Underground Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Underground
Year: 1995
Director: Emir Kusturica
Country(s): Federal Public of Yugoslavia
Language: Serbian

I first heard about Emir Kusturica's Underground from my friend Jeffery Wang. He claimed that it was his favourite movie ever made. Considering he has an excellent taste in film I decided that I must check it out. This was my introduction to Serbian cinema and it absolutely blew me away. It's an epic comedy in the darkest sense. Underground is unlike any film I've ever seen.

The story follows an underground weapons manufacturer in Belgrade during WWII and evolves into fairly surreal situations. A black marketeer who smuggles the weapons to partisans doesn't mention to the workers that the war is over, and they keep producing, convinced that the war is still going on even 40 years later.

The film has been called Serbian propaganda, self-indulgent, an anti-Communist tract, an anti-war tome, cynical and nihilistic among many other labels. The Director himself threatened to retire from film-making because of these accusations. Underground attempts to be an honest political allegory for the country of Yugoslavia, whose Government blinded the people from its corruption to continue endless wars. One can also see very American traits in the main characters.

It's a very Fellini-esque picture; a three hour carnival full of mad characters, singing, drinking and gypsy melodies. The score is profound, perhaps the most memorable soundtrack of the 90's. The aesthetic look of WWII Yugoslavia is created well, Kusturica hired a fantastic cinematographer and set designer. Underground is self reflective, theatrical and tragic. It will be on your mind long after the film is over.

In conclusion, while I don't feel that it's the greatest movie ever made, Kusturica's Underground has definitely made my top 20. I look forward to watching it many times in the future and learning more about the tumultuous times of the land mass formerly known as Yugoslavia. Praise it! 5/5

George Harrison: Living in the Material World Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: George Harrison: Living in the Material World
Year: 2011
Director: Martin Scorsese
Country: US
Language: English

The Beatles were an English rock band that formed in Liverpool, in 1960. The group consisted of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and George Harrison. They were the most famous group of that, and arguably, any era of music. Their influence knows no boundaries, even when they split up they each had successful solo careers. While Lennon and McCartney are the most famous of the group, few people look into Harrison's post-Beatle life & work. In my opinion, he is the most talented Beatle. 

Directed by Martin Scorsese, this film explores the life and career of this seminal musician, philanthropist, film producer and amateur race car driver who grew to make his own mark on the world. Every aspect of Harrison's life is covered via extensive interviews and archival footage of the great man.

Scorsese's documentary is a spiritual journey, tracing Harrison's search for himself in the face of incoming distractions. He appears to be the unhappiest of the Beatles; always lost in his own mind and desperate to find any meaning in life. He searches for inner peace in the midst of stardom; finding LSD, Eastern religion and Hare Krishna with John Lennon. Scorsese extensively covers his time in the Beatles, but also notes that Harrison seemed held back by them. He wrote hundreds of songs, but only a few, like Something, would make their albums. 

George believed that a great purpose of life was to prepare oneself for death, He spent a great deal of his time meditating and attempting to reach serenity. Lennon's death in 1980 came to a great shock to him, making him fully think through his life goals. Scorsese covers this and much more through in-depth interviews with his loved ones and archival footage of Harrison's own reflections, giving great light to the various events in Harrison's life.

In conclusion, Living in the Material World transcends documentary film-making and feels much more like poetry on film. We go through Harrison's spiritual quest with him and deal with the blows as they come. Scorsese makes a convincing argument for why Harrison is the greatest Beatle. Praise it! 5/5

The Big Chill Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Big Chill
Year: 1983
Director: Lawrence Kasdan
Country: US
Language: English 

Ensemble films are usually either great financial successes (The Avengers), terrible films that will be forgotten months after they are released in theaters (Valentine's Day) or critically acclaimed masterpieces that transcend time (Royal Tenenbaums) The Big Chill is the latter, despite famed critic Roger Ebert not thinking much about it. Infact I completely disagree in regards to the conclusion of his review of The Big Chill. Therefore I am writing my own piece on it.

Directed by Lawrence Kasdan, writer of Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Big Chill is about a group of seven former college friends who gather for a weekend reunion at a posh South Carolina winter house after the funeral of one of their friends who committed suicide.

The plot regarding "old friends reuniting and reminiscing about their childhood" has been ridiculously overplayed in Hollywood lately. In the last three years alone it shat out Last Vegas, Grown Ups, Grown Ups 2 and Hot Tub Time Machine. They appeal to, and are made by, tired old men who are desperately clinging to their youth. Thankfully Kasdan's film is more intelligent, less homophobic and less misogynistic than those crap-fests. It is also very funny, in a very humble kind of way. 

The Big Chill is well acted, although with a cast consisting of Glenn Close, Jeff Goldblum, Tom Berenger and William Hunt (among others) it's hard to see how it wouldn't be. The dialogue is realistic, natural and honest. It observes wonderfully well how its veterans of the 1960s have grown up into adulthood, consumerhood, parenthood, drunkenhood, adulteryhood, and regrethood. Kasdan creates a profoundly philosophical flick that boldly attempts to understand and address the nature of death, life and love. Each character is well developed and multi-faceted, these are not caricatures but seem like people you could meet in reality. 

In conclusion, The Big Chill will certainly have you thinking long before the film is over. Its emphasis on substance over style is refreshing. It's a deliberately paced film that feels very real. Overall it's an underrated picture of the 80's and has very few flaws. 
Praise it! 5/5

I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: I Did Not Have Sexual 
Relations with that Woman
Year: 2007
Director: Bill Clinton
Country: US
Language: English

 William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton was born August 19, 1946. He is an American politician who served as the 42nd President of the United States of America. He is arguably the best President of the last 20 years, yet is unfortunately still the butt of many late night talk show jokes. "Clinton couldn't keep it in his pants," they say. After his presidency Clinton became a documentary filmmaker to prove his critics wrong. This is a review of his debut film I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With that Woman.

Clinton's documentary traces the Lewinsky sex scandal from its origins in 1995, when Monica Lewinsky was hired to work as an intern in the White house, to his impeachment in 1998. With newly discovered security and archival footage Clinton makes his case that he did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Cinephiles either like Clinton or find his films pretentious. There is no middle ground, save for I Did Not Have Sexual Relations with that Woman. The film is the most accessible, even to the most stubborn Clinton-hater. It's a mixture of the president's minimalist style and his character's resilience that makes the film so appealing. In later films, characters would become more and more dissociated, leading to the chaos that would ensue in Clinton's final film The President's Husband AKA The Last Gentleman, but in I Did Not Have Sexual Relations with that Woman Clinton is the most relatable character in Clinton's filmography.

 You can't help but cheer for his endeavor (and in some cases, you may even tear up at the final outcome). Clinton is a master of cinematography, even when his film consists of only archival footage and talking head interviews. The people he chooses to question are astounding; he butts heads with George Bush, Janet Jackson, Marlon Brando, Vincent Price and Salman Rushdie. You would think that scoring the film with Beethoven's 9th symphony is a little much, but it works to his advantage.

In conclusion, if you are going to watch any Bill Clinton film see I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman. Though he is admittedly very bias, his story is engaging and heartbreaking. Your mind, and your life, will completely change after viewing his groundbreaking debut feature. Praise it! 5/5

Dracula (1931) Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Dracula
Year: 1931
Director: Tod Browning
Country: US
Language: English

By 1931 Bram Stoker's 1897 vampire novel had already been filmed, albeit illegally, by F.W Murnau for the German Expressionist masterpiece Nosferatu. Released on Valentines Day of 1931 this Tod Browning/Bela Lugosi collaboration would surpass Nosferatu in popularity and bring American horror into its own distinctive genre. The vampire flick is one of the most popular sub-genres of horror even to this day.

After a harrowing ride through the Carpathian mountains in eastern Europe, Renfield (Dwight Frye) enters castle Dracula to finalize the transferal of Carfax Abbey in London to Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi) , who is in actuality a vampire. Dracula turns his attention to Mina Seward (Helen Chandler), however Dr.Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) will do his best to prevent her from becoming one of the undead.

Bela Lugosi's breakout performance as the Hungarian vampire makes him quite the star in Hollywood after Dracula. Originally Lon Chaney was supposed to be cast, however he died in pre-production and Browning had no choice but to cast Lugosi. He plays the immortal vampire mean and menacingly, but also flamboyantly. Unlike Max Schrek, Lugosi's vampire is more sexual than pure evil. His accent is classic, often imitated but never duplicated "Cheeldren of the Naight!"

Cinematographer Karl Freund employs his German Expressionistic shadow making to add to the eerie atmosphere contained within the film. Browning inspires this version of Dracula, not from Stoker's original novel, but from the stage; the primary sources of the screenplay are from theatrical adaptations. The art direction is astonishing, Castle Dracula looks sinister and unkempt, full of cobwebs and vermin. Unfortunately because it is more theatrical in nature, it is less haunting than Murnau's Nosferatu; there is less of a sense of urgency and fear.

In conclusion, Dracula is quite an enjoyable and entertaining film. In comparison with Nosferatu Browning's film certainly more accessible and family friendly, but I feel a vampire movie should chill you to the bone. Bela Lugosi creates a charismatic figure, but that feels somewhat wrong. This isn't the best horror film, not is it the best Universal 30's monster flick, but it certainly is worth watching. 3.5/5

King Kong (1933) Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: King Kong
Director: Merian Cooper
Year: 1933
Country: US
Language: English

Before Godzilla, Jurassic Park and Ray Harryhausen's 60's adventure flicks, there was King Kong. Merian Cooper's masterpiece about a giant ape wreaking havoc on New York City is the champion of monster movies and a grand stepping stone in the development of modern special effects. It not only is a great technical achievement but also has a profound emotional resonance among viewers of all ages. It's a classic tale that will never die. 

In the film, director Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) needs to finish his movie and has the perfect location; Skull Island. He still needs to find a leading lady. This 'soon-to-be-unfortunate' soul is Ann Darrow (Fay Wray). Living on this hidden island is a giant gorilla, who eventually falls in love with Ann. 

King Kong is an out-pour of creative energy and technical genius. Released during the Great Depression, it was the ultimate fantasy for people living in incredibly tough economic times. Film historian Ron Haver has described that in order to make the stop-motion King Kong figure look larger than the real actors, the film crew had to hit on a screen made entirely of condoms. Surely the special effects have aged, but an aspect of creepiness remains where there isn't in today's slicker special effects. 

The first 30 minutes, before the reveal of the great ape, are admittedly quite flawed. The dialogue drags to a crawl and the acting, especially by Robert Armstrong, is quite hammy. Much like being in a traffic jam, it's an ordeal, however once the ape enters the screen the action hits high pace and the tension never ceases. The story breaks convention; unlike every film make during the Hay's Code era, King Kong has no heroes or villains. The ape is a sympathetic creature, because it is in love with a woman that it could never have, however it destroys a lot of New York City to be alone with her. 

In conclusion, the original King Kong is far greater than every remake that has come since. Not even Peter Jackson in 2005 came close. This film is not perfect, but despite it being 81 years old it is still engaging and entertaining. The end result of both story and special effects is a beautiful picture that stands the test of time. Praise it! 4/5

Animal Farm Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Animal Farm
Year: 1954
Director(s):  Joy & John Halas-Batchelor 
Country: UK
Language: English 

At the time Animal Farm was produced, Walt Disney dominated full length animation. The husband-and-wife team of Halas-Batchelor were determined to get away from Disney's cutesy style of cuddly animals and colorful characters, in attempt to make a serious adult animated feature based on George Orwell's political novel. The British duo eagerly accepted a commission from the American Pioneer Louis De Rochement, which made their dream possible. 

In Animal Farm a successful farmyard revolution led by the resident animals vs. the farmer goes horribly wrong as the victors create a new tyranny among themselves.

The first-ever feature-length British animated film, Animal Farm sticks closely to Orwell's original novel; a satire of the betrayal of ideals of the Russian Revolution. The resident animals originally intend to set up a democracy, in which "all animals are created equal". However the pigs,  the most intelligent animals, gradually create a totalitarian state under the Napoleon Pig in which "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." To their horror the mass of animals have swapped one fuhrer, for another. Considering the novel/film was based on true events, the reality of what appears onscreen can be shocking.

Animal Farm faithfully preserves the same emotions felt while reading the novel. The compassion, anger and sorrow is only enhanced when introduced to Matyas Seiber's overwhelming score which blends traditional elements with modernism. The ending is changed to be more optimistic, which neither improves nor damages the original story. I  suppose some audiences couldn't take the bleak despair contained within the original novel.

In conclusion, while I encourage viewers to go read the novel first, the film is a wonderful supplement that definitely improves the source material. Animal Farm is brutal compared to the PG Disney and Dreamworks pictures, but it certainly has more substance and, I would argue, is of better technical quality. Praise it! 4.5/5  

Brazil Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Brazil
Year: 1985
Director: Terry Gilliam
Country: UK
Language: English

The well known animosity between Brazil director Terry Gilliam and distributor Universal almost mimics the Marxist themes prevalent throughout the film. Universal wanted to severely alter Gilliam's vision by insisting that many cuts were to be made and a "happy" ending replace the more cynical one. Gilliam fought the system and ultimately resisted Universal's wishes, making Brazil a near-political cause. 

Sam Lowry (Jonathon Pryce) is a harried technocrat in a futuristic society that is needlessly convoluted and inefficient. When trying to correct an administrative error he unwittingly becomes an enemy of the state.

Made in 1984, in parallel with the famous George Orwell novel, Brazil is set in the not too distant future. Our main character lives in a realistic, yet incredibly oppressive state that combines the worst features of Stalinist Russia, 50's American paranoia and 40's British Bureaucracy. While Orwell's state was horribly efficient, Gilliam's UK is horribly inefficient. The oppression his characters go through is due to the fact that the society doesn't even work. 

Gilliam's fantastical setting can only be escaped by an even more fantastical setting. Lowry often dreams of being an angelic superhero knight, attempting to save his love from very python-esque monsters. Though Brazil can seem quite silly, it is perhaps Gilliam's most dramatically engaging film. It uses the combination of black humor, bizarre characters and remarkable sets in order to produce a very fact-based depiction of a terrible regime. Brazil is absurd, but possible.

In conclusion, Brazil is among the greatest British films ever made. Its depiction of a not-to-distant future is as haunting as it is humorous. I for one, am glad that Gilliam was able to overcome Universal's decision to cut the film, because the "dark" ending is more honest despite being more painful. Praise it! 5/5