Gray's Anatomy Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Gray's Anatomy
Year: 1997
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Country: US
Language: English

Born in Providence, Rhode Island on June, 5 1941 Spalding Gray was an American actor and writer, most known for his autobiographical monologues. Beginning his career in 1960 he joined an experimental troupe known as The Performance Group which also featured Willem Dafoe (Antichrist). In 1985 he achieved prominence and won numerous awards with his monologue called Swimming to Cambodia. In 1997 he teamed with Director Steven Soderbergh to complete the intriguing Gray's Anatomy.

After doctors inform him that an eye affliction will require risky surgery, monologist Spadling Gray recounts his various pursuits for alternative medicine to avoid the doctor's scalpel. 

Gray's Anatomy is a very unique film because, aside from briefly cutting to the opinions of various people about topics regarding health and medicine, it consists of Spalding Gray staring into the camera and telling his story throughout the 80minute running time. His words are full of mystery, suspense, melodrama and even comedic moments. If any other actor tried to do this the picture would fall flat, but Gray's mix of charisma and weird personality click with the audience and adds a surreal element into the mix. 

Gray is absolutely captivating, though he can be a bit too hyper at times I think it's safe to say that he is never dull. Soderbergh deserves credit for not just keeping the camera stationary or leaving Gray behind one background during his entire story. Rather the shots change, the lighting changes as well and we are able to visually see Gray's mood as it changes with the story. Gray's Anatomy is an absolutely brilliant piece of film-making.

In conclusion, though Gray's Anatomy may not be either man's best work, it certainly is a great introduction to them and is far from terrible. Gray would say this film is the
"Diary of a compulsive homeopathic ex-christian scientist", which certainly emphasizes how wacky the great writer is. Praise it! 4/5

Nosferatu Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Nosferatu

Year: 1922

Director: F.W Murnau

Country: Germany

Language: German

 

F.W Murnau’s 1922 classic Nosferatu stars the creepy Max Schrek, who plays a merciless vampire named Count Orlok. The vampire is interested in a new castle in which to lure his victims and, more importantly, he lusts for the blood of his real estate agent’s wife. 

Nosferatu won’t just scare you, it will haunt you. Murnau will take you to a place where madness lurks around every corner and your worst nightmares become reality. The film is about all the things mankind has worried about: death, insanity, disease, war. It is shocking yet brilliant. One of the reasons it is so shocking is because of Max Schreck, an ugly man whose already tall stature and ugly look made him perfect to fill the role of the immortal vampire. Unlike Bela Lugosi, who played a flamboyant vampire in Todd Browning’s 1931 version of Bram Stroker’s novel, Schreck is anything but that. He plays the vampire like a rabid creature that is filled with hunger and hate. He is a remorseless predator that exists only in the bowels of hell.

Like most vampire movies, Nosferatu is filled with sexual undertones. However, unlike most vampire movies the sexuality presented in Nosferatu is rather terrifying. It holds us in our fear of AIDS and rape, both of which continue to be present in our modern society. The vampire is an unholy being, who has desires that stretch far  beyond finding a mate. It stalks after the innocent and those who find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Many film historians believe that the expressionistic style of Weimar-era Germany reflected the mood of the German people following World War One.  Considering the pessimistic tone of the film, it’s not hard to believe that Post war Germany must have been an awful place to live. Though it’s full of despair,  Nosferatu  is a classic that certainly stands the test of time. See it immediately and buy the brilliant Masters of Cinema blu-ray edition. Praise it! 5/5

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
Year: 1963
Director: Stanley Kramer
Country: US
Language: English

Slapstick comedy in motion pictures predates the Twentieth Century; it was introduced into Cinema by the French Lumiere Brothers in 1895 for a film called L’Arroseur arrosé (Watering the Gardener). The plot was relatively simple; a young boy steps on a garden hose as a gardener waters a lawn, cutting off the water, only to step off just as the gardener looks into the nozzle. Since then artists like Charles Chaplin, Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton have made a great career out of slapstick comedy and it has changed the world entire. Stanley Kramer's It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is a powerful testament to the the genre.

After a long prison sentence Smiler Grogan is heading at high speed to a California park where he hid $350,000 from a job 15 years previously. He accidentally careens over a cliff in view of four cars whose occupants go down to help. The dying Grogan gives details of where the money is buried to the witnesses, which starts a chaotic chase across the state.

Delirious, Chaotic, Insane, Epic; these are a few words that can be used to describe the pure madness that is It's A Mad,Mad, Mad World. The camera is constantly moving, cutting back and forth between characters who have found themselves in a dire situation, such as being on a plane with a drunk & unconscious pilot, due to their desire for the almighty dollar. The film is full of cameos by comedic greats, like Jack Benny, Buster Keaton and even The Three Stooges. The cast is so full of stars that other comedy legends would call Director Stanley Kramer at all hours of the day, infuriated that they weren't considered a part. 

Though the film's pace is frantic and each scene is full of obsessive characters, our senses never become overloaded. Nor does the picture become boring despite the 3+ hr running time, which makes it one of the longest comedies ever made. The off-the-wall antics make Mad World incredibly entertaining and the money definitely adds an element of suspense and intrigue. Unfortunately some special effects near the end of the film are incredibly dated, however the humor is timeless. A hundred years from now people mostly likely still find something to chuckle about. 

In conclusion, though it's a rather silly movie I'd like to think that Kramer has imprinted a serious message about the nature of greed in Mad World. Once we starting living only for money do we make fools of ourselves. We laugh at them because we see these kind of people everyday in real life. Thus the film is a critical statement about capitalism and those who are possessed by it. By the Criterion Collection Edition today! Praise it! 4.5/5

Mon Oncle Antoine Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Mon Oncle Antoine

Year: 1971

Director: Claude Jutra

Country: Canada
Language: French

Though our southern neighbour’s “Hollywood” movie industry is more well-known across the world, Canada certainly doesn’t lack in our quality of pictures. Among the greatest of our films are Jesus of Montreal, Dying at Grace, Away From Her and Mon Oncle Antoine. The latter has been named the greatest Canadian film of all time three decades in a row by a critics poll held every decade at the Toronto international Film Festival.

Claude Jutra’s adolescent melodrama is set in a cold rural mining time in Quebec during Christmas time. The camera follows a young boy and the life of his family. They own the town’s convenience store and are currently undertaking business, meanwhile the miners are getting unruly.

The story opens with a funeral, an atmosphere of death and a loss of innocence. Young Benoit is transitioning from childhood to adulthood; throughout the picture he will have miraculous and heartbreaking experiences that will shape his emotional development. We are given the great opportunity to see Benoit’s psyche unfold as he first encounters love, sexual passion and spiritual depression.  Each character in Jutra’s masterpiece is well written, we care for all of them and enjoy seeing them grow before our eyes.

Mon Oncle Antoine is also a parable regarding the coming of age of the Quebec province itself.  Set in the Maurice Duplessis era, the film bears witness to the historical mining strikes and the plight of the workers who wanted to be treated fairly. The miners were able to gain support from priests, media and the general public and eventually a great shift occurred in Quebec, this shift created an ideology of separatism which still exists to this day.

In conclusion, Jutra’s film is wonderfully made and profoundly entertaining. While I personally don't believe that it's the greatest Canadian picture of all time, though perhaps I'll start to believe it the more I watch it, Mon Oncle Antoine is certainly one of the best. It can be depressing at times, but there are many lessons to be learned and people to meet. Praise it! 5/5

Ferngully: The Last Rainforest Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Ferngully
Year: 1992
Director:Bill Kroyer
Country: Australia
Language: English

Avatar, Avatar 2, Dances With Wolves, The Last Samurai, Pocahontas, Driving Miss Daisy, The Help, Django Unchained, The Blind Side, Remember the Titans, Crash and The Butler. These are all white guilt films designed to please the white population and give ourselves a pat on the back for recognizing discrimination. However, none of these films offer white guilt in an entertaining way quite like Fergully does. The film has Robbin Williams rapping and Tim Curry (Rocky Horror Picture Show) singing about muck.

The magical inhabitants of a rainforest called FernGully fight to save their home that is threatened by logging and a polluting force of destruction called Hexxus. 

Ferngully: The Last Rainforest is not only about not discriminating against other cultures, the white guy named Zak Young (Jonathon Ward) falls in love with a fairy named Cysta (Samantha Mathis)  and realizes that he must save her people, but it is also about the dangers of log-cutting, pollution and generally not caring about the environment while having a cautionary sub-plot about the ill effects of animal experimenting. Batty, played by the hilarious Robin Williams, raps about how doctors "used and abused, battered and bruised" him, effectively selling the point that animals have feelings too.

In addition to Williams being on board, Tim Curry is too. His "Toxic Love" song is creepy as hell, effectively scaring any child that dares to sit through the nightmarish scene about greed. Cheech and Chong are in the film as well, which makes a lot of sense given their public hippie persona's. Unfortunately the film is not perfect, the story can drag on for too long and the main character's are more annoying than likeable. It can be too sentimental at times, however its target audience is children so sentimentality shouldn't be criticized too much. 

In conclusion, though Ferngully seems to be largely forgotten about in comparison to the many "Disney classics" that came out that year, it still holds up in our modern age. Newer generations of children will likely skip this, however I encourage new parents to show their kids this enticing and entertaining picture. 3.5/5

Her Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Her
Year: 2013
Director: Spike Jonze
Country: US
Language: English

Famed American director Spike Jonze has made a career out of making films with unusual premise's. His first, Being John Malkovich, was about a puppeteer who found a portal in an office building, this portal leads directly into the head of John Malkovich. He would eventually work with legendary actress Meryl Streep on Adaptation and create a live-action version of Marice Sendak's Where the Wild Things Are. Her is Jonze's fourth feature film, and it proves to be quite stunning.

Joaquin Phoenix stars as Theodore Twombly, a lonely man in the final stages of a nasty divorce. When he's not working as a writer, playing video games or hanging out with his friends, he's looking for love anywhere he can find it. He decides to purchase an OS named Samantha, eventually the two fall in love.

Though the film is set in the future, it doesn't seem too distant. Nowadays many long distance couples fall in love through technology, rather than seeing each other in person. Modern innovations like Skype and Facetime allow them to see each other despite hundreds of miles of distance. The idea that people could fall in love with technology seems more of a possibility, as long as it has the processing speed that Jonze's Sam has. Sam reminds me of HAL from Kubrick's 2001:A Space Odyssey. Both are machines evolving consciousness, but mistakenly think they're capable of complicated emotions and making decisions for themselves, which leads to harming their owners either emotionally or physically.

Her brings to light a commentary on our dependency of programmed living and our need to maintain sociability when direct communication avenues have been stricken from life's normality. Jonze creates a a multilayered film experience; it's both a character study of an isolated man and a critique of contemporary society. Oddly enough the love between Theodore and Sam feels conventional, honest and heartfelt. Their love is what many single people can only dream about. However even love with a computer programmed only to love has its complications. 

In conclusion, Her is a remarkable picture with excellent cinematography that shows us the isolation and beauty of Theodore's world. The acting by Joaquin Phoenix is stunning, he has done an even better job than his last film, which was Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master. Hopefully Spike Jonze continues to make more films like this. Praise it! 4/5

Dallas Buyers Club Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Dallas Buyers Club
Year: 2013
Director: Jean-Marc Vallee
Country: US
Language: English

In the early 1980's the AIDS epidemic hit the US by storm. During the first six years of the outbreak about 40,000 lives were lost. AIDS was a very misunderstood disease, ultimately attributed to homosexuals who were labelled deviants. Few hospitals and even fewer politicians would take AIDS victims seriously, therefore there was a great struggle to find both acceptance and reasonable treatment. Dallas Buyers Club charts this struggle. 

The year is 1985, all the newspapers are headlining movie star Rock Hudson's tragic battle with AIDS. Electrician and womanizer Ron Woodroof (Matthew McConaughey) is diagnosed with AIDS himself. Realizing that the system isn't helping people, he decides to work around it and help patients get the medication they need to survive just a few more years.

Dallas Buyers Club is essentially the Philadelphia of 2013, except this is more tragic, more honest and a better overall critique on the system. While Philadelphia was about one man's struggle, this picture is about the struggle of many. Outside Woodroof's home are dozens of victims waiting for him to give him the medication they need, but the medical establishment wont approve of. Director Jean-Marc Vallee intelligently demonstrates the faults of a bureaucratic system, capitalism, the FDA and pharmaceutical companies without being too preachy.

The story is well written, writer Craig Borten does not make Woodroof a hero off the bat. He is homophobic/sexist/racist jerk who slowly becomes a better person, only because he realizes that what he has been socialized to believe is wrong. Both McConaughey and Jared Leto give incredible performances that few can pull off. Not even Tom Hanks would lose 45lbs for his role in Philadelphia. I enjoyed the fact that this film breaks stereotypes, even that of the racist southerner, rather than encourages them.

In conclusion, Dallas Buyers Club is a remarkable heavy hitting drama with a lot of history behind it. Though David France's How to Survive a Plague is more informative on the subject, this film will still get you thinking about the deep rooted issues that it presents. I'm not sure about Leto, but McConaughey is definitely getting the acting Oscar. Praise it! 4/5

Thor Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Thor
Year: 2011
Director: Kenneth Branagh
Country: US
Language: English 

I won't lie, I hate superhero flicks with a passion. For the most part they are incredibly superficial (rich/muscular/good looking guy saves us all!) and have the same old Jesus allegory (rich/muscular/good looking guy sacrifices himself for us!) When the opportunity to watch Thor came up I avoided it like the plague. Eventually I caved in, sat down with my girlfriend to watch it and, this is something that I never thought I would say,  actually started to enjoy it.

The warrior Thor (Hemsworth) is cast out of the fantastic realm of Asgard by his father Odin (Hopkins) for his arrogance and sent to Earth to live among humans. Meanwhile his brother Loki (Hiddleson) appears to be creating havoc in Asgard.

There is no polite way to say this, Thor is an assclown. He is self-righteous, narcissistic and arrogant throughout the entire film, even after learning his morality "lessons" on Earth. Along with his piss-poor attempts at being funny, I can only conclude that this Thor character was meant to be a satire of the average superhero  and a criticism of masculinity. Meanwhile the "villain" of this story, Loki, is a tortured soul who just wants to be loved. He is an incredibly deep well written character who I could not help but sympathize with. The entire running time I was begging for Thor to die and for Loki to come out on top. Considering the enormous amount of fans Loki has, it seems others have done same.

There is a Shakespearean vibe to the plot, if you see the film from Loki's point of view. Loki is a tragic character who is ultimately doomed, his family and friends do not trust him in the slightest even though he's not necessarily doing anything "evil". To quote Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day Lewis) in Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood Loki is essentially a "Bastard in a basket", a creature nobody wants or cares for, he is Hamlet.  If you watch the view from Thor's point of view, then I feel pity you. The "fish out of water" scenario is cliche, tripe and ultimately pointless. It's as if the writer's had set up Thor to fail as a character. Ultimately I enjoyed the flick, but wished it had been focused on Loki. 

In conclusion, Kenneth Branagh indeed made the film feel larger than life and out of this world, but it's very bi-polar. In some scenes the writing and visuals excel, in others they fall completely flat. Despite coming straight from her Oscar Winning role in Black Swan, Natalie Portman bored me and her acting just didn't cut it. I would have been happy if the entire picture was just a one act play featuring Loki, that's how much the other character's did not matter. 3/5