Shrek Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Shrek
Year: 2001
Director(s): Adam Adamson & Vicky Jenson
Country: US
Language: English

We might not be able to comprehend it now, but back in 2001 many people thought Mike Meyers was funny. He was still riding high from the instantly quotable Austin Powers franchise, having enough star power to put butts in theater seats. Of course Meyers wasn't the first choice to voice the jolly green ogre; the late Chris Farley had his fair chance, but unfortunately he died. Despite this setback, Dreamworks was still able to pull off a wonderfully memorable film.

An ogre (Mike Meyers), in order to regain his swamp, travels along with an annoying donkey (Eddie Murpy) in order to bring a princess to a scheming lord (Cameron Diaz), wishing himself King (John Lithgow).

Shrek is a blatant spoof of the wholesome Disney flicks that we have been force-fed as kids for decades. It begins with classic Disney characters being sold to slavery, the main characters are incredibly ugly yet content with their ugliness and the hero of the film is the exact opposite of "prince charming". Not surprisingly Dreamworks was founded by a man who was fired from Disney; Jeffery Katzenberg. While he helped with memorable 90's hits like Alladin, he felt he was unappreciated and thus needed Shrek to vent.

Unlike most modern Disney flicks, Shrek will appeal to all ages, mainly because there are a lot of adult "in" jokes that children just won't get. The most apparent is the fact that the villain's name sounds a lot like "fuckwad". It's unfortunate that the film isn't able to stand on its own; there is a staggering amount of pop culture references that require the viewer to have at least seen one Disney film in order to get it. The animation is beautiful; it is quite a technical achievement to make each character look so fleshed out.

In conclusion, while I wouldn't recommend seeing any of the horrid sequels, Shrek itself has unique moments despite being entrenched in pop culture. Few movie characters are content with being themselves, even less heroes are fat rather than muscular he-men. I found myself laughing a lot when I watched it in 2001, and I still find it somewhat amusing now.  3/5

Saturday Night Fever Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Saturday Night Fever
Year: 1977
Director: John Badham
Country: US
Language: English

The late great film critic Gene Siskel's favourite movie was Saturday Night Fever. To him, it transcended simplistic notions of "good" and "bad", and spoke to him on a spiritual level. We all have films like that in our lives; pictures that relate to our real-life experiences and transcend our mind. For me, I find myself creatively inspired by Ingmar Bergman's Persona and Shohei Imamura's Profound Desires of the Gods. 

Nineteen-year-old Brooklyn native Tony Manero (John Travolta) lives for Saturday nights at the local disco, where he's king of the club, thanks to his stylish moves on the dance floor. It is the ultimate escape from his fractured home life. 

Early in the movie, Tony's girlfriend Stephanie tells him "You live with your parents, you hang with your buddies and on Saturday nights you burn it all off at 2001 Odyssey. You're a cliche. You're nowhere, goin' no place.'' He knows that she is right. He desperately wants to leave Brooklyn for something bigger and more exciting. Director John Badham perfectly captures the alienated youth of the 70's, as well as the self-destruction of the nuclear family household.

The theme of escaping to the big city is not unfamiliar in American Cinema. Just the same year George Lucas's Star Wars  captured a similar, yet weaker, essence. The home is portrayed as a trap; a road that leads to nowhere. The camera makes the home-scenes feel claustrophobic and tense. Perhaps the subplot with the father and Tony's priest brother is weak, but it makes for some pulse-pounding melodrama. Even though the film is not exactly perfect, it does grasp the angst and energy of teens very well.

In conclusion, I feel that Saturday Night Fever is John Travolta's greatest film. He is at the top of his game, certainly showing a strong understanding of dramatic acting. It's also worth seeing the picture just to witness Travolta's remarkable dancing. The film's themes are still relevant to this day; for some teenagers in 2014 this will be the ultimate escape flick. Praise it! 3.5/5

Grease Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Grease
Year: 1978
Director: Randal Kleiser
Country: US
Language: English

Grease is the word! In the 70's it was 50's nostalgia, and in the 2010's it is 70's nostalgia. Of course the picture would probably have faded into obscurity by now if it wasn't for 70's megastar John Travolta, who puts more charisma into his Elvis-like acting than Elvis himself. He was the definition of hunk back then; bringing grown women to tears of joy at just the sight of him, and  making heterosexual men just a little less confident in their sexuality. 

Good Australian girl Sandy (Olivia Newton John) and greaser Danny (John Travolta) fell in love over the summer. But when they unexpectedly discover they're now in the same high school, will they be able to rekindle their romance? The answer is yes, if Sandy becomes the stereotypical male fantasy. 

No seriously, Grease spends the majority of the picture attempting to break down insultingly simplistic gender stereotypes (Boys and emotion? No way!) only to say "fuck it" and resolve in social conformity. Danny is an ass the entire film and he is rewarded by Sandy changing her entire way of life for him. Do you two really go together like rama lama lama ka dinga da dinga dong? Wait...what the hell does that mean?

Does great, albeit sometimes nonsensical, music triumph morality? In this sensitive world of ours, how are we not offended by Grease? Instead of being seen as an intelligent woman, Sandy is seen as a prude bitch who needs to just "loosen up". Also, for a musical about the 50's it bears no resemblance to any 50's musical I've seen.

In conclusion, aside from the tunes and the star, Grease is a failure on so many levels. Instead of treating love and romance in any vaguely serious way, it goes for camp and thus hits a glass ceiling. It could have been so much better, but instead it's a poor man's substitute for Saturday Night Fever. Piss on it! 2/5

Phantom of the Paradise Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Phantom of the Paradise
Director: Brian De Palma
Year: 1974
Country: US
Language: English

During the mid-seventies the citizens of Winnipeg, MB, Canada fell head over heels with the Brian De Palma musical about sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Phantom of the Paradise came at the perfect time; hometown artists like Neil Young and The Guess Who were gaining mainstream success, funding for a concert hall, museum and Theater Centre came from all levels of government and Winnipeg was becoming a cultural tipping point. Phantom-mania ran wild, and its influence is still seen to this day.

The film stars William Finley as a  disfigured composer, who sells his soul for the woman he loves so that she will perform his music. However, an evil record tycoon betrays him and steals his music to open his rock palace, The Paradise.

With Phantom of the Paradise, De Palma  borrows from the usual cinematic forbears (Faust, The Phantom of the Opera, The Picture of Dorian Grey) and instills a high dosage of glam rock. The film is the physical embodiment of that era; showing the best and worst of the rock and roll lifestyle, while simultaneously sending viewers into a nostalgic frenzy  The music is of its time, it certainly could never be duplicated nor outdone.

A rebellious anti-corporation picture, Paradise borders on self-satire as it seems to mock everything in sight. It's quite unusual; an eccentric, and cheesy, musical that hits all the right notes and comes of as wholly original. In addition to having your reality turned upside-down by it's surrealism, you will also find yourself enthralled by the score by Paul Williams. Each song is as memorable as it is creepy.

In conclusion, somebody super like you will get a kick out of this underrated cult flick. I would rate this among De Palma's best, even above Carrie (1976). It is a fascinating musical that I could never forget, even if I tried. When I watched this as a child I was understandably very confused by all the glitz and glamor "Why are all the men wearing glitter?" . Praise it! 4/5

The Room Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Room
Year: 2003
Director: Tommy Wiseau
Country: US
Language: English

It is impossible to review Tommy Wiseau's The Room with a straight face, mainly because it is awful, everybody knows it is awful, but we choose to watch it anyways. It fails on every level, but many find it entertaining because it's such a failure. Thus in recent years it has become a cult phenomenon, on par with Plan 9 From Outer Space. The cult following Director Wiseau has gained is almost frightening.

Johnny (Tommy Wiseau) is a successful banker who lives happily in a San Francisco townhouse with his fiance, Lisa (Juliette Danielle) . One day she decides to seduce his best friend out of boredom. Will their lives ever be the same again?

Unusual for a midnight-movie favourite, The Room does not consist of Equinox-esque monsters, surreal imagery, crazy clowns or singing transvestites. Rather, it is shaped in the style of a conventional drama. However, the difference in this and every other drama is the awful director behind the scenes. Conversations stop and start at random, major plot points are introduced and then scrapped throughout the film and the acting is just unimaginably bad. 

The Room works more like comedy than drama, though the audience is not laughing with the film, instead they are laughing at it. The humorous quality of the picture is clearly not intentional. Wiseau himself suggests that his film should not be seen as a humiliating sideshow attraction, but rather as a complex work of art. One wonders if Wiseau is an idiot or a comic genius. 

In Conclusion, personally I think The Room is a complete waste of time to see, but it indeed does its job as being so bad that it's slightly funny. If you are a fan of watching completely stupid movies, then this is the film for you. (No rating for this film)