Brand Upon the Brain Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Brand Upon the Brain

Year: 2006
Director: Guy Maddin
Country: Canada
Language: English

Before I begin my film review on Brand Upon the Brain I will give you a little introduction about the filmmaker; Winnipeg’s own Guy Maddin. Because I live in the same city as the great man, I have been in the same room as him four times so far. The first was in 2009 when I went with a couple of friends to the University of Manitoba to see his lecture titled Stripper Ghosts and Sofa Traumas. Though I did not talk to him that night, he seemed like a rather quiet and peaceful man. Nerves seemed to get the best of him that night as he did not look up from his papers as he was talking. I also met him in 2009 when I went to the world premiere of his short film The Little White Cloud that Cried. It was marvelous and though we spoke for only a few minutes I could tell that he had the soul of a poet. The third time I saw him was in 2010, or perhaps 2011, at a show at the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra. I’m not sure why he spoke publicly, as this was not his environment. He seemed quite nervous as well, stumbling over his notes. I get the feeling that Guy Maddin s not a very confident man, or perhaps he is very humble. The fourth time I saw him was in the Summer of 2011 when I came across him in a grocery store. I approached him and told him that I just bought the Criterion version of Brand Upon the Brain and I really enjoyed it.  He acted like a very humble yet happy person and thanked me for the support. I did not have the film on me but he signed my mother’s grocery list. I put that list complete with autograph in the case for my copy of Brand Upon the Brain.

 Canadian Cinema has a history of being lackluster compared to American films, few Canadians can name ten great Canadian films yet have no problem shouting out plenty of their American favourites. I feel that this is rather unfortunate because it is quite necessary to support our fellow Canadian filmmakers in order to strengthen the film industry in Canada. It’s an act of “patriotism” that doesn’t involve going to war. Nevertheless , I feel that Guy Maddin is on the right path to re-invent Canadian Cinema and make it unique and interesting for the next generation of Canadian filmmakers. He has a unique style that is a modern homage to silent German expressionism, yet his twist is so unique one could argue that he has invented a whole new style of filmmaking. Whatever the case may be, his style is so different from the way films are usually made in 2012 that you will have no problem spotting his films from the rest.

Brand Upon the Brain  is especially incredible because it is not only a film, but a live theatre performance. Live foley artists will make the sounds of footsteps, doors creaking  and many other ominous noises. Live narrators will narrate the film, usually Maddin’s right hand lady Issabella Rosselini is at helm for this but in live theater any famous person can take a chance to narrate. On the Criterion DVD there are at least seven narrators you can choose from, one is the actor who plays the famous dad in the beloved 80’s time travel flick Back to the Future, his name is Crispin Glover. Complete with a live orchestra to play the beautiful and haunting score, Maddin  has quite the ear for incredible music to put into his films, Brand Upon the Brain would truely be a life altering experience. This is definetley going on my bucket list, I hope that Maddin eventually brings this event to his hometown for the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra  to help undertake.

Weird, obsessive, brilliant. Oddly tGuy Maddin claimed this was his most autobiographical film, he wanted to pay homage to Fancois Trauffaut and his autobiographical film The 400 Blows, though when you watch the film you’ll wonder how screwed up Maddin’s childhood really was. This Poe-like film begins with a man named “Guy Maddin”  on a rowboat. His mother wished for him to put two coats of paint on the lighthouse on Black North Island, a former orphanage his family ran and the site of where the majority of his childhood took place. When Guy arrives he is subject to various flashbacks about his troubled childhood with his loving sister, distant father and incredibly controlling mother. We get a strong sense that she’s a “big brother” kind of character  as she stands atop the lighthouse, using  the telescope to oversee everything that happens on the island. Though this is an obvious exaggeration it is very relatable, who hasn’t felt suffocated by their mother or distanced by their father? Maddin’s childhood relations are quite common, it’s the way he portrays them, the way he shows how melodramatic he and perhaps every Canadian mother can be, which is unique.

I find it quite sensational the way Maddin can subtly switch genres throughout the film.  It can take us in wild directions yet we always feel secure that Brand Upon the Brain is in safe hands.  It goes from melodrama to horror to thriller to romance to Grimm fairy tale- all without skipping a beat.  Eventually the film becomes a murder mystery when it is discovered  that the there are mysterious holes in some orphans, also his mother seems to be aging backwards.

Does Maddin know he is a genius, that his films are capable are changing the landscape of modern Canadian Cinema? From my encounters with him, and seeing the nervous way he speaks in public, I would say no. He’s a man with a strong love for cinema, especially silent film, and just wishes to make incredibly entertaining films. He has the dreams of the common Canadian, with the mind consisting of a mix between Charlie Chaplin,  Edgar Allen Poe and Salvador Dali. A mad genius who seems unaware his own influence.

In Conclusion, you will absolutely love Brand Upon the Brain for its astonishing weirdness. A unique experience that triumphs anything a modern American film that give you. Use this as an introduction to not only Guy Maddin, but to Canadian films in general. It is the best film of the 21^st Century, the Criterion edition of the  film is well worth the money. I’m positive that because of Brand Upon the Brain generations and generation of people will become engulfed in Canadian Cinema.  Praise it! 5/5

The Elephant Man Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: The Elephant Man

Year: 1980
Director: David Lynch

Country: U.S
Language: English

Before I saw this film, I was warned by several peers that David Lynch’s Elephant Man would be the saddest film I have ever seen and it would be impossible to contain my films. Though I have seen sad films like Sansho the Bailiff and Germany Year Zero I decided to take their word for it and get ready to cry rivers of sorrow. After the film my eyes were tear free, I was confused. Perhaps I had missed something, so I watched it again and again hoping that I didn’t completely understand the film. Nope, it was quite clear to me, I could definitely understand the film. Perhaps Elephant Man isn’t that great of a film, perhaps David Lynch isn’t that great of a director.

The Elephant Man is quite odd, it paints Joseph Merrick as a courageous hero simply because of his condition that has left him hideously transformed. In this case, isn’t anyone who has ever had a disease or been in an unfortunate situation  a “hero”? I was born with a heart condition that has limited my ability to do physical activities, should I be praised just because of that? I say, and I’m sure many other can agree with me, hell no!  We should admire those who choose to do great things in the face of adversity. We should admire Terry Fox, not because he had life threatening cancer, but because he chose to jog around Canada despite having cancer. I’m not suggesting that Joseph Merrick was a bad guy who did absolutely nothing in his life, I’m just stating that David Lynch portrayed Joseph Merrick as a hero for the wrong reasons.

Lynch is the real dumbo

The reason The Elephant Man didn’t work for me is because it focused too much on the relationship between doctor and patient,  Dr. Frederick Teves (Anthony Hopkins) and Joseph Merrick (John Hurt). The film took place after Merrick’s horrible treatment and eventual escape from the circus. If Lynch dug more into Merrick’s past I would be more impressed. If we could see Merrick’s struggle to communicate with people, his need to be like everything else. All we really understand is that doctors are kind, Merrick is ugly and we assume that he decided to live despite the odds against him but that isn’t exactly clear when we realize that he eventually committed suicide. Did he want to commit suicide all along? If then, how is he a “hero”?  I expected great things out of this film, but then again, I should have realized that David Lynch was at the helm of this film.

At best you could make a case that this film was essentially about a doomed figure but I felt quite distant and lacked any real sympathy for Merrick the character. As a person with a disability, I know how it feels to feel isolated but this didn’t really show any truth about the nature of isolation. Nor does it show any truth about the nature of perseverance. Merrick the character did not chose to keep living despite the odds against him. I’m sure Merrick the man, would be quite unhappy with the film about his life.

In conclusion, I am not impressed with this un-sympathetic film. To make me feel empathetic about a person with a severe disability should be incredibly easy but to my surprise Lynch did not deliver at all. This film will only bring a tear to your eye if you really value your time, because this is a complete waste of it. The opening scene, where Merrick’s mother is raped by elephants is completely ludicrous. Lastly, I wouldn’t recommend checking out any other Lynch films, his filmography only gets worse from here. Piss on it! 1/5

The Iron Lady Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Iron Lady

Year: 2011

Counrty: U.S

Language: English

 

What.The.Hell. The Iron Lady has frustrated me in ways that I did not realize a film could.  This film is almost as bad as Triumph of the Will in the way it glorifies ridiculous leaders who foolishly murdered many people via useless ideals. The only difference between The Iron Lady and Triumph of the Will, which by the way is a 30’s nazi propaganda film used to glorify Adolf Hitler and the nazi regime, is that Triumph of the Will had groundbreaking cinematography. This film is just Meryl Streep, that’s all. Meryl Steep’s acting saves this film from being a straight to DVD dollar store film. Let’s just get this review over with.

Incase you haven’t seen Hunger, or have listened to Pink Floyd, or haven’t taken any lessons in History, I should remind you that Thatcher WAS NOT a good Prime Minister. She was more or less, Britain’s George Bush. She did not care about the homeless nor  the poor, the hungry or the unemployed. She divided her nation and led a war that many people just didn’t care about, all for the sake of some land that nobody had and currently doesn’t have any interest in. Lots of people died on her watch but does this film point it out? NO. This film approaches Thatcher’s life like all conventional biographies do, they see her as an honourable woman, almost a step in the right direction for feminism. Indeed all the men in this film come off as dicks who try to control and persuade Thatcher. A woman as prime minister? How bizarre! Not!  A lot of people think that if women ran the world there would be no wars, a woman ran Britain and caused great suffering. I now greatly fear a society ruled by women.

I-Pod - slave labor= Zune!

My fear is that A LOT of women are going to watch this film and be inspired by the Margaret Thatcher shown on the screen .  Indeed this figure is quite the propaganda,  while I admire the fact that it can be seen as “pro-feminist”  I absolutely despise the fact that it goes completely against history. It stems lies from every core of its being. It reflects society’s love of idolizing dead figures regardless of how cruel, corrupt and distant they were in their lifetime. Look at how  Steve Jobs is idolized as an example. This portrayal isn’t Meryl Streep’s fault however, it is the fault of the filmmaker and writers. Streep was given a job and she did the best she could, winning an Oscar for her troubles. Perhaps if she had a better knowledge about British history she would be repulsed by the thought of being in this film.

In conclusion, I have been repulsed from watching this film. Lavish costumes and decent acting are not enough to make me forget that this film makes an idol out of one of history’s worst  British politicians. I sincerely hope  this film is forgotten immediately, erased from mainstream’s conscience for there will be terrible consequences if we keep showing great villains in great light. This film is an abomination of truth. Piss on it! 1/5  

Harold and Maude Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Harold and Maude

Year: 1971

Director: Hal Ashby

Country: U.S

Language: English

If you want to sing out, sing out. Hal Ashby’s life affirming Harold and Maude is a wonderful and hilarious dark comedy about a rich young man named Harold (Bud Cort) who is obsessed with death and an old woman named Maude(Ruth Gordon)who can’t get enough of life.  They meet  in a rather odd place, at a funeral, and fall into deep conversation when she asks if he needs a ride in the hearse she stole from him. The fact that Harold drives a hearse instead of a sports car should tell give you an idea of how unhappy and melancholy he feels about his life. Has this life and death story been shown before? Perhaps, but Harold and Maude is so funny and relatable that one tends to forget about all the other plots that are similar to this film.

Harold represents death. He is indeed a man with a problem.  Though he is incredibly rich, he is also very unhappy, which seems typical for most mainstream characters who have a large sum of money with exception of Tony Stark (Ironman reference).  The main problem is that he has not lived, he backs away from life because he is scared of what is out there . He has not taken any risks in his “life”, perhaps because he “lives” under the rule of his ignorant mother.  She, like most typical rich authority figures in cinema, thinks she can buy Harold’s love and fix Harold’s problems with money and extravagant presents. Even when she wishes to set Harold up with a lovely internet woman, she ignores Harold’s thoughts and answers the online questionnaire using her own judgement. Harold is aching with unhappiness ,  he tries to show this to his mother through his various hilarious fake suicide attempts but alas she does not give a crap.

Maude represents death. Like Jack of Titanic and many other characters she doesn’t have much money but what she lacks in finances she makes up for in life. Maude is not afraid to live or to get down and dirty in a political protest sense.  Her motto is “LIVE!”, she says to Harold “Give me an L. Give me an I. Give me a V. Give me an E. L-I-V-E. LIVE! Otherwise, you got nothing to talk about in the locker room.” She is not afraid to make a fool of herself,  she’s not afraid to take a chance. This, of course, has a profound effect on the rich, young and unhappy Harold whose life has been series of bland and repetitive events.

Some problems I have with this film is that it hasn’t said anything many films haven’t said before. The story has been used time and time again. The characters have also been used many times, if this were Titanic Harold would be Rose and Maude would be joke, though I realize that it’s an unfair comparison of characters as Harold and Maude came first. Still the point remains the same. However, Harold and Maude is quite unique in the way that it uses its used storyline and characters. I’d argue that this is the best, if into one of the best life affirming film  in the history of cinema because of the dark humour involved . My personal favourite scene in this film is when Harold fakes Hara-Kiri to get his date to leave him alone, however she is an actor and thinks that Harold is brilliant, reciting lines from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and fake dying right beside him.

In conclusion, though some aspects of the film have been used, overall it is quite a humorous and well-made film. Reach out, grab this film, scare your mother and her mother too.  Take a chance, make an ass out of yourself if you have to. L-I-V-E.  Live! Watch this film, analyze your life, and then go plant a tree or something ya hippie. 3.5/5  

Do the Right Thing Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Do the Right Thing

Year: 1989

Director: Spike Lee

Country: U.S

Language: English 

Spike Lee’s Do The Right Thing is a unique and touching experience. There are few  films as beautiful and well made as this. The film is quite unique as it doesn’t take sides nor does it worry about crossing any lines.  It’s a movie about race issues in America that emphasizes with all races involved. Yet it still created quite a controversy, many critics at the time feared that it would cause an uproar and create unrelenting chaos. Indeed people did get upset over this film, if you would like to learn more about the controversy it is featured on a television program called Movies that Shook the World. Indeed Do the Right thing did shake the core of the average man, but this should be expected of all great films about love and hate.

None of the people in this film are perfect. There are really no heroes or villains in the film. However Lee makes us empathize with each and every character, because understanding is crucial in Do the Right Thing, without it you are stuck inside the box of racism and injustice. The violence in this film is absolutely necessary in showing how racism and hate can destroy us, how it can turn man into a Beast.  After all, racism is engrained so deeply  into our society that it’s like a cancer that feeds at the soul. This cancer creates imbalance, mischief and mayhem. All actions are brought on by our own insecurities, suspicions and misunderstandings. Hate is never the “right thing”.  Violence is never the “Right thing”. Violence can only lead  to the disintegration of humanity, and destruction of the soul.

The hate begins when a black man named Buggin questions the pictures on a pizza owner named Sal’s (Danny Aiello) wall, they are all of white Latin American actors, why are there no black actors on his wall?  The destruction begins when the likeable Mookie (Lee), a man who Sal claims is “like a son” , throws a trash can into the window of Sal’s pizzeria which incites a riot. To be “fair” this happens right before two cops kill a black man outside the pizzaeria, however it seems both cops did not intentionally try to kill the black man. Though the black man, Radio Raheem, is at some fault as he plays his boom box so defiantly loud that it drives Sal crazy, causing him to destroy the boom box with his bat which then causes Radio to snap and attempt to beat the hell out of Sal. Of course the whole hot Summer day has been leading up to these moments, the black and white tension has been growing and growing until it reached its breaking point.

Nobody in this film is free of racism. The whites hate the blacks, Sal’s son Pino often calls them “niggers” and is not hesitant to treating the black people who enter the store with incredible rudeness. The black people pick on the Koreans just because they can, and the Koreans shout out racial slurs whenever they feel like it. This is true to Canada in 2012, nobody is free of racism, though the racial discrimination is more centered on our Aboriginal community. I’ve heard many White people say “Damn Indians, why can’t they just get a job”  and I’ve heard many Aboriginals saying “I didn’t get the job because of those damn White people.” Lee’s truth of 1989, is still truth in 2012.

Lee also points out the economic discriminations that have been in place for many years in America and Canada. We see no black businesses in the black populated neighbourhood, hell if it wasn’t  for Sal’s and the Koreans there would not be any food nearby. Indeed it seems that in America, black neighbourhoods are often the poorest and have the worst schools and education systems in place. How many films like To Sir With Love, about teachers miraculously surviving a school centered in a black neighbourhood have we seen? In Canada a lot of Aboriginal reservation communities don’t even have drinking water, among many other problems.

In conclusion, Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing is a beautifuly made film that holds strong truths about racism and hate, and how hate can destroy our community and our souls. I am amazed that such a  film that refuses to take sides exists. Every character is shown in a good and a bad light. Every character and race can be sympathized with. Ending with quotations by Martin Luther King & Malcolm X,  Do the Right Thing shows that it will be love that conquers hate. For love has veins that run straight to the soul of man. Praise it! 5/5

Nobody Loves Me Review- by Michael Carlisle

 Title: Nobody Loves Me

 Year: 1994
Director: Dorris Dorrie
Country: Germany
Language: German

It concerns me that Nobody Loves Me does not have an English or Region 1 DVD. This means that it is very unlikely that anybody reading this review has seen the film, or will see it in the near future. I watched it because I was in a film class and my film professor just happened to have a copy, though I think he had to go to a film festival to get it. Nobody Loves Me is a unique German film that breaks all barriers. It speaks volumes about life, death and the foolish North American view of Sexuality. Directed by Dorris Dorrie Nobody Loves Me  is an odd, funny, serious, innovative and ultimately life altering film.

Fanny Fink (Maria Schrader) is in a funk, and not the good kind of funk. She lives alone in a rundown housing project in Cologne and has an unrewarding job frisking female passengers at the airport. Fanny is miserable because she is convinced that "a woman over 30 is more likely to get hit by an A-bomb than find a man." Her daily mantra is: "I'm strong, I'm pretty, I'm intelligent. I love and I am loved," but she speaks the words without conviction. To potential suitors, she gives the advice, "I wouldn't fall in love with me if I were you."  She believes that she is unloved and somehow deserves to be unloved.  These thoughts are quite common for many people around the world, especially for Europeans and North Americans. Everybody has fears of being single, of being unloved, of being rejected. The emotions and fears felt by Fanny are very identifiable. Dorrie's perceptiveness when it comes to this mindset is what makes Fanny such an endearing character and causes the film to be so compelling.

ltamar (Pierre Sanoussi-Bliss), is an Afro-German psychic who is gay and full of life. He opens up new doors for her and she begins to see herself anew. According to Orleo's prediction, Fanny will find her "last chance at love" in a blond, thirty-ish man who is somehow associated with the number 23. The likeliest candidate is the new manager of Fanny's run-down high-rise apartment building, Lothar Sticker (Michael Von Au). Warned by Orleo that she must be aggressive, Fanny pursues him, but his interest in her is non-existent. By falling for a man who clearly doesn't feel the same as her, Fanny learns the pain of unrequited love. In a moment of despair, she cries that she wishes she had remained emotionally sheltered. However, through all this Fanny begins to love Orleo. The heterosexual woman and the homosexual man develop an intense purely platonic love that could easily overshadow the “love” in many marriages. They become hopelessly in awe of each other, even though unfortunately Orleo is dying and thus the nearness of his death adds a great immediacy to their relationship that wouldn’t be present had Orleo been incredibly healthy.

Dorrie uses the idea of “love” in this film to criticize the North American and European ideals of what “love” is. We often think that “love” is a physical and emotional attachment that can only be met by one person. If we are “single” people assume there is something wrong with us, especially if a woman over 30 is “single” because she is more or less seen as a grouchy spinster. The only way we can be seen as “single” and not weird is if we are under 30 or widowed. Millions of people have Fanny’s view, and why not? It is embedded within us as early as childhood. We see cartoon characters like Pepe Le Pew relentlessly searching after love. In Hercules the main Character remains mortal until he learns how to be a hero, which means learning to “love” the North American way. We see hundreds upon hundreds of films telling us what “love” is, Dorrie looks at these many examples and says “bullshit!”. This idea that “love” has to be sexual needs to be thrown out the window.

In conclusion, Nobody Loves Me will move you. It will make you rethink your ideologies about “love” and “death”. It will make you want to throw your remote at the screen when you see films like Sleepless in Seattle and/or When Harry Met Sally. Unfortunately you may not be able to see it until the distributor decides to distribute it on DVD or Blu Ray, but if you do find it I suggest you watch it as many times as you can. Nobody Loves Me is one of the best German films of all time. Praise it! 5/5

The Prince of Egypt Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: The Prince of Egypt
Year: 1998
Country: U.S
Language: English

Move over DeMille! The Prince of Egypt has arrived! Based on the same scripture as The Ten Commandments  and made 48 years after DeMille’s epic, The Prince of Egypt is ultimately a more free film, based on the story in Exodus, that takes imagination to new heights. This film is limitless, far from the bondage of reality.  Animation really helps this film soar, if DeMille had seen it he probably would’ve dropped to his knees in awe. Prince of Egypt is the best film that will ever come out of DreamWorks Studios.

The Prince of Egypt has a unique way of deploying its computer animation. Instead of the film being completely computer generated,  the style aids  the traditional hand drawn technique. The two techniques/styles blend together perfectly to show the incredible beauty of the desert and the people who dwell within it. In most animated films the animation lends itself mere entertainment for children, however the animation in this film is quite mature and helps to draw in complexity and seriousness. As a child I saw The Lion King, Aladdin, Pocahauntus and many other animated films, yes they did have their morals, but Prince of Egypt shook me in a way that few would expect an animated film to.

Though both Red Sea partings are pretty cool

A noticeable difference between Prince of Egypt and every other film about the book of Exodus is the emphasized relationship of Moses and Ramses (Ralph Fiennes), the son of the mighty Pharaoh.  They do everything together, including getting into trouble. When Ramses is given power, he shows his love by giving Moses some power. However, Moses soon realizes that he is not an Egyptian and searches for some meaning in his life. In the desert he meets God in the form of a burning bush, who says “I am that I am, the God of your fathers.”  Moses tells his best friend Ramses about everything he experiences, not only does he Ramses disagree in anger but he makes the slaves work harder. God then unleashes his fury. Fire pours from the sky, locusts come swarming and all the first borns are killed, the second borns feel rather lucky. Everything eventually leads to the epic parting of the red seas, which looks much more spectacular than in Demille’s The Ten Commandments.

The exodus story is an important story of rebellion. It is about standing up for yourself and your people even if this can result in death. To stop tyranny you must fight tyranny.  If you know something is wrong, then something must done about this. What would happen if we just allowed Hitler and the Third Reich to take over the World? What would happen if we didn’t help the Jewish people be freed from the concentration camps? Perhaps rebellion may cause great disruption and chaos but the chaos is necessary, to be free from evil is an important and necessary thing. We should not look up to evil rulers but to the people who fight against them, this is why Gandhi and Che Guevera are very important figures in history. They fought a fight that many people would be too cowardly to do,  great courage produces great results.

In conclusion, while there is some comic relief in Prince of Egypt, I believe this film is one of the first animated films to transcend the genre from a children to adult for Americans.  I am astounded by how well made this film was, usually this is on the bottom of people’s lists when they think of good films about the Exodus, however I feel that it should be at the very top. While it is based on a biblical story, I do not believe you have to be religious to enjoy it. Prince of Egypt is  a soaring piece of imagination, vision and skill. Charlton Heston must have peed himself after he saw this. 4/5

Hercules Review- by Michael Carlisle

Title: Hercules

Year: 1997

Country: U.S

Language: English 

Who put the glad in gladiator? Hercules is not the typical Disney fare and perhaps it has suffered from being different but it’s quite a great under-rated Disney gem of the 90’s. Indeed, when one thinks of 90’s Disney classic there is a typical list: Beauty and the Beast, Alladin & The Lion King. Even Disney does not feel  their film is vault worthy! I’m here to tell you that all Hercules is not only vault worthy, but it should be considered one of the best Disney film of all time. Hercules is so hot, steam looks cool.

Hercules aka Herc, who’s world is uniquely drawn by British animator Gerlade Scarfe, is portrayed much differently than in the well known stories of “Bullfinche’s Mythology” and justly so. A man who murders his wife and children is not necessarily a good choice for a main character in a film that will likely be seen by a generation of children. Like most of Disney’s heroes, Hercules is an orphan, kidnapped from his father/God Zues by the Lord of the Dead’s evil minions Pain and Panic. He is also incredibly strong and unaware of his incredible strength, shown in a scene where he accidently knocks over temples, though his good looks and youthful innocence make him a very likable fellow.

Disney takes a page out of Shakespeare with this film, mainly the play Macbeth. Like the character Macbeth, the villain of Hercules, known as Hades (James Woods), has an insatiable thirst for power which will only stop once he reaches the very top. Both characters are also ultimately doomed but are not initially aware of this. Hades is told by three fates that when the planets align he should attack the Gods of Mount Olympus, however if Hercules fights he will fail. The fates have tricked him, like the witches did to Macbeth. They have given Hades an ego, but not completely told the truth. Hercules WILL be at this battle, but Hades thinks he can kill him as a child. Therefore he sends his minions Pain and Panic to do the dirty job, but they are unable to kill him and nobody informs Hades about this.

This film is a great study of “masculinity”. Hercules is a human, but the child of a God in Heaven. He must on Earth, around the imperfect immortals, to eventually earn his way back to Heaven and into the arms of his God/father.  His adolescence is a very clumsy one, which earns the nickname “Jerkules” among his peers, but after he questions his existence his father appears before him and tells him that in order to come back he must be a “hero”. What does it mean to be a “hero”? Well in most films the “hero” is a muscular masculine figure who  can save a damsel in distress without starting a sweat. Hercules tries this way, he becomes the idealistic muscular “masculine” figure. He has groups of girls head over heels for him, he’s so popular that he is an action figure! Yet when he tells his literal and spiritual father this he merely says “You’re not a hero yet”. Perhaps if Hercules looked tried out some more typically “feminine” traits, the movie would over much sooner. Indeed it is love that is more powerful than brute strength.

One may compare Hercules with the average Christian’s messiah Jesus Christ. Both are children of Gods, both have a mission of Earth, both are saviors (saving the world from a giant volcano dude should qualify you as a savior), both realize that the more “masculine” aggressive characteristics get them nowhere and both have to sacrifice themselves to be with their father in Heaven. Indeed there are more than a few parallels between Herc and Christ, I don’t think this is a coincidence. Hercules is also a discussion about the meaning of life. The song “Go the Distance” is essentially about man’s want to belong, our want for meaning, our want for challenge. We want love and acceptance and we will go almost anywhere to truly belong, to  feel unique and special.

In conclusion, Hercules is a funny yet deep Disney film that deserves a place among the greats. There are memorable songs, such as “go the distance” and “zero to hero”, and  wonderful voice actors.  It has great heart and great thoughts about man’s search for meaning in life. Hercules teaches that masculinity is not merely brute strength and that it would only help men if they acquired some “feminine” traits. While it takes pages from Orpheus and Shakespeare, this film is a wonderful, entertaining and memorable experience. 3/5

Next Review: The Prince of Egypt

Emperor's New Groove Review- by Michael Carlisle

Title: The Emperor's New Groove

Year: 2000
Country: US
Language: English

Boom, baby! The Emperor’s New Groove may have come out after I hit the double digits, in my change from childhood to tweenhood, but that does not mean this underrated Disney gem did not have a profound effect on me. Testify! My brothers and sisters, I present to you one of the best  Disney films of this millennia! Boo-yeah!  I promise that you will be engrossed in this epic journey about a snooty Emporer named Kuzco (David Spade), his aging Arch nemesis Yzma (Eartha Kitt) and the happy peasant Pacha (John Goodman ). This not just an animated film, it’s an animated adventure through the soul.

“Animated?” you say with your nose in the air, “Aren’t those films for children?” Neh! Throughout history there have been plenty of animated films that tugged at your heartstrings and stirred your soul. The Lion King was Disney’s take of Shakespeare’s famous tragedy Hamlet, Bambi had you crying within the first 10 minutes as you see a poor deer becoming an Orphan, Aladdin taught us that love conquers all if you have a magical genie by your side. Animation is as much a child’s love, as it is an adults. The subject matter in these animated film which are often associated with children are often too deep and meaningful for them. Such is the case for The Emperor’s New Groove.

Emperor Kuzco plays a tyrannical, egotistical smart-ass who rules over a small kingdom in a temperate area of the world, probably South America. In one of his ego-maniacal fits he decides to fire an aging bitter ,old, power hungry woman named Eyzma who then has fantasies of great revenge against her former employer. She has a dim-witted sidekick named Kronk who would rather work on his cooking skills than do great villainy.

In his tyranny Emperor Kuzco decides to build a summer resort called “Kuzcotopia” on top of a high hill, the problem? People live on this high hill. When the people, particularly the villager known as Pacha, decide to protest against the building of his resort, because they will be essentially homeless if this place gets built, he orders a banishment on them. Eyzma eventually gets her revenge plan in order, however she mistakes the “death” potion for the “llama” potion. Therefore llama Kuzco decides to hide in the jungle, fearing for his life, until Pacha rescues him and decides to help him. Interesting that unlike most Disney films, the main character is a jerk who we initially don’t care for, and the sidekick eventually saves the main character from a life of loneliness and misery.

The Emperor’s New Groove is a very good study about the stages of Grief. When Kuzco is turned into a llama, therefore losing his palace, his money, his body and every right as a human being,  he feels great loss. Initially he constantly cries in the jungle and begins the Kohbler-Ross model regarding the stages of grief.  First denial, then anger, bargaining, depression and finally acceptance. Kuzco hates his llama body, initially he feels that it’s a dream, this can’t be happening, he’s the emperor! He feels that there is no hope in getting out of this body and he refuses to adapt. Eventually he becomes accepting of the fact that he’s now a llama and the only way he can possibly become a human again is by using his llama body to help himself and his newfound comrade Pacha, get through the treacherous obstacles of the jungle.

This film should appeal to all religious people as it follows the Golden Rule to a tee, “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.” Pacha has no reason to help the egotistical Emperor Kuzco become free from his llama body, in-fact if Pacha left Kuzco to die in the jungle all his problems would be solved. He would no longer have to worry about being homeless because of the upcoming demolition of his home due to “Kuzcotopia”. Pacha helps the tyrannical emperor because he believes it is the right thing to do. He believes, of all else, in the goodness of mankind. Perhaps this film is supposed to assure us that not all men are evil, not all people think about themselves and that mankind is redeemable. Surely the somewhat sociopathic Kuzco is able to turn a new leaf, what is stopping you?

In conclusion, I feel that The Emporer’s New Groove is a fascinating and funny yet underrated Disney film. It has great heart and generates great hope for the future of mankind. Good can overcome evil and good can overcome tyranny.  Perhaps many can disagree, but I hope you don’t disagree just because you feel this is a “children’s” film. Do not underestimate the power of animation in relation to the soul. 3/5

Life of Brian Review- by Michael Carlisle

Title: Life of Brian

Year: 1979

Director: Terry Jones
Country: UK
Language: English 

Does Christ have a sense of humor? If not, then the cast members of Life of Brian are in for some big trouble down the road. Indeed many religious authorities did not take this film lightly, as no film about Christ ever is. Like Last Temptation of Christ, Passion of the Christ and many others, Life of Brian has been a source of great controversy since it has been released. Unlike those films, Python is not directly about Christ, rather it is about Brian, a man who is mistaken for Christ. Though Christ does appear in this film, we aren’t necessarily laughing at him but the people who cannot understand him or are bickering during His famous “sermon on the mount” speech.  “Blessed are the Greek??”

While Life of Brian does make fun of religion, I don’t believe it has done so in an incredibly disrespectful way. Infact I would argue that they make fun of religious movies more than religion. Usually religious films are incredibly serious films, heavy in drama that don’t dare make a joke in fear of an audience uproar. This film decides that all that all this fear is silly nonsense and decides to go all out. After all Brian is not the messiah, “he’s a very naughty boy.” It also asks questions that we’ve been dying to know, like how did people know that Jesus’ mother Mary was a virgin? Isn’t that a very personal question?

I’d say Life of Brian also makes fun of arthouse film audiences. I remember a scene in Life of Brian where Brian drops his shoe in the desert and the followers of his pick it up. They argue what the shoe symbolizes when in reality it symbolizes nothing. “It’s a sign that is the sign”, “we must cast off our shoes”, “cast off the shoes and follow the gourd!” Indeed I remember reviewing Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange stating that it was an abhorrent film, however many people disagreed scrambling to find some meaning. Why can’t it have no meaning? Why does its meaning have to be the meaning you gave it?

Life of Brian’s Monty Python troupe realizes that religion is taken very seriously and wished to lighten things up with this film. It’s odd to think of this film as an attack on anything because any Monty Python fan isn’t going to be taking the jokes to seriously. This film will not inspire religious ignorance, nor will it cause people to drop out of their religion. I think the point is said best during Brian’s song on the cross, “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” We should not find ourselves filled with rage at people who disagree with us, instead we must find the humour in life and keep loving each other despite our differences. Does Christ have a sense of humour? I think so and I think he would strongly agree with the films overall message. Unlike Bill Maher’s Religulous, Life of Brian does not wish to separate people but bring them together by laughing at religious seriousness. In-fact  It almost seems childish for someone to take a film like this seriously. After all, it’s Python. 3/5