Tag Archives: film

Review: Divergent

Posted in Entertainment, Movies by

Firstly, I’d like to make a quick shout out to my brother William who turned 23 on Friday! As tradition suggests, we had to do whatever he wanted, and that included watching the movie adaptation of Divergent, featuring my not so favourite actress, Shailene Woodley. I’m sorry but her character on Secret Life was irritating. #justsaying

Divergent was originally a novel written by Veronica Roth. (SOURCE: Naud/'s Flickr photostream)

Divergent was originally a novel written by Veronica Roth. (SOURCE: Naud/’s Flickr photostream)

Divergent tells the story of a post-war America that has a very specific but detailed way of living: inside their gated, unharmed-by-war community, the people live in five different factions: Abnegation, for those who are selfless; Erudite, for the brainy; Amity, for the peaceful hippies; Candor, for the sometimes-brutally honest; and Dauntless, for the brave and reckless. If you are not fortunate enough to fit in a faction, you are deemed “factionless”, which basically means you are dirty and homeless.

The film follows a young lady named Beatrice (later named “Tris”, as if that was a good idea), who was born in and lives with her family in Abnegation. Once people hit a certain age or stage of life, they are tested to see which faction they most fit, although they are given the choice to choose their own faction regardless of the test. Beatrice goes to get her test… uh oh. She fits all of them. She is a “Divergent”, which is basically a free-spirited rebel. Just to put things into perspective, being a Divergent is like being wrapped in raw meat and thrown into the Pacific Ocean.

My first observation of this movie was that it was very hard to follow. As soon as you are thrust into the movie, there are lots of facts and information thrown on you and it is your job as an observer to keep up. If you can’t keep up, tough titties! The movie goes on with or without your understanding. That, to me, was a very defining factor in my eventual disliking of the film.

The story of the film is very unique, and that’s a positive and a negative in its own right. It was an interesting way to tell a post-war America besides the usual “everyone is under arrest and some youthful rebel escapes and kills everyone”. In saying that, it was difficult for those unaware of the original story to follow. I thought the test was like the Sorting Hat from Harry Potter and you had no say in which faction you join, until Beatrice’s parents were crying and she was being dragged away.

The acting, for all intents and purposes, was okay, possibly saved only by my fair lady Kate Winslet (subtle shout out to Miss Benedicte Earl). As much as I don’t like her, Shailene Woodley is a decent actress. She is easy to believe as her character and she doesn’t have Kirsten Dunst face (a face that has no emotion whatsoever). Theo James, who was an unknown to me until this movie, looked as if he was trying too hard in my sweet and humble opinion. He’d be trying to act really hard and tough and scary but then would duckface his lips. It was quite funny to watch. Oh, and Jai Courtney was Eric was phenom. Mr. Courtney has found himself a new fan.

I get that the producers had a lot of content to fit in the film so not to disappoint the book fans, but man Divergent is one long ass movie. If my phone wasn’t dead in the cinema, I would have been constantly checking the time. As a plus, however, there was some humour thrown into the film that I found quite refreshing from all the serious faction stuff.

Solst-o-meter
Storyline: 6/10
Casting and acting: 6/10
Experience: 5/10
Overall: 6/10

I think if I had read the novel before watching the movie, I would have enjoyed it more, but the intensity of the film was too much for me to personally take in. The intent was there to deliver an excellent movie, but to me, it flopped pretty badly. I would recommend watching it, but maybe later when it’s out on TV or something.

– by The Black Widow

Common Romantic Misconceptions of Romeo and Juliet

Posted in Entertainment by

Because really, Romeo and Juliet isn’t that romantic.

When girls talking about finding their dream man, they will often refer to him as their “Romeo”. Guys don’t often talk to each other about feelings, but I’m sure if they do, they’ll call her their “Juliet”. I’d hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Romeo and Juliet aren’t as romantic as society makes them out to be. It seems as if people are too distracted by the artsy Shakespearean language to really understand what the characters are trying to say.

Don't be fooled by these young actors. They are misleading you! (CREDIT: Z. Smith Reynolds Library Flickr)

Don’t be fooled by these young actors. They are misleading you! (CREDIT: Z. Smith Reynolds Library Flickr)

Alas, as a Shakespeare enthusiast and all-around badass, I am here to set you straight and/or ruin your hopes and dreams.

Example one: The nurse and Juliet gossip like frivolous teenage girls
Picture two young women talking to each other about a man in today’s society. I’m sure their conversation would be along the lines of “Oh yeah, would bang” or “OMG put a baby in me.” Not in the slightest bit romantic, is it? That is exactly how Juliet and her nurse were talking about Romeo. “Why, he’s a man of wax”, a line that is famously quoted by Juliet, loosely translates into 21st century English and becomes “Crikey I’d go him.” Truth? Maybe. Romantic? Not unless you’re solely cruising for a root.

Example two: That balcony scene
This may be a bit too much for those who think this is the pinnacle of romance in cultural arts. It isn’t. Sorrynotsorry. Let’s start with the obvious one: Romeo is quite literally creeping on Juliet. I’m sure young ladies nowadays would freak out if they saw a guy watching them through their window muttering to themselves, so if it’s unacceptable now, why is it romantic a couple of hundred years ago? Creeper. Also, “It is the east and Juliet is the sun!” is, unfortunately, translated to “Farrrk I think she’s farrrkin’ hawt.” I guess it wouldn’t be so bad if he wasn’t creeping at her through the window.

Example three: I’d be sad if you died, but…
My (man’s) best friend died nearly four years ago now, God bless his soul. I wasn’t with him at the time of his passing which only added to the heartache I felt when I originally found out he had left me. Was I sad? Absolutely. I cried for that whole day and would often cry days later. Would I kill myself whilst sitting right next to him just so I could “be” with him? Um. No. This may be me sounding a tad cynical but what is so romantic about Romeo and Juliet killing themselves for each other? That is tragic and a tad bit obsessive. Not romantic at all.

Example four: Five minutes later
Granted, the star cross’d lovers probably had a bit more than five minutes to get to know each other, but they didn’t know each other all that long before they were prepared to give their lives for each other. I guess it’s kind of romantic, like the tiniest bit, but it’s intense and creepy overall. How would you feel if you met someone off Tinder and after their date, they were planning to kill themselves for you? Yes. Case closed.

I’m sure there are more examples I could use to highlight my point but you get the idea. Romeo and Juliet is not as romantic as it seems. Case closed. Soz not soz.

– by The Black Widow

I’ve Given Up On M.Night Shyamalan

Posted in Entertainment, Movies, Opinion by

I want to take a little time to recall some brilliant films. Do you remember a movie about a child who could see and talk to dead people? I do, and I remember it being full of genuinely frightening moments and an atomic bomb of a story twist; this was The Sixth Sense, directed by M.Night Shyamalan only fifteen years ago.

This is what everyone looked like watching it, don't lie.

This is what everyone looked like watching it, don’t lie.

I also fondly recall watching Unbreakable for the first time, which also contained a mind-shattering twist and a damn good cast of actors; again, Shyamalan is responsible for creating this cult film.

Badass

Badass

And here is where the problem comes to light; can you recall a film about trees who make people suicidal? If you can’t, pat yourself on the back, you really saved yourself time and sanity. The Happening was also the work of Shyamalan, the same guy who created instant classics and then went on to produce pieces of actual poop.

OH GOD, WHY TREES, WHY?

OH GOD, WHY TREES, WHY?

I have tried to keep calm in the face of such terrible film making, telling myself that it’s okay. Maybe he’s a one trick pony and theres only so long he can make twist endings work, maybe his first few movies were some sort of fluke, a moment of his insanity that happened to work. I did this over and over: with films like The Village, and Lady in the Water. But god dammit if I’m not tired of trying so hard. Not after what he did, not after making The Last Airbender.

One of the best television shows

One of the best television shows

One of the worst things in my life (Sorry, kid)

One of the worst things in my life (Sorry, kid)

Shyamalan, if you’re out there and somehow reading this obscure article: WHAT THE FUCK, MAN? You don’t do that. You just can’t take a wonderfully-written, highly-praised, beautifully-animated television show, take all the good things out of it, and drop it on the big screen. I wanted to stick by you, even through the awkwardly directed acting and plot holes, because although I’m always disappointed by you, your films always seem to have an interesting premise. But no, you really fucked up this time.

But even amidst that awfulness there seemed to be a silver lining; this film was so bad that there was no way he would ever direct again. Then came After Earth (vomiting sound), and now he is in the mix to produce three different television programmes, and heres hoping that he just stays as the producer.

Smug bastard

Smug bastard

The purpose of this article was to mostly rant, but also to voice my genuine concerns. Why does this man keep making films? Who keeps giving him the work? And more importantly, how do we stop it? This is coming from someone who really loved the film Signs. In all seriousness, that movie planted the seed for my phobia of extraterrestrials, and any person that can induce that has some amazing power. But I think that power has been abused and needs to be taken away.

– by Josefina Huq

Review: American Hustle

Posted in Entertainment, Movies by

With the hype surrounding the now not-so-new release of American Hustle and the consequent criticism it’s acquired (though to a much lesser extent), curiosity eventually got the better of me so I decided to go and see it for myself to consider whether both the positive and negative reactions surrounding it are justifiable.

Such an attractive cast...

Such an attractive cast…

*Warning: Some mild spoilers are included here.

American Hustle is a drama film based on a true story; it begins with some onscreen text stating, “some of this actually happened.” A little surprising that the usual “based on a true story” isn’t employed but heck, it still works. It follows on with quite a few flashback scenes with alternating voice-over narration from two of the main characters; Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) and Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams). In fact, a little less than half of the film consists of some of their past moments and it gets a little tiresome at first – mainly because you just want to see what’s happening in the present, but it soon becomes clear that the flashbacks are crucial in understanding the present scenes. All in all, it starts off a little slow but soon smoothly eases into an intriguing ride.

From the flashbacks, we learn that Irving and his mistress and partner in crime, Sydney, are two con artists who cheat money out of their clients (or perhaps victims is a better word) through the ruse of a loan service business (of sorts). Having met a while back, they had decided to join as both lovers and business partners. On the sideline is Irving’s wife, Rosalyn Rosenfeld (Jennifer Lawrence) and their son (hers from a previous relationship whom Irving chose to adopt), although Irving does seem to be a doting father to the boy. To cut to the chase, one day their client/victim happens to be an FBI agent by the name of Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper). He eventually finds out about the illegitimacy of their “business”, and gives them the alternative of either facing an arrest or helping him arrest others (whom he suspects of obtaining illicit money). For fear of revealing too much about the film, I’ll stop there with the plot and storyline.

As it’s set in the 70’s (1978 to be exact), there’s a lot of typical fashion of the era – and very convincing it is too. There’s also plenty of glam attire and style – bar Irving’s comb over and Richie’s perm (although I will admit Bradley Cooper looks rather cute with those tight curls – don’t judge). Apart from the glam fashion, the film itself is rather glossy and suave – and I suppose this is where some of the criticism sprouts from. For, although it ticks just about every box for me – great acting from a great cast, absorbing plot, perfect filming in terms of pace and technique, and all the finer details such as accurate depiction of the surroundings etc – it feels as though there’s a little something missing. It could be that too much attention was paid towards creating a somewhat swanky feel to the film; at times it feels like it’s a little too polished or clean-cut, which doesn’t seem to suit the more serious tones that the plot would otherwise impart, or perhaps there isn’t as much depth and/or history behind some of the characters, leading to a slight lack of substance to the film as a whole. It could also be that there are a little too many injections of humour throughout (which again somewhat detracts from the more serious tones). Although I will say that some of the humorous dialogue included is pure gold in its simplest form, and provides a refreshing dose of comic relief (although again, I’m not sure if it’s needed). Or maybe I’m just being a little too nit-picky…

Nevertheless, this is still a must-see for those who love a good old drama movie; as aforementioned, the acting from the majority of the cast is top-notch (for those who have yet to see it, watch out for Jennifer Lawrence especially, who does an excellent job of portraying an emotional, stubborn, ignorant, slightly neurotic (and sexy) wife), the filming execution is great (one of the best I’ve seen in a while), and the plot – although a little seemingly dull and slow at the start – slides and then propels with a bang into an escapade that you just can’t stop watching until you’ve reached the end (where there’s a clever, spun out twist that’s either satisfactory or unsatisfactory – it’s a matter of opinion). Because of all this, it’s a true winner with some very minor faults in my opinion, and that’s why I give it a solid 8 out of 10.

– by Rosemary Nguyen