There are a few who have not enjoyed this film, but Golden Globe winning The Help is a film with plenty of heart that captures a moment of time when things were not the best. I am talking of the 1950’s in the Southern states of America. I think the thing that puts people off is the setting concept. Films based on racism towards black people have been done many times (Mississippi Burning, Hairspray etc.), but in no way here does it bring anything down as it works effectively. The films touching characterisation and portrayal of just how cruel hearted some people can be can serve up a very entertaining movie.
To break away from my usual posts, here is some photography I have done over 13 months. I will make future posts like this so let’s have a look at some of the pictures. Some edited, some not. Be sure to click them to see their full size.
I have just been thinking about all the great films there is, and just how many of them are based on books. Most of the brilliant films that are adaptations of books are the older ones, 80’s and below. Just think of films such as The Godfather, The Silence of the Lambs, A Clockwork Orange, Psycho (1960, the Harry Potter franchise, Hugo, Frankenstein (1931), Jaws, Rope, while all of these are not masterpieces, they are great films. And there are plenty more where that came from.
The cinematography is absorbing andeverything is gorgeously shot. Everything was so convincing I forgot I waswatching a film from 2011. Everything has been executed so perfectly. Thecostumes, the old Hollywood sets, the cars, the streets, everything! Half thetime it felt like an authentic 20’s silent film and I kept forgetting it wasmade in 2011. The music was beautifully done and is one of the elements thatgive it the most authenticity. Whetherit is that song, “pennies from heaven”, or the opening sequence, or even theboogie-styled jazz, you really feel like you watching a film made in the 20’s. A round of applaud for Ludovic Bource’s work here.
|Malcolm McDowell in his cameo to the right.|
Some enjoyed the film, although not tothe extent I did. I cannot see anything wrong with this film. The story hasbeen done a few times in cinema, (finest example is of course Singin In The Rain), but the fact thatsomeone went and made a silent film today; Especially with how cinema hasevolved. Therefore, it is a blissful homage and reminder of the era. Despitebeing a little old fashioned, it still connects to the audience with itslovable charm, wit, humour and gripping plot. You don’t need to be a historianor know about the talkies and their revolutionary impact either, because thefilm presents those details enough. For those unaware, it will be athought-provoking experience, and for those who know, it will be a portrayal ofbrilliance.
Fun fact: The film is shot in 1.33:1 ratio, just like how they did it back in the day.
Directed by: Stanley Kubrick
Country: United Kingdom
At the height of fashion in the mid 70’s, the film captures the 18th century in a gloriously shot manner, with almost every shot being like apainting on a canvas. Stanley Kubrick,who directed, produced and wrote the screenplay of the book, has once more madea distinctive film with storytelling and visual beauty looking at British aristocracyin the 18th century. This time Kubrick has creates a historical epicand in the 3-hour runtime it has, the life of Lyndon is curiously interesting.Three hours is a reasonably long time to watch a film, but sometimes it works, creating a film with a distinguished atmosphere. Just look at the Lord of the Ringstrilogy.
It appears that old Kubrick hastaken special care with this film ensuring every shot has atmosphere. Whetherwe are following Lyndon as he walks through the forest with his cousin, or ifwe are seeing the Lyndon mansion and its grounds, the film is definitely filledwith florescent and beautiful cinematography. With fashionable classy clothesof ye olden days and authentic looking set pieces, you definitely get warpedinto the time of the 18h century. It has never been captured withsuch visual grace, which proves Kubrick is a great visionary storyteller. The visualsof this film push the technology of its time (as Kubrick done also with 2001), and it has some of the finestcinematography of any 70’s film.
Barry Lyndon isone of Kubrick’s underrated films, which is agreeable to some extent. The actingwas interesting, the set pieces were beautiful, and the story that follows aman’s rise to wealth and crumble was plenty to love. However, with this in mindthe film does not explore much. It is a film that simply follows one characters rise and fall and can be quite boring at times. I think its lackof character that brings the film down a little. We have plenty of characters,but no truly engaging ones, except for Lyndon.
Produced by: Stanley Kubrick
Written to the screen by: Stanley Kubrick
Runtime: 186 Minutes
Age Certificate: PG
Here are the results of 2011’s finest films in 15 categories. From best drama to worst director, here are the accolades of 2011. There are a few films that I did not get to see so there may be a few you expected to see that didn’t end up in the categories.
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Genre: Action & Adventure, Sci-Fi & Fantasy
When people refer to 1970’s Sci-fi, they usually think Star Wars. In the same year as George Lucas’s box office smash, we had Close Encounters from Steven Spielberg. Here we see a great director implementing mechanisms that would be used in his later films like E.T and even in the new Super 8. It is clear now that Spielberg is an important director with such successful and well made films behind him. Close Encounters is a sci-fi film that has some brilliantly executed effects (for its time) on an adventure following America, and its encounter with extra-terrestrial life. Continue reading
What is it? This is the awards I am giving out to this years greatest films and giving them special honours. I will make a page showing the awards won by films and will do this every year from now on. Consider it a personal academy awards. Instead of making a favourites list, or an overview, I thought this would be more interesting. 2011 had a few great films, but 2012 looks more promising. Now let’s see what films impressed (and sucked) the most. To the nominees!