Top Ten Favourite Silent Films

The silent era lasted from 1894 to 1929, until "talkies" became the more popular form of entertainment. Typically during silent films, a pianist, theatre organist, or in large cities, even a small orchestra would play music to accompany the films. A September 2013 report by the United States Library of Congress announced that a total of 70% of American silent feature films are believed to be completely lost. Reasons for this are mainly due to intentional destruction by the studio chiefs, extensive damage due to environmental degradation or fires within the studio. 

We are incredibly lucky to be able to see these films which are, at best, 85 years old. One film on my list celebrating its 101st anniversary! We are also lucky to live in an era where most surviving silent pictures are readily available for home video viewing. Here are my ten favorite silent films. Click on the individual titles for a link to the review.

1. Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)

2. Greed (1924)

3. The Phantom Carriage (1921)

4. Metropolis (1927)

5. City Lights (1931)

6. Speedy (1928)

7. Les Vampires (1915)

8. Intolerance (1916)

9. Ben Hur (1925)

10. Pandora's Box (1929)

Donkey Skin Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Donkey Skin
Year: 1970
Director: Jacques Demy
Country: France
Language: French

As a child, Jacques Demy used to stage fairy-tales like Cinderella and Donkey Skin in his homemade puppet theater. His interest in the Brothers Grimm and other writers would remain throughout his life and seep into his film career. In the 50's he wrote a script for a projected film about a Sleeping Beauty, but it never came to fruition. His most celebrated films would have allusions to the splendid and magical. It wouldn't be until 1970 that Demy would make his first full fledged fairy-tale film adaptation. 

A king and queen live happily until her sudden death. The king decides to marry his lovely daughter. (Catherine Deneuve) She's willing, but the Lily Fairy serves as a social conscience, intent on thwarting incest. The princess escapes her father's clutches wearing the skin of the king's prized donkey.

Not particularly well-known to Anglophone readers, perhaps because of its problematic subject matter, Donkey Skin is a rather interesting story that is improved by Jacques Demy's touch of La Nouvelle Vague. While great director greatly admired the early adaptations of Disney Studios, he was careful to not be as conservative as the house of mouse. For one, Demy gives the princess a tremendous amount of agency within the story. She is fully in control of her destiny and her desires are stronger than that of the men. She is not a passive female who is simply waiting for her prince. 

Demy does a wonderful job of both celebrating and undermining fairy-tale tradition. He challenges sexual taboos by having one of the characters claim that incestuous desire is not wrong for "moral" reasons, but rather reasons of legislature. Keeping in tune with tradition, he saturates the screen with colors and the operetta-like features. Many scenes are pleasantly interrupted by singing and joyously dancing.

It is quite weird to see a helicopter in this film, but the absurdity in Donkey Skin is what helps make the film such a pleasant and unique experience. It's quite an entrancing, absorbing picture that feels far more innovative, endearing, imaginative and mature than anything Disney has made in the last 50 years. To call this picture "great" is an understatement, it's a masterclass of film-making.

Toy Story Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Toy Story
Year: 1995
Director: John Lasseter
Country: US
Language: English

As a piece of history, Toy Story presents several firsts; the first feature by Pixar, the first grand success of many in a track record that seems almost too good to be true and the first fully computer-animated film. The basis of the picture parallels the studio itself as both employ seemingly inanimate objects and give them life. It's quite an achievement to make lifeless objects from computers and have them strike the same emotional chords as say, the dog from Old Yeller. 

A little boy named Andy loves to be in his room, playing with his toys, especially his cowboy themed doll named "Woody" (Tom Hanks). Little does he know that they come to life when humans are not around. Toy Story revolves around Woody's jealousy of a new favorite toy; Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), a space ranger who legitimately thinks he's from another planet. 

Pixar Inc's road to success was a long and treacherous one. Established in 1979,the company went under nearly a dozen times yet maintained maintained fixed on the goal of combining computer technology with traditional hand-drawn animation principles. The film's director John Lasseter had the difficult duty of mastering an art that was practically unheard of while trying to convince the founders of Pixar to use this innovation. The combined talents of George Lucas, Steve Jobs and Edwin Catmull couldn't see the importance of Lasseter's work and would attempt to sway him off the path on more than one occasion. 

110 animators were paid fairly poor salaries for their work as Disney was far too concerned about their own impending releases, Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame, than anything Pixar worked on. Their work was quite difficult as to grasp every character in any given shot requires an extensive synchronization between animators and a profound understanding of character and story for all working on the production. Due to this unheard of unity between everyone involved, Pixar's fusion of artistry and universal storytelling made Toy Story into, at the very least, a great children's film. There is no doubt that this picture will be remembered for decades, and not just because of how it changed animation forever. 

Over the years Disney has made an incredible amount of money distributing Pixar's creations, while the corporate giant itself has created flop after flop. The traditional hand-drawn style of animation is dead in favour of Pixar's more affordable computer imagery. Proving the limitless possibility of animation, Toy Story is truly a magical  film.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Year: 2004
Director: Alfonso Cuaron
Country: US
Language: English

Harry Potter is a series of seven fantasy novels written by British author J. K. Rowling. The novels chronicle the life of a young wizard, Harry Potter, and his friends all of whom are students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The main plot point revolves around the Manson-like Voldemort and his desire to destroy anybody who stands in his way of becoming immortal. Since the late 90's Harry Potter has taken the world by storm; becoming critical and commercially successful as both book and film adaptation. 

Prisoner of Azkaban covers  Harry's third year at Hogwarts; not only does he have a new "Defense Against the Dark Arts" teacher, but there is also trouble brewing. Convicted murderer Sirius Black has escaped the Wizards' Prison and is coming after Harry. 

While I'm not particularly a fan of Harry Potter, I must admit that the third film in the series took me by surprise. The first two films were conventional movies that relied far too heavily on sentimentality, employed conservative direction, and lacked artistry in cinematic terms, but Prisoner of Azkaban is a breath of fresh air in comparison. Alfonso Cuaron creates a wonderfully dark, grayish atmosphere that bursts with energy and mystery. 

For the first time in the series, it's as if the setting is a character unto itself. In addition we get much more mature characters who seem to better fit Rowling's initial themes regarding adulthood and sacrifice. Unlike the first two films, the CGI ("hey look at this!") is secondary to the story. Even in scenes that contain a fair amount of special effects, we are far more emotionally involved in the characters and their situation rather than "Wow that looks cool!".

Prisoner of Azkaban has a great balance of light and dark. There are many unsettling moments, but it also has a fair amount of joy. Considering Cuaron made Y Tu Mama Tambien, I was quite surprised to hear that he would be working on this picture. His artistic genius proved to be magical however, as he brought me the only Harry Potter film worth watching.

W. Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: W.
Year: 2008
Director: Oliver Stone
Country: US
Language: English

George W. Bush served as the 43rd President of the United States from 2000-2009. If you are unaware by now, Bush is considered one of the worst presidents of all time. Just eight months into his presidency the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks occurred. Bush responded by claiming a "War on Terror" which resulted in military campaigns throughout the middle east and cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in the process. He also responded quite poorly to Hurricane Katrina and did not do much when faced with the Wall Street Collapse of 2008. Perhaps the US would have been better off with a broom as president. 

Oliver Stone's biographical take on the life of George W. Bush, one of the most controversial presidents in USA history, chronicling from his wild and carefree days in college, to his 2004 re-election campaign.

The Director views its topic with surprising empathy—which is surprising from the radical director often associated with conspiracy theories, anti-war themes, and harsh political criticism. He  humanizes “Dub-ya”, examining the man from a psychological perspective. Although by "humanizing" I don't mean he makes us relate to the man, rather Stone makes us pity Bush as he is depicted with as a coward with daddy issues and lifelong jealousy; essentially daddy doesn’t give Junior the attention he craves.

Oliver Stone shows the emotional, oil-hungry, and vengeance-seeking Bush unlike any other before him. We see Junior attempting to outdo his father, by finishing the gulf war through any means necessary. Those devoutly opposed to the Bush Administration will find Stone’s cynicism light and tastefully presented, even occasionally hilarious; supporters will likely find the film fair toward the President’s errors.While the man is vengeful, he isn't exactly Stalin. We see a man with problems far over his head, his inability to think too rationally has led to his downfall. 

Actual Bush quotes slipped into the film's dialogue create quite a laugh ("is our children learning?") and Josh Brolin's performance is nothing short of mesmerizing. He gets every detail in the former president's speech down to a tee and mimics his body language in a memorable fashion. I didn't believe Brolin was that good of an actor, but I do now. W. is a good one-time watch, but isn't entertaining enough for a second viewing.

Gods of Egypt Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Gods of  Egypt
Year: 2016
Director: Alex Proyas
Country: US
Language: English

Epic film is a style of filmmaking with large scale, sweeping scope, and spectacle. The usage of the term has shifted over time, sometimes designating a film genre and at other times simply synonymous with big budget filmmaking. Ben Hur is a memorable epic; it has grand chase scenes, thousands of extras, an extremely large budget, lavish costumes, expansive sets and an extravagant musical score. Gods of Egypt is no Ben Hur. 

Mortal hero Bek (Brenton Thwaites) teams with the god Horus (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) in an alliance against Set (Gerard Butler) , the merciless god of darkness, who has usurped Egypt's throne, plunging the once peaceful and prosperous empire into chaos and conflict.

The $140 million budget makes the production of this crap seem like a Shakespearean tragedy. Who thought this was a good idea? It's a sword and sandal "epic" that has no established audience or source material and made with no talent. The script is abysmal, the plotting is a joke and the special effects make The Mummy (1999) look like a James Cameron production in comparison.  This would make a good B-movie companion to Jason and the Argonauts (1963) but is complete trash compared to ANYTHING made nowadays. 

Worse yet it's a film set in Egypt that avoids even a basic attempt to fit into that time period. It features an all white cast, which is poor timing considering the Oscar controversy. Never has a green screen been so obvious in a movie. The ill-fated camerawork exposes the clear distinction between the actors and their backdrops, most of it assembled with computers. Cinematographer Peter Menzies Jr. tries his best to make the film seem appealing, but ultimately the sand-dusted washes of yellow and orange, look shallow. 

Gods of Egypt is a good example of how reliance on machinery eats away at a picture's heart. There is nothing really "human" about this supposed epic. Real talent is wasted in favor of cookie cutter Hollywood trash that serves only to make money. At this point it's doubtful that this production will even break even.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
Year: 2016
Director: Burr Steers
Country: UK
Language: English

Quirk Books' idea was simple; take advantage of public domain laws pertaining to classic literature, add a schlocky spin to a classic text and draw readers more interested in genres other than Jane Austen. It was an oddball concept book that managed to be successful and mass produced. It inspired other hybrid books like Android Karenina & Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters. It was a refreshing novelty...back in 2009. Unfortunately the idea lost steam quite a few years ago. 

The original source material being Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, the film follows five sisters in 19th century England, who must cope with the pressures to marry while (twist!)protecting themselves from a growing population of zombies. 

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies would have been welcomed in the immediate years following the book's release, but in 2016 the hybrid gimmick has long worn out its welcome. A similar film, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter left a sour taste in our mouths, being both a critical and commercial failure. With Walking Dead satisfying the palates of our zombie obsessed culture, do we really need this picture? 

Lacking both the ability to charm its audience &  the ability to be even somewhat humorous, Zombies is a lackluster affair at best. The gimmick could have worked if it was self aware of its satirical quality like Ash vs Evil Dead, but this tonal mess of a film doesn't know what it wants to be. One moment the characters are waltzing at a ball or debating the merits of marriage and the next the film devolves into a zombie-slashing horror romp. Is it scary? No. Is it funny? No. Is is dramatic? No.

The action feels incredibly repetitive; someone is faced with a snarling zombie, freezes in fear, and then is saved at the last moment by a convenient gunshot or axe-throw from offscreen. Far too many scenes are showed in slow motion for an effect known as "bad film-making". Zombies manages to disappoint both fans of Jane Austen and the undead.

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
Year: 2002
Director: George Clooney
Country: US
Language: English

Charles Hirsch "Chuck" Barris (born June 3, 1929) is an American game show creator, producer, and host. He is best known for creating The Gong Show, a televised NBC broadcast which showcased the worst of local talent in attempt at being humorous. He has also created the memorable Newlywed Game and Dating Game. Some consider the man an innovative genius, while others think he lowered the quality of television. Regardless, the man has made an enormous impact on the industry. 

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind is the story of a legendary showman's double life - television producer by day, CIA assassin by night. At the height of his TV career, Chuck Barris was recruited by the CIA and trained to become a covert operative...or so the host himself says.

Spoofed in an article titled "The Movie Marketed as Six Different Genres" by satirical website The Onion,  Confessions of a Dangerous Mind attempts to be the jack of all films, but isn't great enough to satisfy anyone. Granted the picture is intriguing as it carves a competent story out of an incompetent illusion (Barris was on a lot of drugs at the time & the CIA consistently claims that he never worked for them). It has a great sense of humor, but George Clooney doesn't know how to properly mend it with Charlie Kaufman's (at times) dark script. It's difficult to tell if a scene is supposed to be funny, or if it's meant to be dramatic. 

The scriptwriter himself felt dissatisfied with the way Director George Clooney treated his script. Creative differences led to unfortunate changes. This is not to knock Clooney as a director; he has a unique style that blends techniques of older filmmakers (Mike Nichols) and contemporary (Steven Soderbergh) His fashion is visceral, vital and churning with off-the-wall ideas.Even if some ideas don't work, Confessions is interesting enough to keep you hooked to the screen.

If executed well, Barris' double life as a CIA agent could have translated well as a metaphor for his insane drug habits. Some say the film  has an embracing intimacy; while we see the zany game show host at his most vulnerable, I'd say we are still left in the dark about some issues. Barris' biography hides behind made-up CIA escapades to avoid some real truths. Sadly Clooney takes his source material far too literally.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

 Title: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Year: 2007
Director: Andrew Dominik
Country: US
Language: English

Jesse Woodson James (September 5, 1847 – April 3, 1882) was an American outlaw, guerrilla, gang leader, bank robber, train robber, and murderer from the state of Missouri and the most famous member of the James-Younger Gang. Some considered James a "Robin Hood" like figure who stole from the rich and gave to the poor; others thought of him as a heartless killer who preyed on the weak and vulnerable. This film leans towards the latter, greatly questioning the grand myth of a man history often praises him to be. 

In The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Jesse's a wanted man, living under a pseudonym, carrying out a train robbery, disappearing to Kentucky, and reappearing to plan a bank holdup with Robert and Robert's brother as his team. The rest of his gang is either dead or captured. There is a large reward for however kills the infamous outlaw. 

The bulk of the film concerns itself with the shifting dynamics between two men; Jesse James and Robert Ford. The young Ford is in awe of James, while simultaneously terrified of him. At times he craves James' attention; "I been a nobody all my life," he confesses at one point. "And ever since I can remember it, Jesse James has been as big as a tree." James, for his part, has begun to shrink inside himself. Full of paranoia and suspicion, he is a sick outlaw who knows that death is inevitable. The entire film is an immaculate character study.

A breakthrough for director Andrew Dominik, he is tremendously aided by the contributions of cinematographer Roger Deakins. His luminous landscapes are reminiscent of Terrence Malick; his compositions of light and shadow are nothing short of spectacular. He captures 19th Century perfectly; it's as if he lived during that time period. Assassination of Jesse James is an experience unlike any other, it may even surpass the Sergio Leone Spaghetti Westerns that are often hailed as "masterpieces".

 This film is nothing short of phenomenal. At times it may carry a lingering pace, but the slow burn proves to make excellent storytelling. It It gains from an insightful and factual voiceover that occasionally turns poetic ("Insomnia clouded his eyes like soot"). The score is intrinsic to this picture, essential for creating an atmosphere of dread, loss and discovery.

Temple of Doom Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Temple of Doom
Year: 1984
Director: Steven Spielberg
Country: US
Language: English

Adventure stories are not intended to evoke feelings of comfort and safety, but expel any such notion and dangle the audience over the proverbial pit. Temple of Doom may be a greater Indiana Jones installment than Raiders of the Lost Ark because of its greater ability to suspend our disbelief to ridiculous extremes and put our hero into more danger than ever before. What could potentially be more dangerous than freaking nazis? How about human-sacrificing Kali worshippers!

A skirmish in Shanghai puts archaeologist Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) , his partner Short Round (Jonathon Ke Quan)  and singer Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw) crossing paths with an Indian village desperate to reclaim a rock stolen by a secret cult beneath the catacombs of an ancient palace.

Lucas himself has suggested that because of his 1983 divorce, his temperament demanded a more sinister tone for this Indy prequel, matching the pointedly dark, artistically winning mood of the second entry in his Star Wars franchise. Spielberg too had just gone through a nasty divorce and wanted to make a film that matched his circumstances. Indeed Temple of Doom has a darker atmosphere, and is more inherently violent. Critics at the time considered the film far too bloody an affair for the PG rating, thus Spielberg himself would go to the MPAA and suggest to introduce PG-13. 

One reason for Temple of Doom being more bloody, is because it was necessary to show the atrocities of the ancient tribe to get a better understanding of the evil we are dealing with. Raiders of the Last Ark had nazis, who's evil could simply be recognized by the swastika. Despite having a savage edge, the experience remains pure Hollywood escapism. Indiana Jones takes us to places we have never been and evokes a child-like feeling of adventure that lies within us all.

Temple of Doom would go on to earn nearly $180 million at the U.S. box office and later earn an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects.While it was heavily criticized at the time of release, we must not forget that this lies under the shadow of Raiders of Lost Ark. Perhaps the actions, metaphors and themes are simplistic but that doesn't mean we cannot be thrilled by the constant peril we find our hero in.