Top Ten Films of 2015- By Michael J. Carlisle

 Admittedly I haven't seen many films from this year. I made great effort to do so during the Summer and then got distracted by old classics like Satyajit Ray's Apu Trilogy. I don't even remember going to the theatre this year, which is quite odd as there usually is at least one film playing locally that is worth the admission. Unfortunately a lot of your favourites may be omitted, but perhaps you'll find something new to see in this list! Films will be reviewed individually at a later date.

1. Arabian Nights (Miguel Gomes) 

2. A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night (Ana Amirpour) 

3. 45 Years (Andrew Haigh)

4. White God  (Kornel Mundruczo)

5. The Forbidden Room (Guy Maddin)

6. Force Majeure (Ruben Ostlund) 

7. Love (Gaspar Noe) 

8. Love & Mercy (Bill Pohland) 

9. While We're Young (Noah Baumbach) 

10. Youth (Paolo Sorrentino) 

Die Hard Review-By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Die Hard
Year: 1988
Director: John McTiernan
Country: US
Language: English

T'was the night before Christmas, when all through the house
Not a creature was stirring, unless you count McClane
The bullets were riddled through the terrorists with care
In hopes the hostages would soon be spared

Hans Gruber was content on ruining the day
While units of policemen were shouting no-way!
the ending, well I'm I don't intend to spoil
but lets just say, some bad words were said as the villains were foiled
(unless you watch the censored version)
Yippee-Ki-Yay Melon farmer! 

John McClane (Bruce Willis), officer of the NYPD, tries to save wife Holly Gennaro (Bonnie Bedelia) and several others, taken hostage by German terrorist Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) during a Christmas party at the Nakatomi Plaza in Los Angeles.

When it comes to Christmas classics, John McTiernan's Die Hard doesn't quite get the respect it deserves. Sure it's not the family affair that is A Christmas Story, it's not as sentimental as It's A Wonderful Life and it doesn't have the child abandonment issues Home Alone has but it is set during Christmas eve so that has to count for something right? Die Hard has a bold anti-materialism message; McClane doesn't care how many windows he destroys or bullets he wastes, as long as he can see his wife for Christmas. He would do anything for FAMILY.

For a late 80's flick Die Hard contains some very impressive practical special effects. It also has remarkable stunt work & well conceived performances, especially by Alan Rickman. It's not a very smart movie, but very few of the action genre are.  It is said to have reinvented the action genre and set the 90s for action/thriller movies such as Under Siege and Passenger 57. The film is also responsible for popularizing the "action star" archetype that is a far more fallible and human hero. It's riddled with plot holes, thus not being very good if you think about it for too long, but it's decent when mindless. 3/5

Spaceballs Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

 Title: Spaceballs
Year: 1987
Director: Mel Brooks
Country: US
Language: English

Before Star Wars became a parody unto itself (although J.J Abrams appears to do well in  making us forget about Lucas' blunders) Mel Brooks stepped up to plate as he has done many times throughout his career. My favorite film of his, Blazing Saddles, made fun of Westerns too manly to show a scene full of men farting after a bean-filled dinner. The man rarely misses a beat; making us laugh hysterically throughout the run-time. Can the same be said for Spaceballs? 

Planet Spaceballs' President Skroob (Mel Brooks) sends Lord Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis) to steal planet Druidia's abundant supply of air to replenish their own, and only Lone Starr (Bill Pullman) can stop them.

Spaceballs' original theatrical run began during the 10th Anniversary of A New Hope and, while that certainly is practical, it's a shame Mel Brooks didn't think of making the film sooner when Star Wars was much more relevant. Though the film made a decent amount of cash & did fairly well with the critics I can't help but think it could have made a much bigger impact if released during the late 70's. In contrast, 1980's Airplane is only five years removed from the 1975 disaster film Airport  and thus made significantly more than Spaceballs at the box office

Mel Brook's sci-fi comedy is everything you'd expect out of a Brooks' affair; great visual gags, wacky characters and fourth wall breaking jokes. I particularly love when Dark Helmet watches Spaceballs: The Movie in order to find out about our heroes plans. The scene in which Yogurt (a parody of Yoda) demonstrates the power of merchandise is all too relevant in our commercialized studio system, ii shows the main reason why Star Wars has remained so successful. 

Admittedly some scenes drag on too long and/or are not as well written as you'd hope. There are many great gags, but overall the film appears to be lacking an essential item that would deem it "great". I suppose the comedy isn't really constructive or thought provoking, it's low brow and often juvenile. The comedy doesn't say anything that anybody else couldn't think of or hasn't thought of. That being said, I did laugh quite a bit. 3/5

The Force Awakens Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Force Awakens
Year: 2015
Director: J.J Abrams
Country: US
Language: English

Over the last 38 years, the Star Wars franchise has been so mass produced & mass distributed that everyone and their mama has heard of it. It has become as American as apple pie; it's almost a sin not to enjoy it. I have a hate-hate relationship with the series; A New Hope helped kill New Hollywood, an era of filmmaking defined by the counterculture, and brought about the blockbuster era. Essentially everything I hate about "Hollywood" these days (mass marketing, special effects over plot) started with Star Wars. Will I like this new installment however? Continue reading!

Three decades after the defeat of the Galactic Empire, a new threat arises. The First Order attempts to rule the galaxy and only a rag-tag group of heroes can stop them, along with the help of the Resistance.

First off, let me say that I LOVE Kylo Ren. Mainly because Adam Driver is playing the character & I am a huge fan of his work. He's a great actor & brings great depth to this fallen sith. This character is BETTER than Vader because he's more complex & isn't just some random villain. He's torn between a light side & a much more cult-ish dark side. I do like how the dark side is presented in more of a cult-like fashion rather than nazi militarism. It's a unique perspective.

The Force Awakens is MUCH better than the awful prequels, although that isn't saying much. ANYTHING is better than the prequels. Granted I did go into this film with very little expectations and found myself surprised. It isn't great, but it delivers & will excite fans of the series. It delivers, mainly because much of the plot is HEAVILY based on A New Hope (Droid has important info, Bad guys need to find it) J.J Abrams sticks with the familiar & doesn't try anything too risky. Do Star Wars fans want anything vastly different from the original though? Even if it's different in a good way? I doubt it.

I wouldn't recommend paying to see this; it will just entice Hollywood to keep making more big budget mindless action films. Spend your money on films that need the cash. Although at the same time, I'd like folks to support Adam Driver because that guy is going places. Stream The Force Awakens and then buy a boxset of Lena Dunham's Girls. 3/5

War Room Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: War Room
Year: 2015
Director: Alex Kendrick
Country: US
Language: English

In September 2015, a Christian film called War Room was #1 at the box office, and has since gone on to become the top-grossing independent evangelical Christian movie ever in North America. This is surprising, because my encounters with "Christian" flicks seem to leave me underwhelmed. They often try to reach a broad audience, but non-Christians find them preachy, near propaganda, too sentimental & condescending. Many don't show a realistic internal struggle that comes with either having or questioning faith. Pictures like Grace Unplugged depict faith as how rich white men experience it, not how it really is. Thought I respect the religion, I don't identify as a Christian. I'm more of an agnostic who wants to believe in God but isn't ready to take the "leap of faith". Here is my review of War Room
.
 The picture follows Tony and Elizabeth Jordan, a couple who seemingly have it all-great jobs, a beautiful daughter, their dream home. Unfortunately appearances can be deceiving. In reality, their marriage has become a war zone and their daughter is collateral damage.

"Victories don't come by accident"  Ok, but sometimes victories in war don't happen at all (as the case with Vietnam & the Iraq war). Sometimes victories happen at the cost of millions of lives. Sometimes we have to nuke Hiroshima & Nagasaki in order to win the war. Is this film going to end with the nuking of a spiritual Hiroshima? I hope not. 

On a serious note, what did I just watch? The husband is cheating on his wife and the WIFE is asking for forgiveness? Yep, it's a pretty sexist picture where the entire relationship depends on the woman & how she needs to gain more faith in God despite the husband being the problem. "How can I submit to my husband?"  Course the problem isn't him and his verbally abusive ways, no it's THE DEVIL who is purposefully messing with her mind. What the hell!? (pun intended!)

Ridiculously preachy, War Room is about as subtle as a napalm enema. "Go to hell and leave my family alone!" *triumphant music* Hey did you know that if you shout "in the name of Jesus!" to a mugger he'll leave you alone? Admittedly I didn't fully understand the concept of "faith" and "grace" before I watched the movie, but I feel this film reduced my understanding. Forget marriage counseling, PRAYER is what you need.

Perhaps the biggest sin this picture commits is the fact that it makes light of abuse. There's no other way to put it, her husband is an asshole and she constantly is apologizing for it. "I shouldn't be the judge, GOD is his judge!" Certainly one should work at their marriage, but we shouldn't be encouraging victim blaming. Granted the  husband does repent (seemingly out of the blue with no build up) , but the film suggests it's because of the wife's faith. "I will fight for our marriage because I love Jesus" Blah, I'm glad I didn't pay to see this. 0.5/5

Crash Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Crash
Year: 2005
Director: Paul Haggis
Country: US
Language: English

Webster's Dictionary defines racism as, "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." It also defines condescending as "to do something in a haughty way, as though it is below one's dignity or level of importance". With those two definitions in mind, we can proceed in reviewing Crash.

 Over a thirty-six hour period in Los Angeles, a handful of disparate people's lives intertwine as they deal with the tense race relations that permeate among life in the city.

Crash, along with Driving Miss Daisy, is perhaps the worst picture about race relations that I have ever seen. It's a heavy handed film in approach, never ceasing to be a preaching mess. Containing all the subtlety and nuance of a napalm enema, director Paul Haggis depicts racism as upper class white people see it, not how it really is. Racism is more than just "I'm a white woman who is sometimes scared of black men!", racism is complex & institutional.

Relying heavily on sentimentalism, Crash is Do the Right Thing dumbed down for pre-schoolers. The careless handling of such a serious and important topic is pretty insulting. The characters are dull & uninspired, which ultimately makes their eureka moment not worth much. I can't find much, if anything, positive about this flick. It's an attempt to be humanist gone wrong, an interweaving train wreck that constantly pats itself on the back. 

Ultimately Crash takes a reserved politically correct stance when addressing America's biggest problem. Poor dialogue, stiff acting and troublesome technique make this picture a failure in every sense of the word. I wouldn't watch it again. 0.5/5

Caligula Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Caligula
Year: 1979
Director(s): Tinto Brass, Bob Guccione
Country: Italy
Language: Italian

Born Gaius Julius Caesar, Caligula (AD 12- AD 41) was an emperor known for his cruelty, sadism, extravagance, and sexual perversity. Although he was well-liked during the first six months of his reign, most sources present his character as an insane tyrant. During his reign Caligula sought to increase his own power beyond rational means, directing attention to luxurious dwellings for his own personal use. In an attempt to restore the Roman Republic he was assassinated as a result of conspiracy by officers of the Praetorian Guard, senators, and courtiers

Caligula depicts the rise and fall of the notorious Roman Emperor, showing the violent methods that he employs to gain the throne, and the subsequent insanity of his reign.  There are various versions of the film, ranging from the heavily truncated 90-minute version to the legendary 160-minute hardcore version.

The film was originally set to be a low-budget historical drama film by Gore Vidal and his friend's nephew Franco Rossellini, but they found the budget too low to finish the picture. Desperate to complete the film, they turned to Bob Guccione, publisher of Penthouse magazine, for help. He inserted many scenes of hardcore sex & nudity to the film and as a result most of the cast & crew disowned the picture. Critics were also cold to it; Roger Ebert famously walked out of the picture in disgust, giving it a 0 star review and claiming that it was "sickening, utterly worthless, shameful trash."

Though controversial for it's time, Caligula may seem far more tame when compared to modern monstrosities like The Human Centipede. The film is quite graphic, but how does one make a picture about mad power without defying the grasp of censorship? It's depiction of corruption in ancient Rome, which dramatizes the political theme that "absolute power corrupts absolutely", is quite on point and quite effective despite very little plot, subtlety or meaning. Mainstream culture has accepted this notion of a barbaric Rome, and has depicted it in such a light time & time again. Caligula is noteworthy because it goes above and beyond where most films would dare go. It is ALL id. Praise it! 4/5

Capote Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

 Title: Capote
Year: 2005
Director: Bennett Miller
Country: US
Language: English

Truman Capote (1924-1984) was an American novelist, screenwriter, playwright, and actor. Rising above a childhood of divorce and absent parents, Capote first discovered his talent at the age of eleven. His passion paid off; many of his novels are recognized as American Literary Classics. At least 20 films and television dramas have been produced of Capote's works. With In Cold Blood, he is credited for inventing the "Non-Fiction novel"

Capote depicts a particular time in the novelist's life; the creation of In Cold Blood. Capote (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) learns about a murder case in Kansas and decides to write a book about it. While researching, Capote forms a relationship with one of the killers, Perry Smith, who is on death row.

At first Capote is non-chalant about the case in Kansas, but slowly his experiences writing In Cold Blood emotionally devastate him & hasten his death. The film demonstrates how Truman's eccentricity seemed to mask his great intelligence and deep emotional wounds. He cares deeply for others, unable to cease from sympathizing with his fellow man, even if they seemingly cold blooded killers. 

Capote is well written. well directed and well paced. It moves at a leisurely pace, but never ceases to lose your attention. Perhaps because Phillip Seymour Hoffman's acting is utterly phenomenal. Comparing the acting in this film to the many television interviews Capote has done, it is clear that Hoffman has embodied  the writer in every way imaginable. His acting Oscar was well deserved. 

The cinematography by Adam Kimmel is suitably gray and moody, with many evocative views of the flat Kansas plains (despite being shot in my hometown of Winnipeg, MB). The sets remind us of the 1960's; mainly accurately portraying the trends and fashions of the time. Capote is quite an impressive film, certainly worthy of its subject matter. Praise it! 5/5

Christmas Vacation Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Christmas Vacation
Year: 1989
Director: Jeremiah S. Chechik
Country: US
Language: English

Over the course of three National Lampoon "Vacation" flicks, Clark Griswold (Chevy Chase) became one of Hollywood's sweetest ineffectual husbands. Certainly a family man, all he wishes is his wife and kids have a great life filled with happiness and opportunity. Unfortunately he's not a very smart man, thus his bumbling antics often deliver chaos and hair-rising misadventure. It's a franchise with an obvious formula (vacation- chaos- uncle eddy- wife loses faith- suicide contemplation-everything works out in the end) but it works.

It's Christmas time and the Griswolds are preparing for a family seasonal celebration, but things never run smoothly for Clark, his wife Ellen (played by Beverly D'Angelo) and their two kids. Clark's continual bad luck is worsened by his obnoxious family guests, but he manages to keep going knowing that his Christmas bonus is due soon.

I always found it quite odd, that in this series the adults remain the same age & have the same actors playing them, but their children vary greatly. In this film they're teenagers  played by  Johnny Galecki (Rusty) and Julliette Lewis (Audrey). Christmas Vacation does what these Lampoon films do best; create a topsy-turvey portrait of the American family & their ideals. Everything we love/hate about the holidays is made fun of- from creepy visiting uncles to finding the "perfect" Christmas tree-without being too cynical.

Although I found many scenes in the film hysterical, I can't help but feel that the pacing of the picture is a bit off. At times we are asked to laugh at cousin Ed's hillbilly antics, but at other times we are asked to share some sympathy considering they can't afford to buy their children presents. Randy Quaid isn't a good enough actor to simultaneously gross us out and make us feel for him. The child actors also lack personality & make it hard for the audience to connect with them. John Hughes script is decent & Chechick's direction is passable, but many parts would work better if they were seperate SNL-like skits rather than contributing to a feature film. 2.5/5

Something Wild Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Something Wild
Year: 1986
Director: Jonathon Demme
Country: US
Language: English

 The name Lulu evokes the amoral, man-devouring heroine of G. W. Pabst’s classic silent film Pandora’s Box (1929), indelibly incarnated by Louise Brooks. Much like Cecil B. Demille did decades eaerler, Demme's femme fatale (in a very loose sense)  adopts Brooks’s distinctive black bob as well, along with more contemporary African jewelry, giving her an irresistibly exotic appeal.A late twentieth-century version of the opening of the mythical jar containing the evils of the world, her offer of a lift to the office turns into an excursion to New Jersey and wild sex with manacles in a seedy motel.

In Something Wild, Melanie Griffith plays a free-spirited woman who "kidnaps" a yuppie (Jeff Daniels) for a weekend of adventure, but the fun quickly takes a dangerous turn when her ex-convict husband (Ray Liotta)  shows up.

Director Jonathon Demme has said that on first reading the script, “I had no idea where the story was going . . . but I wanted to go along with it. And every time I thought I had figured it out, it veered off in another direction.” Indeed one moment we get a carefree comedy, another an enchanting melodrama, and another a tension filled crime picture. Something Wild often reminds me of a Simpsons episode called A Hunka Hunka Burns in Love (Season 14, Episode 4) in which Mr.Burns dates a young woman only to find out her ex-boyfriend Snake has been released from prison and is looking for her.

Demme himself has modestly characterized Something Wild as “an exciting attempt to marry screwball comedy with film noir,”It certainly is a bold attempt, although it sacrifices it's zany cutting edge speed in doing so. I've always felt that the High School reunion scene slows the film to a near halt and struggles to pick up after that. Although at the same time I found myself entranced by Ray Liotta's menacing performance. The second half of the picture is certainly important overall, but its impact is overshadowed by the first 30 minutes of the picture.

80's culture fills every frame of Something Wild. If nothing else, Demme has proved himself a master of Mise En Scene. The romance aspect of the picture takes a back seat to Charlie's existential crisis. In being exposed to a variety of cultures and backgrounds during his road trip he ultimately questions what he does and just who he is. While the film is not perfect, it is quite enjoyable for what it is. 3.5/5

In Cold Blood Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

 Title: In Cold Blood
Year: 1967
Director: Richard Brooks
Country: US
Language: English

With the book In Cold Blood, Capote claimed to have invented a new form, the “nonfiction novel.” Factual accounts of crime were common enough before, but Capote combined in depth reporting with the techniques of the New Journalism to create a work that was quite awe inspiring for its time. His development of this form, which he described as combining the “horizontal” linearity of journalism with the “verticality” of fiction, “taking you deeper and deeper into characters and events,” led him to give his narrative a filmic structure. A best seller of its time, Capote chose Brooks to entrust with his hot property because, as the writer explained, “he was the only director who agreed with—and was willing to risk—my own concept of how the book should be transferred to film."

After a botched robbery results in the brutal murder of a rural family, two drifters (Perry & Dick) elude police, in the end coming to terms with their own mortality and the repercussions of their vile atrocity.

Both Brooks and Capote wanted the film shot in black and white, which in 1967 still signified an alignment with documentary realism, and insisted on casting unfamiliar actors as the killers. Originally Paul Newman and Steve McQueen were supposed to play the part of the two killers, but that casting would have moved the picture in the wrong direction. Capote's narrative was detached from the events, thus being able to view its characters and their world from the outside with photographic objectivity. 

The film was controversial for the time, generating heat from those who found it gratuitously violent, an apology for murderers, a kneejerk liberal attack on capital punishment. Linked with Bonnie and Clyde (1967) many thought it signified a decay in American values. Obviously more shocking in 1967 than it was today, I personally felt In Cold Blood fairly assessed the murderers as both victims of a cruel childhood and senseless cold murderers. 

In Cold Blood is quite a powerful film because it is disenchanted and hopeless. Though the murders are  not graphically shown, the score-less scenes strike a nerve and make one wonder if such a thing as "security" exists. Brooks' American landscape seems very random indeed; it can yield both prosperity and bottomless misery, but getting either is entirely up to chance. Praise it! 5/5

Breaker Morant Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

 Title: Breaker Morant
Year: 1980
Director: Bruce Beresford
Country: Australia
Language: English

The second Boer war (Oct 1899 - May 1902) was a military engagement between the United Kingdom, the South African Republic and the Orange Free State. The British war effort was supported by troops from several regions of the British Empire (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) The first war began as a plight for independence against British rule. Originally opting for passive resistance, armed resistance became the only option for the Boers when the British made it clear that they would not budge. The second Boer War broke out after Britain rejected the Transvaal ultimatum. The ultimatum had demanded that all disputes between the two states be settled by arbitration; troops ought to be removed from the border and ships headed for South Africa needed to retreat.

In Breaker Morant, three Australian lieutenants (George Witton, Peter Handcock and Harry Morant) are court martialed for executing prisoners. They are being used as scapegoats by the General Staff, who hope to distance themselves from the irregular practices of the war

A high point of the Australian film renaissance of the 1970s and early ’80s, Bruce Beresford’s Breaker Morant is an incredible dramatization of one of Australia's more controversial episodes in its colonial history. Loosely based on a play by Kenneth Ross and a script by Jonathan Hardy and David Stevens for an unrealized television movie, this adaptation of history underwent significant changes by the Director. Beresford intends to use the story as political commentary, by displaying a stark contrast between the cozy moral certainties of the courtroom and the harsh justice meted out by soldiers brutalized by war. 

 Beresford takes full advantage of Donald McAlpine’s imposing photography in scenes of action that bring to life the courtroom testimony. His use of lighting foreshadows a great injustice  about to occur. It is suggested that the Australians are more "savage" than their enemies, at least from a bureaucratic standpoint. Reminding many of Stanley Kubrick’s Paths of Glory (1957) and Joseph Losey’s King & Country (1964), this film is a scathing commentary of "standard operating procedure". Such parallels in our own time can be seen, even when they are deemed politically unnacceptable

 Breaker Morant was a huge critical success in Australia, winning ten awards (including best film and best director) at the 1980 Australian Film Institute Awards. It was acclaimed as an important contribution to Australia’s film revival, although it did strike a nerve with the British public at the time of release. The film is quite memorable, I'd watch it again. Praise it! 4/5

Love & Mercy Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Love & Mercy
Year: 2015
Director: Bill Pohland
Country: US
Language: English

Emerging at the vanguard of "California Sound" in the early 60's, The Beach Boys consisted of brothers Brian, Dennis and Carl Wilson, their cousin Mike Love, and their friend Al Jardine. Brian was the leader of the band, enticing the group to experiment with jazz, psychedelic and baroque music. Starting with rather simplistic "feel good" tunes, their 66' album Pet Sounds represented a departure from elementary themes and a move toward greater depth. Despite their commercial and critical success,  the member's individual lives would slowly unravel due to mental illness and substance abuse.

Love and Mercy is ingeniously crafted through two different periods in Brian Wilson's life. In the 1960s, the artist struggles with emerging psychosis as he attempts to craft his pop masterpiece.  In the 1980s, he is a broken, confused man under the 24-hour watch of shady therapist Dr. Eugene Landy.

Paul Dano's uncanny resemblance of a youthful 1960's Wilson is quite astonishing; it certainly shows Dano's range as an actor. John Cusack's 80's incarnation is a little off-putting in comparison, but it certainly doesn't distract from the remarkable story being told. Though the subject of Brian Wilson’s tumultuous life has been examined onscreen many times - most notably in the 1995 documentary Brian Wilson: I Just Wasn’t Made for These Times- it hasn't been this engaging. The script, written by Oren Moverman and Michael Alan Lerner, is quite daring and imaginative. Director Bill Pohland sought to make picture more complex than most biographical films, and I feel he succeeded. 

The composer and sound designers do a great job and getting us inside the head of the famed musician. We not only hear the beautiful symphonies Wilson creates, but also the ravaging nightmares of a schizoeffective mind. His tortured soul hits us in ways we could not have imagined. Ultimately Love & Mercy is a delicate balance of love and hate, light and darkness, hope and despair. Surprisingly,  the film is an accurate representation of the events in his life, at least according to Wilson himself.

The film isn't perfect; I wish the film had a better way of letting the audience know how much time has passed (for example Wilson's relationship with Melinda doesn't "seem" like it has lasted years by the time the doc forces them to break up)  John Cusack and Elizabeth Banks' onscreen chemistry could be a little bit tighter and the running time could be 20 minutes shorter. Overall however, I was quite impressed with this picture and would definitely recommend it. Praise it! 4/5

Inside Llewyn Davis Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Inside Llewyn Davis
Year: 2013
Director: Coen Brothers
Country: US
Language: English

The "struggling artist who is desperately trying to find fame/fortune/love/redemption" story is one that Hollywood loves to milk, likely because it has become proper Oscar bait. Last year's example was Whiplash, which won J.K Simmons a "Best Supporting Actor" award. Other examples include: Ray, Walk the Line, Crazy Heart and The Wrestler. One might go into Inside Llewyn Davis concerned that this too would be formulaic and lack originality, but surprisingly the Coen Brothers' picture has a lot more depth.

 We follow a week in the life of a young folk singer (Oscar Issac) as he navigates the Greenwich Village folk scene of 1961. Guitar in tow, huddled against the unforgiving New York winter, he is struggling to make it as a musician against seemingly insurmountable obstacles.

 Bearded with unkempt hair falling over his eyes,  Davis is not necessarily easy on the eyes, he does not have an outstanding personality, he does not ooze charisma and his talent is at question sometimes. He is not the easiest guy to like; his morality is dubious and his intelligence wanes.Davis is  reluctant to make any of the commercial compromises that would build anything like a career, which is admirable. but it puts the man in near-absolute poverty. 

We sympathize with this tragic character, who is a victim of both circumstance and personal choice. Davis thinks he has something to prove with his music, but the entire film is full of doubt, sorrow and devastation. Unlike most Hollywood productions, Inside Llewyn Davis really makes us discuss a dilemma many creative people come across; when do artists cut their losses and abandon their careers? A lesser film would end on a positive note, but the Coens are ambiguous at best. Davis could stick around and it MIGHT make his life better, but at the same time it could also drive him to ruin. 

When Davis' sister suggests he quit music and return to the merchant navy, the musician erupts and tells her that to quit music is to merely "exist". It's troubling that the man doesn't notice his lack of current "existence". Still, it's inspiring to see such a driven artistic soul that remains unchanged despite difficulty. Inside Llewyn Davis is a unique film with remarkable acting and enchanting cinematography. Fully of humanity, the film is quite touching and thought provoking. Praise it! 4.5/5

The Fly (1986) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Fly
Year: 1986
Director: David Cronenberg
Country: Canada
Language: English

I first heard of this story from an episode in The Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror VIII called Fly vs. Fly. The very idea of accidentally switching DNA with another life form and then having to live with the results is very enticing. What if I switch my DNA with that of a kangaroo? Would I gain the ability to jump great distances or would I just have to live with a horrifying skin pouch for the rest of my life?  Would it be worth the risk? After seeing the episode I did some research and came across some films that played with this concept. What I found was The Fly (1958), The Fly (1986) and Spiderman (2002). Not wanting to watch a horror movie, I opted for The Fly (1986)

Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum), a brilliant but eccentric scientist attempts to woo investigative journalist Veronica Quaife (Geena Davis) by offering her a scoop on his latest research in the field of matter transportation. Unfortunately when he attempts to transport himself a fly enters the pod, and their DNA is altered for the worse.

A lazy reviewer might say the film is a warning against trying to date Geena Davis, and they would be right, but The Fly also seems to be a metaphor for the process of aging. Age continuously attacks our bodies, changing us physically, and cannot be cured. "Like AIDS!" you might have said in the 80's, but no, age is a much more apparent and consistent force that attacks everyone regardless of what they do. Failure of the human body generally occurring from “natural causes” happens much earlier than the decline of the mind, leaving the individual to stew in their state. Externally, little remains of Brundle’s humanity; but internally he is fighting for dear life and, sadly, losing.

Though the makeup is phenomenal, the true terror isn't in Brundle's physical transformation but in his mental transformation. It is scary to see such a brilliant scientist degraded into a mere fly. The man is a helpless victim, attempting to remain emotionally strong but eventually giving in to the fly's impulse.

Cronenberg's brand of biological horror has never ceased to scare the hell out of me. If there's one great "horror" director it's him, for he can get under the skin of the bravest of us. The “King of Venereal Horror" could certainly have added even more depth to such a fascinating subject, but it's good as a philosophical journey regarding mind & body.3.5/5

Carrie (1976) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Carrie
Year: 1976
Director: Brian De Palma
Country: US
Language: English

Written while he was living in a trailer, on a portable typewriter that belonged to his wife, Stephen King originally envisioned Carrie as a short story to be published in the popular Cavalier magazine. Shortly after throwing the first few pages in the trash, King was challenged by a woman who told him he was too macho and wasn't a good enough writer to dissect the world of the opposite gender. His wife suggested he expand the story into a novel and he followed that advice. Within the first year of being published, Carrie sold over a million copies.

Brian De Palma's film adaptation follows Carrie White (Sissy Spacek), a shy and outcast 17-year old girl who is sheltered by her domineering, religious mother.She unleashes her horrifying telekinetic powers after being humiliated by her classmates for the last time at her senior prom.

Carrie is a surprisingly deep character study, focusing on a seemingly naive woman and her difficult transition into womanhood. De Palma has actually improved the original work, which was rather dull and shallow. Instead of being faithful to the source material, the director’s approach considers with great care the emotional state of every character involved. He also makes Carrie an allegory for the poor treatment of women around the world, as well as the conscious and unconscious fear of women.

Carrie White represents the long and often lost battle fought by women persecuted for their femininity, wherein even their victories are damned. She is an abstract monster that requires a greater deal of analysis than the typical "horror" antagonist. Far from being low-brow entertainment, Carrie exposes societies' contempt for the common woman and suggests that it may be due to a religious notion that links womanhood with sin.

Stephen King's novel does not hold up well compared to De Palma's film. The director made many changes (such as Carrie's telekinetic powers only available during an emotional outburst) that greatly elevated the story being told. It is more sexual, more hopeless, more violent and more terrifying. If you're a fan of "horror" (although labeling it as such kind of does the film a disservice) then this is a must see. Praise it! 5/5

The Wolfpack Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Wolfpack
Year: 2015
Director: Crystal Moselle
Country: US
Language: English

The genesis of this documentary occurred in 2010, when Director Crystal Moselle ( a graduate of New York's School of Visual Arts) stumbled upon upon a group of six peculiar-looking siblings while walking down First Avenue in Manhattan. Aged between 11 and 18 years old, they wore outfits very similar to those seen in Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs. Crystal immediately befriended them, bonding quickly because of their love of Cinema. She later found out their strange story and was compelled to film it.

Locked away from society in an apartment on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, the Angulo brothers learn about the outside world through the films that they watch. Their father, Oscar, had the only door key and prohibited the kids from leaving the apartment except for a few strictly-monitored trip.

Much like the Maysles' Grey Gardens, Moselle's picture draws us into a strange barely functioning home and allows us to gawk at such fascinating subjects. It's a few steps above reality television, being of far better production value and at least attempting to be sophisticated. The subjects are treated with respect and are given plenty of time to tell their story the way they want to. Although, I personally don't really "get" how social services allowed such an unstable environment to fester for so long. I also don't really "get" how these kids could be so well balanced. Most people who have endured similar treatment don't just have social anxiety.

Unfortunately The Wolfpack doesn't have much strengths after the initial gimmick wears out. Seemingly dramatic moments, like the brothers going to a theatre for the first time, aren't filmed with any flair. The Director doesn't do anything with the sociological, psychological and philosophical implications of being isolated, rather the she lets it play out like any other "teenage rebellion"  story. Thus, even though their situation is very unique, it really doesn't feel special.

The Wolfpack had the potential to be a very thought provoking journey, but isn't bold enough to take that extra step. The idea was enough to get me to watch the film, but the presentation is lackluster at best. The picture ultimately takes us nowhere, leaves us with more questions than answers (in a bad way) and is quite disappointing. Piss on it! 1.5/5

Muppet Treasure Island Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Muppet Treasure Island
Year: 1996
Director: Brian Henson
Country: US
Language: English

Originally serialized in the children's magazine Young Folks between 1881 and 1882,  Robert Louise Stevenson's novel Treasure Island is a coming of age story featuring characters of moral ambiguity, unusual for literature directed at youth. Its influence on the popular perceptions of pirates is rather staggering. Over 50 film adaptations of this work have been made, even Orson Welles and Charlton Heston had to dip their toes in the material. The particular version being focused on today is Brian Henson's Muppet Treasure Island.

An orphan named Jim Hawkins (Kevin Bishop) is given a treasure map. He must keep it away from Long John Silver and his band of pirate thugs. Kermit the Frog and the rest of the Muppets go on a warfare against these pirates in order to restore justice to the sea.

Using the Muppets is a perfect way to bring the original source material to a new generation. After the success of  A Muppet Christmas Carol (1992) the Henson family must have had confidence that audiences really wanted Muppet-izations of classic literature. Not to discredit Robert Louise Stevenson, but his novel does not translate well to an audience that's more than a century younger than it. 

From the opening number "Shiver My Timbers" we certainly get a sense that Muppet Treasure Island isn't trying to fit in with every other adaptation. It's far more theatrical and over-the-top. Every actor chews the hell out of the scenery; even Billy Connolly, whose character has less than 10 minutes of screen time, is made quite memorable just by his exaggerations "THE BLACK SPOT!!!" Two decades after Rocky Horror Picture Show Tim Curry can still belt out a fantastic song. (ps. you might not want to take your kids to Rocky Horror Picture Show)

Maybe the dreadful Pirates of the Caribbean movies cast every other pirate film in a good light, maybe a sense of nostalgia is clouding my judgement, but Muppet Treasure Island is not a bad film in any sense. At worst it's an entertaining escapist picture that drags in the middle and picks up toward the end. I enjoyed it as a child and still find many scenes quite captivating. You can have Johnny Depp, I'll keep Tim Curry. 3/5

The Matrix Trilogy Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Matrix Trilogy
Year(s): 1999-2003
Director(s): Wachowski Brothers
Country: US
Language: English

Grossing over $460 million worldwide and winning many prestigious awards, including four Academy Awards, The Matrix often appears in various lists centered on "Greatest Science Fiction Films of All Time". In 2012 the film was also added to the National Film Registry in 2012. The financial and critical success of the picture led to the release of two feature film sequels, both written and directed by the Wachowskis, The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions. This then led to further expansion through comic books, video games, toys and short films.

A computer hacker (Keanu Reeves) learns from mysterious rebels about the true nature of his reality and his role in the war against its controllers

The Matrix is praised for it's philosophical mumbo jumbo and religious allegory, generally being considered a "deep" 90's film, but I actually think it's quite shallow. The allegory is not AT ALL subtle; Neo (anagram for *shocks* ONE) is blatantly told he is "like Jesus Christ" and this idea is repeated over and over. Huh I WONDER HOW THE MOVIE IS GOING TO END. It "pays homage" to Lewis Carrol's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by having dialogue wherein somebody asks Neo to follow them "down the rabbit hole". Uhh...cool? That obviously is the very definition of "mind blowing".

The general concept of Matrix "The world is not what it seems/the world is a lie" has been used in Hollywood a great number of times, often in more intelligent ways. Hell The Truman Show, a film released one year earlier had a similar concept which was used in a FAR greater capacity. Film-goers often forget the really idiotic parts of the picture, such as Jesus Neo being resurrected by the tears of his loved one (although their love isn't completely established by that point, so it's pretty awkward). The special effects. which honestly looked pretty bad for 1999, look even worse by today's standards. If this review was in video format I could easily point out where the green screen is and how the film was shot, and I didn't have to research that part, it's obvious!

To clarify, while I'm reviewing the Matrix Trilogy as a whole, Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions are not bringing the rating for the original film down. The first movie was AWFUL for every reason imaginable. Bad acting, bad special effects, bad allegory, poorly conceived concept etc. The sequels weren't "worse", they simply followed the same trend of bad storytelling.  Piss on it!

The Matrix- 1.5/5
Matrix Reloaded- 1.5/5
Matrix Revolutions- 1.5/5

Independence Day Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Independence Day
Year: 1996
Director: Roland Emmerich
Country: US
Language: English

Also cleverly referred to the "Fourth of July", because it takes place annually on July 4th, Independence Day is an federal holiday commemorating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. The Continental Congress declared that the thirteen American colonies should be regarded as a new nation called The United States of America. By doing this they freed themselves from the British Empire and became, well, independent. This movie is not about that famous historical event... at all.

Aliens are coming and their goal is to invade and destroy Earth. Fighting superior technology, mankind's best weapon is the will to survive.

Seriously, how does this movie relate to Independence Day at all? How does this film reflect the American value system? I suppose we can see some parallels to 9/11 (albeit made 5years earlier) and/or World War II in this picture; foreign invaders blow up something Americans treasure and they retaliate by blowing the shit out of their enemy. Is this the most positive aspect of American culture? Why are the aliens attacking earth? How do the aliens have such advanced technology yet can't defeat the US military? Why do the aliens operate on earth time?

I'll give points for explosions, but aside from special effects that look bland compared to more recent pictures, I can't think of much positive to say. Each characters is chosen for their ethnic, occupational and sexual diversity. They embody a stereotype throughout the film and thus it's difficult to connect with anybody, because anytime they appear on screen I want to cringe. The writing is awful, perhaps the worst I've seen in an action film. The plot doesn't make any sense, the dialogue is filled to the brim with action cliches and the ending is quite predictable.

Essentially Independence Day is 2 hours of "hurrah hurrah" pat yourself on the back patriotism. The US army can fix everything & the US is the greatest nation on Earth because reasons. It's a quite hollow picture, but I'll admit it has one great visual that makes it stand out (the white house blowing up) I suppose if you view it as mindless entertainment it could be passable. Signs was a better alien movie, SIGNS. Piss on it! 1.5/5

Wayne's World Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Wayne's World
Year: 1992
Director: Penelope Spheeris
Country: US
Language: English

"Wayne's World! Wayne's World! Party Time! Excellent!"
 "SHWING!"
"She's a Babe
"She's a Robo-Babe. If she were a president she'd be Babe-raham Lincoln
" It will be mine. Oh yes. It will be mine."
That is my introduction to this review. 

 Wayne (Mike Myers) is still living at home. He has a world class collection of name tags from jobs he's tried, but he does have his own public access TV show. A local station decides to hire him and his sidekick, Garth (Dana Carvey), to do their show professionally. Unfortunately they clash with "the man" who wants to change the very nature of their wacky program. 

Opening with a memorable car scene involving the dimwits headbanging to Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, Wayne's World is an absolute laugh riot and remains so throughout the runtime. It maintains its humor not by using obscene language or vulgar comedy, but by mixing clever dialogue and tongue-in-cheek sight gags. Who can forget Garth falling in love with a blonde babe & then day dreaming about using Jimi Hendrix' "Foxy Lady" to swoon her or Wayne's quite obvious product placement? "We'll never bow to the sponsors"

It is easy to connect with Wayne and Garth, even at their most goofy. Myers' conversations with the camera not only gives this picture a mocumentary-like feel, but also makes the character's relationship with the audience all the more intimate. We are given a sense that these characters have nothing to hide and only want to party/get babes, but are also complex and full of  raw emotion. We either want to be Wayne and Garth or be with them. It's a weird comedy, but all the better for it. 

Wayne's World is an innocent entertaining comedy that hits all the right notes. I can't say that it's "great" (after all, it didn't do anything innovative & didn't challenge any convention) but it certainly is a film I'd see more than once. It's a shame Carvey and Myers' careers have gone downhill, but hopefully at least one of them will produce something great in the near future. 3.5/5

Me and Earl and the Dying Girl Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Me and Earl and the Dying Girl 
Year: 2015
Director: Alfonzo Gomez-Rejon
Country: US
Language: English

I find the latest trend of adolescent pictures revolving around someone dying of cancer to be somewhat irksome. In many cases (most notably the commercially successful The Fault in Our Stars) the illness acts as a cheap way to manipulate the viewers' emotion. Terminal illness has sadly become a very marketable commodity in the film industry. I'm also hesitant to watch films about Generation Y, because so many of them are filled to the brim with cliches and typical characters like the flamboyant gay best friend, the underdog geeky main character and his hot love interest. Me and Earl and the Dying Girl is a mixed bag.

Seventeen-year-old Greg (Thomas Mann)  has managed to become part of every social group at his Pittsburgh high school without having any friends, but his life changes when his mother forces him to befriend Rachel (Olivia Cooke), a girl he once knew in Hebrew school who has leukemia

Winning both the Audience Award and the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival, Me and Earl and the Dying Girl is quite a joy to film buffs who get to see glimpses of spoofs which involve their favorite films. I've always wanted to see My Dinner with Andre the Giant and I'm glad it was written,albeit briefly, into the film. Greg and Earl's obsession with Werner Herzog, in particular Aguirre the Wrath of God, leads to some very funny moments. There are also some very well developed scenes, such as the mesmerizing ending and Greg's heated argument with dying Rachel.

Unfortunately the film is too self aware for its own good. Every cliche arrives with a wink and a brief commentary ("I know this has been done before")  Film buffs are too smart for this "honesty" and have seen far greater commentary in far greater movies. Wayne's World isn't a "great" film, but it's acknowledgement of typical tropes is actually hilarious. Earl's character is problematic and borders on racism. He's a black guy who's living in squalor for no apparent reason (other to be "urban") and he speaks like how a KKK leader thinks a black guy speaks ("seen them titties yet?") Also despite the film being about a dying girl, the focus is on the male lead and how he is changed by HER cancer.

I was initially very excited to see this picture, but after I was a little disappointed with it. Brief instances of genius and superb camera work do not make up for lazy, cliched, somewhat sexist and somewhat racist writing overall. Does this film champion the film snob? Not at all, but it does give an effort. 3/5

Chicago Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

 Title: Chicago
Year: 2002
Director: Rob Marshall
Country: US
Language: English

Based on a 1926 play by the same name, the original Broadway production of Chicago opened in 1975 at the 46th Street Theatre and ran for 936 performances until 1977. Bob Fosse choreographed the original production, and his style is strongly identified with the show. It was revived on Broadway in 1996, eventually gaining the record of the longest-running musical revival. It is also the longest-running American musical in Broadway history, and is the second longest-running show in Broadway history, behind Phantom of the Opera. 

The plot revolves around murderesses Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta Jones) and Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger) who find themselves on death row together and fight for the fame that will keep them from the gallows in 1920s Chicago.

 Centering on America's thrill-hungry, low-attention-span press and public;  an attack on sensationalism that has been present in films as distant as the 30's, Fosse's influence style added a touch of predatory sex, outlandish sexuality and wild justice. The atheletic, exposed skin of the dancers provided a stark contrast to the cold callousness of the characters who claim they're innocent because "he had it coming". The picture maintains much of Fosse's original vision, but is different enough to warrant some points for originality. 

The decision to use actors instead of legitimate dancers and singers has always perplexed me in regards to Hollywood musicals. At least Judy Garland (Wizard of Oz) and Liza Minnelli (Cabaret) had a tremendous amount of training before their first big production. Although perhaps criticizing the film for this aspect is in poor taste considering even Queen Latifah could belt out a great song.  At the 2002 Academy Awards Chicago won 6 Oscars, which included "Best Picture", and frankly one could make a case that it deserved all of them. (I would have gone with The Pianist however) 

For doing what Moulin Rouge couldn't a couple years before, which is making a competent engaging musical with actually good music, Chicago deserves great praise. Although the style has been seen before, the film is the best musical of the 21st Century so far (although it's not hard to stand out when your competition is Mama Mia). An underrated film that gets more slack than it deserves. 
Praise it! 4/5

Moulin Rouge Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Moulin Rouge
Year: 2001
Director: Baz Luhrmann
Country: US
Language: English

Born Sept 17, 1972 Baz Luhrmann is an Australian film director, screenwriter and director who, in 2013, continued to make waves when he adapted F.Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby to the big screen. Fairly critically and commercially successful, I first heard of him when I saw his adaptation of Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet in elementary school. Even back then I thought it was a terrible bastardization of the source material, and I could barely understand the source material. Perhaps his idea of a musical would impress me. Moulin Rouge looked promising, but would it deliver? Nope.

Ewan McGregor stars as a poet who falls for a beautiful courtesan (Nicole Kidman) whom a jealous duke (Richard Broxburgh) covets. It all takes place in Paris; specifically the Moulin Rouge.

Bob Fosse (1927-1987) was an innovative editor when it came to his film musicals. He made razor-sharp edits at the change of a dancer’s direction, or as an extension of his combination moves.It was rhythmic and methodical, each cut had an important purpose to either the story or the character development. Luhrmann edits like a schizophrenic without medication. He cuts far too frequently, without any intelligent reason. Often it's disorienting and makes the film fairly hard to follow. I get that he wants the picture to have an aura of eccentrism, but he must sacrifice a coherent story for it.

Far from being a technical masterpiece, Moulin Rouge also fails at giving its audience the bare minimum of what a musical should have; THE MUSIC!!! The film is set in the late 19th Century, but it samples tracks from contemporary culture ("Roxanne", "Like A Virgin") which would be permissible had they not been sung so poorly and placed so in such a bizarre position during the run-time. The film desperately grasps at straws; borrowing from any period or style that the typical MTV viewer will recognize, but aside from the beautiful set design there is nothing worth seeing.

Moulin Rouge is the no-name brand of the musical genre. If you set your expectations really low you may enjoy it, but I expect far more. It's almost machine-like in the way it exhumes typical movie cliches and shoves Hollywood propaganda down our throats. I feel bad for Jim Broadbent, a great British actor, having this in his resume. Piss on it! 1/5

Cabaret Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Cabaret
Year: 1972
Director: Bob Fosse
Country: US
Language: English

Winning the Oscar, Tony and Emmy in the same year (1973) for direction- a feat never done before or since- Bob Fosse changed film and stage forever with his innovative choreography. He would give his musical sequences subtext; there would always be an internal and external reason for why the musical number was to happen. Jazz dance and movement served as the foundation for his work, and he used it to create Fosse-dance, which was highly stylized, featuring muscle isolation, sexuality, contempt, and cynicism. 

 In Cabaret, a female night club entertainer (Liza Minnelli) in Weimar Republic era Berlin romances two men while the Nazi Party rises to power around them.

 With the enormous financial and critical success of Fosse's Cabaret, Hollywood would no longer be making happy-go-lucky musicals like Sound of Music and Bye Bye Birdie. The musical would transform into the gritty and perverse, oozing with sexuality and freedom. Key players would no longer burst into random song, but rather methodically plan it out. For instance the motivation for Minnelli to sing is the night club. The Kit Kat Klub, a grimy basement joint decorated mainly with tin foil and naked bulbs and lorded over by an impish androgyne (Joel Grey). The club's atmosphere is beautifully broken; a dazzling display of madness and eccentricity. 

Cabaret is an affront to the standard movie-musical trope, and all the better for it. Fosse's intention is to simultaneously root the production numbers in realism while also not being entirely stuck in a particular mess of historical accuracy. He employs Liza Minnelli, daughter of Judy Garland, to act as Louise Brooks' esque seductress, and churns out one of the greatest film performances of all time. Liza demonstrates a remarkable acting ability; even if you are as mesmerized by the actress as I am, she can still make you despise the character she's playing. 

Going head to head with The Godfather is not an easy task, and although it didn't win "Best Picture", Cabaret won in more categories (including "Best Actress" and "Best Director") We can see an immediate impact on the film industry as gritty 70's musicals like Rocky Horror Picture Show and Phantom of the Paradise wouldn't be made without Fosse's influence. Unfortunately Hollywood has lost its focus on the musical (the last to win "Best Picture" was the Fosse inspired Chicago) but I don't think the genre is down for the count just yet. Praise it! 5/5