10 More Overrated Films of All Time- By Michael J. Carlisle

 A month ago I wrote a list called "The 10 Most Overrated Films of All Time". Fight Club, Shawshank Redemption, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Matrix, Star Wars, Pulp Fiction, Breakfast at Tiffany's , Blow Up, Donnie Darko and It's A Wonderful Life were all on this list. It received great feedback and was a moderate success. After chatting with many people, I realized that there were many films that I omitted just because I didn't have enough space. So I've decided to write a sequel 10 More Overrated Films of All Time

This is The Good, The Bad, and the Critic's official "Hall of the Overrated". Overrated doesn't mean "bad", just simply that it received far more acclaim than the film deserved

Individual reviews can be found in either The Good, The Bad and the Critic's E-Book, which you can purchase for $5 (message me if you're interested in a copy) , or by navigating the archives in this site.

1. Birdman (Or: The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

2. Batman (1989)

 3. A Clockwork Orange

4. Full Metal Jacket

5. Platoon

6.  Dances With Wolves

7. Taxi Driver

8. Gandhi

9. Patton

10. Broken Blossoms

 

Grand Budapest Hotel Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

 Title: Grand Budapest Hotel
Year: 2014
Director: Wes Anderson
Country: US
Language: English

Wes Anderson has always made films his way; never creating art on anybody else's terms but the ones that are exclusively his. Working with independent producers on low budgets, he has not yet succumb to the pressures of Hollywood and maintains a remarkable style that is uniquely his own. Many think Quentin Tarantino is the great indie darling, but he is an unoriginal hack compared to Anderson, a man who doesn't rely on extreme violence to get his thought provoking messages across. I personally feel The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) was his greatest feature, but Grand Budapest Hotel is exceptional as well.

The picture follows the adventures of Gustave H (Ralph Fiennes) , a legendary concierge at a famous hotel from the fictional Republic of Zubrowka between the first and second World Wars, and Zero Moustafa (Tony Revolori), the lobby boy who becomes his most trusted friend.

Grand Budapest Hotel is an intelligent film full of great wit and charm. It is spellbinding, from the first moment to the last. The picture is very much like Powell and Pressburger's Life and Death of Colonel Blimp in the way it pays respect to long vanished styles, customs and people. The old world is celebrated, albeit while being layered in fantasy. Anderson travels through many different time periods to not only show an appreciation of history, but to mirror out own times as well. He uses old film-making techniques to tell this story, even using the McGuffin; an object that sets in motion a great span of comic action. 

Despite it's wonderful slapstick comedy, and at times, ridiculous chain of events, Grand Budapest Hotel is a serious film containing a lot of humanity. Not only is this picture about the masks we use to face the real world, but it is also about friendship, love and perseverance. The characters’ steadfast bonds of friendship and love join with a peculiar fraternity. Gustave H is a slimy manipulative man who doesn't have any friends, aside from the old women he takes advantage of, but he does confide in zero and genuinely loves him, as does zero back. Grand Budapest Hotel is backed by great dignity and great heart.

In conclusion, Grand Budapest Hotel should have won "Best Picture" at the 2015 Academy Awards but unfortunately lost to the soulless Birdman. A shame really, but if that means Anderson will continue to claim his style then so be it. The Director has never made a bad picture, infact he only improves with age. This beautiful picture is a MUST SEE. Praise it! 5/5

Birdman Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Birdman
Year: 2014
Director: Alejandro Gonzales Innaritu
Country: US
Language: English

Upon seeing the trailer of Birdman or: The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance I had a sense that the Director, Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu, was trying to mimic the style of 60's French film icon Jean Luc Godard. Indeed either consciously or subconsciously he had made references to Pierrot Le Fou, Every Man For Himself and Breathless. There is no doubt that Birdman was an attempt to mix arthouse cinema with the mainstream and appeal to a massive audience. Remarkably it won "Best Picture" at the Academy awards for its efforts. My thoughts can be summed up by stating that Birdman was a half-assed approach to Cinema.

A washed-up actor, played by Michael Keaton, who once played an iconic superhero, battles his ego and attempts to recover his family, his career and himself in the days leading up to the opening of his Broadway play. 

Inarritu depends on real world references to get his world across. Washed up actor who once played an iconic superhero? Why that's Michael Keaton, who formerly played the role of batman. Both character and actor played their iconic roles multiple times before refusing to do another sequel and fading into obscurity. The film thinks it's clever, but only a fool wouldn't be able to grasp the not-so-subtle references. The picture does its job by generating "Oscar Buzz" and ensuring the comeback of Keaton, but unfortunately that's the only good thing about the film. 

Birdman asks big questions but never delivers on the answers, and no, it isn't intentionally leaving us in the dark. It reduces complex stagings, shots and technical ideas into simplistic compositions that in no way shows Innaritu was the "Best Director" at the Academy Awards. Many consumers gawk at the editing of this film, after all it was shot in one continuous take like Russian Ark! Actually there are transitions achieved digitally that are sewn together throughout a gap of time. Even when there is no transition, Innaratu has us staring at a wall while he changes the scene.

The long take has become a trope of cinema, everyone from Iranian Director Abbas Kiarostami to Tommy Wiseau has used it. This is no more praiseworthy than any other cinematic device. If Birdman was filmed solely with extreme close-ups would we praise it? Though I would say Keaton's acting was good, perhaps the best feature of this film, it was very hammy. Every actor tried their best to chew the scenery, and they did, but not in a good way. I was rolling my eyes at the dialogue between Emma Stone and Michael Keaton. "Dad you're a washed up actor and I did drugs because blah blah blah" I GET IT, quit shoving the movie's premise down my throat.

In conclusion, I could barely stay awake during Birdman even though I was watching it in the mid-afternoon. I have seen this type of film made over and over, I'd say The Wrestler did it best. This is an inadequate film that tries to say much about the nature of theatre, art and cinema but fails in every respect. The picture is a timid creature that excretes wholly unoriginal, uninspiring and mediocre drama. It's more pop than art, a ridiculous attempt to be "hip" and clever. We should be ashamed that Birdman was nominated for Best Picture, let alone was nominated for it. This does not say much for our current state of cinema. Piss on it! 2/5

The Theory of Everything Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Theory of Everything
Year: 2014
Director: James Marsh
Country: UK
Language: English

Stephen Hawking's story is inspiring- he is one of the most brilliant men to have ever lived, and he also battled motor neuron disease. Given only two years to live, he defied the odds and is currently living more than fifty years after his initial diagnosis. Unfortunately he is bound by a wheelchair, unable to speak without the use of a voicebox. I was introduced to his work when I watched the Errol Morris documentary A Brief History of Time, and even though his theories stretch far beyond my scientific knowledge, I find the man quite compelling.

The Theory of Everything is the story of mainstream pop culture physicist icon Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) and Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones), the arts student he fell in love with whilst studying at Cambridge in the 1960s. They marry, Hawking gets his life threatening disease and their marriage slowly becomes engulfed in turmoil.

Redmayne plays Hawking very well. He perfectly embodies a man with Lou Gehrig's disease, also known as ALS, and thus every movement seemed honest. It did not seem like the actor was chewing the scenery, nor was he under-acting, Hawking must have been going through hell during this time in his life. I have a physical disability that limits my movement, but not in the way Hawking does, not even close. Early scenes with Redmayne and Jones show that these two actors have great chemistry with each other, but unfortunately this isn't enough to make the film "good".

For a picture about an ingenious scientist who was a revolutionary in physics, there is nothing "revolutionary" about it. The Theory of Everything is rather bland and formulaic, certainly seems like a film made solely for Oscar season. There is plenty of emotion, but a lack of drama and depth. We get a glimpse of Hawking and Jane's marriage, but we don't fully understand how difficult it must have been to raise children while the father has a debilitating disease which may take his life at any moment. Even the extra-marital affairs seem to wrap themselves up in a tidy way. 

In conclusion, I doubt The Theory of Everything will win any awards come Oscar night, though Eddie Redmayne does have a chance at "Best Actor". You've seen this type of  "tortured genius" film many times before, often done significantly better (A Beautiful Mind) If I could I'd skip it. Certainly not an essential. 3/5

George Washington Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: George Washington
Year: 2000
Director: David Gordon Green
Country: US
Language: English

Upon its arrival, George Washington, a film by 25 year old Director David Gordon Green, was quickly recognized at various film festivals as a triumph of American Independent film-making. It transformed familiar attitudes of American life into quite a thought provoking story. The film presents poor, black and white North Carolina preteens as they awaken to love and death. It never becomes preachy, nor does it hold your hand and guide you. I was hesitant to watch this film, because as a middle class Canadian I didn't think I could connect with these characters. I'm glad that I was wrong.

Set in a small town in North Carolina, George Washington is the story of a tight-knit multi-racial group of working-class kids caught in a tragic lie. After a twelve-year-old girl breaks up with her boyfriend for a sensitive, deeply introspective thirteen-year-old boy named George, a bizarre series of events and an innocent cover-up launches their insular group on individual quests for redemption.

"Why did you break up with George?"
"He's too young, I need an older man"
"Get out of here. You're 12, he's 13"

Green's film is not a social protest, nor is it about racism or racial tensions as one might expect a film about multi-racial working class people to be. It is free from Hollywood cliche and various cultural expectations. George Washington perfectly captures themes of alienation, youth and poverty. It has an instilled sense of integrity, intensity, honesty and intelligence. When Greene was asked why he chose the title he said "It takes you back to childhood, when you first heard the name of the great American leader" I didn't necessarily feel nostalgic about Washington, but I can understand where he's coming from. 

The cinematography is breathtaking. Green collaborated with his classmate Tim Orr for the cinematography, who aimed for a deluxe style of filmmaking, shooting in 35 mm anamorphic to make the picture look undeniably professional. George Washington reminds me of the French New Wave, particularly Truffaut's 400 Blows, in the way it was not only shot, but how it treats its young characters with dignity. Green's writing is dramatic and suspenseful, but there are also some funny scenes that remind you that life is not always so grim. If anything, youth have hope.

In conclusion, George Washington left me in awe my first viewing. This is a fine achievement in the art of film, it certainly deserves to be in the Criterion Collection. Green has created a humbling, shining beauty that generations of adults should and will admire. Praise it! 5/5

Grey Gardens Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Grey Gardens
Year: 1975
Director(s): Maysles Brothers
Country: US
Language: English

Edith Beale, born in 1895, was an American socialite who pursued a singing career in her youth. A mother of two sons and a daughter, she was abandoned by her husband at age 35 and received Grey Gardens,  a 28-room mansion in affluent East Hampton, New York, as a divorce settlement. Edie , her daughter, was a teenager when her parents divorced. She lived by herself in New York to pursue a career as a dancer; however at 35 she would return to her mother in Grey Gardens, and live there for 37 Years. It was in the 1960's that their palace transitioned into a decrepit state, overrun by cats, racoons and thousands of pounds of trash. 

A landmark documentary by the Maysles Brothers, Grey Gardens is about the aunt and cousin of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, who live their eccentric lives in a filthy, decaying mansion in East Hampton.

The origins of this film came about when Lee Radziwell, Jacqueline Onassis's sister, commissioned the Maysles (Gimme Shelter) to film a family history. However after the Directors met the Beales, they decided to make the film solely about them. Using portable cameras to follow the Beales in their daily routines, the Maysles capture two quite fascinating and mysterious lives. Edie dresses up in strange costumes, which are different everyday. Whereas her mother Edith always seems to be wearing the same thing. According to her she hasn't bathed in over ten years, considering the house doesn't have any running water it seems like her claim could very likely be true. 

Does their lifestyle come from a place of rebellion, or a place of insanity? Considering the elderly Beale finds it amusing when her cats go to the bathroom on her pictures, I'd say the latter. Both characters are rather dramatic in their presentation; Edie in particular especially seems to be fit for the theatre. The past seems to plague their minds, it is on the topic of almost every conversation. "France fell, but Edie didn't". Luckily, after the film became a hit, Jackie Onassis helped the Beales renovate and sell the house. However I doubt their personalities changed following.

Technically, Gardens is considered a masterpiece that transformed documentary cinema by expediting a more direct cinema; objective filmmaking without voiceovers, explanations or narrative structure. It was the first documentary that just observed without bias. From an ethical perspective the picture is on shaky ground, one wonders if this is explorative or exploitative. I'd say a mix of both; the subjects are a train-wreck, but you can't help but watch. Praise it! 4/5