Metropolis (2001) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Metropolis
Year: 2001
Director: Rintaro
Country: Japan
Language: Japanese

Rintaro's Metropolis is based off of a very early work of the same title. Tezuka's sci-fi classic manga was drawn in 1949, when the man was just a young medical student. The title may remind you of Fritz Lang's classic silent movie, which depicted the people's uprising and the android Malia, who played the great part in the revolution, in a New York-like future city. Tezuka had not seen the movie at the time; instead still photos of futuristic skyscrapers beautiful metallic androids inspired him to create his vision of Metropolis.

The story is set in the far future where humans and robots live together, unfortunately not in harmony. Many robots are forced underground and are terminated for entering unauthorized areas. They are more or less servants to humankind. The plot starts to unfold when the boy meets a robot named Tima and they get into trouble. 

Tezuka's Metropolis was very different from Lang's, and Rintaro's movie version is apparently very different from the Manga (at this time I have not read the manga). The film is gorgeous to look at. We are beholden to high-level computer artwork displaying an incredibly realized world that accentuates a powerful, gripping story that will leave you thoroughly engaged. It is a fairly accessible film to a modern world audience, as much of its cultural references and homages are from sources outside of Japan. I was reminded of Dr.Strangelove, The Fifth Element, Blade Runner and many more American films. 

Metropolis has a surprising amount of emotional depth. It surpasses even the more serious science fiction in trying to comprehend human nature, free-will, and sociological  changes in society. It is ambitious in substance and style, but manages to be excel at both and become a true anime masterwork. I particularly loved the jazzy score, which would normally be off-putting in sci-fi, but this time proved to be fairly useful in emphasizing emotion. 

The climax of Metropolis is guaranteed to leave you stunned. Rintaro's film is rather slow paced and drawn out, but at the same time he leaves you wanting more by the end. Despite a run-time of close to 2 hours, it feels like a much shorter film. It's difficult to say anything negative about this work of art, as I was I found myself incredibly inspired by it. 

Mary of Scotland (1936) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Mary of Scotland
Year: 1936
Director: John Ford
Country: US
Language: English

Based on the play by Maxwell Anderson, John Ford's Mary of Scotland (1936) portrays Mary Stuart as a righteous martyr and Elizabeth Tudor as a conniving paranoiac even though history may suggest otherwise. The historical analysis is fairly simplistic, the reality of this situation is far more complex than what has been put onscreen, but it does play off like a Shakespearean drama. The real question is, despite the inaccuracy, does Mary of Scotland prove to be a great film?

In Ford's picture, the recently widowed Mary Stuart returns to Scotland to reclaim her throne but is opposed by her half-brother and her own Scottish lords. 

Historians may cringe at Ford's obviously pro-Stuart and anti-Tudor sentiments, but I am impressed by this well-staged drama that features Katherine Hepburn in the title role. As with most Ford films, we are fully immersed in the setting. The costumes are divine, the make-up is up to par and the staging is near flawless. The score (complete with bagpipes) is also suffice for this particular drama.

My main problem with Mary of Scotland is with the story itself. Despite being about a particularly intriguing time in history, we are given the plot of a bad romance novel. “I’d burn my throne if it meant another night with you.” The film is far more about Mary's loves than about her difficulty of returning to the Scottish throne. 

I had a lot of high hopes for Mary of Scotland, considering it was directed by John Ford and starred Katherine Hepburn, but unfortunately I was a little let down. By the end of the film I was incredibly bored, wanting to find a film that showed a more tumultuous view of this history.  Technically well-made, but lacking substance. 

Bedknobs and Broomsticks (1971) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Bedknobs and Broomsticks
Year: 1971 
Director: Robert Stevenson
Country: US
Language: English

In the wake of Mary Poppins several less successful copycats were greenlit. United Artists tried their hand four years after Poppins, losing Andrews but retaining Dick Van Dyke, with Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Disney was at a loss by the 1970s with how to capitalize on the financial and critical success of Poppins, especially considering P.L. Travers would refuse to sign away any more of her novels. Bedknobs and Broomsticks was an attempt to recreate the successful Poppins formula. 

In this film, an apprentice witch, three kids and a cynical conman search for the missing component to a magic spell useful to the defense of Britain. 

Bedknobs and Broomsticks was a surprisingly edgy (for Disney family fare, that is) fantasy that is rooted in a historically important chapter of World War II, as the Nazis seemingly unstoppable Blitz trudged forward into Great Britain. The finished product feels like Sound of Music mixed with Mary Poppins, albeit with worse acting and less memorable songs. Bedknobs and Broomsticks marks the end of an era for Disney live action films. It was the last film the Sherman brothers would create the music for; the last Disney film nominated for an Oscar until The Little Mermaid in 1989; and it was the final film overseen by Roy Disney, Walt’s brother.

Bedknobs is a fun, imaginative little movie that provides a consistent tone of pure wackiness throughout its run-time. It has issues with story, pacing and some frivolous waste of scenes, but I do enjoy the second act animation. The animated sequences involving an underwater world and a fast & furious football match have a charming old school quality, which is absolutely welcome for anyone weary of modern-day, digital "perfection".

Angela Lansbury is no Julie Andrews however. She is far less charismatic and her voice carries much less weight in terms of the film's few musical moments. Lansbury could have been substituted by many of 1970's beautiful actresses and the film would be drastically improved.  It's worth watching out of curiosity, but I personally haven't found any real reason to watch it more than once. 

Dillinger (1973) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Dillinger
Year: 1973
Director: John Milius
Country: US
Language: English

Hollywood has always had an obsession with gunslingers and outlaws. During the Great Depression itself, a handful of lawless men and women dared to defy a rocky government, only to be idolized onscreen by a few of contemporary cinema's biggest leading players. Decades later, during the revolutionary movements of the 1960's, the anti-hero would take centre stage, only this time with much more violence. The success of Bonnie and Clyde (1967)  pretty much guaranteed that the outlaw Dillinger would have his day again.

John Dillinger (Warren Oates) and his gang go on a bank robbing spree across the midwest, but one G-Man is determined to bring him down. 

Dillinger is one of American International Picture's most profitable films. It featured the directorial debut of prolific screenwriter John Milius. Completely detached from the class of Golden Hollywood, Dillinger replaced character development with violence, bloody violence. The writer holds no punches, it's shocking and almost exploitative in its use of realistic fury. The sound editors and stunt doubles had their work cut out for them. 

Far more brutal than Arthur Penn's Bonnie and Clyde, Milius makes a picture that doesn't glamorize the criminal, but rather shows events seemingly objectively. Though Warren Oates is a rather charismatic actor, we don't instinctively side with his outlaw. Nor do we necessarily join in on Melvin Purvis' manhunt for the criminal. Unfortunately, because the budget was very small for this feature, much of the cinematography, photography and set design is lacking in areas. We are not always fully immersed in the 1930's setting. 

I'm on the fence about this film. One one hand, I would have liked Dillinger to be more of a character study. As the movie ended I didn't know much about the man and his goons, other than the fact that money was tight and he needed to rob. It was also too violent for my taste, though after seeing countless gangster movies from the 1930's having no blood at all, perhaps this was refreshingly different. I can certainly see how this would have appealed to folks in the 70's. 

On An Island With You (1948) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: On an Island With You
Year: 1948
Director: Richard Thorpe
Country: US
Language: English

Every Esther Williams' film I've seen, albeit I haven't seen many of them, appear to follow this particular formula; beautiful girl goes to a place, sees musicians play music, and swims in the finale. I'm not entirely sure why one would want to be so specifically typecast, but hey if you can make a lot of money doing it, why not? Director Richard Thorpe made four film with Esther; Thrill of a Romance (1945), This Time for Keeps, Fiesta (1947) and this picture.

While shooting on location in the South Pacific, a movie star (Esther Williams) is pursued by a handsome Naval officer (Peter Lawford) who is convinced she is the girl for him.

On an Island With You is pure Golden Hollywood film-making for better or for worse. It's bright, colorful, and attractive. The island locations, which seem to be recycled from other film sets, are vibrant and have a remarkably lively feel. The glitz and glamour of it all will utterly enthrall most viewers. The passion between our two main characters is incredibly compelling. Granted, the stalking naval officer would be a real weirdo in real life.

The characters are well defined, but the dialogue is quite poor. Modern feminists would have a field day with the misogynistic plot, as the officer feels she owes him her love. Strangely this can be forgiven as it's quite a charming 40's film. The bad writing further enhances the daytime soap opera atmosphere. On an Island With You is great despite its flaws because it aspires to be pure fantasy and achieves its goal.

A brainless musical, but fun, Director Richard Thrope has made a quirky melodrama that ought to be seen by newer generations. Acting as pure wish fulfillment, I had a great time watching this sweeping classic. It's odd to claim this is a "must see", but this IS a "must-see"

Sweet Charity (1969) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Sweet Charity
Year: 1969
Director: Bob Fosse
Country: US
Language: English

Bob Fosse is one of the greatest directors to ever grace the silver screen. All That Jazz (1979) and Caberet (1972) are certainly in my top twenty. The latter re-invented the Hollywood musical, which used to be family oriented (see Sound of Music) and transformed it into something more serious and sexual. A great director has to start somewhere; Sweet Charity was his debut feature. It was based on the stage play written by Neil Simon, and it starred Shirley Maclaine.

Taxi dancer Charity continues to have faith in the human race despite apparently endless disappointments at its hands. She hopes that she will finally meet the nice young man to romance her away from her sleazy life.

"There's gotta be something better than this!" Unfortunately Fosse doesn't have full control over the script, unlike his work in Cabaret and All That Jazz,  and the film suffers because of it. In Cabaret the characters were given a solid reason to sing, whereas in Sweet Charity the musical spots can often feel very random and disjointed. The world Fosse captures isn't consistent and can be slightly confusing. Are these musical moments happening in the characters' head? Is this a musical world in "real life"?

Sweet Charity's run-time is also far too long. For a 2hr 20 minute musical I could only recall two great songs; "There's gotta be something better than this" and "big spender", neither I could pinpoint when in the film they occurred. Granted I do like Fosse's signature choreography and I do think he directed the staging rather well. Shirley Maclaine's acting/singing is so-so. Great in many parts, somewhat bordering on "bad" in others. 

I really wanted to love this Fosse venture, but when it's not even halfway through the film and I'm wishing the movie would end, that clearly isn't a good sign. It's his debut feature and I can forgive him for it though. Other somewhat redeeming qualities include the costuming and makeup design, but unfortunately they don't make up for this lackluster musical. Avoid it if you can, watch Cabaret instead. 

 

Fiddler on the Roof (1971) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Fiddler on the Roof
Year: 1971
Director: Norman Jewison
Country: US
Language: English

At the heart of Fiddler on the Roof is one thing; tradition. The title itself refers the title to the precariousness of life against which tradition is a buffer and support. It is about the slow dissolve and transformation of tradition. Characters in this film wish to depart from tradition and make choices that seem chaotic and uneasy. It is not quite clear what the picture means to say about the moral implications of abandoning tradition.

In pre-revolutionary Russia, a Jewish peasant contends with marrying off three of his daughters while growing anti-Semitic sentiment threatens his village. 

The themes of Fiddler on the Roof are universal, but the sensibility is distinctively Jewish. Director Norman Jewison makes the characters incredibly easy to relate to and their culture easy to be absorbed in. It's a nice folksy musical with a memorable score and charming tunes. The choreography is simple, yet effective. Palestinian-born Jewish actor Topol, who plays Tevye, will make you enthralled with his version of "If I were a Rich Man".

Jewison’s direction can be quite brilliant. He does a great job at seamlessly blending tragedy and humor, faith and struggle, happiness and suffering. It maintains an even tone throughout its run-time. We are able to laugh at Tevye's buffoonery, yet also be outraged at his persecution and the persecution of every Jewish person. 

Granted, we don't see Fiddler on the Roof's characters as victims of a grand tragedy, but rather as people like ourselves. The closest film I could compare this to is maybe Benigni’s Life is Beautiful. Upon theatrical release it was immediately embraced by the public, receiving critical acclaim and later would have eight Academy Award nominations including Best Picture. Even though it's not my favorite musical, I still must give it a high recommendation. 

Mary Poppins (1964) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Mary Poppins
Year: 1964
Director: Robert Stevenson
Country: US
Language: English

One key to the success of any musical is the quality of its tunes. With memorable hits like the delightful "Spoonful of Sugar", the curiously upbeat "Chim Chim Cher Ree" and the extremely hard to spell "Supercalifragilisticeexpialidocious" it's not hard to see why Mary Poppins was so successful. Granted Julie Andrews is a terrific talent, her voice could grab the attention of any curious filmgoer. She won an Academy Award ("Best Actress") for this particularly stunning role. 

Mary Poppins is a kind of Super-nanny who flies in with her umbrella in response to the request of the Banks children and proceeds to put things right with the aid of her rather extraordinary magical powers.

Often parodied (see The Simpsons "Sherry Boppins") and paid homage to, Mary Poppins is a one of a kind film that is part fairy tale, part daydream, and all magic. We're lucky that Disney was able to produce this picture considering how reluctant the original author (Pamela Lyndon Travers) was to relinquish the publishing rights of her 1934 book. She eventually regretted giving the rights away to Disney, as they had drastically altered her original character. 

With many psychedelic elements at play, we get a sense that the production of Mary Poppins was a joy to be a part of. So much creative energy exhumes from every frame. Dick Van Dyke is truly at home dancing with well-integrated animated characters such as penguins. How he didn't collapse from exhaustion due to his over-energetic dancing style is anybody's guess. 

Well choreographed, written, scored and costumed there's hardly a negative quality that can be found in Disney's adaptation. I'd be lying if I said I "loved" this film, infact I personally find it a tad too joyful, but Mary Poppins is so iconic that my subjective opinion doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. This is a musical that may become dated, but will always be seen by newer generations.

Lemon (1969) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Lemon
Year: 1969
Director: Hollis Frampton
Country: US
Language: N/A

Hollis Frampton has said the following about his 7 minute film, “As a voluptuous lemon is devoured by the same light that reveals it, its image passes from the spatial rhetoric of illusion into the spatial grammar of the graphic arts.” Yeah, sure buddy. Lemon is a short picture featuring...a lemon. Not like a cute Disney Pixar animated lemon, it's literally just a lemon sitting still. Watch some film snob tell you otherwise though. "It's a metaphor for the Russian Revolution!"

Plot synopsis: It's a lemon, just sitting there. 

"Maybe it's a metaphor for the loss of innocence during the Russia/United States cold war!" Don't be silly, it's a lemon. Hollis Frampton's short is minimalist, and silent in nature. It is an attempt at examining the nature of vision, illusion, spatiality, and film. As the light gradually illuminates the lemon, its distinctive shape appears in a three-dimensional spatial form. As the light recedes, the lemon loses its spatiality 

"Maybe it's a metaphor for Germany's loss of humanity during World War Two!" Don't be silly, it's a lemon. Though I'll admit, it does examine how light and space can change how we perceive a character. In certain light the lemon does look mischievous and grotesque. In other lighting it looks like the protagonist Gotham needs! 

Is there a good way to rate this avante garde film, which is just about a lemon under lighting? I guess if Frampton sought out to show that lighting is an essential tool in the arsenal of a film-maker then he did a good job. As far as movies about a lemon doing nothing goes, this is pretty good. 

A Poem is a Naked Person (1974) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: A Poem is a Naked Person
Year: 1974
Director: Les Blank
Country: US
Language: English

Prior to A Poem is a Naked Person I had not heard of Leon Russell. I wish I could say "he was before my time", but I'm quite aware of a lot of musicians who were "before my time". Inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2011, Russell's music can be best described as a generous mix of Johnny Cash & Willie Nelson. He's a long-haired southern hippie who specializes in philosophical bluegrass. Quite a unique artist, his records are a must-listen.

A Poem is a Naked Person captures music and other events at Leon Russell's Oklahoma recording studio during a three-year period in the early 70's.  

Having been a producer of this film, Leon Russell did not allow it to be commercially distributed for many years. As of 2012, it could only be shown when presented by director Les Blank in person to a nonprofit organization. After Les Blanks' death Russell loosened up a bit when convinced by Blank's son to open up the distribution rights. In 2016 Criterion Collection would release a special edition of this bold and innovative picture, it is also available on TCM's streaming site Filmstruck. 

A Poem is a Naked Person is a very "free" film. "Free" from the typical documentary narrative and "free" from agenda, structure and subjective opinion. One moment we will be watching a mesmerizing Russell concert and another moment we'll be watching a...snake eating a chicken? You'll wonder if some scenes are relevant to the overall picture, although I suspect they help us get into the mind of this outrageous performer. 

If you've come to A Poem is a Naked Person expecting the opposite of weirdo hippie nonsense, then you are sadly mistaken. It's a documentary that borders a fine line between inspiring and dull, weird and pointless. I enjoyed it, but must admit that its certainly not for everyone. 

One Day Pina Asked...(1983) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: One Day Pina Asked...
Year: 1983
Director: Chantal Akerman
Country: France
Language: French

"This film is more than a documentary on Pina Bausch," a narrator announces at the beginning, "it is a journey through her world, through her unwavering quest for love." Bausch, who died in 2009, can be considered one of the greatest choreographers of modern dance. Among her many accomplishments, she pioneered a unique style drawn from the German theatrical dance tradition known as tanztheate. This documentary was created by another great female; filmmaker Chantal Akerman. 

In One Day Pina Asked... we follow famous Choreographer Pina Bausch and her company of dancers, The Tanzteater Wuppertal, for five weeks while they were on tour in Germany, Italy and France.

Chantal Akerman captures the company's rehearsals and performances. She interviews various members, who Pina chose not only for their talents, but their intelligence as well. The dancers describe their various dances, and explain that many themes are quite autobiographical. Excerpts of Komm Tanz Mit Mir (Come Dance with Me), Nelken (Carnations), Walzer, and 1980 are shown to give us a better understanding of the talent involved.

A great companion piece to Wim Wenders' Pina (2011), a full length documentary which also shows the genius of Pina's work, One Day Pina Asked... is a remarkable film that shows us a glimpse into the amounts of mental and physical energy Pina and her performers put into a seemingly long tour. Indeed many of the dances are quite creative, I especially found myself entranced by Come Dance With Me

This would have been a great bonus feature on Criterion's blu-ray release of Wim Wenders' Pina. They both make a great double feature. Granted, One Day Pina Asked...is a good film on its own, it's more intimate and intense than Wenders'. It does a good job at painting a portrait of the artist in its very short run-time.