Husbands and Wives Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Husbands and Wives
Year: 1992
Director: Woody Allen 
Country: US
Language: English

The thirteenth of thirteen pictures Mia Farrow and Woody Allen collaborated on, Husbands and Wives premiered during a difficult time in the couples' lives; they were breaking up after a long relationship. Allen was having an affair with Farrow's adopted Korean daughter Soon-Yi, who was just 21years old at the time. According to Farrow, she made the discovery of Allen’s affair when she found a stack of nude Polaroids taken by him of her daughter. Was Allen and Soon-Yi's relationship built on incest? Not technically, at least from a legal and biological perceptive. Unfortunately the negative press everyone involved has received since then due to the incident has changed public perception. Even though Woody Allen still makes great pictures, his reputation will forever be tarnished. 

When Jack (Sydney Pollack) and Sally (Judy David) announce that they're splitting up, this comes as a shock to their best friends Gabe (Woody Allen) and Judy (Mia Farrow). Maybe mostly because they also are drifting apart and are now being made aware of it. So while Jack and Sally try to go on and meet new people, the marriage of Gabe and Judy gets more and more strained, and they begin to find themselves being attracted to other people.

Hoping to piggyback on the scandal surrounding Woody Allen and Mia Farrow's breakup, TriStar opened Husbands and Wives a week earlier than expected and to more screens (865) than ever given to Woody Allen at the time. As a result they were awarded with an opening weekend of 3.52 million, the biggest ever for the Director until that point in time. Speaking strictly of cinematography, this picture was quite unique looking, mainly because Allen sought out to break all the traditional rules of film-making. He cut scenes at random, used hand-held cameras for no specific reason and would shoot the side and back of the performer's heads. It's visually distinct from the actor's filmography and thus stands out. 

Allen's thought-provoking work dissects the long-term effects of being with the same person for a long time: familiarity, infidelity, stagnation and indifference.  The concept is modeled after Swedish Icon Ingmar Bergman's Scenes From A Marriage (1973) Allen argues that argues is that many "rational" relationships are actually not as durable as they seem, often both partners want to be happy on their own terms. Sometimes it's just a case of "the grass is greener on the other side". Being single can look quite enjoyable when one is married and vice versa. Both couples in the film are really asking the same question: Is this all there is? Must we abandon our fantasies of the perfect partner in order to accept the comfort and truth of our real one? People are very hard to please. Television and films sell us on the idea of a "perfect" partner, one that can fulfill every need, but we forget that "perfection" cannot be obtained. Though we can have a few of the character traits we desire, having all of them is a bit much.

I laughed during the scene where a man lists his perfect woman, but then ends up describing a female version of himself. Far too many people have standards much greater than they can achieve. Allen hits a lot of right notes and makes some very honest observations about people in North American Culture. I'd certainly watch it again. 
Praise it! 4.5/5

Stardust Memories Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Stardust Memories
Year: 1980
Director: Woody Allen
Country: US
Language: English

When Stardust Memories premiered in 1980, it was disliked by critics and audience members alike. Woody Allen intended the picture to be his 8 1/2, as noted from the very beginning where Allen is trapped in a railroad car which is a direct homage to Marcello Mastroianni trapped in his auto at the start of the Fellini film. It is a more pessimistic picture than the beloved Manhattan, made only a year earlier, and a great departure from the comedies that made him so adored by the public.

Renowned filmmaker Sandy Bates (Woody Allen) is in a professional transition, directing largely comedies early in his career now wanting to direct more serious movies so that he can explore the meaning of life, most specifically his own. Most are fighting him all along the way, including the movie going public, who continually tell him that they love his movies especially the earlier funny ones

Despite the fairly obvious autobiographical tone of the film, Woody Allen  has consistently insisted that this is not an autobiographical picture. Stardust Memories, as well as Interiors (1978) represented a great change in the Director's style, mood and overarching themes. For some time he would explore his philosophical angst while paying homage to great artists like Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini and Francois Truffaut. Though his pictures would still be funny, they would be a different kind of funny. His earlier films like Sleeper (1973) and Bananas (1971) relied heavily on the chaos of slapstick comedy. Allen's new brand of comedy was reflective in nature and primarily utilized by speech. 

 Stardust Memories represents Woody Allen's desire to break free from the typecast jokester that the public has tried to make him to be. He is a little cruel towards his fans, portraying many as clueless bimbos and mindless suits, but I could see how he would feel alienated towards people who claim to "know" him but really don't. The film looks quite different than many others at the time, which can be credited towards the unusual editing stylizing by Susan Morse and  Godon Willis' evocative black and white cinematography.

The film perceptively explores the relationships between art and reality, between the artist and his work, between the work and its consumers. While it's not Allen's greatest work, it certainly is thought provoking and worthwhile to view many times. Very few film-makers can mix comedy, tragedy and pathos so well. Praise it! 4.5/5

American Psycho Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: American Psycho
Year: 2000
Director: Mary Harron
Country: US
Language: English

Besides Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty, how many American films can you name with a prominent female director? Directed by Mary Harron, American Psycho is an adaptation of  Bret Easton Ellis' novel which was originally published in 1991. Though Harron was not Producer Edward R. Presson's first choice, which was David Cronenberg, she proved to handle the "masculine" material greater than any male Director could. Debuting at the Sundance Film Festival, the film polarized critics; some showered it with praise, others detested it. I personally find the picture hilarious in an incredibly dark way.

A wealthy New York investment banking executive (Christian Bale) hides his alternate psychopathic ego from his co-workers and friends as he escalates deeper into his illogical, gratuitous fantasies.

Surprisingly, Christian Bale wasn't the original casting choice to play the intensely creepy Patrick Bateman. Lionsgate pursued Leonardo DeCaprio and Edward Norton, claiming that Bale was not famous enough at the time. Harron refused to work with DiCaprio, and ultimately the studio made the right decision. Bale's acting is tremendous; he is completely absorbed in the role of the sociopath serial killer. The characters acts as if everything is a commodity, even people. He is a self-absorbed, superficial man, which is intelligently demonstrated in the scene where he shows the audience his morning routine.

Harron has considered American Psycho a "feminist" picture and we can certainly see why. She is less impressed with Patrick Bateman than a male director like Martin Scorsese might be.  She does not glorify Bateman's actions; rather he shows the vile, cruel and pathetic nature of 1980's yuppies, greed and narcissism creates a toxic atmosphere, yet it has a rather humorous edge. American Psycho is a complete satire of masculinity and male culture. 

Although I was hesitant to watch it at first, I'm glad I finally did. American Psycho is a great picture with an astonishing amount to about North American culture. The film is riveting and beats to its own drum. It's politically incorrect, psychotic and legitimately chilling. Worth more than one viewing. Praise it! 4.5/5

Finding Nemo Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

 Title: Finding Nemo
Year: 2003
Director: Andrew Stanton
Country: US
Language: English

Finding Nemo, the highest grossing animated movie at that time,  had a rather interesting effect on pet owners across the globe. Due to the film's theme of "freedom" many children flushed their fish down the toilet, hoping it would eventually end up in the ocean. Others released their venomous fish directly into the ocean, ruining the ecological balance of a nearby area. Demand for tropical fish exploded right after the film's release, especially for clown fish and blue tang, the main characters' species. Unfortunately few people knew how to take care of these fish and ended up killing them by accident. In many areas the population of clown fish dropped by 75%. 

After his son is captured in the Great Barrier Reef and taken to Sydney, a timid clownfish (Albert Brooks) sets out on a journey to bring him home. He later finds a forgetful companion named Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) who helps him in his adventure. 

Winning an Academy Award for "Best Animated Feature" at the Academy Awards, Finding Nemo received great praise upon its release and proved to be a great financial and critical success. I would agree with all the positive attention Nemo has received; this has to be my favorite Pixar film. It's charming, chaotic and funny. The animation is full of lush beautiful color and is incredibly detailed. Each character has a magnetic personality and is wonderfully voice acted. 

The story is rather simple, but the execution is intelligent and well conceived. Finding Nemo is an adventure flick at heart where stunning visuals compliment masterful storytelling. The film works well because it  taps into the primal fear all children have of being separated from their parents - and the concomitant fear all parents have of being separated from their children. Its themes are rather complex considering the demographic it is aimed at, but this complexity also ensures that many generations can appreciate Nemo in various ways.

Finding Nemo is a hearfelt picture that works well on multiple fronts. It's silly and entertaining, but can also be powerful tearjerker. Under its comforting narrative arc, it presents a stark vision of the sea world as a treacherous jungle that, for all its beauty and excitement, is an extremely dangerous place to live. Praise it! 4/5

Peter Pan (1953) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

 Title: Peter Pan
Year: 1953
Director: Clyde Geronimi 
Country: US
Language: English

Disney's Peter Pan was the late Michael Jackson's favorite film. He bestowed the name Neverland on his ranch in Santa Barbara, which was complete with a private amusement park and a petting zoo. Unfortunately he was forced to vacate it after controversy regarding his involvement with young children in 2005. Walt Disney himself was quite smitten with J.M Barrie's play; having tried to buy the film rights since 1935. The hold-up in negotiations was because Barrie had bequeathed the rights to Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children in London.

Wendy and her brothers are whisked away to the magical world of Neverland with the hero of their stories, a boy who never grew up called Peter Pan. Unfortunately they find themselves in the middle of an ongoing war between Peter's gang of rag-tag runaways and the evil Pirate Captain Hook.

Disney's 14th animated feature, Peter Pan represented two "lasts" for Disney: first, it was the final Disney film in which all nine members of the Nine Old Men worked together on it as directing animators; second, it was the last full-length Disney animated film distributed by RKO Radio Pictures. It was intended to follow Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, but WWII shelved its production. Although financially and critically successful upon its release, Peter Pan would recieve great criticism from Walt himself as he considered the protagonist to be "cold" and "unlikeable".

Peter Pan never had a profound effect on me as a child, thus I find it difficult to give too much praise. The characters are fluid and life-like; they are splashed with color and go well with the often moody background. The picture has its charm, although the portrayal of North American aboriginals is incredibly distasteful, perhaps even for its time. The songs are superb and instantly memorable. The villain has far more charisma and screen presence than Pan himself.

The film may be exciting for some, as it presents themes of adventure and chivalry. I wouldn't rate Peter Pan highly as I prefer a dozen other Disney films over this, but it certainly isn't bad. Entertaining and beautiful, it's good for at least one viewing. 3.5/5

Alice in Wonderland (1951) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Alice in Wonderland
Year: 1951
Studio: Disney
Country: US
Language: English

"One pill makes you larger
 and one pill makes you small
and the ones that mother gives you
don't do anything at all"

Alice in Wonderland wasn't a critical or commercial success in the 50's, but it gained a cult following a decade later and has maintained a steady fan-base ever since. There are very few Disney flicks from that era which have aged as well as Alice, even fewer which are so casually infused into modern pop culture as references. Notably, in The Matrix the protagonist Neo (Keanu Reeve) must "follow the white rabbit" if he is to learn more about his destiny.

 On a golden afternoon, young Alice follows a White Rabbit, who disappears down a nearby rabbit hole. Quickly following him, she tumbles into the burrow - and enters the mad, topsy-turvy world of Wonderland.

Alice in Wonderland took five years to complete, but was in development for over ten years before it entered active production.It was originally meant to have been a blend of live-action and animation, but rival studio Paramount rushed an Alice picture to market and Disney shelved the project. It was Disney's most expensive production to date, but reviewers of the time considered it kind of a mess and an unsuccessful attempt to mix the work of multiple directors over a difficult adaptation. I personally feel that it makes great use of Lewis Carroll's source material, although it is far more psychedelic in tone.

Scholars of Carroll might detest this "adaptation", because it isn't exactly faithful to the original material. However, I'd argue that Disney improved a great work. The animators did not hold back with the colour; rather they went all out and gave the story a rich and vibrant settings to go along with the peculiar characters. Everybody in this picture was twisted in their own way; who could forget the madhatter or the chcshire cat? Alice has incredibly subversive themes for 1951, but unfortunately it's not at all subtle when shown for a modern audience.

Entertaining, historically important and warped. Alice in Wonderland is a picture that isn't easy to forget. While it's reputation as a "trippy" stoner movie may be a bit exaggerated (I've seen much stranger animation) it definitely is worth checking out. Praise it! 4/5

The Unknown Known Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Unknown Known
Year: 2013
Director: Errol Morris
Country: US
Language: English

Born July 9, 1932 Donald Henry Rumsfeld is an American politician and businessman. Rumsfeld served as the 13th Secretary of Defense from 1975 to 1977 under President Gerald Ford, and as the 21st Secretary of Defense from 2001 to 2006 under President George W. Bush. Consequentially he was both the youngest and oldest person to have served as the Secretary of Defense. He is most notable for planning the United States' response to the September 11 attacks, which include two wars; one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. Both wars have since been considered failures as America's involvement has only made the regions far worse.

In Errol Morris' picture, the former United States Secretary of Defense discusses his career in Washington D.C. from his days as a congressman in the early 1960s to planning the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The Unknown Known is a frustrating picture, because unlike the subject of Fog of War (Robert S. McNamara) Morris can't get Rumsfeld to atone for his post 9/11 sins. The best Rumsfeld comes up with is "Sometimes things work out and somethings things don't work out. This didn't work out." The subject is manipulative, unreliable and dodges the truth with his various "definitions" of certain words. A more aggressive interrogation was needed, as Rumsfeld didn't expand on the morality of the war, nor the many consequences of it. He is almost eager to dismiss Vietnam, but struggles with the reality of his most recent venture.

Yet, it's not like Rumsfeld is purposefully stone-walling Errol Morris. In-fact the 82 year old man, who comes off as quite energetic, thinks he is being very candid and revealing regarding his personal and professional life. His memories are very impersonal, as are his feelings for those he worked under. We do get a sense that he is unable to separate the two, and that the smokescreen of deceit he has had to hide under during the early to late 2000's has clouded his view of "the truth". If anything, The Unknown Known shows us the danger of charisma, and the folly of definition. An enemy soldier does not get POW treatment if they are technically defined as a "terrorist".

Weaving its central interview through archival footage, poetic images of snow globes and seascapes while having a haunting score by Danny Elfman, Morris gives his subject plenty of rope, but Rumsfeld refuses to hang himself. Morris could have done better than to make borderline propaganda, although he does give us insight into the mind of an American politician even if that person refuses to accept fault for their poor judgement. 2.5/5

The Devil and Daniel Webster Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Devil and Daniel Webster
Year: 1941
Director: William Dieterle
Country: US
Language: English

The four year period under George Schaefer was RKO Pictures' golden age. He sought to elevate the studio’s output and had brought Welles to Hollywood. Another great action Schaefer made was to back William Dieterle’s first independent production, a screen adaptation of Stephen Vincent Benet’s short story The Devil and Daniel Webster. It followed in the footsteps of the controversial Citizen Kane, yet was not entirely overshadowed by it. Inheriting the services of several Kane alumni—editor Robert Wise, composer Bernard Herrmann, and special effects expert Vernon L. Walker, Webster proved to be an ambitious project. 

A down-on-his-luck farmer (James Craig) makes a deal with the devil (Walter Houston) for seven years of prosperity. When Mr. Scratch comes to collect, orator and hero of the common man Daniel Webster (Edward Arnold) comes to the rescue

Dieterle's direction is daring and deliberate; his meticulous use of light and shadow make the overall narrative disturbing, unsettling and full of gloom. His cinematographer, Joseph August, makes every shadow on the screen seem remarkably important. Devil and Daniel Webster has an atmosphere reminiscent of German Expressionism. Indeed, many times the mood is darker than Cabinet of Dr.Caligari. Bernard Herrmann’s Oscar-winning musical score contains many terrific moments, the best of which comes during the barn dance scene where Mr.Scratch plays a chaotic fiddle tune. 

The politics of this picture can certainly be traced back to attitudes of the late 30's and early 40's. Neighborliness, and mutual aid—community—as exemplified by the grange, are good. The Devil represents individualism; he allows people to indulge in their own whims at the expense of the community. Dieterle warns that the forces of self-interest will break the social contract that binds all men together. Walter Huston does a tremendous job as Mr.Scratch (aka "The Devil") making the character unsympathetic and captivating at the same time. His performance was the glue that held everything in the story together.

Unfortunately, the forces of good win all too easily. All it takes to beat the devil is a small speech about freedom from an American politician. If the joke was that America's past deeds surmount the deeds of the Devil then it would have made a remarkable point. However the Americans are a great good in this story, even when the Devil points out their history of slavery and genocide. The fictional Daniel Webster says "a man is not a piece of property" yet his historical alter-ego upheld the notion of slavery. I would have enjoyed a long debate about the problem of evil and American hipocrisy, but unfortunately we get a dose of sentimentalism and whitewashing that comes off as a tad condescending. A good film, but not a masterpiece. 3.5/5

Transfer (2010) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

 Title: Transfer
Year: 2010
Director: Damir Lukacevic
Country: Germany
Language: German

My friend Herta Neufeld recommended I review a 2010 German film called Transfer quite a while ago. This is available on Netflix, but I admittedly pirated it because I don't intend to give the popular streaming site a dime of my money, mainly since I use Hulu due to its vast Criterion Collection library. Transfer is quite a curious film, as it is/was rarely talked about (in North America at least). Does this mean Damir Lukacevic's picture is an underrated gem, or could it be a horrid atrocity? Lets find out!

In a futuristic society where the wealthy get to live forever by swapping bodies with refugees, an elderly couple explores this opportunity with harsh consequences.

Right away Transfer reminded me of John Frankenheimer's sci-fi masterpiece Seconds, in which Rock Hudson plays a banker who undergoes a procedure to give himself a new identity. Both are unsettling and moody, neither rely on flashy special effects to get their sociological points across. Transfer keeps a serious tone throughout, challenging its viewer to reflect on the moral implications of transferring one's consciousness to another's body.

It might be tempting for some reviewers to dismiss the race issues in the film as a cliche  'bad rich whites exploit minorities' trope which plagues similar films, but the subtle emotional turmoil portrayed by the leads is enough to discount this claim.Transfer is about far more than the evils of capitalism and modern slavery; in-fact it thrives on compassion, sacrifice, empathy and kinship. Every theme is addressed rather tactfully, even though the director walks a fine line between honest intellectual commentary and condescending brainless dribble.

Although low budget, Transfer does well under its monetary constraints. The production design as solid, as well as the cinematography. The orchestral score complements, rather than distracts. My only complaint is that the pacing is a bit too slow, wavering between ingeniously methodical to just plain boring. Still it's a cerebral sci-fi that will send plenty of chills down your spine. Praise it! 4/5