The Truth about Bias.

I was tempted to write some kind of review about Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory today after rewatching it by chance. I decided against it though after talking to my sister afterwards. You see, that film was an incredibly major part of my childhood (probably the most important film in my life before the age of six), and so when we began discussing the film's flaws I felt highly conflicted.

As an amateur critic, I hold myself to some standards, and I would not wish to publish a useless review. Any review about that film would qualify, as I can not remove the significance the work had on my life from the work itself. I do not care about it's supposed flaws and cannot comment on them in any way, all my feelings about the film are dominated by warmth and nostalgia. And for those reasons, it will always be one of my favourite films.

This is an admittance from me that bias is an inevitable part of critique, and sometimes it is better to simply not cover something than to create a useless and entirely subjective review. If anyone reading this finds themselves struggling in the same way as myself remember this; thinking about films critically, does not mean you have to abandon  films that you love.

Thanks for reading.

By Jack D. Phillips

My Favourite Films

I recently created an alphabetical list of my favourite films. This is far from a major project, although I will be updating it semi-regularly. I just wanted to make my support of some of these films clear. No explanations for why I care for these films have been given, as they cannot be summed up in a few sentences. I hope you enjoy the brief insight into the films that make me smile.

The List

By Jack D. Phillips

Billy's Balloon (1998)

I am now going

 to attempt to

discuss Don

Hertzfelt.

Wish me luck.

I am a colossal fan of Don Hertzfelt. I have been attempting to muster the courage to talk about his work for a long time, and so far I have been unable to figure out how I can do him justice. Consider my review of this short film a practice run for a larger project in the future. I decided to cover this film do it being one of his lesser known early shorts, and also one of his more controversial works. All you need to do is read the comments of the Youtube release of this short (linked at the bottom) to see how it has managed to upset many people.

I do not share the opinion of these people, and I will discuss why later in this review, however for now I will look at the film on it's own terms. The film features the familiar style of animation employed through most of Hertzfelt's films, and I am still amazed by how expressive and funny it can be despite it's simplicity. In my opinion, Hertzfelt has managed to do more to validate stick-figure drawings as an authentic artistic style than Tim Burton did for stop-motion in the 80's and 90's. Hetrzfelt is also notable for his limited use of colour, only colouring objects or characters in for comedic effect or to highlight it's importance. The only element of this film which features colour is the titular balloon, which is bright red.

This leads me to an interesting facet of the film which may have been lost on the various angry commentors on Youtube. This film is a parody, specifically of the classic children's film The Red Balloon (1956). The original film, aside from being a wonderful fantasy adventure for children, is pretty much the epitome of childhood innocence and wonder and in the film, the red balloon acts as a symbol for this. By taking such a simple yet effective symbol of innocence and perverting it, Hertzfelt is able to make something truly hilarious and wrong. Billy's Balloon is a floating tormentor, a sadistic bully and so do to my predisposition to see red balloon's as friendly and innocent in film, the subversion is hilarious.

The humour is aided by the incredibly punchy sound design, which if Hertzfelt himself is to be believed, is one of the most important aspects of his films in his eyes. In this case I would totally agree, as the dark slapstick would simply not work without the quality of those sounds.

Overall I disagree with the assertion that this film is too mean spirited. It exists as a darkly comedic counterpoint to a sweet and heartfelt children's film from the fifties and a hilarious subversion of a symbol of innocence and goodness within the world of film.

Original Video Here

By Jack D. Phillips

A Zoom Film Review

Exaggerated Reality (Expressionism)

The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)
Der Golem (1920)
Nosferatu (1922)
Manhunter (1986)
Boogie Nights (1997)
Batman: Curse of the Phantasm (1993)
La Haine (1995)
It's Such a Beautiful Day (2012)
The Red Balloon (1956)
Enter the Void (2010)
The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)
Manhattan (1979)
Nightcrawler (2014)
Billy's Balloon (1998)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Ivan's Childhood (1962)
Edward Scissorhands (1990)
Birdman (2014)
Frankenstein (1931)
Metropolis (1927)
Coraline (2009)
Goodfellas (1990)
There Will Be Blood (2007)
Raging Bull (1980)
Dawn of the Dead (1978)
Ed Wood (1992)
5 Centimetres Per Second (2007)
Cowboy Bebop (1998-1999)
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
M (1931)
Ran (1985)
Life is Beautiful (1997)
They Live (1988)

By Jack D. Phillips

Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)

Everything wrong with

Woody Allen as a director

is on display here. 

However the

strength of it's cast is 

just enough to make it tolerable.

I am a pretty huge fan of Woody Allen as a filmmaker. This makes the fourth film of his that I have seen, and up to this point I have been nothing but impressed. In particular I would consider Manhattan to be one of my favourite films of all time. As a result, it was sad that this film disappointed me so severely. Particularly as this seems to be one of the more well known film of Allen's career. Not only is this undoubtedly the weakest of his films that I have seen, it also showcases all of his most glaring weaknesses as a storyteller.

Although I probably sound harsh at this point, I should make it clear that I do not hate this film. In fact I wouldn't even be able to fully commit to calling bad. This is due almost entirely to the strength of the performances. The cast is incredible, probably the reason why this film has endured as much as it has within the film community, featuring Woody himself, Carrie Fischer, Mia Farrow and Michael Caine amongst other well known talents. Every single performance in this film is strong and in many cases the actors are able to significantly raise the quality of the material that they are given (more about that said material later). I will give particular praise to Michael Caine, for he gives a sensitive and subtle performance and truly lights up the screen with his presence whenever he is shown. It is a shame that Allen film decided to use an ensemble style narrative with this film, as it means Caine's character is reduced to that of a supporting player. If he and Mia Farrow (who is also very strong here) were at the centre of this film's narrative rather than loitering in it's suburbs , it would probably have been for the better.

The film's biggest problem is it's screenplay. I general like Allen's writing style, as he has a very unique and articulate voice and knows how to pace a film narrative well. He is also highly self-conscience, with many of his funniest or most powerful scenes coming from his own critical eye over himself. All of these positive aspects are notably absent from this film, which is self indulgent and, above all else, boring. This film feels at least two or three times it's length, I could literally not believe how short the film was when I checked the back of the DVD. In the end, this tiring and monotonous pace cements the film as mediocre to me. Every strong element that this film offers is lost in the monotony of it's narrative, and that is a real shame.  Aside from this perceived length problem, Allen is at his most narcissistic here. His self-deprecating humour is gone here, and without it he becomes quite unlikeable as a performer. Rather than lovable he is annoying, and he is way to prominent in the films overall narrative. I personally feel Allen should have stayed behind the camera for this one.

The film's overwritten script also manages to lessen the effects of the performances at times. There are scenes where we see characters quietly contemplating their situations, the emotional impact of the moment being sold by the expressions on the actors face. For some reason however, Allen decided to overlay these scenes with dull and dense narration, explaining  away the emotions that the actors are already conveying visually. This undercuts the effect of these moments and lessened my relation to the people on screen, because the film was not allowing me to interpret anything. This lack of audience involvement, furthers the boredom that the film instils.

I cannot call this film an absolute failure. It was still mildly entertaining and the film has some pretty great moments. Although I have no intention of watching this film again, and I would not recommend it for a moment, it is ultimately harmless and average.

By Jack D. Phillips
A Zoom Film Review

Duck Amuck (1953)

Why you should

all know the name

Chuck Jones.

  

The great Tony Zhou created an excellent video essay on Chuck Jones which I recommend you watch as soon as you finish reading this, but I suppose I should tell you who the guy is first. Chuck Jones was an American animator who basically wrote the book on animated visual comedy. After effectively creating the Looney Toons, he went on to continue topping himself in one of the most remarkable careers in animation history. Although I am yet to revisit What's Opera Doc? which many consider his crowing achievement in comedic storytelling, however for now I feel comfortable in calling Duck Amuck a fairly spectacular achievement in it's own right.

This film is both an excellent example of the comedic style that Jones gave birth to, as well as an intelligent deconstruction of the basic principles of animation. In this short we see Daffy Duck battle against the cartoons animator himself, so the audience is literally watching Jones screwing around with his own creation. Not only is this premise hilarious due to the unexpected nature of it (the short begins as a simple Muskateer themed cartoon), but also because it follows the well established structure of a Daffy Duck cartoon; he is pitted against a more intelligent or powerful opponent and the comedy comes from the constantly increasing anger and frustration of the arrogant character.

This mixing of the expected and unexpected is what makes this short so amazing. We expect to see a silly cartoon in which Daffy is comically abused due to his own flaws and vices, which this short delivers on generously, however we do not expect the omniscience of the director/animator to directly influence the narrative, we especially do not expect this fourth wall breaking to be the driving force of the entire film.The short is also especially funny to those with an interest in filmmaking, as it mixes in some fairly intelligent references to the technical side of cinema and particularly animation.

I cannot describe how Jones is able to make me like Daffy so much, and yet like laughing at his expense so much as the same time. Seeing him desperately attempt to get the narrative that never happens to start is funny in more ways than I can possibly list. The fact that the entire universe that he exists within is being controlled by this entirely uncooperative force is the height of what any Daffy cartoon, and I doubt any other short featuring him can match the conflict seen here.

If you watched Loony Toons as a kid like I did, then I highly recommend revisiting some of Jones' work. I grantee that they exceed your expectations.

By Jack D. Phillips

A Zoom Film Review

The Men Who Tread on the Tiger’s Tail (1945)

Although rather weak

compared to his later

 work, this

early period piece shows hints of what would

come for the great artist.

It is fair to say that I am huge fan of director Akira Kurosawa. This however marks my first foray into the director's early work, perhaps the least discussed period of the filmmaker's entire career. Despite being ignored by many, from what I have read almost every film in this period is subject to polarising opinions from fans and critics alike. This film for example has been called Kurosawa's weakest film by Tony Zhou (a Youtube film critic that I am a huge fan of), and one of his best early offerings by Stuart Galbraith IV, the author of a highly extensive biography of the director. So now it is time for me to offer my own thoughts on this polarising film.

For a start it is worth noting that this film was made at the height of the second world war, and as such amidst terrible working/living conditions. This sadly shows in the final film, which was clearly filmed entirely on a fairly cheap sound stage. Furthermore, the audio quality itself is sometimes quite poor. Holding these shaky elements against the film feels unfair, however it does still negatively impact the film's attempt to create an authentic period setting.

To counter the films weak technical elements, it boasts a simple yet elegant screenplay. The story is one of honour, loyalty and the lengths one must go to in order to fulfil their duty. It is a compelling tale, and it held my interest throughout. However this may have been aided by the film's slim running time, so short that I doubt it is even possible to lose interest before the end. I do give the film credit for telling a fairly epic story despite this limit running time, establishing the backstory efficiently in an opening narration and leaving just enough breathing room to establish some personality within the characters, although it is still fairly minimal in the scheme of things. Overall, I feel this film's narrative is one of it's better elements and I praise the film for it's efficient, although far from spectacular, storytelling.

The film's cinematography is quite fantastic in my view. This early in his career Kurosawa had already learned how to keep a film engaging through simple camera moves and story enhancing shot compositions. Alongside the film's phenomenal editing, which is beautifully paced and constantly interesting from start to finish, I would certainly recommend watching this film in particular if you want to know how to enhance a film's impact through cuts and shots alone.

So far I have described some of the film's strongest elements, however things fall apart in when I move onto the subject of the lead performances. For some strange reason, although the narrative has a clearly defined main character, the film adds a comedic relief character

who was not present in the films source material. This character dominates the screen for huge chunks of the film, and I found him insufferable. The actor mugs and overacts in way which I did not even think possible, and is clear to me that Kurosawa did not know how to integrate this guy into the story properly. This comedic character legitimately ruins parts of the film for me, his presence is truly baffling.

Outside of the terrible comedic elements, Denjirô Ôkôchi is excellent as the lead despite being pushed aside, and his ability to hold the viewers eye is really quite remarkable. Furthermore, Takeshi Shimura and Masayuki Mori appear in two very minor roles. They do very little, however it is nice to see two of Kurosawa's greatest collaborators lending their talents in the background. To be bold, one could even call Shimura's performance here a very early prototype to his work on Seven Samurai, as I saw the same gravity and dignity here that made that performance so sublime.

In the end, this film should probably best be remembered as an interesting little experiment from Kurosawa's early career. Many of his talents were honed in this film, and judging by the relative lack of comedic relief in his later films it is safe to assume that the director identified some of his weaknesses. Hardly a masterwork, but still certainly worth seeing for hardcore fans of Kurosawa.

By Jack D. Phillips

A Zoom Film Review

Alone.

Top Left-Bottom Right

The Machinist (2004)

The Master (2012)

The Thing (1982)

There Will Be Blood (2007)

Boogie Nights (1997)

Dead Man Walking (1995)

Ivan;s Childhood (1962)

Dead Man's Shoes (2004)

Red Desert (1964)

Winter's Light (1963)

Drive (2011)

I Saw the Devil (2010)

Attack on Titan (2013)

Psycho (1960)

Cowboy Bebop (1998-1999)

Annie Hall (1977)

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Yojimbo (1961)

The Old Dark House (1932)

The Terminator (1984)

Citizen Kane (1941)

Tokyo Story (1953)

Blow Out (1981)

M (1931)

The Meaning of Life (2005)

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

Little Malcolm (1974)

Ringing Bell (1978)

At Midnight I'll take your Soul (1964)

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

The Shining (1980)

Grave of the Fireflies (1988)

By Jack D. Phillips

Failure.

Top Left-Bottom Right
Blow Out (1981)
There Will be Blood (2007)
Boogie Nights (1997)
The Conversation (1973)
Drunken Angel (1948)
Yojimbo (1961)
Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959)
Carrie (1976)
The Wicker Man (1973)
Raging Bull (1980)
Goodfellas (1990)
Ringing Bell (1978)
Whiplash (2014)
Vertigo (1958)
Scarface (1982)
Chinatown (1974)
The Master (2012)
The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Attack on Titan (2013)
Birdman (2014)
Citizen Kane (1941)
Bad Lieutenant (1992)
Avatar the Last Airbender (2005-2008)
Finding Nemo (2003)
The Red Shoes (1948)
Gone Girl (2014)
The Bad Sleeps Well (1960)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

By Jack D. Phillips