The Jungle Book (2016) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Jungle Book
Year: 2016
Director: Jon Favreau
Country: US
Language: English

Disney's recent trend of creating live-action versions of their classic animated films have lead to a lot of disappointments. Some try too hard to be revisionist, like Maleficent (2014) which changes Sleeping Beauty's antagonist into a more sympathetic character. Others, like Cinderella (2015), lack a lot of the charm the original had. With The Jungle Book (2016) it finally looks like Disney's has made a good live action adaptation.

After a threat from the tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba) forces him to flee the jungle, a man-cub named Mowgli (Neel Sethi)embarks on a journey of self discovery with the help of panther, Bagheera (Ben Kingsley), and free spirited bear, Baloo (Bill Murray). 

Less a take on Rudyard Kipling's famous stories than a recycling of Walt Disney Productions' 1967 adaptation, The Jungle Book doesn't stray too far from what audiences are already familiar with. The small changes this film does make are quite impressive however. For example the orangutan King Louie is now a giant Vito Corleone-esque character, wonderfully voiced by Christopher Walken. The snake Kaa is now a prophetic and seductive woman, voiced by Scarlett Johanssen. 

Renewed versions of "The Bare Necessities" sung by Baloo and "I Wanna Be Like You" add great enjoyment to a somewhat surreal fantasy, even though other critics might consider them out of place. The impressive FX work can be seen in shots that have been painstakingly brought to life by CGI wizards and their impressive computers. I normally don't praise CGI, especially when it comes at the expense of practical effects, but this was incredibly well made.

The most surprising part of this production is Neel Sethi. Despite this being his first film and thus obviously his acting needs some work, he shows great acting potential. I'm surprised he was given such a demanding role as his debut performance. Overall The Jungle Book was able to keep me engaged throughout its run-time. I wish it was longer infact. 

Flaming Star (1960) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Flaming Star
Year: 1960
Director: Don Seigel
Country: US
Language: English

Despite being a critical failure, Elvis Presley's previous feature GI Blues was a tremendous commercial success and had resulted to one of his best selling albums at that point in time. During the making of Flaming Star there grew a struggle between Elvis and his manager and his manager Colonel Tom Parker. Elvis wanted to be a serious actor and Parker wanted to cash in on the "juve" genre Presley inadvertently was creating. This picture is one of few which would go Elvis' way.

Elvis portrays Pacer Burton. The son of a white rancher (John McIntire) and his beautiful Kiowa Indian wife (Dolores DelRio). When fighting breaks out between the settlers and natives, Pacer tries to act as a peace maker, but is pulled towards the violence. 

The plot is disturbingly familiar. It is very reminiscent of Dances With Wolves, Ferngully, Avatar, The Last Samurai, Lawrence of Arabia etc. It's essentially a white-guilt film that has been done to death throughout the history of cinema. Lacking any subtlety, I was surprised to find how gripping the screenplay was. Even though cavemen could probably understand where this film is going, it does a great job at building suspense and increasing tension throughout the run-time. 

This western takes its place and time very seriously. Despite being an Elvis vehicle, there exists only one musical number in the picture and it is used in a very sincere fashion. Flaming Star was a step forward for Elvis, but in the end the film delivered a body blow to his aspirations of becoming a good actor. GI Blues was released the same year, only four weeks earlier, and made MUCH more money. Solidifying to Hollywood execs that Elvis didn't belong in drama. 

Unfortunately the success of his comedy musical meant that Elvis' aspirations to be a Brando-like actor would dissipate. Wild in the Country was already in the works, but after that there would be no more of this “serious actor” stuff. A shame, because I do believe Elvis had great potential. 

GI Blues (1960) Review-By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: GI Blues
Year: 1960
Director: Norman Taurog
Country: US 
Language: English

On March 24th, 1958 Elvis Presley was inducted into the U.S. Army as a private at Fort Chaffee, in Arkansas. His arrival was a major media event. Hundreds of people descended on Presley as he stepped from the bus. Presley would announce that he looked forward to being in the military and that he did not want to be treated differently than any other soldier. Elvis would return from service in 1960 and the first film he would make was...a war comedy!? 

In this, Elvis plays a specialist in the US Army stationed in Germany. He loves to sing and has dreams to run his own nightclub when he leaves the army....but dreams don't come cheap.

Director Norman Taurog believed Presley’s star value had been enhanced during his time in the army because he had not been exposed to the public through television, concerts, or films. He thought Elvis' special treatment meant that his hip gyrations were not toned down through years of military training, rather that war made Elvis even more energized to get into film again. Elvis sure emits great energy and charisma, but the film's attempt at a comedic tone doesn't challenge the king to give his best performance. 

GI Blues doesn't offer the emotional depth Elvis' previous films at least attempted to develop. Despite some humorous moments (although very dated) it doesn't work well as a comedy. Elvis wasn't ever known for his comedic timing. At least it works as a musical right? Well...no. No performance in GI Blues stands out. The soundtrack is good no doubt, but it's poorly integrated into this film. 

Unfortunately GI Blues would start a pattern of increasingly poor pictures that would trap Elvis within the Hollywood vortex of nothingness. Surprisingly there would be films that would make even less of an impact in Elvis' future. 

King Creole (1958) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: King Creole
Year: 1958
Director: Michael Curtiz
Country: US 
Language: English

King Creole was Elvis Presley's fourth venture in his filmography. If anything, it demonstrates Elvis' maturity as an actor. Film critics of the time would claim that Elvis gave a praise-worthy performance and captured the attention of audiences young and old. Most fans consider this his greatest film, alongside Jailhouse Rock. 

Having flunked graduation for a second time and needing cash to support his crabby (and thus unemployed) father, Danny Fisher (Elvis Presley) takes a job as a singer in the King Creole nightclub.

King Creole is a solid melodrama, backed by great writing, direction and acting. Filled to the brim with action and color, this Paramount feature does a terrific job at making Elvis Presley's character equal parts charming and sympathetic. This would have made a great Marlon Brando vehicle, if not for the singing. The script does a good job at incorporating Elvis' mandatory musical numbers with the plot however. 

The musical interludes due a great job at breaking up what would have been a meandering plot without. King Creole is a slow film that needs Elvis' signature sound in order to make the run-time drag less. Granted, we can't put all the acclaim on Elvis. Director Michael Curtiz and cameraman Russell Harlan work wonders with low-key lighting and adroit camera angles. Warren Low’s editing keeps the film at a consistent pace, and does a good job at keeping interior and exterior set-ups consistent.

It's not my favourite Elvis picture, that would be Jailhouse Rock, but I can certainly understand why this would be beloved among critics and fans. King Creole would earn Elvis the greatest box office return of his career and would show some potential of his acting ability. 

Loving You (1957) Review- By Michael J. Carlisl

Title: Loving You
Year: 1957
Director: Hal Kanter
Country: US
Language: English

Following Elvis Presley's debut picture Love Me Tender, Loving You seemed like a conscious effort on behalf of the studio execs to cash in on the adolescent fandom forever following Elvis. In Love Me Tender Elvis wouldn't arrive until 20 minutes after the opening credits, here he arrived onscreen four minutes in. While his first film would only feature four songs in the middle of the movie, his second was sure to have at least....10. 

Deke Rivers (Elvis Presley) is a delivery man who is discovered by publicist Glenda Markle and country-western musician Tex Warner who want to promote the talented newcomer to fame and fortune, giving him every break he deserves. Romantic complications arrive.

Lights, camera...quick! Pick up the guitar! In Loving You the writing does not hesitate to wait for Elvis to belt out some tunes. Producer Hal Wallis' strategy in regards on how to to feature Elvis on film was to have him sing early and often. The box office receipts would show how financially wise Wallis was, and would set the precedent for every other Elvis film to come. Our hopes of Elvis being a viable star that would win major awards were slashed. 

Elvis' acting did improve compared to his previous picture, but that doesn't seem hard when the only requirement for Loving You was for Elvis to be the musical phenomenon that he was. Regardless it's a big step in the Hollywood career of Elvis, as any fear execs had of the man not being an instant money-maker vanished. The man would have 20+ film roles between the 50's and 60's. 

Loving You is too obvious of a cash-grab to enjoy, although I get that all of his films weren't exactly made with substance in mind. One of the last Elvis pictures in his filmography that I've viewed, I can't say that it's an easy recommend. History has not been kind to this particular film. 

Love Me Tender (1956) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Love Me Tender
Year: 1956
Director: Robert D. Webb
Country: US
Language: English

An Elvis musical WESTERN!? That is such a weird genre of film for Elvis to be in, and yet he journeyed into this torrid affair three non-consecutive times (Love Me Tender, Flaming Star and Charro!) Perhaps, in addition to trying to be the next James Dean he was also trying to channel his inner John Wayne. Interestingly enough Elvis isn't even the lead in his own vehicle; he plays second banana to Richard Eagan. 

The plot of this film revolves around the end of the Civil War, when a Confederate team is ordered to rob a Union payroll train. The war ends leaving these men with their Union loot, until the Feds come looking for it.

At the time Twentieth Century Fox was uncertain whether to feature Elvis in the film as a singer or as an actor. So they tried to have it both ways. Elvis has a rather dramatic role, but director Robert Webb inserted four songs in the middle of the film "just in case". The first song, Love Me Tender, somewhat fits the setting, but the rest are just odd to put in a late 1800's setting. I've never really thought the musical western hybrid worked.

Due to his presence in the picture, Love Me Tender was considered a "juve" film (a picture that would primarily attract adolescents) Those weren't really popular at the time, but the sheer force of Elvis made Hollywood reconsider. Execs were now willing to pander to that audience and constructed films that would make teenagers turn out in droves. What did this mean for Elvis? Well, it would ensure he got lead billing and couldn't really do serious films for the majority of his career. 

Love Me Tender has hints of Elvis genius. He was pretty decent in his role, and his stage presence just oozed throughout the picture. The movie has a nice quick pace and has very competent direction and cinematography. Some of the writing is a bit off, but its story is intriguing and at least somewhat digestible. 

Viva Las Vegas (1964) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Viva Las Vegas
Year: 1964
Director: George Sidney
Country: US
Language: English

Viva Las Vegas is a memorable Elvis Presley picture primarily because it is the first pairing of Presley and Ann Margaret, both of whom are two of the hottest commodities of early 60's Hollywood. The film's theme song has permeated the mainstream for decades since and now serves as the unofficial anthem for the booming entertainment center in Nevada. 

In this film, Race car driver Lucky Jackson (Elvis Presley) goes to Las Vegas to earn money to pay for a new engine for his motor car. Working as a waiter, he still finds the time to court young Rusty Martin (Ann Margaret). 

Considering they were two of the most popular musical stars at the time, it would have been a waste of their talents to use them in any other genre of film. Viva Las Vegas is packed with song and dance numbers throughout. Elvis sings seven solo numbers, and Ann-Margret performs two songs while showcasing her tremendous dancing ability. Say what you will about the king's acting, this is an entertaining picture regardless. 

Ann Margaret outshines the star with her stunning choreography and onscreen charisma. She immensely helps Elvis and the screenwriters, who do a lousy job at plotting out the "story". Ultimately Viva Las Vegas is pretty much what you'd expect if you've seen any other Elvis film. A light affair that serves as great mindless entertainment. 

One of Elvis' highest grossing pictures, Viva Las Vegas is all fluff with very little substance, but if that's the mood you're in then this isn't a bad film to check out. It isn't my favorite of his filmography, that would be Jailhouse Rock, but I still enjoyed the musical numbers. 

The Iron Giant (1999) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Iron Giant
Year: 1999
Director: Brad Bird
Country: US
Language: English

The Iron Giant opened in theaters during the Summer of 1999, unfortunately one of the biggest Summers in Hollywood history. Its main competition was The Matrix, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and Disney's Tarzan, all films with an extraordinary marketing budget. Thus The Iron Giant flopped at the box office through no real fault of its own. Beloved by critics, the film did have great success when it received a home video release. 

In this, a young boy (Harry Connick Jr.) befriends a giant robot (Vin Diesel)  from outer space that a paranoid government agent wants to destroy.

During the 90's there was a mad rush to produce animated films from just about every studio in Hollywood. This was directly as a result of Disney's Renaissance, a comeback which started with The Little Mermaid (1989) and peaked with The Lion King (1994). May studios came off as Disney wannabe's, making poor animated fares such as Anastasia (1997) and Quest for Camelot (1998). Director Brad Bird wanted to make a film that didn't appear just to be children fodder, thus he adapted Ted Hughes 1968 Sci Fi novel The Iron Man.

The main premise of the picture is rather serious “What if a gun had a soul, and didn’t want to be a gun?” Holy sh*t. The film has an obvious (and timely) gun control message, but its really about being more than the sum of your parts and treating others with respect. I was impressed with the story, character development and well made animation. I also enjoyed being immersed in the 1950's. The Iron Giant doesn't just look like the time period, it feels like the time period.  

I think this is one of those films that get better with age (the age of the viewer and time after release). As a child I don't remember being affected by it, but now I find myself in awe of the beautiful visuals and philosophical tale being presented. Even Hollywood can churn out intelligent animation if the right people work on it. 

William Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
Year: 1971
Director: Mel Stuart
Country: US
Language: English

In 1964 author Roald Dahl wrote a morality tale about a group of children who visit a chocolate factory and seven years later the film version, released in 1971, would hit theaters worldwide. It's a mainstream children's film so psychedelic and off-the-wall that it could have only been made during the hippies movement of the early 70's. 

In this adaptation, Charlie (Peter Ostrum) receives a golden ticket to a chocolate factory. Filled with chocolate waterfalls and orange oompa loompas, this trip is anything but ordinary. 

Willy Wonka tells a fairy-tale like story about a child transported to a fantasy wonderland, with brightly costumed little people singing and dancing and strange dangers to be negotiated. It doesn't immerse you in its world quite like Wizard of Oz (1939) does, but it's quite more engaging than the universe of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and, dare I say it, Mary Poppins. 

Though not quite a film of "pure imagination", the picture does deliver in set design, creativity and casting. Gene Wilder's Wonka seems to be quite a mad character who is unpredictable in nature. At times I found myself in awe of him, then terribly frightened. He is the main reason to watch this film. Charlie? Not so much. Peter Ostrum always looks like he's in pain, albeit I do wish he made more films after this. 

A bit dated, Wonka's punishments now seem eerily close to child abuse, Willy Wonka is a memorable film that did create some decent tunes ("the candy man can", "oompa loompa", "golden ticket") Viewing it as a child, I was intrigued but not overly enthusiastic about the premise. Would this have a significant impact on today's children? I doubt it, but it's message is still fun to analyze. 

The Roaring Twenties (1939) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Roaring Twenties
Year: 1939
Director: Raoul Walsh
Country: US
Language: English

Ah, a Warner Bros/James Cagney picture. The Roaring Twenties has the plot you'd expect from the old gangster pictures starring Cagney; he's a good man trying to make something of himself, but faces disappointment before joining the mob. You've seen this in Public Enemy, White Heat and countless others. It's not unique, infact somewhat formulaic, but its great actors, great writer and great director make this quite an intriguing experience.

In this film, three men (Cagney, Bogart and Jeffrey Lynn) attempt to make a living in Prohibitionist America after returning home from fighting together in World War I.

When The Roaring Twenties was released in 1939, the United States was in a state of simultaneous confusion and limbo about their place in the world. Cagney's character comes home from the first world war, hoping to get away from the death and destruction that occurred abroad, but only finds himself victimized. He attempts to re-enter society, only to find the broken promises of an American Dream that perhaps never actually existed. His experience is only one of hundreds of thousands.

Director Raoul Walsh gives an honest approach to how crime is created in society. Confronting America's problems head on, The Roaring Twenties doesn't have an overt moral discussion about crime, but rather gives an objective documentary-like approach. Course this was made during the Hay's code so we can't go too far with the character (Cagney's gangster here is rather tame compared to White Heat) and we do need to be presented with a "crime doesn't pay" kind of ending.

Gangster pictures after the production code were a bit too "safe" in terms of what the characters were allowed to do. Every action is intentionally made to please the censors. Despite this The Roaring Twenties is a very entertaining film that gives fascinating insight into the shape of society in Pre-WWII America.

The Thrill of it All (1963) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Thrill of it All
Year: 1963
Director: Norman Jewison
Country: US
Language: English

The goal(s) of first-wave feminism was to open up opportunities for women, with a focus on suffrage. Discussions about the vote and women's participation in politics led to an examination of gender roles. The goal(s) of second-wave feminism focused on the subjugation of women with broader critiques of patriarchy, capitalism, normative heterosexuality, and the woman's role as wife and mother. While The Thrill of it All wasn't overtly feminist, it did hit on the themes of second wave feminism. 

In this film, a housewife's (Doris Day) sudden rise to fame as a soap spokesperson leads to chaos in her home life. 

Director Norman Jewison (In the Heat of the Night) and screenwriter Carl Reiner spend much of the run-time discussing the issues inherent in any marriage and the struggles of juggling work and home. The inequality is present almost immediately as the husband (James Garner) is an obstetrician, spending long hours at the hospital, while the wife runs the household. Why must the woman stay home? Why are domestic duties treated with less respect than professional duties? 

The movie becomes a marriage comedy illustrating the mutual struggles of both husband and wife. Garner gets the more physical, slapsticky elements of the plot. His problems stem from not being the sole breadwinner, the one given praise, in the family. I enjoy how the patriarchal views of society (in form of Garner) are blatantly being made fun of, but then again Jewison doesn't go full feminism and we do see some of early 60's gender roles shining through cracks in the script (Gerald gets a bit too much credit for the stability of the household)

Doris Day plays her part very well, shockingly being a Classic Hollywood female full of carnal desires that isn't an outright film noir villain. Despite the character's flaws, James Garner is rather charismatic in his role. It's difficult not to become enamored with him. Overall The Thrill of It All may have less "thrills" than advertised, but it still is an important picture. 

Big Trouble in Little China (1986) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Big Trouble In Little China
Year: 1986
Director: John Carpenter
Country: US
Language: English

Big Trouble in Little China was a box office bomb, earning back a meager $11 million of its $20 million budget. The original script was written by Gary Goldman and David Weinstei, but director John Carpenter didn't think it was very good. After a poor re-write by W.D Richter, Carpenter decided to take the script into his own hands. Unfortunately, the studio execs at 20th Century Fox didn't really "get" the picture and would cause a lot of creative problems during production. 

In this, an All-American trucker named Jack Burton (Kurt Russell)  gets dragged into a centuries-old mystical battle in Chinatown

The advertising and promotional material at the time proves the studio really didn't "get" Carpenter's vision. The film's trailer is intentionally misleading, completely downplaying the satire of the film. Fox spent $3 MILLION dollars on posters asking "Who is Jack Burton?" to where Carpenter would reply (on the dvd commentary) "Who gives a shit?". Fox thought Burton was a John Wayne-esque character, the kind of "man's man" who would ride in and save the day, whereas Burton was written more like a parody of John Wayne. 

The film plays as a satire of the typical Hollywood action genre. It has all the usual tropes and cliches, but with many twists to make it fairly unique. In most American pictures centered around Asia (especially in the 80's), the white American is the "hero" of the story, but Russell's Burton is a bumbling fool who makes the plot more chaotic with his presence alone. Carpenter is intent on displaying the West's messiah complex for the world to see. 

Of course Big Trouble in Little China is larger than one character. It features a cast of expressive actors, bizarre and memorable dialogue, entertaining special effects and some pretty good choreography. It's a very weird picture that, if it doesn't impress you, will at least make for a memorable time.