Spiderman 3 Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Spiderman III
Director: Sam Raimi
Year: 2007
Country: US
Language: English

When Sam Raimi, famed Director of the cult Evil Dead series, decided to dip his hands into Spidey-Man, I was understandably quite nervous. Would he do justice to Stan Lee's brilliant comic about a boy bitten by a spider, but instead of dying from poison he gains the powers of a spider without having the misfortune of looking like a spider? Surely he couldn't ruin the entire series by turning Peter Parker into a joke.

In this beloved three-quell a strange black entity from another world bonds with Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) and causes inner turmoil as he contends with new villains, temptations, and revenge.

Not many of you will know this, but before seeing Spidey-Man 3 in theaters I prayed in hope that this film wouldn't bomb. My prayers were answered. This film has not one, not two, but THREE villains. How's spidey going to get out of this one? We've got sandman; an escaped con and the murderer of Uncle Ben...or is he? We also have Harry Osborne;  son of the original green goblin, who is out to avenge the death of his father.  Lastly there's Eddie Grace; a rival photographer  who becomes laced in the ooze of Venom. Even though most of these rivals are established later in the film, there is plenty of time for character development and a coherent story. All of these characters are a legitimate threat to Spidey-man, especially Eric Forman from That 70's Show.

The picture's greatest scene is when Peter Parker inexplicably goes emo; combing his hair forward, strutting in the street and admiring the seductive glances from the ladies. He dances with Gwen Stacy, a very important character in the film, and angers Mary Jane. Their relationship is well written, the audience can clearly identify with their hardships as a couple and the difficulties of faithfulness. Parker's struggle with his identity is entrenched in depth and philosophy. Out of the series, Spidey-man 3 is the most spiritual, and the most painful. 

In conclusion, the $250 million budget for Spidey-man 3 was put into extremely good use. Sam Raimi has clearly created a masterpiece of the highest art calibre. Though I orginally felt Venom could have been written much better, I clearly was incorrect. Many people were angered by this film, but when encountered by nihilism and painful truth, it's difficult to accept any other emotion. Praise it! 5/5

A Million Ways to Die in the West Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: A Million Ways to Die in the West
Year: 2014
Director: Seth Macfarlane
Country: US
Language: English

"Hey Liam Neeson is in it! It can't be that bad," said the critic, who forgot that Neeson has been in a dozen piss-poor movies since the actor's masterful performance in Stephen Spielberg's Oscar Winning tear-fest Schindler's List (1993). My hopes were definitely low for Seth Macfarlane's comedy western, especially considering I'm a big fan of Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles. Surely they would be on a different level in terms of satire, but would I at least enjoy A Million Ways to Die in the West?

Seth Macfarlane stars as a cowardly farmer, who begins to fall for the mysterious new woman in town, however he must put his new-found courage to the test when her husband, a notorious gun-slinger, announces his arrival.

I did enjoy Macfarlane's Allen-like neurotic tendencies, as the character is completely aware of how filthy and disgusting the old American West is, I also thought the conflict between Sarah Silverman and her husband was somewhat funny, and could have gone a more humorous direction if they weren't dropped completely from the story mid-way in. Other than that A Million Ways to Die is not worth seeing. It is filled to the brim with poop jokes that aren't funny and has a western cliche around every corner. I could see the entire film played out in front of me within the first five minutes (coward gets girl, boyfriend gets mad, coward turns hero). For a two hour film this is BAD. 

Macfarlane doesn't know when to kill his jokes. When he thinks a pun works, he will use it over and over. Even his meta-awareness gets old after a while. I get it! Everything will kill you in the West! The Director forgets to set up the jokes and as a result it all falls flat. It's almost as if Macfarlane is begging his audience laugh, because pity laughs are the only kind of chuckle he will get. Even worse, his characters have no depth. We must connect with his cowardly main character if the film is to be successful, but there's nothing to him. 

In conclusion, I can't guarantee that A Million Ways to Die in the West is the worst comedy of 2014, but it certainly is one of the worst. This movie makes Family Guy seem like television for geniuses. Only a complete dunce with no direction makes a bad comedy that's 2hrs long. Piss on it! 0.5/5

X-Men: Days of Future Past Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: X-Men: Days of Future Past
Year: 2014
Director: Bryan Singer
Country: US
Language: English

Firstly, I have hated the X-Men movies. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. THEM. I have never read the comic books, infact the only comic book I've ever read was the one where Superman dies. That's right, I read a Superman comic just to watch him die. When I heard that Days of Future Past was being released in theaters my first thought was "What am I going to have for supper today?" However my former film teacher, Michael Boyce, said that it was fantastic because it brought him back to his childhood. I respect his opinion, so...crap...this has to be good right?

The X-Men send Wolverine to the past in a desperate effort to change history and prevent an event that results in doom for both humans and mutants.

I have no clue of where in the X-Men timeline Days of the Future Past is, though I'm pretty sure it's after X3: The Last Stand because of spoiler reasons. Going in to this picture with absolutely no expectations, I was absolutely amazed by how not-awful it was. I mean, it's not what I would consider "good", but it's still the holy-grail of superhero movies. It's surprisingly funny, the action never gets boring and HOLY FUCK, WHAT ARE THOSE? SENTINELS???

Pardon my french, but the villains of the story are impressive death machines. They are sentinels, robots that were created for the purpose of hunting down mutants. They can adapt to a mutant's abilities and deal with the threat accordingly. They essentially drive the story, because if Logan doesn't do A, B & C quick enough everyone is doomed. It gives a great sense of urgency and fills many scenes up with suspense. 

Is Days of Future Past faithful to the comic books? Who cares! The doomed atmosphere within the picture certainly makes up for it. Of course the film is riddled with plotholes and inconsistencies, because it's essentially about time-travel. Why not let Magneto kill Mystique? Why do they use the super-fast kid in the beginning, but never use him again? If Logan changed history did he also change himself? It's not a perfect picture by any means, especially since Xavier is a completely useless character, but it is entertaining.

In conclusion, though I have always respected X-Men's allegory regarding the discrimination of left handed folk, I have never enjoyed one until now. Days of Future Past was a decent film that kept me on the edge of my seat and will certainly do the same for audiences worldwide. Will it entice me to watch another superhero film? No, but at least I can say I saw one that didn't make me cringe. 3/5

Jodorowsky's Dune Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Jodorowsky's Dune
Year: 2013
Director: Frank Pavich
Country: US
Language: English

Mexican Director Alejandro Jodoroswky is one of my favourite film-makers of all time. His pictures are thought-provoking, spiritual and shocking. I was left in awe after screening The Holy Mountain, realizing that film was beyond the shackles of reality and that virtually anything could be filmed. Though I still am unsure of what his films are about, each viewing feels like a completely new experience. Unfortunately, because  Jodorowsky was such a mad artist, he wasn't able to make any film he desired. This documentary is about one of those films.

Jodorowsky's Dune is the intriguing story of cult film director Alejandro Jodorowsky's ambitious but ultimately doomed film adaptation of the seminal science fiction novel Dune, written by Frank Herbert.

Director Frank Pavich captures Jodorowsky's adventure through typical talking head interviews, occasionally panning down to the artists' wrinkly hands and cutting to crudely animated concept art. They have an underground Robert Crumb feel to them, but unfortunately the camera frequently cuts away before we have had a good look at them. Thankfully Jodorowsky is a remarkably charismatic man; a rebel with a spiritual soul. We are drawn to him, and so is his crew. They validate his self-imposed image, describing the Director as an artist who broke down barriers and kicked down doors. Great effort is being made to make Jodorowsky seem mythical in genius. 

Each story being told tends toward the grandiose, so much so that they could if it wasn't for the elaborate details given one could have easily considered them tall tales. One weakness of this picture is that it tends to exaggerate the unmade film's impact. Riddle me this: How can art that has, aside from its creators and a handful of studio executives, never be seen before directly influence modern Hollywood Blockbusters like Prometheus? The film's insistence that Dune wasn't made because the suits didn't like Jodorowsky's imagination is far too simplistic. It undermines the audiences' integrity and intelligence. I would rather have the truth than some Capra-esque good vs. evil fantasy. 

In conclusion, it's difficult to decide what to make out of Jodorowsky's Dune. Frank Pavich succeeded in turning Jodorowsky's project into a whimsical fury of passion and energy, but he did so in expense of the truth and possibly gave the audience an overdose of exaggeration. At least the documentary is better than David Lynch's Dune, that was fatally bad. 3/5

No Country for Old Men Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: No Country For Old Men
Year: 2007
Director: Coen Brothers
Country: US
Language: English

In 2007 a slew of great films hit cinemas worldwide, even Hollywood could seemingly do no wrong. It was the year of Guy Maddin's My Winnipeg, Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood and the "Best Picture" winning No Country For Old Men. Indeed the Coen Brothers won three Oscars at the following Academy Awards, their film had become a hit with audiences and critics alike. Is No Country their greatest film? perhaps not, but it's pretty damn good regardless. 

In rural Texas, welder and hunter Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) discovers the remains of several drug runners who have all killed each other in an exchange gone violently wrong. Rather than report the discovery to the police, Moss decides to simply take the two million dollar present for himself. This puts the psychopathic killer, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), on his trail as he dispassionately murders nearly every rival, bystander and even employer in his pursuit of his quarry and the money. Meanwhile, the aging Sherrif Ed Tom Bell (Tom Lee Jones) blithely oversees the investigation.

The Coen Brothers purposely play this picture like the typical Hollywood Western. We have a genuine hero in Sherriff Ed, a character who shoots straight in terms of morals. Then we have our anti-hero in Llewelyn Moss, he's neither good nor bad, he simply sees unclaimed money and wishes to take it for our own. Finally we get the antagonist of the story, Anton Chigurh, who is perhaps the most cold and ruthless villain in film history. He is shockingly human, which makes his murders all the more unsettling. Clear moral lines are drawn and the Coens make their audience desperately want the typical Hollywood ending, but of course it never comes. 

No Country For Old Men breaks all Hollywood traditions and infuriates its American audience because of it. Though we have been following him throughout the film, the anti-hero dies rather abruptly offscreen by an unknown character. The calculating Chigurh is allowed freedom, because the old Sheriff has simply given up. He has been terribly shaken by the events in his investigation. He solemnly discusses two dreams he had about his father, and then the scene quickly cuts to the credits. In 2007 I had absolutely hated this ending, "what is the point? Why is there no resolution?" No Country hints at notions like conservatism, nihilism, free will, morality but never says anything definitive. It is a complex, thought provoking film with plenty of themes and points for discussion

In conclusion, actor Josh Brolin has defended the ending saying "I love that people are talking about this movie. I love that people leave the movie saying, 'I hate the ending. I was so pissed.' Good, it was supposed to piss you off," The Coens show that violence is pointless, and that happy endings don't always occur in reality. Along with flawless dialogue, acting and cinematography, the Coens have borrowed from Greek Tragedy, Hitchcock, Peckinpah, Nietchze and even the bible to create a picture that stays in the mind long after it's over. Praise it! 5/5
 

The Best Years of Our Lives Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Best Years of Our Lives
Year: 1946
Director: William Wyler
Country: US
Language: English

World War Two raged all across the world for six years between 1939 and 1945. At the end of the War over 60 million people were killed, roughly 2.5% of the world's population. Wives became widows, children became fatherless. The world had changed indeed. After the war life in America was quite different; both men and women were exposed to different experiences and realized they had wanted more out of life. Those who became veterans of the war often took the experiences with them, and it was detrimental to their success as a civilian.

The story concentrates on the social re-adjustment of three World War II servicemen, each from a different station of society. Al Stephenson (Frederic March)  returns to an influential banking position, but finds it hard to reconcile his loyalties to ex-servicemen with new commercial realities. Fred Derry (Dana Andrews) is an ordinary working man who finds it difficult to hold down a job or pick up the threads of his marriage. Having had both hands burnt off during the war, Homer Parrish (Harold Russell), who now has hooks for hands,  is unsure that his fiancée's feelings are still those of love and not those of pity. 

At the time The Best Years of Our Lives was the first film to win eight Academy Awards, and was second only to Gone With the Wind at the U.S box office. It dealt with serious war issues that Hollywood tended to avoid. The title is, of course, ironic. The years after WWII were actually "the worst years of our lives" according to most households, especially if the breadwinner of the house didn't survive. Director William Wyler has made an honest picture about the sobering realities of war. I half-expected it to become far too sentimental, like It's a Wonderful Life, but it remained the same heartbreaking mood throughout. 

All three main characters do their best to uphold a "stiff upper lip", but they've returned from war with great fear in their hearts. Wyler makes no effort to paint these men as extraordinary, nor does he pump in unnecessary drama, they lead fairly average lives, which is the problem. How can these men go from dogfighting Nazis and Japs to sitting at a desk job for most of the day? How can their wives go from working at a job to being a simple housewife? Neither man wants to be "rehabilitated", but they desperately need it. 

I applaud the film for not giving us a cheap typical "Hollywood" ending. Rather it shoots for realism, which involves both despair and hope. Not everything turns out fine and dandy especially for the most disillusioned. It's difficult to keep a sense of patriotism when your whole world has crumbled around you. The picture is full of great acting, especially by Frederic March. The 2.5 hour running time, which at first seemed like a difficulty, is absolutely necessary. It does not drag, rather it gives us just enough time to fully see the consequences of war.

In conclusion, The Best Years of Our Lives is possibly the greatest film about war that I have ever seen. My fiance's father's mother (grandmother-in law?) Shirley recommended this picture to me, as it is her favourite film, and I can definitely see why. It deserved all the Oscars it received, especially the honorary Oscar to Russell for "bringing hope and courage to his fellow veterans through his appearance." This picture is not dated at all and should be admired for generations to come. Praise it! 5/5

Fargo Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Fargo
Year: 1996
Director(s): The Coen Brothers
Country: US
Language: English

The Coen Brothers have made an astonishing career out of filming both comedy (The Big Lebowski) and drama (No Country For Old Men). They have received many awards for their efforts, and are celebrated by critics the world over. Even their mediocre flicks, such as Burn After Reading, are a special treat. Among their greatest, Fargo truly stands out. It is the pinnacle of black comedy; an intelligent flick that will also have you keeling over from laughter.

William H. Macy stars as a blundering buffoon named Jerry Lundegaard, who has found himself in deep financial trouble. His solution? Hire two criminals to kidnap his wife, have her father pay the ransom and then split the money with them. Of course, nothing goes as planned. 

Fargo paints a picture of pathetic criminals in small town America and runs with it. Though Lundegaard himself is not a vicious man, we see the horrifying consequences of his ignorance. The only character who is not dim-witted in this picture is Chief Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand) a pregnant protagonist who is always on the prowl. Against the amoral and violent atmosphere, the Chief uses her folksy small-town cheerfulness as a tool for getting through the criminals to their secrets.

The Coen Brothers capture the atmosphere of a small cold northern town perfectly, right down to the quirky accents "you betcha eh?". The seemingly endless tundra of ice and snow perfectly capture Lundegaard's loneliness and helplessness. The loot is buried along a barbed wire fence that stretches on for an eternity. Would anyone ever be able to find it? William H. Macy's performance is exceptional; he delivers a perfect amount of fear, frustration and tension. He is a truly desperate man, and the closing scenes show exactly how low he has gotten. 

In conclusion, I have seen Fargo many times, each time I learn something new about human nature. Coming from a Northern community myself, I feel like I can identify with this film. Though the Coens have made plenty of great features, I feel that this is their best. Praise it! 5/5

Macbeth (1971) Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Macbeth
Year: 1971
Director: Roman Polanski
Country: UK
Language: English

"Double, double, toil and trouble; Fire burn and caldron bubble" Many artists have re-imagined Shakespeare's greatest tragedies, weaving them into their own styles and putting them on the silver screen. Akira Kurosawa's Throne of Blood was a brilliant take on the cursed Scottish play, however Polanski may have done it better. A cursed man himself,  Polanski made this beast of burden into his own just two years after his wife was brutally murdered at the hands of the Manson family. 

Jon Finch stars in this Shakespearean tragedy about a Scottish lord who murders the king and ascends the throne. His wife then begins hallucinating as a result of her guilt complex and the dead king's son conspires to attack Macbeth and expose him for the murderer he is.

For me, it was impossible to watch this film and not think about the Charles Manson case which made headlines just a couple of years prior. Polanski's wife Sharon Tate, and others, were brutally murdered by the Manson family. She was pregnant, about two weeks away from giving birth. Her blood was then smeared on the doorway, the word "pig" in bright red letters. The line "untimely ripped from his mother's womb" has great meaning for the Polish Director. His characters resemble Charles Manson; they are ignorant, humorless, small, and neck-deep in lust and violence. In-fact, that is their driving force.

It is a picture full of melancholy and uncertainty, as it should be. Images of blood, torrential downpours and sombre leaden skies fill up the screen. Even the castles are cold, dark and dirty. Polanski's film is more terrifying that any horror film of its era, undoubtedly far more intelligent. The glorious dialogue is even more poignant with Polanski's Direction. While Macbeth is usually seen as a tragic figure, I'm not sure we feel it this time. His death does not move us, rather it is told in a matter-of-fact way; he got what was coming to him.

In conclusion, adapting Macbeth to the screen was one hell of a way for Polanski to vent his stress and anger. He turned negative feelings into grand poetry. It's a very hard film to watch, due to its depressing tone, but ultimately it's very engaging and one of the finest Shakespeare adaptations in the history of Cinema. Praise it! 5/5