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