Top Ten Favourite Silent Films

The silent era lasted from 1894 to 1929, until "talkies" became the more popular form of entertainment. Typically during silent films, a pianist, theatre organist, or in large cities, even a small orchestra would play music to accompany the films. A September 2013 report by the United States Library of Congress announced that a total of 70% of American silent feature films are believed to be completely lost. Reasons for this are mainly due to intentional destruction by the studio chiefs, extensive damage due to environmental degradation or fires within the studio. 

We are incredibly lucky to be able to see these films which are, at best, 85 years old. One film on my list celebrating its 101st anniversary! We are also lucky to live in an era where most surviving silent pictures are readily available for home video viewing. Here are my ten favorite silent films. Click on the individual titles for a link to the review.

1. Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)

2. Greed (1924)

3. The Phantom Carriage (1921)

4. Metropolis (1927)

5. City Lights (1931)

6. Speedy (1928)

7. Les Vampires (1915)

8. Intolerance (1916)

9. Ben Hur (1925)

10. Pandora's Box (1929)

Donkey Skin Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Donkey Skin
Year: 1970
Director: Jacques Demy
Country: France
Language: French

As a child, Jacques Demy used to stage fairy-tales like Cinderella and Donkey Skin in his homemade puppet theater. His interest in the Brothers Grimm and other writers would remain throughout his life and seep into his film career. In the 50's he wrote a script for a projected film about a Sleeping Beauty, but it never came to fruition. His most celebrated films would have allusions to the splendid and magical. It wouldn't be until 1970 that Demy would make his first full fledged fairy-tale film adaptation. 

A king and queen live happily until her sudden death. The king decides to marry his lovely daughter. (Catherine Deneuve) She's willing, but the Lily Fairy serves as a social conscience, intent on thwarting incest. The princess escapes her father's clutches wearing the skin of the king's prized donkey.

Not particularly well-known to Anglophone readers, perhaps because of its problematic subject matter, Donkey Skin is a rather interesting story that is improved by Jacques Demy's touch of La Nouvelle Vague. While great director greatly admired the early adaptations of Disney Studios, he was careful to not be as conservative as the house of mouse. For one, Demy gives the princess a tremendous amount of agency within the story. She is fully in control of her destiny and her desires are stronger than that of the men. She is not a passive female who is simply waiting for her prince. 

Demy does a wonderful job of both celebrating and undermining fairy-tale tradition. He challenges sexual taboos by having one of the characters claim that incestuous desire is not wrong for "moral" reasons, but rather reasons of legislature. Keeping in tune with tradition, he saturates the screen with colors and the operetta-like features. Many scenes are pleasantly interrupted by singing and joyously dancing.

It is quite weird to see a helicopter in this film, but the absurdity in Donkey Skin is what helps make the film such a pleasant and unique experience. It's quite an entrancing, absorbing picture that feels far more innovative, endearing, imaginative and mature than anything Disney has made in the last 50 years. To call this picture "great" is an understatement, it's a masterclass of film-making.

Toy Story Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Toy Story
Year: 1995
Director: John Lasseter
Country: US
Language: English

As a piece of history, Toy Story presents several firsts; the first feature by Pixar, the first grand success of many in a track record that seems almost too good to be true and the first fully computer-animated film. The basis of the picture parallels the studio itself as both employ seemingly inanimate objects and give them life. It's quite an achievement to make lifeless objects from computers and have them strike the same emotional chords as say, the dog from Old Yeller. 

A little boy named Andy loves to be in his room, playing with his toys, especially his cowboy themed doll named "Woody" (Tom Hanks). Little does he know that they come to life when humans are not around. Toy Story revolves around Woody's jealousy of a new favorite toy; Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), a space ranger who legitimately thinks he's from another planet. 

Pixar Inc's road to success was a long and treacherous one. Established in 1979,the company went under nearly a dozen times yet maintained maintained fixed on the goal of combining computer technology with traditional hand-drawn animation principles. The film's director John Lasseter had the difficult duty of mastering an art that was practically unheard of while trying to convince the founders of Pixar to use this innovation. The combined talents of George Lucas, Steve Jobs and Edwin Catmull couldn't see the importance of Lasseter's work and would attempt to sway him off the path on more than one occasion. 

110 animators were paid fairly poor salaries for their work as Disney was far too concerned about their own impending releases, Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame, than anything Pixar worked on. Their work was quite difficult as to grasp every character in any given shot requires an extensive synchronization between animators and a profound understanding of character and story for all working on the production. Due to this unheard of unity between everyone involved, Pixar's fusion of artistry and universal storytelling made Toy Story into, at the very least, a great children's film. There is no doubt that this picture will be remembered for decades, and not just because of how it changed animation forever. 

Over the years Disney has made an incredible amount of money distributing Pixar's creations, while the corporate giant itself has created flop after flop. The traditional hand-drawn style of animation is dead in favour of Pixar's more affordable computer imagery. Proving the limitless possibility of animation, Toy Story is truly a magical  film.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Year: 2004
Director: Alfonso Cuaron
Country: US
Language: English

Harry Potter is a series of seven fantasy novels written by British author J. K. Rowling. The novels chronicle the life of a young wizard, Harry Potter, and his friends all of whom are students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The main plot point revolves around the Manson-like Voldemort and his desire to destroy anybody who stands in his way of becoming immortal. Since the late 90's Harry Potter has taken the world by storm; becoming critical and commercially successful as both book and film adaptation. 

Prisoner of Azkaban covers  Harry's third year at Hogwarts; not only does he have a new "Defense Against the Dark Arts" teacher, but there is also trouble brewing. Convicted murderer Sirius Black has escaped the Wizards' Prison and is coming after Harry. 

While I'm not particularly a fan of Harry Potter, I must admit that the third film in the series took me by surprise. The first two films were conventional movies that relied far too heavily on sentimentality, employed conservative direction, and lacked artistry in cinematic terms, but Prisoner of Azkaban is a breath of fresh air in comparison. Alfonso Cuaron creates a wonderfully dark, grayish atmosphere that bursts with energy and mystery. 

For the first time in the series, it's as if the setting is a character unto itself. In addition we get much more mature characters who seem to better fit Rowling's initial themes regarding adulthood and sacrifice. Unlike the first two films, the CGI ("hey look at this!") is secondary to the story. Even in scenes that contain a fair amount of special effects, we are far more emotionally involved in the characters and their situation rather than "Wow that looks cool!".

Prisoner of Azkaban has a great balance of light and dark. There are many unsettling moments, but it also has a fair amount of joy. Considering Cuaron made Y Tu Mama Tambien, I was quite surprised to hear that he would be working on this picture. His artistic genius proved to be magical however, as he brought me the only Harry Potter film worth watching.

W. Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: W.
Year: 2008
Director: Oliver Stone
Country: US
Language: English

George W. Bush served as the 43rd President of the United States from 2000-2009. If you are unaware by now, Bush is considered one of the worst presidents of all time. Just eight months into his presidency the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks occurred. Bush responded by claiming a "War on Terror" which resulted in military campaigns throughout the middle east and cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in the process. He also responded quite poorly to Hurricane Katrina and did not do much when faced with the Wall Street Collapse of 2008. Perhaps the US would have been better off with a broom as president. 

Oliver Stone's biographical take on the life of George W. Bush, one of the most controversial presidents in USA history, chronicling from his wild and carefree days in college, to his 2004 re-election campaign.

The Director views its topic with surprising empathy—which is surprising from the radical director often associated with conspiracy theories, anti-war themes, and harsh political criticism. He  humanizes “Dub-ya”, examining the man from a psychological perspective. Although by "humanizing" I don't mean he makes us relate to the man, rather Stone makes us pity Bush as he is depicted with as a coward with daddy issues and lifelong jealousy; essentially daddy doesn’t give Junior the attention he craves.

Oliver Stone shows the emotional, oil-hungry, and vengeance-seeking Bush unlike any other before him. We see Junior attempting to outdo his father, by finishing the gulf war through any means necessary. Those devoutly opposed to the Bush Administration will find Stone’s cynicism light and tastefully presented, even occasionally hilarious; supporters will likely find the film fair toward the President’s errors.While the man is vengeful, he isn't exactly Stalin. We see a man with problems far over his head, his inability to think too rationally has led to his downfall. 

Actual Bush quotes slipped into the film's dialogue create quite a laugh ("is our children learning?") and Josh Brolin's performance is nothing short of mesmerizing. He gets every detail in the former president's speech down to a tee and mimics his body language in a memorable fashion. I didn't believe Brolin was that good of an actor, but I do now. W. is a good one-time watch, but isn't entertaining enough for a second viewing.

Gods of Egypt Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Gods of  Egypt
Year: 2016
Director: Alex Proyas
Country: US
Language: English

Epic film is a style of filmmaking with large scale, sweeping scope, and spectacle. The usage of the term has shifted over time, sometimes designating a film genre and at other times simply synonymous with big budget filmmaking. Ben Hur is a memorable epic; it has grand chase scenes, thousands of extras, an extremely large budget, lavish costumes, expansive sets and an extravagant musical score. Gods of Egypt is no Ben Hur. 

Mortal hero Bek (Brenton Thwaites) teams with the god Horus (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) in an alliance against Set (Gerard Butler) , the merciless god of darkness, who has usurped Egypt's throne, plunging the once peaceful and prosperous empire into chaos and conflict.

The $140 million budget makes the production of this crap seem like a Shakespearean tragedy. Who thought this was a good idea? It's a sword and sandal "epic" that has no established audience or source material and made with no talent. The script is abysmal, the plotting is a joke and the special effects make The Mummy (1999) look like a James Cameron production in comparison.  This would make a good B-movie companion to Jason and the Argonauts (1963) but is complete trash compared to ANYTHING made nowadays. 

Worse yet it's a film set in Egypt that avoids even a basic attempt to fit into that time period. It features an all white cast, which is poor timing considering the Oscar controversy. Never has a green screen been so obvious in a movie. The ill-fated camerawork exposes the clear distinction between the actors and their backdrops, most of it assembled with computers. Cinematographer Peter Menzies Jr. tries his best to make the film seem appealing, but ultimately the sand-dusted washes of yellow and orange, look shallow. 

Gods of Egypt is a good example of how reliance on machinery eats away at a picture's heart. There is nothing really "human" about this supposed epic. Real talent is wasted in favor of cookie cutter Hollywood trash that serves only to make money. At this point it's doubtful that this production will even break even.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
Year: 2016
Director: Burr Steers
Country: UK
Language: English

Quirk Books' idea was simple; take advantage of public domain laws pertaining to classic literature, add a schlocky spin to a classic text and draw readers more interested in genres other than Jane Austen. It was an oddball concept book that managed to be successful and mass produced. It inspired other hybrid books like Android Karenina & Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters. It was a refreshing novelty...back in 2009. Unfortunately the idea lost steam quite a few years ago. 

The original source material being Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, the film follows five sisters in 19th century England, who must cope with the pressures to marry while (twist!)protecting themselves from a growing population of zombies. 

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies would have been welcomed in the immediate years following the book's release, but in 2016 the hybrid gimmick has long worn out its welcome. A similar film, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter left a sour taste in our mouths, being both a critical and commercial failure. With Walking Dead satisfying the palates of our zombie obsessed culture, do we really need this picture? 

Lacking both the ability to charm its audience &  the ability to be even somewhat humorous, Zombies is a lackluster affair at best. The gimmick could have worked if it was self aware of its satirical quality like Ash vs Evil Dead, but this tonal mess of a film doesn't know what it wants to be. One moment the characters are waltzing at a ball or debating the merits of marriage and the next the film devolves into a zombie-slashing horror romp. Is it scary? No. Is it funny? No. Is is dramatic? No.

The action feels incredibly repetitive; someone is faced with a snarling zombie, freezes in fear, and then is saved at the last moment by a convenient gunshot or axe-throw from offscreen. Far too many scenes are showed in slow motion for an effect known as "bad film-making". Zombies manages to disappoint both fans of Jane Austen and the undead.

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
Year: 2002
Director: George Clooney
Country: US
Language: English

Charles Hirsch "Chuck" Barris (born June 3, 1929) is an American game show creator, producer, and host. He is best known for creating The Gong Show, a televised NBC broadcast which showcased the worst of local talent in attempt at being humorous. He has also created the memorable Newlywed Game and Dating Game. Some consider the man an innovative genius, while others think he lowered the quality of television. Regardless, the man has made an enormous impact on the industry. 

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind is the story of a legendary showman's double life - television producer by day, CIA assassin by night. At the height of his TV career, Chuck Barris was recruited by the CIA and trained to become a covert operative...or so the host himself says.

Spoofed in an article titled "The Movie Marketed as Six Different Genres" by satirical website The Onion,  Confessions of a Dangerous Mind attempts to be the jack of all films, but isn't great enough to satisfy anyone. Granted the picture is intriguing as it carves a competent story out of an incompetent illusion (Barris was on a lot of drugs at the time & the CIA consistently claims that he never worked for them). It has a great sense of humor, but George Clooney doesn't know how to properly mend it with Charlie Kaufman's (at times) dark script. It's difficult to tell if a scene is supposed to be funny, or if it's meant to be dramatic. 

The scriptwriter himself felt dissatisfied with the way Director George Clooney treated his script. Creative differences led to unfortunate changes. This is not to knock Clooney as a director; he has a unique style that blends techniques of older filmmakers (Mike Nichols) and contemporary (Steven Soderbergh) His fashion is visceral, vital and churning with off-the-wall ideas.Even if some ideas don't work, Confessions is interesting enough to keep you hooked to the screen.

If executed well, Barris' double life as a CIA agent could have translated well as a metaphor for his insane drug habits. Some say the film  has an embracing intimacy; while we see the zany game show host at his most vulnerable, I'd say we are still left in the dark about some issues. Barris' biography hides behind made-up CIA escapades to avoid some real truths. Sadly Clooney takes his source material far too literally.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

 Title: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Year: 2007
Director: Andrew Dominik
Country: US
Language: English

Jesse Woodson James (September 5, 1847 – April 3, 1882) was an American outlaw, guerrilla, gang leader, bank robber, train robber, and murderer from the state of Missouri and the most famous member of the James-Younger Gang. Some considered James a "Robin Hood" like figure who stole from the rich and gave to the poor; others thought of him as a heartless killer who preyed on the weak and vulnerable. This film leans towards the latter, greatly questioning the grand myth of a man history often praises him to be. 

In The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Jesse's a wanted man, living under a pseudonym, carrying out a train robbery, disappearing to Kentucky, and reappearing to plan a bank holdup with Robert and Robert's brother as his team. The rest of his gang is either dead or captured. There is a large reward for however kills the infamous outlaw. 

The bulk of the film concerns itself with the shifting dynamics between two men; Jesse James and Robert Ford. The young Ford is in awe of James, while simultaneously terrified of him. At times he craves James' attention; "I been a nobody all my life," he confesses at one point. "And ever since I can remember it, Jesse James has been as big as a tree." James, for his part, has begun to shrink inside himself. Full of paranoia and suspicion, he is a sick outlaw who knows that death is inevitable. The entire film is an immaculate character study.

A breakthrough for director Andrew Dominik, he is tremendously aided by the contributions of cinematographer Roger Deakins. His luminous landscapes are reminiscent of Terrence Malick; his compositions of light and shadow are nothing short of spectacular. He captures 19th Century perfectly; it's as if he lived during that time period. Assassination of Jesse James is an experience unlike any other, it may even surpass the Sergio Leone Spaghetti Westerns that are often hailed as "masterpieces".

 This film is nothing short of phenomenal. At times it may carry a lingering pace, but the slow burn proves to make excellent storytelling. It It gains from an insightful and factual voiceover that occasionally turns poetic ("Insomnia clouded his eyes like soot"). The score is intrinsic to this picture, essential for creating an atmosphere of dread, loss and discovery.

Temple of Doom Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Temple of Doom
Year: 1984
Director: Steven Spielberg
Country: US
Language: English

Adventure stories are not intended to evoke feelings of comfort and safety, but expel any such notion and dangle the audience over the proverbial pit. Temple of Doom may be a greater Indiana Jones installment than Raiders of the Lost Ark because of its greater ability to suspend our disbelief to ridiculous extremes and put our hero into more danger than ever before. What could potentially be more dangerous than freaking nazis? How about human-sacrificing Kali worshippers!

A skirmish in Shanghai puts archaeologist Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) , his partner Short Round (Jonathon Ke Quan)  and singer Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw) crossing paths with an Indian village desperate to reclaim a rock stolen by a secret cult beneath the catacombs of an ancient palace.

Lucas himself has suggested that because of his 1983 divorce, his temperament demanded a more sinister tone for this Indy prequel, matching the pointedly dark, artistically winning mood of the second entry in his Star Wars franchise. Spielberg too had just gone through a nasty divorce and wanted to make a film that matched his circumstances. Indeed Temple of Doom has a darker atmosphere, and is more inherently violent. Critics at the time considered the film far too bloody an affair for the PG rating, thus Spielberg himself would go to the MPAA and suggest to introduce PG-13. 

One reason for Temple of Doom being more bloody, is because it was necessary to show the atrocities of the ancient tribe to get a better understanding of the evil we are dealing with. Raiders of the Last Ark had nazis, who's evil could simply be recognized by the swastika. Despite having a savage edge, the experience remains pure Hollywood escapism. Indiana Jones takes us to places we have never been and evokes a child-like feeling of adventure that lies within us all.

Temple of Doom would go on to earn nearly $180 million at the U.S. box office and later earn an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects.While it was heavily criticized at the time of release, we must not forget that this lies under the shadow of Raiders of Lost Ark. Perhaps the actions, metaphors and themes are simplistic but that doesn't mean we cannot be thrilled by the constant peril we find our hero in.

Conan the Barbarian Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Conan The Barbarian
Year: 1982
Director: John Milius
Country: US
Language: English

In the late 1970s, producer Dino De Laurentiis saw potential in the mainstream popularity of the relatively new “Dungeons & Dragons” game and hired screenwriter Oliver Stone to adapt the similar Conan stories for film. With Conan the Barbarian epic storytelling comes by way of bloody swordfights, brawny heroes, evil wizards, hideous serpents, and scantily clad women. Rather than keeping a comic book tone, director John Milius plays it straight; allowing for a more serious tone that ultimately improves the character. 

A vengeful barbarian warrior (Arnold Schwarzenegger) sets off to avenge his tribe and his parents whom were slain by an evil sorcerer and his warriors when he was a boy. 

In many ways the film is reserved for those who have read the original stories, as critics such as myself can easily just see Conan the Barbarian as masculine exploitation. From what is presented onscreen, the film oozes testosterone to the point of parody. Our hero is a man of many muscles and few words, attempting to protect a varying number of subordinate damsels in distress. Granted Conan takes place in a fictionalized prehistory that has to be stripped down to bare primal instinct. 

Milius’ film can be seen as a product of Schwarzenegger-brand cheese. Many scenes are often unintentionally funny, and there is an atmosphere of camp which fills every frame. Granted, the score is grandiose and the cinematography is outstanding. Milius’ treatment lends a history-in-the-making feel to every scene and his screenplay is filled with religious indictment. Even if Conan can't be taken completely seriously, it still has the feel of an epic. 

With Conan the Barbarian director John Milius sacrifices box office revenue, in exchange for artistic integrity. It is not a "safe" family adventure, rather it does discuss heavy religious implications while having a fairly complex main character. Even if it's a lame duck by today's standards, it still ought to get recognition for inviting lore to the silver screen.

Escape From L.A. Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Escape From L.A.
Year:1996
Director: John Carpenter
Country: US
Language: English

More of a remake of Escape from New York than a sequel, Escape from L.A. represents director John Carpenter at his most venemous. It is a contemptuous film, where he lashes out against everyone from studio execs to Disneyland, from the American President to the plastic surgery-addicted culture of Los Angeles. It sacrifices originality & technical mastery in order to send a direct message to Hollywood, which is delivered through various episodes within a post apocalyptic L.A. 

Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell)  is once again called in by the United States government to recover a potential doomsday device from Los Angeles, now an autonomous island where undesirables are deported. 

A film created out of pure anger and spite, Escape From L.A. marks the first major sign the director was burning out, that the studio struggles and underwhelming reception of his then-recent films had incited him to consider an unofficial retirement. Previous to this release he had made over twenty pictures for the studio, but following it he would only make three. Carpenter grew tired of constantly fighting for his artistic integrity, despising the growing pressure to conform to standard Hollywood blockbusters.

A flop that earned back just over half of its $50 million budget and received primarily negative reviews, it is fairly clear that Carpenter either lost his ability to make a technically great film or just didn't care enough to try. The visuals are a let down, as the CGI is horrendous for 1996. The cinematography isn't innovative or interesting, we have seen similar shots in every other B-movie ever made. It looks like a production that could have been made for 20x less.

Setting aside the presentation, Carpenter's film is a worthwhile venture because of what it has to say about the system he was trying to (no pun intended) escape. It certainly isn't as entertaining as the his previous cult classic Escape From New York, but I do admire it for being passionately anti-American.

The Lady Eve Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Lady Eve
Director: Preston Sturges
Year: 1941
Country: US
Language: English

In 2016, Hollywood has all but exhausted its novel ideas about the romantic comedy. The methods with which modern filmmakers use to explore falling in love have become commonplace, dull, and repetitive. Considering love itself is quite complex and thrilling, I'd say we have dropped the ball. Whatever happened to the bygone era of the Classic Hollywood love story that innovated within convention, despite being pressured by a strict production code? Preston Sturges made several of these films, perhaps the greatest of all being The Lady Eve.

 Returning from a year up the Amazon studying snakes, the rich but unsophisticated Charles Pike (Henry Fonda)  meets con-artist Jean Harrington (Barbara Stanwyck) on a ship. They fall in love, but a misunderstanding causes them to split on bad terms. To get back at him, Jean disguises herself as an English lady, and comes back to tease and torment him.

In 1940, Preston Sturges was a fresh face in Hollywood, graduating from accomplished writer to celebrated director virtually overnight. The press was fascinated by him, claiming that he was a bona fide genius. Indeed he was a great writer. Loosely basing his screenplay for the Lady Eve on Monckton Hoffe's original short story. he kept only a few ideas established in that text. What he brought to the table was intelligent high brow dialogue that not only managed to get the scene across, but also built up a considerable laugh. Sturges never underestimated the intelligence of his audience. 

Unfortunately Sturges  avoided heavy commentaries or social observations, and rather relying on the richness of his writing to tell the story. He was happy to be purely an escapist filmmaker (as seen in Sullivan's Travels) and make the studios millions in doing so. The genius of his stories, particularly with The Lady Eve, is his ability to make incredibly complex characters without resorting to a standard melodrama. The relationship between Jean and Charles resonates much deeper than your standard rom-com couple. 

While The Lady Eve offers no great questions or lessons about love, the story is amusing enough to be satisfying based on entertainment value alone. The lame ducks of modern romantic comedy ought to study this film and draw a more sophisticated approach to familiar turf. The old saying "they don't make em like they used to" rings most true with this picture.

White Heat Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: White Heat
Year: 1949
Director: Raoul Walsh
Country: US
Language: English

During the 1930s, Cagney had starred in a number of classic gangster pictures for Warner Bros., the studio most associated with screen gangsters. At the time, no real thought was put into why people become criminals. It was simply thought of as an unhinged social conscience that enjoyed the  freedom of  violence. While Europe had a more complex view of criminality and justice (see Fritz Lang's M) , it was in stark contrast to Hollywood's depiction. White Heat (1949) changed all this when he returned to the genre to embody a psychopathic, yet sympathetic, character. 

 A criminal (James Cagney) with a mother complex makes a daring break from prison and leads his old gang in a chemical plant payroll heist. Shortly after the plan takes place, events take a crazy turn

Warner Bros. was once considered Hollywood's most violent student, churning gritty hits like The Public Enemy (1931) and Angels with Dirty Faces (1938). Although they would face extensive criticism due to glorifying such horrendous behavior, they would make a fortune off the genre. Taboo subjects were welcomed and practiced, including passionate anti-Nazism (Confessions of a Nazi Spy) even when the United States maintained its isolationist stance. White Heat was taboo because  it effectively bonds us to Cody’s emotional makeup, although without romanticizing his criminality.

Unlike most films made during the era of the production code, White Heat contains little or no overriding moral lesson about the state of criminality in America. It doesn't attempt to explain that "crime doesn't pay" or  why the love of criminality is wrong. Cagney's natural charisma keeps the character from being a complete psychopath; rather he is a tragic figure who deserves to be at least somewhat pitied. 

White Heat manages to pay homage to the studio's older classics, while slipping in some new Freudian complexity absent from films of the time. It was the final gangster picture of Warner Brothers, and a great farewell at that. Innovative and bold, Cagney showed us why he is one of the finest actors to ever grace the silver screen.

His Girl Friday Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: His Girl Friday
Year: 1940
Director: Howard Hawks
Country: US
Language: English

In Howard Hawks film, Carey Grant stars as a fast-talking, hard-nosed reporters willing to do anything for a scoop. It's difficult to tell if the silver screen was influenced by the stereotype or if the stereotype portrayed in Cinema influenced reporters in real life. It Happened One Night, His Girl Friday and Philadelphia Story helped push these characteristics in the mainstream, yet Billy Wilder claims reality influenced his pulse pounding Ace in the Hole. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle. 

In His Girl Friday, a desperate newspaper editor (Carey Grant)  uses every trick in the book to keep his ace reporter ex-wife (Rosalind Russell)  from remarrying.

Howard Hawks’ archetypal 1940 comedy was based on the 1928 stage play The Front Page by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur. It is one of the most enduring screwball comedies of all time, becoming more popular than its source material due to a re-write and casting decision. Hawks revisions included a female lead and an n all-encompassing romantic importance to the story. Don't be fooled however, it isn't a lovey dovey affair. There is an exceptional battle of wits and sexual politics between Grant and Russell, two performers matched in their capacity to hurl  verbal jabs with machine gun speed

The speed and humor of the dialogue and the performance in His Girl Friday are what make the film worthwhile. Lederer’s final screenplay contained a hefty 191 pages, yet the film runs only 92 minutes. The sound department had quite a chore on their hands at the end of the day. Though the film is quite funny, it is often difficult to catch every line, especially considering the frantic pace is non-stop. The feeling like you're constantly on fast-forward may be off-putting for some.

Received with almost universal critical and commercial praise, His Girl Friday was influenced by pictures like Lubitsch's The Lady Eve and yet feels incredibly unique. The fact that the tension and humour relies solely on the timing of dialogue delivery says a great deal about the talent involved in this picture. It has a tremendous amount of charm to go along with its sneaking commentary.

Escape From New York Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

 Title: Escape From New York
Year: 1981
Director: John Carpenter
Country: US
Language: English

Our post 9/11 society has turned New York into a shining beacon of hope for all the world to see, but it wasn't always viewed in such a light. Violent urban dramas such as Death Wish (1974) and Taxi Driver (1976) reflected the city's turbulence. Mob violence, street gangs, prostitution, rape, and drugs overwhelmed the troubled metropolis. Murder rates rose with every passing year. Carpenter's unique dystopian future, set in 1997, didn't seem to far fetched back in the late 70's- early 80's. 

In the future, crime is out of control and New York City is a maximum security prison. Grabbing a bargaining chip right out of the air, convicts bring down the President's plane in bad old Gotham. Gruff Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell) , a one-eyed lone warrior new to prison life, is coerced into bringing the President, and his cargo, out of this land of undesirables. 

With roots in the American Western, from Howard Hawks (Red River) to Sergio Leone (Fistful of Dollars), cult director John Carpenter blends a familiar style with qualities that are now attributed to the post-apocalypse genre of film. It can be argued that Escape from New York and its anti-hero Snake Plissken, shaped every "gritty" picture that followed. Escape from New York works on multiple levels and comes from a very reactionary place inside Carpenter. 

Growing increasingly disenchanted over the years, Escape From New York loosely resembles Carpenter's real feelings of America and its government. Like They Live, Carpenter's writing is cynical, troubling and yet clever satire. Surprisingly Carpenter shot on actual city actual city streets instead of a studio backlot. This proved essential for the film's mise-en-scène, as the audience never doubts the authenticity of the ruined streets, seedy interiors, or squalid air contained within the frame. The percussive electronic music proves to emphasize the chaotic atmosphere captured in each scene. 

Looking back at the film's events, set in 1997, viewers may laugh at how far off Carpenter's prediction was. I, however, feel that the film is timeless and is not limited by setting itself in a certain period. Escape From New York still has influence on film today. Perhaps because of how entertaining and well made it is. Snake may be the greatest anti-hero put on screen.

Here Comes Mr. Jordan Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Here Comes Mr. Jordan
Year: 1941
Director: Alexander Hall
Country: US
Language: English

Columbia chief Harry Cohn preferred to reserve his more lavish budgets for surefire successes. Anything that didn't involve Rita Hayworth, the motion picture company's only major star, didn't seem to be worth it. Sidney Buchman, the writer of Here Comes Mr.Jordan, had great faith in Harry Segall's minor stage play and thought he knew more about what made a financial hit. Eventually he was able to convince Cohn into forking out the dough, and borrowing Robert Montgomery from MGM. Their gambling would pay off. 

Boxer Joe Pendleton, flying to his next fight, crashes...because a Heavenly Messenger, new on the job, snatched Joe's spirit prematurely from his body. The celestial Mr.Jordan grants him a new body, in the form of a millionaire playboy. 

At the time of release, Here Comes Mr.Jordan was a major critical and commercial success. It was nominated for 6 Academy Awards, winning two for writing. Like Arsenic and Old Lace, the plot of this film is very silly and is enjoyable for being so. It has a charm that can't be replicated, mainly because its stars are incredibly charismatic and have impeccable comedic timing. I very much like Jack Gleason, who plays Pendleton's boxing manager. His dialogue is frenetic and goofy, he plays the character well.

Perhaps I took the film too seriously, but I didn't like how the philosophical consequences of  the ending (in which SPOILER! Pendleton is transferred to another boxer's body but is forced to lose his memory. Isn't memory part of identity? How can Joe still have his soul if he has no consequences of being Joe?) were shrugged off for convenience. There may be a more satisfying religious explanation that I'm missing, but for now it just irks me.

Less escapist that its remake, perhaps due to the toxic political climate of World War Two, Here Comes Mr. Jordan was a fantastical farce made during a time when people needed to laugh. Bureaucracy is the butt of the joke, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Many filmmakers would be too heavy handed in approach, but Director Alexander Hall hits most of the right notes.

Goosebumps Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Goosebumps
Year: 2015
Director: Rob Letterman
Country: US
Language: English

Goosebumps is a series of children's horror fiction novellas by author R.L Stine. Since the release of its first novel, Welcome to Dead House, in July 1992, the series has sold over 350 million books worldwide in 32 languages. The series has spawned a numerous amount of spinoff titles, a television series, merchandise and even a feature film. I had many of these books as a child and was always amused by each title. Would the film do the books justice? No.

A teenager (Dylan Minnette) teams up with the daughter  (Odeya Rush) of young adult horror author R. L. Stine (Jack Black) after the writer's imaginary demons are set free on the town of Madison, Delaware

The best part of Goosebumps is Jack Black's performance as R.L Stine, a creepy recluse of an author. He provides much of the comedy to this otherwise bland film. Why do I say it's "bland"? because the film doesn't know what it wants to be or who it wants to appeal to .Is it romance, drama, horror or comedy? Is it targeting the people who grew up on Goosebumps or is it targeting a new generation? Director Rob Letterman tries to please everyone and ends up pleasing nobody. 

The writing is tremendously bad. For a series that has so many characters and weird circumstances to play with, we are given a really dull "high school" movie full of the same old tropes we've seen dozens of times over. I didn't watch Goosebumps to see A Walk to Remember or Perks of Being a Wallflower. Aside from jump scares, there is no tension or dread. Aside from brief "destroy the city" cameos from the monsters, we don't get any personality. It's as if the writers didn't actually read the original material.

While the plot of the story is intriguing, it wasn't executed very well. It was extremely difficult not to fall asleep to this, or fast forward through the extremely dull moments. The film composer Danny Elfman wrote the score, but it just doesn't fit with everything else in the picture. Often there is dramatic music for the sake of dramatic music. Overall Goosebumps is very terrible, if I could un-watch it I would.

Bitter Rice Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Bitter Rice
Year: 1949
Director: Giuseppe De Santis
Country: Italy
Language: Italian

Italian Neorealism (also known as The Golden Age of Italian Cinema) is a a national film movement characterized by stories set amongst the poor and the working class, filmed on location, frequently using non-professional actors. These films typically dissect the difficult economic conditions of Post-war Italy. By 1949, the movement had already taken the world by storm by stunning audiences and winning a variety of major awards. Part of a younger generation of filmmakers, Giuseppe De Santis sought to infuse Hollywood technique with Italian heart. 

Francesca (Doris Dowling) and Walter (Vittorio Gassman) are two-bit criminals in Northern Italy, and, in an effort to avoid the police, Francesca joins a group of women rice workers. She meets the voluptuous peasant rice worker, Silvana (Silvana Mangano), and the soon-to-be-discharged soldier, Marco (Raf Vallone) . The four characters become involved in a complex plot involving robbery, love, and murder.

Bitter Rice was one of the biggest world-wide box-office hits of Neo-Realism. It was a hit mainly because of the stylized noir story of doomed love, betrayal and crime which was interlaced with politically instructed marxist subtext. Giuseppe De Santis seemingly blended the fantastic with the realistic. The director never made his love of American Cinema a secret, and that was fairly clear onscreen. Unfortunately for some, the film's focus on melodrama remained at odds with its political agenda.

At times the film suffers from an excess of backstories. conflicting focuses and themes. Perhaps this is because Bitter Rice had no less than seven writers working on it. Regardless, it's hard to deny the grandeur of hundreds of women working and singing in the miserable rice fields. The picture is epic in scale as each frame is often filled with a mountain of information. The cinematographer should be applauded, because the imagery is quite powerful.

Silvana Mangano is incredible in this film. She was more beautiful than Ingrid Bergman, at a time when Bergman was Hollywood's biggest female star. Her character is a mess, yet the actor is so charismatic that we root for her anyway. Bitter Rice is a picture that you shouldn't pass up seeing.

Gilda Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Gilda
Year: 1946
Director: Charles Vidor
Country: US
Language: English

Born Margarita Carmen Cansino on Oct 17, 1918, Rita Hayworth was an astounding American actress and dancer. Commonly considered one of the top stars of the 1940's, Hayworth appeared in 65 films throughout her career. A pin-up girl during World War II, the press coined her as  a "love goddess" for her stunning looks and tempting personality. Her most famous performance is in the 1946 noir Gilda, in which she plays an iconic femme fatale.

Johnny Farrell (Glenn Ford) is a gambling cheat who turns straight to work for an unsettling casino owner Ballin Mundson (George Macready). Things take a turn for Johnny as his alluring ex-lover (Rita Hayworth) appears as Mundson's wife, and Mundson's machinations begin to unravel. 

 Gilda was a smash hit with audiences and made Rita Hayworth a superstar, but the American press at the time weren't very receptive to it as they thought it was too cynical. European audiences were cut off from American releases until after World War II. When they received the newest batch of film noir (Gilda, Maltese Falcon, Laura etc.) they were greatly impressed because these films matched the public's new more pessimistic outlook. Dark and sexually frank, with a style reminiscent of German expressionism, Charles Vidor's picture has a chilling atmosphere unlike any other. 

Gilda is a bizarro version of Casablanca, where petty squabbles are more important than nationality, hate is often triumphant over love, and the woman has power over her men (Ingrid Bergman seemed more like an object to Bogart). Looking forward to the to the sexually and politically paranoid films of later noir, the overall mood is often violent and chaotic. Hayworth, the goddess herself, is often shot in complete darkness, not even a bar of light across her eyes.

Hayworth had a studio and a publicity department behind her, but it's impossible to deny her natural charisma. One doesn't become a star by themselves, but one doesn't become an icon without great talent. Overall Gilda, with it's snappy dialogue and incredible cinematography, is a very memorable film. Certainly worth the praise it receives.

Hail, Caesar! Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

 Title: Hail, Caesar!
Year: 2016
Director: Coen Brothers
Country: US
Language: English

The Coen Brothers (Joel and Ethan Coen) have dived into Hollywood's past before. In 1991’s Barton Fink, they explored the black heart of the studio system in 1941, flinging John Turturro’s hapless scribe into a nightmare-ish inferno. With True Grit they remade a John Wayne classic, arguably making a greater version of the source material. Now they have made Hail, Caesar! It's a tale of faith, ideology and good ol' razzle dazzle. 

The film follows a day in the life of Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin), a Hollywood fixer for Capitol Pictures in the 1950s, who cleans up and solves problems for big names and stars in the industry. When studio star Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) disappears, Mannix has to deal with more than just the fix.

Mannix is a hardcore catholic; he wears a cross on his neck and feels the need to confess to a priest every 24 hours, sometimes sooner. It's quite strange that he only confesses about lying to his wife about his smoking habit, especially considering that his job involves "solving problems" aka keeping Stars' scandals away from the media. The Coens do a great job at showing how the capitalistic nature of Hollywood and the teachings of Christianity are often at odds. Ultimately Mannix has to decide what he has more faith in. 

The film is layered of course; along with drama there is a signifigant amount of comedy. Channing Tatum's Gene Kelly-esque homosexual number involving dancing with "sea" men is worth a great amount of laughs. I also enjoyed the scene in which Mannix solicits script comments from religious leaders of every faith and...they end up arguing about the nature of Christ. Communists make a few appearances too. 

With Hail, Caesar! The directors, their production designer (Jess Gonchoir), their cinematographer (Roger Deakins) and their costume designer (Mary Zophres) create a wonderful depiction of old Hollywood. It has all the glitz, glamour and dazzle while also keeping a dark undertone. Ultimately I had a great time in the theatre.