Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?
Year: 1957
Director: Frank Tashlin
Country: U.S
Language: English 

I believe I was checking out the Masters of Cinema DVD catalogue when I came across Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? I have never heard of the actors in the film nor the Director Frank Tashlin, but something about this film intrigued me and I just had to see it as soon as possible. I did not expect much, in fact the plot reminded me of an old Simpsons episode where Selma marries movie star Troy McClure to help him land a big movie deal, but I was quite surprised by how witty and charming this film was.

Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter is a satire of TV advertising agencies. It stars Tony Randall (The Odd Couple) as Rockwell Hunter, a man who is in a serious low point in his career. That is, until he finds the perfect spokes model for "Stay-Put" lipstick, Rita Marlowe (Jayne Masnfield), an incredibly famous actress with the trademark "oh so kissable" lips. In exchange for the publicity Rockwell Hunter must do something else in exchange, become her "lover doll".

While Director Frank Tashlin made a career out of animated films, his live-action feature films seem to be terrible at best. His resume of films, which include Cinderfella, Son of Paleface  and The Private Navy of SGT. O' Farrell, are often subject to harsh criticism and great yawns by bored film-goers. Even his second greatest achievement The Girl Can't Help It is mediocre at best. So why is this film so good? Well it's visually clever, incredibly witty, engaging and incredibly well paced. The satire hits the target while never seeming to be overwhelming. It's clearly an anti-television show, a scene in which Rockwell Hunter interrupts the film to jokingly pander to the television audience is a bit bitter but quite funny.

This film reminds me of Alexander Mackendrick's Sweet Smell of Success, except that it's much lighter and a bit funnier. They both made their cinematic debut in 1957 and they both were about the nature of success. Ultimately both arriving at the same conclusion, success is not about selling your soul for material gain, it is about personal happiness and being content with life regardless of where you are in your career. Unfortunately too many people get caught up in society's major view of success and it gets stuck in their head, they'll do anything to be "successful", regardless of who they step on. Fortunately, since this is lighter in content, Rock Hunter never falls as far as Sidney Falco (Tony Curtis) did in Sweet Smell of Success. 

In conclusion, though I found a bit of the dialogue near the end of the film to be a bit cheesy as it seemed to try to hard to pander to the audience, Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter was a thoroughly enjoyable film that I would definitely watch over and over again. The cameo by the great Groucho Marx was a fantastic surprise, I was thrilled to see him in a film like this. I hope and review more "hidden" comedy gems in the future. Praise it! 4/5

Hearts of Darkness Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse
Year: 1991
Director: Fax Bahr
Country: US
Language: English 

Immediately after I saw Francis Ford Coppola's Vietnam masterpiece I watched Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse. Like Burden of Dreams was for Werner Herzog's Fitzcarraldo or The Battle Over Citizen Kane was for Orson Welles' Citizen Kane, Hearts of Darkness is an educational companion piece that helps the viewer not only understand Coppola's film & Coppola's mind, but the nature of film-making itself. Making a film is not easy, anybody who thinks it is will soon find themselves in much more that what they bargained for.

Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse is an enticing and insightful documentary that shows the sensational events surrounding Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now. It features narration by Elanor Coppola, Francis' wife, as well as footage she secretly documented. We see the struggles and triumphs, the battles and the labors, the war that was about the creation of the film.

Many of the stories described in the film are quite astounding. They paid the great Marlon Brando one million dollars in advance to act in Francis' film only to find out that instead of the skinny actor Francis thought he would be; he was incredibly fat and didn't know any of his lines nor did he read the book of which the film was based on. The film was over-budget, over schedule and all the actors were on drugs. The lead actor Martin Sheen had a heart attack and nearly died one night, causing even more chaos during production. The making of the film about war became a war of itself. While Martin Sheen was bordering on the edge of madness on screen, Coppola was doing the same offscreen.

Hearts of Darkness is a decent documentary about one man's many sacrifices for his art.It is a film with a simple yet powerful message: Never give up. Even if times become extremely hard and you feel like you are struggling just to see the next day, don't give up. Keep on trying, keep on going no matter what because eventually your hard work will eventually pay off and things will get better. This film also shows that art is difficult, if you're writing a novel and expect it to be easy then you really need to think again.

In conclusion, Hearts of Darkness is a wonderful companion piece to Apocalypse Now if you watch the documentary shortly after the film. Otherwise I'm not sure Hearts of Darkness can stand well on its own.The message is quite powerful, though there are likely more messages from this film that I haven't see yet. 3.5/5

Apocalypse Now Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Apocalypse Now
Year: 1979
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Country: US
Language: English

I have seen Francis Ford Coppola's great works like The Godfather and The Godfather Part II and I have seen the great Vietnam films of our time such as Oliver Stone's Platoon and Michael Cimino's The Deer Hunter, but oddly enough I have never seen Coppola's Vietnam epic Apocalypse Now until a few days ago. Why have I avoided it? I can't recall. Like Werner Herzog's Fitzcarraldo, this is a film that nearly destroyed the filmmaker and the crew involved. The stories about the making of this film are so enticing an entire documentary called Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse was made about it.

The film is set during the height of the Vietnam war U.S. Army Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) is sent by Colonel Lucas (Harrison Ford) and a General to carry out a mission that, officially, 'does not exist - nor will it ever exist'. The mission: To seek out a mysterious Green Beret Colonel, Walter Kurtz (Marlon Brando), whose army has crossed the border into Cambodia and is conducting hit-and-run missions against the Viet Cong and NVA. The army believes Kurtz has gone completely insane and Willard's job is to eliminate him..."with extreme prejudice".

Francis Ford Coppola should be applauded for his efforts in creating this film. He risked his house, his family, his money, his career and his life in the hopes that he could actually complete this astonishing epic. His shooting schedule went from 6 months to 16 months, he went over budget, his lead actor had a heart attack and Marlon Brando was incredibly difficult to work with. Coppola was edge of insanity due to the stress of making this film, he pushed himself harder than any-man should and contemplated suicide far too often. He pushed the creative envelope whereas most directors might have either a) given up or b) compromise their film by working in a studio.

Coppola's directing makes you feel as if you're actually in the Vietnam war. Everything is realistic, everything mirrors the insanity of the Vietnam war. All innocence has been thrown out the window, death is everywhere. Every scene is important and incredibly well made. Even the first improvised scene where Willard has an emotional breakdown is quite impactful and leaves a lasting impression.I found the homage to D.W Griffith's controversial Birth of a Nation quite amusing, instead of the KKK riding horses there are Americans flying helicopters about to kill some Vietnamese.

In conclusion, I wish I could say something about the philosophy within Apocalypse Now but the film will take a few days to digest and this is probably a film I will have to see quite a few more times in the next few weeks. It is better than most "war" films I have seen, because this isn't necessarily about a physical battle but a battle of the mind and of the soul. It is one of the finest American films that I have ever seen. The acting by Martin Sheen is haunting and spellbinding, while I didn't buy Brando as entirely evil, I certainly bought him as an American soldier gone completely mad. Praise it! 5/5

Liz and Dick Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Liz and Dick
Director: Lloyd Kramer
Year: 2012
Country: U.S
Language: English 

Elizabeth Taylor is one of the greatest actresses in the history of cinema, alongside such greats as Bettie Davis (All About Eve) and Meryl Streep (Sophie's Choice). Her well known acting abilities have won her two Academy Awards, one for Who's Afraid of Virginia and another for Butterfield 8. She has had an enduring appeal that has stood the test of time. Which is why I was quite intrigued when I heard a film about her was being made.

Liz and Dick is essentially about the relationship between two great Hollywood icons. On one side we have Elizabeth Taylor (Lindsay Lohan) and on the other we have Richard Burton (Grant Bowler). Their love affair  gave rise to the dreaded paparazzi and their rocky unstable relationship was often captured on camera, most notably Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

On IMDB they call this this film the "no holds barred" account of Taylor and Burton's relationship, whoever wrote that must have not seen the film yet. Honestly I only watched it to see how bad it would be, and I was not disappointed. It's a tragedy in every sense of the word, and not in a good way. Unrealistically I was actually rooting for Lindsay Lohan to do a great job even if it was a bad film, I though it could be her "comeback"However if she's not mumbling through her lines, she is incredibly inconsistent with her accent. She switches from British to American accents in MID SENTENCE! Sometimes she delivers her lines with a Boston accent. Physically she might resemble Natalie Wood more than Elizabeth Taylor, there seemed to be no real resemblance. Lohan did not emit any of the sexuality Liz had.

While there aren't as many problems with Grant Bowler, his character looks MUCH older than Elizabeth Taylor and thus their relationship almost resembles that of Lolita and Humbert Humbert in Lolita. In other words, it's a bit creepy and off-putting. For a film that takes place over a period of decades the time progression was very strange. Even though the scenes changed often you would have no idea how much time had passed until it was mentioned in the dialogue or in text. Most of the scenes looked the same, the characters didn't looked like they aged at all and the editing in this film was poor.

In conclusion, Liz and Dick is a sleazy film that seems like it was carelessly put together. Even if Lohan's acting was flawless it still would not be able to save this mess of a film. I found it fun to watch, only because I enjoyed how bad it was. Even the dialouge ("I don't loathe you, I hate you!") was absolutely dreadful. Though what do you expect from a film that was only aired by a second rate television station? I didn't even know Lifetime existed until I saw that Liz and Dick would be playing on it. Piss on it! 0.5/5

Hitchcock Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Hitchcock
Year: 2012
Director: Sacha Gervasi
Country: U.S
Language: English

Alfred Hitchcock is one of the greatest British film Directors there ever has been, alongside such legends as Charles Chaplin (City Lights) and Mike Leigh (Topsy Turvey). His well known espionage and psychological thriller films like The 39 Steps and Vertigo have kept me in awe for years. His films have an enduring appeal that stretches across Hollywood and art-house audiences alike. Therefore I was quite intrigued when I heard about that a film was being made about his life and creative process.

Hitchcock is essentially about Alfred Hitchcock's (Anthony Hopkins)  trials and tribulation regarding the messy creative process involved with the making of Psycho. It is also about the relationship between Hitchcock and Alma Reville (Helen Mirren) and a psychological study on the mind of Hitchcock and his need to control the women around him.

The making of Hitchcock's Psycho is actually just a framing narrative for the main story, the shaky relationship between Hitchcock and his wife. This is a bit of a disappointment, because fans of Hitchcock will definitely be attending the film to see more details regarding the production of Psycho. One wonders why the framing narrative wasn't about the making of Vertigo since that film is considered Hitchcock's greatest achievement and the themes of obsession and need to control women definitely carry over onto this film.

Director Sacha Gervasi makes some great criticisms about society with this film. Even though women raise the next generation, support their men and do a ton of other work we don't seem to give them enough credit. In-fact we often look past them and only see the success of their husbands. When a woman gives up a career to be with her children we don't say anything because we expect it, but when a man does the exact same thing he is constantly praised. Hitchcock needs his wife, but the main problem is that he doesn't give his wife any credit for her help. While Hitchcock is about a man, it is definitely a feminist film.

While there are many themes present in this film  they barely scratch the surface. It's a film that is afraid to become too dramatic and thus compromises its potential to be incredibly intelligent by being far too optimistic. As a biographical film the ending is silly because Hitchcock's treatment of women didn't get better, it got much worse. The HBO film The Girl is essentially about how Hitchcock harassed Tipi Hedren on his post- Pyscho film called The Birds.

In conclusion, if you wish to see a great film about the creative process and relationships see Mike Leigh's Topsy Turvey. That being said Hitchcock isn't necessarily a "bad" film, it just isn't "great"The acting by Anthony Hopkins is good, but I think James D'Arcy stole the film with his great impression of Anthony Perkins.  Also, the separation of the beds in the master bedroom, done because in the 50's film censorship code required beds to be seperate, is only clever when it's shown in one 3-5 second  shot. When you have whole scenes in the master bedroom the "seperate beds" become distracting and incredibly cheesy.  2.5/5

Phantom Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Phantom
Director: F.W Marnau
Year: 1922
Country: Germany
Language: German 

F.W Marnau is one of the greatest German silent film Directors there ever has been, alongside such legends as Fritz Lang (Dr.Mabuse) and Robert Weins (Cabinet of Dr.Caligari). His well known vampire film Nosferatu has kept me in awe since I first watched it at the age of ten. Usually in lists of the "best" silent films his Sunrise is listed in the top ten, followed by Nosferatu and The Last Laugh. Curiously Phantom is dismissed, which is a shame because I feel that it is better that his more highly acclaimed works.

Phantom is about Lorenz Lubota (Lorenz Lubota), a city clerk with no direction in life. One day on his way to work he is run over by a woman driving a chariot and he is immediately infatuated with her. His life begins to spiral out of control as he searches for this girl and tries to win her heart.

German expressionism in film is a creative movement that began in Germany after the first world war, infact it is said to be a response to the horrors of the World War Europe had just endured. The plots and stories usually revolved around madness,insanity, betrayal, obsession and other psychological topics. The sets were oddly designed and geometrically absurd to capture the mood of the film and the characters within it. Phantom is the perfect film for this time, even better than Nosferatu. It is about a man obsessed and driven to madness by his obsession. He is a stalker that will not quit. The fact that he is human and has clear ambition and motive to his actions make him even more frightening. It's a terrifying film because the situation is all too familiar and realistic. Everybody knows somebody who has had a phantom in their lives.

Incredibly this "insane obsession" characteristic would be visited by Alfred Hitchcock in his now incredibly acclaimed Vertigo with James Stewart and Kim Novak. Both films use the negative trait very well, though I would claim Vertigo is the more entertaining picture. Phantom was long believed to be lost but thankfully it was rediscovered, restored and given a decent dvd edition by the great distributing company Masters of Cinema. Marnau's direction is quite beautiful in this, the sets are astonishing and his many camera tricks are wonderfully done.

In conclusion, the only critiques of this film that I have is the ending which is far too optimistic in comparison to the subject matter and the exaggerated acting (though that's normal for a silent film) I personally prefer low key acting when it comes to films about obsession. Still I find this one of the best dramatic films of the silent era and I am quite intrigued to see Marnau's other overlooked films. Praise it! 4,5/5

Two and a Half Men Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Two and a Half Men
Creator: Chuck Lorre
Year: 2003-???
Country: US
Language: English

When I first saw Two and a Half Men on television I was absolutely repulsed by it. I found it to be the most misogynistic show ever produced on television, though perhaps it could place second to King of Queens. However after I watched an entire season of it I was enthralled, it's quite brilliant on every level though much of the American audience that watches it might not entirely get the point. I shall explain more after I explain the basic plot.

The show involves the Harper Brothers Alan (Alan Cryer) and Charlie (Charlie Sheen) who are essentially the "odd couple" of 21st Century television. Allan is a cheap neat freak who sponges off his brother Charlie, a misogynistic millionaire with mommy issues. Allan gets a divorce from his wife Judith (Marin Hinkle) who gets his house, therefore Allan and his son Jake (Augus T. Jones) live with Charlie. In the tenth season Charlie is killed by his stalker and is replaced by a man named Walden Schmitd (Ashton Kutcher)

There is a reason why the show is called "Two and a half MEN" because the show is essentially a satire of masculinity. Whenever you watch television the typical popular show revolves around the typical masculine man, however this is not the case with this particular show. Neither Alan nor Charlie nor Jake nor Walden resemble what a man is supposed to be like according to our society. Alan is incredibly feminine, not strong by any standards and clearly cannot support himself. Charlie is an out of shape boozehound who uses women (more on that in a bit) to attempt to heal his mommy issues. Trying to hide his emotions like a "man" is "supposed to do" doesn't work for him. Jake is an overweight child who only knows how to do "feminine" jobs like cooking and cleaning, in the tenth season Jake goes into the army...only to cook for them. Walden is incredibly emotionally fragile and though he's very successful, he just can't get what he wants: love.

What about the women? Yes they are all shown as a stereotype of what society thinks females should act like, however this is also a satire on men's views towards women. A lot of men would like gorgeous dim-witted women to sleep with them and a lot of men see their ex-wives and mothers as contempt bitches. The show reveals that this male mindset hurts men. Sleeping with random women isn't going to solve any of your problems, infact it's going to make them worse. Being un-compromising with your ex-wife doesn't help your situation and certainly trying to hide your emotions from the women in your lives in order to appear more masculine only hurts you.

In conclusion, this show may also explain why a lot of relationships don't work out. Every male character seems to reject the females, or be wary of committing, because they are afraid of being hurt themselves. Kieslowski showed this brilliantly in Three Colors:White. Two and a Half Men is not only funny and well-written, but it also has a decent set of morals. It screams a rebellious cry to  men "DON'T BE THE STEREOTYPICAL MAN! IT ONLY CAUSES PAIN AND ANGUISH!" Praise it! 4/5

How to Survive A Plague Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: How to Survive A Plague
Year: 2012
Director: David France
Country: US
Language: English 

The decade of the 2010's seem to be a rise of the documentary genre. In 2011 we saw great documentaries like Project Nim, The Redemption of General Butt Naked, Tabloid and Werner Herzog's Into the Abyss. This year we have witnessed the emergence of fascinating documentaries like 5 Broken Cameras, Pink Ribbons Inc, This is Not a Film and my personal favourite film of this year Whores' Glory. How to Survive a Plague is another heartfelt example of how documentaries are beginning to dominate.

This incredible documentary charts the AIDS crisis from its volatile beginning where there was very little knowledge about the subject, it was often regarded as the "gay disease". AIDS was a very controversial topic when it surfaced, politicians would refuse to talk about it in fear of those jobs and some hospitals would refuse to treat the people who had it. The film also shows the plights of AIDS activists and scientists that helped us get to where we are today in terms of knowledge, research and treatment of the disease.

How to Survive A Plague is a rarity of sorts. It is a heartfelt documentary about a great struggle and a tremendous fight between the people and the media/government. When watching this film you get a sense of revolution, of an eruption within society that cannot be contained. People are angry, people are dying and yet they are easily dismissed and tossed aside due to "inconvenience". It's a story about a war and it's not just gay rights that were on the line, but overall human rights as well.

This film has its sad moments, it is painful to see innocent people suffer because of other's ignorance, Yet the more you watch this informative and gripping film, the more you're inspired to help people. The film is very effective in changing your views about AIDS and enticing you to be involved in finding the cure. The interviews and archival footage make this quite riveting. Though the journey may be incredibly depressing at times, it obviously ends on a high note as AIDS is no longer a death sentence.

In conclusion, How to Survive a Plague is one of the best films of this decade and one of the best documentaries I've ever seen. It thoroughly engages its audience and draws them into a deeply political world,. It is incredibly informative, yet does not reveal too much information all at once. Thought provoking and amazingly powerful. Praise it! 5/5

Psycho Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Psycho
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Year: 1960
Country: US
Language: English 

Alfred Hitchcock is known as one of the greatest directors of all time. His films which include The 39 Steps, Shadow of a Doubt and The Birds are often favorites of critics and fans alike. Recently his late 50's masterpiece Vertigo was named the best film of all time by the British Film Institute's Sight and Sound magazine, Psycho is usually regarded as his second best film. I've seen Psycho numerous times and, while I admit it's not in my top three Hitchcock films (The 39 Steps, Vertigo and Notorious), it's definitely technical perfection.

Psycho is essentially about a woman named Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) who is fed up with the way life has treated her. She has to meet her lover Sam (John Gavin) in lunch breaks and they cannot get married because Sam has to give most of his money away in alimony. One Friday Marion is trusted to bank $40,000 by her employer, she takes advantage of that trust and runs away to start a new life. However she gets tired and pulls into the Bates motel which is managed by an odd fellow who seems to be controlled by his mother.

Hitchcock appears to be the real "psycho" of this picture, killing off the star of the film halfway into it. It's a brilliant twist, that seems to have much less impact the further we move from 1960, mainly because Janet Leigh is obviously not as big a star as she was back then. Frankly, I have always thought that while the film is historically and technically important it just isn't that entertaining for modern audiences. I loved the plot regarding Marion Crane stealing the money, but after she dies it just seems to become the average slasher flick (even though Bates doesn't kill anybody else) I will agree that the ending was an interesting surprise, but the drawn out explanation by the psychologist almost ruined it.

Even though the plot is not that entertaining, the acting certainly is. Anthony Perkins gives a spine chilling performance as the creepy Norman Bates. He is calm and calculating,caring for his mother but perhaps a little too much. The cinematography is exquisite, the camera is relentless and adds to great psychological tension. One could write a whole essay regarding how Hithcock's camera angles, especially in the shower scene, greatly contribute to the tone and plot of the film. His use of black and white photography not only creates a threatening mood but also helps make the film much less gory. Herrmann's score creates an incredibly suspenseful atmosphere, I am astounded by how it makes even the simplest of scenes into a nightmare.

In conclusion, Psycho is a historically important work of technical genius. It is everything a psychological thriller should be in terms of cinematography, lighting, score and acting. Unfortunately it suffers from an underwhelming plot during the second half of the film. If you are a film enthusiast then I would recommend this film, however if you are in the mood to be entertained by a film like this then I would recommend Henri Georges Clouzot's Diabolique. 3.5/5

How to Train Your Dragon Review- By Michal Carlisle

Title: How to Train Your Dragon
Director: Dean DeBlois
Year: 2010
Country: US
Language: English 

Normally I try to stay away from modern American animated films because they all seem intentionally directed at children and stripped of any political incorrectness, though there are some decent films like Adventures of Tin Tin, Up, Wall E and How to Train Your Dragon. HTTYD is actualy the only Dreamworks film I've enjoyed since Prince of Egypt in 1998, there have obviously been considerable changes in story and style since then however.

How to Train Your Dragon is about a young viking named Hicup (Jay Baruchel) who wants to join his town's fight against the dragons that continually raid their town. However, his macho father and village leader, Stoik the Vast (Gerard Butler), will not allow his small, clumsy, but inventive son to do so. Regardless, Hiccup ventures out into battle and downs a mysterious Night Fury dragon with his invention, but can't bring himself to kill it. Instead, Hiccup and the dragon, whom he dubs Toothless, begin a friendship that would open up both their worlds as the observant boy learns that his people have misjudged the specie

A critique I have of this film is that the main plot is an awful like Dances with Wolves/Ferngully/ The Last Samurai/Pocahontas/ Avatar in which the white man realizes he is on the wrong side of the war because the people of native tribe, or in this case the dragons, are not actually that bad. However I will forgive the uninspired plot device because the film is directed at children who have never seen that kind of plot before.

I do think the film is incredibly important because it sends a strong message regarding masculinity to a whole new generation of kids. Hiccup, the weak awkward kid, grows up in a viking town where masculinity means strength and aggressiveness. Basing the concept on masculinity on strength has hurt the structure of our society and both genders who live in it, it is also not doing much for Hiccup's society. How to Train Your Dragon shows that intelligence and kindness is more of a "masculine" trait than brute strength, which is important for kids who are growing up and being told about what their gender roles are.

In conclusion, while How to Train Your Dragon is a bit cliche and predictable, it certainly is an important film for the next generation of kids regarding gender roles and expectations. This film was funny, intelligent and had decent action scenes that sometimes looked like a World War I dogfight. Perhaps animated films like this can help society for the better by showing the next generation the benefits of a less aggressive and more tolerant society. 3/5

8 1/2 Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: 8 1/2
Director: Federico Fellini
Year: 1963
Country: Italy
Language: Italian

 
My introduction to the great Italian director Federico Fellini started months ago with his wonderful film La Strada. I found myself captivated by the characters and the emotions that appeared on the screen. Soon after I sought out more Fellini films to watch, this brought me to 8 1/2. The working title was called The Beautiful Confusion and indeed it is exactly that. This film is one, like 2001: A Space Odyssey, that needs to be viewed many times. As of now I have only watched it twice, so forgive me if I'm not on par with the many themes within this film.

8 1/2 is an autobiographical film about the trials and tribulations of making a film. The plot is essentially about a man named Guido Guido is a film director, trying to relax after his last big hit. He can't get a moment's peace, however, with the people who have worked with him in the past constantly looking for more work. He wrestles with his conscience, but is unable to come up with a new idea. While thinking, he starts to recall major happenings in his life, and all the women he has loved and left.

Regarded as the best film ever made about filmmaking, it is one that weaves in and out of reality. Perhaps nothing takes place in reality, it is nearly impossible to distinguish the fantasy elements of this film from the reality elements. Is this bad? Not in the slightest as it turns the film into a commentary about the nature of love, art, crisis,forgiveness, integrity and inspiration.One could write a whole essay regarding female and male relationships based on this film. A lot of this film seems to be about Fellini trying to reconcile his former misogynistic views towards women.

While the many themes Fellini presents in 8 1/2 are difficult to write about in less than ten pages, they do not make the film difficult to understand. Infact one can relate many scenes to their own lives. Like Fellini, I remember as a child being told by a priest to feel shamed about thinking of the female body in a sexual way even though the thinking was not of "satan" but of nature. I too have been greatly bothered by hitting a creative wall. From a technical standpoint the cinematography and lighting greatly add to the claustrophobic and slightly melancholy feel of this film. The score also gives a zany yet edgy feel to the film, it shows how irritable and uncomfortable Guido can be in any given situation.

In conclusion, this film is filled with brilliant scenes, I love the scene where he is confronted by all the women in his life and they start a "female rebellion". I think it is an affirming film that says "yes, you can change for the better" as Guido slowly starts to treat women like people instead of objects. Everything about this film is inspiring, it is unlike anything I have ever seen. This is a film that you will not only need to see more than once, but it is one that you'll want to see more than once. Praise it! 5/5

Richard III Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Richard III
Director: Laurence Olivier
Year: 1955
Country: UK
Language: England

While Henry V is often regarded as Sir Laurence Olivier's best Shakespearean adaptation, mainly because of the political reasons surrounding World War II, I've often though of Richard III as his best work. Before seeing Richard Loncraine's Richard III I would have said that Olivier's version is the best adaptation outside of Akira Kurosawa's masterpieces. Though it isn't as great, Olivier's version still gives me chills each time I watch it.

Richard's (Laurence Olivier) military skills have helped to put his older brother Edward (Cedrik Hardwicke) on the throne of England. But jealousy and resentment cause Richard to seek the crown for himself, and he conceives a lengthy and carefully calculated plan using deception, manipulation, and outright murder to achieve his goal. His plotting soon has tumultuous consequences, both for himself and for England.

Richard III was the world's greatest stage villain, Sir Laurence Olivier was the greatest stage actor, William Shakespere was the world's greatest stage writer, so what happens when these three mix in a cinematic bond? Gold, pure gold. "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of York"Olivier says, looming toward the camera as a creepy deformed monster. He delivers his dialouge with such bitterness and power. His glare penetrates our soul, we realize that this is no ordinary man with ordinary morals, but a beast who will do whatever it takes to rise to the top. It's so chilling that we can't help but watch his plot unfold.

The other actors in this film play their parts quite also. Olivier did want Orson Welles to be in this film but I think that Welles' great acting might have actually overshadowed Olivier's and thus not make Richard III the center of attention. The costumes are quite beautiful and fit perfectly with the time period. The lighting and cinematography greatly assist in the overall mood of the film, and help in creating Richard III into a cold and calculating character.

In conclusion, Sir Laurence Olivier's Richard III is brilliantly made. It seems to be very truthful to the text and setting of Shakespeare's play which works for it and against it. Ultimately I enjoyed Loncraine's adaptation more due to the creativity involved in setting the film in an Orwellian 1930's England. As for acting it is difficult to say whether Olivier or McKellen plays the villain better as they both play him differently. Regardless, this us a great film by one of the greatest actor/directors who ever lived. Praise it! 5/5

Richard III Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Richard III
Director: Richard Loncraine
Year: 1995
Country: UK
Language: English

I have always been a great lover of William Shakespeare, I cannot recount how many times I have read his great tragedies like Macbeth, Hamlet, and of course Richard III. Outside Akira Kurosawa, the renowned Sir. Laurence Olivier's Richard III is my favourite Shakespeare film adaptation. However, my former professor Allyna Ward informed me that there is another, possibly greater film version of Richard III. This was made in 1995 and stars the incredible Ian McKellen. I will be reviewing that version right now.

The setting of Loncraine's adaptation of Shakespeare's play is quite modern, Britain in the 1930's. Civil war has erupted with the House of Lancaster on one side, claiming the right to the British throne and hoping to bring freedom to the country. Opposing is the House of York, commanded by the infamous Richard who rules over a fascist government and hopes to install himself as a dictator monarch.

Updating Shakespeare's plays to fit a certain period or to make them more modern is usually a "sink or swim" experience. They can become great masterpieces like Akira Kurosawa's samurai version of Macbeth called Throne of Blood, or complete junk like Baz Luhrmann's modern version of Romeo and Juliet. I would put Loncraine's Richard III in the "swim" pile. This fictional Orwellian England is quite intriguing, in a way it makes me think of Nazi Germany, even the uniforms are bleak, militant and oppressive. Richard III is the perfect villain for this time period. Not quite sane, mentally unbalanced and power mad, characteristics that we often attribute to Hitler and Mussolini.

This Richard III is of fantasies and nightmares, it is not for the faint of heart. The score of the film shows this well at it is haunting, trenchant and incredibly tense. The delivery of the brilliant dialogue is powerful and effective. Richard III has always been a controversial yet charismatic figure, few actors have the talent to play him well, but Ian McKellen grabs this role by the throat and does a tremendous job. He gives the character charm and wit, yet is not shy to demonstrate the menacing and downright evil side. Ian's great acting engages the audience, as well as make his character memorable. If I were to compare this Richard III to another fictional villain, it would be Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs. Both are cruel, frightening people yet both are remarkably intelligent.

In conclusion, Richard Loncraine's Richard III is masterful in every aspect from acting to cinematography to score. Even though I still love Laurence Olivier's version, I must admit that this is better and slightly more engaging. I hope to see more of McKellen's work and more Shakespearean adaptations in general in the future as this was quite inspiring. Perhaps one day I will make my own Shakespearean film. Praise it! 5/5

Chasing Amy Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Chasing Amy
Director: Kevin Smith
Year: 1997
Country: U.S
Language: English

"BLACK RAGE! I KILL YOU ALL!" so goes a line in Chasing Amy, a pretty funny film that uses its humor in an intelligent manner. I was very surprised that this film came from Kevin Smith considering my only exposure to the director came from accidentally watching Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back when I was 10...so many swears. I have avoided Smith like the plague since then and am not a fan of stoner comedies. However I have heard many great things about Chasing Amy and decided to give it a chance. Surprisingly, it went far above my expectations.

The film is about a pair of comic book authors named Holden McNeil ( Ben Affleck) and Banky Edwards (Jason Lee) , who live in New Jersey, have been best friends since 20 years. They spend their time working in their studio, and in the evenings they are going out. But their friendship is about to be disputed for the first time in their life, when a beautiful young lesbian woman named Alyssa Jones enters their life and Holden falls in love with her.

The plot of the film, man falls for girl who turns out to be a lesbian, is almost a set-up for a ridiculous comedy that is full of crude jokes and immature humor. However Smith approaches this film with great ambition and maturity.It is full of both witty and serious dialouge as well as deep issues about love. Infact Kevin Smith approaches the relationship between Holden and Alyssa with dead seriousness, because there is nothing funny about putting your heart onthe line. As a result of his writing, most of the characters are very verbal and keep an astonishing amount of pain hidden.

I think one fault of Chasing Amy seems to be how Smith handles homosexuality. I can't put my finger on it though, there's just something that bugs me because it feels careless, especially with the Banky twist that doesn't make much sense. However I do love Smith's discussion of gender roles and stereotypes. There are so many men who think they can make a lesbian turn straight, there are many men who have no problem talking about their own sex lives but are freaked out when their girlfriends talk about it. Women are expected to act very conservative, and when they act differently, people are generally more shocked that if it was a man.

In conclusion, Chasing Amy is a very entertaining and thought provoking film that has very natural dialogue. It's the only Kevin Smith film that I'm not embarrassed to say that I have watched. Strikingly beautiful, it has the power to tug at your heartstrings. I can see how this film might be insulting towards the gay community (Alyssa just needs to find the right guy), however I can also see how the breakdown of gender stereotypes may help society. 3.5/5

Sweet Smell of Success Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Sweet Smell of Success
Director: Alexander Mackendrick
Year: 1957
Country: U.S
Language: English

"I'd hate to take a bite outta you. You're a cookie full of arsenic" says the great Burt Lancaster as J.J Hunsecker, a villainous man who arguably has a more powerful and frightening on-screen presence than any villain in film history. Sweet Smell of Success is a brilliant film about the dark gritty underbelly of both the media and New York City. It is an astounding study on the nature of success and how far man will go to be successful. It is one of my favourite releases from the Criterion Collection, one that I find myself constantly revisiting.

The film is about  a beast named J.J. Hunsecker (Burt Lancaster) , the most powerful newspaper columnist in New York, who is determined to prevent his sister from marrying Steve Dallas (Martan Milner) , a jazz musician. He therefore covertly employs Sidney Falco (Tony Curtis), a sleazy and unscrupulous press agent, to break up the affair by any means possible.

The first two minutes of the film says a lot about how well made it is. We are introduced with an incredible jazzy score which brings up 50's New York nostalgia, as well as a beautiful  background that shows the busy, vibrant and exuberant New York City. It is a bustling, hustling city where men will trade in their souls to be at the top. "From now on the best of everything is good enough for me!" exclaims the spineless Sidney Falco. He reminds me of Harry Fabian (Richard Windmark) from another noir, Jules Dassin's Night and the City. Both men appear to have no morals, both manipulate people into getting what they want and both have an extreme desire to be the best.

Sweet Smell of Success realistically explores the nature of success. How far will a person go to get to the top? In reality, there seems to be no limit. We hope that people have a conscience, but many don't. Hitler was a man who desired to stay at the top, and was willing to exterminate entire nations of people to do so. This is J.J Hunsecker's personality and it's the reason he is so frightening. Men like him exist and abuse their power to destroy lives. Sadly, men  like Sidney Falco who take great abuse and compromise their integrity in hopes to be promoted . Fortunately the film ends with a glimmer of hope, there are some men that have limits to their villainy.

In conclusion, there doesn't seem to be any weak points to this film. The dialogue can be witty, but is usually as sharp as knife. "The cat's in a bag and the bag's in a river." The acting is remarkable and the lighting only adds to the feeling of corruption that is present throughout the film. With this, Mackendrick created the best film noir the United States has ever produced. Praise it! 5/5

On the Waterfront Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: On the Waterfront
Director: Elia Kazan
Year: 1954
Country: US
Language: English

"I could've been a contender" says Marlon Brando as the depressed Terry Malloy, in one of his best performances of his career. On the Waterfront was my introduction to the filmography of Marlon Brando and to films made in the 50's. It is a film full of emotion, betrayal and rebellion. It inspired me and stirs my soul. Whenever I am being opressed in my own life, I say "What would Terry Malloy do?" and I stand up for what's right. I watch this every six months, just so I don't take the film for granted if I watch it too often. I am extremely excited that the Criterion Collection  has a spectacular 3 Disk boxset being released in February. Sorry ladies, on Valentines Day I'm going to be with Brando.

Marlon Brando stars as Terry Malloy, a man who dreams about being a prize fighter, while tending his pigeons and running errands at the docks for Johnny Friendly, the corrupt boss of the dockers union. Terry witnesses a murder by two of Johnny's thugs, and later meets the dead man's sister and feels responsible for his death. She introduces him to Father Barry, who tries to force him to provide information for the courts that will smash the dock racketeers.

The film was based on the true story of a longshoreman who tried to overthrow a corrupt union. Unfortunately in life he failed, but in art anything is possible, so he succeeds. Terry Malloy is a Moses/Jesus like figure in this film. Standing up for what's right, not only for himself but for those around him who are trying to stay D&D (deaf and dumb) so they don't die or lose their jobs. History and literature is filled with stories like Terry's, but I find this the most effective.

I absolutely hate the the political context of this film. Essentially it's Elia Kazan's response to all the people who criticized Kazan for identifying eight alleged former communists to the HUAC (House Commitee of Un-American Activities) in 1952. Essentially if the HUAC identified you as a communist or former communist you would be kicked out of the United States. Occasionally the system worked but for the most part innocent people (like Chaplin) were kicked out and careers were ruined. I find it absolutely disgusting that Kazan likens himself to Malloy and thus, unlike films like Rules of the Game, I have to completely ignore the political context in order to enjoy the film.

In conclusion, viewed outside of Kazan's personal political context it is a film about something that is all too familiar with the majority of people, corruption and unequal distribution of power. It's ironic that although On the Waterfront was made to justify selling out commnunists, it is a very marxist as it is filled with Maxist ideals about equality and marxist critiques regarding capitalism . Filled to the brim with great acting and cinematography, it's a contender for being one of my favourite films ever made. Praise it! 5/5

The Only Son Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Only Son
Director: Yasujiro Uzo
Year: 1936
Country: Japan
Language: Japanese 

Is it odd that until a few days ago I had not seen a film by Yasujiro Ozu, regarded as one of the greatest Directors of all  time by fans and critics alike? I have always wanted to see Late Spring, but I though it would be too heavy to watch as a first film. Therefore I chose The Only Son, mainly because of the short length and the intriguing plot. I wasn't sure what to expect, frankly I thought it would get boring, however I found myself glue to the screen and inspired by this incredible melodrama.

The film takes place In 1923, in the province of Shinshu, the widow and simple worker of a silk factory Tsune Nonomiya (O-Tsune) decides to send her only son to Tokyo for having a better education. Thirteen years later, she visits her son Ryosuke Nonomiya (Shinichi Himori), and finds that he is a poor and frustrated night-school teacher with a wife, Sugiko (Yoshiko Tsubouchi), and a baby boy/

Can we call this a "melodrama"? Perhaps not in the American sense, as so many Hollywood films are so exaggerated in emotion that rhey seem cheesy, poorly acted andor campy. Ozu is in a league of his own in terms of melodrama, a director that didn't force certain emotion or ridiculous plots. His universe is of emotional honesty and relate able characters who transcend the confines of their situation and become metaphors for life iself. When it comes to family relationships, Ozu surely knows his stuff.

This film was clearly made with great talent and skill. Ozu manages to explore the human condition better than many modern day filmmakers. His directing suggests that he has a sympathetic nature, his camera often discloses  immaculately ordered shots to the viewer, often at eye level. His films seemed to explore the uncertainty of the future of Japanese people as his society grew increasingly militaristic (just one year later Japan attacked Chine, a decade later Japan would lose thee war via nuke). This film also reflected about what "success" actually meant.

In conclusion, The Only Son, is a film you may need to bring kleenex to. Heartbreaking and historically important, it's a swift punch to the gut. I will definitley watch this film after reading more about the tumultuous history of pre-war Japan. This is melodrama in a way that you have not seen before. Ozu not only demands your respect, but also his admiration. This is definitley the first of the many films of his that I will see. Praise it! 4.5/5

Mr. Thank You Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Mr. Thank You
Director: Hiroshi Shimizu
Year: 1936
Country: Japan
Language: Japanese

Hiroshi Shimizu should be one of the most renowned and respected Japanese Director in film history, yet up until today I had not seen a single film from his. I've contemplated watching Japanese Girls at the Harbor but kept getting distracted with other great Japanese films. Earlier today I watched my introduction to the great Director, Mr. Thank You or Arigato-san. I am proud to say that it will soon be one of the many Shimizu films I will watch and review.

The film is about a man called Mr. Thank You (Kauro Futaba), who is the kindly young driver of a local bus traveling from poverty stricken coastal villages, over the mountains, to the town. He thanks everybody when they let his bus pass on the narrow road. Among the passengers is a worldly young woman, who flirts with the driver while trying to put the villagers in their place.

Unfortunately Shmizu's work wasn't known at all outside of Japan  until Kurosawa's Rashomon blew the doors open for Japanese Cinema to be seen all across the world. However the incredible western popularity of other fellow directors like Mizoguchi, Ozu, and Kurosawa overshadowed his accomplishments. As of now it's easier to find because of the Criterion Collection and their eclipse set called Travels with Hirosh, but even the best of film buffs don't know much about him to actively seek out his work. Frankly I think Mr. Thank You is as good as most of Kurosawa's work.

Shimizu's film is a perfect introduction to the Director. It has a bittersweet and domestic tone like Ozu's films, yet had bits of subtle humor which made the film all the more attractive. Like in Kurosawa's work, the camera is alive and mobile, capturing every emotion, every change in character. Shimizu has a great sense of pacing and he knows where to put his characters in the frame. There is very little plot, but the importance of this film is placed on character development. Each person emerges as a three dimensional being with real concerns, emotions, desires and aspirations.

In conclusion, through the brilliant writing of the film we can definitley see the director's humanism seep out of his characters. It's a simple and fun film that is incredibly deep and powerful. Its simplicity and lack of action may not appeal to Western audiences, this is a Japanese Japanese film. The underlying socio-political messages in the film, it somewhat is a reflection of Shimizu's feelings toward Japan's imperial exansion, are also interesting to look into. Praise it! 5/5

Evil Dead II Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Evil Dead II
Director: Sam Raimi
Year: 1987
Country: U.S
Language: English

Believe it or not Sam Raimi's Evil Dead II was a staple in my childhood. Growing up, the films in my home were quite limited. We had Titanic, Evil Dead Trilogy, Star Wars and a whole hell of a lot of Disney films. Given that I felt I was growing too old for animation and I had seen Kate Winslet's boobies far too many times, I decided to sink my teeth into Evil Dead II. My first viewing left me horrified and unable to sleep, perhaps the surreal images were too powerful. However the more I watched it the more I laughed and really enjoyed the film.

Evil Dead II is about a young man named Ash (Bruce Campbell) who takes his girlfriend Linda (Denise Bixter) to a secluded cabin in the woods where he plays back a professor's tape recorded recitation of passages from the Book of the Dead. The spell calls up an evil force from the woods which turns Linda into a monstrous Deadite, and threatens to do the same to Ash. When the professor's daughter and her entourage show up at the cabin, the night turns into a comic battle of good vs evil.

After seeing those awful Spiderman films and watching the trailer for the Evil Dead reboot, I am convinced that Raimi didn't intentionally create a hilarious film. Rather his script and direction was so terrible that it somehow worked to his advantage. Take the character Ash for example. He is the stereotypical masculine hero, who will do anything to save the damsel in distress, however the masculinity of this character is so exaggerated that he is a mock of society's view of masculinity. If this is intentional then the credit goes to Bruce Campbell's brilliant acting, though given his and Raimi's filmography the "brilliant acting" does not seem so.

The film is incredibly gory, but so gory that it's outrageous. It is hard to forget the scene where the wall spews gallons of watery blood at the hero. Any attempt at coming off as a "psychological thriller" also comes off as campy. The camera work is pretty neat though, the demon as the camera quickly moving toward Ash is both creepy and incredibly inventive, I have not seen that done in any film before or after Evil Dead II. For a film that's essentially about a man stuck in a cabin, it's pretty exciting.

In conclusion, Evil Dead II is either a film so bad that it's good or pure genius disguised as a "B" movie. Legendary Director Alejandro Jodorowsky (El Topo) once said "Why does nobody like the sequel? Evil Dead II is better than Evil Dead I no?" Indeed Evil Dead II is one of the few examples of a sequel that is much better than the original. However the film is not flawless, I find that the last 20 minutes get a bit tedious and sometimes I just want the film to end. Still the majority of the film is entertaining/ Praise it! 4/5

Pina Review- By Michael Carlisle

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aladdin Review- By Michael Carlisle

Film: Aladdin
Director: Ron Clements
Year: 1992
Country: US
Language: English

The first film I saw in my life was Disney's Aladdin. I remember being enthralled by the great music and entertaining antics of Robin Williams as the Genie. Throughout my life I have continued to watch it, obsessively watching clips on Youtube and over-analyzing the hell out of it. For the most part this review will be discussing the many theories surrounding the film, all which work together and make the film much greater than it already is.

Aladdin is about  a street-urchin named Aladdin who lives in a large and busy town long ago with his faithful monkey friend Abu. When Princess Jasmine gets tired of being forced to remain in the palace that overlooks the city, she sneaks out to the marketplace, where she accidentally meets Aladdin. Under the orders of the evil Jafar (the sultan's advisor), Aladdin is thrown in jail and becomes caught up in Jafar's plot to rule the land with the aid of a mysterious lamp.

The first theory about this film is relatively simple. The film starts with a merchant roaming through the desert with a camel. He tries to sell the audience some pretty useless items and then tells us the story of Aladdin. The merchant and the genie in the film are essentially the same person. They wear the same clothes, have the same amount of fingers, the same facial hair and they are both voiced by Robin Williams. The merchant is essentially the genie after Aladdin freed him, though instead of telling the audience that the magical genie turned into a lonely merchant, he makes up the whole Disneyland bit.

The second theory is that Aladdin is set in a post-apocalyptic future, not in the past or present. The Genie has been in the lamp for 10,000 years yet he knows various impressions of stars from the 20th Century (Jack Nicholson, Groucho Marx). The Muslim religion in "Agrabah" or "Arabia" is almost non-existent. We don't see any mosques or prayer mats. Jasmine almost has her hand cut off for accidentally stealing food, this would make a lot of sense if food after the apocalypse was a rarity. Iago the talking parrot and the flying carpet are just left over technological innovations, which is likely why people aren't shocked by a talking parrot.

Even if one or all of these theories are nonsense, Aladdin is the perfect animated film to ponder about them. It's a magical, absurd tale that makes room for great oddity. Unfortunately it's a film that simplifies race and "americanizes" the Middle East which can appear to be quite racist. Indeed in the early nineties there were many religious affiliations that were outraged by this film, and I can't blame them.

In conclusion, Aladdin is a very imaginative film that brings out the best in film theorists' thoughts but it isn't mature enough to appeal to a wide range of audiences. There isn't much depth or meaning to the story (unlike Prince of Egypt) and it's offensive in its simplicity regarding race, religion and love. Watch it for entertainment or attempts to find meaning but if you want something meaningful, look elsewhere. 3/5

Arabian Nights Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Arabian Nights
Director: Pier Paolo Pasolini
Year: 1974
Country: Italy
Language: Italian 

I have always been wary of seeing Pier Paolo Pasolini's , he has the power to shock me like no other filmmaker has. However, even in his most disturbing works such as Salo: Or the 120 Days of Sodom he does make very powerful and righteous political points. His work is uninhibited and free from censorship, his visions are bold and stem straight from the soul. Arabian Nights is no exception. The final entry of his Trilogy of life which included The Decameron and The Canterbury Tales, I feel this is the best film Pasolini has made in his career.

Arabian Nights is inspired by the ancient erotic and mysterious tales of the Middle East, the main story concerns an innocent young man who comes to fall in love with a slave who selected him as her master. After his foolish error causes their separation, he travels in search of her. Various other side stories are told, including a strange story about a man who is determined to free a woman from a demon.

Pasolini didn't have an obsession with the female body, he was much more interested in men, which is quite interesting considering that he makes the female body look so beautiful in this film. While there is a decent amount of sex in this film, it is not degrading nor incredibly dramatized as it is with so many other films. It is quite poetic the way Pasolini presents it. Arabian Nights is an emotional yet incredibly realistic film about love and everything that comes with it (jealousy, anger, pain, loyalty)

It seems Pasolini has a rather simplified view of the male sex which stands out in this film. He sees them as simple creatures while women are viewed as incredibly complex, perhaps too complex to understand. I'm not sure if I like this or not. What I do like is how that ancient orient in the film is far from a cliche. From the background to the characters everything feels fresh and authentic, Pasolini clearly had great knowledge and great love for this culture. The cinematography is elegantly crafted, the film also has a perfect pace. Never feeling too long, not too short.

In conclusion, though the narrative may be a tad bit confusing during the first viewing, Arabian Nights is quite an magical film that will be on my mind for a long time. It evokes a child-like sense of adventure, as well as opens the mind to great creative thinking. It distorts the boundaries between myth, dream and cinema. If you can only see two Italian films in your lifetime, I would recommend Pasolini's Arabian Nights and Fellini's La Strada Praise it! 5/5

The Gospel According to St.Matthew Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Gospel According to St.Matthew
Director: Pier Paolo Pasolini
Year: 1964
Country: Italy
Language: Italian

As we have seen with Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ and Martin Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ, religious films, especially those specifically depicting the Christian messiah Jesus Christ, are often hit with heavy controversy and definitely not favored among the religious. Therefore it is no surprise that one of the most controversial directors in film history, Pier Paolo Pasolini, would choose to do a religious film. I was introduced to his work with Salo: or the 120 Days of Sodom. It shocked me yet made a profound political statement. I was then in awe of his take on Arabian Nights. The Gospel According to St.Matthew was the third film of his I decided to see, and it did not disappoint.

Pasolini's film shows the life of Jesus Christ according to the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus begins teaching, primarily using parables. He attracts disciples; he's stern, brusque, and demanding. He comes to bring a sword, not peace. His parables often take on the powers that be. Then he is conspired against, arrested and crucified, just as he had prophesied.

Coming from an atheist Marxist homosexual, I was quite impressed with Pasolini's vision of Jesus Christ. He was more like the Christ shown in Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ than Gibson's Passion of the Christ. A strong and powerful man unlike the peaceful hippy he is portrayed as in many other films and religious services. It is quite interesting that Pasolini chose to make this film without a screenplay or any additional dialogue of his own. He followed the Gospel of Matthew page by page, using only the necessary amount to make his film. This makes, at least the dialogue, more truthful to the bible than any other religious film. It's pretty interesting that Jesus' appearance is different from most biblical adaptations. He has short hair, no beard and a dark hooded robe that makes his face look often in shadow.

Through listening to much of Jesus' speeches it seems understandable to why a man like Pasolini, who had no religious views of his own, made a religious film: Christ had many marxist-like views. He hated the rich and powerful and favored the poor. He hated society's materialism and profit over people way of life. Jesus was a radical who wanted everybody to be equal and everyone to love one another. Pasolini's views were similar and it is clear that he made this the central point due to Christ's empowering, emotional, righteous and angry speeches throughout the film that almost make him seem like a Union organizer.

In conclusion,  Pasolini's vision is quite brilliant and technically well made. Christ's crucifixion in the film is not over-dramatized like any Hollywood epics are, nor is it as brutally violent as Mel Gibson's version. It is incredibly cold and harsh, though it is not at all the focus of the film. It's funny, during the Obama/Romney presidential race there were many people saying "Christ is a Republican", "Christ is a democrat" or "Christ loves both parties!" Meanwhile I was thinking "Would Christ even be a capitalist?" this film answers my question with a resounding "No". Praise it! 4.5/5

Fitzcarraldo Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Fitzcarraldo
Director: Werner Herzog
Year: 1982
Country: West Germany
Language: German

The making of Werner Herzog's Fitzcarraldo is so legendary that an entire documentary known as Burden of Dreams was made from it.I had seen the great documentary before the film and it definitely gave me great interest. In one scene Herzog claims "I live my life or I end my life with this project" Indeed this project nearly killed him, however we must never underestimate the dreams of a suggested mad man. 

Fitzarraldo is essentially about a man named Fitzcarraldo (Klaus Kinski), an an obsessed opera lover who wants to build an opera in the jungle. To accomplish this he first has to make a fortune in the rubber business, and his cunning plan involves hauling an enormous river boat across a small mountain with aid from the local Indians.

What happens when an obsessive director and an incredibly eccentric actor make a film about an obsessive man? Well...hell. Instead of filming the movie in a studio or in a heavily forested area in his own country, Herzog decided to move his cast and crew to the Amazon where they were forced to face the unforgiving elements of nature. In Burden of Dreams he claims the jungle is "a land that God, if he exists- has created in anger" Everybody involved in this project was in extreme danger, one crew member had to cut off his own foot because he was bit by a poisonous snake. Everyone associated with the film was marked, or scarred, by the experience.

If Werner Herzog can be any kind of role model, it is the fact that he doesn't give up on his dreams regardless of how insane and unsafe they may be. On the set of his film he is quotes as saying "Without dreams we would be cows in a field, and I don't want to live like that." Because he followed his dream despite the many setbacks, he created a masterpiece that is still loved to this day,  I also admire that he thinks a lot of his audience, for instance he built a real ship instead of using CGI because he thought the audience would definitely know the difference. He wouldn't dare challenge their intelligence. 

 One of the ways we can look at Fitzcarraldo is that it's essentially a film about the birthing process. Fitzcarraldo was given nine months for his project to finish. When he was explaining the captain about his fantastic plan the pencil drawing that he came up with distinctly resembles a diagram of the human female reproductive system. One particular angle in a shot of the ship climbing up the slope reminded me of an intra utero shot of babies to be born. And last but not least, the severing of the rope that tied the ship distinctly reminded me of the severing of the umbilical cord.

In conclusion, though this film may be flawed due to an anti-climatic ending I think it has a lot to say about the power of dreams and therefore I feel that it is one of the most important and elaborate films ever made.Few directors would put in the effort Herzog does to make a film. I love his engulfing cinematography and his unique slower style of pacing. This is a film I will reflect on for a long time. Praise it! 4.5/5

McCabe and Mrs.Miller Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: McCabe and Mrs.Miller
Director: Robert Altman
Year: 1971
Country: U.S
Language: English

My friend Cori Fay recommended that I watch her favourite film McCabe and Mrs.Miller and so I did. I've heard of it before, but I was reluctant to see it as I foolishly assumed that it was only as good as the average Western. I've heard of the Director Robert Altman as I had seen his Godsford Park a while ago but wasn't fond of it, which deterred me from seeing anything else he has made. I am proud to say that I was wrong, this film was a unique experience. A western, or should I say anti-western, unlike any other.

The film is set during the winter in the Old West. A charismatic yet foolish John McCabe (Warren Beatty) arrives in a young Pacific Northwest town to set up a whorehouse/tavern. The shrewd Mrs. Miller (Julie Christie), a professional madam, arrives soon after construction begins. She offers to use her experience to help McCabe run his business, while sharing in the profits. The whorehouse thrives despite their conflicting philosophies. Soon they attract the attention of a major corporation, which wants to buy out McCabe along with the rest. If he refuses his decision has major repercussions on those around him.

The Western protagonist is typically known for their unwavering codes and morals. Western heroes are supposed to do anything they can to stop their town from being taken over by tyrants. Society is built on law and order, and nothing will stray the hero from their ethics. McCabe is quite different from this mythical hero. He is neither good nor evil, nether incredibly brave or incredibly cowardly. Like Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood he seems only interested in making money, though unlike Plainview McCabe doesn't make an obsession out of greed and therefore is quite likeable.

Perhaps McCabe's naive view of capitalism is what makes him a tragic character. He thinks he can simply make money in a small town without any interference. He either forgets or doesn't know that he lives in a dog eat dog world. Luck is only possible in games of card. A lyric in Leonard Cohen's song Sisters of Mercy perfectly describes the fate of the character "You who must leave everything that you cannot control / it begins with your family but soon it comes round to your soul." We can relate this to our modern society. If a Wal Mart comes to your town and you're a small business owner you will have two choices: Sell your business or keep it going. Unfortunately either choice would result in the death of your business.

In conclusion, the last forty minutes of this film was exhilarating. I have never seen such an engulfing climax to a western film before. Beautifully shot and acted in a white snowstorm. There is somewhat of a love story in this film, but it unfortunately doesn't progress enough to be anything significant, which I think adds to the tragedy of this film. This is definitely a memorable film and I am sure I will see it again sooner than later. Praise it! 5/5

Three Colors: Red Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Three Colors: Red
Director: Krzysztof Kieslowski
Year: 1994
Country: France
Language: French

Krzysztof Kieslowski's third part of his Three Colors Trilogy is an exquisite masterpiece that not only connects Blue, White and Red but discusses a great deal regarding fraternity and the connections within society. Three Colors: Red is a film that I was not particularly interested in seeing, especially since Blue and White were some of the best French films I have seen and I was worried Red would not live up to it's potential. Wow, was I wrong. It is  the best crafted of the three and perhaps the most resounding.

This film is about Valentine (Irene Jacob) who is a young model living in Geneva. Because of a dog she ran over, she meets a retired judge (Jean Trintignant) who spies his neighbours' phone calls, not for money but to feed his cynicism. The film is the story of relationships between some human beings, Valentine and the judge, but also other people who may not be aware of the relationship they have with Valentine and/or  the old judge.

 It is difficult to discuss this film and not talk about the rest of the Three Colors Trilogy, as Red not only is about the connection between humans but between the films as well. It is quite interesting how the colours of each film are somewhat the opposite of the characters and plot. The colour white represents purity and innocence yet nobody is innocent in White, everybody harms one another. The colour blue represents depression (feeling blue) yet Blue is essentially about a woman who gets out of her depression.. The colour Red represents great anger, hate and  passion yet Valentine and he judge's relationship is purely friendship, even Auguste who sees his wife cheat on him is not enraged with hate.

Each colour of the French flag represents something. Blue is for liberty, white is for equality, red is for fraternity. However, each colour applies to each film. In Blue Juliet Binoche liberates herself from extreme depression. How? by connecting with people (fraternity) and realizing that others have had similar experiences (equality). In White, Karol Karol liberates himself from his wife. How? by putting her in the same position he was in (equality) through a plot orchestrated by friends (fraternity). In Red the old judge is liberated from his cynicism. How? by first reporting himself to the police for listening on his neighbor's calls  (equality) and befriending Valentine (fraternity).

I am convinced that Kieslowski is a master of Cinema. His cinematography is uncanny, the editing is well thought out. Like in Blue and White the story of the film is really all in the first scene. We see telephone wires that stretch for miles and miles, through ocean and underground. It shows us all these connection and it's a film about the interconnectedness of all things. A film about losing connections and gaining connections, which is essentially what life is except the boring parts of life are edited out. Kieslowski shows us images in the beginning of the film (Valentine in a photoshoot) and then comes back to them later in the film (Valentine on a boat in a similar pose) to show that even the images are connected and therefore extremely important to remember.

In conclusion, it is hard to say what my favourite film of the Three Colors Trilogy is because they are all masterpieces and they all connect with each other. These are films that I would love to watch over and over again, if I can I will watch all three in one sitting. Blue, White and Red tell us volumes about life, love, loss and society. Watching these will be an experience unlike any other, it makes the Star Wars Trilogy (which is somehow regarded as the best of all time by mainstream magazines) seem like mindless junk. Praise it! 5/5

Three Colors: Blue Review by Michael Carlisle

Title: The Three Colors: Blue
Director: Krzysztof Kieslowski
Year: 1993
Country: France
Language: French

Krzysztof Kieslowski's first part of his Three Colors:Trilogy is arguably his best. Three Colors: Blue is a remarkable pro-living film that will make even the most suicidal of people re-think their thoughts about death and decide to exist among the living. Whenever I am depressed and want to feel better I watch either a Chaplin film or this. I first saw Blue when it was distributed by the Criterion Collection last year and I must have seen it a dozen or so times already.

Blue is the story of Julie (the beautiful Juliet Binoce) who loses her husband, an acclaimed European composer and her young daughter in a car accident. The film's theme of liberty is manifested in Julie's attempt to start life anew free of personal commitments, belongings grief and love. She intends liberate herself by spiritually commit suicide by withdrawing from the world and live completely independently, anonymously and in solitude in the Parisian metropolis. However, people intrude her life with their own needs and thus she begins to heal and liberate herself from the ideals of death and isolation.

Kieslowski bases the theme of each film in Three Colors Trilogy by the colours of the french flag. The three colours stand for liberty (blue), equality (white), and fraternity (red). Liberty, or freedom from the past, is a major theme in Blue. The colour blue is used regularly from beginning to end. The film starts with a shot of a candy-wrapper moving in the wind; it is colored blue on one side. The street, the car, and even the air seem to be tinted in a hue of blue. The last shot before the final montage is of the sparkling blue crystal lamp hanging above Julie's flat. Blue is used in every shot of the film. Kieslowski brilliantly uses the colour to create moods of melancholy and coldness. It also helps the audience remember Julie's emotional responses to certain objects and places.

Kieslowski is a master of details and camera shots. Not a shot is wasted as each show a great mood and therefore are important to the story. There are not too many close-up's on Juliet Binoche's face nor are there too little. A lesser filmmaker might exploit the emotion of the film by using hundreds of close-ups. Composer Zbigniew Preisner creates a memorable score that is incredibly important to the story and mood of the film. Kieslowski used the music as a window into the intensity of emotions running through Julie's head.

In conclusion, Three Colors: Blue is so great because the story is so relatable. So many people have had a life experience that they didn't feel like they could recover from. Anybody who has had a breakup has had the feeling of emptiness and withdrawal form the world, perhaps even suicidal thoughts. With this film Kieslowski makes an important note about loss and liberation. To liberate yourself is to not isolate yourself, but to live life as you normally would. Praise it! 5/5