Wizard of Oz (1910) Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Wizard of Oz
Year: 1910
Director: Otis Turner (Unconfirmed)
Country: US

When it comes to Oz, most people remember Victor Fleming's 1939 escapist classic. This is no surprise, as it changed the cinematic landscape by blurring the line between children's entertainment and the serious adult film. We remember the cowardly lion, brainless scarecrow and beat-less tinman played by Bert Lahr, Ray Bolger and Jack Haley respectively. Few are aware however, of the silent version made 29 years earlier. Perhaps because it's incredibly weird.

An adaptation of  L. Frank Baum's seminal novel, this short silent picture follows essentially the same story as MGM's groundbreaking Wizard of Oz, which was made decades later. A young woman from Kansas gets sucked into a tornado, then she is spit out into a world "over the rainbow".

I did not lie, the 1910 version does follow the same story as the more superior version most are familiar with, however it's at least 90 minutes shorter. This makes Wizard of Oz seem more like an extended trailer than a "movie" in the modern sense of the word. It's not enough time to care about the many characters nor get emotionally invested in them, at least for a story that is supposed to consists of a long journey. A simple Chaplin comedy would fit this time and be successful in producing a few laughs, but a sprawling drama is far too condensed.

Despite lacking in length, Wizard of Oz is abundant in creepiness. Its visuals are best described as a meth addict's fever dream. It really does feel like you've been transported into another world entirely, although the lack of colour and poor image quality make the atmosphere terrifying rather than breathtaking and majestic. The costumes are appropriately terrible for the 1910's though. It would certainly be a while before Hollywood would be able to make a great adaptation of Baum's masterwork.

Unfortunately the credits to this picture have long been lost, so it's difficult to attribute this terrible picture to. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was later followed by the sequels Dorothy and the Scarecrow in Oz, The Land of Oz, and John Dough and the Cherub, but all are considered to not exist, which is not shocking considering about 90% of American films made before 1929 and 75% of all silent films cannot be recovered. 1.5/5

Greed Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Greed
Year: 1924
Director: Erich Von Stroheim
Country: US
Language: English

Erich Von Stroheim's Greed is considered a classic, despite much of its parts missing that are deemed essential by its creator. Much like Terry Gilliam's Brazil, this picture's tumultuous production is the stuff of legend. Originally more than nine hours long, it would be cut and cut and cut again, until its run-time was reduced by more than 60% at about 140 minutes. It was MGM's (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer)  first feature length attraction and the first movie to be shot entirely on location. Stroheim's work was a remarkable achievement for its time.

The sudden fortune won from a lottery fans such destructive greed that it ruins the lives of the three people involved.

Taking two years to shoot, Stroheim intended to use his immense film-making knowledge & talent as meticulously as possible. He dreamed of making the most realistic non-documentary movie possible with his adaptation of Frank Norris' novel McTeague. Unfortunately he was commissioned by family friendly MGM to do so, and Stroheim's nemesis Irving Thalberg had just become the new General Manager. He originally fled from Universal to MGM in order to get away from Thalberg, who would continuously stifle his creativity. but Thalberg was unrelenting. It cost $750,000 to make, but a petty rivalry would see that much of the money be wasted. 

Stroheim called the editing "a mutilation of my sincere work at the hands of MGM executives", only a handful of people ever saw his original intended version. In CEO Louis B. Mayer's view a fortune had been squandered on an unreleasable picture. He thought the public would hate a film so sour & cynical, which in turn would tarnish MGM's brand. Regardless, the surviving versions of Greed are visually haunting and mesmerizing. It's an uncompromising exercise in naturalism, capturing the rough working-class lives of the new U.S. cities..It's shocking in the depiction of how low many humans will stoop. Although the story is incredibly detailed, it is rather straightforward in approach. It is thematically compelling; even with the four hour version, restored by Rick Schmidlin in 1999, it will have you wanting more. 

Greed is a gripping study of human flaws that is well concieved and utterly convincing. Stroheim is unrelenting with his depiction; his masterful direction lays his audeince in awe. Gibson Gowland does a convincing job in the role of Dr. McTeague. Although parts of Greed feel dated and border on racism, I can confidently say that this is one of the best silent films ever made. Praise it! 5/5

American Sniper Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: American Sniper
Year: 2014
Director: Clint Eastwood
Country: US
Language: English

As an actor, Clint Eastwood is a legend; rarely does he play a wrong part. throughout his career he has created memorable characters like the man with no name from Sergio Leone's Dollars Trilogy and Harry from Dirty Harry. I have a harder time buying Clint Eastwood as a credible director. Certainly he has a few good films under his belt (Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby) but he has made just as many poor pictures (Gran Torino, J. Edgar) and, I'd argue, has yet to make a true masterpiece. American Sniper is his latest venture, it was nominated for "Best Picture" at the 2015 Academy Awards. 

Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle's (Bradley Cooper) pinpoint accuracy saves countless lives on the battlefield and turns him into a legend. Back home to his wife and kids after four tours of duty, however, Chris finds that it is the war he can't leave behind.

When it comes to war films, American Sniper is in the shallow pool.  It turns the complex politics of the Iraq War into a sugarcoated near-propaganda piece. Much like Vietnam, the goal of the Iraq War was heavily debated and still confuses people to this day. The United States won nothing in the war; in-fact they may have lost their credibility as "peace-keepers" considering the staggering amount of innocent Iraqi casualties. Eastwood asks us to see Kyle, a man who had over 160 confirmed kills, as a martyr for his country but chooses to ignore the consequences of invading a country that had no ties to 9/11 and no meaningful ties to Al Queda. At no point does Eastwood even consider telling us that the war was based on false accusations.

Granted Eastwood does choose to show some alienation (que cliche soldier saying "I don't even know why I'm here, man!") and some consequences of war such as Kyle's post trauamatic stress disorder but it doesn't even come close to reality. Even Kyle's sniping isn't accurate; you can't just point at your target and shoot, especially during an approaching sandstorm. A sniper has to take in account distance, wind, the rotating reference frame, hemisphere and many other calculations. 

Of course, it's easy to criticize the United States decision about the Iraq War after the fact. In 2001, people from all over the world had the same thoughts of shock and awe after 9/11. Most Americans thought Iraq did have Weapons of Mass Destruction and that the elimination of Al Queda was an absolute necessity. Kyle's feelings did ring true and American Sniper is an accurate depiction of the blind patriotism that was rampant throughout the early 2000's. If made ten years ago, it would definitley have won "Best Picture". Unfortunately, it's a picture that arrived too late on the scene and is full of outdated rhetoric. 

It was quite strange to be on the side of a man with such a simplistic view of evil and who frequently called the Muslim community as a whole "savages". Overall I found myself in awe from the well-choreographed combat scenes. The picture isn't bad as mindless entertainment as it has aesthetic value and is quite stunning visually. However, the moral and political implications from American Sniper are quite disturbing. Perhaps Eastwood thought he was portraying the war in an honest light, perhaps he didn't care, but he could have done a more thorough job. 2.5/5

Tree of Life Re-Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Tree of Life
Year: 2011
Director: Terrence Malick
Country: US
Language: English

Born November 30, 1943 Terrence Malick is a beloved American film director, screenwriter, and producer. Over the last four decades he has directed six feature films which mostly received praise from critics and cinephiles alike. In time he has been regarded as one of the greatest living filmmakers. His most polarizing picture by far has been Tree of Life. I remember seeing it in a theater in 2011, and most of the audience walked out within the first 30 minutes. I personally hated it, but after watching the film many times since then I have changed my opinion entirely.

The film follows the life journey of the eldest son, Jack, through the innocence of childhood to his disillusioned adult years as he tries to reconcile a complicated relationship with his father (Brad Pitt). Jack (played as an adult by Sean Penn) finds himself a lost soul in the modern world, seeking answers to the origins and meaning of life while questioning the existence of faith.

 Often compared to Stanley Kubrick's 1968 Science Fiction epic 2001: A Space Odyssey, Tree of Life is a visionary emanation full of extraordinary visual poetry and metaphysical yearning. Although it doesn't embrace the media's usual Leave it to Beaver re-vision of history, Malick's portrayal of that era is remarkably accurate; at least according to those who actually lived through the 50's. Malick’s philosophy pines for the salve of love and spirit, his picture is an inquiry into the nature of the Universe and the very existence of God. It is brooding, reflecting and spiritual.

Winning the Palme d’Or at Cannes in 2011, Tree of Life is a rarity; it's a picture that has been adored and scorned in equal measure. I mentioned early that at the screening I went to most of the audience walked out, but this was not a rare occasion; all across North America film-goers would either leave their seats in disgust or stay glued to their seat in amazement. At Cannes it recieved a chorus of boos, yet left with its grand prize.

Malick conducts his five editors the way great composers conjure art from thin air, creating an unforgettable symphony of beauty, introspection, and wells of unabashed feeling. He encompasses the entire Universe in one sequence; showing the full beauty of life and allowing us to be engulfed in breathtaking visuals while listening to opera. At times Tree of Life can be too remote to grasp and the incredibly slow pace may disturb some viewers, but I let myself enjoy it and found myself entrenched in emotion.

In conclusion, Tree of Life is a movie that one must watch more than once because it deserves your time and full attention. You may hate it the first time like I did, but after a while you will get to understand its poetic nature and it will be easy to connect with. Certainly this is a very personal film for Malick to make; it is quite ambitious.
Praise it! 5/5

Space Jam Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Space Jam
Year: 1996
Director: Joe Pytka
Country: US
Language: English

Golfing has Tiger Woods, wrestling has Hulk Hogan, Baseball has Babe Ruth and Basketball has Michael Jordan. Born February 17, 1963 Michael Jeffrey Jordan is a household name, he is synonymous with basketball. Jordan played 15 seasons in the National Basketball Association (NBA) for the Chicago Bulls and Washington Wizards, eventually gaining a reputation as one of the best defensive players in basketball. The most effectively marketed athlete of his generation, Jordan is a five time MVP award winner, he fueled the success of Nike's Air Jordan sneakers and starred in Space Jam alongside Bugs Bunny.

In Space Jam, Michael Jordan agrees to help the Looney Toons play a basketball game vs. alien slavers to determine their freedom.

The movie has a distinct charm that separates itself from other films aimed at children that also have sleazy merchandising tie-ins. While Michael Jordan is a very poor actor, the absurdity of his situation makes the story quite compelling. He doesn't try to act too goofy; his comedy comes from playing it straight.  It also helps to have the anarchic antics of Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Tweety Bird (amongst others) as a supporting cast. The movie entertains kids while also not be mind numbingly boring for adults. This is a great use of Michael Jordan's image, while at the same time introducing old characters to a new generation of film-goers.

The cartoon sequences employ traditional animation techniques and newer approaches, like computer animation. The use of live-action and animation often blend perfectly together, but sometimes seem quite dated compared to 2015, then again does Hollywood still make crossovers like this? Unfortunately Space Jam lacks urgency in its central conflict. If the Toons loose this game of basketball they will be ENSLAVED FOREVER. I understand that there needs to be humor, because if it was full of doubt and dread then the picture wouldn't appeal to children, but his pregame speech is “Let’s just go out and have fun.” Have some FUN?! When your lives are on the line?! The writer's needed to come up with lesser stakes if they wanted the basketball game to be all about "fun"

In conclusion, I'm disappointed that Bugs Bunny did not appear in drag to distract a few sexually confused monsters. However Space Jam was still a fun movie for its time and isn't terrible to watch as an adult almost twenty years later. Many parts feel dated, there is a lot of throwaway humour and sometimes the flick lacks drama where it needs it, but overall it's a marketing ploy gone right. Did I mention Bill Murray? Yeah, it has Bill Murray. 3/5

Pokemon: The First Movie Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Pokemon, The First Movie
Year: 1998
Director: Kunihiko Tajiri
Country: Japan
Language: Japanese/English

Pokemon began as a Nintendo Game Boy game and has since proliferated into spinoffs, clones, ancillary rights, books, videos, TV shows, toys, trading cards and a few movies. It is a media franchise owned by The Pokémon Company, and created by Satoshi Tajiri in 1995. Essentially it is centered on fictional creatures called "Pokemon" which humans capture and train to fight each other for sport. It's quite a strange description for a franchise aimed at children. In the 90's this was all the rage; I remember battling my friends on the playground in elementary school and trading a few mediocre cards for a holographic Poliwhirl (an evolved tadpole that doesn't resemble a frog in anyway)
 
A scientist has found a way to genetically clone one of the Pokemon) named Mew. His invention is named Mewtwo. Mewtwo then clones other Pokemons on his own. e hero, Ash Ketchum ventures with his friends to the villain's island, where battles take place between lots of different kinds of Pokemon  and their clones.

A world centred around elaborate dog-fighting  and PETA hasn't...oh wait, PETA was absolutely furious and decided to create a game of their own called "Black and Blue". Nintendo sued the company and won. Despite fighting each other with various moves like Fire-Blast the Pokemon don't actually die, they faint, so it's more like a morbid adaptation  boxing or UFC I suppose. With a name like The First Movie it's quite obvious that there will be a sequel- and there was- it was called Pokemon 2000. It's a very contradictory picture as the anti-violent message works entirely against the point of the franchise.

The premise was intriguing for the time, but it lacked substance. Nintendo's target audience was children, and it's very easy to write the lack of a discenrable story due to the demographic, but there are plenty of examples of intelligent animation. Despite the critics, Pokémon: The First Movie was an instant commercial success, debuting at number one on the U.S. box office charts and becoming the highest grossing anime film in the United States. Being only 8 years old when this movie came out, I remember being ecstatic about it due to the hype and being overjoyed when seeing the film in theaters. It certainly doesn't hold up now, and may not have been enjoyable for anyone over a certain age limit back then.

In conclusion, though Nintendo still releases pokemon games every few years (most recently Pokemon X & Y for the 3DS)  it is now clear that the international sensation was a fad that has long passed by. Some movies are relics of their time, and this was one of them. Aside from inducing nostalgia, there is not much to get out of this franchise. 2/5

The Thin Blue Line Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Thin Blue Line
Year: 1988
Director: Errol Morris
Country: US
Language: English

Unfamiliar to me until a couple of years ago, Errol Morris is quickly becoming my favorite documentary director. Born in Feb 5th, 1948 Morris is a remarkable filmmaker whose documentaries helped spur a rebirth of non-fiction film in the 80s & garnered wide critical success. Despite the high praise from fans and critics, it would take until late 2003 when Fog of War won him his first academy award for"Best Feature Length Documentary" Perhaps his best known film however is The Thin Blue Line.

Morris recounts the disturbing tale of Randall Dale Adams, a drifter who was charged with the murder of a Dallas police officer and sent to death row, despite evidence that he did not commit the crime. It makes a compelling case of his innocence. 

Errol Morris cites his detective experience as the reason for his often investigative filmmaking.  The Thin Blue Line resulted in a wrongfully convicted man being freed from a lifetime sentence in Texas after serving 13 years for a policeman's murder. The border between activism and art is blurred, because unlike most documentaries, Morris instigated actual positive change among the people involved in this project. The movie addresses real world issues that affect citizens around the world; mainly acts of injustice and the death penalty. Morris showed tremendous courage when he made a serious documentary focusing on a high-stakes topic, which would have brought great dismay if the facts were not in order.

Morris uses techniques not traditionally seen in documentaries, to make his films more dramatic and diverse, such as the Thin Blue Line's incredibly eerie Philip Glass score, and the haunting reenactments of the policeman's murder. The multiple points of view is very much reminiscent of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon. He gives very small doses of emotional reality, which have a tremendous impact on the viewer. Morris films his subjects in formal settings, obliterating their everyday milieus. Lighting is extensive and nonnaturalistic. Clothing appears to be carefully chosen and coordinated by the filmmakers. The highly stylized color scheme suites each testimonial rather well. Morris loves to also focus on his witnesses' facial expressions and body language.

In conclusion, The Thin Blue Line is a masterpiece that changed the landscape of cinema in the late 80's. Through rejecting Cinema Verite, a method which embraced the use of handheld cameras and natural light,  Morris gave the documentary a new vitality, rigor, and importance. It is unfortunate that most documentaries of the 2010's capture a similar entertaining quality but lack to promote actual facts (I'm looking at you Searching For Sugarman) Hopefully future films will aspire to be more like this magnificent picture. Praise it! 5/5

Sullivan's Travels Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Sullivan's Travels
Year: 1941
Director: Preston Sturges
Country: US
Language: English

Born Edmund Preston Biden, Preston Sturges (1898-1959) was a prolific American playwright, screenwriter, and film director. He is best known for reinventing the screwball comedy by writing dialogue  that was not only mature but also felt natural. Sturges is often regarded as the first Hollywood figure to establish success as a screenwriter and then move into directing his own scripts. In a famous story, Sturges reportedly sold his Oscar winning script The Great McGinty for $1 and the ability to direct the picture. 

John L. Sullivan (Joel McCrea)  is usually a director of escapist films, but this time he wants to make a picture about the poor of the world. His producers point out that the man doesn't know a thing about poverty; to Sullivan this seems like a challenge. He hits the road as a hobo to experience poverty first hand and gets a reality shock. 

Sullivan's Travels reminds me of Charlie Chaplin's filmography. It is comedic in tone, has a variety of serious scenes, and intends to convey an important socio-political message. Unlike Chaplin, who gave a daring middle finger to the Nazi Regime with The Great Dictator just a year prior, Sturges is a little more covert. Made during the height of World War Two, this picture seems like Sturges' identity crisis. Should he make serious films for an audience or should he give them escapist comedy? Which is the most moral thing to do in a world full of uncertainty and dread? 

This was the moral dilemma of all of Hollywood at the time. On one hand Directors like Frank Capra left the Screen Directors Guild to enlisted as a major in the United States Army and create propaganda films like The Negro Soldier to boost morale. On the other hand some were content to assist people in ignoring the problems of the world and create fantasies like Victor Fleming's Wizard of Oz. Both were remarkably important and increasingly necessary. Conceived as a self-justification for the creative path Sturges, and many other directors, had chosen, this film will both tickle your funny bone and pluck at your heartstrings. 

In conclusion, though Sullivan's Travels was not initially successful, it eventually earned its status as one of the greatest films ever made. The underlying message is sincere and does not attempt to be "Capra-corn" (a mix of naive, sentimental and condescending) Far from condescending, Sturges gives us an honest glimpse of the politics of the time. 
Praise it! 5/5

A Serbian Film Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: A Serbian Film
Year: 2010
Director: Srdjan Spasojvic
Country: Serbia
Language: Serbian

Violence has indeed lost its subversive power. Long gone are the days where movie audiences, unexposed to onscreen sex and gore. shook in awe at the taboos brought before them. Since then "snuff' has lost its mysterious an innovative power. The exploitation flick was popularized over 40 years ago, thus making A Serbian Film boring and outdated. This is surely a picture which will be forgotten as quickly as it came. Of course the political implications imposed by the Director are far more shocking than it's shallow NC-17 rating. This review will not go on about Serbian Films' violence, but rather its politics. 

The protagonist at the center of  very intimate crimes which include necrophilia and pedophilia, played by Srdjan Todorovic, is constantly being ordered, drugged, coerced, forced and threatened by a mad director behind the camera filming the snuff movie in the making.

 Even after the 49 cuts demanded by the BBFC, A Serbian Film often makes lists dedicated to the sought after accolade "nastiest movie ever made." I agree, but not due to the visuals we see on screen. The director, Srdjan Spasojvic insists: "This is a diary of our own molestation by the Serbian government. It's about the monolithic power of leaders who hypnotize you to do things you don't want to do." He refers to ethnic cleansing and the government’s implication in it, an era he has personally lived through. Unfortunately this picture is not like Downfall, where we are shown a depiction of a past Germany that is now clean, this terrible injustice is still part of the country’s ideological and non-cathartic discourse. 

In 2011 Slavisa Buric was commemorated as a national hero, despite the fact that he was responsible for mass rapes and the notorious Srebrenica massacre. Flags depicting Ratko Mladic, a war criminal charged with the Bosnian genocide hung during a ceremony which mourned the loss of 700,000 citizens who were murdered for the sake of ethnic cleansing in the late 80's to early 90's. Srjadan tries to justify the criminal actions of his countrymen, and their warped ideolody by stating "the government made us do it!". There is nothing more disgusting than people who try to redeem themselves from the responsibility of genocide. Extreme nationalism is not injected into an individual by any government body.

In conclusion, the ideology behind A Serbian Film is as bad as any 1930's German propaganda film. I'd put this right up there with The Eternal Jew. The country and it's citizens need to be justified long after the initial tragedy is downright bizarre. It is also strange that viewers are shocked by the images onscreeen rather than the ideology behind it. If you didn't know about this Serbia's history before then I encourage you to read about it yourself. Piss on it! 0.5/5

Gone Girl Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Gone Girl
Year: 2014
Director: David Fincher
Country: US
Language: English

It Happened One Night, When Harry Met Sally, Dear John. These are appropriate films for a date night- if you honestly love your significant other. Gone Girl is the ultimate anti-date picture, it is the film equivalent of Alanis Morissette's Jagged Little Pill. Under normal circumstances I'm underwhelmed by David Fincher, I loathed his cult hit Fight Club, but Gone Girl surpassed my expectations and left me in a mix of awe and despair.

On the occasion of his fifth wedding anniversary, Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) reports that his wife, Amy (Rosamund Pike) , has gone missing. Under pressure from the police and a growing media frenzy, Nick's portrait of a blissful union begins to crumble. Soon his lies, deceits and strange behavior have everyone asking the same dark question: Did Nick Dunne kill his wife? 

Gone Girl is a superb blend of art and entertainment. Unlike 2015's "Best Picture" Oscar winner Birdman, Fincher's film will legitimately appeal to both the casual film goer and the arthouse fanatic. It raises a compelling list of questions, all of which unfold in an intelligent fashion. Adapted from a book by Gillian Flynn, who also shaped this film's script, the picture goes right for the jugular and is unrelenting in its remakable twists and turns.  As soon as you get a handle on what it is, it becomes something else, then something else again. The plot is always one step ahead of its audience.

Ben Affleck is terrific in his role, embodying an imperfect man who is slowly loosing his soul. Despite his good looks, the viewer becomes confident that he murdered his poor wife. Rosamund Pike is shocking; a breakthrough role that you'll be talking about for decades.  Cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth, editor Kirk Baxter and composers Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross create a toxic atmosphere where divorce is the best case scenario. Gone Girl leaves plenty of room to discuss gender roles, marriage and the expectations we place on each other.

In conclusion, though Gone Girl has many plot holes and can't really stand on its own when held under scrutiny (why didn't the police fingerprint the items in the woodshed?) it's still an astonishing picture that deserves great praise. Fincher leaves the viewer with much to think about; thr many swerves make for quite an interesting emotional journey. Praise it! 4/5

Ben Hur (1925) Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Ben-Hur, A Tale of Christ
Year: 1925
Director: Fred Niblo
Country: US
Language: English

When we think of the silent era, often a comedy starring Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd or Charlie Chaplin comes to mind. When we think of Ben Hur, William Wyler's 1959 epic comes to the forefront. While that film received great acclaim, sweeping the 1960 Academy awards, I'd argue that the original Ben Hur, a monumental epic of the silent period, was far greater than its counterpart. At nearly 2.5 hours long, this version is an hour shorter than Wyler's, but contains essentially the same story and is far more exciting.

Charlton Heston stars as Judah Ben-Hur,  a Jewish prince who is betrayed and sent into slavery by a Roman friend, later regains his freedom and comes back for revenge.

According to The Guinness Book of World Records, Ben Hur contains the most edited scene in cinema history. Editor Lloyd Nosler compressed 200,000 feet (60,960 meters) of film into a mere 750 feet (228.6 meters) for the chariot race scene - a ratio of 267:1 (film shot to film shown). Considering all editing had to be done by hand at this particular period of time, the feat is quite impressive. 

The creation of the picture is now part of Hollywood folklore; hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on the troublesome location shooting in Italy--money that was lost when most of the footage proved unusable;the budget skyrocketed due to all sorts of accidents, recastings and a change of director halfway through production.Ben Hur had a cast of over 125,000, among the extras were future MGM royalty like Clark Gable, Gary Cooper and Douglas Fairbanks.

Ben Hur proves to be an uneven experience overall. There are many scenes of cinematic brilliance, like the pulse pounding chariot scene. However, there are also incredibly boring stagey scenes which feel a lot like filler. This is a rare Hollywood film with nudity; I suppose the censors allowed it because the picture is primarily directed towards a Christian demographic. At $3.9 million, it is the most expensive silent movie ever. Even almost a century later the film is a spectacle to behold. The cinematography is fascinating, the best of that time period. 

In conclusion, while the advertising tag "four years in the making" is usually bologna designed to gain the attention of the press, this time it was honest. Ben-Hur was a treacherous mountain of a film that cost many horses their lives- and definitely harmed a few humans as well. This project was quite ambitious, and it paid off in the end.  Well, at least for theatrical producers Klaw and Erlanger, who recieved a 50% royalty deal because they owned the rights to the book.  MGM's total profit was 1 million. 4/5

Ride the Pink Horse Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

 Title: Ride the Pink Horse
Director: Robert Montgomery
Year: 1947
Country: US
Language: English

What is film noir? Is it a mood? A visual style? A genre? Film historians, cinephiles and critics cannot agree on the exact terms for which a "film noir" may fall under. However, it is primarily used used primarily to describe stylish Hollywod Crime dramas of the 40's and 50's, particularly those that emphasize cynical attitudes and sexual motivations. I personally feel that "film noir" is an attitude. In North America these films describe the angst of our post-war victory. We defeated the axis, but we lost our moral compass in doing so. America used nuclear bombs to annihilate millions of innocent civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima and they feared that a day of judgement would come when the not so righteous would be brought to the light. 

An adaptation of Dorothy B. Hughes 1946 novel, Ride the Pink Horse is about a man named Gagin (Robert Montgomery) who has come to the bordertown of San Pablo in order to find an equally mysterious Frank Hugo. His mission is equal parts revenge for his best friend, who died at the hands of Hugo, and blackmail.

Montgomery's movie contains all the ingredients that are fundamental to the American film noir. A heightened atmosphere of postwar anxiety and despair, mixed with off-kilter, gritty, jaunty and dark characters. There is a merging of class and race consciousness throughout the film, and although overall there is a positive message about race relations, at times the picture can seem quite racist. The main character is very much a Western idealist and orientalzes the Mexicans to the point where they are very much alien. However I suppose the gradual shift in his character justifies this point of view. 

The background music alone is haunting, demonstrating the alarming case of undigested horror of a society that may be dawning towards nuclear annihilation. Idealism in Ride the Pink Horse is abandoned, our character's world is a topsy turvy mess where the individual cannot conquer basic desires. Many times our hero asks "what's in it for me?" the temptation to belong to a group of scoundrels villains is almost too great. Russell Metty's cinematography gives us a sense of confusion, loss and grief. This world is dirty, shallow and unwanted. Even the carousel, normally a symbol of joy, is seen as a place where a man can lose his soul.

In conclusion, Ride the Pink Horse is a great gem of the Classical Hollywood era. It is almost forgotten, which is a shame because of how well it captures the period at the time. Despite its dark foreboding tone, the picture is overall redemptive and gives the viewer hope for a better future. Robert Montgomery was a great actor, but an even better director. 4.5/5

Watership Down Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Watership Down
Year: 1978
Director: Martin Rosen
Country: UK
Language: English

"All the world will be your enemy, Prince of a Thousand enemies. And when they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you" says the narrator in the opening lines of Martin Rosen's Watership Down, based upon the acclaimed novel by Richard Adams. When it was first released in 1978 the British  Board of Film Classification had given it a U for Universal, this meant that the picture's most violent scenes were accessible to even the youngest of children. Rosen had tried to make the film's poster unappealing to family audiences, depicting a rabbit in a snare, but they still went and found themselves outraged when their children was shocked by the visual imagery.

This animated feature delves into the surprisingly violent world of a warren of rabbits as they seek to establish a new colony free of tyranny and human intervention.

Watership Down was the greatest Cinematic experience I've ever felt from an animated movie, not to knock animation as overall it is a truly wonderful artistic expression. I truly felt connected to many of the rabbits, I feared for their lives when danger was afoot, I wept when they wept. The story is almost biblical in nature; Rosen never shies away from the essential questions about life and death. It consists of bittersweet wisdom and heartbreak, but despite that it is comforting, even hopeful. 

Martin Rosen's film is very sociological in nature; it addresses real life concerns about industrialization and communism, and is all the better for it. At first glance one might be struck by all the blood in the film, but it has intellectual purpose, seeking to preserve the immediate danger of the world. Watership Down without its horror would be a completely different picture that would lose any poetic poignancy. It's visual style is naturalistic, although in some scenes it can look rather avant garde. The animators did a remarkable job, as it looks fantastic even today.

In conclusion, Watership Down is a must see for anybody who takes film seriously as a medium. It is striking and bold, everybody involved must have had the courage of a lion in order to produce this. Rosen not only does the book justice, but his message seems more successful that the book. Beautiful imagery floods the screen and makes a tremendous impact on all who see it. Praise it! 5/5