Passionflower Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Passionflower
Year: 2012
Director: Shelagh Carter
Country: Canada
Language: English  

The tragedy of the Canadian Film Industry is that it is almost always overshadowed by our Hollywood neighbors to the south. Our modestly made pictures are no match for the mega blockbusters that seem to be released every week. Unlike Canadian radio stations, movie theatres are not required by law to play a certain percentage of Canadian films. Therefore most theatres will only play American films because it drives in more customers. Few Canadians have actually seen a Canadian-made film. This is a shame, because it allows great artists like Manitoba born Shelagh Carter to go un-noticed. Her latest film Passionflower is one of the greatest movies ever made.

The film is set in the Early 1960's. Sarah (Kassidy Love Brown) and her brother Thomas (Ethan Harapiak) live with their parents in Winnipeg, Manitoba. She belongs to a regular nuclear family. However something is not right; Sarah becomes confused at her mother's increasingly destructive behavior. Her father refuses to believe that anything is wrong and their family is slowly imploding from the stress. Sarah tries to survive this using her creativity and imagination.

In some ways Passionflower reminds me of John Cassavetes' 1974 classic A Woman Under the Influenxe, but in many ways it's completely different. Shelagh's picture is more personal and realistic, it is autobiographical. On one hand it's a tale about a woman's brutal slip into psychosis and on another it's about a daughter who just wants to love and be loved back. It's heartbreaking and certainly tear-jerking, I felt immensely drawn into it as I could relate it to my own experiences with mental health.

Shelagh Carter uses her film to push mental health issues to the forefront. Perhaps if mental health was treated more seriously in the 60's her family would not have suffered as much. Passionflower is a reminder that mental health should not be ignored, but always treated with care. Carter doesn't blame the mother for her actions, rather it shows her as a victim of an uncaring world. From a technical point of view, the Director did everything she could to make an authentic 1960's Winnipeg and it looks absolutely wonderful. The set and costume designer from Mad Men should be replaced by her people. The actors are magnificent, they truly draw you into the story.

In Conclusion, if you have never seen a Canadian film in your life then this is the picture to start with. It is alluring and never ceases to be thought provoking. It is a complex honest film about mental health, marriage, growing pains and parenting. It is hard to think of what I didn't like about it, because Carter makes a film with very few flaws.

Top Ten Films of 2011

Though 2011 was two years ago, it was a memorable time in the History of Cinema, A modern silent B/W French film known as The Artist won Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Film historians and snooty French types went wild with joy. I have seen about 50 films from that year and reviewed over 20. 2011 was truly remarkable, full of films that paid tribute to the great Art. My #1 pick for greatest film of 2011 already has an incredible Criterion Collection release, so go pick it up while you still can. Reasons will be made in point form.

 10. Redemption of General Butt Naked

 -Deep exploration into themes regarding forgiveness, mercy, redemption, death and justice.

-Will have you questioning your morals long after the film is over

 9. Pina

-Directed by Wim Wenders

- Fantastic tribute to Pina Bausch

- Fascinating dive into the art of dance

- Unusually made documentary

 8. Shame

- Directed by black Director Steve McQueen

- Disturbing yet powerful

- Themes regarding sexual guilt, shame and addiction

-Marvelous acting by Fassbinder

7. An African Election

- Interesting documentary about the political process of an African Elecion.

-Unlike a North American election, this is anything but boring.

6. Tree of Life

- Polarizing. After seeing it three times I still can't figure out whether I love it or hate it.

-Truly a unique vision that needs to be watched and re-watched.

5. A Separation

-Another political film, but this is about a marriage in Iran

-When this won the "Best Foreign Language" Oscar, the state declared a "victory over Israel". However the Director completely disagrees.

  4. This Is Not A Film

 -A political documentary about the deprivations in Iranian cinema

-Incredibly thought provoking

 3. Martha Marcy May Marlene

- Accurate depictions of cult and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

-Brilliant acting by Elizabeth Olsen, sister of the famous Olsen Twins.

2. Midnight In Paris

-Directed by Woody Allen. Even as a senoir he knows how to make a great film.

-Time travel!

- A great use of Owen Wilson's skills

1. Le Havre

-A trip back to the magical French Cinema of the 30's and 40's 

- Hilarious dead pan humour

-Heartwarming tale that incites the audience to become better people, without being preachy





 

Weekend Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Weekend
Year: 2011
Director: Andrew Haigh
Country: UK
Language: English

While LGBT themed films have been largely ignored in Cinematic history (name ONE film from Hollywood's Golden era with a gay main character) there seems to be great development in more modern movies. However, as many people will point out, the newer LGBT films are somewhat offensive because they usually stick to one specific formula: gay person overcomes straight establishment and then dies. Frankly you aren't going to find any depth to gay characters in Hollywood; this is why you need to look outside the box towards international independent film. Weekend is a great example of an independent film that takes its LGBT themes very seriously.

On a Friday night after a drunken house party with his straight mates, Russell  (Tom Cullen) heads out to a gay club, alone and on the pull. Just before closing time he picks up Glen (Chris New) but what's expected to be just a one-night stand becomes something else, something special. That weekend, in bars and in bedrooms, getting drunk and taking drugs, telling stories and having sex, the two men get to know each other. It is a brief encounter that will resonate throughout their lives.

Weekend is perhaps the most accurate film about two men falling in love in cinematic history. While there are countless films about falling in love, many of them are tripe romantic comedies, this is very sincere. Director Andrew Haigh makes no attempt to be cute, overly sentimental or use cheap emotional tactics. There is no silly dialogue about how "the world won't let us be", nor are any of the men secretly dying of a fatal illness. It's absolutely refreshing because it does not stick to typical formula and it is not made the way every other LGBT film seems to be made. It is quite unique in every aspect.

Weekend is not about exceptional and outstanding gay men, it is about two average guys who start a conversation and found that they have lighting in a bottle. Gay issues are touched upon and some good political points are made about society, but the film never feels like it's trying to send a great political message. The dialogue is free flowing and completely natural, nothing in this film feels forced. The chemistry between the two actors, Tom Cullen and Chris new, is remarkable; it makes you wonder if they are partner in real life.

In conclusion, Weekend is a definite must see. It is what all LGBT films...all films about relationships in general should be. Trust, honesty, communication; Andrew Haigh has loads to teach us about how relationships should work and we should listen. The Criterion Collection has a great edition of this film on dvd/blu ray, unfortunately that is probably the only way you can see it in the US since America tends to limit distribution on non-lesbian LGBT films. Praise it! 4.5/5

Sound of My Voice Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Sound of My Voice
Year: 2011
Director: Zal Batmanglij
Country: US
Language: English

 
I first saw Sound of My Voice during the Summer of 2012. Though I intended to write a review about it, I somehow forgot and it got lost among the many other great films that I had watched. My friend Bry Zee recently suggested that I should review this film and so I will. The film is from 2011, a great year for recent independent films. While my favourite of that year was the chilling Martha Marcy May Marlene, this film is definitely in my top ten.

The intriguing plot consists of a journalist (Christopher Denham) and his girlfriend (Lorna Michaelson), who get pulled into a cult, whose leader claims to be from the future, while they are investigating it.

Sound of My Voice is Iranian-American screenwriter and director Zal Batmanglij's first feature film, which he co-wrote with American screenwriter Brit Marling. It premiered at the 27th Sundance Film Festival in 2011 and was shot primarily in the United States. Overall the film is impressive, it is very atmospheric and holds a good pace. If you want to know what it feels like to join a cult without actually joining a cult then this film is the closest you will get. It's absolutely haunting, an experience you will not forget.

The film is haunting because it's an intensely psychological character study. We are seduced by Maggie the cult leader, yet we also fear her. Every character in this film is profoundly human, even the "protagonists" of this story have skeletons in their closet. The key to this film's success is not only the uncertainty of Maggie's identity, but also the mystery of it all. Sound of my Voice is an intense emotional roller-coaster that does not stop, even when the film ends.

In conclusion, Sound of My Voice is a film that demands multiple viewings because it's just that damn good. One could argue that it's the best film of the decade so far and it would be pretty difficult to disagree.The film does leave some questions unanswered and does have an ambiguous ending, which may upset some people, but overall it's an incredibly suspenseful, thought provoking film. Praise it! 5/5

Le Havre Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Le Havre
Year: 2011
Director: Aki Kaurismaki
Country: Finland
Language: France

When one thinks of the "fantasy" genre, what usually comes to mind are films like Lord of the Rings and Pan's Labyrinth. A film that is set in modern day France, which doesn't consist of supernatural beings, is not exactly the type that incites Directors to make fairy-tales about. Yet Aki Kaurismaki does and he makes a wonderful enchanting  film, despite the fact that the Finnish man has never known a word of French.

Le Havre is set in the nearly forgotten town in France with the same name. It concerns an aging shoe shiner named Marcel Marx (Andre Wilms) who finds an African boy and welcomes him in his home. Meanwhile inspector Monet (Jean-Pierre Darroussin) is on his trail, because the African boy is an illegal immigrant who arrived via cargo ship a few days earlier.

"I think the more pessimistic I feel about life, the more optimistic the films should be," said Kaurismaki at a conference at the Cannes Film Festival. Indeed Le Havre is an incredibly optimistic film about the triumph over the human spirit in times of adversity. It is so technically well made and well acted that it could also pass for a great silent film. While not Chaplin-esque in slapstick humor, the comedy in this is very deadpan, it is similar in sentimentalism. Like Chaplin, Kaurismaki favors the under-dog, specifically the proletariat working class.

Le Havre is a refreshingly different film for 2011, for instance there is no CGI in sight. It is not over-stimulating, rather it is slow paced, reasonably short and incredibly expressive. It's a very fluid film that mixes comedy and drama in a remarkably natural way. To pull of a mixture of dark and ironic humor while still maintaining and upbeat and cheerful mood is incredibly difficult, but the Director pulls it off.

In conclusion, Le Havre is a brilliant blend of poetry and realism. It's quite an inspiring film that incites creativity and, more importantly, hope in mankind. Kaurismaki portrays a world that isn't, but that he would like to exist. It's not an impossibly hard world to imagine, perhaps in a few years it will exist. I guess the most important "lesson" you can take from this film is that miracles do happen. Praise it! 5/5

Pina Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Pina
Director: Wim Wenders
Year: 2011
Country: Germany
Language: German

Pina is my introduction to the works of German Director Wim Wenders and boy, this is one hell of an introduction. The art of dance has never looked more beautiful or majestic. The choreography in films like The Red Shoes and Black Swan, even though it is great in each, pales in comparison to this film. It makes me wish I had taken up ballet as a child, though unfortunately I likely would have not been physically able to.

Pina is essentially an ode to the late Pina Bausch, a much-loved German choreographer whose work was unlike anybody else's. Few choreographers have had more influence in the medium than her. This film explores the life and work of this artist of movement while we see her pupils perform her most notable creations where basic things like water, dirt and even gravity take on otherworldly qualities in their dancing.

Pina Bausch would have been the center and voice of the film, but unfortunately she died of cancer a few days before filming. Wenders was unsure if he should actually go on with the project, but Pina's students persuaded him to continue. The brilliance of this film is that it's a documentary unlike any other. Most documentaries explore its subject's life; where they grew up, who they met and how they became "great". Pina explores its subjects art. While there are short recollections from various people who were close to Bausch, it is noticeable in their faces that they were still grieving over her death when the film was shot, most of the film is interpretive dance. These dances are enthralling and awe inspiring. Actually seeing Pina's art unfold before your eyes is actually more affective than merely having someone telling you she is great.

I admire Wim Wenders for knowing how to use technology correctly and how to manipulate it to make a great film. Ever since James Cameron's "Avatar" gave 3D mass appeal, I have hated that new technology. It has always seemed like a cheap Gimmick to drive up ticket prices. The 3D in Pina actually adds to the quality of the film. It makes each dance a little more enchanting. The sense of depth definitely makes you feel like you are watching a live performance. Of course the film is also great in 2D, Wenders makes sensational use of his cameras and the score is very good at evoking certain emotions.

In conclusion, Pina is incredibly inspirational. It is one of the most unique documentaries (if it can be classified as a documentary) I have ever seen. One of the strengths of this film is that it encourages audience participation, it's not one of those films you can mindlessly watch. Each dance is subject to your interpretation and the interpretation is neither right nor wrong. It's a shame that most men think the art of dance is too "feminine" for them, because they will surely miss out on this life changing film. Praise it! 5/5

Tree of Life Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Tree of Life
Director: Terrence Malick
Year: 2011
Country: US
Language: English

I first saw Terrence Malick's Tree of Life a few weeks after it came out to theatres. I was intrigued because the majority of people who would talk about this film either loved it and would claim that it is one of the greatest films of this Century or completely hated it and would say that it's complete trash. On my first viewing I enjoyed it, mainly because I was laughing with my friend Ellen the whole time. "Penis fish!" I shouted, " I bet there are going to be exploding volcanoes soon because this scene is an obvious sex metaphor!" It was such a cheesy film that I did something I rarely do, I walked out on the movie. A week later I decided to give it another chance. Though I was impressed with the cinematography, I found the film bordering on self-parody. I watched it for the third time a few days ago. because some great films need more than a couple og viewings to fully appreciate it. Here are my thoughts.

Visually the film is a masterpiece. Every shot is meaningful and incredibly beautiful. While I thought the "big bang" scene was unnecessary it was well edited and mesmerizing. If it was used in a different context for a different film then the images put together would likely reach their true potential. The 1950's setting is full of pleasant- and unpleasant- nostalgia. It seems like an accurate depiction of the 1950's America though I can't be 100% confident in that as I wasn't alive back then, but from what I've learned about the 50's from relatives, films, television shows and history books, Malick seems to have made a realistic 50's environment. Everything about this film on a technical scale is handled with care and is filled with so much tiny detail that Malick's filmmaking reminds me of Kubrick and his insane attention to the small but important things. Visually Tree of Life is almost on par with 2001: A Space Odyssey. The acting by both Sean Penn and Brad Pitt is surprisingly good as well. They are lost characters who aren't frivolous with their emotions.

Malick's Tree of Life is a period piece centered on three boys in the 1950's. The eldest son, Jack O' Brien (Sean Penn) of Mr and Mrs O'Brien (Sean Penn and Jessica Chastain) witnesses a loss of innocence. We trace the evolution of an eleven-year-old boy in Waco, TX, Jack, one of three brothers. At first all seems wonderful  to the child. He is like his mother, loving and of mercy. The father is more strict and stern, attempting to teach his son to be more selfish and independent. Each parent seeks for control and Jack seems stuck in the middle. Then he gets his first encounter with suffering, sickness and death. The world becomes more of a prison than something to be enjoyed. The story is framed by adult Jack, a man seeking to understand why the world is so cruel.

On paper the plot seems astonishing. It feels like it would be an incredibly serious drama that tugs at your heartstrings. The problem with this film is that it takes itself too seriously and almost becomes a parody of itself. The slow pacing, the melancholy whispering, the silence. It tries to hard to be emotional and comes off cheesy. The 30 minute silent "big bang" sequence was full of obvious imagery and sexual innuendos that didn't even try to be subtle. I could tell exactly what was going to happen before it happened. Penis fish penetrating vagina fish? A bunch of volcanoes must explode during the next cut! Aside from Brad Pitt's performance, everything about the plot and how it was executed is laughable. Visually you can compare it with 2001: A Space Odyssey but Kubrick's Sci-fi epic is a MUCH better film.

In conclusion, I praise Terrence Malick for his stunning visual imagery and the cinematography within the film but unless he was intentionally trying to make me laugh, Tree of Life didn't work for me. It tried desperately hard to be an arthouse film, but it tried too hard. It wasn't entertaining, nor was it all that intelligent. It's no wonder that even the star of the film, Sean Penn, didn't even like this film. If you like films that have unclear narratives and obvious symbolism, or if you just want a laugh without going to a bad stoner comedy then this is the film for you. Otherwise I would stay away from it. Piss on it! 2/5

Project Nim Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Project Nim
Director: James Marsh
Year: 2011
Country: US
Language: English

Can a chimpanzee learn Sign language? Better yet, can a chimpanzee be taken out of the wild and learn to live like a human? Project Nim is an interesting documentary about the life of a chimp known as Nim Chimpsky, a play on "Noam Chomsky", as he's raised like a human baby under care the of CFS. Switched from "home" to "home", "parent" to "parent". Nim is a reverse Tarzan and this proves quite difficult for the humans involved in this project.

Made by James Marsh, known for his Oscar winning documentary Man on Wire, Project Nim traces the life of a monkey, born in captivity and ripped from his mother at an early age. A Columbia professor known as Herbert Terrace used him for a world-altering experience that would make monkey-human relationships quite possible.He used his student,  Stephanie LaFarge, to be the foster mother. She was more the hippie type, allowing Nim to do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted. Surprisingly, like most humans, Nim thrived in this environment and actually learned a few signs. Terrace is shocked that Nim has been subjected to this "free" lifestyle and is sent to a more strict foster parent. Though he learns more at this new foster parent's place, it seems like he's very restricted and it shows in his less happy mood.

I feel this film holds a strong emphasis on the nature of knowledge and how knowledge can be gained. One foster parent feels that knowledge is gained through experience and relationships, where another feels that knowledge must be gained through strict classes. Although, if you have no motivation to learn, if you are depressed and just going through the motions what are you really going to learn? Happiness and freedom are more important in terms of gaining knowledge than strict routine. More work gets done when there is more freedom given to do the work.

Unfortunately, due to evolution Chimpanzees develop intense anger issues after a certain age and therefore it is extremely unsafe to keep one of them as a pet. Intense anger issues combines with strength 5x that of a human make for one hell of a disaster. Many handlers show the scars from their dangerous encounters with Nim. He signs "sorry" afterwards, but as his handlers speculate, is he really saying sorry? Does Nim really understand the language being presented to him. It would be nice to think that Nim knows what he did was wrong, but maybe it's just routine. He sees someone hurt or angry and he does that sign.

The dramatic re-creations in this film are so good that we are convinced we are seeing actual documentary footage when we're not. Sometimes there are actors substituting for the people that couldn't be there, sometimes there's animatronics, but Marsh always keeps you emotionally involved in the story of Nim Chimpsky. He makes you feel for the chimp the same way you would for any other human being. He also brings awareness to how cruely monkeys in labs are being treated and I'm sure has made an activist out of a few people. Free the monkeys!

In conclusion, Project Nim is a beautiful documentary that will keep you emotionally gripped from start to finish. It contains a strong look on the nature of language and knowledge. A fascinating film that shows you can take the monkey out of the wild but you can't take the wild out of the monkey. 3.5/5

Tabloid Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Tabloid
Director: Erroll Morris
Year: 2011
Country: U.S
Language: English

What is Tabloid? A love story? A conspiracy? A tale of religious morality? It is certainly a unique documentary made by a talented filmmaker about an eccentric woman with an incredible story that turned her world topsy turvy. Where most documentaries offer some sort of truth, this one does not. It will remind many viewers of Legendary Japanese Director Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon, in which there are many stories about the same event in question but it is not revealed which is truth. Is this a spoiler? I think not. Mainly because the stories you will hear while watching Tabloid are among the strangest you will ever hear.

The year was 1977, a lot of things happened this year. Elvis died, Chaplin died, Punk took the UK by storm and Joyce McKinney, the subject of this documentary, was involved in an infamous scandal that nearly left her life in shambles. The tabloids dubbed it "The Case of the Manacled Mormon", though the stories spread because of this headline seems stranger than the headline itself. A former model, she was said to be a desperate and crazed woman who kidnapped an American Mormon missionary from the U.K, handcuffed him to a hotel room bed and made him her weekend sex slave. Of course McKinney insists that the stories of her being a sex-crazed rapist are entirely false. She was rescuing the man she loved from a wicked cult, then fled the country to Canada as part of a mime troupe.

The tabloids' attempts at making her seem like a lunatic didn't end there, They also picked up a story on her years later when she attempted to clone her dead dog...and when she robbed a few people in Tennessee because she wanted money, to buy a false leg for her three legged horse. Why would someone buy a three legged horse? I guess these stories will lead to questions that make you doubt her sanity.

Both stories seem very plausible, yet only one can be true. Which one is it? Can both be false? There are many questions that this film brings up, many reasons for why we should think McKinney is a bit nuts, but also many reasons for why we should think McKinney is telling the truth. For a woman who has been accused of so much and basically had her life ruined because of these stories she seems to handle her self pretty well. It is possible that Director Erroll Morris wants us to sympathize with McKinney but I think his genius is making us really think about the nature of truth, celebrity, sex and cult.

I found it quite interesting that this film emphasizes the lack of difference between "religion" and "cult". Is "religion" all that different from "cult"? McKinney says she was saving her lover from a cult, the press says that he was merely a Mormon missionary performing his duties. Yet he is a man and men have desires that are quite sexual. Mormon missionaries were not only forbidden to have sex, but they couldn't be in the same room alone with another woman. I worked at a place where you couldn't be alone with a girl because they wanted you to "avoid the appearance of evil". What is "evil" about love? Perhaps when religions make rules that are contrary to human nature they become "cults". Was McKinney's lover raped or was he so afraid of being persecuted by his mormon "cult" that he made up a story to save himself?

We are never sure what Erroll Morris thinks, he baffles us with twists, turns and the strangeness of reality, yet his opinion is not apparent. His film is incredibly personal and seems to be more than a documentary. It gets us asking questions about reality itself, something I truly unique in documentary filmmaking.

In conclusion, Morris' film Tabloid is unique because it is non judgmental and makes us question the nature of sex, religion, cult, love, reality and many other topics. I can definitley see this being shown in philosophy classes along with Kurosawa's Rashomon. There are many documentaries out there, but few that can actually make the viewer really thing. Was McKinney telling the truth? I'm still not sure. Does it matter? Praise it! 4/5

Ides of March Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Ides of March

Year: 2011

Director: George Clooney
Country: U.S
Language: English

As you can tell from my reviews on Moneyball and The Help I’m not really a fan of recycled material that is not used in an interesting or innovative way. Harold and Maude is an example of a film that had the recycled rich and poor person love story however the way it was used was absolutely fascinating. Ides of March is a recycled story about the corruption of politicians and the crushing experience of running an American political campaign. Hey everybody, did you know that politics can often be crooked? You did! Wow! Ides of March tells us something everybody already knew about American politics. It’s corrupt, we get it. If this was made back in 2000, when George Bush stole office from Al Gore, then perhaps this film could have had some steam. It might’ve been incredibly controversial and still known to this day. However this is 2012, we are near the peak of the information era, this film presents old news.

Forget republicans, this film is really only about democrats. Because surely a democrat can’t be corrupted right? Enter Stephen Myers (Ryan Gosling), a press secretary who’s job is mainly to lie. He works for a fella named Mike Morris (George Clooney) who’s campaign manager is Paul Zera (Phillip Seymour Hoffman). They’re running against Michael Mantell and Paul Giamatti. Wow, this film has a noteworthy cast selection. Many people will see this film, just because of the great cast. I would argue that, like in many films, a huge ensemble cast likely means that the film is utter crap.

Surprise, surprise. Every character except the young fella (Ryan Gosling) is cynical and underhanded. Well, for a short while at least. See the theme in this film is that even good democratic politicians can become corrupted by their ambitions and the world around them. You might think of Ides of March as a less interesting and less funny political version of All About Eve. There seems to be a great resemblance between Ryan Gosling/Stephen Myers and Anne Baxter/ Eve. While this film may evoke discussions on the nature of man, it has done nothing that every other political film has done before.

Like I said, the film reveals no new information. In the era of information everything this film presents has already been well known. The story has been written several times, and that “insider story” is completely lost. The dirty laundry that’s attempted to be exposed has already been out years ago. The acting in this film, because it is filled with established actors, is well done. There are few films, if any, that Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti have acted poorly in. Ryan Gosling is incredibly convincing, as he is in many of his films like Blue Valentine and Lars and the Real Girl.

In conclusion, I think George Clooney was too aware that he was trying to make a serious political film. He thinks this film airs more dirty laundry than it actually does. This is 2012, the era of making dirty political films is over. Quite shoving the idea down our throats, we understand that politics is a dirty minefield. We understand that politicians can become corrupted. Recycled material can only be fresh if you do something creative with it. Piss on it! 1/5

Next 5 Reviews

1. Midnight in Paris- 2011
2. The Hunger Games- 2012
3. 50/50- 2011
4. Inception- 2010
5. Keyhole- 2011

Moneyball Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Moneyball

Year: 2011
Country: U.S
Language: English

Going into this baseball underdog film I had two thoughts in mind: A) This film is going to be an innovative sports film that will renew my faith that not all underdog films are the same or B) This film is going to be the exact same baseball underdog movie that I’ve seen one hundred times over. After I watched Moneyball  I concluded that it was the exact same Baseball underdog film that I’ve seen one hundred times over with a few exceptions. The acting was good, the humour was well used and the serious scenes were not at all cheesy. Therefore this underdog sports film is better than Benchwarmers, Bad News Bears and Underdog: A Dodgeball Story but failed in comparison to Field of Dreams, though currently I’m not sure if Field of Dreams was an underdog story as the only thing I remember is the quote  “If you build it, they will come”.

Moneyball begins by trying to tell us a deep and dark secret about baseball that we all already knew already. No it’s not that some of the star players are on steroids, that would be too obvious. It’s that Baseball is run on money. Money is what makes the world go round, money is what baseball goes around. If you don’t have money you can’t get the star players, if you can’t get the star players then you have to settle for poorer players. If you settle for the poorer players you most likely won’t win the World Series. Well duh. Please tell me something useful. Please assume that I haven’t been living in a while in the ground for the decade. Baseball is run by money. Brilliant.

The film centers on Oakland Athletic’s manager  Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) who used to be a MLB star but couldn’t make the cut anymore. He became manager and was fuled over his hatred of losing. Sound like the typical baseball movie manager? Yeah, I thought so too. He also is a lonely man who is recovering from a failed and doesn’t have the best relationship with his daughter. He faces incredible criticism from the everybody even remotely in charge of his team. There is great pressure on his shoulders. His job is on the line but he knows of a way to win. Yes, he still sounds like the typical coach/manager of an underdog baseball team but surprisingly Pitt’s acting saves this character. He makes us feel sympathy and get us to root for him. Pitt’s acting in this film is probably the only good quality of this film.

Billy Beane’s secret tactic to winning is Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a nerdy fella who can crunch numbers like a pro and therefore obtain a cost efficient way to analyze baseball players and win games. The film is about business and numbers. It is about abandoning tradition in favour of numerical analysis. To win they must go against many centuries of baseball tradition. Human calculation is supposed to win more games than human instinct. This is supposed to be a brave film about abandoning tradition yet it is a traditional sports film. It is a film that does not criticize the idea that “winning isn’t everything”. Infact in Moneyball winning is everything. Everyone is hell-bent on winning. People do not matter in this film, people are pawns in a numerical system. This is the kind of thing Chaplin warned us about in Modern Times and The Great Dictator. Why are we celebrating a film that celebrates human detachment and human ambition? Why do we people think this film says anything intelligent at all? Does anybody even watch baseball anymore?

In conclusion. Moneyball is a well acted clone of every other underdog sports film, except that this may have worse morals. Is baseball that important anymore anyways?  Regardless of the answer, I still feel that I have wasted my time watching the film AND reviewing the film. Although at least if people read my review I can save them from two hours of something they probably already saw when they were five. Piss on it! 1/5

Next 5 Reviews:
1. Ides of March- 2011
2. Midnight in Paris- 2011
3. The Hunger Games- 2012
4. 50/50- 2011
5. Inception- 2010

Hugo Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Hugo

Year: 2011

Director: Martin Scorsese

Country: US
Language: English

Martin Scorsese is usually known for making either gangster epics like Goodfellas and The Departed or dark brooding films like Taxi Driver and Mean Streets. Though he has been known to stray from them once in a while, as in the Christ bio-pic Last Temptation of Christ and  Rolling Stones’ documentary Shine a Light, he has never ventured into an epic, bug budget, 3D, family film. Indeed it is the family film to top all family films, Scoreless once again proves that he is a master at his craft with Hugo. This is 2011’s second film, the first is The Artist, to be a celebration of silent film.

The film’s plot is about Hugo Cabaret, a boy in the 30’s who self learns the workings of mechanics.  His father’s dream is to complete an automaton but unfortunately he dies before this automaton is completed. Instead of being treated like an  orphan, which in the 30’s is usually subject to being treated like crap, he hides in a large clock tower in the Paris Train Station. The train station is complicated by a grumpy old man who seems incredibly bitter. This man, played by the great Sir Ben Kingsley, happens to be George Melies. The inventor of the automaton and an extremely  important  figure in film history.

George Melies? You ask. Who is George Meiles? George Meiles is the grandfather of special effects. He is most famous for 1902’s A Trip To the Moon, a wonderfully odd film about a group of people who travel to the moon and encounter various aliens. Through flashback we see how he had made these wonderful films and his inspirations for them. Meiles is often a forgotten director in the history of the film, and this is a shame. For without Meiles we would probably not have any of the films we see in theatres today. Film would not have rose above a near novelty, it would not have penetrated the imaginations of people like Scorsese or Chaplin. I feel film history should not be taken for granted, we should not merely watch films out of enjoyment but we should study them and write about them. We should analyze them and appreciate them. Film is an art that goes all the way back to the 19^th Century and we should not be stuck merely watching films as they come out.

Scorsese himself is a great appreciator of the art of Cinema, constantly watching films at his local theatre, learning from great directors on how to make his own great films and, in a few cases, resurrecting the careers of forgotten or underappreciated film makers.  His own personal cause is to preserve old films so that generations upon generations can learn from these films. Scorsese has made many documentaries about great films and great directors, he uses his vast cinematic knowledge to resurrect the appreciation of George Meiles. Indeed Hugo is a celebration of the birth of film and how far it has gone from the time of the Lumiere Brothers, George Meiles & Charlie Chaplin. From silence to sound, from b/w to colour, film has always been a great spiritual art form.

In conclusion, Hugo is a wonderful film about the history of film. It has helped me renew a great love for the art form. Films for me are not merely “entertainment” but a great spiritual experience where much knowledge about life and death is to be gained. Films like Black Swan  can teach you the price of perfection, films like Throne of Blood can teach you about the nature of power. Film can fill you with great hope and great despair, they can make you feel emotions that you’ve never felt before. They can give you a whole new outlook on life. Film is beyond art, it is beyond imagination, it is beyond life. Hugo is an incredible masterpiece. Hugo has restored my faith in film. Praise it! 5/5

Next 5 Reviews:
1. Moneyball- 2011
2. Ides of March- 2011
3. Midnight in Paris- 2011
4. The Hunger Games- 2012
5. 50/50- 2011

The Help Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Help

Year: 2011
Country: U.S
Language: English

There’s something I’ve never understood about film. Why can a film regarding black enslavement be a light comedy whereas a film about the holocaust always has to be extremely serious. I am not suggesting that the Holocaust be satirized or joked about but there needs to be some consistency. Black slavery and segregation was a horrible thing that still affects white and black relations today. It was not taken “lightly”, I’m sure no black person ever thought it was funny when they were raped by their white masters, forced to pick cotton all day for no pay, and whipped whenever they strayed from their duties. The suffering of the black man should not be perceived as less than the suffering of the Jews, both were horribly mistreated.

The Help is a disgustingly safe film about a subject that should not be taken lightly. I am sick of light hearted comedies about an era engulfed in complete darkness. It’s completely repulsive and sickening to the stomach, Martin Luther King would definitely have a fit about this to. It is 2011’s white guilt fantasy, that somehow has the idiotic show white people in a decent light. Yes, during the slavery period not all the white people were bad but most of them were and I don’t think there needs to be any more “white hero” films. I feel this “white hero” mindset does not advance society in anyway, I think it leaves more room for hate and self entitlement. We, the whites, need to save them because we are more sophisticated. It’s some macho bullshit superiority game.

The story centers on our “white hero” Skeeter Phalan (Emma Stone) when she graduates college and finds out that she doesn’t hate black people like all the others around her. Her family has two black maids named Aibileen Clark (Viola Davis) and Minny Jackson (Octavia Spencer). White people are dicks yadda yadda, Aibileen and Minny are mad yadda yadda. Skeeter, the white girl who doesn’t hate black people, writes a book about black people’s feelings . As she writes the book she becomes more frustrated about the mistreatment of black people. Thus it is up to this white woman to make sure the black people’s stories are heard. Sorry, but this is bullshit.

The film has great performances out of the cast, and perhaps the film is well meaning, but it’s safe and typical. The film does nothing, besides the shit pie scene, to separate itself from any other mediocre racism film I’ve seen. It’s about pain but doesn’t go far enough.  It’s a “feel good” film that left me wondering why I watched it in the first place. There is not truth in this film, it hardly makes amends for the cruelty that we’ve done. It’s fake, overdone and rotten to the core. Perhaps not every film should be serious, but I feel it’s about time that white people started taking films about slavery in a serious way. It’s 2012. Grow up!

In conclusion, I hope “white hero” superiority exploitation films die out immediately. This has been done over and over and over. Yes there’s great acting but acting cannot save this film. This film exploited the dark era of slavery to make money. It lacks the intelligence to be anything but a child’s film. I’m sick of it, the world is sick of it. Malcolm X would be spinning in his grave if he saw this film. Piss on it! 1/5

Next 5 Reviews:
1. Hugo- 2011
2. Moneyball- 2011
3. Ides of March- 2011
4. Midnight in Paris- 2011
5. Hunger Games- 2012