300 (2006)

300, 2006. Film. Directed by Zack SNYDER. USA: Warner Bros.

After months of being begged to watch this film, this week I finally gave in. It was worth the wait.

Most basically, 300 tells the story of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C. Over the years many of the specifics have been clouded in legend however the facts remain unquestioned. An alliance of Greek city-states fought the invading Persian army in the mountain pass of Thermopylae. A group of 300 Spartan soldiers under the command of King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) stood up against a vastly superior Persian force led by King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro). Xerxes waited days for Leonidas to surrender or withdraw was left with no option but to move forward. It is well known that the Spartans were greatly outnumbered and therefore did not win the battle. It is one of the most famous last stands in history. 300, is an American action/fantasy film based on the comic series of the same name by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley. The film stays true to the graphic novel, consistently emphasizing the mythology of the battle rather than attempting to be completely historically accurate.

300 is a film about heroism and standing strong in the face of impossible odds. It perpetuates an ideology of masculinity and machismo. The movie ignores aspects such as characterization only ever allowing the audience to know a few characters as types. There is a great warrior/King, a strong independent wife, a traitor and an enemy. I am a big fan of character development however in this situation I could let it pass. There just isn't the time or a reason to let us get to know the protagonists, we just want to know the story. Besides, the story is most simply about a group of 300 warriors and that's exactly what we are given. Knowing how the story ends for the Spartans doesn't lessen the excitement of getting there.

Director Snyder uses desaturated colours and a combination of blue and green screen backgrounds to craft the film's artistic appearance that is so similar to that of the graphic novel. Aside from the story, this is my favourite thing about the film. It makes this basic story look so beautiful and really emphasizes the fantasy elements of the legend.The acting is also brilliant. Butler's performance is full of passion, strength and power and Lena Headey plays Leonidas' queen as a woman of equal strength and emotion.

Overall, the powerful characters, beautiful visuals, energetic action sequences and the strong reflection of comic books makes 300 something very enjoyable. While it doesn't offer an in-depth, conventional retelling of the Battle of Thermopylae, it does make a worthwhile viewing for everybody.

Divergent (2014)

Divergent, 2014. Film. Directed by Neil BURGER. USA: Summit Entertainment

As a big fan of the books, Divergent is a young adults movie that I've been very excited to see since it went into production.

This film is the start of  a new franchise, based on the bestselling trilogy by Veronica Roth. Set in a world divided by factions, it is important that you fit in. At age 16 all citizens must take an aptitude test to decide which faction they belong in: Erudite (Intelligence), Amity (Peaceful), Abnegation (Selflessness), Candor (Honesty) or Dauntless (Bravery). After taking the test you are placed into that faction and you cannot leave to go back to your family and you cannot fail initiation or you will become 'Factionless'. However not everybody who takes the test can be placed into a single faction; they might fit into 2 or 3. These people are known as Divergent and are a threat to the system.

Divergent follows the story of a young girl named Tris who discovers she is divergent and is forced to choose a faction and hide her secret from the rest of the world. She teams up with her mysterious trainer, Four, to find out what makes Divergents so dangerous and why they're being hunted out before it becomes too late. The film stars some of my favourite upcoming stars including Shailene Woodley who portrays the brave, confident protagonist perfectly. Ansel Elgort stars as her brother Caleb, projecting the mature and mysterious character extremely well (I look forward to seeing these two star alongside each other again in June, The Fault in Our Stars). Also starring in the film is Miles Teller. His naturally confident personality shows through as he gives an excellent portrayal of Peter, an obnoxious initiate who doesn't like anyone that does better than him. This is particularly interesting to see if you have see Woodley and Teller star alongside each other as close friends in The Spectacular Now. British actor Theo James (Downton Abbey) plays the role of the mysterious Four brilliantly showing the perfect balance between masculinity and sensitivity of the character in the book. The only problem I found here is the fact that there are often times when he looks a lot older than Tris even though the age gap is only supposed to be a couple of years. This is something lots of people have picked up on however I am willing to let this pass. Once Tris has settled into her faction, her costume, hair and makeup alters which actually makes her look a little older, making the relationship seem more plausible. Finally, Kate Winslet plays the important role of Erudite leader Jeanine. Although it is strange to see Winslet playing an antagonist, I believe she did an excellent job. She gives off a sense of confidence, concern and naivety that is essential to the character's personality; it is important to understand that she honestly  believes what she is doing is for the good of society.

Divergent is a film that illustrates typical conventions of your typical Teen Movie. It is all about fitting in, belonging in a society and finding out who you really are. This has been done time and time again but I don't see a problem with it if it means connecting to a young audience. In terms of similarity to the book, there is depth missing to the film that only the true fans might actually understand. Take initiation for example: isn't there something really terrifying about the idea of forcing 16 year olds to face their worse fears over an over again until they're no longer afraid? (The use of serums is also quite dark when you see what they're being used for!) Obviously this is another film destined to be compared to films such as The Hunger Games and I can't deny there are similarities, however there are also many differences. Arguably, their post-war society is Utopian.It is an ideal society where everyone is living in harmony because of the factions. The dystopia side of life is only clear to those who ask questions and understand the danger of the system. I would also  argue there is a lot more chemistry between the characters, making them all more lovable than those we often see these days. We learn a lot about them and we understand them. The only other criticism I have is it at 139 minutes, this adaption might have been a little too long. I might be biased but what film isn't these days?

I could talk about it for days but in conclusion, Divergent is an excellent adaption of the book and was well worth the wait. The young stars are brilliant and create a perfect sense of chemistry that allow you to love and care about the characters. Naturally, everyone will compare it to The Hunger Games but it is also important to see it as something separate. The society is a post-war Utopia that is only stable because of the factions, the people who don't fit in and try to question the necessity of factions are those who will see the depth and the dangers of it. As it doesn't quite portray the depth of the book, this film is arguably a little too long however it is definitely worth a watch, especially if you've read the books.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

The Wolf of Wallstreet, 2013. Film. Directed by Martin SCORSESE.
USA: Paramount Pictures

Based on a true story, The Wolf of Wall Street follows the life of Jordan Belfort from his rise to life as a wealthy stock-broker to his downfall. It's a story of crime and corruption.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays the central role very over the top and very confidently. We see the character constantly behaving on the edge of the law as he goes from somebody who has almost nothing to someone who has everything he had ever dreamed of. Jonah Hill plays Belfort’s sidekick Donnie Azoff, who decides he wants to be a part of the high life. Hill’s performance is promising and brings a lot of humour to the film. I found his role to be the most entertaining throughout the film.

In terms of content, the film is predominately about money, drugs and sex. Many critics have argued that it is glamourising Belfort’s way of life and this is not difficult to see. From beginning to end, we are constantly shown scenes depicting Belfort’s lifestyle in a way that almost feels like you’re being forced to like him and the activities he’s involved in. As for glamourising, I think it depends on if the character of Belfort can win you over. For me, it just made me hate him more.

Throughout the entire film, we only see the life of Belfort. We are constantly in his company and the whole story is narrated by him. He’s doing terrible things, destroying people’s lives and consistently breaking the law and yet we never get to see the victims of the situation. It appears that director, Scorsese is insisting you bond with the character and get to know him but it isn’t that easy. There are times where you really can’t connect with him and I often did not care what happened to him in the end. Morally, he's hateful and therefore the content just doesn't interest you. At 3 hours long, this is obviously problematic. Supposedly, Scorsese struggled to get the running time down under 3 hours. My question is why? From one viewing it is easy to see that there are plenty of unnecessary scenes that could've been cut; for example, the countless sex scenes and drug taking. After the first hour, everyone has got the message and, in my situation, doesn’t want anything to do with it anymore. We know what he is like. We know what is going on in his life. We know he’s a drug addict. We know he has plenty of money to waste. There is no longer any need to tell us again and it is okay to move on and save everybody half an hour.

The portrayal of women is also an issue. We’re seeing a man's world and a man's life through a man's eyes. Women are constantly objectified and that just makes it even harder to see the appeal in his lifestyle. This all makes the real Jordan Belfort's cameo a little questionable. After seeing what he'd put people through and what an awful life he led I just wasn't sure if I wanted to see him have the opportunity to appear in the film.

The Wolf of Wall Street seemed a little unmediated. At any given moment there was a lot of "stuff" going on that was difficult to appreciate and often not that relevant to the story. However, it isn’t completely unenjoyable. DiCaprio’s central performance is funny and works well. There is a particular scene with him crawling to his car that was extremely funny. It undeniably lasted for far too long but it was entertaining. The relationship between Jordan Belfort and Donnie Azoff is also well done. Visually, the camera work was good too. It clearly reflects how the character is feeling throughout every situation.

I understand this review is quite negative and I didn’t find the film that spectacular but I’m not suggesting it isn’t worth a watch. It is definitely worth a go if you’ve got three hours to spare and if you have the patience to sit through it until the end. After all, it is almost more exhausting than it is entertaining.