guilt. Indeed the Wolf Man does a great job at reflecting the duality behind the human monster. which proves ultimately more confronting, psychoanalytic, and undeniably more terrifying than an explanation rooted in the paranormal. 

Even a man who is pure in heart, and says his prayers by night, may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms, and the autumn moon is bright. The picture is essentially about intense sexual desire, which is frowned upon in strict Christian communities where the story is set. I believe the main character is a sexual predator who cannot come to grips with his actions. This would explain why all his victims are female, and why the wolf tracks always lead to his bedroom. The townspeople slowly start to suspect the main character, one woman even accuses him of looking at her “like a wild animal with murder in his eyes.” 

 In conclusion, The Wolf Man is slightly dated but still proves to be entertaining and provokes discussion. Using a combination of rubber framework, false teeth, and yak-hair wigs to bring the werewolf to life, this depiction of a werewolf is much more convincing than anything that has come since. Though many pictures have used the wolf motif, none have done it as successfully as this horror classic. Praise it! 4/5

L'Avventura Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: L'Avventura
Year: 1960
Director: Michelangelo Antonioni
Country: Italy
Language: Italian

The first part of the unofficial Incommunicability Trilogy with La Notte (1961) and L'Eclisse (1962) Italian Director Michelangelo Antonioni didn't intend these three movies as a trilogy, however cinema historians have called it so. Originally L'Avventura wasn't perceived very well; at its premiere at the Cannes Film Festival it was received to a loud chorus of boos. Audience members repeatedly yelled "cut!" at various scenes, because they felt it was far too long. After its second screening there was a complete turn around in how the audience felt about the flick. It would go on to win the Special Jury Prize, and become a landmark in European cinema. 

The film begins with a wealthy woman disappearing during a Mediterranean boating trip. the plot thickens during the search, as her lover (Gabriele Ferzetti) and her best friend (Monica Vitti)  become attracted to each other

Before L'Avventura Antonioni had made five other features, but was little known in Europe and even less known in The United States. The film made Antonioni, as well as the film's star Monica Vitti, and international sensation seemingly overnight. Translated into English, the title is "The Adventure". One might think that the story is a mystery thriller with a side of adventure, but they would be wrong. There is little physical searching for the missing woman, rather the picture consists of our characters searching their spirituality. 

L'Avventura deals with many postwar existentialist themes such as alienation, non communication, and failure to find meaning in an uncertain world. The characters respond to their lack of meaning by engaging in superficial sex and indulging in mindless affairs. Claudia and Sandro disregard their values and unconsciously refuse to make their lives meaningful. They lie to themselves, and to each other. Modern films would romanticize this lifestyle, but Antonioni is smarter. 

The picture is deliberately paced, some scenes drag to a crawl yet feel incredibly important. A cocktail of emotions fill the screen, even when action doesn't. Very little drama can happen, but it can still make the frame absolutely fascinating. L'Avventura is unique because the events depicted aren't meaningful, and the characters motivations aren't clear. The Director doesn't hold our hand throughout, he lets us interpret the film for ourselves.

In conclusion, L'Avventura is certainly an arthouse European flick that isn't set out to please everybody, nor will it. It has profound emotional depth, a very mature flick compared to most of what Hollywood offers today. I found myself glued to the screen, and would love to see it again. Praise it! 5/5  

Bjork: Biophilia Live Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Bjork Biophilia Live
Year: 2014
Director: Nick Fenton
Country: US
Language: English

Bjork is one of the strangest artists in the world; weird is an understatement in attempting to describe her. The Icelandic musician is no stranger to controversy, she wore a shocking swan dress at the 2001 Academy Awards. Her personality is bizarre, as is her music.
Having made eight records since 1977, there is no denying she is a wonderful musician; her talent is criminally underrated in North America.

Biophilia is Bjork’s eighth studio album, released by One Little Indian Records and distributed by Universal Music Group on Oct.  5, 2011. It’s an electronica album influenced by avant-garde music and alternative dance. It references various linking points between music, nature, and technology. It has received very positive reviews, with many critics stating that it was an ambitious yet rewarding project.
 
Biophilia Live is a concert documentary revolving around this album.
 
Biophilia Live is an exhilarating experience, perhaps the most entrancing concert I’ve ever seen. Bjork’s engrossing performance kept me on the edge of my seat. The unpredictability of the performer, as well as the surreal atmosphere, kept me in awe. Bjork knows how to push the envelope, while setting the standard for what a concert film should be.
 
It’s simply overwhelming to the senses...

Dancing around in London’s Alexandra Palace, she appears against pits of lava and celestial beings. She is dressed like something out of Bride of Frankenstein and yet is able to pull this extravagant event off coherently, consistently on key.

While Biophilia Live isn’t going to make fans out of her detractors, it certainly is going to win the hearts and minds of those who have already loved her. It’s absolutely breathtaking.5/5

Dial M For Murder Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Dial M For Murder

Year: 1954
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Country: US
Language: English

Officially the Master of Suspense’s 45^th film, Dial M For Murder was originally conceived as a hit stage play by writer Frederick Knott.  Alfred Hitchcock adapted it onto the screen at a crucial time when he felt his influential power as a filmmaker was running low. While audiences of the time loved it, Hitch was not so pleased. In the book Francois Truffaut’s A Definitive Study of Alfred Hitchcock – a transcription of about 50 hours of conversation between the two- Hitch barely mentioned the picture, at one point describing his effort as “playing it safe”

Ray Milland stars as a former tennis pro who conceives a plot to murder his longtime wife (Grace Kelly) so he can collect on her insurance policy. However, when his plans go array he improvises a cunning plan “B”

 Most would disagree with the Director’s feelings on his own film; considering that most of the action takes place in one room, I’d say he pulled off a remarkable feat.  Hitch refused to “ventilate the play”, to extend the story beyond what the original writer intended, therefore he had to interact with the small amount of space given to him. A master with the camera, Hitch uses the lenses to manipulate our emotions. In one instance the room feels painfully claustrophobic, in another it reeks of murder, and in another a suspenseful telephone exchange leaves the audience out of breath.

The attempted murder in Dial M For Murder is as frightening as the Psycho shower scene, but I do not wish to spoil the film with too many details. It’s a shame that Hitch never truly saw the film for what it truly was: a masterpiece. Perhaps he hated the gimmick of 3D, which had not reached maturity by that time.  For a 50’s flick, it  hasn’t aged a bit. I highly recommend it. Praise it! 4.5/5