2001: A Space Odyssey is a science fiction film directed by, who is often considered one of the greatest film makers of all time and probably my favourite, Stanley Kubrick. 2001 is a film that, personally, I cannot praise enough and has become a huge phenomenon and has been widely regarded as one of the greatest and most significant films ever made since its release, due to how groundbreaking it was at its time of release and the impact it has had since then, and so it is often placed very highly within lists of the greatest films ever. The movie deals with a numerous amount of different themes - mainly that being evolution, technology and artificial intelligence. It received critical acclaim upon release and has since still to this day, it also won countless awards, including one academy awards (with a total of three nominations) and four Baftas. Some of the cinematography in 2001 is simply astonishing, especially when you consider the fact that it was made so long ago and almost every shot is so aesthetically and visually pleasing. Kubrick decides to use lots of long and close up shots. He often uses long shots to establish a large location and to give the viewer a full perspective of where they and the main characters are at the given time. They are often used to show locations that would've been almost unfathomable to the audience of that time, as it was only a few years after the first space exploration mission, and one year before the moon landing. And so these long shots are effective as they allow the audience to familiarise themselves with the settings and locations that they are being placed into, as there are plenty of technological advancements seen in the film that would be incredibly beyond the time of its release. The close ups are used in a variety of ways. For example, every time the AI on the ship named HAL speaks, it uses a close up of the static red light of HAL - this could be used to make him feel quite intimidating, as even though he isn't really an actual physical presence, he feels very threatening and that he is staring directly at you. They are also used as reaction shots, to show how any certain character is feeling. Most notably at times when Dave is attempting to shut down HAL, and also when he is travelling through the vortex of lights (which also has some incredible cinematography which is visually striking). Another way in which they are used is to focus on certain details within scenes and frames, for example when we are shown around the ship, the camera focuses on many of its parts - which emphasises and displays to the audience all of the different and complex technology that is available to the crew members, which were all way beyond the time of the film's release in the 1960's. The film also uses an incredibly wide range of colour with each changing shot - with the main ones being featured throughout the movie being that of black, red and white. In conclusion, 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of my all time favourite films and is simply a masterpiece which features some absolutely gorgeous cinematography which help to both give detail and significance to settings and characters. In addition, here are some of my favourite shots from Kubrick's masterpiece:
1 Comment
Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a spy action/comedy film directed by Matthew Vaughn and written by Vaughn and Jane Goldman. It is the sequel to 2014's Kingsman: The Secret Service, which was directed and written by the same people as this instalment. Taron Egerton, Colin Firth and Mark Strong all reprise their roles from the first film and are joined by newcomers to the franchise Julianne Moore, Halle Berry, Jeff Bridges and Channing Tatum. Matthew Vaughn is a director that gets me excited for whatever he is making next, simply because I've loved everything that I've seen by him. Kick-Ass is a brilliantly fun superhero film that subverts the typical conventions of the superhero genre, X-Men: First Class is one of the best entries in that series and really saved it from it's near downfall, and the first Kingsman is sublime and really makes spy movies fun, and not dramatic and serious like the Bond films tend to portray. Therefore, hearing of a follow up to Kingsman was very exciting news, especially as Vaughn has never made a sequel before, so I was intrigued to see how he'd handle this instalment considering there isn't an awful lot of room for him to be able to make something new and fresh when that's exactly what the first one was. Unfortunately, that's what causes this film to really suffer, as it's not even close to matching its predecessor, however it is still a very fun and enjoyable outing - but it's still packed with flaws, unfortunately. I think probably the biggest issue with The Golden Circle is the writing and plot (or lack of focus towards). This film has a running time of 2 hours and 21 minutes, which is incredibly long, but it really is unnecessarily so. For some reason there are a large amount of sub plots and uninteresting and really unneeded character arcs that don't really add anything to the overall movie, and if they'd have been cut out then it wouldn't have made any effect at all to the overarching plot. One of these plot diversions is a 20 minute or so scene which takes place at Glastonbury Festival, and it gets very uncomfortable to watch towards the end of the scene, and has, rightfully so, attracted a large amount of controversy from both audiences and critics alike - and you'll know exactly why too if you've seen it. Another criticism I have with the film is that it isn't very funny, and for something that's marketed as being quite comedic in tone, that is quite a disappointment - however there are some laughs to be had from a certain singer that shows up, but they do outstay their welcome quite a bit. Also, it feels as if they're really trying to top the first film and make this one incredibly awesome and cool, and that they're attempting to make something better than the church scene from the first film (which I believe is one of the greatest action sequences put to film), but they are failing quite horribly as none of the action scenes come close to it. The villain, played by Julianne Moore, is also not exactly a positive. Moore does a very good job and portrays her character well - however her plan and motive is somewhat ridiculous and incredibly unbelievable. Colin Firth is also back in the film, and warning I am about to talk spoilers so be warned if you haven't seen the film yet, which is a bit of a stupid decision in my opinion, - seeing as the first film provided a real shock in the death of Firth's character, and it was described why best by Samuel L. Jackson's character when he says 'this isn't that type of movie' before shooting him, and so to just undo all of that removes any stakes that there are within this universe and ruins quite a large point that the first film made. And if there's a gadget that can literally bring someone back to life after being shot in the head, how come there isn't one that disables a land mine? Besides all these negatives, there are numerous amounts of positives to be given to The Golden Circle. Everyone is pretty great in the film, especially Egerton and Mark Strong (however I did think Firth wasn't as good as he usually is) and I thoroughly enjoyed Julianne Moore's portrayal of her villainous character. The action is also superbly shot and directed, with Matthew Vaughn using his signature style when it comes to action sequences, as seen in both Kick-Ass and the first Kingsman. The cinematography is also incredibly visually stunning as well, and cannot be faulted one bit whatsoever. I think the biggest praise I can give the film is that it is really good fun - despite the fact that it has several flaws that really do stick out, I still had a really good time watching the film, and so I'm glad Matthew Vaughn managed to recreate the tone and spirit of the first, even though he couldn't top it. In conclusion, Kingsman: The Golden Circle is an incredibly entertaining escapade that provides some good performances and truly thrilling action, however its failure in its writing and inability to focus on its central plot doesn't allow it to be anywhere near as good as its predecessor. Get Out is a horror/psychological thriller film directed by Jordan Peele and is also his directorial debut. This film is a great example of using a typical genre of film, in this case horror, to help convey a particular idea, in this case the film's allegory being to do with racism and racial stereotypes. Peele almost subverts the general tropes of average, stereotypical horror movies as he doesn't rely on the use of the likes of jump scares, but instead uses general ideas and unnerving situations to make the audience feel scared and uncomfortable - which a topic like racial discrimination and stereotyping would make someone feel and so Peele uses the genre of horror to his advantage to help convey these ideas and unnerve the audience through the notions that he is portraying to the viewer. He also goes against a typical horror movie by adding some comedic and funny moments through the character of Rod, played by Lil Red Howery, and so it makes you question whether or not you should be laughing as you are experiencing some quite distressing scenes at the same time. Get Out features some terrific breakout performances from the likes of Daniel Kaluuya and Allison Williams who deliver some really great portrayals. The cinematography is also excellent and features some very nice and well shot scenes, which are accompanied with a chilling score from Michael Abels. The dialogue is very well written, as it doesn't reveal too much whilst still making hints, and so therefore allowing the audience to make their own assumptions without being explained everything in one scene, but having lots of scenes building to a reveal. However, the film should be praised more on its lack of dialogue, as the more revealing moments that help to further the plot and add a sense of mystery are told without being told, but instead are shown through actions from characters which give lots of intrigue which causes the audience to ponder what is happening and why it's happening. There are also some very small but detailed bits of symbolism in the film, for example towards the end of the film there's a short scene where a character is eating cereal and drinking milk - with the cereal (which is coloured) being separated from the milk (which is obviously completely white), and so that shows Peele's eye for detail and wanting to convey his ideas in even the smallest of ways. The only problem I had with Get Out was that towards the end of the film there's a scene which cuts between a comedic situation and another one that's very unnerving and uncomfortable, and so there is a very awkward and jarring shift of tones. In conclusion, Get Out is a brilliant film directed by Jordan Peele which brilliantly uses the horror genre to convey ideas instead of just using it for scares. If you'd have said to me a few years ago that soon there'd be a movie about faces you use to express emotions I'd think you were crazy, but now... there is - oh boy. It's hard to call this an actual movie, as in reality it's more of a blatant cash grab from a washed up, out of ideas studio. It's quite obvious that everyone involved is in it for the money, and no way interested in actually making a decent film. Usually I'd list the positives that would redeem the film in some way, however all I can say for The Emoji Movie is that it looks alright and some of the character and world design is okay at best. The rest is all negative, the story is uninspired and has been seen a countless and numerous amount of times, with the whole 'be yourself regardless of what society says' cliche being overdone to hell and portrayed a lot better by other works, the characters are bland, there's an endless amount of product placement, and attempts at humour that make you want to burst your own eardrum and gauge your eyes out. The vocal performances from the likes of T.J. Miller (who decided to leave the award winning sitcom 'Silicon Valley' to focus on projects such as this), James Corden, Anna Faris and even Sir Patrick Stewart (I doubt he'd be too proud of this performance). The three main protagonists of the film are voiced at a level of 'fine', and Sir Patrick Stewart makes a literal turd of himself with his performance. In conclusion, The Emoji Movie is a wholly unoriginal, unfunny and blatant production designed to do nothing but generate a significant amount of cash and convince children who love emojis to see the film and parents who can't say no to their child to take them. |
Archives
December 2017
My Favourite Films:
The Breakfast Club (1989) Drive (2011) The Social Network (2010) The Dark Knight (2008) Empire Strikes Back (1980) 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Taxi Driver (1976) Dr Strangelove (1964) Trainspotting (1996) |