The Captive God (1916) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Captive God
Year: 1916
Director: Charles Swickward
Country: US
Language: N/A

Throughout his career, William S. Hart was known as the "Good Bad Man" of the movies. He specialized in playing anti-heroes of the old west. His characters would teeter near the edge of pure villainy, but almost always (I'm certain it's just "always" but I haven't seen all of his pictures) find redemption in religion and/or a good woman. He was devoted to the West, but admittedly was growing bored of it. With The Captive God he went into a completely new direction.

Raised as a god by the Tehuan tribe, Chiapa (William S. Hart) attempts to rescue the priestess when she is kidnapped by naughty Aztecs. 

Pre-Columbian civilizations of Mesoamerica are a pretty far departure from the old West. Producer Thomas Ince gave Hart a hefty budget to try to make the switch successful. This film is very similar to Cecil B. Demille's The Woman God Forgot (1917), as both pictures deal with Montezuma's daughter and the consequences of her sleeping with the enemy.Praised upon its initial release for its setting and epic battles, I can't help but feel Hollywood undermines history a little. The conflict central to the plot is more complicated than "dude just wants to sleep with guy's daughter".

Hart under performs here, which is surprising considering his usual acting ability. Perhaps he lacks confidence in this new role, but his facial gestures suggest a man who thinks he made a terrible decision.  I'm a bit bothered by the old silver screen trope of "White person = god” making its appearance. It's not shockingly racist, at least when you've heard it hundreds of times before, rather it makes my eyes roll in regards to such lazy screen-writing. 

The Captive God provides impressive sets and wondrous action (for 1916) but doesn't deliver on anything else. The lavish production is nice, but the story is generic and collapses under the weight of the sets and costumes. Hart himself wasn't impressed with this picture, although I'd say it's worthy of at least one viewing. 

Less Than Dust (1916) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Less Than Dust
Year: 1916
Director: John Emerson
Country: US
Language: N/A

Mary Pickford was the queen of the movies, a talented and popular performer whose brand was built on quality productions. Throughout the silent era, she had been fighting for better scripts and more creative control at Famous Players-Lask. Having the sheer iron will of a business-woman, Pickford knew that her career was limited and could slip away at any moment. Unfortunately Less Than Dust was a bad career move at the time as it did not see successful box office returns at the time. 

In this film a little English girl, abandoned in India and raised by an Indian swordmaker, learns of her true origin and returns to England to seek out her birthright. 

Around this specific time, Pickford had a phase of trying to play every ethnicity that would come to mind.  She had played an Inuit (Little Pal), a Japanese woman (Madame Butterfly) and the dutch  (Hulda from Holland). It seems strange that such a white woman would desire to play someone from India.  The heroine of this picture is rather strange, as she shoplifts and incites religious violence when the owner confronts her about it. Am I supposed to feel empathy for this character?

The twist isn't something you can see coming, but that's because it's completely out of the blue (in a negative sense). When she travels to England the film's plot takes a nose-dive as it's now somehow a fish out of water comedy complete with...crying about roast beef? and finding out her skin color is actually just dirt she forgot to wash off? Holy shit that's racist. Even for 1916!

Less Than Dust clearly deserved the indifferent attitude it recieved from the American public when it was first released. Even if this film hadn’t been racist, it's just a dull picture that becomes incessantly annoying the further we trek through its run-time. Pickford was a great actor, but even she can't shed any light on this catastrophe.

  

The Cameraman's Revenge (1912) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Cameraman's Revenge
Year: 1912
Director: Vladislav Starevich
Country: Russia
Language: N/A

Vladislav Starevich was a stop-motion animator notable as the author of the first puppet-animated film (The Beautiful Lukanida in 1912) His approach to his animation, which was to show that animation could be taken seriously as adult material, gave his pictures a more timeless feel. This makes The Cameraman's Revenge seem a little more modern than every other surviving silent from 104 years ago. 

 In this short, a jilted husband takes his revenge by filming his wife and her lover and showing the result at the local cinema.

Vladislav Starevich had two main talents; graphic design and entomology (the study of insects). He would often blend these two together and make animated films starring insects, puppets and even the odd human being. He found success in the pre-Revolution Russian film industry making dozens of successful pictures. The Cameraman’s Revenge is his earliest surviving film. 

The Cameraman’s Revenge hits on several mature themes that Alfred Hitchcock would eventually become famous for. We get adultery, the sexual double standard and voyeurism. The characters are played by insects, but we don't get the cutesy A Bug's Life Disneyfication of them here. Rather it is a serious melodrama where the insect's behavior is all too human. It's admittedly a very strange film. 

The stop-motion animation, which wasn't exactly "new" but still very unique at the time, is complimented by its story and doesn't at all feel like a gimmick. The puppets, props and set designs are extremely detailed. Clearly this world of bourgeois insects must have taken years to prepare. 

Hell's Hinges (1916) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Hell's Hinges
Year: 1916
Director: William S. Hart
Country: US
Language: N/A

Director William S. Hart made his first western in 1914. Working first for Thomas Ince and later with his own production company. His formula was a hit with audiences and would go on to define the plots of future westerns for generations; an old west outlaw is reformed by religion and a good woman. The sheer quantity of films Hart produced in the 1910's was staggering. He would produce one film every two months. Hell's Hinges being one of his best. 

You know the plot already. A tough guy find reformation and redemption in a tough Old West town. 

Preserved by the Museum of Modern Art and selected to the National Film Registry in 1994, Hell's Hinges is a remarkable masterpiece of silent cinema. While Westerns during this period would often sacrifice accuracy for pure adventure, Hart made his pictures with the utmost sincerity and strived for realism. With a budget almost double the usual amount for a Hart western, this picture would be a great effort to outclass all the others that came before it. 

Hell's Hinges is a bit heavy-handed in religious symbolism and florid titles. It's not exactly a subtle picture either. The woman he's swooning after is called "faith". Get it? He needs faith! For the most part the film is well-written, everything melds together into one astonishing climax of fire and fury. Hell's Hinges does require an attention span and a suspension of disbelief (as well as putting one's own religious views to the side), but overall it's quite an enjoyable flick.

Due to this being a great film that defined the Western genre for decades to come (there might not be a John Wayne without the influence of Hell's Hinges) it's not too much of a stretch to claim that this is one of the greatest films of the silent era. 

Tales of 1001 Nights (1921) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Tales of 1001 Nights
Year: 1921
Director: Victor Tourjansky
Country: Russia
Language: N/A

Arabian Nights fantasies were beloved entertainment throughout the silent era and still were produced throughout the history of Cinema. This production is one of the rare adaptations that puts great effort into sticking to the original source. Falling fallen into obscurity since its initial release,  no complete print is known to have survived. I watched an abridged version on Youtube, although far can't seem to find any reviews on it. 

Newly married to Shahryar, a deranged monarch who murders his brides after the wedding night, Scheherazade manages to keep her head by entertaining her husband with exciting stories that always end in thrilling cliffhangers. 

The Arabian Nights reminds me of the serials Raiders of the Lost Ark was based on. Our hero and heroine are constantly wandering into danger and being forced to free themselves from it. Each encounter gets more dangerous, and each solution is that more unpredictable. The inclusion of a real-world religion in the narrative is rather interesting. The Islamic faith is treated with utmost respect, similar to how Christianity is treated in the West. 

Most Arabian Nights stories, especially during the 21st Century, would drop the religious aspect to the story. Maybe a mosque would show up, like in Disney's Aladdin, but it wouldn't dive too much into religious phrasing or imagery. Overall the acting in The Arabian Nights is pretty good, the cinematography is impressive for 1920, but the direction is poor. Character movements and staging can be pretty random at times, although sprawling desert sands and looming beaches make up for it. 

Information on this film is a bit hard to find. I do know that it was released in the US in 1927 but it did not make much of a critical or commercial impact at all. It's not a "masterpiece" by any means but it does have many fun moments. This would certainly be worthwhile to restore and put on home video.

The Social Network (2008) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Social Network
Year: 2008
Director: David Fincher
Country: US
Language: English

The Social Network's subject, the creator of Facebook, seems like it would be ripe for a "Behind the Music"- esque MTV "documentary". I'm surprised that there was enough intellectual material here for a legitimate film on the silver screen, much less a film directed by David Fincher. I found myself astonished by the emotional depth and critical insight that this screenplay delivers. 

In this bio-film, Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg creates the social networking site that would become known as Facebook, but is later sued by two brothers 

Jesse Eisenberg has played this sort of neurotic, acid-tongued intellect before, but never with such intensity. His character is a jerk, but we remain attracted to his personality. This is mainly due to Sorkin's witty script and Eisenberg's nerdy charm. Dark humour is spread throughout, while the actors carry the emotional tone and  underlying message of the film on their shoulders

Zuckerberg's onscreen behavior represents the detached mentality of internet communication and friendship on Facebook. He thinks that when somebody bugs him he can easily "click" them out of his life, but learns the harsh lesson that real life doesn’t work that way. Fincher's brooding cinematography captures the essence of Sorkin's more technical screenplay. Unlike most film's that just say "this person is a genius!" and have the characters do or say nothing worthy of being a genius, Sorkin peppers the dialogue with technical lingo and website property laws. Surprisingly, we see the coding process quite accurately. 

Fincher maintains a superior directing style throughout the run-time; no camera angle nor stage blocking decision is wasted. While I hated The Social Network in 2008, I have grown to appreciate the film mainly because its themes regarding communication and isolation resonate to this day. Incredibly well made, we can only hope Fincher keeps making such great pictures. 

Slumdog Millionaire (2008) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Slumdog Millionaire
Year: 2008
Director: Danny Boyle
Country: UK
Language: English

With Slumdog Millionaire Danny Boyle has managed to do something quite difficult; create a 21st Century fairy tale, in India of all places. The realistic settings and circumstances don't diminish the story-book quality of this improbable rags-to-riches story. Boyle owns the ugliness of a harsh existence in India, but also proves that miracles do happen. On a side note, did you know that this is the second Best Picture winner to feature a scene where a boy falls into an outhouse and is covered in poop? 

In this film, a Mumbai teen reflects on his upbringing in the slums when he is accused of cheating on the Indian Version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?"

When I viewed this film in 2008 I wasn't very impressed and it would take 8 years for me to consider viewing it again. I think I was too cynical the first time, because upon a second viewing I found myself absolutely astonished.  Slumdog Millionaire speaks universally to audiences by finding common ground between cultures, specifically viewers who are the majority of consumers in  Hollywood (US) and Bollywood (India).  Boyle succeeds in purging the story of specific cultural concerns, and makes the film about fundamental human feelings that carry across the world. 

While Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? wasn't that relevant in 2008, it's merely used as a plot device to push the story along. This is no marketing scheme by Regis Philbin, but rather the show acts as a more profound examination of Jamal’s life, showing how his experiences allow him to know the answers. Ultimately the money is an after-thought, as Boyle is really intending to find the good nature of humanity despite lacing the film with scenes of suffering. 

Slumdog Millionaire was pretty controversial in India upon release. The public claimed that it fueled stereotypes about poverty in India and that it was merely "poverty porn", Protesters torn down posters and ransacked local theatres. People in slums claim that they object to the film's title. Yes, Danny Boyle is certainly your enemy. Considering some of the child actors were still living in slums I suspect that Boyle hit a nerve and may have shown some truth about the state of that country.

Boyle's film has a pace, enthusiasm and energy that has rarely been matched in modern Cinema. It is a breathtaking experience that has a great score and is tremendously edited. Taking Trainspotting into account, I think Slumdog Millionaire is his best film. 

Spotlight (2015) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Spotlight
Year: 2015
Director: Tom McCarthy
Country: US
Language: English

Spotlight creates a filmic exposé out of the Catholic Church’s unsettling history of pedophilia and concealment of it, while also questioning the validity of any institution that has tried to cover it up. In 2002 The Boston Globe, specifically their investigative spotlight team, published a story revealing that the Catholic Church knew about sexual abuse in its ranks and allowed a priest to keep his job. The Catholic Church tried its best to cease this very film from being made, being successful for a number of year, but eventually Spotlight would release in theatres world-wide. 

Spotlight is the true story of how the Boston Globe uncovered the massive scandal of child molestation and cover-up.

Throughout its run-time, Director Tom McCarthy tries to give this picture an objective view of the Spotlight story. Although he has an impressive cast at his disposal, the screenplay doesn't stray too far into the character's personal lives and never diverts from the main story. McCarthy's polished direction is quite focused, which is pretty admirable considering the scope of the events that have been covered. 

McCarthy's sensitivity for the subject never steps over a line by depicting the actual abuse; instead, we can see the horror and sheer disgust on the reporters' faces as they realize how far the church has sunk. Ruffalo's grim expression is quite haunting, as we see a man torn by his faith and exposed to a world that is starting to make much less sense. Though lesser film-makers might make a snarky comment about religion, McCarthy doesn't push his personal views into the picture. 

This film will get a lot of comparisons to Zodiac and All The President's Men, indeed I see the comparisons as well. Spotlight is a slow burning film that will creep up on you when you least expect it. The feeling of uncertainty, dread and a loss of community stick with you long after the credits role. Truly worthy of its "Best Picture" Oscar.

Zodiac (2007) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Zodiac
Year: 2007
Director: David Fincher
Country: US
Language: English

Starting in the late 60's, the Zodiac Killer and its ensuing hysteria rattled the San Francisco Bay Area of northern California. The self-titled Zodiac claimed to have 37 victims; however, just three men and two women have been actually confirmed. On August 1, 1969, the Zodiac began to write letters to newspapers, teasing authorities with hints to its identity. Zodiac’s published correspondence resulted in frantic reactions from authorities and the public. The case still remains open and will possibly remain forever unsolved. 

Jake Gyllenhaal plays a San Francisco cartoonist who becomes an amateur detective obsessed with tracking down the Zodiac killer. 

An all-consuming need to solve  an unsolvable mystery drives this David Fincher masterclass of Cinema. Screenwriter James Vanderbilt based his true-crime script on Robert Graysmith's nonfiction investigations of the case. His story does not hint at a comfortable resolution, nor does it answer any quests that have not been answered in the real case. Through over nearly three hours, Fincher wraps us in a blanket of obsession, forcing us to watch as we too feel compelled to be detectives in this all-consuming case. 

Due to this film taking place in the past, Fincher recreates the grainy, washed-out colors of 1970s cinema by underexposing or color-timing his shots, creating moodier interiors and clearer nighttime scenes. Zodiac recreates the landscape of the period. Buildings and skylines that no longer exist are recreated via CGI. We are so seamlessly integrated into the 70's that it's very difficult to notice. Bad directors often exaggerate themes of the time (It's disco everywhere!) but not Fincher. 

A sense of tension floods Zodiac throughout the film, even during lighter moments we are on the edge of our seat. The film makes a strong case against a single subject, but we too feel frustrated when there isn't enough evidence to bring them to jail. We want these police-men to be Dirty Harry type characters who enforce their views regardless of what bureaucracy says they "should" do, but the "right" way of the law is unfortunately very complicated. Zodiac is a great picture, I'd say Fincher's best.

The Killing Joke (2016) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Killing Joke
Year: 2016
Director: Sam Liu
Country: US
Language: English

Based on the 1988 graphic novel of the same name, The Killing Joke was originally written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Brian Bolland. The book explored the dichotomy and similarities between the Joker and Batman; how both were created through incredible loss and how they were basically the same people who took two different paths. It showed both characters' more vulnerable sides, while also being incredibly shocking at the same time. 

As Batman hunts for the escaped Joker, the Clown Prince of Crime attacks the Gordon family to prove a diabolical point mirroring his own fall into madness. 

The original graphic novel wasn't long enough to make a full length feature, and when writer Brian Azzarello set out to adapt it he took liberties with the source material. Much of the new material is either filler that doesn't add to the story or screen-time that deviates from plot themes and focuses more on bat-girl. The ending of the film is a large deviation from the novel, and isn't anything at all that you'd want out of a batman/joker picture. 

That being said the mostly hand-drawn animation (refreshing to see as most animation is computer generated nowadays) intentionally meant to evoke Batman: The Animated Series. It mimics the style well, displaying impressive visuals for voyeurs to eat up. The voice cast, which includes Mark Hamill as The Joker, is top-notch. Out of the 2016 Joker's I much prefer Hamill over Leto. It's a technically impressive picture that hits rock bottom on story.

It's unfortunate that the sole female hero is more of a victim in The Killing Joke. Also unfortunate that this film couldn't stand tall in comparison to its source material. Granted, the graphic novel is a product of its time and was mostly made for shock factor. "How can we make the most gruesome joker yet?" It's a work of art that is out of place in 2016.