Hitchcock/Truffaut Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Hitchcock/Truffaut
Year: 2015
Director: Kent Jones
Country: US
Language: English

If you have read my previous reviews, or consider yourself a "film buff" in anyway, then you undoubtedly must have heard of the great "Master of Suspense". Alfred Hitchcock, whose Vertigo made the best film of the prestigious Sight and Sound poll, is one of the most influential filmmakers to have ever lived. His influence on the motion picture industry remains to this day. Unfortunately in the early 60's he was viewed as merely an entertainer rather than an "artist". Francois Truffaut's book Cinema According to Hitchcock changed this notion and laid the groundwork for how we view cinema as an artform. 

In this documentary, filmmakers like Wes Anderson, David Fincher and Martin Scorsese discuss how Francois Truffaut's 1966 book Cinema According to Hitchcock influenced their work. 

Blending sound clips from the original audiotapes (in which Hitchcock and Truffaut are joined by the translator, Helen Scott) with selected moments from Hitchcock’s films as well as interviews with a rarefied handful of current-day directors, Kent Jones' picture is a typically made documentary that allows fans of Hitchcock to rejoice in their hero. It's a very one sided picture; there is no debate, Hitchcock is an "artist" in every sense of the word. 

Of course you would be a fool to debate the legitimacy of Hitchcock's contributions to the silver-screen. However, since the film is about Hitch's influence, I would have preferred less clips of Psycho, The Birds etc. and more clips from other artist's filmography.  Brian De Palma was greatly inspired by the man's films, yet we never analyze Dressed to Kill or Blow Out. We never analyze Truffaut's Soft Skin or the Hitchcockian methods of Martin Scorsese. The directors just say "he inspired all of our work". Ok...but how!?

The enormously popular films in Hitch's library take center stage of the picture, which is unfortunate for his early work & hidden gems. We see a lot of Rear Window (1954), but very little of the MUCH more influential The 39 Steps (1935). While Hitchcock/Truffaut isn't a bad picture, it isn't as insightful as I would have hoped. There are far better ways to dissect the man's genius; even an audio commentary would prove to be a greater method. .

Gerry Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Gerry
Year: 2002
Director: GusVan Sant
Country: US
Language: English

Gus Van Sant's Gerry has a polarized audience; those that think it is a visionary/transcendent masterpiece and those that feel it is a self-indulgent, molasses-paced arthouse bore. Clearly made with reckless abandon, without a niche audience or market profile in mind, Gerry was destined to alienate the mainstream and leave critics like Roger Ebert on their toes. I first viewed this film 6 years ago, and still find it to be absolutely breathtaking. 

A friendship between two young men (Casey Affleck and Matt Damon) is tested when they go for a hike in a desert and forget to bring any water or food with them. 

Gerry is an achievement in Cinema because it is the first American narrative film available to a mainstream audience to employ an excessive long take style in a uniform manner and in a particular rhythm across the whole of its length. Takes as long as 2 minutes permeate the run time and dominate the pace of the picture. There is very little plot in terms of dramatic action or conflict, infact much of the film just consists of two friends silently walking across the desert. 

Gerry demonstrates that interesting and exciting is a relative term that does not need to translate into melodrama. It's beautiful cinematography, complex character developments, ingenious camera movements and great use of sound all make for a great picture. Influenced by directors Bela Tarr, Andrei Tarkovsky, and Chantal Ackerman, all of whom have isolated the tendency to shoot in extreme long takes, emphasize real time, and with reduced plot, Gerry is a film where patience is a large requirement of its audience. 

Overall I was impressed by Gus Van Sant's brave masterpiece of Cinema. Though I doubt it did well at the box office, Gerry is certainly a film that amazes with each viewing. With this picture, Gus Van Sant ventures down a different, less traveled cinematic path, one meant to invoke themes not often explored in conventional cinema.

Dracula (1992) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Bram Stoker's Dracula
Year: 1992
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Country: US
Language: English

Marking the first significant box-office victory for director Francis Ford Coppola outside of his Godfather trilogy, his adaptation of Bram Stoker's legendary tale strayed off the usual path of fear and emphasized more romantic and sensual themes. Of course, elements of horror such as Dracula’s monstrous manifestations (as a wolf-man and bat-creature) and gallons of blood fill the screen, but these are employed in a metaphoric sense rather than to evoke terror in the viewer. The marketed tagline after-all is "Love Never Dies" 

A young lawyer (Jonathan Harker) is assigned to a gloomy village in the mists of eastern Europe. He is captured and imprisoned by the undead vampire Dracula, who travels to London, inspired by a photograph of Harker's betrothed, Mina Murray (Winona Ryder). In Britain, Dracula begins a reign of seduction and terror.

Oscar winning costumes by Ishioka Eiko and gorgeous production design by Thomas Sanders and Garret Lewis are one of the many technical qualities this picture has. Coppola's picture is also well directed, well cast, well written and has gorgeous cinematography. When budget constraints forced Coppola to shoot on soundstages and special FX wizards told him modern technology couldn’t achieve the desired effects he wanted, Coppola decided to oversee the effects using old Hollywood techniques like miniatures, models, matte paintings and double exposures.

This Dracula tale has the energy and visual inspiration not seen in adaptations before it. I'm not entirely sure I like Coppola's version however; his Dracula is a little too human and it strays a little too far from the source material. Gary Oldman plays a more sympathetic villain who we are supposed to connect with. The film has an uneven pace as well. 24 years later, Dracula feels more outdated than even the 1922 German Expressionist silent  Nosferatu

Bram Stokers Dracula is quite flawed, even though it is a technically stunning picture. The costume design was easily the best aspect of the film. For his Oscar, Japanese designer Eiko captured elements of Kabuki Theater and Bela Lugosi mysticism to create quite memorable fashion. I must say I like the Universal Horror Dracula (1931) far better even though it is much less elaborate.

Purple Rain Review- By Michael J, Carlisle

Title: Purple Rain
Year: 1984
Director: Albert Magnoli
Country: US
Language: English

A year before Purple Rain hit the airwaves, Michael Jackson's Thriller was dominating radio and television. Selling over 22 million copies worldwide, becoming the sixth best-selling soundtrack album of all time, Prince's magnum opus manage to distract the public from MJ and turn the purple one into an 80's megastar. The film...wasn't as big of a critical success (it was nominated for two razzies) but did manage to bring in quite a bit of money at the box office. 

A young musician (Prince), tormented by an abusive situation at home, must contend with a rival singer, a burgeoning romance, and his own dissatisfied band, as his star begins to rise.

Praised for it’s innovative shooting of concert footage and clever editing of montages, while simultaneously criticized for it’s amateurish acting and ham-fisted story line, Purple Rain is a mixed bag that comes off as a poor man's Saturday Night Fever. This film is slightly different from typical musicals of the time however; often, as in Flashdance, the music is more of the background to the story.With Purple Rain, the performance/music aspect is at the forefront and everything else (acting, writing, story) takes a backseat. 

The costumes, hairstyles, make-up and styles are all relics of the decade. While their time may have passed, they remain indelible in defining this period of music for everyone. The disco era was dead but the dread of synthetic beats and amyl nitrate culture still lingered. A combination of funk and rock, Prince's music in this film really was revolutionary. 

Even with the thin script, Prince manages to give us moments of electricity which bounce off the screen. Despite being a poor actor, there is no doubt that Prince is incredibly charismatic and his energy definitely translates to audiences during the musical numbers. Despite not being a "great" film, it's still a "great" snapshot of American music in the early 80's.

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Adventures of Robin Hood
Year: 1938
Director: Michael Curtiz
Country: US
Language: English

For The Adventures of Robin Hood, Warner Brothers went all out on production, creating a swashbuckling costume epic that would appeal to all ages. The finest talent, both onscreen and off screen, were gathered to create the first grand Technicolor masterpiece. Indeed it's an iconic picture, a great financial and commercial success that would have spawned a sequel if not for the imminent second World War. Directed by Michael Curtiz (Casablanca), this particular cinematic version of the thief who "stole from the rich and gave to the poor" has a timeless quality & is entertaining even 78 years later. 

When Prince John (Claude Rains) and the Norman Lords begin oppressing the Saxon masses in King Richard's absence, a Saxon (Errol Flynn)  lord fights back as the outlaw leader of a rebel guerrilla army.

In the mid-1930s, each of the Big Five studios had their genre: Warner Bros. was known for James Cagney gangster pictures and Busby Berkeley musicals. For years, films like The Public Enemy (1931) and The Gold Diggers of 1935 sustained the studio’s financial position, but limited diverse output, hindering the studio’s reputation. The studio would find themselves surprised when A Midsummer Night’s Dream and William Keighley’s version of The Prince and the Pauper made big money at the box office. The possibility of making prestige pictures shined brighter than ever, so they decided to adapt Robin Hood to the screen. 

This was not necessarily a "bold" move on the part of Warner Brothers. Robin Hood’s story had already become a then-iconic feature: the silent 1922 version by Douglas Fairbanks, entitled Douglas Fairbanks in Robin Hood. Although, this also meant WB's version had to be greater than that of Fairbanks or be subject to intense scrutiny.  The studio cautiously proceeded by assuring that every aspect of their production would be bigger and better. Producer Hal B. Wallis asserted that their A-list project should maintain the same swashbuckling ferocity, but improve upon it by optimizing the studio’s top resources. Intense research was made to ensure this film would be as great as a Robin Hood film could be. 

The visual variety, outdoor shooting, intensity of the action scenes, and epic scale of the picture ensured that Adventures of Robin Hood would at least be memorable. The film gave financiers a run for their money as Technicolor photography, which was only used in one unsuccessful film before this (God's Country and the Woman)  drove the budget beyond Warner’s expectations. Fortunately, the intense planning of the filmmaker's ensured the production went as smoothly as it could. The use of three-strip technicolor proved innovative and enticed other studios to use it in their large-scale productions. 

Errol Flynn makes an exceptional hero and Olivia De Havilland plays the part of Maid Marian rather well. Even though they were not the best of friends offscreen, Havilland did not like Flynn's immaturity, their onscreen chemistry shines quite brightly. Curtiz makes images proficiently sparkle with the flash of striking swords and the launching of arrows. Robin Hood is an impressive piece of Classic Hollywood movie making.

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Year: 2008
Director: Steven Spielberg
Country: US
Language: English

Stumbling into an eerily empty neighborhood of a nuclear testing site, Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) finds that alarms are beginning to sound. A bomb will go off at any moment. Thinking fast, Indy shuts himself inside a lead-lined refrigerator, and the atomic explosion lands him miles away, miraculously unharmed. If you think that scene is poorly conceived, then just wait till you see the rest of this film. Shia the beef has a starring role, our manly hero swings on vines with cgi monkeys and even aliens make an appearance! Aliens!

Famed archaeologist/adventurer Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones is called back into action when he becomes entangled in a Soviet plot to uncover the secret behind mysterious artifacts known as the Crystal Skulls

It's hard to pinpoint just when everything went to hell; you'd think Steven Spielberg would have better control over his production team which shot mostly in the U.S., so Spielberg could be close to his family. Previous entries featured exotic locales, while this film shot many of its most complex scenes on the studio backlot.  Perhaps the problem was that Spielberg embraced the advancement of new technologies; after all, there had been a 19 year difference between Crystal Skull and the franchise's previous installment The Last Crusade. Its more modern look (there were well over 450 uses of CGI) left a sour taste in the mouths of fans.

Perhaps the problem is its science fiction plotline and its inclusion of extraterrestrials, given that no outwardly sci-fi elements appear in the first three films. To be upset about this seems strange however as science fiction was a significant marker of Crystal Skull's 50's atomic era setting. During that period the world over responded with B-movie entertainments that tapped into our worst fears, everything from The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) to Them! (1954). 

Whatever the reason, audiences failed to connect with this fourth installment in the Indiana Jones quadrilogy.  By the time Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull arrived in theaters, anticipations were already curbed by the degree of skepticism toward the project. It made $317 million in the US, but gained a poor reputation and caused dissent among the masses. Overall I really wasn't impressed by this picture. I blame Shia the Beef.

M. Hulot's Holiday Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: M. Hulot's Holiday
Year: 1953
Director: Jacques Tati
Country: France
Language: French

While filming his previous feature, 1949’s Jour de fête, Tati witnessed a packed countryside thanks to French middle-class vacationers finally flooding resorts after WWII. Tati found the holiday process hilarious because of the paradoxes he witnessed at play. Few vacationers were actually enjoying themselves, infact many seemed stressed about taking much needed leisure time. Roads filled with traffic, trains overstuffed with passengers, and normally sleepy resorts were crowded with all kinds of folk. Taking a vacation seemed to be more stressful than staying in the city. 

Monsieur Hulot (Jacques Tati) comes to a beachside hotel for a vacation, where he accidentally (but good-naturedly) causes havoc

Jacques Tati's Monsieur Hulot reminds me of Charlie Chaplin's Tramp character. Both are mostly silent, both are protagonists, both approach the world in a child-like curious manner and, even though they cause a considerable amount of trouble, they both have an innocent charm to them. Although in many ways Monsieur Hulot and The Chaplin’s Little Tramp are aesthetic opposites, despite often reaching the same comical result: the Tramp leans back; Hulot leans forward. The Tramp’s clothes are comically baggy; Hulot’s slacks seem a size too small. The Tramp waddles in short steps; Hulot takes long strides.

Chaplin sought loud and boisterous humor in comparison to Tati’s tranquil yet equally labored-over tone. Hulot’s unconscious blundering is his greatest appeal: “He does not know that he is being funny,” Tati confirmed in an interview. Pattern obliviousness guides him into hilarious situations. Always with an impenetrable, confused expression, Hulot’s incomprehensibility keeps him interesting for the viewer.

Emphasizing comical body language over dialogue, and the sound of nature over a musical score, M.Hulot's Holiday is the rare French film that can be enjoyed without subtitles. One doesn't need to understand the language or culture to "get" the sharp humor embedded throughout the run-time. Tati has made better films, including the Academy Award Winning Mon Oncle,  but if this film isn't a comic masterpiece then it is just short of being one.

Inside Out Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Inside Out
Year: 2015
Director: Pete Docter
Country: US
Language: English

The human mind is much more complicated than a basic good-evil dichotomy. Everyone is a sum of their experiences, memory, and basic (and often not-so basic) emotions. Such conceptual thoughts are the material of Inside Out, a marvelous animated film that exists almost entirely within the theoretical space inside our heads, operating by abstract rules and an uncanny understanding of human emotion.  Compared to most American animation, Inside Out is a rather reflective film with a tremendous amount of relevant commentary. 

After young Riley (Kaitlyn Dias) is uprooted from her Midwest life and moved to San Francisco, her emotions - Joy, Fear, Anger, Disgust and Sadness - conflict on how best to navigate a new city, house, and school. Joy (Amy Poehler) appears to be the most antagonistic of the emotions; attempting to take control of every other emotion and memory. 

Inside Out is remarkably relevant to North American society. Like the character Joy, we value happiness and desperately try to rid any other emotion. We go mad trying to fill our lives with pleasing memories, though often our drive for bliss creates quite a havoc on the outside world. Corporations in silicon valley have booze and pool tables at their disposal, really pushing the notion that they have a "happy" workplace environment (despite having to work 14hrs/day for terrible bosses) 

The media really tries to sell us that it is "wrong" to be happy. Advertisers claim their product will either bring you happiness or remove the problem that was making you unhappy. Why is lack of joy wrong? Disgust may not be a random problem of the mind, but a response to an unjust environment. Anger can be a positive motivator for many people. I'm sure the civil rights movement of the 60's didn't come about because people were "happy" to be segregated in their society. 

Inside Out is remarkable, because it is one of the few mainstream films to embrace of sadness and melancholy as essential components to a person's emotional growth. Instead of feeding us pure escapism, we are treated to real emotional underpinnings. As a statement against the capitalist industry of producing faux happiness, the picture does a good job.

Wreck-It Ralph Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Wreck-It Ralph
Year: 2012
Director: Rich Moore
Country: US
Language: English

An interesting mix of both Tron and Toy Story, Walt Disney Animation Studios’ Wreck-It Ralph takes place in the world of video-games, supposing that our favorite game characters have lives all their own when there’s no one around to play them. The fictional video game worlds on display range from a Donkey Kong arcade knock-off to more modern parodies like the aggressive first person shooter Hero's Duty.

 A video game villain (John C. Reilly) wants to be a hero and sets out to fulfill his dream, but his quest brings havoc to the whole arcade where he lives.

Director Rich Moore makes his feature debut after years of experience on animated TV shows such as The Simpsons, The Critic, and Futurama. He commands a film that requires the convergence of multiple character types, worlds, and animation styles all at once, keeping them, for the most part, consistent and differentiated. The attention to detail needed to bring this film life must have been exhausting, but judging from box office receipts it certainly paid off. Not only will children have a blast, but adults (especially gamers) will find it quite a great journey as well.

Unfortunately the film's inclusion of modern pop and electronica songs (from Rihanna, Buckner & Garcia, Skrillex, and Owl City) sound less like video-game scores and give the picture a more marketed feel. Despite this setback, Wreck-it Ralph is a unique film-going experience; I haven't seen any modern American animation that boasts a similar style and tone. 

Reilly’s energetic and hilarious voice work, makes Wreck-It Ralph something fun and nostalgic for gamers young and old. The friendship that develops between Ralph and Vanellope is quite tender; indeed the script will find a way to tick your funny bone as well as tug at your heartstrings.

Elvis & Nixon Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Elvis & Nixon
Year: 2016
Director: Liza Johnson
Country: US
Language: English

The iconic photograph taken of Elvis Presley and Richard Nixon during their secret December 21, 1970 meeting remains one of the most requested images in the National Archives. Their encounter was kept under wraps until 1972 when the story broke in the media, and ever since there’s been wild speculation as to what the meeting entailed.

On a December morning in 1970, the King of Rock 'n Roll (Michael Shannon) showed up on the lawn of the White House to request a meeting with the most powerful man in the world, President Nixon (Kevin Spacey)

Elvis & Nixon tackles a familiar subject in the realm of cinema; the cult of celebrity. Elvis was such a sensation that he could request the president's attention at any moment. He could also ask for a badge from the federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and get it, because Nixon was such a fan of the entertainer. Shannon's impersonation isn't the best Elvis impersonation I've seen, but he does play a rather hypocritical figure pretty well. Elvis claimed that he wanted to become a drug control officer because he hated the influence of drugs on the American public, yet he was quite the abuser of drugs himself. 

The two men standing across from one another makes for a fascinating, almost surreal visual juxtaposition. Most of the screen-time revolves around Elvis’ friends trying to arrange the face-to-face meeting. It's a rather suspenseful buildup, but when the pair finally do meet, the film becomes playful yet restrained. The absurdity of this situation doesn't solidify itself with wacky comedy, nor does the film attempt to be compelling and dramatic. 

While this picture might appeal to an older audience (people who were alive while this meeting was happening), it leaves a lot to be desired. Shot in muted tones, Elvis & Nixon feels more like a "made for tv" movie than anything that should be shown in the theatre.