The Fisher King Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Fisher King
Year: 1991
Director: Terry Gilliam
Country: UK
Language: English

Robin Williams was no doubt a great comedian, and he could be an even better actor when the part called to him. Often in films written primarily for kids and families (Mrs. Doubtfire, Hook, Jack) he does occasionally make the decision to act in serious roles. His acting in The Fisher King is remarkable, from the homeless characters' entrance Williams grabs our heartstrings and pulls us into this insane man's search for love. Unfortunately, Williams is the only part holding this film together, otherwise it's a mess.

After hearing a popular DJ rail against yuppies, a madman carries out a massacre in a popular New York bar. Dejected and remorseful, the DJ (Jeff Bridges) strikes up a friendship with Parry (Robin Williams) , a former professor who became unhinged and then homeless after witnessing his wife's violent death in the bar shooting. The DJ seeks redemption by helping Parry in his quest to recover an item that he believes is the Holy Grail and to win the heart of the woman he loves

The main reason I don't like The Fisher King is primarily because i do not enjoy Director Terry Gilliam's visual style.  Roger Ebert has said "his world is always hallucinatory in its richness of detail," however I find Gilliam's cinematography nauseating. Most of his movies are shot almost entirely with rectilinear ultra wide angle lenses of 28 mm focal length or less in order to achieve a distinctive signature style defined by extreme perspective distortion and extremely deep focus.Essentially instead of a normal human field of view, Gilliam's signature style defined by extreme perspective distortion. Many shots look like the character is in a fishbowl. It works for Brazil, as the characters live in a claustrophobic dystopia, but doesn't belong in this film.

The screenplay's enthusiasm for the mythological elements of the story seems genuine, but The Fisher King still strains to capture its audience in this world, mainly because of the various activities that take over the run time. We get urban grit, show-biz angst, two love affairs, the holy grail, the homeless, an action sequence, a dance sequence, and an apocalyptic figure on a horse who rides through Central Park with flames shooting from his head. Is this picture supposed to be a romantic comedy? A brooding drama? What is the message? Some scenes are clever, even charming, but the movie as a whole is sub par and somewhat offensive in regards to how the screenplay treats its female characters. 

In conclusion, The Fisher King has one leg to stand on, but that is merely because of Robin Williams' performance, otherwise it is a B picture by a director who has made much smarter films.  It unfortunately views all homeless people as crazy lunatics, instead of what the majority are; sane people in unfortunate circumstances. The ending is wrapped in a nice little package, and it would be welcome,  it it didn't definitely undermine the audiences' intelligence.

Paths of Glory Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Paths of Glory
Year: 1957
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Country: US
Language: English

The Good, The Bad and The Critic has written about American Director Stanley Kubrick before, having reviewed quite a few of his films. The general consensus among critics and cinephiles is that he is a genius with his own distinct visual style. Though I am not a fan of his post-60's work, aside from Eyes Wide Shut, I do think that Kubrick is a remarkable artist; no doubt a master of his craft. Paths of Glory came about when The Killing caught the attention of star Kirk Douglas, who was so impressed by it that he offered to take the upcoming role in the director's next creative venture and, because MGM was hesitant to take on Paths, he pressured United Artists to undertake financing of the film.

In Paths of Glory soldiers in World War I refuse to continue when ordered to engage in an impossible attack. Against all logic, their superior officers decide to make an example of them as a result of their inaction.

With Paths, Kubrick demonstrates a remarkable ability to make a realistic world seem strange. The camera picks up the irrationality of a seemingly rational war, and makes us feel for the common soldier, rather than the military general. This picture is the anti-Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. Powell and Pressburger's masterpiece is about a warm-hearted military general who has a strong sense of military honour, whereas Kubrick seems to feel that "military honor" is an oxymoron that relies heavily on unquestioning obedience to dicators. 

World War I was a subject that generated great interest in the mind of Stanley Kubrick. Mainly because it was a tangled web of militaristic alliances, caused by foolish politicians and meandering generals, which caused more than eight million often meaningless military deaths. Paths of Glory is different from most World War I films at the time because it didn't seek patriotism; it was wholly anti-authoritative and anti-war. This is also a spiritual film as it questions the existence of God, although allows viewers to make up their own mind and never becomes preachy.

In conclusion, Paths of Glory is one of the few 50's films I can recall that has an ambiguous ending where the heroes don't necessarily win. Though it was banned in France and Switzerland upon release, the film received favourable reviews and was a cultural success. Kubrick and his cinematographer, George Krause, were clearly destined for success by this point. Praise it! 5/5

Don't Look Now Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Don't Look Now
Year: 1973
Director: Nicholas Roeg
Country: UK
Language: English

Released in Britain in 1973, Nicholas Roeg's Don't Look Now was the main feature of a double bill which also consisted of Robin Hardy's The Wicker Man. Hardy's picture went on to achieve cult status and be remade into an awful sequel starring Nicholas Cage ("Not the bees!'")  Don't Look Now became considered one of the greatest British films of the Seventies and one of the greatest British films of all time. Adapted from a 1972 short story by Daphne du Maurier, the woman who provided Hitchcock with material for two of his masterpieces (Rebecca and The Birds) Roeg's picture was, and still is, a masterpiece. 

A married couple, played by Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie, are grieving the recent death of their little daughter. They encounter two elderly sisters in Venice, one of whom is psychic and brings a warning from beyond.

The protagonist of this picture is a rational man who does not believe in the supernatural despite reconstructing old churches for a living. He has an analytical mind and does not jump to conclusions. As the film progresses his skepticism slowly evaporates, his inability to cope with his daughter's death comes to surface and it ultimately brings him to his doom. The old British "stiff upper lip" saying becomes a burden for man, perhaps it is much more healthy to deal with one's emotions instead of run away from them. Don't Look Now is frightening, but not in the traditional sense. It is the atmosphere that is chilling, not an an unseen boogeyman.

Roeg's film has a remarkable fragemented visual style, cutting from one unsettling image to another, accumulating into a moment we will never forget. Few films do a remarkable job at putting is into the mind of another, even less are this great at dissecting the nature of grief, dread and denial. The picture's visual style, acting and mood capture us and keep its audience on the edge of their seat. Only Shakespeare could portray the feeling of doom better. Don't Look Now is truly a rich film, with an unsurmountable amount of depth. 

In conclusion, there is no wonder to why many cinephiles consider Don't Look Now their favourite film of all time. It was innovative, shocking and controversial at the time (mainly due to the rapidly edited love scene) and it still holds up today. It is a rather bold vision that deserves a new generation of audiences.  Praise it! 5/5