The Marriage of Maria Braun Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Marriage of Maria Braun
Year: 1979
Director: Rainer Werner Fassbinder
Country: West Germany
Language: German 

Rainer Werner Fassbinder is one of the greatest German directors in the history of cinema, alongside such greats as Wim Wenders (Wings of Desire) and Werner Herzog (Fitzcarraldo). His well known directing abilities have won him countless awards.An openly homosexual man with serious drug problems, the number of films he made exceeded 40 in only 13 years. One of which was over 15 hours long. The Marriage of Maria Braun is not nearly as long, but it's quite an astonishing work of art.

This incredible film follows the life of a young German woman, married to a soldier in the waning days of WWII. Fassbinder has tried to examine and portray the gritty life after the end of WWII for the German people and the turmoil of the people trapped in its wake.

The very first shot in this film is of Germany in 1943, an allied bombing raid which disrupts a small wedding ceremony in progress with the bride and groom scrambling for safety.The bride is the title character, Maria Braun. Her husband is leaving soon and she is left to survive on her own in post-war Germany. In time Maria Braun begins to use her beauty, sexuality and brains to survive the horrors of the war while her husband is off fighting. During this time she has multiple affairs but is bluntly honest to her lovers. Over the years this woman slowly becomes domineering, manipulative, strong and cruel.If nothing else, this film is a fascinating character study. It's incredible yet tragic poetry in motion.

The Marriage of Maria Braun skilfully depicts the sense of determination and the sheer triumph of will that went towards rebuilding Germany from the ashes of the Second World War through the eyes of a resolute young woman willing to push her own emotional stability to breaking point in order to secure a better future for her and her incarcerated husband. There are also many other different ways you can analyze the character of Maria Braun and the situation that she is in.

In conclusion, The Marriage of Maria Braun is a brilliant film by a legendary director whom would continue to make more great films until his early death in the early eighties. The film speaks volumes regarding sexual politics and features an astounding acting performance by Hannah Schygulla. The Criterion Collection edition of this is fantastic, but may not be worth the $200+ it costs to buy it on amazon. Praise it! 5/5

Star Wars Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Star Wars (aka Star Wars IV: A New Hope)
Year: 1977
Director: George Lucas 
Country: U.S
Language: English

George Lucas' Star Wars is commonly considered the greatest science fiction film of all time, by people who have yet to see Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey and/or Ridley Scott's Blade Runner Adjusting inflation, Star Wars is one of the highest grossing films of all time. Every generation in North America has seen the film, if you have not you will receive very curious looks from your friends, family and peers. Star Wars is a film that absolutely refuses to go away, for better and for worse.

 Lucas' film concerns Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), a simple farm boy who dreams of a better life. He soon gets what he wants when he meets his a curious bunch of filk (Han Solo, Chewbacca, Obi-Wan Kenobi, C-3PO, R2-D2) and attempt to rescue a Rebel leader, Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher), from the clutches of the evil Empire.

Every-time I chat with a person who saw Star Wars when it was released in 1977 they always say the same thing, "It was unlike anything that had been made up to that point in time!" Was it really? Perhaps memory isn't very consistent with reality. The special effects in 2001: A Space Odyssey, a film made nearly a decade earlier, were greater from a visual aspect than the effects seen in Star Wars. This is not to say the effects in Lucas' film were bad, they are certainly very  appealing, but the film can't be credited for being "new" and/or "revolutionary". Many of the characters and senes from the film are just rehashed from older samurai films and re-designed to have a Sci--fi look that will appeal to Western audiences. The plot itself is essentially Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress. While the ability to alter ideas to fit a genre is somewhat impressive, this doesn't make Lucas any more of a genius than James Cameron.

The plot of Star Wars is as simple as its characters. There isn't much complexity in Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader, just the fact that one character is good while the other is evil. Though some films can create complex reflections regarding society with the simple "good vs evil" idea, Night of the Hunter does this incredibly well, Star Wars does not. The script is weak and doesn't help in making the characters seem more "human", the only impressive piece of dialogue is in The Empire Strikes Back when Solo says "I know" after Leia says "I love you", and that line wasn't even in the script!

That being said, in regards to cinematography and effects the film looked quite good. There is a decent amount of detail in the background of every scene and it seems like it would be enormously difficult to create, film & edit the fast paced outer-space battles. The score is fantastic, definitely one of the greatest scores in the history of cinema. It makes the film exciting and worthwhile, without it the film as a whole may not be as loved as it is. Though most of the acting is sub-par, Alec Guiness (who absolutely hated the film with good reason) and Harrison Ford play their roles fairly well.

In conclusion, nowadays there are many people who wonder where Hollywood started to lean on special effects rather than a great plot with realistic characters. I believe Star Wars is the source of this problem. It was, and still is, a cash cow because of its simple story and visual appeal. While Woody Allen's Annie Hall beat Star Wars for "Best Picture" at the Academy Awards in 1977, it is clear that there are less film like Annie Hall being produced by major studios and more films like Star Wars. I cannot recommend Star Wars due to the negative impact it has had on the film industry in terms of choosing technology over intelligence, however I do have to give credit where credit is due. 3/5

The Lord of The Rings Trilogy Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Years: 2001-2003
Director: Peter Jackson
Country: New Zealand/U.S
Language: English

Perhaps it is a little unfair to review an entire Trilogy of films at once, especially a trilogy as expansive as Peter Jackson's epic Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Then again each film is a continuation, each film beginning where the last one ended. I see Lord of the Rings as one 9.2 hour long film, assuming we are basing the length on theatrical release. Between them they have won a staggering thirty Academy Awards, winning seventeen, eleven of which were just for Return of the King.

The Lord of the Rings is about an ancient Ring thought lost for centuries has been found, and through a strange twist in fate has been given to a small Hobbit named Frodo (Elijah Wood). When Gandalf (Ian Mckellen) discovers the Ring is in fact the One Ring of the Dark Lord Sauron, Frodo must make an epic quest to the Cracks of Mount Doom in order to destroy it!

At least that's what the first film Fellowship of the Rings is about. Really this trilogy should be called The Lord of the Rings and His Other Useless Friends. Aside from Frodo, Borimir (Sean Bean), Sauruman (Christopher Lee), Gollum (Andy Serkis) and Samwise Gamgee (Sean Astin) the rest of the characters are either incompetent (Gandalf), comedic fodder (Gimli) or pointless filler (Aragon, legolas). There was no real need for these side stories because the main and most important story is the relationship between Frodo and Sam, and their quest to bring the ring to Mount Doom. A very big theme in this trilogy is "self sacrifice", this is why Borimir is important because he emphasizes the great evil of the ring by attempting to take it, and the great importance of destroying it when he dies for it.

Shot in Jackson's homeland of New Zealand, there is little doubt that this film is of immense technical perfection. The score is not only flawless, but it is memorable. It sticks in the memory, even if you hear a vague tune on the street you'll remember which film it came from. The battle scenes, though mostly filler, are incredibly epic, filled with unique and sometimes startling images that provoke the creative mind. Unfortunately the acting was not as great. While I love Ian Mckellen, his character Gandalf was not impressive though admittedly great acting could not have saved that character. Elijah Wood's acting wasn't good either, everytime Frodo was in trouble the camera would close-up on Wood's face and it was the same expression EVERYTIME! Sean Astin completely stole the show, I'm surprised his career hasn't risen to extreme heights after this film.

In conclusion, while The Lord of The Rings Trilogy is a great cinematic achievements, it just doesn't interest me enough to watch again. There are great "self-sacrifice" and "friendship" themes in this film, Sam and Frodo's relationship, which sometimes borders on the homo-erotic, is one of the strongest in cinematic history, but that's really the only reason to watch the film. I feel most of this film's praise is based on hype and technology, sure it looks good and at moments it has heart, but a 9.2 hour trilogy with 2 hours of heart is just not worth it. 3/5

Note: I haven't read Tolkien's books, so this film review is isolated. It is in no way a reflection of Tolkien or his novels. His own estate didn't even approve of Jackson's adaptations.

Olympia Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Olympia
Year: 1938
Director: Leni Riefenstahl
Country: Germany
Language: German

 
Leni Reifenstahl is a filmmaker that nobody wants to admit they like, but everybody must agree that she's an absolute genius. She is known for being a Nazi propaganda film-maker, though long after the war she denied ever partaking in Nazi politics and was spared imprisonment or death by the allies. She lived until her death at 101 years old in 2002 and left a legacy of controversial yet brilliant films. Olympia is one of them.
 
After being commissioned by the 1936 Olympic Committee to create a feature film of the Berlin Olympics, Riefenstahl did so by shooting a documentary that makes a monument out of the human body. It includes the marathon, men's diving, and American track star Jesse Owen's sprint races at the 1936 Olympic games.The attempts to glorify the male body may come off as homo-erotic for some, but overall this film attempts to show the passion of the human spirit.

Perhaps it's because of political and historical context, but of every documentary about the Olympics Riefenstahl's is the most interesting. The very opening of the film traces the carrying of the Olympic torch from Greece to Germany as some kind of Holy Quest, it really emphasizes the importance of these athletes and of the Olympics itself. The incredible cinematography makes this film look like a lavish spectacle. of grit and determination. Incredibly Riefenstahl doesn't just focus on German athletes, but athletes from every country which included the African-American Jesse Owens who won four gold medals at the games. This film is shocking, but not because of propaganda, it's shocking because the Nazis covered the Olympics better and more fairly than news networks do today.

Though this is not to say that Olympia was never intended to be propoganda. The film was sponsored by Hitler, who gave Reifenstahl the incredible support and funding she needed to cover the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin. Despite the support, this task would prove to be quite daunting. Filming the games, supervising and post-production would take immense effort, even with modern equipment. Reifenstahl had much more primitive equipment, therefore the fact that she was able to make such a great Olympic film is a true testament to her mental stamina and creative prowess.

In conclusion, there will never be another Olympic documentary that's as engaging as Leni Reifenstahl's Olympia. I'm not an athlete and I do not care for the Olympics, but I was able to watch this film without being bored. In 1948, long after Hitler's dream had turned to dust, the Olympic Committee honored the filmmaker with a gold medal for her great film effort. Why? Because she's just that damn good. Praise it! 5/5

Dr. Strangelove Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to To Stop  Worrying and Love The Bomb
Year: 1964
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Country: U.S
Language: English

Stanley Kubrick is one of the greatest and one of the most unusual American Directors to grace the screen. His films, which include A Clockwork Orange and Lolita, have been known to be incredibly controversial for their time. Causing panics and uproars, one film of his was removed from the theater due to enormous negative response. Is he a genius or a madman? I would consider him both. His Dr.Strangelove Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb only adds prestige to his odd legacy.

Dr.Strangelove stars Sterling Hayden as U.S. Air Force General Jack Ripper. A man who  goes completely and utterly mad, and sends his bomber wing to destroy the U.S.S.R. He suspects that the communists are conspiring to pollute the "precious bodily fluids" of the American people. The U.S. president meets with his advisors, where the Soviet ambassador tells him that if the U.S.S.R. is hit by nuclear weapons, it will trigger a "Doomsday Machine" which will destroy all plant and animal life on Earth. Will the bombers be stopped in time, or will General Jack Ripper succeed in destroying the world ?

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is a war room!" Dr.Strangelove is a fantastic black comedy that acts as a political satire. Around this time in history, the American people were terrified about the real threat regarding nuclear annihilation. The cold war had continued to rage on and anti-communist conspiracy theorists like Jack Ripper were surprisingly common. Kubrick not only made this film to mock the "serious" atmosphere of America at that time, but he made it to reassure Americans that everything was going to be alright so we might as well laugh at our fears.

Gilbert Taylor's black-and-white cinematography is outstanding, which goes well with the suspenseful plot. Kubrick's eye for detail goes to extreme lengths with this film, he decided to make the table in the war room green like a poker table because he though the idea that these important men were playing poker with the world was funny, however this was a black-and -white film so the colour wouldn't even show and the detail was a waste. Peter Sellers' acting in this film is legendary. He plays three characters, most notable the twisted Dr.Strangelove who seems unable to stop his arm from doing a nazi salute. Mein Fuhrer...I can walk!

In conclusion, while it can be argued that Dr.Strangelove is not his best film, it most certainly is his funniest. It is full of fresh & witty dialogue, President Muffley's monologue while talking on the phone with the Soviet Premier in Moscow is absolutely hilarious.  We went and did a silly thing. Indeed this is truly Kubrick's most silly film. Praise it! 5/5

Bowling for Columbine Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Bowling for Columbine
Year: 2002
Director: Michael Moore
Country: U.S
Language: English 

About a year ago I reviewed Bill Maher's Religulous and gave it a horrendous "piss on it" rating. Mainly because it was a trashy film that used editing and terrible interviewees (an actor who plays Jesus) to answer incredibly thought provoking questions. Michael Moore essentially does the same thing, yet he's better at hiding his pseudo-intellectualism. Though Bowling For Columbine may have a good message (guns are bad) Moore presents it in a dishonest way.

In Bowling for Columbine, Pseudo-intellectual Michael Moore sets out to explore the roots of gun violence, or violence in general, in the United States. He finds his answer: Guns!

A small synopsis of Bowling for Columbine, but that's essentially what this film is about. Michael Moore saying "guns are bad" in as many different ways as he can. He doesn't bother to go into any deeper issues like poverty, homelessness, racism and various other factors that have been proven to be causes of violence. He points his finger at ONE issue in which he doesn't do much research on. K-Mart sells guns! OMG! You can get a gun at a bank! OMG! This film's entire success is based on the fear and anxiety of the American people.

What Moore didn't mention is that while that particular bank does give out guns, they're much harder to get than the film shows. There is a criminal background check including photo ID check and an FBI background check. Then, to get the gun, you have to open a 10 year Certificate of Deposit. The gun also doesn't come with ammunition. While I don't particularly like the NRA, Moore attempts to link the NRA to the KKK which is dirty considering the founders of the NRA were against slavery. His attempts to belittle the great Charlton Heston are cruel, he was an ill 80 yr old man who has been an active member of the civil rights movement. Moore "cleverly" edits their conversation to make Heston look like an angry fool. If I was Heston I'd be angry at Moore's disrespectful attitude too.

In conclusion, while Moore criticizes the media for being narrow minded on this issue and blaming videogames or music, he forgets that he's doing THE EXACT same thing with guns. I'm not defending the NRA or guns because I strongly dislike them both, I'm just saying that Moore simplifies the issue and even when it's just about guns he doesn't make an intelligent argument. He creates fear through dirty tactics like harrasing a movie star with alzheimer's. All his films repeat the same formula but with a different topic, so only one review of a film of his is necessary. Piss on it! 0/5

Shame Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Shame
Year: 1968
Director: Ingmar Bergman
Country: Sweden
Language: Swedish 

Critics, cinephiles and even casual film-goers will agree that Ingmar Bergman is definitely one of the most prolific Directors of all time. His films have the power to shock, bring you to ecstatic joy and even bring you to tears. I have personally reviewed his Persona, Cries and Whispers, The Seventh Seal, Fanny and Alexander, Wild Strawberries, The Virgin Spring, and Summer Interlude so far, but I am just getting warmed up. I first saw Shame a few years ago and it has been on my mind ever since.

Shame is about two musicians who retreat to a rural island to farm during civil war. They love each other, but there are problems: the war upsets Jan (Max Von Sydow), he is weepy, too sensitive; Eva (Liv Ullman) wants children, he does not. The war suddenly arrives: rebels attack, neighbors die. When the other side restores order, Jan and Eva are arrested as collaborators. They are released, but soon the rebels return and Jan becomes murderous. They decide to flee.

This film is a bit different from every other Bergman film. It is not different due to characters, set pieces nor even cinematography. It is different because the conflict that drives the plot originates from an outside source. Most of Bergman's conflicts are created by his characters' struggle with inner demons or existential anxiety (The Seventh Seal, Persona, Cries and Whispers, Wild Strawberries) The conflict is provided by bombs, which force the characters to cope with their new life.

Bergman originally wanted to call this film The War, but eventually decided on Shame while he was writing the script. Why Shame? Perhaps this film is not about the shame of individual characters, but the shame of God. Perhaps if God were to look down at Earth and see all the misery, bloodshed, and the horrible circumstances innocent people like Jan and Eva are put through then perhaps he would feel great Shame. Though if that's the case then Bergman doesn't make the point clear enough, however it is widely known that Bergman was dissatisfied with this film, so he may have known he didn't make the point clear enough

In conclusion, the cinematography in this film is quite exquisite, brilliantly showing scarred landscaped, buring trees and powerful close-ups. It's a grim and haunting film, a likely realistic film for anybody who has had their town turned into a warzone. Even though Bergman wasn't impressed with this film it is still very well made. Shame is an emotionally gripping character study that's well worth a few views. 3.5/5

The Jazz Singer Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Jazz Singer
Year: 1927
Director: Alan Crosland
Country: U.S
Language: English 

Throughout cinematic history there have always been films that have made huge impacts with their role in the development of Cinema as we currently know it. Such films would include George Meiles' A Trip To the Moon, Orson Welles's Citizen Kane, and Alan Crosland's The Jazz Singer. This film is particularly important because it introduced sound into film which started the incredible crave for "talkies" and inevitably made careers while simultaneously destroying some.

In The Jazz Singer Cantor Rabinowitz is concerned and upset because his son Jakie shows so little interest in carrying on the family's traditions and heritage. For five generations, men in the family have been Cantors in the synagogue, but Jakie is more interested in jazz and ragtime music. One day, they have such a bitter argument that Jakie leaves home for good. However he finds balancing his relationships and his career to be quite difficult.

The Jazz Singer is a film made by Jews for Jews and is about Jews, which is quite interesting when you realize that the sound technology introduced by this film would be later exploited by Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler to assist in his attempts to exterminate the European Jews during the Holocaust. Though commonly considered the first "all sound" movie, many fail to mention that aside from the musical performances and some dialigoue this film is mostly silent.

The plot is relatively simple, a mix of vaudeville and melodrama, though the film as a whole stands for much more. It shows a clear generation gap between Cantor Robinson and his son Jackie Robinson, a shift of ideals and tradition that represent not just these two individuals, but the country as a whole. Silent films were coming to a stop and if you didn't board the "talkie" train then your career would die from the changing of time. A political critic named Michael Rogin would claim that this film also represents a Jewish transformation in our society; the racial assimilation into white America.

In conclusion, The Jazz Singer is a remarkable film which is both historically important and incredibly entertaining. You do not have to be a part of any particular religion to enjoy this film, though it would help if you're not a bigot. One might find Jackie's "blackface" to be a bit racist but this is a film made more than eighty years ago and it doesn't seem like the character is a racist so I'll let it pass. The first few words of this film definitley summarize the future of cinema. "You ain't heard nothin' yet" Praise it! 5/5

Black God, White Devil Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Black God, White Devil
Year: 1964
Director: Glauber Rocha
Country: Brazil
Language: Portuguese

"Oh my God, Eisenstein's been reborn...and he's Brazilian!" said a Brazilian film critic as he marvelled at an early screening of Glauber Rocha's Black God, White Devil. Born in Bahla, the North-Eastern Brazilian state known for the birth of Afro-Brazilian culture, Gluaber is an almost forgotten director with a brilliant yet under-rated film. This film was inspired by the director's fascination of mysticism and American Westerns, and the creation of the influential movement known as Cinema Novo.

Glauber's tale is a fictionalized account of the adventures of hired gunman Antonio das Mortes (Mauricio Do Valle), set against the real life last days of rural banditism. The movie follows Antonio as he witnesses the descent of common rural worker Manuel (Geraldo Del Rat) into a life of crime, joining the gang of Antonio's sworn enemy, Corisco the Blond Devil (Othon Bastos), and the Pedra Bonita Massacre.

Black God, White Devil is shot in a remarkably harsh black and white that almost makes the screen glow. It is full of astonishing montage sequences and wildly energetic camera movements.  Infact Waldemar Lima's weightless, dizzying camera and high-contrast lighting is essential to the film's aesthetics. Glauber shows us a country that is unraveling at the seams, it's about to explode in a chaotic mess. Another remarkable trait of the film is the unique building of a realist/expressionist/ mythological portrayal of Brazilian sertão -- the inhuman labor and life condition of the illiterate, destitute, God-fearing peasants, perennially exploited by landowners, politicians, bandits, Catholic priests and doomsday messianic "prophets"

Glauber, like many Brazilian cinephiles, found himself deeply drawn to the radical politics of his generation. Black God, White Devil is his political film, which explores the connections between historical change and violence. Most of Brazilian history before transition has been free from the incredible violence that could tear the entire nation apart. After transition-from colony to empire and so on- there has been far too much death by incredibly violent actions. Glauber's examples are focused on the many rebellions in Brazil's backlands.

In conclusion, Black God, White Devil is perhaps the most important Brazilian film ever made. It is full of thought provoking politics which will leave its audience in deep discussion long after they have seen the film. It is fair to compare Glauber to Eisenstein because both men made political films about oppressed people who need to stand up for what's right. This film is not only entertaining, but it's a call for revolution! Praise it! 5/5

Beauty and the Beast Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Beauty and the Beast
Year: 1991
Director: Gary Trousdale
Country: U.S
Language: English 

When one thinks of Disney classics their cannon usually consists of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, The Lion King, Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast. This is the first animated film that received a Best Picture nomination at the Academy Awards, unfortunately it didn't win because it lost to Silence of the Lambs. Beauty and the Beast has some controversy surrounding it, many critics of the film believe this is pro-abusive relationships. Whatever the case may be, I have watched it again and have come to two conclusions regarding this film, which will be written about below.

The film is about an intelligent girl named Belle (Paige O' Hara) who is dissatisfied with life in a small provincial French town, constantly trying to fend off the misplaced "affections" of conceited Gaston (Richard White). The Beast (Robby Benson) is a prince who was placed under a spell because he could not love. To be fair the Beast was 11 years old when she pissed off the witch that put a spell on him, A wrong turn taken by Maurice (Rex Everhart), Belle's father, causes the two to meet.

Conclusion #1: Beauty and the Beast is a morally responsible film about the dangers of masculinity. Gaston is the typical masculine stereotype the North American media constantly portrays. He is physically strong, confident to the point of arrogance and he treats women like objects to be skillfully obtained. Despite his "masculinity" he cannot win Belle's heart. In the beginning of the film, The Beast is portrayed as the violent "masculine" man, a take charge "man" who is incredibly aggressive. It is only until The Beast  shows some typically "feminine" characteristics that he becomes both metaphorically and literally more human and Belle begins to fall for him.

Conclusion #2: Beauty and the Beast is not about morals, it is an examination of Stockholm syndrome and abusive relationships. Belle is portrayed as intelligent in the film, but what "intelligent" characteristics does she have? Any indication of her intelligence that we have is that she can read a book, which pretty much anybody can do. Eventually she inadvertently gets herself locked in a castle with an angry Beast, and becomes a hostage/prisoner.  She slowly falls for the Beast, but is this because The Beast himself changed or because her view of the Beast changed? Stockholm Syndrome is essentially a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy, sympathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. Belle mistook some normal, average behavior for niceness. The Beast might not have given her a library, it was his to begin with and he was just showing her another room in his large castle.

In conclusion, while Beauty and the Beast is a fun film to watch and examine, it is also a decently made and entertaining film. The background is meticulously made, some of the characters are pretty funny and the songs like Gaston and Be Our Guest are quite memorable. Wile this isn't the best Disney film, nor the funnest, it still is decent. 3.5/5