Rashomon Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Rashomon
Director: Akira Kurosawa
Year: 1950
Country: Japan
Language: Japanese 

Japanese Director Akira Kurosawa has had a legendary career making such brilliant films as The Seven Samurai, Throne of Blood and Rashomon. The star of this film, Toshiro Mifune, deserves credit for being one of the greatest Japanese actors in film history. Together they evoke powerful emotions and stir the soul into a frenzy of delight. While Throne of Blood was my introduction to their films, Rashomon enticed me to further look into Kurosawa's work which eventually brought me further into the history of Japanese Cinema. It was a fantastically made film that is an intellectual voyage into the nature of truth.

The film begins with a priest (Minoru Chiaki), a woodcutter (Takashi Shimura), and a commoner (Kichijuro Ueda) who take cover from a great rainstorm in an abandoned gatehouse known as Rashomon. The priest and the woodcutter decide to spend their time discussing the story of a |Samurai who was murdered  three days earlier in the forest. Both men had to appear before a murder trial to give their testimony because the priest ran into the Samurai before he was murdered and the woodcutter found his body. There are three other people at this trial, all who act as direct witnesses; the bandit who murdered the samurai, the wife of the samurai and the bandit in form of a medium. They tell of a similar story, but ultimately all are somewhat different.

In the 50's Rashomon struck the world with a blow to the gut. It was made before Akira Kurosawa was known as a master of Cinema and released by a studio who had little respect for the Director. However it won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival and soon after won "Best Foreign Picture" at the Academy Awards. It opened the gates of Japanese Cinema to the rest of the world, so they could stand in awe. Indeed nobody had seen anything like Rashomon before. It had the first use of flashbacks that disagreed about the action they were flashing back to. There were first person accounts that completely differed from the other accounts, one of which that came from an incredibly creepy ghost.

I remember a Simpsons episode in which The Simpsons are going to Japan. Marge says "You'll love Japan! You liked Rashomon" and Homer replies "That's not how I remember it." Rashomon is essentially a film about the nature of truth, memory and ego. When we see the flashbacks in the film we assume they are truth, but in reality all they show is a point of view that may be a complete lie.Perhaps the witnesses aren't intentionally lieing but their memories of the incident may not be completely clear. Kurosawa points out that humans often like to change the truth to fit their own ego, to make themselves seem like a better person. Every character has a reason to exaggerate their story and embellish their own identity.

In conclusion, Rashomon is one of the most unique, thrilling and well made Japanese films of all Cinema. The cinematography is memorable, even the rape scene in this film is well shot. The elevated emotional levels of each actor, especially Mifune, heightened the acting and made for a fantasy-like feel. The scene with the medium is both unsettling, disturbing and brilliant. This may be a film you need to watch more than once to fully understand it, but when you do you will continue watching it over and over. Praise it! 5/5

Rebel Without A Cause Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Rebel Without A Cause
Director: Nicholas Ray
Year: 1955
Country: US
Language: English

American Director Nicholas Ray has had an incredible career making such marvelous films as Johnny Guitar, Bigger than Life and Rebel Without A Cause. The first of his films I saw was Bigger Than Life, the great James Mason was as creepy as he has ever been "God Was Wrong!". This film showed me that Ray had tremendous talent and even greater potential. I first saw the critically acclaimed classic Rebel Without A Cause on TCM (Turner Classic Movies) very late at night. I felt it was incredibly well made and I soon found myself pointing out all the scenes in which The Simpsons had parodied.

The film stars the legendary James Dean as Jim Stark, a new kid in town that has trouble seemingly following him wherever he goes. This is why his family seems to be continually moving. In this town he tries to find the love, acceptance and respect he doesn't seem to get from his family. His parents don't quite understand him and the generation gap is quite apparent. Though he feels alienated and isolated, he at least finds some of his want for love in his relation with Judy (Natalie Wood) and in some respect John "Plato" Crawford (Sal Mineo). However Jim finds himself still trying to prove his worth to his adolescent peers whether it be by a dangerous knife fight or a game of "chicken" in which cars race recklessly towards a cliff.

"You're tearing me apart!" James Dean howls which seems to be more of an act of great acting than great character. Indeed, he was a great actor who was expected to have a long and illustrious career, if only his life didn't end prematurely in a car crash a month before this film premiered worldwide. Jim comes from a rocky family with an overbearing mother and a distant father. We get a good sense that his frustration with his parents hit its limit years ago. His voice is the agonized voice of generations before and after him, the adolescent who are expected to make adult decisions all the while being treated like a child. Nicholas Ray's protagonists are usually the American outsider, he is especially sympathetic towards the younger and more vulnerable who look for guidance from an older generation that is just as confused and unhappy as they are.

Infact Jim Stark's need for excitement is as irresponsible and endangering as his parents' refusal to talk about the real important issues that are facing the American family. As a result Start attempts to create an alternative family based on their own experiences in life. Oddly the trio of Jim, Judy and Plato were brought together because of the unneccesary death of a friend and remain united because of idealistic thoughts of "sincerity" and "freedom". Nicholas Ray masterfully paints a portrait of the American Family of the 1950's and the destructive nature of the adolescent mindset during a period in History when Americans were supposed to be at their happiest. Ray's incredible sense of editing, lighting, color, cinematography and performance create show that he truly understood the adolescent experience of the 50's. 

In conclusion, though Rebel Without A Cause feels dated, the generation gap exposed by Ray through this film continues to be incredibly relevant and will  likely be even more relevant in the far future. The amount of films and television shows that have been influenced by Rebel Without A Cause or have parodied or gave homage to it is staggering, from the hit musical Grease to the long running television shoe The Simpsons. Nicholas Ray is clearly the king of exposing the "nuclear family" of the 1950's. Praise it! 4.5/5

Avatar Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Avatar
Director: James Cameron
Year: 2009
Country: U.S
Language: English

During the Summer of 2009 pretty much everyone I knew was talking about James Cameron's Sci Fi Blockbuster Avatar. Most of this chatter was about how unique and innovative it was. I remember seeing the extremely large posters of the film in front of the Cineplex a few months before the film came out and thinking "What person in their right mind would want to see this?". The trailers didn't excite me either, mainly because of the director behind the film, James Cameron. I've seen plenty of interviews with the man and he always struck me as an obnoxious jerk with very little real talent. I desperately tried to avoid the film, but one night I gave in due to overwhelming curiosity. In this case curiousity didn't kill the cat, but it wasted three hours of my life.

Avatar is about a paraplegic Marine named Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) decides to take his place in a mission on the distant world of Pandora. Soon he learns of greedy corporate bully Parker Selfridge's (Giovanni Ribisi) evil intentions of elminiating the native human-like "Na'vi" in order to mine for the precious material scattered throughout their territories.In exchange for the spinal surgery that help him learn to walk again Jake's job is to gather intel for the military as well as infiltrate the Navi people using his avatar identity. Jake then begins to bond with the tribe and falls in love with one of the blue aliens. However the Colonel (Stephen Lang) tries to move forwards with his operation, forcing Jake to stand up for his new people.

I like when this film was made in the 1990's and called Dances with Wolves. Or was it called Pocahontas? Enemy Mine? The Last Samurai? I know what this film is like! A less intelligent version of Ferngully: The Last Rainforest! Except there's no Robin Williams in sight because even he is intelligent enough to stay away from a film this bad. Avatar's story is nothing special at all, it's a rehash of the same old white guilt fantasy. The natives of Pandora, the "Na'vi'" are just blue versions of the stereotypical native in every Hollywood film ever made!  Jake Sully is the typical Caucasian man with a "white savior" complex. He hates the oppressed likestyle of the "navi" and hus think that he can be their leader, their Moses, and bring them the liberty that they need. It can't be that hard after all. Though this is what the very nature of what colonization is! White people who assume they know better than the natives, attempt to be the leader and completely opress the people.

A comment I always here from Avatar/James Cameron fanatics is about how "environmentally aware" this film is. REALLY? Sure, there may be a brief bit about the dangers of forest destruction in Avatar but the film is essentially technical masturbation. It is a film that is all technology and no innovation. In interviews Cameron took pride in the fact that this film was grounded on special effects and CGI. He spent $300 million  making a film based on pure technology. Avatar is technological glorification, it is what many Directors before him, including the great Charlie Chaplin, made films to warn us about! James Cameron is a greedy hypocrite who does not give a damn about the environment.

In conclusion, do NOT watch this film. It is easily one of the worst three hours you will spend on a film. Do yourself a favour and watch ANYTHING else. It is a useless film that has no real value and hopefully will be completely forgotten about in less than ten years. While it is the highest grossing film ever made (without adjusting inflation) it definitely does not deserve to be. I breathed a long sigh of relief when Cameron's ex-wife (he cheated on her with an actress from Titanic) won Best Picture at the Oscars for The Hurt Locker instead of him. Piss on it! 0/5

The Phantom Carriage Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: The Phantom Carriage
Director: Victor Sjostrom
Year: 1921
Country: Sweden
Language: Swedish

I first saw Swedish Director Victor Sjostrom's silent classic The Phantom Carriage on TCM (Turner Classic Movies) exactly a year ago around 3am. I found myself so entranced with this film that I bought the Criterion Collection Special Edition just a few weeks later. It is a spellbinding film based on Nobel laureate Selma Lagerlöf's original 1912 novel Thy Soul Shall Bare Witness. The film is so shrouded with a grim and moody atmosphere that it is often thought of as a horror tale, indeed many of the elements that consist within this film could be considered "horror" but it is more of an intense Dickensian morality tale.

 The Phantom Carriage is set on a rather melancholy New Years Eve. Edit (Astrid Holm), a sister of the Salvation Army who is dying of tuberculosis, asks her mother (Concordia Selander) and her colleague Maria (Lisa Lundholm) to find David Holm (Victor Sjostrom) so he could visit her on her deathbed. David is in the cemetery with two other drunks, recounting the legend of The Phantom Carriage.The legend goes that the last sinner to die on New Years Eve becomes Death, a doomed soul collector. David refuses to see Edit and he dies shortly after. The coachman arrives, it is one of his friends who died the year before. The friend helps David revisit his past and through flashbacks shows how greedy and selfish he was.

While it is clear that Phantom Carriage may have been inspired by Charles Dicken's A Christmas Carol, Phantom Carriage's influence spreads far and wide as well. It inspired the universally known Swedish Director Ingmar Bergman and his most critically acclaimed film The Seventh Seal. In time Ingmar Bergman influenced filmmakers like Woody Allen  who influenced plenty of other people himself. In some way you could you could probably link this film to Seinfeld. It certainly is responsible for the most famous scene in Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. Jack Nicholson's "Here's Johnny!" scene is an homage to a scene in The Phantom Carriage, minus the dialouge of course.

Phantom Carriage was made in simple, but extremely time-consuming and very precise series of double exposures. The filmmaker, his photographer and a lab manager created the ghostly three dimensional illusion that was inventive and innovative. It was beyond anything anybody had previously seen in the wide world of Cinema. The complex narration that consisted of a series of flashbacks, and flashbacks within flashbacks was on the cutting edge of poetic excellence. The two scores on the Criterion Collection edition of this film are quite excellent and definitely add to the dark decaying mood of this film. You can't go wrong with either the Matti Bye score or the experimental score by KTL.

In conclusion, though the small religious aspect of the film may not fair well with a more secular North American audience, The Phantom Carriage is a rare cinematic treat. Once you see the film you will never forget it. The intense images of dread and doom will be stuck in your mind for years to come. It is a great self reflective piece of art, perhaps after you watch this film you will re-examine your life and decide to be a better, less selfish, person. This also has one of the most dramatic endings that I have seen in film. Praise it! 5/5

Topsy Turvy Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Topsy Turvy
Director: Mike Leigh
Year: 1999
Country: UK
Language: English

Mike Leigh's Topsy Turvy is an incredible piece of art by a man who is clearly in love with both the theater and film in general. It is an extraordinary period piece that celebrates all the genius, innovation, hard work, talent, teamwork and personal and professional conflict that may arise in the production of a theatrical presentation .Though each play and film is different, they all have very similar creative processes. Topsy Turvey not only goes into great detail about the process, but it also creates a unique historical look on two of the best thatrical directors who ever lived; Gilbert and Sullivan.

Topsy Turvy is essentially about the origin, preparation and presentation of Gilbert (Allan Corduner) and Sullivan's (Jim Broadbent) odd comic opera known as The Mikado. The movie opens with Arthur Sullivan and William S. Gilber pre-Mikado. They have directed ten astounding hits in a row and are known as the kings of the London stage. Their tremendous success has made way for a theater to be built. Unfortunately their new opera "Princess Ida" has flopped so badly that they seriously consider quitting the business. That is until Gilbert witnesses a Kabuki performance and gets the inspiration he needs to write The Mikado.

"This work with Gilbert is quite simply killing me." Sullivan says near the beginning of the film. What's fascinating about Gilbert and Sullivan is how completely different they are in personality traits. Sullivan is often energetic and optomistic, he is a womanizer and doesn't feel the need to apologize for it. Gilber is more of a serious pessimistic business man who has a keen eye for detail. Apart they are nothing, but together they make masterpieces. From what I've seen,  I think Mike Leigh has a healthy balance of both characteristics which allow him to make great films like this and Naked. While Topsy Turvey appears to have the outline of the average drama about theatre it goes into MUCH more detail than any film ever has. We see the costume design, the endless rehearsals, the personal problems, the casting, the writing, the accounting. It;s a necessary film that shows all the tedious work that can go into art.

Topsy Turvey seems completely different from every other film Mike Leigh has made, they are all great but much less theatrical. If you see Life is Sweet and then this film, you will think they're made by completely different directors. I guess this is a statement on how broad Leigh can be. This is a flawlessly made film, from the actors to the cinematography to the Academy Award winning makeup and costume design. There is nothing "bad" I can say about the film. It was so enjoyable that I bought the Criterion edition with plans of seeing it a lot more times.

In conclusion, do you have to be a fan of Gilbert and Sullivan (or Sideshow Bob) to like this film? No. I've yet to see a Gilbert and Sullivan play  yet I still love this film. Topsy Turvey is more about the love for the theater and the magic it brings about than the love for Gilbert and Sullivan. It's about 3 hours in length but those hours will rush by very quickly. Easily my favorite film of 1999. Praise it! 5/5

El Topo Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: El Topo
Director: Alejandro Jodorowsky
Year: 1970
Country: Mexico
Language: Spanish

Alejandro Jodorowsky's surrealist Western El Topo is undoubtedly one of the strangest films I have ever seen. It is an epic trip through the mind, a unique experience where not even the hardest of drugs can take you. I had been introduced to Jodorowsky's strange , alluring works of art by way of The Holy Mountain. An odd film that I didn't understand then or now, nor do I think I ever will in the near future. El Topo is more conventional and a bit easier to understand, though it's still something only a madman could make.

While El Topo is a western, it is far from any western you have ever seen. It stars Director Alejandro Jodorowsky as the title character who confronts great warriors throughout his transformative journey through the vast desert. He begins this journey with his young son, who must leave his childhood totems behind, burying them in the sand, in order to become a man.Dressed in black gunfighter clothes he claims to be God. The landscape is of those mythical westerns we've seen in many American movies, Ancient Eastern religious symbols cloud this film.as El Topo tries to find his way in this world.

The incredible and sometimes outright shocking images are what make this film well known. In 1970 it was an underground hit for several months in New York, on one fateful day the legendary musician John Lennon and his wife Yoko Ono saw it. They were amazed by how good it was and convinced the Beatles manager Allen Klein to buy it and release it. Afterwards it was shown all over the world and out sprung countless theories about what this film is about. Nowadays you can find loads among loads of interpretations of what the film is about, very few will agree with one another. I have my own iideas, but it changes every time I see this film. That is the beauty of Alejandro Jodorowsky's work, they evoke every emotion imaginable and stir the mind into a frenzy. They make the audience think and are in no way mindless entertainment. El Topo is a mystery wrapped in a riddle and served with a side of enigma.

Alejandro Jodorowsky is a man without limits on his imagination. Many people over the years have claimed that he must be on drugs because his films are so strange and a large number of people have purposely taken various hallucinogens before his film, though this is not the case. In many interviews Jodorowsky has condemned the use of drugs, saying that it puts restrictions on the imagination. In one interview he said "I don't understand why people don't get it, you do drugs and you drink and you die. Is it difficult to understand?"

In conclusion, El Topo is filled with astounding cinematography, odd images and incredible symbolism. Even without pointless drugs it is a completely mind-blowing experience that you will never forget. I saw it again  a few days ago and I'm still thinking about how unique it was. Was it about a man trying to fight his demons and find his spirituality or does it go deeper than that? I have to warn that it can get very violent, so it's not for everybody, but I say watch it and decide for yourself. Praise it! 5/5

Rocky Horror Picture Show Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Rocky Horror Picture Show
Director: Dick Sharman
Year: 1975
Country: UK
Language: English

 
Let's do the time warp again! While I'm not a particular fan of musicals nor films with a cult following (I have continually said that Fight Club and A Clockwork Orange are two of the worst films I have ever seen) Rocky Horror Picture Show is quite an exception! It is a journey into madness and hysteria, one of the strangest films I saw in my teens and likely one of the strangest films you will ever see, unless you venture into the world of experimental film. The charcters. like Dr. Frank N. Furter (Tim Curry), are bizarre and instantly memorable. The songs are catchy, you may find yourself singing "Hot Patootie" on your way to school or work ow wherever young people go these days.

Rocky Horror Picture Show stars a young newly engaged vanilla couple known as Brad Majors ( Barry Bostwick) and Janet Weiss (Susan Sarandon)  who encounter a very serious problem when their car has a breakdown in the middle of what seems like nowhere during a thunderstorm. However they see a light (over at the Frankenstein Place) and attempt to reach it. In their attempt to make contact they find themselves at the castle of a most peculiar madman, the castle of Dr. Frank-N-Furter. He's just a sweet trasvestite from transsexual Transylvania...or is he? He allows the couple to stay until the storm passes, though it is unlikely they want to stay as they stumble upon a party in which people do the "time warp" in anticipation of Frank n Furter's most devious surprise.

When the film hit American Theatres in 1975 it was largely ignored by both critic and casual film-goer. It was a complete flop, that would have closed down within weeks and never heard of again until a low level Hollywood Executive suggested to his bosses that the failing Rocky Horror Picture Show be turned into a midnight cult movie. The rest is history. The film was playing at midnight showings all across the world with fans showing up hours before the film was being screened and dressed up as their favorite characters. A rare time in American History when men could dress up in women's clothing and not be considered homosexual. The shows within the theatres were often more entertaining than what was shown onscreen. There were great dances onstage and sang the songs in unison. These film-goers were like a weird family.

I would have loved to participated in all the craziness of the midnight theater showings. While Rocky Horror Picture Show is a unique experience it seems extremely tamed when seen at home. It's not one of those films that you should watch on your own, because it's more of an interactive film to see with friends. Any Rocky Horror party can only be a cheap imitation of what once was amazingly great. Have times changed or has the film become dated? It's all fun with little intelligence, but when the "fun" is taken away what kind of film is this?

In conclusion, Rocky Horror Picture Show is a unique film, filled with entertaining songs but unfortunately it seems to be a product of a time that has long past. It will never reach the peak it once had. Thus it seems dated but still entertaining and weird enough to be loved and admired. It's a cult film that's not bad, but neither is it amazing. Still enjoyable to see Meatloaf at the peak of his career. 3/5

Singin in the Rain Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Singin in the Rain
Director: Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen
Year: 1952
Country: US
Language: English

 
I have never been a big fan of the musical, the songs tend to get tedious and completely distract from the main plot. This was certainly the case for West Side Story. It won best picture in the early sixties and it certainly had some great songs, but near the end of the film the songs seemed unnecessary and made the film long and somewhat boring. While The Producers had some hilarious musical numbers, the songs at the end seemed pointless. Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen's Singin in the Rain has a perfect amount of songs which not only move the plot along but give insight to the character's emotional feelings at that moment.

The year is 1927, Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) and Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen)  are the most famous on-screen couple in America. In real life Don isn't too fond of Lina, but she's not too bright "Why, I make more money than Calvin Coolidge put together!" and mistakes their imaginary relationship as real. Unfortunately for both stars the silent era is coming to an end, if they wish to keep their jobs and make any money on their film they must adjust to changing times and make a musical. out of their film. Don has an amazing voice, whereas Lina sounds like a squirrel. The producers of the film decide to dub over Lina's voice with the young and talented Kathy Seldon (Debbie Reynolds). Don falls so in love with her that he starts "singin in the rain"/

I love that this film is actually about something historically important to film. The transition from silent to sound and the struggles an actor had during those times. It's about the film industry in a period of dangerous transition. Sure the film simplifies it, it may have been a 12 hour long film otherwise, but every detail shown on screen is quite truthful, Cameras were often held in soundproof booths, great actors were laughed at because they had terrible voices, microphones were hidden in obvious locations. Some film historians would agree that films suffered creative setbacks during this transition period, knowing this it is no wonder Charlie Chaplin refused to transition until 1940.

Donald O\Connor plays Cosmo Brown, best friend of Gene Kelly's character and boy is he memorable. During the "Make Em Laugh" musical number  he ran up a wall and completed a somersault, smoking about four packs of cigarettes a day at the time, he had to lay in bed for over a week due to exhaustion because the trick took so much energy to do. Gene Kelly had a mishap on set when he attempted to leap onto a convertible but missed and hit the street. What I'm trying to say is that, Singin in the Rain was a masterpiece that was created by the actors having to reach their physical edge. Debbie Reynolds once said that she practiced the "Good Morning" musical number until her feet bled. It is the incredible commitment of these actors to their art that makes Singin in the Rain even better.

In conclusion, this film is filled with great songs and great dances. The musical numbers are very memorable, you will definitely find yourself humming such imaginative tunes like "Good Morning" and the title song "Singin in the Rain". I found only Rocky Horror Picture Show a more enjoyable musical, but I suppose I have to acknowledge that Singin in the Rain is much more important to the history of cinema.  Praise it! 5/5

Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!
Director: Russ Meyer
Year: 1965
Country: U.S
Language: English

I don't remember when I saw Russ Meyer's Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! or why I was tempted to watch it. I had seen Beyond the Valley of the Dolls and Supervixens a few weeks earlier and was amazed at how much 1960's culture was engrossed into those films. They weren't "good" but I wouldn't consider them "bad" either. They were incredibly fun films with uninhibited sexuality. Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! was actually my favorite of the Russ Meyer films I have seen so far. Not only can I classify it as "good" but it's also a bold statement of feminist values.

Three busty strippers seeking thrills come across a young couple in the desert. After abandoning the boyfriend, they take the cute girl hostage and start scheming on a crippled old man (think Hector Salamanca from the incredible television series Breaking Bad) and his two brawny but dim witted sons who all live in the desert, hiding a vast amount of cash. They attempt to be house guests and seduce the old man's sons in order to retrieve the money from them. However they do not realize that the old man also has some evil plans in mind.

The director Russ Meyer (March 1922-Sept 2004) was an American director, well known for his campy Sexploitation films.He loved making fun of moral stereotypes and American values. Most of his films used sex as the vehicle of his satires. He often used very similar sized women, big breasted and usually pregnant. Often referring to his actresses as "amazonian". This may be more in heart than in physique as all of the women in his films are emotionally powerful, they can hold their own and do not need men to take care of them. Meyer championed powerful women, often putting them in terrifying circumstances, but showing that they were tougher than any man they encountered.

Take away all the jokes, the elaborate camera angles, the violence, the action and the sex in Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!  and what you have is the essential Russ Meyer's woman. A towering female who dominates all the men around her and treats men the same way women have been treated by men in Cinema since then. Instead of breasts being used to attract men, they are used to intimidate them. Fascinating, is the empowerment of women in this film. Feminists ideals cloud this film. It is the opposite of every Hollywood action movie ever made. Instead of Arnold Schwarzenegger we have Tura Santana, a woman who is more dangerous because she's tired of being oppressed and underestimated in a male dominated world.

In conclusion, Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! is a film that all feminists NEED to see. For a man who has been accused of making pornography, Russ Meyer surely understood the female anxieties towards men. It is violent and gritty, but necessary. On the surface it looks like a "B" movie but in reality it is anything but that. I've seen this at least four times, and each time I've been fascinated. I will continue looking for more of his films, which sadly seem hard to find. If this is a "B" movie, then the "B" must be for "brilliant" Praise it! 5/5

Lawless Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Lawless
Director: John Hillcoat
Year: 2012
Country: U.S
Language: English

"Brazen and fearless, these young rebel brothers helped build the American Dream." I watched Lawless a week ago, though I was hesitant, a few friends recommended that it was a decent film. I'm no stranger to the Western genre, my favourite being 1969's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. I also loved the Cohen Brother's ambitious remake of True Grit. I'm not opposed to violent films, nor films that shed light on the protagonist either. However, Lawless is one of the worst films I've seen from 2012. Like Ted, it has reminded me why I should avoid mainstream Hollywood films and stick with the indies and non-American films, because there are a lot of great one s out this year.

The film is about three Bondurant brothers who run a bootlegging operation during the depression, up in the Franklin County mountains of Virginia. The vile Special Debuty Charles Rakes (Guy Pearce) is after some of the brother's profits and local competition makes their troubles even worse.Forrest Bondurant's (Tom Hardy) need for defiance gets him seriously wounded. The often underestimated brother Jack (Shia LeBeouf) must hold his own against Floyd Banner's mob.

First I must note that the acting in this film is pretty bad. Shia LeBeouf is as stale in this film as he is in everything he has been in. He seems more of a fit in the comedic genre, yet somehow thinks he can make it as a "serious" actor. I don't expect any Oscars, or legit awards, ever for in man's future.The dialouge is un-interesting and sometimes cheesy. The villain, Special Debuty Charles Rakes (Guy Pearce) is too over the top with his acting. He would serve better as a cartoon character than in a film that attempts to call itself "realistic". Speaking of realism, when Forrest Boundrant's throat is slit open he merely holds the edges of his wound and walks to the hospital. Huh? That should've been cut from the film because it's ridiculously stupid.

I have seen very violent films and I don't judge a film based on violence alone, I loved Schindler's List and Battle of Algiers. However, the violence in this film completely distracts from the story. It's pointless and gratuitious, any sympathy or enjoyment from these characters are taken away by the countless murders that occur at their hands. It makes the publicity line "Brazen and fearless, these young rebel brothers helped build the American Dream" incredibly disturbing. Though I guess the history of America has been paved by the blood of many.

In conclusion, don't see Lawless. It has nothing intelligent to say and is full of mindless violence. The acting is sub-par and if you have any interest in the characters it will be lost by the ends of the film. I'm glad that I had the insight to download this as I would never give a penny to the people who made this film. If you are interested in a modern Western, see True Grit. I'm surprised that this movie has made any money, then again, there are a lot of mindless filmgoers nowadays. Piss on it! 0.5/5