300: Rise Of an Empire Review

Image from collider.com

People seemed confused whether this was going to be a pre sequel, or sequel from the last Zack Snyder’s last film ‘300’, the cast in interviews seemed to be being a bit hush hush about it. 

After seeing the film I can say it’s a bit of both. The first part of the film is filling in the gaps before 300. Explaining how the Greeks and the Persians ended up having a war and the birth of the “God King” Xerxes. A majority of the film is set at the same time as the first 300 movies. Basically this film is showing us what was happening on the navy side of the war whilst the first film was showing us what the Spartan army was doing. Then the last bit of the film is technically a sequel. So it’s a sequel in a sense but not really. 

"300, up to 11. The foot-in-mouth direlogue is an Achilles’ heel, but this campy gore-opera is bursting with guilty pleasures. See it large: the 3D is killer.” Simon Crook, Empire Online Reviews. 

"Lacking the visual wit of its predecessor, Noam Murro's stereoscopic (non)sequel simply presents a moshpit of men in leather skirts going "Graaaaaarrrgjhhhhh!" while splattering post-Zatoichi digital blood with their sloshing swords and glistening chests. In a half-hearted bid to bridge the gender divide, co-writers Snyder and Kurt Johnstad offer up not one but two warrior queens, although the leering gaze remains resolutely male...” Mark Kermode, Observer Film Review.

It was also nice to see Jack O’Connell in a film made and produced over seas. As sad as that sounds, but I get the feeling that a British actress / actor has done well for themselves when they appear in a high budget American film. Jack O’Connell was famously “Cook” in ’Skins’, and more recently played a role in ‘Harry Brown’. 

I think the film is pretty good. I also think the first film was a revolution when it came out, not so much in the story, but more in the visuals and the feel good factory of boyish violence and cool fight scenes, some films should just be about that. 

Obviously the film is probably not going to change your life. You can probably tell this watching the advert. However the film is fun. If you’re a fan of gore, pop art violence and sets, as well as sex scenes then why not? People don’t always go to the cinema to see beautiful films, with beautiful actresses and actors, with beautiful or realistic plots. Sometimes you just wanna watch a guy ride a horse across a Greek battle ship, jump on to a Persian battle ship and cut people up. There’s nothing wrong with that. 

Empire Online - March 2014, Simon Crook

The Observer - March 2014, Mark Kermode

Ja'mie Private School Girl - Bad Reviews?

Image from Gurdian review blog newspaper 

About 5 years ago, I broke my leg and was bed bound for few months (it was a bad break). During these few months, family and friends gave me films and TV series that they thought I might like.

Among the mountains of DVDs I got given, one of them, was the first Series of ‘Summer Heights High’. It killed me. I thought it was one of the funniest mockumentaries I have ever seen. 

Unlike comedy series in England that I enjoyed watching like 'Little Britain" (or whatever I was allowed to stay up late and watch), 'Summer Heights High' I remember thinking was more down to earth and easier to relate to real life situations.

Set in a state school in Australia, written and starring Chris Lilley who wields more than a couple of characters: Jonah the misunderstood bully, Mr Gee the flamboyant drama teacher, and Ja'mie a private school girl visiting the state school.

Ja'mie: Private School Girl, is a spin off series that was made late last year, I've been watching it since the first episode was aired on BBC3 over the last 6 weeks. This week is the last episode. 

I read some of the reviews for ‘Ja’mie’ and was generally frustrated when I read one of the critics from The Guardian. 

"Falling ratings suggest Chris Lilley’s one-dimensional Ja'mie has failed to hold viewers' attentions. That's not surprising" Sub heading - The Guardian Review Blog

Yeah, ratings did fall massively by the fourth episode which had only over half a million viewers tuning in compared to the first episode, which had just under a million. But the review later goes on to mention that according to ABC the program had a record breaking amount of people streaming the episodes. 216,000 in one day beating Doctor Who, which got 140,000. So why in your sub heading would you try and give the impression that the program is worse off than it is?

"Lilley’s strength has never been momentum. Where Angry Boys’ story stretched agonisingly across 12 episodes, Private School Girl promised to wrap everything up in six. Yet the series has proved to be as slow as Ja’mie herself. Only in this week’s episode did conflict finally arise and bring with it genuine hilarity, with best friend Madison swooping in on Ja’mie’s boyfriend/prisoner, Mitchell." 

This person writing the review clearly is taking everything from an already prejudice point of view. The way they have written the review indicates that they have never liked any of Lilleys work, or are they even trying to point out anything positive. 

The program I can understand. Might not be aimed at the older generation so much. The music is obviously bad and modern, and the script is appalling (not the story but the language the characters using slang and swearing might not be for everyone). 

The critic giving their suggestions of what they think could have made the series more interesting.
"She could have flunked her dance assessment and been spurned by Mitchell in episode two. Her parents could have gone bankrupt.”

The question on my lips is. Why haven’t you written award winning comedy before with nearly 10 years of TV series to your name if you’re so funny? I don’t think comedy has to be about amazing acting, plots, or cinematography. Funny is funny to different people.

Review - The Guardian, Writer Unknown, Published 2013 November. 

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/nov/15/not-so-jamiezing-chris-lilleys-private-school-girl-has-proved-disappointing

Roland Barthes - 'Mytholgies'

Image from Wikipedia

I have been skimming through this book by French Author Roland Barthes. The chapters are not linked, other than the underlining semiotics of french nationality and domestic metaphors in symbols. I'm sure people will disagree with me. I find this soothing, as I can scan the contents and pick any chapter I like the sound of and read it. Rather than having to read up to chapters so I know what's going on in context, I found it a light intellectual read.

The book consists of all sorts of topics from his opinion of what wrestling is and the meaning behind the sport, to steak and chips and what makes it a typical french meal.  I'm going to talk about his chapter about toys. 

"...French Toys always mean something, and this something is always entirely socialised, constituted by the myths or the techniques of modern adult life: the Army, Broadcasting, the Post Office, Medicine (miniature-instrument cases, operating theatres for dolls), School. Hair-Styling (driers for permanent-waving), the Air Force (Parachutists), Transport (trains, Citroen, Vedettes, Vespas, petrol-stations), Science (Martian toys)." Barthes is making the point that toys are given to children as a reflection of the adult world and based on the adult. "...the adult Frenchman sees the child as ones self."

Barthes also talks highly of wooden toys. "Wood removes, from all the forms which it supports, the wounding quality of angles which are too sharp, the chemical coldness of metal... It is a familiar and poetic substance, which does not sever the child from close contact with the tree, the table, and the floor."

I agree with Barthes about the adults seeing a child as an image of themselves which I think in a way is true, when I was younger my mum would very, very rarely let me have toy guns because she hates guns and didn't want them in the house or me to be influenced by violence, my dad is a musician he would buy little shakers from music shops or tapes rather than lego, toy cars, like a lot of my friends had at the time.

I like his theory about wooden toys as well. There's is something romantic about playing with wooden toys. They don't seem to age and there is the reassurance of them being tough to break and clean to touch, a natural resource in a small harmless form.

However, as much as I respect and agree with Barthes I don't agree with his style of writing. I thought he was right about a lot of subjects in his book, his style, choice of words, and his overall opinions. But saying this, he wrote his book giving the reader the illusion of facts, when in actual fact they are just his opinions. As interesting and well written his opinions may be, I don't think that gives him the right to write them as facts, nor anyone for that matter.

If I was to write a book about my mythologies on British semiotics, I would make it clear that the book is my personal opinion. I wouldn't (as I feel that Barthes may have done) try and impose my opinion like it is the only option. No matter how great my ideas may be or how many people agree with me. Saying this though, and seeing it written down, maybe that's what it takes to get people to agree with you. Imposing your opinion as fact and forcing your point on someone. Even if it is just about steak and chips.

Mytholgies - Roland Barthes, Published 1957, Publisher - Les Lettres nouvelles

Wolf Of Wall Street - Spoiler Alert!

Starring the still youthful but experienced actor Leonardo DiCaprio, with fairly recent rising  comedy star Jonah Hill, directed by legendary director Martin Scorsese. The Wolf Of Wall Street appealed to me more than any new film out right now.

I think I'm a big film fan. Having watched a lot of films, more than one of my favourites have been directed by Scorsese Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, The Departed... Having only turned 18 last year, I have never been to the cinema to see one of his films as a lot of them are certificate 18. I have always wanted to be able to say to my future kids if I ever have any, when they discover a love for film (and they will because they'll be my kids) I went to see a Martin Scorsese film in the cinema when it came out. I saw Shutter Island but I wasn't a massive fan so I didn't count it.

I did some research before I went. Although I never bother reading the reviews especially on IMDb because there's so many from people who love the movie to people who hate it. So you can never get a clear overall perspective.

Saying this though I had a look at Empire magazine, They said "Scorsese's funniest and most focused film in a long time, a jet-black sex and drug-soaked comedy featuring a bravura performance by Leonardo DiCaprio" Damon Wise. 

I saw it. It was funny, it was great performance by DiCaprio, and it was a very well balanced black comedy film. On the other hand though. It has been done before by Scorsese 23 years ago. 

In 1990 Scorsese made Goodfellas. A mafia movie starring Ray Liotta, Robert DiNero, and Joe Pesci. About a young man who works his way through and up the mafia only to be finally caught up by federal police and ratting on his friends, then having to live an ordinary life like the rest of the world . 

Wolf of Wall Street is Goodfellas but with traders. The characters are different, the location is different, the actors, mis en scene, cinematography is different, but underneath al these elements... It will always be Goodfellas. Throughout Goodfellas Henry the main character narrates a lot about how boring it must be to live a normal life, so does Jordan Belfort in Wolf of Wall Street. 
The both films are also nearly identical in the sense of the main characters life. Determined poor young man, works his way up the ladder, gets money and enjoys having money, gets greedy, gets caught, rats on his friends and gets a lighter punishment, The End. 

It's not that I didn't like the film. I just heard the story before. 

Empire Magazine - Quote by Damon Wise 2013

IMDb - Film information. Dates and actors

Tate Modern

One of the Images displayed at the Tate Modern
Image from wordpress.com

I went to the Tate Modern to see the display of William Eggleston and a separate display of Harry Callahan.

William Eggleston is one of my favourite photographers. I have been a fan of his work for the last 3 years when I first discovered him when I was in secondary school. I thought he was by far the best frees display out of them all. Well done to the Tate as well for showing a whole room full of his work rather than what most people would imagine a display to be, a glass cabinet with a couple of images to look down on.

They picked really great I thought. I didn't like the frames they were displayed in I thought the borders were too big, other than that though, for a free display of his work, I thought it was a great day out.

I also discovered a new photographer Harry Callahan who I had heard of before had his work recommended to look at but never have.

Harry Callahan Tate Modern
Image from tatemoder.org

I liked him, not as much as Eggleston but I would hang a couple of his photos up in my room. He did images in colour too.

The compositions weren't as creative as Eggleston but they were still very visually pleasing and in some ways he shot similar topics to Eggleston, people, neon lights, dive areas, and cars.

For a free display of the photographers work, it's worth the day out. I'm going again next week to see Paul Klee. This one you have to pay I'll be saying if I thought it was worth it.

Ann Frank Museum

We went to the Ann Frank Museum the day before. 

"It is one of the 20th century's most compelling stories: a young Jewish girl forced into hiding with her family and their friends to escape deportation by the Nazis." Viator.com

    Image from the Ann Frank Museum Facebook Page.

I read a bit about Ann Frank when I was a lot younger. I never finished it though as I found it very hard to read as an 11 year old boy at the time hooked on Play Station 2. Reading about a girl from the 40s didn't grab me as much as it does now. 

My girlfriend was very interested and had apparently wanted to go for a long time, having read the diary, and finished, and found it interesting! I quickly felt the same way.

The museum had remade the house to as close as possible to what the conditions would have been like for when Ann Frank and her family were living their. I thought the museum was greatly moving and respectful the Ann Frank and her family and a brilliant way to tell her story. 

Amsterdam - Vincent Van Gogh

artrenewal.org

I visited the Vincent Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam during my stay. As much I liked the layout of the museum, the lighting, and the chronological order of the painting and description of the social surroundings of art, Van Gogh's life, and location. I thought that he was trying to hard to show the working class. 

A lot of Van Gogh's work is brightly coloured and abstract. However when he did his series of "Potato Eaters" thought to be finished in 1885. He showed the working class in dull, brown colours, unflattering faces and solemn expressions. Compared to self portraits of himself, which showed him in bright energetic colours, thoughtfully gazing at the viewers.

'Peasant Woman'
dailynom.com

 According to the museum, he considered himself an artist of the working class. Capturing and documenting 

their work and life style. I don't think that's a title someone can give themselves.

He also was famous for his painting of shoes. Most people had the impression that these shoes were shoes he had seen in the "Potato Eaters" houses or around farms. Upon further inspection they are shoes he purchased from a flea market, walked around through mud in them, then painted. 

Van Gogh, if he was alive today. Would probably be one of those middle class / upper middle classed kids who buys tatty cloths from Brick Lane or wear jogging bottoms with snap backs to try and play it off as cool. 

Other than that it's amazing and a must see. 

Self Portrait
evangogh.org