The Phantom of the Opera (1925) Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Phantom of the Opera
Year: 1925
Director: Rupert Julian
Country: US
Language: English

Le Fantome de L'Opera began as a novel by French writer Gaston Leroux. It was first published as a serialization in Le Gaulois in the early twentieth Century. Leroux was partly inspired by Paris real events that occurred at the Paris Opera during the 1800's. Unfortunately few people know that Le Fantome was originally a novel, because the numerous film adaptations and Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical overshadow it in their success. I would argue that the worst adaptation is Gerard Butler's 2004 musical disaster and the best adaptation is Lon Chaney's 1925 Classic. I will be reviewing the latter today.

At the Opera of Paris, a mysterious phantom (Lon Chaney) threatens a famous lyric singer, Carlotta (Mary Fabian) and thus forces her to give up her role (Marguerite in Faust) for unknown Christine Daae (Mary Philbin). Christine meets this phantom (a masked man) in the catacombs, where he lives, to try to understand the phantom's goal.

It is difficult to tell whether or not The Phantom of the Opera deserves to be seen among silent greats such as Nosferatu, Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and/or Greed. Director Rupert Julian was certainly inspired by German Expressionism and incorporated it into this work. Phantom has the atmosphere and tone of Caligari mixed with similar character's from Nosferatu. However Phantom is sensational melodrama mixed with dreary romance. It does not offer as much layer as the great silents, it does not have a deep message nor a tremendous amount of depth. Although as a picture of emotion it does quite well.

Despite the fact that the phantom's mask-less face was on the DVD cover, I still found myself on edge waiting for the big reveal within the film. It is one of the most famous scenes in film history and a testament to the power of film makeup. His grotesque face in this silent is more disturbing than any other version since. The phantom himself is quite an intriguing man. He is a tortured soul who has been cruelly mistreated and has been on a self-imposed exile for quite some time. Any other actor might have made the phantom into an absurd caricature, but Lon Chaney makes him a haunting solemn figure.

In conclusion, The Phantom of the Opera may not be as important as other silent greats, but it has aged well and deserves to be seen by future generations. Anybody even thinking of pursuing a career in makeup needs to see this flick, as the phantom's face set a standard that would never be reached again, let alone improved. 3.5/5

Chinatown Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Chinatown
Year: 1974
Director: Roman Polanski
Country: US
Language: English

When the American Film Institute made a "10 Top 10" television special back in 2008 I paid close attention to it, doing my best to watch every film that was listed. I was especially attracted to the mystery section, because Vertigo, which was made #1, was my favourite film at that time. I was hesitant to watch #2, Roman Polanski's Chinatown, but when I did I was absolutely amazed. It drew me into a world of uncertainty and suspense. Every year I watch Polanski's masterpiece and it still grips me.

J 'Jake' Gittes (Jack Nicholson) is a private detective who seems to specialize in matrimonial cases. He is hired by Evelyn Mulwray (Faye Dunaway) when she suspects her husband Hollis, builder of the city's water supply system, of having an affair. When Mr. Mulwray is found dead, Jake is plunged into a complex web of deceit involving murder, incest and municipal corruption.

Loneliness is central to Film Noir anti-heroes. Humphrey Bogart emphasized this in the 40's, he was a man occupied human misery. Yet, Bogart was not pure nihilism; he was sensitive and full of lust. Women were drawn to him, and he rarely turned down their affection. J.J Gittes is a bit more detached from the world; he has a lot less faith in mankind and doesn't care about being very successful with the ladies. His character is sympathetic because he doesn't enjoy his job and wishes he would not have to see the underside of humanity for a living. 

Made just five years after Polanski's wife Sharon Tate was murdered by members of the Manson family, it's difficult to believe that Chinatown could be anything but dark and moody. Thankfully, because the studios were having great success over Coppola's flicks, they didn't expect Polanski to alter his vision. It's a twisted tale that is never what you expect. It will take you on a wild ride of lies and deceit. Chinatown would have made Polanski into a major Hollywood star, but unfortunately he fled to Europe after a sexual abuse scandal involving a minor. However, it did successfully make Jack Nicholson an even greater star.

In conclusion, Chinatown deserves to be as respected and admired as the post war Film Noirs. They evoke very similar feelings and contain very similar characters. The main difference being that Polanski did not have to abide by the Hays Code and therefore was able to get away with a lot more. Modern audiences deserve to be engrossed by this beautiful work of art. Praise it! 5/5

The Wolf of Wall Street Review #3- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Wolf of Wall Street
Year: 2013
Director: Martin Scorsese
Country: US
Language: English

Martin Scorsese, born Nov. 17, 1942 in New York, is a legendary American filmmaker who has directed over 40 feature-length films including Gangs of New York, Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. He has won countless awards, including an Oscar for The Departed, and is best known for his gritty gangster flicks that are reminiscent of the gangster pictures of the 70s. Recently, he made The Wolf of Wall Street, and it is shrouded in controversy. I have seen this film many times, with each viewing my opinion changes.

Scorsese’s raunchy film is based on the true story of stockbroker/criminal Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DeCaprio), from his rise to a wealthy stockbroker living the high life to his fall involving crime, corruption and the federal government.

The opening shot of Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street involves Jordan Belfort snorting cocaine out of a prostitute’s ass. If you are shocked by this then you probably shouldn’t see the film, because the characters and situations get more sleazy and slimy as time goes on. The “F” word is used a record breaking 506 times, or three times per minute, and there is sex galore, including a brief 10+ person orgy. Wolf of Wall Street is a great departure from his last flick Hugo, a child-like tale about a boy living in the clock of a train station.

According to DeCaprio, the cast and crew were able to “push the envelope” with their depiction of over-the-top sexual acts and scenes in Wolf and “make the movie they wanted to” because they were financed independent and not limited by studio censorship.

Ever since Gangs of New York (2002), Scorsese displayed regrets of being involved with the studio system, so it’s great to see him finally be himself. Wolf will make you laugh, cringe and cry all without having to suspend your belief.

The main characters are truly gangster; unlike the mobsters in Goodfellas they are less violent, however they are also less pre-occupied with rules and traditions. Anything goes in Wolf because Scorsese injects it with a vital dose of id (Freudian term which describes the part of the psyche that is purely desire and instinct). Part of why this film is appealing is because the main character does things we could only fantasize about. We live vicariously through him throughout most of the running time.

Scorsese’s film is full of every cardinal sin short of murder, yet his camera is reluctant to step back and be an observer rather than a participant in Belfort’s gripping adventures. The Director does not make a defining judgement about the morality of the tale; if he were to do so then it would only dumb down his picture. He relies on the intelligence of his audience to get his message, because it’s not out in plain view.

It's difficult not to compare this flick to his 1990 classic Goodfellas as they are quite similar in content and characters. Both films are centered around drugs and immorality, they even have the cliche "hang guy over balcony" scene. However if you were to watch Goodfellas and Wolf of Wall Street back to back you would notice some glaring flaws in Wolf's screenplay. 

In Wolf Scorsese did not spend much time establishing that Belfort hit rock bottom, and he certainly didn't ease into it. Sure he crashed his car, got divorced and was captured by the FBI but we didn't see the main character suffer. In Goodfellas we saw Henry Hill's miserable time in jail, we saw him frantically flushing pills down the toilet and becoming a wreck due to the mob life. Scorsese doesn't give us any sense at all that Belfort suffered from his criminal activities.

Even though Belfort and his pals are misogynistic assholes, that should not excuse Scorsese from his poorly written female characters. Margot Robbie, Belfort's love interest, has no personality whatsoever. She is not a threat to herself or to others; she's just around for the sake of being around. In comparison Karen Hill of Goodfellas was an incredibly intelligent woman who loved her family and would do anything to protect her children. Was she a threat to herself? Absolutely! She fell into addiction just like her husband and suffered as he did. Was she a threat to others? Hell yes. She pointed a gun at Henry while he was asleep and was moments away from killing him. All Margot did was tell Belfort that he couldn't have sex with her anymore. Why would Belfort care when he could have any woman he wants? He's a womanizer! 

The sub-plot with the FBI agent and Belfort contributed very little to the story. I get that Scorsese wanted us to be on the side of the FBI agent but he comes in far too late into the story and rarely is mentioned again. We are so engrossed with Belfort as a character, that the FBI agent comes off as a complete dick. We don't want him to be competent at his job. Scorsese's screenplay also lacks the intensity we need from this FBI agent/Belfort relationship. When Henry Hill of Goodfellas was close to getting caught, we could see his fear and panic. We could see his paranoia and his intense desire to escape. Belfort had none of this, we don't sense any real danger from Belfort getting caught.

In conclusion, some audience members will condemn Wolf for celebrating debauchery; others will celebrate Wolf for its satire of the sex, drugs and rock and roll lifestyle. Scorsese has made an polarizing picture and will definitely incite conversation. It's a decent film, but a poor man's Goodfellas.  3.5/5

Vixen! Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Vixen!
Year: 1968
Director: Russ Meyer
Country: US
Language: English

Director Russ Meyer has had a lot of critics against him throughout his long career. He has often been called disgusting, degrading, disgraceful and creepy. Rarely is he considered a master of camp and a pioneer of 60's-70's feminism. His film Vixen! jump-started the popularity of X-Rated flicks into the mainstream. Only a year after this "skin-flick" made its impact did John Schlesinger's Midnight Cowboy become the first, and only, X-rated film to win an Academy Award for "Best Picture".

Vixen Palmer (Erica Gavin) lives in a Canadian mountain resort with her naive pilot husband. While he's away flying in tourists, she has sex with practically everybody including a husband and his wife, and even her biker brother. She is openly racist, and she makes it clear that she won't do "it" with her brother's biker friend, who is black

Not only did Russ Meyer's Vixen! create a mainstream appeal of X-rated films, but it also was one of the first films to receive the newly developed MPAA rating. Many casual filmgoers assume an "X" rating indicates pornography, and while there is plenty of sex in Vixen! I wouldn't call it pornographic. Rather it is a subtle satire of pornography and the sexual revolution of the late 60's. Meyer shows how hollow meaningless sex is while never becoming too preachy and never taking itself seriously. 

Vixen Palmer is a bold woman for the 60's, at least in relation to other onscreen female characters at that time. She is not tied down to any man and she can make decisions for herself. She is physically strong, somewhat intelligent (she does discuss communism, Marxism and draft dodging) and very assertive. She has power over her life and can get what she desires because of that power. Certainly she has negative traits, such as her views on race, but overall she is completely against the status-quo of what society expects out of a woman.

In conclusion, Vixen! is a profound exploitation flick because it's one of the first to exploit masculinity. Vixen Palmer isn't the one being used, the men she has sex with are. Man's sexuality is being used against him and we are finally seeing a female character think on her own. Modern writers should commend Meyer for being so ahead of his time. 3.5/5

Pinocchio Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Pinocchio
Year: 1940
Studio: Disney
Country: US
Language: English

When Russian Director Sergei Eisenstein saw Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs he would consistently claim that it was the greatest film of all time. He saw a new cinematic vision in Walt Disney's animation, noting the unrestricted freedom and the power of the animator's imagination. Pinocchio would be Disney's third feature and is generally considered one of the studio's best films. 

Dickie Jones voices a living puppet named Pinocchio who's nose grows whenever he lies. With the help of a cricket (voiced by Cliff Edwards) as his conscience, he must prove himself worthy of becoming a real boy. 

Early animation (pre-30's) did not seem very capable of creating a captivating emotional story out of drawings on the screen. Their characters did not exist in a world of gravity and dimension, thus the audiences would not find themselves enveloped in the story. Disney experimented with various techniques and found a stylized realism that mimicked the real world without being a carbon copy. Disney also invented the "multiplane camera," it allowed drawings in three dimensions and added greater depth to each scene. His animation broke the mold and shattered expectations regarding what animation was and could be.

 Another reason Pinocchio is universally beloved is because of the morals it presents to every generation that has come across it. Everywhere our protagonist turns he is surrounded by temptation; the temptation to lie, steal, drink, and do general evil. He eventually abandons his conscience and follows the wrong path, however this literally turns him into a jackass. The only way Pinocchio can become a "real boy" is if he redeems himself and obeys his father. It's part fable, part biblical tale. 

In conclusion, Pinocchio is not only groundbreaking, but entertaining as well. Every character in this amazing flick is engaging and full of personality. The ending is pulse pounding, one of the most thrilling animated movie moments. The pleasure island scene is terrifying, it will definitely cause you to reconsider a life of crime. Praise it! 5/5

The Lego Movie Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Lego Movie
Year: 2014

Director: Phil Lord

Country: US

Language: English

Ah, LEGO; the original Minecraft. Who doesn’t remember playing with those small interlocking blocks in hope of making a giant castle or a poorly assembled tower? Considering it’s such a popular toy, and films based on toys seem to be increasingly popular, it’s no shock that Warner Brother’s studios would produce The Lego Movie in 2014.

The plot involves a common LEGO mini-figure (Chris Pratt) who is mistaken to be a legendary master-builder. He is recruited to join a group of rebels who must stop a LEGO tyrant from gluing the universe together.

Despite the fact that it’s a 100min multi-million dollar commercial, The Lego Movie is actually quite entertaining and has extremely funny moments. It’s the kind of material you’d expect from a Mel Brooks or Woody Allen film; a seeming satire of Toy Story. Of course the plot is a bit strange because it has a lot of Marxist elements, working class people attempt to overthrow the owning bourgeoisie, even though its roots are steeped in capitalist greed; the need to sell LEGO toys.

However, any movie that teaches children the drawbacks of blind conformity to socialization and regulations while encouraging them to be their own awesome individual selves with a bright imagination can’t be terrible. It does seem very formulaic though, I think I’ve seen the exact same plot in over a dozen movies, most notably the 1999 sci-fi classic The Matrix. Both even include a wise master (Morpheus/Vitrivius) who believe the main character is “the one” and-more specifically- both are played by black actors.

Will Ferrell is the most memorable character in this flick; a maniacal mad-man who wishes to glue the city together so that no new formations are allowed. He bumbles and stumbles, much like the former villain he played in Megamind and has more personality in his right arm than the rest of the characters combined. I’m slightly worried that the children of this generation will grow up with some weird concepts about good and evil.

In conclusion, I enjoyed The Lego Movie and would recommend it to any parent who has time to see it with their child. Adults will find something to enjoy out of it too. Is the film pro-Marxist? Difficult to tell, certainly the plot is. I have a feeling this will win the "Best Animated feature" Oscar during the next awards season. 3.5/5

Duck Soup Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Duck Soup
Year: 1933
Director: Leo McCarey
Country: US
Language: English 

It's not giraffe soup, peacock soup or even chicken soup! Duck Soup is the first Marx Brothers film and possibly the first pre-90's comedy that I had seen. The man with the big mustache (Groucho Marx) introduced me to the man with the little mustache (Charlie Chaplin). This film is among the greatest comedies of all time and is full of material that bends the rules yet still manages to be leave modern audiences in stitches.

Groucho Marx stars as Rufus T. Firefly, a man named president/dictator of bankrupt Freedonia and declares war on neighboring Sylvania over the love of wealthy Mrs. Teasdale (Margaret Dumont) .

 The Marx Brothers' style of film was anarchic and mad-cap. Outrageous for its time and full of slapstick. Its influence of vaudevillian and Yiddish comedy make it very different from films made today. This Jewish humor was very popular in America during the 30's, mainly because it was surreal, shocking, verbally outrageous and nihilistic. Duck Soup is an absurdists take on politics and warfare; nothing is off limits and everything is for grabs. Declare a war over a woman both leaders don't really like that much? Sure, why not?

Each Marx Brothers flick is a mere slice from the whole of their filmography, however I'd argue that Duck Soup is easily the best slice, mainly because every scene is enjoyable and the entire film can be re-watched over and over again. Marx himself is full of quotable smart-ass dialogue like "I got a good mind to join a club and beat you over the head with it.". His speech is at the mercy of insults and puns, yet he never seems limited by that. Duck Soup came at the right time in film history. Its comedy would not make much sense during the silent era, it would suffer from lack of sound quality during the early sound era (1927-1931) and it would probably have a lot of content removed during the Hays code era (1934-1959)

In conclusion, there is very little to dislike about Duck Soup, even the short musical numbers are energetic and entertaining. It can feel a bit dated, but I doubt that any 81 year old film wouldn't be. Considering this was made during the 30's it is quite bold and ambitious. If you think Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a comic masterpiece then I encourage you to seek out this, as it is on a whole different level of genius. Praise it! 5/5

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
Year: 1998
Director: Terry Gilliam
Country: US
Language: English

Penned by gonzo journalist Dr. Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas established him as one of the weirdest and most intriguing writers of his generation. In 1998 Terry Gilliam (Brazil) would attempt to bring this magnificent piece of work onto the silver screen, resulting in an incredibly strange and surreal journey through the experiences of a man fried by drugs.

Johnny Depp stars as the oddball journalist desperately searching for the "American dream" on a trip to Las Vegas to cover a sporting event with his psychopathic lawyer (Benicio Del Toro). Along the way they take various pills and slip into madness. 

Unlike stoner classics such as Dazed and Confused or Up In Smoke, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas doesn't make drug use look cool, rather its absolutely terrifying. Our two main characters go absolutely crazy tearing up hotel rooms and seeing the absolute worst of America. The film actually does a good job at showing America's worst aspects, from the undeniable presence of corporate greed to the petty materialism of the common man. Even the beauty of a carpet is seen as an ugly product of sweatshop labor.

Unfortunately the picture is without shape, it's an entire film about drug abuse but there is no story arch. Of course Gilliam could be emphasizing the pointlessness of using drugs. The original novel has a great deal of humor, as its being told in past tense, however the movie is told in present tense and is completely stripped of any enjoyment. Though I normally can't stand Johnny Depp as an actor, he does a pretty good job in his role as the mad writer. Despite that, Hunter S. Thompson is written quite poorly. In reality Hunter was a magnificent writer who had an incredible amount of charisma, in the film the character has no nuances and a great lack of any personality. 

In conclusion, if you are wanting to see Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and be entertained I would strongly suggest skipping the movie and reading the book. Thompson's book is quite enjoyable and will take you on a wild roller-coaster. Gilliam's film is cynical, nihilistic and empty. It is a good anti-drug film, but I'm not quite sure that was Gilliam's intentions. 3/5

Reefer Madness Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Reefer Madness
Year: 1936
Director: Louise J. Gasnier
Country: US
Language: English

Mary Jane, kush, weed; these are just a few nicknames given to the deadly drug known as marijuana. Over centuries naive children have fallen pray to this psychoactive hallucinogen, slowly losing their minds from devastating long-term effects. Praise United States President Ronald Reagan for declaring a "War on Drugs" on June 18, 1971 and having the courage to spend $51 Billion annually in order to incarcerate those who committed the worse crime anybody could ever commit; possession. This is a review of the revolutionary film that started its own battle on drugs; Reefer Madness. 

Reefer Madness is a cautionary tale about a trio of drug dealers who lead innocent teenagers into become addicted to "reefer" cigarettes by holding wild parties with jazz music. The lives of everyone involved are shattered by the end of the flick.

Made at the height of drug prohibition, this genius propaganda film was primarily invented to scare parents and teenagers by informing them about the incredibly realistic dangers of marijuana use. We see firsthand that even the smartest of children cannot escape the tight grip of drug abuse. According to this very informative flick symptoms of marijuana abuse include; demonic hallucinations, having sexual relations with strangers, having extremely high energy and causing extreme violence.

Unfortunately, despite the scientifically accurate portrayal of drug abuse, the picture is incredibly dated and therefore is misunderstood as camp. It's very hard to take Reefer Madness seriously when the acting is absolutely awful and far too exaggerated. The dialogue is pretty low-grade and overall it can get quite repetitive. The running time is about an hour too long. The film's message just doesn't hit me the way it did with citizens in 1936.

In conclusion, despite its compelling information regarding why marijuana is satanic, I didn't find this a very captivating flick and overall it didn't inspire great fear in me. If you want to watch a terrifying documentary from that era see Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will. Piss on it! 0.5/5

Little Shop of Horrors Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Little Shop of Horrors
Year: 1986
Director: Frank Oz
Country: US
Language: English

If a cinephile was to ask me to recommend them three musicals, I would not hesitate to list the following; Bye Bye Birdie, Phantom of the Paradise and Little Shop of Horrors (sorry Rocky Horror Picture Show, you would be my fourth choice) My top three musicals are incredibly strange, but very memorable and full of offbeat songs. Out of these I've seen Little Shop of Horrors the most, mainly because of how hilarious it is. Directed by Frank Oz (Yoda himself)  it is entertaining despite its age. 

In the film, a nerdish florist (Rick Moranis) finds his chance for success and romance with the help of a giant man-eating plant (voice of Levi Stubbs) who demands to be fed.

A long running stage hit, Little Shop of Horrors had a lot of expectations to live up to when it hit theaters in 1986. It's a dark comedy and a capitalist satire; every character tries to make big money off the talking plant named Audrey II, but in order to do so Moranis needs to feed it his blood-and later on in the flick- fully grown humans. Surprisingly Audrey II has quite a personality and can do its own musical numbers with the talented voice of Levi Stubbs. Moranis is a likeable leading man reminiscent of Woody Allen. He is a bumbling underdog who you can't help but want him to succeed.

Full of cameos by comedians like Bill Murray and Steve Martin, it's hard to not be entertained by this ludicrous science fiction premise. Little Shop of Horrors is quite charming and doesn't obsess over making the audience laugh, it isn't campy in that sense. Infact the film is rather optimistic and has a good heart with its message of inner-city hope. The romance is innocent and beautiful. The music is full of passion and desire.

In conclusion, Little Shop of Horrors is a well written picture with plenty of characters to pour your heart into. Though many musicals have a running time that is far too long, this is just right. Remarkably all of its well choreographed musical numbers greatly contribute to the overall plot. It's a musical about hope and will surely bring hope into your life. Praise it! 4.5/5

The Warriors Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Warriors
Year: 1979
Director: Walter Hill 
Country: US
Language: English

"Warriors! Come out to play-ay!" The Warriors is a late 70's flick which is known as a cult classic, but I'd consider it fairly mainstream. I mean, How many "cult" film have their own video game produced by Rockstar Games (the same company who produces the Grand Theft Auto series)? Very few if any. It is also constantly satirized in various television programs, most recently on Matt Groening's The Simpsons. Regardless of which category Warriors falls into, Director and writer Walter Hill has created a picture that has enticed generations.

The film begins with Cyrus (Roger Hill), the leader of the most powerful gang in New York City, the Gramercy Riffs, calling for a midnight summit for all the area gangs. He is murdered and a gang called The Warriors are blamed for killing Cyrus as he gives his charismatic speech. Everybody in the city is on the lookout for them, which is unfortunate because they now have to cross the territory of rivals in order to get to their own 'hood

"Can you dig it?" Most of The Warriors' popularity stems from the crucial first fifteen minutes, in which Cyrus speaks and is murdered. The character is written like a Greek God; his words are so powerful that he can contain hundreds of violent street gang members in the palm of his hands, motivating each and every one of them. Though it is often advertised as a "realistic" action picture about New York street gangs, Warriors feels more like a deranged fantasy gone array. What we see is far from realism and closer to Greek Fable mixed with science fiction.

Despite its absurdity, The Warriors was incredibly popular with gang members. Rival gangs would often accidently show up to the same theater and cause quite a ruckus. That being said, it's not exactly a very intelligent movie and seems more like it would be a good video game (it wasn't). Essentially our protagonists go through various stages of choreographed violence with different looking gang members who have different kinds of weapons. As a ballet of ritualized male violence for the sake of violence it does it's job decently despite being too long and a bit repetitive. However, we should expect more from film considering it is a legitimate art form.

In conclusion, The Warriors is a one-trick pony; it shows violence in a very entertaining way, but doesn't tell us much about it and its effects on society. We also don't have much connection with the protagonists, other than the fact that they're in big trouble if they get caught by the police. This is a flick you should see once because otherwise you may not understand the pop culture jokes about it, but I can't guarantee that it will be a film that will stick with you. 2.5/5

The General Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The General
Year: 1926
Director: Clyde Bruckman
Country: US
Language: English 

When discussing silent era of cinematic history, cinephiles and film historians are split in regards to who the master of silent comedy truly is. Many say Charles Chaplin, a considerable amount say Buster Keaton and very few consider Harold Lloyd. Keaton's comedy came primarily from his stone-face, a lack of emotion which proved to be hilarious in certain situations. He also performed extremely dangerous stunts that could have killed him if even the slightest bit of timing was off. A short produced in 1917 called The Butcher Boy  marked Keaton's first appearance in a silent picture, from there he starred in various two-reel comedies and after 1922 went onto feature length film. The General is conceived as his greatest work and perhaps the funniest silent comedy.

Buster Keaton stars as Johnnie, a man who loves his train ("The General") and his girlfriend Annabelle Lee (Marion Mack). When the Civil War begins he is turned down for service because he's more valuable as an engineer. Annabelle thinks it's because he's a coward. Union spies capture The General with Annabelle on board. Johnnie must rescue both his loves.

For 1926 The General is an epic, one of the most expensive films produced during that time. It involves numerous extras, the destruction of an actual locomotive and a surprisingly accurate recreation of a Civil War battle. It is quite strange for the hero of this story to be on the side of the south during the American Civil War, but once you are able to get past this it's quite a fine picture. Keaton has an identifiable struggle; the desire to win a woman's love. We connect with him because he's a selfless underdog, a hardworking individual who lives and breathes honesty.

The General is of graceful perfection, a remarkable meshing of character, action and story. At this time in history I feel Keaton was the better storyteller compared to Chaplin. The man in the little mustache preferred to write a scene around a gag, whereas Keaton wrote each scene based off the situation he found his character in. Chaplin's films had more political meaning, but it wouldn't be until the 30's that he would overtly challenge the system. Keaton's fearlessness was remarkable; he was his own stuntman, in this flick there are numerous dangerous stunts he performed, many that could have killed him in an instant, but instead they helped him become a star.

In conclusion, if you are fond of cinema then The General is a picture that you must see immediately. Your sides will split from laughing and you'll learn a lot about how to make a great film. Even though it is 88yrs old, it has aged incredibly well. It is still a fresh and exciting roller-coaster of an experience. Praise it! 5/5

Brief Encounter Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Brief Encounter
Year: 1945
Director: David Lean
Country: UK
Language: English

For an impeccable analysis on David Lean's Brief Encounter please read Michael W. Boyce's The Lasting Influence of the War on Postwar British Film which is available at Amazon and/or your local library. It contains a wealth of knowledge on this film, as well as quite a few others ( Carol Reed's The Third Man for instance) Though I will try my best to dissect this classic, this review will seem pauperized.

At a café on a railway station, housewife Laura Jesson (Celia Johnson) meets doctor Alec Harvey (Trevor Howard). Although they are both already married, they gradually fall in love with each other. They continue to meet every Thursday in the small cafe, however they know that their love is impossible. 

In 1999 The British Film Institute produced their list of 100 Greatest British films in their cinematic history. To no surprise Carol Reed's The Third Man made top place, while Lean's Brief Encounter made runner up.  Encounter is the embodiment of a genre that has faded from public mindset; the woman's picture. Tragic melodramas obsessed with the life not lived, the road not traveled and what potentially could be. While modern chick-flicks give women wish fulfillment, they can have anything they want, Lean gives us miles of self denial.

Laura and Alec display a miserable self control that is hard to fathom in any setting other than post-war Britain. It's been labelled the "British Casablanca", I suppose the sacrifice element is similar, but while Rick and Iilsa had the Nazis to contend with, Laura and Alec have the institution of marriage, which is a much smaller threat. Though sex is dealt with indirectly, it is very much the driving force of the film. " "If we control ourselves, and behave like sensible human beings ..." Laura offers, knowing that it is incredibly difficult to show restraint. Both actors have such great onscreen chemistry that it made this subject matter even more scandalous in the 40's.

In conclusion, even 69 years after its theatrical debut Lean's Brief Encounter is a tremendous tearjerker. I've seen most of the Director's astonishing filmography, which includes works like Lawrence of Arabia and Great Expectations, and I feel that this is his greatest accomplishment. See it because films like this aren't made any more. Praise it! 5/5

The Conversation Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Conversation
Year: 1974
Director: Francis Ford Coppola 
Country: US
Language: English

In the 1970's New American Cinema was still riding high upon hit after hit. Director Roman Polanski re-invented film noir with Chinatown, Mel Brooks had us in hysteria with Blazing Saddles and Francis Ford Coppola seemed to be an untouchable God. In this decade he gave film audiences The Godfather (1972), The Conversation (1974), The Godfather Part Two (1974) and Apocalypse Now (1979) all of which are hailed among the greatest American cinema has to offer. Of these flicks, The Conversation seems to be the most underrated. 

Gene Hackman stars as a paranoid, secretive surveillance expert named Harry Caul who has a crisis of conscience when he suspects that a couple he is spying on will be murdered.

Caul's colleagues in the surveillance industry think of him as an innovative genius, but little do they know the trauma that the job has caused him. After not being able to stop a murder that happened years ago, Caul's grief has taken over his life, it is on is mind so much that it stops him from thinking rationally. The character is a representation of America at the time; Full of moral men in immoral jobs, haunted by their work. His mindset is similar to the fractured minds of most Vietnam War soldiers who were returning home. 

"He’d kill us if he had the chance," says Mark to Ann, a couple Harry has been spying on for quite some time. Who would kill them? and why? and where? These are questions both the viewer and the main character ask throughout the picture. The film works very well as a pure thriller, it grips us in our seat and unfolds slowly into a rather satisfying but dark climax. The cinematography is a deliberate voyeuristic point of view that has us as cautious observers, always walking into the action. It is unlike many of the thrillers we see today.

In conclusion, though The Conversation isn't the best Coppola picture to come out of the 70's. I give that award to The Godfather Part II, it still is a remarkable picture that grabs the viewer by the throat and pulls us into a world of spying an uncertainty. It's an observant character study and a stunning analysis on the nature of truth. Praise it! 5/5