The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Hunchback of Notre Dame
Year: 1996
Director: Gary Trousdale
Country:US
Language: English

When Disney adapts source material originally meant for adults they often water-down the content for children and ruin some key elements of the story. With Pocahontas they distorted the lines between fantasy and historical reality, while not treating the indigenous peoples of North America with much respect. To adapt a Victor Hugo novel as complicated as Hunchback of Notre Dame is a rather weird choice that doesn't entirely pay off. 

A deformed bell-ringer (Tom Hulce) must assert his independence from a vicious government minister in order to help his friend, a gypsy dancer (Demi Moore).

"Hellfire. This fire in my skin. This burning desire. Is turning me to sin." Hunchback would get an Academy Award nomination, but only for the music, which it would lose to Emma. Indeed I must say that the music is incredible at parts (I can only remember Topsy Turvy and Hellfire) and the villain Frollo is quite memorable. It's quite interesting that the antagonist's hangup is the fear of eternal damnation due to his lust of a gypsy. The idea of a benevolent God has never been explored in Disney pictures before.

While Hunchback succeeds in some areas, it fails overall. The dominant theme of the film is "inner beauty matters" but Quasimodo doesn't win the girl in the end because of his looks. Rather, Esmeralda goes for the much better looking Captain Phoebus (Kevin Kline) Even when he gains the respect of the city he still has to remain in the bell tower without pay? Huh!? There's another side theme regarding feminism/choice etc. ok but why does Esmerelda have to choose either man? Why does the plot literally screech to a halt for all the men to have an argument about who should get her? Oy!

The cutesy side characters don't need to be in the film, because they are pretty annoying and only serve to be comedic fodder. The picture doesn't have to be completely serious, but it doesn't need to be peppered with fart jokes either. Hunchback has some great ideas, but is limited due to it equal weight of poor ideas. 

 

Tarzan (1999) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Tarzan
Year: 1999
Director: Chris Buck
Country: US
Language: English

The Edgar Rice Burroughs story about a man growing up amongst apes has been adapted countless times. The character's distinctive yell was created in the 1932 version Tarzan the Ape Man, which was famously hated by Adolf Hitler. The unique creation in Disney's adaptation was the revolutionary process of "Deep Canvas" wherein two-dimensional animation was integrated seamlessly into a three-dimensional background.  

The film is about a man raised by gorillas, who must decide where he really belongs when he discovers he is a human. 

" I wanna know, can you show me. I wanna know about these strangers like me" Easily the best, least dated and most memorable aspect of Tarzan is Phil Collin's incredible soundtrack. Each song fits the energetic pace of the film, sometimes more frantic than the picture itself. They are all quite catchy, but unfortunately they don't really connect to the plot. Perhaps one or two of the films could arguably about the film's theme, but ultimately you could stick this score in any energetic Disney movie and it would feel just as random. 

It is not difficult to sell people on the soundtrack alone, certainly it's the main reason for being the first Disney animated feature film to open at number 1 at the American box office and to win an Academy Award since Pocahontas (1995). Unfortunately none of the characters are fleshed out. There isn't a good reason to empathize with their plights & they don't really stand out. Tarzan's buddy Terk is eye catching...but in a very odd way. Why does she have a New York accent? Is it for humour's sake? I don't get it. 

The animation is a curious mix of being at times impressive, and at times quite bland. For a film set in the jungle, Tarzan's background is uninspired despite having pretty colours. The mark of a "great" Disney movie is to inspire you as a child and as an adult, but unfortunately in 2016 I was quite bored with it. I will say that it does make for a good Phil Collins' soundtrack.

Oliver & Company (1988) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Oliver & Company
Year: 1988
Director: George Scribner
Country: US
Language: English

Oliver & Company was a box-office success upon release and actually did a lot of good for the company.  It was Disney’s return to musicals since The Fox & The Hound, it employed an increased amount of CGI (so much that it needed its own studio) and brought about the typical release schedule of one animated film per year. It was the last film before the big Disney Renaissance and, unfortunately, went through quite a difficult production. 

Inspired by Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist. A homeless kitten named Oliver (Joey Lawrence), roams the streets of New York, where he is taken in by a gang of homeless mutts who survive by stealing from others. 

The development on Oliver & Company was difficult because the Nine Old Men (a group of animators who had worked for Disney since it's Golden Age) retired and a new, younger line of animators would have to take their place. This film had a different "feel" from all the other Disney features before it, mainly because it doesn't take place in some far off place, it screams 1980's New York. The animation is gritty, worn, and unfinished. The music fits the time period to a tee. 

I enjoyed Oliver & Company when I was younger (mid 90's), but in 2016 the film feels incredibly dated. The Mexican stereotype Tito (Cheech Marin) is one of the most annoying characters to ever be put on screen. I'd rather listen to Jar Jar Binks for two hours. The characters aren't really fleshed out; they feel like lame stereotypes that might have been welcome in the 1920's, but are far from enticing in the 80's. 

Oliver & Company feels like it would have made a great "made for tv" movie, but certainly should have never seen the light of day in theatres. It doesn't keep a consistent tone; going from sheer comedy one minute, to dark agony the next without proper development or transition. I must admit the picture does give off a good New York "feel", but ultimately I can thinking of two dozen more Disney flicks I'd rather re-watch than this. 

 

Ninotchka (1939) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

 Title: Ninotchka
Year: 1939
Director: Ernst Lubitsch
Country: US
Language: English

Greta Garbo was a woman of mystique. Throughout her career until her retirement in 1941, Garbo gave few interviews, refused to sign autographs or participate in publicity for her films. The deeply private actress refused to bow down to the demands of Hollywood, thus enhancing her perception as a true icon. Who better to direct this "icon" than a rebellious Director like Ernst Lubitsch? His sophisticated comedies would push the boundaries of the production code and make the studio sets sweat. Ninotchka was a perfect blend of the two professionals. 

In this, a stern Russian woman (Greta Garbo) sent to Paris on official business finds herself attracted to a man (Melvyn Douglas) who represents everything she is supposed to detest. 

The broadstrokes of the idea were based in part on Tovarich, a 1933 play by French writer Jacques Deval, adapted into English by Robert E. Sherwood and in 1937 made into a motion picture by Anatole Litvak starring Charles Boyer and Claudette Colbert. MGM wanted to make a similar picture starring Greta Garbo, but could not get their preferred director George Cuckor, who wanted to spend more time on Gone With the Wind.

Made for $1.3 million, in large part because of both Garbo and Lubitsch’s considerable salaries, the film would make modest profits both domestically and abroad. It went on to earn four Academy Award nominations—including Best Actress, Best Screenplay, and Best Picture—but lost to the considerably more enormous Gone with the Wind. Many said Garbo's performance was incredible, but unfortunately suffered from a terrible leading man. 

The film has an obvious political focus; capitalism is much greater than communism and should triumph that poor idealism at every turn. For its views, Ninotchka was banned from most (if not all) soviet countries. Referencing Stalin’s Great Purge and Ninotchka’s five-year plans with a sense of humor represented an undeniable risk to the country. Had the film caused an international incident at the beginning of World War Two, it's unclear if the US would have survived the attack. That being said, this film required a fair knowledge of current political events from its audience to fully understand the film. This isn't entertainment for the sake of entertainment. 

Overall, I feel that Ninotchka isn't the best film of 1939, nor is it the best film of Lubitsch's, not the best of Greta Garbo's. It's a nice satire, perhaps a great political piece for its time. I think ultimately the film has been dated and is slowly fading from the memory of film historians. It is fairly good, but one viewing is enough. 

The Maltese Falcon (1931) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Maltese Falcon
Year: 1931
Director: Roy Del Ruth
Country: US
Language: English

To nobody's surprise, this 1931 film is not the most famous version of The Maltese Falcon. Made at the height of the wild pre-Code years, it was denied re-release in the more buttoned-down Breen era. Desiring to make more money off the story, Warner Brothers would remake this picture in 1941 starring Humphrey Bogart. That version would be considered the greatest adaptation of the tale, but that doesn't mean Roy Del Ruth's work is unappreciated. 

A lovely dame (Bebe Daniels) with dangerous lies employs the services of a private detective (Ricardo Cortez), who is quickly caught up in the mystery and intrigue of a statuette known as the Maltese Falcon. 

The novel contained a tremendous amount of interior monologue that would have been difficult to put onscreen. Thankfully the screenwriter, Maude Fulton, was able to capture the essence of the story. This would have also been difficult to direct but Roy Del Ruth proved to be quite a professional. The film starred two big names from the silents: Bebe Daniels and Ricardo Cortez.She was only 30 years old at the time, but Daniels was considered a film veteran. Cortez won the hearts of women world-wide and transitioned quite nicely into the talkies. Both of them put on a memorable performance in their respective roles. 

A rather juicy story, it's unfortunate that the film often derails from the plot and attempts to create sub-plots not present in the book. The original source material was pulpy masterpiece; suspenseful till the bitter end. This film can feel like it drags towards the middle, slows to a crawl, and picks up pace 20 or so minutes towards the end. Also it's reeks off Hollywood glitz and glamour, for a despression-era flick it doesn't entirely feel rotten to the core. John Huston's version is far better in that respect.

Maltese Falcon makes many changes to the source material, but no improvements. The ending is entirely too optimistic, the scenery is too glossy and the sub-plots are too off-putting. This version has many great moments and phenomenal acting, but it doesn't suffice as a definitive version. 

The Russians are Coming. The Russians are Coming Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Russians are Coming. The Russians are Coming
Year: 1966
Director: Norman Jewison
Country: US
Language: English

Ah Russia, bitter frenemy of the United States since World War Two ended. Many films have been made about their rivalry. The Hunt for Red October was a suspenseful action film from 1990, which taught Americans to be afraid of Russian submarines. Rocky IV pitted the American antagonist Rocky Balboa against the fearless Russia fighting machine Ivan Drago and lifted the spirits of the non-communists alike. The Russians are coming. The Russians are Coming made us pee our pants from laughter

Without hostile intent, a Soviet sub runs aground off New England. Men are sent for a boat, but many villagers go into a tizzy, risking bloodshed. 

Made my Norman Jewison, the Director of Moonstruck and the ever so serious Heat of the Night,  The Russians are Coming is a picture that makes it difficult to take cold war propoganda seriously ever again. It begins with a simple but effective animation of the Russian and American flags fighting for prominence while the chorus duels with patriotic music from both nations. Don't be fooled however; this patriotic beginning is only meant to pave the way for hilarious stapstick that takes shot at both sides of the "war".

No side is safe in this madcap comedy that turns a very serious matter on its head. The film, which stars Jonathon Winters ( It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World) is fully of silly quotable lines like “I wasn’t trying to, well, I was trying to kill you, I’ll admit that, but it wasn’t anything personal.” and “Don’t tell them anything! He hasn’t even tortured you yet!”Steering clear of politics, Russians are Coming, ribs both nations equally. Both sides are fools for being so paranoid and both sides are ,in a way, right about their preferred political stance.

The film succeeds because it has heart underneath all the jokes. It has an optimistic message that isn't overly sentimental. Overall, Russians are Coming is a sly silly film that deserves to be seen in a similar light as Dr.Strangelove.

The Penalty (1920) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Penalty
Year: 1920
Director: Wallace Worsely
Country: US
Language: N/A

Best known for the big "monster" classics like Phantom of the Opera and Hunchback of Notre Dame, Lon Chaney made his name through smaller pictures like The Penalty and West of Zanzibar. It was in these pictures that he could act his most mad; playing sickos, psychos, masterminds and deranged criminals without much censorship. He was particularly well adept to playing people who were disfigured; in The Penalty he plays a man who has no legs! 

In this, a deformed criminal mastermind (Lon Chaney) plans to loot the city of San Francisco as well as revenge himself on the doctor who mistakenly amputated his legs.

The Penalty is a product of its time. I have no doubt that this film would not be green-lit in 2016 because of its subject matter, which essentially demonizes the legless and disabled. Lon Chaney’s performance as Blizzard relied on his concealing his legs convincingly. This is easy to do in 2016, as all one has to do is wear green socks in from of a green screen, but how would Chaney make his performance passable in 1920? Well Chaney fit his knees into leather stumps, which forced his legs into a tightly bent position. Then to compensate for the added thickness, he padded up his shoulders and chest. Considering his knees were quite injured at the time, it's fair to say that Chaney went all out for this role. 

Chaney's acting is remarkable; we see all his emotions on display in The Penalty. He turns from sarcastic anger to murderous fury to euphoria and finally confusion and regret. For the 20's, his villainous character is quite complex. The female in this story, Barbara Ferris (Claire Adams) is constantly treated with animosity from the other characters. The infantilizing attitude treated toward her is quite demeaning, but the sexists are eventually turned on their heads. This is quite forward thinking for 1920 and thus should be respected. Few silents give sexists their comeuppance. 

The Penalty is quite dated, but it is still a fairly decent picture which showcases some of Lon Chaney's greatest acting. It is twisted and sleezy, but that's part of why film buffs love silent "horror" films. Far better than the book it's based on, I recommend watching any Lon Chaney at least once.

Spies (1928) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Spies
Year: 1928
Director: Fritz Lang
Country: Germany
Language: N/A

Fritz Lang was at the peak of his career during the silent film era. Metropolis (1927) changed the science fiction narrative forever and cemented that genre into a viable source of entertainment. Since the 1910's Lang would make very inventive pictures. If they were not commercially successful, then they were most certainly an endearing expression of his artistic passions. Spies (1928) represents a rarity in the Director's filmography; a FUN spy movie. 

In Spies, the mastermind behind a ubiquitous spy operation learns of a dangerous romance between a Russian lady in his employ and a dashing agent from the government's secret service
 
Spies reflects Lang’s utter fascination with the inner workings of criminal organizations—and not just the glamorous stuff either. He does have the usual cliches, like assassinations and dubious theft, but he is able to make the banal such as turning in paperwork into an interesting and stylish observation that ultimately keeps his audience on their roes. Lang's devotion to making fun of bureaucracy add to the fascinating atmosphere within the picture. One can see clear connection to Spies in Terry Gilliam's Brazil.  

I would not dare spoil the twists nor the ending, but I will say they were well written. Fritz Lang gives us twists that genuinely surprise us, but aren't completely out of  the blue (unlike the twists seen in Shyamalan flicks). Technically well made, the film does suffer from a romance angle that screeches the action to a halt for some time in the second half of the film. As an audience, we don't go to a spy movie to see the main characters quarrel over domestic issues. Thankfully Lang is smart enough to allow his feature to pick up near the climax.

While this is not my favourite of Lang's filmography, Spies is certainly a worthwhile film and a good viewing that borders on cinematic escapism and utter realism. One can see its clear influence on modern pictures, as well as its borrowing of Hitchcockian themes.

The Canadian (1926) Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: The Canadian
Year: 1926
Director: William Beaudine
Country: US
Language: N/A

The Canadian was thought lost for decades before turning up in the late sixties.  Director William Beaudine was the guest of honour at the 1970 Los Angeles Screening, where he admitted to never having seen his own film before because of his incredibly tight schedule. Critics at the time of original release were underwhelmed by the picture's lack of melodrama, whereas critics of the 70's seemed to adore the silent classic.

A couple (played by Thomas Meigan and Mona Palma) undergo hardship homesteading in Alberta, where they are plagued by bad weather and financial woes. 

Bad weather and financial woes, huh? Yep! Sounds like Alberta to me! While time has not been kind to William Beaudine, once a respected contract director, who was reduced to churning out budget films and television episodes later in his career, it is nice to see that modern audiences have allowed The Canadian to be a staple in silent film festivals throughout the world. It's odd to hear that the picture was given rather mediocre reviews at time of release. Usually those pictures don't recover from such negative press.

Based on a 1913 four-act play entitled The Land of Promise by W. Somerset Maugham and adapted into a novel in 1914 by D. Torbett and then a film in 1917, starring Thomas Meighan and Billie “Good Witch” Burke, this remake (it was not uncommon for silent films to remake earlier silent films) is actually pretty good. The acting is perhaps the most understated aspect of the film; it's subtle but works in every frame. The cinematography is absoluturely outstanding and the drama is very well written. 

There is no doubt that this is a dark film however, I can't think of many silent films that include a rape scene. It has a mature way of handling its more adult themes, although has content that will disturb many viewers. If you're in the mood for light hearted escapism, then you might want to avoid this film. I found The Canadian surprisingly good and would recommend it.

A Child is Waiting Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: A Child is Waiting
Year: 1963
Director: John Cassavettes
Country: US
Language: English

Old Hollywood is best known for escapism. The glitz and glamour that fill the screen often take us far from the mundane suburbia in our lives and into worlds we couldn't dare dream. For example, Wizard of Oz took us over the rainbow. Even James Cagney's Gangster pictures filled an imaginative void in our lives. Few American films embraced realism and built a foundation on discussing real issues that plagued families. A Child is Waiting was one of the rarities. 

Psychologist Dr. Matthew Clark (Burt Lancaster) is the head of the Crawthorne State Training Institute, one of the first boarding schools for developmentally challenged children. He takes a chance at hiring former aspiring concert pianist Jean Hansen (Judy Garland) as the school's music teacher. She immediately bonds with autistic student Reuben Widdicombe, who she sees as needing special attention. 

Disabilities and mental health issues are rarely discussed with any sincerity in Hollywood even today. The child in this film isn't a Rain Man savant, nor does he have the wisdom of Tom Hank's Forrest Gump. He is a fairly accurate depiction of how a typical autistic child looks & acts like, although we must not consider "autism" a blanket term, as it does affect individuals differently. Producer Stanley Kramer, fresh out of his Oscar Winning Judgement at Nuremburg, has made a rather important and poignant picture in A Child is Waiting.

 Stanley Kramer had long been immersed in the subject of psychology and had wanted to make this picture for a great number of years. He felt that, to make an honest depiction, this would need a lot of planning, research and exposure. He hired a number of autistic children as extras, in the hope that the rest of his cast would empathize with their project. Unfortunately hiring Judy Garland may not have been the best choice. Her well known substance abuse problems took a hit to production, which would often have to be delayed due to her inability to cope with the pressure of being the star. 

A Child is Waiting sometimes borders on Sirk-esque melodrama, but thankfully doesn't stray too far to the absurd. It is a reflecting, revealing and even somewhat controversial picture that remains rather relevant to this day.