Monty Python and the Holy Grail Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Director(s): Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones
Year: 1975
Country: UK
Language: English

Throughout the years there have been countless people who have come up to me in great delight over the comedy known as Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Critics and fans have hailed it as one of the funniest films of all time. I have seen it at least six times by now, it was my first comedy outside of animation. It is likely many casual film goer's only attempt at watching a film from the seventies. While the comedy troupe known as Monty Python made a compilation sketch film before this (And Now For Something Completely Different) Holy Grail was what made them serious contenders in the comedic feature film business.

Holy Grail begins with Arthur (Graham Chapman), King of the Britons, looking for knights to sit with him at Camelot. He finds many knights including Sir Galahad the pure (Michael Palin), Sir Lancelot the brave (John Cleese), the quiet Sir Bedevere (Terry Jones), and Sir Robin the Not-Quite-So-Brave-as-Sir Lancelot (Eric Idle).Through a satire of many historical events they find Camelot, but after a song they find Camelot quite silly. God then comes to them via cloud and tells them to find the Holy Grail. They do so, while finding quite interesting characters along the way.

Considering the problems Python had, it's almost a miracle the film was made. Before the shooting began The Scottish Department of the Environment withdrew permission for the Pythons to shoot within their castles. Lead actor Graham Chapman's  alcoholism was in full effect, sometimes making it incredibly difficult for him to remember and even say his lines. Directors Terry Jones and Terry Gilliam were at each other's throat a fair amount of the time and their incredibly low budget made for no horses and virtual no real ending. However the way they managed to make the film despite budget problems makes for comedic legend. Instead of horses they had a person behind the knight banging coconuts together. Instead of a logical ending, police raid the scene and the camera shuts off.

Monty Pythons maintains humor by poking at the Western ideologies of Masculinity. Men are supposed to be tough, brave and have incredibly deep voices. While King Arthur has some brave moments, he is often thwarted by his cowardice "that rabbit's dynamite!" Sir Robin is constantly made fun of by his minstrels as they sing a song about his fear. The King of Swamp Castle seems to be the only real "masculine" character in this film, obsessed with having his son marry another woman because she has "huge...tracks of land". Yet he is seen as a fool also.

In conclusion, while I cannot confirm that this is the best comedy I've ever seen or the best Python film (I much prefer Life of Brian) Holy Grail is still an incredibly entertaining film that was dangerously close to not being made. It seems more of a series of funny Python sketches from their television show than a logical movie, but it does appear to be timeless. Who can forget the fight between King Arthur and The Black Knight? "Come back here, I'll bite your leg off!"  Praise it! 4/5

Eraserhead Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Eraserhead

Year: 1977
Director: David Lynch
Country: US
Language: English

Eraserhead was my introduction to the weird world of David Lynch. As a teenager that was new to Cinema I had never seen such a strange film that left me wondering about what I had just seen. What was it about? Perhaps it was too intelligent for me back then. As I saw more Lynch films I realized they all had a similar tone and feel, though this film was definitely among the creepiest. The Elephant Man was among the most straightforward, despite very beginning. I was very hesitant to watch this again, but I gave it a shot.

Eraserhead is set in an industrial town in which giant machines are constantly working, spewing smoke, and making noise that is inescapable, Henry Spencer (Jack Nance) lives in a building that, like all the others, appears to be abandoned. The lights flicker on and off, he has bowls of water in his dresser drawers, and for his only diversion he watches and listens to the Lady in the Radiator sing about finding happiness in heaven. Harry has a girlfriend named Mary X (Charlotte Steward) who gives birth to Henry's baby, a frightening mutant child. This of course entices shocking imagery of fear, panic and depressive sexuality.

The film works on one level, it does have an incredibly creepy atmosphere. You do get a sense that Henry Spencer's world is almost post-apocalyptic. He lives in a wasteland of fear and doubt, almost in isolation from the rest of the world. The little scenes, such as the odd chicken one, add to the tension and sense of fear that looms throughout the film. The lack of dialogue also contribute to the strange fear. Something is wrong and the baby is likely the tipping point where everything spills out in the open.

However, what IS this film about? I have seen many films with peculiar imagery such as Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) but at least there was a tremendous story behind it to back it up. Lynch's Eraserhead just seems to be weird for the sake of being weird. Which seems fine for some people, but I would like a little coherency as anybody can flash odd images on a screen and claim it is "art". The audio commentary on the current dvd does not suffice at all as Lynch fails to provide any sort of clearancy. Though his entire career is based upon being strange so why should he?

In conclusion, don't bother with this film, or any of Lynch's work (besides Mulholland Drive) for that matter. It is contrived nonsense that attempts to pass itself off as "art". As I said, anybody can slap strange images together, Lynch is nothing special. He is merely a man who tries much too hard to be "different". Piss on it! 2/5

La Strada Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: La Strada
Director: Federico Fellini
Year: 1954
Country: Italy
Language: Italian

For a long while I have avoided many of the films made by the renowned Italian Director Federico Fellini, I saw Satyricon, La Dolce Vita and Juliet of the Spirits a few years ago and wasn't as enchanted by them as I thought I would be. I also am not a fan of "circus" films or the circus in general. Far too optimistic and strange for me, not very entertaining or insightful. However I saw an interview with Martin Scorsese, he too hated the circus but found himself drawn to La Strada as a child. His words filled me with great intrigue as I trust Scorsese's incredible knowledge of cinema. So I watched it and it completely blew me away with awe and inspiration.

La Strada is an emotional story about a woman named Gelsomina (Guilietta Masina) who is sold by her mother to Zampano (Anthony Quinn) for 10,000 lire and a few kilos of food. Zampano is a brute, a travelling showman who shows feats of strength by breaking various chains around his chest. He treats her horribly, beats her when she tries to run away. Once they join a traveling circus they meet Il Matto (Richard Basehart) and a minor disagreement turns to sad tragedy.

What is interesting about this film, is that each character can be sympathized with. While Zampano seems to be a despicable man who beats women, we see that he is a victim of his own rage. It plays a pivotal part in the downfall of his own emotional state. He reminds me of Jake LaMotta in Martin Scorsese's Raging Bull. Both characters have extreme jealousy and hatred brewing within them and it hurts the people they love. Of course this is not a coincidence as Scorsese's version of LaMotta is loosely based upon Zampono, whose ultimate tragedy is that he loves Gelsomina yet cannot emotionally comprehend it until it is too late.

The character of Gelsomina is beautifully acted by Guilietta Masina, Federico Fellini's first and only wife of 50 years. She approaches the character  with a Chaplin-esque like innocence which proves not only to make her an enticing character but it adds to the sadness of the entire film. La Strada is incredibly simple for a Fellini film, but extremely potent. It contains many of the visual elements that would be re-visited during his later films like 8 1/2.

In conclusion, while La Strada's style moves away from the postwar neorealism that gripped Italian Cinema in the 50's, it is still considered among the best of what Italy has to offer. It won the Academy Award for "Best Foreign Film" and is among Fellini's most accessible work. Full of simple characters with complex emotion, it is definitely a film worth owning. Praise it! 5/5

Fanny and Alexander Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Fanny and Alexander
Director: Ingmar Bergman
Year: 1982
Country: Sweden
Language: Swedish

The great Swedish Director Ingmar Bergman started his feature length film career with the intriguing Crisis (1946) and ended with the long yet mesmerizing Fanny and Alexander (1982) never missing a beat in-between these films. His large body of work spanned over 50 feature films, many cited in critic's "Best Films" lists. He is often spoofed by comedians or comedic filmmakers such as Peter Hewitt, who made Bill and Ted's Bogus Adventure, as well as imitated by lesser dramatic filmmakers as well. His films usually show the darker side of the human spirit, but as in Wild Strawberries can also be quite optimistic. Fanny and Alexander is a perfect blend of light and dark, of pessimism and optimism, of good and evil.

The title characters, Fanny (Pernilla Allwin) and Alexander (Betil Guve) live in a colorful Ekdahl household in a Swedish town early in the twentieth century. Their parents, Oscar (Allan Edwall) and Emilie (Ewa Froling) , are the director and the leading lady of the local theatre company.Oscar's mother and brother are the leading operators. After Oscar dies, Emilie marries the bishop and moves with her children to his place. He turns out to be a brute of a man, and the children are miserable, however there is always hope.

Often regarded as Ingmar Bergman's swan song (though he did make television features after this) , Fanny and Alexander was a quake of energy to fans who were enticed with his brooding films like The Seventh Seal which was made much earlier in his career. It is an almost Dickensian tale of ghosts and magic. There are also parallels to William Shakespeare's Hamlet, we see the ghost of Alexander's father more than once in the film, both Hamlet and Alexander's mothers marry nasty people and they both have quite a spiritual crisis. It's interesting that we see Oscar's illness creep in during a re-enactment of Hamlet where he plays Hamlet's father and completely forgets his lines, infact completely forgetting where he is at that time.

With this film Bergman moves beyond storytelling and into a strange series of events that could be considered dreams. It's as if you're transported to another reality when watching this film. The cinematography by Sven Nykvist is phenomenal and enchanting, it truly contributes to the overall mood of the film. The bishop (Jan Malmsjo) reminds me of another villainous religious man known as Reverend Harry Powell (Robert Mitchum) from Charles Laughton's Night of the Hunter (1955). Though I would argue that the bishop in this film is more vile because he seems more realistic and does more harm to the children than Powell does.

In conclusion, Fanny and Alexander is one of the most spiritual films I have ever seen. It is a real treat to own the 5 Disk DVD Box Set from the Criterion Collection so I be fully in awe whenever I feel like watching it. Well worth a buy and well worth the runtime (312 min). This is definitely in my top ten, as well as Bergman's other incredibly spiritual film known as The Seventh Seal (1957) Praise it! 5/5

Wild Strawberries Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Wild Strawberries
Director: Ingmar Bergman
Year: 1957
Country: Sweden
Language: Swedish

Victor Sjostrom is known as the father of Swedish Cinema, with films like the silent classic The Phantom Carriage (1921) he influenced great filmmakers like the legendary Ingmar Bergman who made this film. It is quite interesting that Victor Sjostrom agreed to be in not one, but two of Bergman's films. The first was To Joy (1950) and the second was Wild Strawberries. Bergman would only make this film if Sjostrom agreed to act in it, he did and to his delight won the National Board of Review's Best Actor award at 77 years old.

Wild Strawberries is about a seventy eight year old retired doctor and professor named Dr. Isak Borg (Victor Sjostrom) who has retreated from all forms of human contact with exception of his elderly caretaker. He is traveling from his home in Stockholm to Lund to accept an honorary degree. Instead of sticking to his original plan of flying, he decides to take a long drive with his daughter-in-law Marianne (Ingrid Thulin) instead. The many stops along the way remind him of his life, mainly his childhood and his cold mother.

Wild Strawberries reminds me of a Dicken's novel. Dr. Isak Borg starts out as a cold cynical old man but eventually becomes humbled. Through various important discussions, especially with his son Evald (Gunnar Bjornstrand) , we see the professor's journey to self discovery, self knowledge and the awareness of his own mortality. All these memories and flashbacks through his life shine a light on the character. We see his vulnerabilities and understand the reasons for his retreat from humanity.

While Ingmar Bergman is often seen as too pessimistic and dark, with this film we can see that it's not entirely the case. Wild Strawberries is  the most optimistic and heartwarming film Bergman has made in his four decade long career. Like all of his films, the dialouge is extremely important. Conversations and moments that radiate the screen surely remind us of this man's redemption. Sjostrom's performance is remarkable, made only a few years before his death we must wonder if Sjostrom was going through the same thoughts and emotions of his character.

In conclusion, this film will likely having you question your own life as well. Making you reflect upon your decisions and likely living for the better. Surely, it will have you in a self reflective state long after the film is over. It is honest, emotional and intense. A brilliant character study that deserves to be seen by generations of people. Praise it! 4.5/5

Persona Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Persona
Director: Ingmar Bergman
Year: 1966
Country: Sweden
Language: Swedish 

Persona is one of legendary Swedish Director Ingmar Bergman's most peculiar films, even though it is not too difficult to understand as all the scenes, even the dream scenes, are perfectly clear. I find myself watching this film over and over again, in attempt to analyze the great cinematic style of Bergman. I also realize that this is a film of buried truths and complicated emotions, to uncover them all is a long yet fruitful endeavor. It's a film that if made by any other man could be labelled "pretentious", yet Bergman pulls it all off perfectly.

Persona is about a young nurse named Alma (Bibi Andersson) who is put in charge of Elizabeth Volger (Liv Ullman); an actress who seems like she is at the peak of her health, with the exception that she refuses to talk. As they spend time together, Alma constantly finds company in speaking to Elizabeth, even though she never receives an answer. She reveals a lot of her deep secrets to the seemingly sympathetic Elizabeth. Slowly Alma's personality is emerging with Elizabeth's Persona.

This film opens with a series of quite unusual images a spider, a montage from silent comedies, a spike being driven through a man's hand, and faces in a morgue. Then it cuts to a picture of a young boy watching women's faces appear on a giant screen in front of him. The montage intentionally distorts reality and gets us ready for one hell of a psychological film. Persona is somewhat of a female power game. Alma starts off as a confident nurse who does all the talking in their "relationship", though who really knows if Elizabeth is actually listening? Therefore Alma feels in control of the silent woman. However over the course of the film, Alma's stability seems to disintegrate Her talks that were designed to help Elizabeth end up becoming confessions of secrets, desires and guilt. Eventually her mask or "persona" is taken away, and we see a completely different side of the character.

It is quite interesting that words begin the downfall of a rather healthy woman. Perhaps Elizabeth was never really sick, what it wrong with not wanting to talk? Alma's language begins to break down and we see her struggling to perform coherent phrases. Bergman's brilliant use of close-ups show the  intricate details of her emotionally fragile state. Steady movements of the camera show the emerging ambiguity of each woman's identity. It can also be seen as a study about loneliness and what that can do to a human being. Alma's chatter shows a desperate need for human contact and I guess Elizabeth will be this "victim". She goes as far as to describe an orgy she had on the beach, it's interesting to see how far times have changed.

In conclusion, while this may not be Bergman's best (many agree that title would belong to The Seventh Seal) I think it is Bergman's most psychological. Certainly the optic effect of fusing the woman's faces into one haunting image is intense and unique to Swedish film. Again, I must applaud the director for making such a great film dominated by women. Praise it! 5/5

Cries and Whispers Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Cries and Whispers
Director: Ingmar Bergman
Year: 1972 
Country: Sweden
Language: Swedish

Cries and Whispers is the film that both introduced me to the wonderful world of Swedish film, and the genius of a legendary Swedish Director known as Ingmar Bergman (1918-2007). His feature film career started with Torment (1944), which is considered one of the greatest films of all time, and ended with Fanny and Alexander (1982) which is often his most praised film. Throughout his four decade long career it appears that he has never missed a beat. His films always impressed and still continue to inspire even after his death.

Cries and Whispers is set in turn of the century Sweden where a woman dying of cancer named Agnes (Harriet Andersson) is visited in her large isolated mansion by her sisters Karin  (Ingrid Thulin) and Maria (Liv Ullman). As Agnes' condition worsens and her pain becomes increasing unbearable, fear and distance grab hold of the sisters who seem unable of showing any empathy. As the end of Agnes' life draws near we see all the repressed feelings of the sisters come to a boil and then surface.

Aside from The Seventh Seal (1957) and Persona (1966) no other Bergman film has made an impact greater than Cries and Whispers. It received Academy Award nominations for Best Picture, Director, Screenplay and Cinematography. It is complex yet there aren't as much interpretations of the film as there are in more popular films. Which is great, the emotions within the film are explanation enough. The screen is filled with such powerful emotion that it's easy to understand why many people claim this is Bergman's most painful film. His use of closeups and extreme close-ups are masterful, Often stopping the camera on a still and silent face for a few seconds, showing us a window into the character's soul.

The use of colour in this film is used incredibly well, it is perhaps the most important, unique and memorable aspect of Cries and Whispers. Red is dominant throughout the film, in the furnishings and on the walls. Eve in the color of the fade out which in most films is usually black. Bergman had always explained that he imagined the human soul was this particular shade of red. Certainly it intensifies the study of death and the particular emotions it evokes on the living.

In conclusion, Cries and Whispers is definitely a thought and mood provoking film that will have you reflecting on it long after you've seen it. The performances by all the women are utterly fantastic if not, phenomenal. It is incredibly refreshing to see a film completely dominated by women rather than a male driven film. Bergman blends "horror" with poetry in a truly accomplished way. Praise it! 5/5

A Brighter Summer Day Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: A Brighter Summer Day
Director: Edward Yang
Year: 1991
Country: Taiwan
Language: Mandarin 

Brilliant but incredibly long for my first Taiwanese film. I started watching it in one sitting but realized I had to watch it in parts because I kept getting distracted. Edward Yang's A Brighter Summer Day is definitely epic in scope, but not in scale. It is not an epic in the traditional American sense of what an "epic" film should be. Amazingly, Yang's ingenious portrait of Taiwan and Taiwanese life is so detailed that this films seems much shorter than it actually is. When watching this film you will be so engaged with the characters that you wont even think to look at the clock.

A Brighter Summer Day is set in the 1960's during a single Taipei School year. It shows a country that is still greatly imbalanced by the disruption of the Chinese Nationalists who were led by the  oppressive Chiang Kai-shek in 1948. It is a film distraught between communism, democracy, nationalism and democracy. The characters are full of confusion and alienation with the ever changing world around them. You may need to read up on some Taiwanese history before you watch this film.

As dark as the film may seem, Edward Yang blends the right amount of humor and humanity within the film to make it feel like it's not just about drudgery and impending doom. It is a slow-moving film which shows that the Director has great patience with his shots and the rhythm of his film. Watching this is like watching an orchestra play. Each character's timing & tone is absolutely perfect for every scene they are in. I also admire his indifference to close-up shots, he prefers slower long shots which I feel capture the emotions within his scenes better.

The emotion, plot points and execution of the film seems much like a great novel. It is incredibly sophisticated the way Yang makes his film about more than his characters but about paces and events and Taiwan entire. It all fits together perfectly in an almost flawless way. Though it's what you should expect when a Director spends four years working on just the per-production phase of his work. The search for the identity is Universal and therefore anybody from any culture can relate to these characters.

In conclusion, A Brighter Summer Day is the pinnacle of Taiwanese New Wave. Definitely one of the greatest film to come out of the 90's, let alone the entire twentieth Century. It is quite long, but worth the watch. It will also likely help yo better understand the Taiwanese people and you may probably make more friends because of that. If this is your first film from Taiwan do recommend reading some history and watching this in parts. Either way it will completely blow you away.Praise it! 5/5

Goodfellas Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Goodfellas
Director: Martin Scorsese
Year: 1990
Country: US
Language: English

After The Godfather and The Godfather Part II, Martin Scorsese's gangster epic Goodfellas is commonly considered one of the greatest American gangster films of all time by film buffs and critics alike. Indeed it is one of the many films that have made Scorsese's name synonymous with Gangster Cinema, though I personally like his non gangster films like Hugo, Last Temptation of Christ and Raging Bull a lot more. I have seen Goodfellas at least three times a year for the past five years, it seems to be a favorite among movie channels, and every viewing I find more to like about it.

The film begins with a narration by Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) "As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster. To me, being a gangster was better than being President of the United States." Indeed Hill is a small time gangster, who takes pat in a robbery with his friends Jimmy Conway (Robert De Niro) and Tommy De Vito (Joe Pesci). Their sights have been set a little higher, to rise in the mob hierarchy by killing off everybody else who chose to join the robbery. The film follows Hill's quest to live the life of luxury he never had as a child.

One thing that is a little bit unusual for a gangster film is the amount of screen time the women in Goodfellas get.. Usually screen time for women is sparse, they are usually seen as an object to obtain (A quote from Brian De Palma's Scarface goes "First you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women") and are subservient to the male lead. Karen Hill (Lorraine Braco) get narration to show her side of the story. She is as strong as her husband, yet has the same amount of flaws. She has equal power, yet equal fault as well.

Goodfellas is essentially about the nature of power and what can happen if you take shortcuts to obtain that power. Joe Pesci plays his role as the maniacal Tommy De Vito phenomenally well; he definitely deserved the Oscar he received for Best Supporting Actor. He demands respect and when he isn't given that respect he often resorts to violence. When a bus boy tells De Vito to f*ck himself h shoots him in the chest out of blind rage because he feels his power has been taken away from him. Unfortunately this negative characteristic is what leads him to his downfall. Everybody's lust for power in this film affects them quite negatively.

In conclusion, Goodfellas is an incredibly well made Gangster film. There is immense character development as well as inventive cinematography that seems to change style the further along we are into the film. It's quite interesting to see how different the first half of the film looks and feels compared to the second half of the film. Is it better than The Godfather? I would say that it's less historically important, but more entertaining. Praise it! 4/5

Breaking Bad Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Breaking Bad
Creator: Vince Gilligan
Year: 2008-2013 (5 Seasons)
Country: U.S
Language: English

Would it be a bold statement to say that Vince Gilligan's Breaking Bad is the greatest television show of all time? I think not. It's an ingenious mix of dark comedy and drama that will always have you on the edge of your seat. Nothing short of mind blowing, it's a sheer punch to the gut and a show of remarkable character development. It's essentially a show about an innocent man with cancer who slowly becomes the cancer to everybody around him. It also has a strong anti-drug statement that resonates throughout each season.

Breaking Bad is about a chemistry teacher named Walter White (Bryan Cranston)  who is diagnosed with Stage III terminal cancer and only given a short amount of time to live. Thinking he has nothing to lose, he embarks on an odyssey full of drugs and crime to-at first- ensure his family has a financially secure future. Walter proves to be a major player in th drug business as he produces and sells methamphetamine with his former student Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul).

Bryan Cranston? Isn't he that goofy dad from Malcolm in the Middle? How useful can his acting be in such a dramatic show? Surprisingly Bryan Cranston's diverse acting is what drives this show. It contributes quite an amount of emotional intensity that will surely grip your emotions. Aaron Paul also provides great acting in the show, especially in Season 4 when he produces very real symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder. What is especially interesting about this show is how the characters become polar opposites of what they once were. In Season 1 Walter White is an honest, hard working man who uses his mind to think of creative solutions to problems whereas Jesse Pinkman appears to be just a junky with no morals or intelligence. Throughout the show the roles seem to switch, while Walter White is breaking bad and becoming pure villain, Jesse Pinkman is breaking good and trying to become and honest person.

Breaking Bad shows the incredibly negative effects crystal meth has among society and the individual. It not only affects your life but the lives of everybody around you and pus you in incredible danger. Crystal meth is indeed a cancer on society and I feel that this show portrays that well. "Children" are a common theme in the series. While at first Jesse Pinkman may seem like a scummy guy, we see that he has a great love for children and thus maintains some innocence. When Walter White has his encounters with Brock in Season 4 we see his complete loss of innocence and his descent into darkness. A key character in this known as Gale Boetticer is also extremely child-like in his innocence as well.

In conclusion, Breaking Bad is the best shot & well written television series that I have ever seen. There are a staggering amount of themes that will have you re-visiting the show for years and years to come. The acting, score and lighting make this a suspenseful thrill ride that you wish would continue forever. Breaking Bad is not only entertaining but it is a necessary reminder of the damaging effects of drugs and ego. Praise it! 5/5

Sunday, Bloody Sunday Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Sunday Bloody Sunday
Director: John Schlesinger
Year: 1971
Country: UK
Language: English

I did not know what to expect from John Schlesinger's Sunday, Bloody Sunday, at worst I expected a bumbling  melodramatic soap opera. Then I remembered Peter Finch, who played Howard Beale in the incredible late seventies film Network. He acting was top notch in that film and I expected it would be in this one as well. I decided to watch this film because The Criterion Collection had announced it as a November release and I was intrigued by the premise of the film. I am proud to say that this film delivered and I will definitely be buying it when it comes out.

The plot of Sunday, Bloody Sunday involves three people in a rather peculiar love triangle. Alex Greville (Glenda Jackson) is a divorced working woman and Daniel Hirsh (Peter Finch), a Jewish family doctor. They not only share the same answering service but also the same man. Bob Elkin (Murray Head) bed hops between the two of them whenever the mood fits. Both Alex and Daniel know about each other but prefer to live with the situation rather than be without any sort of love.

In the film Alex Greville tells us, "Some people believe something is better than nothing, but I'm beginning to believe that nothing can be better than something." We get a sense that this is not true, for either her or Daniel Hirsh. They both fall for a man who has no dimension to his character, he seems to have no real deep thought or emotion in this film, and is likely twice as young as them. While Daniel is not upset by his homosexuality but he does his best to keep it a secret from his family, mainly because he strongly wants human companionship

I think a lot of people feel this way, unloved and in need of someone to talk to. That's likely why you will see people who jump from bed to bed & people who sacrifice their health just to be with another person.It may seem pessimistic but all great films reveal certain truths about mankind and the society we live in. Humans are indeed quite complex social creatures who long to be understood and loved by others. The characters are quite graceful in the way they accept loss of love and I respect the writers for that. A lesser film might reduce this film to savagery. A lot of the film also had to do with fear, they shared Elkin not because of kindness but because they were worried about trying for all.

In conclusion, Sunday, Bloody Sunday is not about a breakup but about the absence of love and what that does to a human being's psychological state. It does so in a purposefully non confronting way that really makes the film standout. Along with screenplay and direction, the acting by all three main actors is brilliant. This film is an underrated masterpiece. Praise it! 5/5

Night and Fog Review- By Michael Calisle

Title: Night and Fog
Director: Alain Resnais
Year: 1955
Country: France
Language: French

The documentation of man's inhumanity towards man is as old as mankind itself. Even with all that experience, little prepared the world to face the experiences and horrible atrocities of the Holocaust. The Holocaust, also known as "the Shoah" (Hebrew word for "destruction") was the for a systematic state sponsored genocide led by Adolf Hitler throughout German occupied territory. Over six million European Jews died as well as many communists, civilians, homosexuals & disabled. The Nazi Government specifically targeted the extermination of jews, gypsies and handicapped people This film captures the atrocities on camera, and while it is disturbing, it is absolutely necessary.

Alain Resnais' Night and Fog is one of the most detailed depictions of the horrors of Nazi Concentration Camps caught on camera. Filmed in 1955 at several concentration camps in Poland, the film combines new color and black and white footage with black and white newsreels, footage shot by the victorious allies, and stills, to tell the story not only of the camps, but to portray the horror of man's brutal inhumanity.

Denial is one of the key themes in Night and Fog. There is footage of the dead being bulldozed into mass graves, corpses hung on barbed wire, faces frozen in fear, boney nude bodies being paraded for extreme humiliation, trans that come and go to who knows where. Resnais shows the gas chambers and crematoriums in vivid detail. Shockingly he shows that the concentration camps didn't happen in some isolated area away from society, but in nearby cities where many people would know what was going on. Hinting that many civilians must have looked the other way, certainly Nazi leaders did. Throughout the film they claim that they are not responsible.

It certainly boggles the mind at how humans could treat each other in such a way. What's even more concerning is the distrust and denial throughout that exists even a decade after the fall of the Third Reich. What I admire about this film is that places collective blame on people, rather than pointing the finger at one person. One person could not get away with this is millions of people had not enabled him. Resnais realized he NEEDED to make a film this this because the nature of the fading memory might erase the Nazi horrors and thus cause history to repeat itself. The story of the Holocaust is one which MUST be told again and again.

In conclusion, Night of Fog is one of the most disturbing yet necessary films you will ever see. A friend once told me that it was a paralyzing and life altering experience. It is certainly a film that will make you think twice before harming your fellow man, and it is a film that will definitely make you cry. It is not for the weak of heart and if you fear that you may get some serious trauma from watching this film then I do not recommend you see it. Despite this, Night and Fog is a brave film by a brave man. Praise it! 5/5

Reservoir Dogs Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Reservoir Dogs
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Year: 1992
Country: U.S
Language: English

I first saw Reservoir Dogs a few years ago during a crime film obsession phase. I wanted to see the best of what crime film had to offer and I was under the impression that Quentin Tarantino's film was the pinnacle of crime film. I became enthralled about this film and constantly told everybody I met to watch it. Years later I have quite a different opinion on it. I have seen quite a lot of film noir and heist movies. Films like Le Samourai and Le Cercle Rouge are far more superior in quality than Reservoir Dogs. I'm thinking I may have been a little too enthusiastic about Tarantino's debut feature when I first saw it. It's decent compared to bad crime film, but terrible compared to good crime films.

Reservoir Dogs is about six criminals who don't know each other but are hired by a crime boss to carry out a diamond heist. They are given false names so that they won't know each other to well and thus focus on the job at hand. They are completely sure that the heist will go as planned, but when police show up at the robbery unexpected panic spreads among the group. One man is killed during a shootout and the remaining crew meet up at their rendezvous point, eventually suspecting that one of them is an undercover cop.

Many people praise Quentin Tarantino for this film, but it merely a copy and paste routine. If he was musician he would have to pay royalties, if he was an author he would be sued for plagiarism. Every aspect of this film is an "homage" to another film. Can even we call it an "homage" if the entire film is essentially the film version of a Frankenstein monster? The infamous ear torture scene is from The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. The identification by colors (Mr.Pink) is from The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3. The jewel heist narrative that omits the entire jewel heist is from Once Upon a Time n America. Tarantino isn't a genius, he's an un-talented thief.

The "original" dialogue in this film, though that is likely stolen from another film as well, isn't all that impressive. The "waitress tipping" scene is useless banter that stalls time and doesn't contribute to character development at all. Reservoir Dogs is all bark but no bite. Meaningless words are more of background noise to a film that looks like it could be good. Indeed it's likely the style and look of the film that brought people's attention, it is different from any Hollywood film you would see but if you attempt to look for better films with a similar look you will definitely find some.

In conclusion, this film is like the king of three legged dogs. It may look good at first, until you notice that there are loads of dogs with four legs. Reservoir Dogs isn't one film, but a mesh of films put together that don't work as well as it's supposed to. Based on this film can we call Tarantino a competent film-maker? Not at all. Though admittedly he does get better with Pulp Fiction and loses any credibility he had after Kill Bill Vol. Piss on it! 2/5

The Battleship Potemkin Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Battleship Potemkin
 Director: Sergei M. Eisenstein
Year: 1925
Country: Russia
Language: Russian 

The Battleship Potemkin was my glorious introduction to Russian Cinema and the brilliant of Sergei M. Eisenstein. I rented it from Movie Village after I saw the most famous clip, the Odessa Steps scene, in my introduction to film class. I didn't really know what to expect before I saw this film, at the very least I would be horribly bored and turn off the film early. However, I remained glued to the couch, staring at the screen, watching one of my now favorite films of all time. Many film critics would suggest the historical importance is what has helped the film stay known for all these years. I feel Battleship Potemkin is both historically important as well as incredibly entertaining.

Based on historical events, Battleship Potemkin tells of a riot at the battleship Potemkin. This riot is started as a protest strike when the battleship's crew was given rotten meat for dinner. Ending in a strike, the sailors raise a red flag and begin a great revolution in their home port.

While Battleship Potemkin may not be historically accurate, it is surely a legendary vision of oppression and rebellion. It was once so powerful that the film was banned in many nations, including its home country- The Soviet Union. Governments were extremely cautious because they believed the film could actually incite audiences to riot whether they were being oppressed or not. Indeed the film is a piece of class aware revolutionary propaganda. Yes, there may be people who walk out of this film unaffected, but it more likely that after this film you will analyze your life and become more political than you ever have been.

If Eisenstein didn't invent the montage, then he certainly perfected it. The Odessa steps scene, which had audiences in 1925 gasping out loud in their seats, is one of the most famous scenes in film history because of its intricate and fast paced cuts. Cutting between the fearful faces of the unarmed citizens and the faceless troops in uniform. Many other cuts are just as abrupt. All are with great rhythm and do not unroll slowly like most films from this decade. With the brilliant cuts, as well as the superb score and odd setting, it is understandable to see why this film was considered extremely dangerous.

In conclusion, though there is some question about how dated this film is, I think it's still effective among the right people. Many films ay homage to Battleship Potemkin, the nost famous seems to be The Untouchables' version of the highly praised Odessa steps scene. Even in the U.S, UK & France it was banned but that surely did not stop this film from being as beloved as it is today. Praise it! 5/5

Broken Blossoms Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Broken Blossoms
Director: D.W Griffith
Year: 1919
Country: US
Language: English

I'm still not sure whether it's ok to have a crush on a woman who has been dead long before I was born. I first saw D,W Griffith's Broken Blossoms on TCM very late at night (for some reason they always show silents late at night or early in the morning) shortly after seeing his highly controversial Birth of a Nation.  I wanted to understand his intentions, was he an old racist coot or did he have a higher love for mankind. This film assured me that Griffith had a tremendous heart and that he honestly disliked his country was still fueled by racism. It was also my third Lilian Gish film, I though she was cute but I saw her as an old lady in Night of the Hunter and pondered if I should change my mind.

The films stars Richard Barthelmess as Cheng Huan, a missionary who's goal is to spread the teachings of Buddha among the English. Upon arrival in England he quickly notices the intolerance of the English culture in the late 1910's . He becomes a shopkeeper, out of the window he notices the innocent Lucy Burrows (Lilain Gish) who is beaten regularly by her cruel father. Cheng falls in love with her, provides food for her and takes care of her until she feels better. They are happy together but unfortunately that happiness only lasts until her father finds out that she's with a foreigner.

Unlike the other D.W Griffith films I previously reviewed (Intolerance and Birth of a Nation) this is a film in which I can see modern film-goers wanting to watch again and again because it's not too long and not too overtly shocking. Like Birth of a Nation, Broken Blossoms was incredibly controversial for its time. It was one of the first films to discuss interracial marriage openly and without prejudice, Interracial marriage itself was a controversial topic in America and was largely frowned upon by the culture. Parents (usually white) would disown their kids if they came home with a black or Asian person, this was especially in the South when they still tried to separate blacks and white as much as they could. The controversy of interracial marriage is much like the controversy of gay marriage nowadays

Unfortunately the attitudes of race may seem dated to today's viewer, even the Chinese character of the film may seem like a stereotypical depiction of what Americans though the Chinese acted like, though oddly I find the Chinese character in Breakfast At Tiffany's, a film made half a century later, to be more racist. He is a peaceful Buddhist, opium addict, shopkeeper and acted by a caucasian man, but you have to realize that Griffith's film was considered "open-minded" for its time. Perhaps a fault of this film, and perhaps all of Griffith's films, is that they are not exactly "timeless". To watch it and fully find yourself enjoying it you have to put yourself in the mind of a person from 1919. Whereas in any of Charlie Chaplin's films you can enjoy it and not have to think about the time period.

In conclusion, this film is extremely dated but very necessary. Tame by today's standards but controversial back then. Griffith was a brave man with very good intentions which he wanted to extend to his audience. A unique historical document in Cinema that may not always have the hearts of the average film-goer but will always seize the minds of the film historian. If you are looking for a well-made melodrama then this is it, but it comes with your  imagination and co-operation. 3.5/5

Intolerance Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Intolerance
Director: D.W Griffith
Year: 1916
Country: US
Language: English

After the incredibly controversial Birth of A Nation, the great D.W Griffith had one hell of a time trying to convince filmgoers and critics that he wasn't a racist bigot. Even though his film was meant as a mirror to show America's views a lot of people back then and even nowadays just couldn't understand the message. So Griifth decided that he would make a film to counter the backlash, he spared no expense at his million dollar (at the time that was pretty expensive for a film) epic known as Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages. Though the film never came close to breaking even in sales, it now is regarded as one of Griffith's masterpieces.

Griffith's Intolerance is a very tame film which was essentially about what he was trying to say in Birth of A Nation; Intolerance towards others can lead to the downfall of mankind. Intolerance is about the terrible effects intolerance has, examining it through various historical eras. In Ancient Bablyon, a girl from the mountains gets caught in a rivalry based on religion which leads to the downfall of her city. In Judea, the hypocritical Pharisees condemn Jesus Christ. Another story in Paris shows the downfall of a couple and lastly a modern day (1916) story shows another couple being torn apart by social reformers.

Part of the reason this film never came close to breaking even in sales may be the film's length, at 163 minutes (2.7 hours) It was far to long for audiences of the late 1910's to sit through, even modern audiences have a rough time sitting though that long of a silent film. Griffith was also far too ahead of his time in terms of storytelling, cutting from one story to another and then crosscutting within the stories as well which proved difficult for film-goers to follow.

The production values of Intolerance were tremendous, it was indeed an epic before the term "epic" was coined. Gigantic sets were created such as the Babylon set which remains a landmark in Hollywood today. 3,000+ extras were needed for extraordinary crowd scenes which then needed elaborate costumes if Griffith was going to attempt to make his film look aesthetically as realistic as possible. The script itself was complicated, it needed to be edited over and over, it was still being worked on even as production time rolled in. Intolerance may have been too big a project for anybody to take on, but if anybody could do it, it was D.W Griffith.

In conclusion, this film is a remarkable one of a kind epic that shows just how talented D.W Griffith really was. The scope, scale and magnitude of this film has never been reached and will never be reached. The emotional intensity of each story is difficult to mimic and though the film is very centered on Christianity I think people of any religion can enjoy this. The only problem I have this is that it may be exhaustive to watch and it's unlikely a film you'll want to re-watch in the near future. Still, it's quite an important film. Praise it! 4/5

The Great Train Robbery Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Great Train Robbery
Director: Edwin S. Porter
Year: 1903
Country: US
Language: English

It seems that far too many people nowadays take pre-thirties Cinema for granted, accusing them of being too primitive and a complete waste of time. That assumption is not only primitive itself but is completely inaccurate. The Great Train Robbery is not only entertaining, but it is full of innovative shots and techniques that we in the 21st Century take for granted. Not only did Edwin Porter's film initiate the Western genre, which until then was only popular in fiction novels, but it became the most successfull film of the pre-Griffith era of American Cinema which resulted in a ton of remakes and imitations.

The opening scene of Great Train Robbery shows two anonymous robbers who force the telegraph operator to send a false message so the train will make an unscheduled stop.They tie him up then board the train as it stops. After a fight they use dynamite to blow up the safe. Next the robbers hold up the train and its passengers, one tries to run away but is shot on the spot. They ride off but the telegraph operator is able to send a message, calling for assistance. In a saloon a posse gets formed to take down the robbers. How many scenes in Westerns have there been in which a posse is formed to take down the bad guys? Far too many, but this film was the first to do it.

The film was revolutionary in many ways, first there is the backscreen projection that makes the train look like it's actually movie even though they're not really on a train at all.There's also a stoppage of action to see the environment, no film bothered to have that before then. Mainly because most films were a lot shorter than Great Train Robbery. A lot of the scenes were filmed in one take, which is why you may notice some comedic undertones such as one of the men tripping on a rock, or taking a much longer time getting on their horse. Though one might argue that it betrays the dramatic nature of the film, others may say that it makes it feel more authentic.

Great Train Robbery also captures the nature of the culture it was filmed in. There's a lot of violence and death within this. Innocents get shot down, robbers get shot down, yet it was the most successful film of its time. A lot of people paid to see these incredible acts of violence. The film also suggests that the "heroes" of this story are as guilty as the robbers. Once the robbers are caught by a posse, the posse doesn't bother to arrest them and bring to them to justice, they kill them with a barrage of bullets and are without remorse. Ignoring the bodies and immediately taking the money for themselves. Greed is quite a problem in this film as well.

In conclusion, Great Train Robbery is both innovative and intelligent, giving us a peak of the darker side of American culture. The "end" of this film, though it was sometimes played at the beginning, was also pretty memorable. It features a man shooting at the screen, which would have greatly shocked audiences in the beginning early 20th Century. It was only for shock value though, since it really has nothing to do with the main narrative. Still, at 12 minutes this is a film you could watch over and over and over again. Praise it! 5/5

Haxan Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Haxan
Director: Benjamin Christensen
Year: 1923
Country: Denmark
Language: Danish

I did not know what to expect when I stayed up until 2am to watch Danish director Benjamin Christensen 's Haxan on Turner Classic Movies. Would it be pure horror? Would it be an intelligent documentary that explained the nature of evil in depth? My expectations of the film were blown away by this unique "documentary". It's a bizarre silent film that defies genre. It used a variety of cinematic approaches to discuss it's subject matter which was that of witchcraft and diabolism through Ancient Persia to Modern Times. The approaches include using still images to using models to incredible dramatic re-enactments. While this technically is a "documentary", it is not made the same way any documentary was made before or after it.

Haxan is a historical view of witchcraft in seven parts with a variety of styles. To begin t, there is a slide-show alternating inter-titles with drawings and paintings to demonstrate the behavior of pagan cultures in the Middle Ages regarding their thoughts of demons and witches. A dramatization of the situation of the witches, witchcraft and witchhunts in the Middle Ages follows this. Lastly the film compares the behavior of hysteria of women in the 20's to the behavior of the witches in the Middle Ages, suggesting that they have many similarities

Benjamin Christensen seemed to make Haxan as an honest academic exercise to compare ancient fears of Witches to misunderstandings about mental illness in the 20's. Keep in mind back then "depression" wasn't even though of as something that could be medically treated. Mental institutions were also more like jails than places where you could get actual help. Perhaps if people in the 20's saw this film they could come to a realization of how poorly their mentally ill citizens were being treated.

The frightening aspects of Haxan have the power to frighten even the film-goers of today who have seen those distastefully bad Saw films. Every frame of this film is filled with dark and eerie images that stir the soul into a scared frenzy. He is truely a cinematic visionary, using the powerful effects of mise en scene,  The eerie use of props is fantastic, as well as the cluastrophobic sets. The lighting was also a factor in conjuring up the powerfully mad mood of the film. I am also impressed that he freely blended fact with reality, confusing the viewer and reminding me of Guy Maddin's My Winnipeg.  This must be where Madding got some of his inspiration for his film.

In conclusion, I do NOT recommend watching this film late at night. While I was in awe of Benjamin Christensen's genuis, I also wasn't able to get to sleep. This is a film that will horrify but also educate and might make you more sympathetic towards mentally disabled people and how they were treated throughout history. Haxan, like a lot of great film, is a film that needs to be seen more than once in order to be fully appreciated. Needless to say, you'll likely want to revisit it again and again. Praise it! 5/5

A Trip to the Moon Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: A Trip to the Moon
Director: George Melies
Year: 1902
Country: France
Language: French

While there were plenty of films made before A Trip To the Moon, none penetrated the imagination of the film audience like this. French Director George Melies was a film revolutionist who was far ahead of his time. When most Directors around the world  limited themselves and their films to realism at the end of the 19th Century and beginning  of the 20th Century, Melies dared to go outside the box and film a fantasy of incredible proportion. His film was also longer than most, while the average length for a film was 2-6 minutes. Melies' film was a staggering 16 minutes.

The film begins with a Scientific Congress in which Professor Barbenfouillis (George Mieles) tries to convince his peers and colleaues to take part on an extraordinary expedition to the moon. His plan eventually gets accepted, the voyage is organized and the scientists are sent to to the moon via spaceship. The spaceship lands on the eye of the moon, which is presented as a living thing with a human-like facial structure. On the surface the scientists meet hostile beings who take them to their king. All seems hopeless, except when they find out the beings are incredibly fragile and explode with just the touch of an umbrella.

The story of George Melies life and how he came to be the grandfather of Cinema is well known by now, as Martin Scorcese uncover many facts about Melies in his tribute to the history of cinema, Hugo. Born in Paris, France on December 1861 George Melies was a professional musician before he started his career in film. Back then "moving pictures" were more of a novelty at a circus and usually less than one minute in length. By accident, he discovered that he could use the latest stop-motion photography to use visual effects. He considered film a new form of magic, quit his business and made his own studio. Throughout his career he made over 600 film, the most accessible being A Trip to the Moon. Unfortunately he was unable to keep up with the changing film industry or directors such as D.W Griffith and had to spend the remainder of his life in poverty.

Both Director George Melies and his film A Trip to the Moon deserve their rightful place as a milestone in the history of Cinema. It has a surreal look and is an entertaining (even today) and groundbreaking film that showed than anything was possible in Cinema. He created special effects that were not seen in anything  before then, It broke rules, conventions, limitations and influenced the entire genre of Science fiction. Like Star Wars or 2001: A Space Odyssey? Then you owe Melies a lot of graditute.

In conlusion, without Melies we might not have ANY of the films we have today. Film may not have been able to mature out of the Circus and might might have stayed a 2 minute novelty because without Melies. I have incredible respect for this man and his film and everything they influenced. Everybody owes it to themselves to see at least two Melies films in their lifetime A trip to the Moon opened the doors and struck a heavy note into the soul of mankind. Praise it! 5/5

Forrest Gump Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Forrest Gump
Director: Robert Zemeckis
Year: 1994
Country: US
Language: English

"Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get" says the seemingly slow but remarkably intelligent Forrest Gump. Forrest Gump was the first non-animated films that I saw growing up and it left a profound impression on me. I needed to see this film as, like Forrest, I would eventually come across some difficulties due to a condition. While mine was physical, Forrest's was mental and even though he was supposed to have great setbacks in his life he overcame them with blissful optimism. 10+ views later and I still am inspired, wanting to move forward in life no matter what.

This film stars Oscar Winner Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump, a simple man with the IQ of 75. He spends his childhood in Southern Alabama with his best and only friend Jenny (Robin Wright) and his loving mother (Sally Field). He frequently quotes his 'mama'  who him the ways of life and leaves him to choose his destiny, reminding him that his disability shouldn't cause a dent to his unconquerable spirit. His life is an odyssey throughout American history, experiencing firsthand the ups and downs of the world around him. He leaves a great trail of inspiration wherever he goes, affecting those whom he meets. Though his mind will always be on his childhood sweetheart Jenny.

One of the very noticeable themes in this film is escapism. The need to escape from the world and run away from your problems. Jenny's need and reason for escapism is very clear, she was abused as a child and had very poor parental figures. She cannot come to terms with her reality and thus tries as hard as she can to get as far away from Alabama as possible. Unfortunately the result is that she meets some less than savy characters, some of which Forrest ends up punching out. She then uses drugs as mean to escape but that does nothing for her either. Lieutenant Dan uses the Vietnam war as a reason to escape from his life, he is so desperate that he wishes to die in battle. However, Gump saves him and thus his forced to face the problems of his life in America. Though they don't like facing their problems, it seems their lives get better once they do.

Forrest Gump not only shows that it isn't necessary to run away from problems, because running away will likely make it worse but it also shows that your problems can be overcome if you face them. It teaches that it doesn't matter what people think, just because they call you "stupid" that doesn't make it so and you shouldn't fall into despair because of it. Though Gump's IQ is only 75, he understand more about the world around him than most "intelligent" people. There's great irony when Jenny, a stripper, tell Gump "You don't know what love is" because Gump likely knows more about the nature of love than the woman criticizing him. Tom Hank's portrayal of Gump is more than incredible, he brings a great deal of complexity and diginity to this role. It seems impossible to think of anybody who could be better at playing the title character.

In Conclusion, Forrest Gump is a masterfully made film that should be recognized as one of the greatest American movies of all time. The special effects which include using computerized visual legerdemain to place Gump in historic situations with actual people are both fascinating and unique. The screenplay is unconventional and feels more like it would fit more of a great novel than a big budget film. Though it could be criticized as "too optomistic" I find the optimism of this film incredibly necessary. You would have to have half the IQ of Gump to not be moved by this film. Praise it! 5/5
.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Diving Bell and The Butterfly
Director: Julian Schnabel
Year: 2007
Country: France
Language: French

Back in 2007 I was given an English assignment, I was to read  Jean-Dominique Bauby's book The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. The whole book was written by Jean Bauby through blinking each letter while his supervisor wrote it down on a piece of paper. Why did he need to blink? Because everything in his body was completely paralyzed except for one of his eyes. Having a disability myself, a heart condition, I remember being greatly inspired by his book. When the film arrived in theatres in Canada I rushed to see it, amazingly the film was also very inspiring. 

The film begins with forty-three year old Elle magazine editor Jean-Dominque Bauby awakening in a hospital with no idea where he is or why he is there. He is in a Berck-sur-Mer hospital where he has woken up from a long coma induced by a massive stroke. Although he still has the ability to think and react in an intelligent manner,  he is suffering "locked in" syndrome. He is rendered physically unable to move, he can't even speak, what he can do is move his right eye. At first he wishes to die, who wouldn't in that situation? but throughout the film he slowly begins to change his mind.

This film could easily be grim and melodramatic or cheesy Hollywood happy, but thankfully it is neither. It is extremely faithful to Jean Bauby's book and makes the central character less of an inspiration and more of a hero. Anybody could have easily stuck with their suicide plan and refuse to get on with their life, but Jean Bauby decides not only to live but to write a book about his experiences. Having a heart condition I can tell you that it's very easy to give up when times are hard, especially since certain activities require twice the amount of effort from a healthy human. It's easy to feel depressed and bad about oneself, it's easy to give up on life. Jean Bauby replies  to this depression with a tremendous "NO!" He chooses not to be a victim but a conqueror of his illness. He does all he can and more. Forget David Lynch's The Elephant Man, Diving Bell and the Butterfly is the film everybody who is stuck in a tough situation should see.

Diving Bell and the Butterfly also has a lot to say about the power of the imagination. You don't have to use drugs or drink yourself into a stupor to "escape", you can just use your mind. You also don't need to pity yourself because you're not exactly what you want to be. You can either dream it or do it. If Jean Bauby can write an entire book with his eye while completely paralyzed what's to stop you from reaching your goals? The cinematography of this film helps it from having the audience feel "locked-in" as well. Graceful POV shots, delightful montages during Jean Bauby's revelation. The screen is filled with beauty and passion, life is not as bad as many make it seem.

In conclusion, at the end of this film you may find yourself with a box of tissues crying yourself away. It's an intensly wonderful film that will get you to appreciate life again. There is nothing to fear, want to write a book? Go ahead. Do what your dreams desire because even if you fail there will still be more opportunities lying ahead. As long as you're watching the film, buy the book too. You will be pleasantly surprised with both. Praise it! 5/5