beatroute-star Reviews

Vampire Academy (2014)

Now, you probably don't get this, because you're probably not trying...

[7/10 · 20 June 2014]

I watched this movie genuinely thinking it was going to be rubbish. I didn't know who the creators were or that it was linked to Mean Girls or Heathers at all. The film was put on, I was sure I was going to mock it the whole time - if for no other reason than the fact that there is a vampire named Dimitri. I was a little humbled because I liked it.

Lots of people have little reasons why they psychologically can't handle it. The fact that vampires have been shoved into little clichéd boxes - vampires must be soppy, sexy or scary - and if it doesn't hit the mark, it's bad. If it does hit the mark, it's often bad anyway. The comparisons to Twilight too could colour the lens of perception, as with prior expectations of the book.

I had very few of these. Again, all I had to go on was that there was a vampire named Dimitri - for real - and that was going to keep me in stitches for the night.

Not the case.

I've read some negative reviews that pan the movie, but the reasoning seems to be very sparse. 'Boring' I hear. 'Waste of time'. 'Twilight money-grabbing knockoff'.

Rubbish.

I'm gonna woman feelings you here. We were given a story about a badass chick who... becomes even more badass. A girl who doesn't care too much what people think and who isn't bad to her friends. A girl who does what she wants and whose integral role is to protect her best female friend. That's right; no best mates, comrades, football buddies here. A posh princess alongside her bodyguard are our focal point.

Boom. I hear testicles exploding.

Alright, that was a bit mean, but let's be honest; this isn't something either or any gender is used to seeing on film. If we see women in film they are either a) on a journey controlled by a male/desire for a male (Frozen and Tangled, both with strong heroines who are effectively led around like donkeys by their spirit guides/future husbands) b) women who struggle against oppression (let's take Hitchcock's Rear Window and Vertigo. Both have women whose suffrage is represented) c) girls without gender (heroines who could be heroes. Not a bad thing, but I am not Katniss Everdeen. I love dresses. I like makeup. Girls do not have to be men to be fierce).

I found the film funny because it didn't hide its ultimate representation of females. Teenage girls are just about the most mocked people around. Alright, they're not avidly discriminated against, but everyone loves to tease them because the things they love 'don't matter'. Popularity? Doesn't matter. Prom dresses? You're SUCH a teenage girl. Rumours around your school? God, why did I have to give birth to a beautiful baby who would grow into a TEENAGE GIRL. Heaps of the most female centric movies work only because they work with convention and ultimately mock the insignificant world of the teenage girl. The 'Vampire Academy' works with this world, works with its characters and doesn't apologise for who they are, their age or their genders.

Not only did the role of the male work only as a mirror to the all important aspect of the female journey, but the girls held the power. Rose booty called Jesse, Rose blew off the nice guy, Rose confronted Dimitri. This is a rare film where what the female character says IS the plot. Decisions are made by these women considering their own and each other's feelings first and foremost, and I think that either goes right through some people, or outright niggles at them.

'I'm not sexist. I love Mean Girls, and that was about girls.' When boys play girls or pretend to be them, they jut out their hips, put on a lisp and immediately think of something critical to say about an outfit, a 'slut' or a 'hottie'. Girls do this about OTHER GIRLS. The image people have of girls is very much what was poured into Mean Girls and what lent it it's success, as is the case with Bride Wars and other such films. We are not used to seeing women get along, kick butt and drive storyline all by themselves. We are not used to seeing boys float in and out and not know if the girl has already internally attached his last name to hers. We are taught to take glee in the conflict of women: women make men fight, women make women fight.

The movie was a heap of fun and never heavy. It was honest and Rose had the sentiments of a real girl.

If you've seen this film and thought it was boring, I urge you to reconsider why you thought this was so.

If you haven't seen it, go in and enjoy it. It's fun. It certainly breaks away from some of the fundamental sexist approaches to film.

Romeo & Juliet (II) (2013)

Let's face it, Shakespeare would have written a different script for a film

[7/10 · 27 January 2014]

Everyone seems to get their panties in a twist over the fact that Fellowees changed the dialogue. While I admit that this seems a tad egotistical, it's not altogether illogical. The real problem isn't even that he left things out (indeed, unlike many adaptions, Rosalind and Paris were kept, as well as the death of Paris). But rendering and adding things is not seen as appropriate.

But let's face it; Elizabethan Theatre is an entirely different writing medium to modern film adaption. There are a number of things that had to happen in those days. Notice they say 'I die' every time someone dies? They talk about their feelings an exceptional amount? And there are other near invisible things that would be entirely different. Shakespeare may have been a genius, but if you pulled up an unknown script of a similar level of genius from this era and made a word for word film, I doubt you could expect a great audience reaction. I've seen kids literally sleep through Polanski's Macbeth and even shrug at Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet (except when they were noting the lead's similarities to Zefron), yet be highly engaged by the stage performance of the play.

Visually, this film is utterly gorgeous. Whoever chose the locations deserves a french kiss from the world. From the first shots of Juliet running in her orange dress, the audience is stunned by the use of colour and scenery. The costumes were great (I don't think anyone was complaining when we saw a gorgeous Douglas Booth is an open white shirt chiseling away). The hair was to die for and the acting wasn't so bad as everyone makes out. Fact is, everyone's used to it being acted VERY Shakespearean. Which isn't how films work. If you're asking for that style of acting, you ought to see the play and burn the movie. The actors here took a more naturalistic approach, which seems flat, but that's probably because it's naturalistic and this is Elizabethan theatre in a period adaption for a 21st century audience. Are we seeing where some things are bound to get tangled?

That all said, there are two things that I can't justify:

• Far too much kissing. Like all the time. It felt like too much sometimes. A lot. This is probably where people see the lack of chemistry, because the kisses seem to come out of nowhere, are accompanied with virtually no crescendo musical masterpieces or great camera shots, and are usually cock-blocked by the nurse.

• Unless your students are well versed in the play, this shouldn't be the go to for schools studying Romeo and Juliet. Let's face it; a lot of kids don't exactly read the whole play, might write things in their essays that only happened in the movie if they watch it. The thing that everyone complains about (the adding of lines) is only truly detrimental here. The other versions (Baz's and Zeffirelli's) only omitted things, rather than adding things, and is a lot safer for educational purposes.

If you're not studying it; if you haven't studied it to the point at which added lines would make you feel ill; if you aren't an absurd prat about purist R&J (keep Shakespeare Shakespearean? I don't even...), then this is a good movie. And Booth is delectable. Always.