The next few months.

 I must start this update by thanking you all for another great month for the blog. However I come with some bad news.

Exams.

Yes exams are looming on the horizon and so revision is going to have to take precedent beyond the blog. My final exam in on June 12th, and so up until that date, expect a significant lull in content. I cannot apologize enough for this, however it is not all bad news.

CONTENT WILL NOT STOP ENTIRELY. I will likely release around one full review a week from this point until the date underlined above. In addition it is my birthday on the 17th, my eighteenth birthday. I intend to use some money from this occasion to buy audio equipment. Yes, video reviews are coming. I cannot say when this'll happen, but it'll certainly be after the final exam date.

That is pretty much everything. May will be a shit month for the blog and I'm not happy about that. After that however, I will be free for several months until I go to University. I will use that time to raise my content to new heights, this I promise. Until then.

By Jack D. Phillips

Inside Number 9: Episode 11: Nana's Party

An 
uncomfortable

and deeply moving

episode. An 
emotional

high point for the series.

This is episode of the show is not for the faint hearted. Nana's Party is the ultimate culmination of he efforts made by episodes such as The 12 Days of Christine and Last Gasp, to create a fully satisfying and complex family drama in only thirty minutes. I honestly cannot say that I have ever seen such a potent and complex range of emotions in such a short space of time, this episode is simply triumphant over it's restrictive format.

The primary reason for this episodes success is the wealth of excellent performances on display here. Aside from our familiar duo, who are both equally phenomenal here and provide some of the most powerful moments of the entire show, Claire Skinner is our standout talent for this episode. The actress' greatest talent is without a doubt her relatablity, which makes watching such horrible scenarios happen around her quite uncomfortable from the beginning. It is worth noting that this is the second episode of the show to be directed by Pemberton and Shearsmith, and I am only growing to love them for the quality of performance they are able to get from their actors. Not a single line falls flat here, and I cared deeply for every single one of the main cast.

Before I ramble for too long about the acting, I must deliver some kind of praise at the script for this episode. If it isn't the strongest script of the entire series then it is certainly close, and I believe this episode sands as a primary testament to the duo's immense collective writing ability. The script here is absolutely wonderful in it's plotting, without a doubt the strongest of the series thus far and it is filled with a host of stunningly funny and heart-achingly potent moments. This episode's climax is a true marvel, perfectly built up and incorporating every character and plot point of the episode up to that point in one incredibly powerful (and surprisingly hilarious) conclusion.

Overall, this episode is a masterwork and stands a one of the show's newest highpoints. Although season two of the show is certainly less consistent than the first, I can say that it has certainly offered up some incredible television.

By Jack D. Phillips

A Zoom Film Review

Inside Number 9: Episode 11

How many ways can a similar story be told?

I was recently asked to write a piece for my film class' new blog. I was actually surprised by how well it came out, and am actually happy to share it here on my personal blog. I hope you enjoy this little slice of film theory.

How many ways can a similar story be told?

This year, this Film Studies has looked at four world cinema films for analysis and comparison. The films are La Haine, City of God, Tsotsi and Once Were Warriors. These films all demonstrate ideas and concepts that stem from the cultures in which they were created, however despite this all the films share some common ideas and concepts. So this raises the question, How many ways can a similar story be told?

Well, that depends highly on what the similarities are. For example Tsotsi and Once Were Warriors, both incorporate the idea of family into their narratives, more specifically of the violence and horror that can befal families in certain environments or cultures. Tsotsi does this through flashback, non-linearly retreating into the past to show the effects of the titular character’s past on his current actions. We see how the violence and death that surrounded his childhood has warped his view on the world, turning him into a predatory thug.

Some of these ideas are also displayed in Once Were Warriors, however the framing has changed. The horrors of a dysfunctional family is far more pressing in this film, the danger and corruption is in the present. Tsotsi often shows it’s flashbacks in the form of dreams, the character will awake to end one of these sequences for example. However, Once Were Warriors lacks this fantastical barrier. The pain and violence is immediate in this film, and the details are shown far more explicitly.

The results of these different styles are numerous. Tsotsi is a softer film, the emotions and ideas of what it means to come from a broken and violent family are felt very strongly, even if the details are vague. Furthermore the method chosen by Tsotsi allows for a greater sense of character change, we see the character as a child, a predatory thug and finally as a man. Once Were Warriors’, approach however is far more shocking. The film aims to make the viewer feel uncomfortable and sick, with the acts of violence being of greater importance than the characters participating. This film is far more visceral, aiming to move the audience in a more physical manner.

This is only a single example of how similar ideas can be used to totally different effect. There are several more present across the four films, and more importantly, across all of cinema. Other good examples are: how gun violence is portrayed across the four films, the concept of childhood in Tsotsi, Once Were Warriors and City of God, and substance abuse is displayed in City of God and Once Were Warriors.

These ideas and themes are great jumping on points for analysis, and comparing four films which differ so greatly and share so much is a wonderful way to begin thinking about film in a more critical fashion. We have four films to discuss in this part of the course, so compare and contrast their ideas and use of themes. Just some thoughts from me.

By Jack D. Phillips

Duel (1971)

One of the

most intense and

engaging thrillers of

all time.

This film is so much fun. If you simply want to see a fun and blood-pumping thriller one evening, then I cannot recommend this particular gem more. Although I have seen the majority of Spielberg's films, my memory of them has dimmed slightly over the years. This film however will be burned into my mind for a while, it is simply that memorable. A man being chased by a seemingly demonic truck seems almost too simple to work, and yet this film exists.

The biggest reasons for this are the editing and cinematography. There is a rhythm and a tempo to this film's editing that I cannot even describe, it truly feels like the viewer is travelling down that road with Dennis Weaver at breakneck speed. The film's action is never dull, a truly magical fact considering that the film is effectively a single feature length car chase. It is so invigorating, that the viewer feels compelled to yell and hoot at the screen whenever the hero outwits the pursuer, and squeal in terror whenever he is pushed towards death. 

Beyond the film's remarkable achievement in editing, Speiberg offers some truly devilish 

camerawork. He places his camera on parts of the truck's anatomy in such a way as to breath life into the creature. The camera hunts after Weaver's car in such a bloodthirsty fashion that I am sure this film went on to inspire some  of the great slasher films of the next decade. 

Duel is also significant in terms of it's pacing. Despite the film's short running time, it feels massive and epic. This is one instance wherein saying a film feels longer than it's running time is a positive, as this is a story that you do not want to stop watching. The film escalates it's tension in a way which Spielberg would surpass only in Jaws, a film which is seen by many as this film's evolved successor.  Overall, I would recommend to anyone with the intention to write a thriller that they track down this film's screenplay and study it religiously, it is that strong in it's pacing.

Sadly however, the film does have some minor flaws which hold it back from perfection. For a start, there are occasional scenes which do not make too much logical sense. Particularly a scene involving a bus, which is both slightly overlong and (more importantly) a touch confused in it's storytelling. This scene seems a little needed in my eyes and is the only fly in the sweet ointment which is this film's narrative. Furthermore, although r=the film's climax is downright perfect, the final shot of the film is somewhat confusing and gets worse when thought about too deeply.

These nitpicks aside, this film is wonderful. I have not seen Jaws in a very long time, however I am dead-set to track it down as soon as possible. Duel is certainly one of the best thrillers I have seen in a long time, and it is possibly the most impressive TV movie I have ever heard of.

By Jack D. Phillips
A Zoom Film Review

Dead Man Walking (1995)

The film that

confirmed to me

that Sean Penn is a

great actor, and

that Tim Robins is a

great director.

I have limited experience with actor Sean Penn. This is mostly due to the roles he chooses to portray, few of which actively interest me and his frequent appearances in dull-looking Oscar bait. Prior to this film, my only real experience with the actor was in Mystic River, a film which I find to be heavily flawed, but does feature a strong performance from Penn. Unlike Mystic River however, this is a film that I decided to watch specifically because of Penn, so naturally this film's success in my eyes greatly depended on how well he portrayed the role of a convicted murderer on death row. I am very happy to say therefore, that Penn does exceptionally well and offers a masterful performance.

Matthew Poncelet is a shockingly real character, balancing a genuine loathsome and disgusting edge with a sympathetically human side. Penn delivers so much of the character in tiny gestures and shows some of the most complex reactions and responses I have seen in any film. It is very rare that I both despise a character, especially because the film makes sure that the character's crimes are in no way justified or softened, and yet still feel horrible when watching their suffering. An all time great performance.

The film was directed by Tim Robbins, mostly known for his highly impressive acting career (interestingly he would also go on to co-star in Mystic River alongside Penn), in what is considered to be his greatest achievement behind the camera. It is clear that Robbins's attention was mainly devoted to the performances of his actors, as even beyond Penn every significant performance is great. Susan Sarandon is amazing in what is probably the greatest portrayal of a Nun I have ever seen on screen, a deeply complex and movingly spiritual aspect of the film. Sarandon defiantly acts as the glue which holds this film together, and if Penn gives the film teeth, Sarandon gives it soul. Robert Prosky, R. Lee Ermey and Roberta Maxwell all do very well in significant supporting roles, all adding depth and life to the complex issues and ideas the film explores.

Dead Man Walking features very strong pacing and a rich, spiritual atmosphere, the pace being comparable to a TV-miniseries in all the best ways. It is slow, methodical and deeply contemplative, allowing the audience to experience the emotions and ideas of the film at the same pace as the characters within the story. The films thick atmosphere is provided by the film's top-notch score (which is used with admirable restraint) and it's smooth cinematography. The camerawork in this film not terribly complex, however there is clear technique on display and some nice, if somewhat simplistic, visual storytelling going on here.

The film isn't perfect. It occasionally slips into sappy melodrama, this rarely happens within the film however does undermine the mood somewhat, and the frequent flashbacks to the fateful crime can become mildly obnoxious (although they are used to strong effect most of the time). In addition I found Ramond J. Barry to be quite stiff and awkward in his role, gelling poorly with Sarandon in their scenes together.

Overall, this film is one of the best American melodramas of the 90's. It's compelling and heartbreaking performances and characters are put to the screen in stunning glory, and I would recommend this to anyone who wants to see Penn at his very best. I am only sad that Robbinson's directing career seems to have been abandoned in recent years, for he certainly has talent in the director's chair.

By Jack D. Phillips

A Zoom Film Review

Texas Chainsaw Massacre 4: The Next Generation (1994)

WOW....

I did not 

expect this film

to be such a 

complete failure.

Words fail me on this film. I usually begin my reviews with an overview of sorts, before going into the analysis, however in this case I will list every good aspect of this film. The poster is pretty cool, and it's climax is ridiculous and amusing. There, that is all I can say about this film on a positive note. It is that bad.

I am sure that all readers are familiar with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, one of the all time great horror films and a masterpiece of tension and intense atmosphere. his film bares almost no resemblance to that film, despite supposedly being a remake of it. It fails in literally every category that I could conceive and I am going to describe some of them to you now.

Firstly, the film seems to lack acting. There were credits at the end, however I did not really spot many performances within the film itself. It was instead filled with insipid 'teenagers' (aged around twenty-eight plus), mulling around and choking out some of the least convincing dialogue I have ever seen, with no emotion or realism to be found on any aspect of their being. Only Matthew McConaughey offers anything resembling a performance, and he totally embarrasses himself. It is safe to say that the man is a great actor overall, and has proved himself on multiple occasions, however here he is utterly ridiculous and difficult to watch. It's like watching a your friend choke on stage, you feel bad and disappointed for everyone involved. 

Beyond the lack of actual acting, the film's atmosphere is piss poor. The fact that the majority of the film is set at night baffles me, as the original was set in an oppressive and sun bleached environment. This may seem like a nitpick, however I feel that it shows a complete lack of understanding as to why the original worked. This is further emphasised by the inclusion of various familiar scenes from the original, again with none of the technique or imagery that made those scene so powerful. The utterly atrocious dinner scene in this film, meant to homage the similar scene from the original, is one of the most poorly executed scenes I have ever witnessed in all of cinema. I cannot emphasise how badly this film fails when compared to the original, it's a sad joke.

Overall, do not watch this film. I watched this on the urging of a friend, who was curious due to the presence of McConaughey, and it was one of the least enjoyable film experiences of my life. It isn't even funny, just stay away.

By Jack D. Phillips
A Zoom Film Review

Inside Number 9: Episode 10: Cold Comfort

Certainly the most 

unique episode

 of the season. 

A wonderfully experimental

 outing that

left me satisfied and highly

 impressed.

The second season of Inside Number 9 is certainly making efforts to remain unique and innovative. Despite the heavily flawed nature of some of the episodes, every one (barring the fairly derivative La Couchette) has been unique and has pushed the show in a bold new direction. Of all of them, Cold Comfort may be the most innovative of them all, utilising a unique visual style that I have legitimately not seen before in either TV or film. The episode takes place using a fixed camera set-up (in the style of a CCTV camera), which does not alter throughout the entire episode. This set-up highlights the cabin fever and confinement felt by those working in support centers. This is what I love about Inside Number 9, how it takes mundane and rarely portrayed aspects or situations of day-to-day life and brings out their latent tension and drama. I never thought that a call-center would be a location with a story to tell, however I have witnessed one now.

Aside from it's downright inspired concept, this episode is also notable for being the first episode of the show directed by Pemberton and Shearsmith, as well as being written by, and starring the duo. In the case of Number 9, I can only assume that increased creative control only benifits the show, as the intensity of some of the performances (particularly Pemberton's in this case) are outstanding. I would call this a highly successful directoral debut from the duo, and I am curious to see if they choose to direct any future episodes, or possibly even a larger project.

In terms of the episodes writing and storyline, they are both very strong here. I will admit that I find certain plot points a touch contrived, and so in that aspect the screenplay is far from perfect, however overall it allows for probably the best character interaction and dialogue of the entire season thus far. The episode this one reminds me of the most is The Understudy, which was also a tightly written and emotional character drama based around the behind the scene workings of a stressful industry. I feel it is safe to say that it is this type of episode that impresses me the most out of all of Inside Number 9.

Overall, i adore this episode. It is not my favourite episode of the series, or even the season so far, however I respect it immensely and can only see it as something of a creative breakthrough for the duo, due to their decision to take control behind the camera as well as in front.

By Jack D. Phillips
A Zoom Film Review
Inside Number 9: Episode 10

Inside Number 9: Episode 9: The Trial of Elizabeth Gadge

Better than La Couchette,

however another 

mixed episode

from the 

second season.

I feel that is safe to say that this season of Inside No. 9 is far less consistent than the last. The first season offered a very consistent level of quality and rarely wavered in that aspect. This season has so far offered a fairly underwhelming episode (La Couchette) and a utterly fantastic episode (12 Days of Christine), and now this installment. The Trail of Elizabeth Gadge is a flawed and fairly confused episode, and is pretty much the opposite as anything that could be described as consistent. 

Let's start with the good things the episode does. For a start, its comedy is generally funny, pacing it far ahead of the considerably less amusing La Couchette. There were several moments within this episode which made me laugh, and overall it succeeds as a comedy in my eyes. Furthermore the epsiode's atmosphere is far more compelling than La Couchette's and brings many unique elements to the series which have not been seen before now. The unique period setting marks a first for the series and unlocks several possibilities for future episodes. 

Finally, the episode features some exceptional performances. Shearsmith and Pemberton deliver their most significant performances of the season thus far, and are exceptional as always. Particular praise must go towards the restraint and dignity of Pemberton's performance. Furthermore, the titular Elizabeth Gadge is brilliantly portrayed by Ruth Sheen and delivers one of the more interesting and complex characters of the entire series.

Then we arrive at the episodes rather hefty flaws. Much like La Couchette the episode's atmosphere is damaged at points due to the presence of broad comedy. It is possibly even worse here due to the intensity of certain sequences, and how brutally they are undermined by the comedy. For example, a scene of horrific torture is soon followed by jokes about an anal probe, destroying any sense of tragedy or horror. The episode is also far to blatant in it's plotting in my opinion, as character motivations are frequently repeated and plot points are hammered in far too many times. Furthermore some of the supporting actors were far to goofy in their delivery and further created dissonance between the tone of the comedy and the tone of the drama.I also dislike the episodes second twist, which honestly felt like something of a minor betrayal to the style and sensibilities of the show, and was painfully predictable despite this.

Overall, this episode is even more confused and jumbled than La Couchette. I overall prefer this episode to the aforementioned and commend the quality of some of the acting and atmosphere. However it's flaws are deep and ruin what could have been a standout portrayal of a subject which I have always found highly interesting.

By Jack D. Phillips

A Zoom Film Review

Inside Number 9: Episode 9

I Saw the Devil (2010)

A haunting 

and blood pumping

action-horror, with a

an utterly horrifying 

performance from

Min-Sik Choi.

I Saw the Devil is a very fascinating South Korean film from a few years ago for several reasons. For a start it stars Min-Sik Choi (que fan-girlish squealing concerning my love of Min-Sik Choi) and is one of the only film's I am aware of which qualifies as an 'action-horror-thriller'. All three of those genres are fairly vague in their boundaries and ideas, however all three defiantly come together and distinctly form this film. I can honestly say that I have not seen a film structured in this exact fashion, and although it's far from perfect, I give much praise to the execution of this interesting genre meld.

The most important element of the film...will have to wait. Because I want to talk about Choi first. He is horrifying. Choi delivers probably the most malevolent performance I have ever seen, and made my skin crawl in every single scene he occupied without a single exception. The man is one of my all time favourite actors, however he plays psychopathic and general despicable characters so well, that I would genuinely be worried about meeting him if given the opportunity. I honestly cannot praise this performance enough, and it is genuinely one of the most unsettling things a recent film can offer. 

Aside from Choi, the film offers a very strong storyline. With ideas and concepts clearly inspired by Chan-Wook Park's Vengeance Trilogy, director Kim-Jee Woon offers a film with  some of the most intense dramatic setpieces I can think of in a recent film. The violence is visceral and genuinely cringe-worthy in places,it is not for the faint of heart and creates a world of cruelty and horror. The atmosphere of this world is spot on, shot with gloomy and dirty colours resembling an underground basement or a public restroom. The film is genuinely unpleasant to watch, however it's execution is quite flawless from a technical perspective. In some places I feel that the film may have gone a little too far in an attempt to continuously up the ante past the point where it was actually possible. Certain acts of horror and cruelty come off as a little excessive and feel uneeded in a film which is already filled with grime and filth beforehand. Overall however this film will offer a deeply unsettling and powerful experience to viewers, and will likely exceed any previous expectations in term of explicitness.

Beyond Choi the film boasts a strong cast filled with several strong performances. Byung-hun Lee leads the cast with a subtle and powerfully introspective performance, reflecting the torment of a man in his position perfectly. His restrained, yet deeply emotional expressions and delivery contrasts perfectly with Choi loud and animalistic monstrosity, resulting in the climactic final sequence which features one of the most engrossing on-screen debates I have ever seen. The power struggle between these two character's is perfectly paced and fills the plot perfectly, making the meat of this film's plot deeply enjoyable.

Overall, although I feel the film can be somewhat purile at times, and can be a little cheap in it's attempts to shock, there is no doubting it's effectiveness. The film is a wonderful genre meld featuring some top-notch directing and stunning performances. It is a must see for fans of world cinema, or those who wish to see the darkest and bleakest thrillers they can get their hands on.

By Jack D. Phillips
A Zoom Film Review

Masterpiece Corner: San Taam

Uneasy, confusing and utterly bewildering to behold.

San Taam (Mad Detective) caught my eye due to being included in the excellent Masters of Cinema Blu-Ray series distributed by EUREKA!. I went into the film almost entirely blind, as it seems to be seldom discussed within the online film community. What I discovered resonated with me instantaneously. A weird, blood soaked neo-noir totally befitting of the honor of being called a masterpiece. My second viewing only strengthened this view, and filled in the gaps that my first viewing left me with, and I am now convinced that this film should be considered one of the great neo-noirs of the last decade. (Spoilers from this point onward).

The film opens with a bang, setting the tone of the story perfectly in a brief prologue sequence. A detective, whose name is revealed to be Bun, explores several strange and extreme methods for solving a case, including attacking a pig carcass with a knife and throwing himself down several flights of stairs within a suitcase. This scene establishes both the skill and unhinged nature of  the main character, and concludes with the detective slicing off his own ear in the middle of his entire department. This brings the opening sequence back to reality, the audience now knows that this unhinged character is not to be taken lightly.This opening scene is the root of much of my love for this film, and I would use it as a prime example of how to start a character driven story properly. Before the story even begins a mystery is ignited, why did Bun slice of his own ear?  There is method to the man's madness in the first few instance of 'madness' we are shown, however the ear slicing scene takes things down a sharp different direction. What happened? Why did Bun lose the plot completely? These questions suck the viewer in and establishes a freakishly fascinating character in only a few minutes.

I am going to go on a brief interlude to praise this film's lighting. I do not even know how to really describe the lighting throughout most of the film. It has an ethereal and misty quality to it, particularly during the scenes with Bun's house and within a dimly lit restaurant. It is worth noting that both of these locations are highly significant to the main character, and so serve to  simulate his thought process. Misty, unclear and hard to identify, however still with a sharp and potent brightness behind the fog. I could go scene by scene and dissect the lighting in this film and I certainly consider it one of the most fascinating elements of the entire picture. 

Moving on from lighting, every actor in this film offers up a strong  performance, particularly Bun himself. Ching Wan Lau is fantastic in the main role, being highly likable and charismatic, drawing the audience into every crazy idea the character has, whilst still being animated and erratic enough to sell these crazy ideas as genuine.  Andy On is also very good as the film's second protagonist, Ho. The character acts as the perfect counterbalance to Bun, being far more stable and relatable to the audience whilst retaining an interesting character arc in his own right. On is able to keep up with Lau remarkably well, and sells the character as highly capable yet inexperienced and prone to worry. The interactions between these characters are well written and serves as the meat of the film's story very well.

What truly makes this film special though, is it's surrealist elements. The idea of setting a relatively simple noir storyline from the perspective of a mentally unstable character is inspired, and makes for a compelling spice to a fairly familiar recipe. Bun sees the inner personalities of every character in the film, as well as other things that other characters cannot, leading to some interesting visualisations of emotions and other aspects of each character. The main suspect of the case, and later the film's primary antagonist, has seven inner-personalities, which struggle for control over the body at several points in the film. 

These ideas are very visually interesting, and are sold beautifully. This is largely due to the film's high quality cinematography (particularly during the climax where everything is finally allowed to let loose), the films excellent use of sound to highlight specific objects within the story (usually guns) and the aforementioned brilliant lighting. The film is overall a technical masterpiece, with not a single element failing to sell the film's unique and deeply ambient atmosphere.

In conclusion, I find this film grossly underrated. It is one of the most adventurous and well put together crime thrillers made in the past decade, and I hope it's ideas and ambiance are taken up by other films in the future. I am fervently interested in the rest of Johnnie To's filmography, as I find his technique and ability to sell a fairly simple story captivating. San Taam's ending for example is simply exquisite for example, perfectly bringing everything built up throughout the film to a head in a simple gunfight and ending the story on an ambiguous and bittersweet note, which is highly open to interpretation. I would highly recommend this film to fans of noir and world cinema alike, it really is a hidden gem.

By Jack D. Phillips
Masterpiece Corner #4

Cinderella (2015)

An earnest

and entirely

wonderful film.

A genuine surprise.

I did not have particularly high expectations for Cinderella. It seemed like yet another uninspired and tired attempt to leech money from a classic IP without any understanding of how and why the original worked. This assumption was incorrect, because this film is simply wonderful.

The most significant aspect of the film's success can be found in how earnestly it is done. Director Kenneth Branagh delivers this film with complete sincerity, as if the story has never been told before. This means that rather than competing in the silly game of  grim/dark one-up-man-ship that so many other fantasy reboots do at this time, it focuses on simply telling it's story as well as it can. Branagh is known for working with his actors throughout the creative process, placing huge significance upon their performances (this is appropriate as Branagh is an actor himself and previously specialised in films based on Shakespear).

 The result is a film wherein every actor delivers a performance more committed than we have come to expect from films of this type. Lily James is fantastic in the title role, embodying the film's moral core of courage and kindness in every scene. Her deeply emotional and expressive delivery was a shock to me, and heavily contrasts with the blank and almost lifeless animated equivalent. Richard Madden is also great as Kit (the prince), giving a remarkably dedicated performance as a young and strong willed man attempting to do what is right for himself, whilst keeping to his responsibilities and commitments. Derek Jacobi is very good as the King, showing a warmth and wisdom that is delivered entirely through his posture and highly expressive eyes. However the performance that is receiving the most attention is from Cate Blanchet, as the stepmother. I will admit here that this is one of the few elements of the film which is somewhat lacking in comparison to the original. The stepmother from the original is a genuinely menacing and visually striking character, more than worthy of becoming as iconic as she has. Blanchet does a great job in her own right, having the perfect poise and delivery to sell the cruelty of the character, however she cannot match the hand-drawn original.

The film's story is deeply fascinating to me. Chris Weitz chooses not to darken or significantly change the story in any way, however he refocuses it. In retrospect, the original film is filled with filler material and cute comedic relief, the majority of which is cut here. However a far greater emphasis is placed upon deepening the story, which is the key word to summarize this film. It is deeper than the first rather than darker. Many other fantasy reboots or re-imaginings choose to needlessly darken their stories, attempting to 'modernise' the tales by shoving in ideas and imagery more fitting of Game of Thrones than an fairytale. They almost seem embarrassed about what they are. Cinderella is not ashamed however, and so rather than darkening it's story needlessly it decides to explore character and relationships. The prince is given a complete arc and a fully realised character, who as I previously mentioned is portrayed beautifully. The stepmother is not given an unnecessarily diabolical edge (cough Queen of Hearts in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland reboot, cough) however more context and insight is given into the character. Most filmmakers in this trend mistake darkness for depth, and that by adding and unnecessary and bleak back-story to a character we will care about them more (Maleficent). I cannot praise this film enough for how it avoids this erroneous trend, which is becoming more and more of a cancer on current American cinema.

On a simpler note, the film looks stunning. Branagh cares about setting, and so he clearly went to great lengths to build some wonderful sets. CGI is minimal to nonexistent, and the use of lighting and colour to portray emotion is top-class. The size and shape of the sets are particularly impressive, reflecting the state of the plot and characters nicely. The film has a good pace thanks to some solid editing, and is overall and absolute joy to watch.

In conclusion, I love this film. I was beaming from ear to ear throughout and left totally satisfied. I desperately want this film to become a children's classic, as kids deserve something that respects them and is not embarrassed to be made for them. The film even almost got me to cry during it's most potent scenes, and I believe this is a highly mature and highly impressive work of film form. Congratulations Kenneth Branagh.

By Jack D. Phillips

A Zoom Film Review

Inside Number 9: Episode 8: The 12 Days of Christine

Season 2 finally

gets going, with the

most touching story of the

duo's career.

I finally figured out why La Couchette didn't work properly. It lacked the growing sense of dread that defines the series and makes it so special for me. That sense is not forgotten again however, as this episode is one of the most intense and potent pieces of television I have seen in quiet some time.

The episode stars Sheridan Smith as Christine, in a role that has netted her (and the episode on the whole) much praise and analysis. This praise is defiantly deserved. Smith is very likable here and portrays a character who seems eerie in her realness. This episode rivals The Understudy in how relatable and human it's main character is, and that is far from small praise. Smith, alongside the simply amazing script, is able to condense an entire life of struggle and joy into less then thirty minutes, and makes every moment feel real and powerful. This is certainly the most grounded and affecting the duo's writing has ever gotten, and shows a remarkable level of maturity and skill. The supporting actors also do a great job here, adding to the living-breathing life that Smith forms for here character over the course of a decade, and giving Pemberton a surprisingly downplayed role. It is clear that neither Pemberton or Shearsmith intended to dominate our attention here, this is the story of Christine as portrayed by Sheridan Smith, and that is respected to the utmost.

The twist ending of this episode is perhaps the series' finest yet. A deeply moving and shocking ending, which is open to much interpretation and debate. I am sure this twist will be discussed for long after this season ends, and will be remembered as one of the duo's greatest achievements as writers.

In conclusion, if this is not my favourite episode of the series it is certainly at least close. A tale of loss, heartbreak and love in under thirty minutes. There is genuinely nothing else out there right now like it.

By Jack D. Phillips

A Zoom Film Review

Inside Number 9: Episode 8

Masterpiece Corner: Harvey

One of the most charming and lovable films ever made

On the surface, Harvey is a very simple and easily forgotten film. It does not immediately appear to be 'cinematic' and seems to more of a filmed stage production than an actual noteworthy picture in it's own right. Despite this however, I am not only a huge fan of this film, but it contains one of my all time favourite leading performances, from Mr. Jimmy Stewart himself.

Harvey was released in 1950 and is an adaptation of Pulitzer Prize winning play of the same name. The film's origins as a play are very apparent, both in terms of its pacing and in the style of acting it contains. Director Henry Koster was clearly more concerned with capturing the essence of the original play than morphing the story into a cinematic one, and in most cases I would critisise this decision. However it works so well here that I can only see excessive changes as a bad thing, and I commend Koster for how thoroughly he held his ground in maintaining the story's essence. Harvey is not a big or bombastic film, it is a simple tale about a man who sees a giant white rabbit. The simple setup the film utilises allows the actors to stretch themselves in ways they otherwise would;d not be able to, and it allows Stewart to deliver his amazing performance (Spoilers from this point onward).

James Stewart dominates this film in every single scene he inhabits. I am thoroughly convinced that his character, Elwood P. Dowd, is the most lovable man ever put on screen, and Stewart immerses himself in the role completely. His excellent and highly expressive face is a total joy to watch, and his controlled posture gives the character the air of a gentle giant.  The film's outstanding screenplay gives Stewart every opportunity to showcase the depth of his performance. Perhaps the most well known scene in the film is a monologue delivered by Elwood describing how his imaginary friend came to be named Harvey. This scene stands as one of the most engrossing monologues I have seen in any film and stands as a testament to Stewart's incredible ability as an actor.

Beyond Stewart's performance, Elwood is a highly fascinating character in his own right. The nature of his mental illness is left vague and the concept of the supernatural is never totally dismissed, leading the audience to constantly wonder whether or not Harvey is real. The audiences ultimate decision on whether he is real or not does not weaken the film in any way, rather the extra audience involvement acts to help them get engrossed in the drama's of Elwood's life. It sounds cliche' to say, but I honestly forgot I was watching a film at points, as the story and dialogue was so effective at keeping me engaged in the action onscreen. Harvey is not a film which will immediately win over it's audience, it aims to do so in a slower fashion, capturing the viewer's heart with it's lovable characters and charming ambiance.

All of the previous elements that make this a masterpiece in my eyes were noticed on my first viewing, however it was upon my second where I began to notice the subtle brilliance of the film's cinematography and editing. They appear to be basic at first, however it is surprisingly far from standard. On my second watch I began to notice how long shot's were held for, continuing to run far beyond where I would usually expect a cut. The director clearly did not want his actor's performances disfigured by cuts, and allows the script to dictate the film's flow rather than the editor. This is a risky move and could have resulted in a boring film, wherein every scene would simple comprise of people talking in a flat and dull shot. However here it becomes a dance, with Stewart and the other main players leading the camera around the sets in slow but unmistakably beautiful movements. The film also offers some highly memorable imagery, particularly in it's iconic final shot, and is overall far more visually sophisticated than I originally gave it credit for being.

The final thing I wish to talk about, the element which convinced me to cover this film for this series, is the theme of time. Elwood, and other characters, frequently make reference to how different Elwood was a few years ago, and that Harvey has not always been with him. We get hints that Elwood was a far more 'normal' person, possibly in a high position of authority. These hints come together in a monologue which reveals that Elwood does not look back fondly on his old self, holding that it is better to be pleasant than clever. Much can be taken from this small undercurrent, however I choose to believe that the film is stating that a person can always change, and there is no excuse to remain in an unhappy lifestyle when you can always change it.

Overall, Harvey is a masterpiece. It's acting is some of the best you will ever see in an American film from this period, and it uses the film form in quietly brilliant ways. Track it down for yourself, and discover one of the definitive classic American films in my opinion.

By Jack D. Phillips
Masterpiece Corner #3

Thanks for a great month!

March was the best month of the blog's life so far. We received more views than ever before (600!) and massively diversified the audience, getting views from across the world. Thank you all for reading, I hope you all continue to enjoy the blog for the rest of the year.

By Jack D. Phillips

The Old Dark House (1932) [An analysis on James Whale]

One of the brightest

gems from the

master of camp-horror;

James Whale

I adore the legendary horror director James Whale, and would consider him one of my greatest influences. Therefore, this review will look a little bit more at why this filmmaker was so successful in his work and remains one of the most beloved American filmmakers of the 1930's, rather than the details of this film in particular.

Firstly, Whale is perhaps best known for directing the great milestone of horror; Frankenstein, and it's even grander sequel Bride of Frankenstein. Both these films are often considered to be the top films of the entire 'Universal Horror' catalog and remain two of the most imitated and influential films in the entire genre. The primary reason for this is quite simple in my eyes, the pacing. Tod Browining's Dracula (the other highly influential Universal horror film released the same year as Frankenstein), although still a classic in many ways, suffers from some pretty poor pacing in comparison to Whales' film. Dracula is a jerky film, which stops and starts quite erratically, never flowing as a Gothic horror should in my opinion. It's buildup is often cut too short, and expository dialogue is heavy, killing the atmosphere in places. Frankenstein is different however, it flows perfectly creating a natural and genuine tension. I cannot nail down the exact aspect of the production that gave Whale this advantage, however I would say it came down to stronger editing Whale employed. Dracula often cut too quickly for my taste, and did not allow it's scenes to develop properly before ending them. I must also point out here that I am not attempting to scapegoat Dracula or Todd Browning, as these are issues which permeate many of Universal's earlier films. This what makes Whale so interesting to me, how ahead of the competition he was for the time.

Beyond the pacing of his films, Whale's characters have a particular charm that makes them instantly recognisable. Although Whale did not write his own scripts, he clearly chose his screenplays very carefully, picking the ones which would match his dark sense of humor perfectly. It is here where The Old Dark House is particularly impressive. The film boasts a large and varied group of characters, and yet makes them all insanely memorable within a relatively tight running-time. This is most likely due to the exaggerated and comedic acting style Whale encouraged his actors to use, often referred to as camp. I would argue that the style deserves more dignity then being lumped in with the work of Ed Wood, however it is undeniable. Whales' characters are loose, fun and exaggerated, making them highly entertaining and lovable to watch. However there is far more wit within Whales' films than those of other 'camp' directors, and he was a master at crafting compelling interactions between characters.  A good example of this is The Invisible Man, which is silly and goofy in many ways, yet has a powerful and fairly pathotic undercurrent which comes to a head in it's ending, doing this through the increasingly erratic and unstable actions of the main character and his interactions with the supporting cast. The Old Dark House also features some of the best interactions I have ever seen in a horror film and they really showcase the actors charms and talent. I love every character in this film, and I would be hard pressed to find a single Whale character whom I do not like.

The final aspect of Whale which I love is his cinematography, which is also particularly strong here.  Whale took much inspiration from German expressionism, with his heavy use of sharp angles and intense shadows. The titular house of this film genuinely feels alive, with it's constant dark shroud and convoluted layout. The fire used in the climax (a common motif within Whales' finales) pops beautifully against the shadows that dominated the preceding hour, and it is immediately exciting to the eyes. Whale was also a big fan of intense close-ups, using them frequently here and in Frankenstein to showcase the disgusting expressions of the monsters (both played by Boris Karloff), and has this unnervingly personal affect on the viewer, due to the closeness of the image. You can almost smell the violent butler's alcohol drenched breath in The Old Dark House.

In conclusion, I feel this film is one of Whales' best. It features some of his best characters, his best cinematography and lighting and is consistently entertaining to watch. I would still consider Bride of Frankenstein to be my overall favourite James Whale film, which I sadly didn't discuss here at all (perhaps I'm saving that for it's own spotlight, *wink*) however I would highly recommend his work to any hardcore horror fan.

By Jack D. Phillips

A Zoom Film Review