The Sword in the Stone (1963) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Sword in the Stone
Year: 1963
Director: Wolfgang Reitherman
Country: US
Language: English
 

The first Disney Studio production to feature songs written by the fantastic songwriting team of Richard and Robert Sherman, The Sword in the Stone was made during financial hardship but thanks to the success of 101 Dalmatians (1961) it could afford greater animation. Courtesy of Bill Pleet, an animator who's tenure was fairly short, we see art that is well defined with deep colors and intriguing backgrounds. 

A poor boy named Arthur learns the power of love, kindness, knowledge and bravery with the help of a wizard called Merlin (Karl Swenson) in the path to become one of the most beloved kings in England history. 

Interestingly enough, Sword in the Stone is the second time since Fantasia (1940) that Walt Disney unknowingly served as a model for a wizard. Normally Disney features were so complex that they needed to be directed by a team of animators underneath a supervising director, but only Wolfgang Reitherman is the Director here, as he would be for the majority of Disney films until the 1980's. This marks the first time a solo director was used. 

Sword in the Stone doesn't have much plot going for it, infact it works more like a series of somewhat related vignettes. It isn't too interested in the legends of Arthur either, as much of the plot consists of the wizard teaching lessons while disguised as various animals. We don't get much clarity regarding why they have to be that particular animal. It has many fun moments and interesting one-liners, but overall it leaves a sour taste and doesn't prove to be a great work overall. 

Despite the story being so-so, the characters are very difficult to forget. Merlin is so weird that you'll have a hard time taking your eyes off of him. The score isn't anything to recommend however, and it would be quite difficult to consider this a "great picture" because of its many flaws.

101 Dalmatians (1961) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: 101 Dalmations
Year: 1961
Director: Clyde Geronimi
Country: US
Language: English

 Disney animation went through a fundamental change in the 1960's. Due to the immense commercial failure of Sleeping Beauty the studio desperately needed to cut costs. Earlier films had everything painted by hand, but 101 Dalmatians went through a process called Xerograph, where everything was xeroxed onto the backgrounds. This meant the production process went faster, but appeared quite cheap. Can't blame them however; it was either this method or closing down animation all together.

When a litter of dalmatian puppies are abducted by the minions of Cruella De Vil, the parents must find them before she uses them for a diabolical fashion statement. 

Walt Disney himself is said to have complained about 101 Dalmatians scratchy look. The backgrounds are known to be sloppy, unfinished and messy. The muted colors and lack of distinct lines don't make anything about the animation pop. Items blend into each other, and colors extend past their border. Ultimately it's poor craftsmanship, especially since we know that the animators had more talent and, if allowed more budget, could have done a far greater job. 

The least musically adept of the Disney films (seriously, please name a song from 101 Dalmatians) the film makes up for it by having a good script, a great narrative, interesting characters (both human and animal) and terrifyingly real villain who wants to make a coat out of puppies. I enjoy that these dogs are not simply cute animals, but rational beings capable of thought and reason. They are taken far more seriously than say, the animals in Lady and the Tramp (1955) 

Not simply being marketed to children, 101 Dalmatians may not be the most memorable or the best animated but it does leave a charm on viewers and does have a rather interesting story. I don't really understand why the humans don't get right away that a lady named "Cruell a Devil" is not the best to bring home, but overall it's entertaining. 

The AristoCats (1970) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The AristoCats
Year: 1970
Director: Wolfgang Reitherman
Country: US
Language: English

The last animated feature to be approved by Walt Disney and the studio's first animated feature to be entirely completed after his death, AristoCats was considered a financial success when it made $55 million compared to its $4 million budget. Around that same time the company was also working towards an opening date for Walt Disney World in Florida, which was a huge financial risk for them. If either film or park had been a failure it would have meant extremely difficult financial times moving forwards.

With the help of a smooth talking tomcat, a family of Parisian felines set to inherit a fortune from their owner try to make it back home after a jealous butler kidnaps them and leaves them in the country. 

Casual racism aside (there are a few not so clever Asian stereotypes) AristoCats borrows elements of a variety of past Disney flicks (most notably 101 Dalmations) but is more adult and original than anything seen before. Unlike past works of the studio, it's not obvious what demographic the film is targeted to. If it's a children's movie, then it does feature a few jokes that will go way over a child's head, even if that child is a 70's hippie. 

While the humans in AristoCats are presented as cold and two-dimensional, the animals are treated with utmost respect. They appear to have more "human" characteristics than the humans do and thus are easy to get behind and sympathize with. They have a variety of personalities so it's not difficult to tell them apart and/or have a favourite. 

Despite some poor animation and the subtle introduction of terrible cliches, AristoCats has some really good music that blends genres and takes us on a brief ride through musical history. I particularly like the memorable Everybody Wants to Be a Cat. Disney never got more jazzy than this. 

 

Cinderella (1950) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Cinderella 
Year: 1950
Director: Clyde Geronimi
Country: US
Language: English

Even though Walt Disney had made a bit of money on Dumbo (1941) just before World War Two, they had no actually had a big financial success since their first feature length film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) At a cost of nearly $3,000,000 the cost of this production was a huge gamble on behalf of the Studio. Disney himself said that if the film lost any money it would mean the end of Walt Disney Productions. 

When Cinderella's cruel stepmother prevents her from attending the Royal Ball, she gets some unexpected help from the lovable mice Gus and Jaq, and from her Fairy Godmother. 

Thankfully, Cinderella was the hit that Disney needed. The profits from its release, with the additional profits from record sales, music publishing, publications and other merchandise gave Disney the cash flow to finance a slate of production, produce their own distribution company and start building Disneyland. That's right, you have Cinderella to thank for Disneyland.  

When people think of what a classic Disney picture looks like, Cinderella will immediately come to mind. It's the studio's typical form; right down to the "Once Upon A Time" opening sequence. The film takes place in an enchanting, timeless land where anything and everything is possible. The story is formulaic, but that's the charm to this film. Also, nobody can judge Disney for wanting to play it safe so soon after the bloodiest war in recorded history. 

It's not as artistically creative as Fantasia (1940) nor as great o a story as Pinocchio (1940) but Cinderella is an endearing picture that represents the end of Disney's golden age. Light sexism aside (Cinderella is a bit too passive of a female character) it's difficult to dismiss what is essentially the beginning of animated romance in Cinema. 

Fantasia (1940) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Fantasia
Year: 1940
Director: Norman Ferguson
Country: US
Language: English

Fantasia was Disney’s attempt to revive classical music by presenting this “concert” film. The film cost two million dollars back in 1940, over four times the cost of the average live action film of the period. Unfortunately it was a massive financial failure that would have been long forgotten if not for being adopted by the 1960's counter culture. Along with Alice in Wonderland, it's one of the few Disney productions that could be considered a "stoner" film.

Disney animators set pictures to Western classical music as Leopold Stokowski conducts the Philadelphia Orchestra. The most famous part of Fantasia is "The Sorcerer's Apprentice"  which features Mickey Mouse as an aspiring magician who oversteps his limits.

The film truly sets itself up as a concert in the opening minutes. Members of the orchestra are introduced, they sit down, and start tuning their instruments.  There’s no denying this is the most ambitious work put out by Disney to date. It is highly experiment art that strays as far from convention as possible. It's a film that could not be made today (as evident by the failure of Fantasia 2000) and proved to require a great amount of skill back in 1940.

Fantasia is a high point in Disney's filmography; it will make you miss hand-drawn animation as the splashes of colour and unique design cannot be replicated with Pixar's computer generated imagery. Light racism aside (the film has quite a few Asian and African stereotypes) each movement feels epic in scale. The Sorcerer's Apprentice is whimsical, whereas Night on Bald Mountain is so terrifying that Disney still gets calls from concerned parents.  

Truly a remarkable piece of art, but won't be easy to show younger generations. The lack of plot can be a bit off-putting and it's not as easy to re-watch as films like Dumbo or Bambi because of its lengthy run-time. Fantasia is a work of genius that might be the most polarizing of the Disney features. 

Dumbo (1941) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Dumbo
Year: 1941
Director: Samuel Armstrong
Country: US
Language: English

Due to the dismal failures of Fantasia and Pinnochio at the box office, Dumbo hoped to be a return to form for Walt Disney Productions. Financial issues forced a modest production budget and was tightly produced. The film would have less intricate details in animation, as evident during the aerial sequences and long shots. In certain sequences the characters have very little detail and even less outline. The end result was a success however, earning more than Disney's two previous features combined. 

Ridiculed because of his enormous ears, a young circus elephant is assisted by a mouse to achieve his full potential. 

According to the DVD/Blu ray extras, Dumbo is Walt Disney's favourite film that he made before his death. Interesting because originally the man wasn't interested in making the picture, but was enticed when the writers left parts of their script on his desk each morning. Dumbo used watercolor backgrounds because they were cheaper than the gouache and oils used for other films. This cheap tactic proved to be artistically endearing, as each frame looks like it's own unique work of art. 

The story itself is a bittersweet tale. The cute elephant's trials and tribulations will hit you in the gut and tear at your heart. Moreso than Bambi, I found myself emotionally drawn to the story and compelled to sympathize with the creature. Light racism aside (the crow's name is Jim, get it?) Dumbo proves to be a worthwhile classic that is full of memorable sequences, like the acid trip that is Pink Elephants on Parade.

Despite being a bit rushed due to the short run-time, Dumbo is certainly one of my favorite Disney films. Even though it's probably the least lavish and least expensive of their filmography, the film has a charm that can never be duplicated. 

Bambi (1942) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

 Title: Bambi
Year: 1942
Director  James Algar
Country: US
Language: English

Despite the enormous success of  Walt Disney's first feature Snow White (1937) the company struggled financially during the 1940s.  Fantasia and Pinocchio were failures at the box office and while Dumbo did give them a little bit of a boost, ultimately WWII really hit them where it hurt. While Bambi is well regarded as a Disney classic now, it didn't make enough for Disney to consider making more features during the war, which is why it would be their last full-length film till Cinderella in 1950.

 Bambi is a young deer hailed as the 'Prince of the Forest' at his birth. As Bambi grows, he makes friends with the other animals of the forest, learns the skills needed to survive, and even finds love.To survive as an adult he must learn to be as brave as his father. 

Deviating heavily from its original source material, a 1923 Austrian novel called Bambi: A Life in the Woods, Bambi takes you on an emotional roller-coaster as you watch one of the most frightening/sad scenes in animation and then are treated to a cute skunk named Flower. For this picture the animators used simple soft watercolor imagery and background, mainly to make each character stand out from its environment. It's perhaps the best animation Disney has made since their conception. 

Disney animators spent a year studying and drawing deer and fawns to perfect the look of Bambi and his parents and friends. Deer are notoriously difficult to humanize because of their face structure, but thankfully all that studying paid off. Each character is quite easy to relate to; it isn't difficult to understand their world from their perspective. My only complaint is that the run-time is a bit too short. Bambi would have had greater emotional impact if it had the time to go a slower pace and allowed more dramatic moments to resonate with the audience. 

Bambi is a classic that I would not hesitate to show a younger generation. It doesn't have shaky morals (such as The Little Mermaid) and isn't scary enough to scar your kids for life (donkey scene in Pinnochio) It's a very touching film that is quite memorable. 

Lady and the Tramp (1955) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Lady and the Tramp
Year: 1955
Director: Clyde Geronimi
Country: US
Language: English

At the time of release, Lady and the Tramp was the highest grossing animated feature since Snow White (an 18 year gap in-between the two films). Walt Disney claimed this was a "fun" picture to make because, like 1940's Dumbo, it was an original story and was easily adjustable as they made the film and got to know the characters - there were no pre-existing storylines. Indeed the film had no expectations to uphold, thus it could be presented as is. 

Lady (Barbara Luddy), a golden cocker spaniel, meets up with a mongrel dog who calls himself the Tramp (Larry Roberts). He is obviously from the wrong side of town, but happenings at Lady's home make her decide to travel with him for a while. 

Another claim to fame for Lady and the Tramp is that it is the first feature-length animated movie to be made in widescreen (2.55:1). Made simultaneously in both a widescreen CinemaScope version and a standard Academy ratio version. The standard version was made because, much to Walt's displeasure, many studios still weren't equipped with CinemaScope. Interestingly enough, the producers decided to use this new widescreen ratio when the film was already in production. This meant that backgrounds had to be extended and the animation format slightly altered.

Upon release Lady and the Tramp recieved lukewarm reviews, but 60+ years later there is no doubt that the film is an animated classic. The spaghetti scene is often imitated, parodied and spoofed in popular culture because it is so iconic. Post WWII racism aside ("We are Siamese") the film sets out to focus on the perspective on the dogs' lives and does it perfectly. The camera never pans above the dog's level of sight and when they are confused by their owner's reactions, so are we. 

Lady and the Tramp has a sweet sentimental simplicity not often seen in cinema. It is a cute warm film about falling in love, nothing more and nothing less. It's not the most complicated picture, nor does it take its time to flesh out the characters, but we love it despite that.

The Little Mermaid (1989) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Little Mermaid
Year: 1989
Director: Ron Clements
Country: US
Language: English

A huge blockbuster for Disney, The Little Mermaid grossed over $200 million dollars at the time of its release. It is notable the last Disney animated feature to use hand-painted cells and analog camera and film work. Over one million drawings were done in total; thankfully future animation wasn't as tedious. The film also ushered in a new model of home entertainment, getting released on video eight months after its release in theaters.

In this picture,  a mermaid princess named Ariel (Jodi Benson) makes a Faustian bargain with an unscrupulous sea-witch (Pat Carroll)  in order to meet a human prince on land. 

The Little Mermaid put an end to Disney's trend of box office failures and ushered in a "Disney Renaissance"; essentially a period of animated features that would be artistically endearing as well as bring in a LOT of money to the company. Part of the reason for Mermaid's success is the music; Part of Your World  and Poor Unfortunate Souls are some of the most recognizable songs in Disney's entire filmography. The animation is also beautifully drawn; even small details like the amount of bubbles used in every frame are taken into careful consideration. 

If you're looking for a good feminist picture, you aren't going to find it here. The theme involves a young girl giving up her voice for a much older man that she just met. The movie shows just how far a pretty body and face goes; you don't even have to talk to get the prince of your dreams! Thankfully Disney would reconcile this misdemeanor with Mulan (1998) but I can't help but wonder if this technically great film should be shown to younger generations because of its rather shallow attitude towards women, love,and relationships in general. At best, Little Mermaid is built on morally shaky ground.

The Little Mermaid is very entertaining. It keeps a good pace, has a great mix of drama and comedy, and none of the scenes feel like filler. With inventive direction and animation, it's hard to claim that this is a "bad" picture. The story is quite flawed, but I'd be hard pressed to say that it wasn't memorable. 

The Black Cauldron (1985) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Black Cauldron
Year: 1985
Director: Ted Berman
Country: US
Language: English

Based on the fantasy series The Prydain Chronicles by Lloyd Alexander The Black Cauldron was a commercial failure for Disney for many reasons. The jamming together of two epic novels into a 90 minute feature was too much content in far too little of time. It's the opposite of the approach taken today where one novel (The Hobbit) is spread over three films. I can't recall if a fantasy sword and Sandal epic has ever done well under the House of Mouse.

A young boy and a bunch of misfit friends embark on a quest to find a dark magic item of ultimate power before a diabolical tyrant can.

 The Black Cauldron is ambitious and probably the farthest Disney has ever gone into darker territory, but you can tell the film has reservations because of it's broody content.  Known by many as "the film Disney tried to bury", head executives were quite worried that the content would alienate its viewers and thus cut many completed scenes just before release and a home video release would be withheld from the public for many years. 

This is a shame because the film took over 12 years to make, 5 years of actual production, and cost over $25 million. Over 1,165 different hues and colors were used, and 34 miles of film stock was utilized.Some of the edits were due to wanting to avoid a PG-13 or R rating, but at least a few minutes of cuts were due to a mistake in understanding between editor and producer.

Disastrous test screenings led to children crying about having seen the un-dead. Black Cauldron marked the first time since Snow White that scenes had to be edited in post-production, which is extremely difficult to do for an animated film. Ultimately because of the cuts the film's tone changes wildly and the animation can greatly differ throughout its run-time. The "finished" version of the Black Cauldron is a bit of a mess that doesn't pay off. This picture should not have been released.

 

The Fox and the Hound (1981) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Fox and the Hound
Year: 1981
Director: Ted Berman
Country: US
Language: English

Forget magic, music, anthropomorphic animals/objects, fantasy and mice that somehow are able to own dogs. Fox and the Hound is a Disney picture made during the time where there was a trend in more "realistic" animation productions. It's a downbeat film which maturely discusses real prejudices that hit very close to home. Stripped of happy woodland critters, and catchy songs Disney removes all the glitz and glamour and balances this run-time on real heartfelt emotion.

A young fox named Tod (Mickey Rooney) is taken in by an old woman after his mother is killed by a hunter. Full of mischief, Young Tod befriends Copper (Kurt Russell) , a hound dog pup. As they grow up, however, their friendship becomes endangered by what they have become; Copper is a hunting dog, and Tod is his prey. 

Forget Shakespeare and bring a box of tissues for this one, because Fox and the Hound is a real tearjerker about a forbidden (brotherly) love that can never be. Too much of cinema history has focused on touchy-feely romantic love, few films have captured platonic friendship in such an engrossing and endearing way. We can thank Walt's son-in-law Ron Miller for wanting to leave the fantasy world behind on this project and go for a gritter route. 

The movie’s moral message details the laws within nature and society as invoked by the duos masters.  Tod and Copper are conditioned to be who they are through their biological make-up, as well as their masters. They are continually at war with their inner feelings; a conflict we can all understand. Both characters are incredibly easy to empathize with, as an audience we desperately want these two to stay together.

In comparison, Cooper's master is a despicable human being because he does not care about this bond. In his mind dog's do not exist to love, they exist to be fox-killing machines. Disney's film is bittersweet; there is no happy resolution, but it's not entirely bleak either. Despite some filler,  Fox and the Hound is truly a well-made film.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Hunchback of Notre Dame
Year: 1996
Director: Gary Trousdale
Country:US
Language: English

When Disney adapts source material originally meant for adults they often water-down the content for children and ruin some key elements of the story. With Pocahontas they distorted the lines between fantasy and historical reality, while not treating the indigenous peoples of North America with much respect. To adapt a Victor Hugo novel as complicated as Hunchback of Notre Dame is a rather weird choice that doesn't entirely pay off. 

A deformed bell-ringer (Tom Hulce) must assert his independence from a vicious government minister in order to help his friend, a gypsy dancer (Demi Moore).

"Hellfire. This fire in my skin. This burning desire. Is turning me to sin." Hunchback would get an Academy Award nomination, but only for the music, which it would lose to Emma. Indeed I must say that the music is incredible at parts (I can only remember Topsy Turvy and Hellfire) and the villain Frollo is quite memorable. It's quite interesting that the antagonist's hangup is the fear of eternal damnation due to his lust of a gypsy. The idea of a benevolent God has never been explored in Disney pictures before.

While Hunchback succeeds in some areas, it fails overall. The dominant theme of the film is "inner beauty matters" but Quasimodo doesn't win the girl in the end because of his looks. Rather, Esmeralda goes for the much better looking Captain Phoebus (Kevin Kline) Even when he gains the respect of the city he still has to remain in the bell tower without pay? Huh!? There's another side theme regarding feminism/choice etc. ok but why does Esmerelda have to choose either man? Why does the plot literally screech to a halt for all the men to have an argument about who should get her? Oy!

The cutesy side characters don't need to be in the film, because they are pretty annoying and only serve to be comedic fodder. The picture doesn't have to be completely serious, but it doesn't need to be peppered with fart jokes either. Hunchback has some great ideas, but is limited due to it equal weight of poor ideas. 

 

Tarzan (1999) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Tarzan
Year: 1999
Director: Chris Buck
Country: US
Language: English

The Edgar Rice Burroughs story about a man growing up amongst apes has been adapted countless times. The character's distinctive yell was created in the 1932 version Tarzan the Ape Man, which was famously hated by Adolf Hitler. The unique creation in Disney's adaptation was the revolutionary process of "Deep Canvas" wherein two-dimensional animation was integrated seamlessly into a three-dimensional background.  

The film is about a man raised by gorillas, who must decide where he really belongs when he discovers he is a human. 

" I wanna know, can you show me. I wanna know about these strangers like me" Easily the best, least dated and most memorable aspect of Tarzan is Phil Collin's incredible soundtrack. Each song fits the energetic pace of the film, sometimes more frantic than the picture itself. They are all quite catchy, but unfortunately they don't really connect to the plot. Perhaps one or two of the films could arguably about the film's theme, but ultimately you could stick this score in any energetic Disney movie and it would feel just as random. 

It is not difficult to sell people on the soundtrack alone, certainly it's the main reason for being the first Disney animated feature film to open at number 1 at the American box office and to win an Academy Award since Pocahontas (1995). Unfortunately none of the characters are fleshed out. There isn't a good reason to empathize with their plights & they don't really stand out. Tarzan's buddy Terk is eye catching...but in a very odd way. Why does she have a New York accent? Is it for humour's sake? I don't get it. 

The animation is a curious mix of being at times impressive, and at times quite bland. For a film set in the jungle, Tarzan's background is uninspired despite having pretty colours. The mark of a "great" Disney movie is to inspire you as a child and as an adult, but unfortunately in 2016 I was quite bored with it. I will say that it does make for a good Phil Collins' soundtrack.

Oliver & Company (1988) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Oliver & Company
Year: 1988
Director: George Scribner
Country: US
Language: English

Oliver & Company was a box-office success upon release and actually did a lot of good for the company.  It was Disney’s return to musicals since The Fox & The Hound, it employed an increased amount of CGI (so much that it needed its own studio) and brought about the typical release schedule of one animated film per year. It was the last film before the big Disney Renaissance and, unfortunately, went through quite a difficult production. 

Inspired by Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist. A homeless kitten named Oliver (Joey Lawrence), roams the streets of New York, where he is taken in by a gang of homeless mutts who survive by stealing from others. 

The development on Oliver & Company was difficult because the Nine Old Men (a group of animators who had worked for Disney since it's Golden Age) retired and a new, younger line of animators would have to take their place. This film had a different "feel" from all the other Disney features before it, mainly because it doesn't take place in some far off place, it screams 1980's New York. The animation is gritty, worn, and unfinished. The music fits the time period to a tee. 

I enjoyed Oliver & Company when I was younger (mid 90's), but in 2016 the film feels incredibly dated. The Mexican stereotype Tito (Cheech Marin) is one of the most annoying characters to ever be put on screen. I'd rather listen to Jar Jar Binks for two hours. The characters aren't really fleshed out; they feel like lame stereotypes that might have been welcome in the 1920's, but are far from enticing in the 80's. 

Oliver & Company feels like it would have made a great "made for tv" movie, but certainly should have never seen the light of day in theatres. It doesn't keep a consistent tone; going from sheer comedy one minute, to dark agony the next without proper development or transition. I must admit the picture does give off a good New York "feel", but ultimately I can thinking of two dozen more Disney flicks I'd rather re-watch than this. 

 

Ninotchka (1939) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

 Title: Ninotchka
Year: 1939
Director: Ernst Lubitsch
Country: US
Language: English

Greta Garbo was a woman of mystique. Throughout her career until her retirement in 1941, Garbo gave few interviews, refused to sign autographs or participate in publicity for her films. The deeply private actress refused to bow down to the demands of Hollywood, thus enhancing her perception as a true icon. Who better to direct this "icon" than a rebellious Director like Ernst Lubitsch? His sophisticated comedies would push the boundaries of the production code and make the studio sets sweat. Ninotchka was a perfect blend of the two professionals. 

In this, a stern Russian woman (Greta Garbo) sent to Paris on official business finds herself attracted to a man (Melvyn Douglas) who represents everything she is supposed to detest. 

The broadstrokes of the idea were based in part on Tovarich, a 1933 play by French writer Jacques Deval, adapted into English by Robert E. Sherwood and in 1937 made into a motion picture by Anatole Litvak starring Charles Boyer and Claudette Colbert. MGM wanted to make a similar picture starring Greta Garbo, but could not get their preferred director George Cuckor, who wanted to spend more time on Gone With the Wind.

Made for $1.3 million, in large part because of both Garbo and Lubitsch’s considerable salaries, the film would make modest profits both domestically and abroad. It went on to earn four Academy Award nominations—including Best Actress, Best Screenplay, and Best Picture—but lost to the considerably more enormous Gone with the Wind. Many said Garbo's performance was incredible, but unfortunately suffered from a terrible leading man. 

The film has an obvious political focus; capitalism is much greater than communism and should triumph that poor idealism at every turn. For its views, Ninotchka was banned from most (if not all) soviet countries. Referencing Stalin’s Great Purge and Ninotchka’s five-year plans with a sense of humor represented an undeniable risk to the country. Had the film caused an international incident at the beginning of World War Two, it's unclear if the US would have survived the attack. That being said, this film required a fair knowledge of current political events from its audience to fully understand the film. This isn't entertainment for the sake of entertainment. 

Overall, I feel that Ninotchka isn't the best film of 1939, nor is it the best film of Lubitsch's, not the best of Greta Garbo's. It's a nice satire, perhaps a great political piece for its time. I think ultimately the film has been dated and is slowly fading from the memory of film historians. It is fairly good, but one viewing is enough. 

The Maltese Falcon (1931) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Maltese Falcon
Year: 1931
Director: Roy Del Ruth
Country: US
Language: English

To nobody's surprise, this 1931 film is not the most famous version of The Maltese Falcon. Made at the height of the wild pre-Code years, it was denied re-release in the more buttoned-down Breen era. Desiring to make more money off the story, Warner Brothers would remake this picture in 1941 starring Humphrey Bogart. That version would be considered the greatest adaptation of the tale, but that doesn't mean Roy Del Ruth's work is unappreciated. 

A lovely dame (Bebe Daniels) with dangerous lies employs the services of a private detective (Ricardo Cortez), who is quickly caught up in the mystery and intrigue of a statuette known as the Maltese Falcon. 

The novel contained a tremendous amount of interior monologue that would have been difficult to put onscreen. Thankfully the screenwriter, Maude Fulton, was able to capture the essence of the story. This would have also been difficult to direct but Roy Del Ruth proved to be quite a professional. The film starred two big names from the silents: Bebe Daniels and Ricardo Cortez.She was only 30 years old at the time, but Daniels was considered a film veteran. Cortez won the hearts of women world-wide and transitioned quite nicely into the talkies. Both of them put on a memorable performance in their respective roles. 

A rather juicy story, it's unfortunate that the film often derails from the plot and attempts to create sub-plots not present in the book. The original source material was pulpy masterpiece; suspenseful till the bitter end. This film can feel like it drags towards the middle, slows to a crawl, and picks up pace 20 or so minutes towards the end. Also it's reeks off Hollywood glitz and glamour, for a despression-era flick it doesn't entirely feel rotten to the core. John Huston's version is far better in that respect.

Maltese Falcon makes many changes to the source material, but no improvements. The ending is entirely too optimistic, the scenery is too glossy and the sub-plots are too off-putting. This version has many great moments and phenomenal acting, but it doesn't suffice as a definitive version. 

The Russians are Coming. The Russians are Coming Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Russians are Coming. The Russians are Coming
Year: 1966
Director: Norman Jewison
Country: US
Language: English

Ah Russia, bitter frenemy of the United States since World War Two ended. Many films have been made about their rivalry. The Hunt for Red October was a suspenseful action film from 1990, which taught Americans to be afraid of Russian submarines. Rocky IV pitted the American antagonist Rocky Balboa against the fearless Russia fighting machine Ivan Drago and lifted the spirits of the non-communists alike. The Russians are coming. The Russians are Coming made us pee our pants from laughter

Without hostile intent, a Soviet sub runs aground off New England. Men are sent for a boat, but many villagers go into a tizzy, risking bloodshed. 

Made my Norman Jewison, the Director of Moonstruck and the ever so serious Heat of the Night,  The Russians are Coming is a picture that makes it difficult to take cold war propoganda seriously ever again. It begins with a simple but effective animation of the Russian and American flags fighting for prominence while the chorus duels with patriotic music from both nations. Don't be fooled however; this patriotic beginning is only meant to pave the way for hilarious stapstick that takes shot at both sides of the "war".

No side is safe in this madcap comedy that turns a very serious matter on its head. The film, which stars Jonathon Winters ( It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World) is fully of silly quotable lines like “I wasn’t trying to, well, I was trying to kill you, I’ll admit that, but it wasn’t anything personal.” and “Don’t tell them anything! He hasn’t even tortured you yet!”Steering clear of politics, Russians are Coming, ribs both nations equally. Both sides are fools for being so paranoid and both sides are ,in a way, right about their preferred political stance.

The film succeeds because it has heart underneath all the jokes. It has an optimistic message that isn't overly sentimental. Overall, Russians are Coming is a sly silly film that deserves to be seen in a similar light as Dr.Strangelove.

The Penalty (1920) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Penalty
Year: 1920
Director: Wallace Worsely
Country: US
Language: N/A

Best known for the big "monster" classics like Phantom of the Opera and Hunchback of Notre Dame, Lon Chaney made his name through smaller pictures like The Penalty and West of Zanzibar. It was in these pictures that he could act his most mad; playing sickos, psychos, masterminds and deranged criminals without much censorship. He was particularly well adept to playing people who were disfigured; in The Penalty he plays a man who has no legs! 

In this, a deformed criminal mastermind (Lon Chaney) plans to loot the city of San Francisco as well as revenge himself on the doctor who mistakenly amputated his legs.

The Penalty is a product of its time. I have no doubt that this film would not be green-lit in 2016 because of its subject matter, which essentially demonizes the legless and disabled. Lon Chaney’s performance as Blizzard relied on his concealing his legs convincingly. This is easy to do in 2016, as all one has to do is wear green socks in from of a green screen, but how would Chaney make his performance passable in 1920? Well Chaney fit his knees into leather stumps, which forced his legs into a tightly bent position. Then to compensate for the added thickness, he padded up his shoulders and chest. Considering his knees were quite injured at the time, it's fair to say that Chaney went all out for this role. 

Chaney's acting is remarkable; we see all his emotions on display in The Penalty. He turns from sarcastic anger to murderous fury to euphoria and finally confusion and regret. For the 20's, his villainous character is quite complex. The female in this story, Barbara Ferris (Claire Adams) is constantly treated with animosity from the other characters. The infantilizing attitude treated toward her is quite demeaning, but the sexists are eventually turned on their heads. This is quite forward thinking for 1920 and thus should be respected. Few silents give sexists their comeuppance. 

The Penalty is quite dated, but it is still a fairly decent picture which showcases some of Lon Chaney's greatest acting. It is twisted and sleezy, but that's part of why film buffs love silent "horror" films. Far better than the book it's based on, I recommend watching any Lon Chaney at least once.

Spies (1928) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Spies
Year: 1928
Director: Fritz Lang
Country: Germany
Language: N/A

Fritz Lang was at the peak of his career during the silent film era. Metropolis (1927) changed the science fiction narrative forever and cemented that genre into a viable source of entertainment. Since the 1910's Lang would make very inventive pictures. If they were not commercially successful, then they were most certainly an endearing expression of his artistic passions. Spies (1928) represents a rarity in the Director's filmography; a FUN spy movie. 

In Spies, the mastermind behind a ubiquitous spy operation learns of a dangerous romance between a Russian lady in his employ and a dashing agent from the government's secret service
 
Spies reflects Lang’s utter fascination with the inner workings of criminal organizations—and not just the glamorous stuff either. He does have the usual cliches, like assassinations and dubious theft, but he is able to make the banal such as turning in paperwork into an interesting and stylish observation that ultimately keeps his audience on their roes. Lang's devotion to making fun of bureaucracy add to the fascinating atmosphere within the picture. One can see clear connection to Spies in Terry Gilliam's Brazil.  

I would not dare spoil the twists nor the ending, but I will say they were well written. Fritz Lang gives us twists that genuinely surprise us, but aren't completely out of  the blue (unlike the twists seen in Shyamalan flicks). Technically well made, the film does suffer from a romance angle that screeches the action to a halt for some time in the second half of the film. As an audience, we don't go to a spy movie to see the main characters quarrel over domestic issues. Thankfully Lang is smart enough to allow his feature to pick up near the climax.

While this is not my favourite of Lang's filmography, Spies is certainly a worthwhile film and a good viewing that borders on cinematic escapism and utter realism. One can see its clear influence on modern pictures, as well as its borrowing of Hitchcockian themes.

The Canadian (1926) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Canadian
Year: 1926
Director: William Beaudine
Country: US
Language: N/A

The Canadian was thought lost for decades before turning up in the late sixties.  Director William Beaudine was the guest of honour at the 1970 Los Angeles Screening, where he admitted to never having seen his own film before because of his incredibly tight schedule. Critics at the time of original release were underwhelmed by the picture's lack of melodrama, whereas critics of the 70's seemed to adore the silent classic.

A couple (played by Thomas Meigan and Mona Palma) undergo hardship homesteading in Alberta, where they are plagued by bad weather and financial woes. 

Bad weather and financial woes, huh? Yep! Sounds like Alberta to me! While time has not been kind to William Beaudine, once a respected contract director, who was reduced to churning out budget films and television episodes later in his career, it is nice to see that modern audiences have allowed The Canadian to be a staple in silent film festivals throughout the world. It's odd to hear that the picture was given rather mediocre reviews at time of release. Usually those pictures don't recover from such negative press.

Based on a 1913 four-act play entitled The Land of Promise by W. Somerset Maugham and adapted into a novel in 1914 by D. Torbett and then a film in 1917, starring Thomas Meighan and Billie “Good Witch” Burke, this remake (it was not uncommon for silent films to remake earlier silent films) is actually pretty good. The acting is perhaps the most understated aspect of the film; it's subtle but works in every frame. The cinematography is absoluturely outstanding and the drama is very well written. 

There is no doubt that this is a dark film however, I can't think of many silent films that include a rape scene. It has a mature way of handling its more adult themes, although has content that will disturb many viewers. If you're in the mood for light hearted escapism, then you might want to avoid this film. I found The Canadian surprisingly good and would recommend it.

A Child is Waiting Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: A Child is Waiting
Year: 1963
Director: John Cassavettes
Country: US
Language: English

Old Hollywood is best known for escapism. The glitz and glamour that fill the screen often take us far from the mundane suburbia in our lives and into worlds we couldn't dare dream. For example, Wizard of Oz took us over the rainbow. Even James Cagney's Gangster pictures filled an imaginative void in our lives. Few American films embraced realism and built a foundation on discussing real issues that plagued families. A Child is Waiting was one of the rarities. 

Psychologist Dr. Matthew Clark (Burt Lancaster) is the head of the Crawthorne State Training Institute, one of the first boarding schools for developmentally challenged children. He takes a chance at hiring former aspiring concert pianist Jean Hansen (Judy Garland) as the school's music teacher. She immediately bonds with autistic student Reuben Widdicombe, who she sees as needing special attention. 

Disabilities and mental health issues are rarely discussed with any sincerity in Hollywood even today. The child in this film isn't a Rain Man savant, nor does he have the wisdom of Tom Hank's Forrest Gump. He is a fairly accurate depiction of how a typical autistic child looks & acts like, although we must not consider "autism" a blanket term, as it does affect individuals differently. Producer Stanley Kramer, fresh out of his Oscar Winning Judgement at Nuremburg, has made a rather important and poignant picture in A Child is Waiting.

 Stanley Kramer had long been immersed in the subject of psychology and had wanted to make this picture for a great number of years. He felt that, to make an honest depiction, this would need a lot of planning, research and exposure. He hired a number of autistic children as extras, in the hope that the rest of his cast would empathize with their project. Unfortunately hiring Judy Garland may not have been the best choice. Her well known substance abuse problems took a hit to production, which would often have to be delayed due to her inability to cope with the pressure of being the star. 

A Child is Waiting sometimes borders on Sirk-esque melodrama, but thankfully doesn't stray too far to the absurd. It is a reflecting, revealing and even somewhat controversial picture that remains rather relevant to this day.

Hitchcock/Truffaut Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Hitchcock/Truffaut
Year: 2015
Director: Kent Jones
Country: US
Language: English

If you have read my previous reviews, or consider yourself a "film buff" in anyway, then you undoubtedly must have heard of the great "Master of Suspense". Alfred Hitchcock, whose Vertigo made the best film of the prestigious Sight and Sound poll, is one of the most influential filmmakers to have ever lived. His influence on the motion picture industry remains to this day. Unfortunately in the early 60's he was viewed as merely an entertainer rather than an "artist". Francois Truffaut's book Cinema According to Hitchcock changed this notion and laid the groundwork for how we view cinema as an artform. 

In this documentary, filmmakers like Wes Anderson, David Fincher and Martin Scorsese discuss how Francois Truffaut's 1966 book Cinema According to Hitchcock influenced their work. 

Blending sound clips from the original audiotapes (in which Hitchcock and Truffaut are joined by the translator, Helen Scott) with selected moments from Hitchcock’s films as well as interviews with a rarefied handful of current-day directors, Kent Jones' picture is a typically made documentary that allows fans of Hitchcock to rejoice in their hero. It's a very one sided picture; there is no debate, Hitchcock is an "artist" in every sense of the word. 

Of course you would be a fool to debate the legitimacy of Hitchcock's contributions to the silver-screen. However, since the film is about Hitch's influence, I would have preferred less clips of Psycho, The Birds etc. and more clips from other artist's filmography.  Brian De Palma was greatly inspired by the man's films, yet we never analyze Dressed to Kill or Blow Out. We never analyze Truffaut's Soft Skin or the Hitchcockian methods of Martin Scorsese. The directors just say "he inspired all of our work". Ok...but how!?

The enormously popular films in Hitch's library take center stage of the picture, which is unfortunate for his early work & hidden gems. We see a lot of Rear Window (1954), but very little of the MUCH more influential The 39 Steps (1935). While Hitchcock/Truffaut isn't a bad picture, it isn't as insightful as I would have hoped. There are far better ways to dissect the man's genius; even an audio commentary would prove to be a greater method. .

Gerry Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Gerry
Year: 2002
Director: GusVan Sant
Country: US
Language: English

Gus Van Sant's Gerry has a polarized audience; those that think it is a visionary/transcendent masterpiece and those that feel it is a self-indulgent, molasses-paced arthouse bore. Clearly made with reckless abandon, without a niche audience or market profile in mind, Gerry was destined to alienate the mainstream and leave critics like Roger Ebert on their toes. I first viewed this film 6 years ago, and still find it to be absolutely breathtaking. 

A friendship between two young men (Casey Affleck and Matt Damon) is tested when they go for a hike in a desert and forget to bring any water or food with them. 

Gerry is an achievement in Cinema because it is the first American narrative film available to a mainstream audience to employ an excessive long take style in a uniform manner and in a particular rhythm across the whole of its length. Takes as long as 2 minutes permeate the run time and dominate the pace of the picture. There is very little plot in terms of dramatic action or conflict, infact much of the film just consists of two friends silently walking across the desert. 

Gerry demonstrates that interesting and exciting is a relative term that does not need to translate into melodrama. It's beautiful cinematography, complex character developments, ingenious camera movements and great use of sound all make for a great picture. Influenced by directors Bela Tarr, Andrei Tarkovsky, and Chantal Ackerman, all of whom have isolated the tendency to shoot in extreme long takes, emphasize real time, and with reduced plot, Gerry is a film where patience is a large requirement of its audience. 

Overall I was impressed by Gus Van Sant's brave masterpiece of Cinema. Though I doubt it did well at the box office, Gerry is certainly a film that amazes with each viewing. With this picture, Gus Van Sant ventures down a different, less traveled cinematic path, one meant to invoke themes not often explored in conventional cinema.

Dracula (1992) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Bram Stoker's Dracula
Year: 1992
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Country: US
Language: English

Marking the first significant box-office victory for director Francis Ford Coppola outside of his Godfather trilogy, his adaptation of Bram Stoker's legendary tale strayed off the usual path of fear and emphasized more romantic and sensual themes. Of course, elements of horror such as Dracula’s monstrous manifestations (as a wolf-man and bat-creature) and gallons of blood fill the screen, but these are employed in a metaphoric sense rather than to evoke terror in the viewer. The marketed tagline after-all is "Love Never Dies" 

A young lawyer (Jonathan Harker) is assigned to a gloomy village in the mists of eastern Europe. He is captured and imprisoned by the undead vampire Dracula, who travels to London, inspired by a photograph of Harker's betrothed, Mina Murray (Winona Ryder). In Britain, Dracula begins a reign of seduction and terror.

Oscar winning costumes by Ishioka Eiko and gorgeous production design by Thomas Sanders and Garret Lewis are one of the many technical qualities this picture has. Coppola's picture is also well directed, well cast, well written and has gorgeous cinematography. When budget constraints forced Coppola to shoot on soundstages and special FX wizards told him modern technology couldn’t achieve the desired effects he wanted, Coppola decided to oversee the effects using old Hollywood techniques like miniatures, models, matte paintings and double exposures.

This Dracula tale has the energy and visual inspiration not seen in adaptations before it. I'm not entirely sure I like Coppola's version however; his Dracula is a little too human and it strays a little too far from the source material. Gary Oldman plays a more sympathetic villain who we are supposed to connect with. The film has an uneven pace as well. 24 years later, Dracula feels more outdated than even the 1922 German Expressionist silent  Nosferatu

Bram Stokers Dracula is quite flawed, even though it is a technically stunning picture. The costume design was easily the best aspect of the film. For his Oscar, Japanese designer Eiko captured elements of Kabuki Theater and Bela Lugosi mysticism to create quite memorable fashion. I must say I like the Universal Horror Dracula (1931) far better even though it is much less elaborate.

Purple Rain Review- By Michael J, Carlisle

Title: Purple Rain
Year: 1984
Director: Albert Magnoli
Country: US
Language: English

A year before Purple Rain hit the airwaves, Michael Jackson's Thriller was dominating radio and television. Selling over 22 million copies worldwide, becoming the sixth best-selling soundtrack album of all time, Prince's magnum opus manage to distract the public from MJ and turn the purple one into an 80's megastar. The film...wasn't as big of a critical success (it was nominated for two razzies) but did manage to bring in quite a bit of money at the box office. 

A young musician (Prince), tormented by an abusive situation at home, must contend with a rival singer, a burgeoning romance, and his own dissatisfied band, as his star begins to rise.

Praised for it’s innovative shooting of concert footage and clever editing of montages, while simultaneously criticized for it’s amateurish acting and ham-fisted story line, Purple Rain is a mixed bag that comes off as a poor man's Saturday Night Fever. This film is slightly different from typical musicals of the time however; often, as in Flashdance, the music is more of the background to the story.With Purple Rain, the performance/music aspect is at the forefront and everything else (acting, writing, story) takes a backseat. 

The costumes, hairstyles, make-up and styles are all relics of the decade. While their time may have passed, they remain indelible in defining this period of music for everyone. The disco era was dead but the dread of synthetic beats and amyl nitrate culture still lingered. A combination of funk and rock, Prince's music in this film really was revolutionary. 

Even with the thin script, Prince manages to give us moments of electricity which bounce off the screen. Despite being a poor actor, there is no doubt that Prince is incredibly charismatic and his energy definitely translates to audiences during the musical numbers. Despite not being a "great" film, it's still a "great" snapshot of American music in the early 80's.

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Adventures of Robin Hood
Year: 1938
Director: Michael Curtiz
Country: US
Language: English

For The Adventures of Robin Hood, Warner Brothers went all out on production, creating a swashbuckling costume epic that would appeal to all ages. The finest talent, both onscreen and off screen, were gathered to create the first grand Technicolor masterpiece. Indeed it's an iconic picture, a great financial and commercial success that would have spawned a sequel if not for the imminent second World War. Directed by Michael Curtiz (Casablanca), this particular cinematic version of the thief who "stole from the rich and gave to the poor" has a timeless quality & is entertaining even 78 years later. 

When Prince John (Claude Rains) and the Norman Lords begin oppressing the Saxon masses in King Richard's absence, a Saxon (Errol Flynn)  lord fights back as the outlaw leader of a rebel guerrilla army.

In the mid-1930s, each of the Big Five studios had their genre: Warner Bros. was known for James Cagney gangster pictures and Busby Berkeley musicals. For years, films like The Public Enemy (1931) and The Gold Diggers of 1935 sustained the studio’s financial position, but limited diverse output, hindering the studio’s reputation. The studio would find themselves surprised when A Midsummer Night’s Dream and William Keighley’s version of The Prince and the Pauper made big money at the box office. The possibility of making prestige pictures shined brighter than ever, so they decided to adapt Robin Hood to the screen. 

This was not necessarily a "bold" move on the part of Warner Brothers. Robin Hood’s story had already become a then-iconic feature: the silent 1922 version by Douglas Fairbanks, entitled Douglas Fairbanks in Robin Hood. Although, this also meant WB's version had to be greater than that of Fairbanks or be subject to intense scrutiny.  The studio cautiously proceeded by assuring that every aspect of their production would be bigger and better. Producer Hal B. Wallis asserted that their A-list project should maintain the same swashbuckling ferocity, but improve upon it by optimizing the studio’s top resources. Intense research was made to ensure this film would be as great as a Robin Hood film could be. 

The visual variety, outdoor shooting, intensity of the action scenes, and epic scale of the picture ensured that Adventures of Robin Hood would at least be memorable. The film gave financiers a run for their money as Technicolor photography, which was only used in one unsuccessful film before this (God's Country and the Woman)  drove the budget beyond Warner’s expectations. Fortunately, the intense planning of the filmmaker's ensured the production went as smoothly as it could. The use of three-strip technicolor proved innovative and enticed other studios to use it in their large-scale productions. 

Errol Flynn makes an exceptional hero and Olivia De Havilland plays the part of Maid Marian rather well. Even though they were not the best of friends offscreen, Havilland did not like Flynn's immaturity, their onscreen chemistry shines quite brightly. Curtiz makes images proficiently sparkle with the flash of striking swords and the launching of arrows. Robin Hood is an impressive piece of Classic Hollywood movie making.