Skip to main content

Day: 14 October 2013

Put a spin on it

Written by Mancunion on . Posted in Fashion & Beauty.

You only have to take a quick walk around campus to see that a 90’s fashion revival is well and truly upon us. Whilst many are already channelling the look pretty successfully, there’s the inevitable risk we could all end up dressing not dissimilarly to the way we did aged 7. Let us not forget the 90’s was dubbed by many as the ‘era style forgot’, and although that may be open to debate, the general consensus is that when championing the look you’re safest putting a modern spin on some old school classics.

picture: urbanoutfitters.com

Flannel shirts are probably the easiest and quickest way to start adding some 90’s flavour to your wardrobe, preferably loose fitting in line with the relaxed silhouette of the era.

picture: urbanoutfitters.com

Your denim should also follow suit, with looser cuts and lighter washes (I’d suggest Levis 501’s) replacing the skinny fit that defined the noughties. If you haven’t already, it’s also probably time you invested in a few pieces of sportswear, whilst for footwear look to the likes of New Balance and Doc Marten.

picture: urbanoutfitters.com

If none of the above suggestions are getting you inspired and nostalgic, or you’re looking for extra way to embody the era, then there’s also the option of smelling like people did back then. And no, I’m not suggesting you hold off washing your latest vintage purchase; instead, pick up a bottle of CK One, the unisex fragrance of choice for the 90’s masses.

 

 

Review: Thanks for Sharing

Written by George Bellamy on . Posted in Film.

Walking into this film, I could only feel the pang of dreaded anticipation over the prospect of seeing a Hollywood rom-com about sex addiction. The trailer paints the style in the realm of Hitch or Along Came Polly, and while I am no stranger to the indulgent pleasures of a glass of wine,  too much ice cream, and a frothy movie; the prospect of seeing a film which earnestly tackles the subject of addiction whilst starring P!nk and having gags such as a fat bloke falling off his bike, is not one which sits comfortably. To its credit, the film is much more mature than its trailer suggests: it has multiple character arcs which go through various motions of the experience of dealing with addiction, and is not afraid to spend time with the more uncomfortable aspects of its psychological reality. Yet the film still has its feet entrenched in two territories which do not mesh well, as it retains the more indulgent demands of Hollywood reality where no character is more than one cathartic scene away from complete resolution, which usually involves a “meaningful” glance followed by hugs all around.

Everybody is pleasant in this film. Mark Ruffalo brings effortless charm to his character struggling to maintain the equilibrium required for five years of sobriety, whilst P!nk proves she can act perfectly inoffensively, and Tim Robbins is a pleasantly watchable unpleasant father. This is the problem with the film, as there’s no tone to watch it through which sits satisfactorily. The subject matter is far too heavy to be able to drift away with the comedy or melodrama, as each scene revolves around an aspect of struggling with sex addiction, and does so with serious intent. Two men sitting in the audience with me laughed their way through a scene which involves one character’s relapse shifting into another’s oedipal complex. The scene wasn’t funny, and as one character turned suicidal, as did the expressions on the two men who, popcorn in hand, didn’t know how to react for the rest of the film. I can’t say I blame the pair, as there’s a lightness of tone and touch to the comfortable conventions and plots which jars the scenes which declare a more serous “issue movie” sentiment.

The film dips its way into dealing with the taboo aspects of sex addiction that we haven’t found in most Hollywood films, but you’ll leave the cinema about as enlightened on the subject as you would have been from reading a Heat, or Nuts magazine article, as the narrative is far too eager to return to comfortable resolutions of Hollywood tropes to allow any problem to linger beyond a quick fix. One character actually learns to free himself through interpretive dance. After a night of that, with standard exorcizing of bad memories in a burning bin which conveniently overlooks Manhattan’s skyline, he’s coping much better. I would like to say that that last sentence was a spoiler, but there aren’t spoilers in the latest line of romances which are coming out of Hollywood. The romantic side of the film is state of the genre, warm clichés riddle the relationship arcs that pepper the film, and just as you may think the film is making an interesting decision, it either forgets about the implications raised in the mentioned oedipal scene, or all is resolved by a loving hug. The treatment of problematic aspects is too emotionally neat, and contained in the conventions of modern Hollywood romances to provide any real conviction that these characters are real. Everybody’s hair is perfectly in place, they all live in impossibly nice homes and no one’s clothes have seen more than a day’s wear. I would applaud any film which subverts the expectations of genre or convention, but Thanks For Sharing is far too comfortable in its willingness to make it a pleasant experience for it to be able to say anything effectively, or entertain the audience satisfactorily.

★★★

 

 

 

 

Review: How I Live Now

Written by Lucy Gooder on . Posted in Film.

After reading the Meg Rosoff novel How I Live Now as a young teenager I entered the cinema prepared to take a nostalgic trip down memory lane. From what I could remember it was an idyllic story of love, with maybe a little bit of hardship thrown in, as a young American girl hides out with her cousins in the English countryside whilst a mysterious future war goes on around them. As it turns out, my memory appears to have been seriously affected by a few too many nights in the pub.

Unremittingly bleak, the film version of How I Live Now loosely follows the premise of the novel. The romantic idyll of total freedom portrayed in the first half only serves to fortify the weight of depression and misery on your shoulders in the second. I should have seen this coming; a film about war is likely to be dark. However there have been many successful films produced in and out of wartime that have managed to create moments of levity or at least a fleeting sense of hope in such dark times. This is an area where How I Live Now seems to fail; yes the first half serves to provide a counter to just how bad the world becomes, but that does not prevent it becoming somewhat of a slog of grim determination. Each horrific event begins to lack impact, as there are few moments between them to contrast or change the pace. Although creating a genuine sense of unease and fear for the young protagonists, there is little new and unexpected.

Other than slightly excessively shaky camera work in parts, the film is strikingly shot, using the English countryside to its full advantage, particularly when depicting the impact of a nuclear device, the catalyst of the war. Director Kevin Macdonald manages to create a moment that is both beautiful and terrifying, avoiding the usual mushroom cloud clichés. The performances of the younger members of the cast are also well handled in their charming precociousness.

What I had remembered from the novel was that the central relationship is between two cousins. When I was twelve or thirteen this was exceptionally scandalous, and although I am not quite open minded enough to think of this as normal it was handled well, making it a genuine relationship rather than a creepy one. Overall the set up of the relationship between all the cousins was done in a quietly joyful manner that made you understand the lengths that were gone to in order to return to the elation and freedom of home.

One aspect I did have to call into question was the lack of explanation into the war itself. Although there were clearly reasons behind this, demonstrating that the presence of soldiers had come to be expected, as well as creating a sense of childlike naivety, one would expect some degree of political awareness by the older teenagers to give some sense of context and realism to the audience.

Despite feeling totally drained as I left the cinema, How I Live Now was certainly thought-provoking and bold in its portrayal of a war-torn society. The contrast between the two parts of the film is effective enough to keep you contemplating it and the real life possibilities long after the bus ride home.

★★

Designer dieting

Written by Beth Currall on . Posted in Lifestyle.

We’ve lusted after the bags, sprayed on the No.5 and longed for our own tweed jacket, but now we all really can live a little like Karl Lagerfeld ladies and gents- by following his specially-created diet plan, that is. Designed by Dr Jean-Claude Houdret when Mr Chanel was experiencing difficulties losing weight, the diet claims to not only physically but mentally prepare followers for rapid weight loss, and Karl managed to shed a staggering 92lbs in little over a year!

So how does it actually work? The basic principles are simple: limit calorie and fat intake, ditch the fried foods, and increase your intake of protein and vegetables. Dr Houdret then introduced three phases into the plan, the first being VCLD (Very Low Calorie Diet). He states that for a period of two weeks, dieters should limit their calorie consumption to no more than 900 calories a day, which should be achieved by eating vegetables and drinking protein shakes. This helps to shrink the stomach and mentally prepare the mind for the decreased amount of calories the individual will consume from now. Then, the diet ups your intake to 1200 a day, and allows dieters to introduce lean meats and low fat yoghurts and cheese into the plan, making meals a little more enjoyable! Finally, dieters should enter the maintenance phase and consume up to 1600 calories a day, and can incorporate whole-grain toast and fruit into their diet. If dieters continue with the plan, they could see weight loss results of up to 10lbs a month- très chic!

However, there are some downsides to this deceivingly simple meal plan. For one, it is considered dangerous to eat only 900 calories a day even for the short period, and so medical supervision is recommended. Exercise is difficult to incorporate, because dieters are surviving off such little nutrition a day. Further to this, Lagerfeld has himself described it as a form of punishment, and followers have complained that the plan is too unsatisfying and bland to persevere with. The Lifestyle girls think we’d rather have chocolate in our lives than Chanel-inspired bods, thanks Karl!

Cornerhouse Pick of the Week: The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology

Written by Faye Broadbent on . Posted in Film.

Friday night had arrived.  I guess on first thought one of the last things many students would want to do would be to spend two hours watching a philosophical documentary. However, when you find out Slavoj Zizek has been hailed as ‘The Borat of Philosophy’, it becomes instantly intriguing. So, it was time for me to rethink. Following Sophie Fiennes 2006 documentary The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema, she has returned and reunited with the eccentric, Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek to present the follow up, The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology.

As a slideshow with quotes from the academic played out before the film began, it didn’t take too long to realise Zizek would make this documentary a wacky and unique viewing experience. Zizek’s controversial reputation is kept far from secret in The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology as his views are clearly voiced. The film discusses psychoanalysis and how it can tell us about the effects and meanings of ideology in relation to cinema. I know this all seems a little dry for a Friday night viewing.  Not to mention many of us may prefer to see something with a little less brain power. But -and that’s a big ‘but’ – Zizek is a born entertainer. He can’t help but perform to the camera and through relating his theories to a wide variety of films, ranging from Scorsese’s Taxi Driver to Robert Wise’s West Side Story, the film proved to be both insightful and well…funny.

It is it’s humorous approach which makes the film one to watch.  Zizek throws himself into the films discussed, quite literally! From explaining psychological matters using a Kinder Egg (Yep, you read that correctly)  to dressing as a nun from The Sound of Music whilst discussing erotic underpinnings. You will never look at Maria in quite the same way again. The wacky tone created and maintained by the combination of Zizek’s colourful character and Fiennes’ clever direction and editing is what makes The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology so endearing.

Undeniably, the strength of the documentary lies with the presence of the ‘star’ of the show, Slavoj Zizek. However, the interest of the film lies very heavily on the philosophers’ shoulders. Maybe it would be more suitable for the film to be called Zizek’s’ Guide to Ideology.  The collaboration of Fiennes’ filmmaking and Zizek’s delivery, switching from deep issues to humour makes The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology a refreshing take on a documentary.

Art&Science

Written by Matilda Roberts on . Posted in Arts.

Leonardo da Vinci whilst most famous for his paintings such as the Mona Lisa and the Supper was both artist and inventor, renowned in the fields of civil engineering, chemistry, geology, geometry, hydrodynamics, mathematics, mechanical engineering, optics, physics, pyrotechnics, and zoology.

Art and science while coming from what are thought to be opposite ends of the spectrum of human understanding, have found gaps in each other that require filling. Art can provide unique, and often unpredictable, viewpoints from which to inspect or challenge scientific ideas and assumptions.

Last week saw the opening of the Science Museum’s, Media Space, a new exciting collaboration between the world of science and art. At its opening fashion designer, Vivienne Westwood gave a speech in which she announced that ‘the thing about great artists and great scientists is that they have great imagination – they can see the world differently’.

The Museum of Sciences and Industry (MOSI), in Manchester is currently displaying an exhibition, Brains: The Mind as Matter, that investigates what humans have done to brains in the name of science, medicine, culture and technology. An artist included in the exhibition is Helen Pynor who majored in cellular and molecular biology, and in photography, sculpture and installation. Pynor draws extensively from the writings of scientists as well as philosophers of biology, in addition to collaborating with scientists for her photographs. Her practice is tied to a questioning of the philosophical and material status of human and non-human organisms.

Other artists who look to science to inspire and inform their work include,

 

  • Ælab

A research collective that seeks to reintroduce the world of animal/vegetal/minerals into the electronic arts.

 

·       Alexander Calder

With a degree in engineering he applied kinetics and geometry to his creation of sculpture that moves. His kinetic pieces alluded to the phenomena of nature—the rustle of leaves, the flight of birds, and the flutter of insects.

 

  • Annie Cattrell

Her work captures moments in time, fleeting things, clouds on a particular day, a breath inside a human lung. Her subjects stem from her interest in neuroscience, anatomy and meteorology, and she is drawn to working with glass because of its transparency and ability to reveal.

·       Jack Burman

Photographer Jack Burman created a collection of still-lives of dead but preserved people, specimens and skeletons — dehumanized but very human.

 

  • Jonathon Keats 

An American conceptual artist and experimental philosopherknown for creating large-scale thought experiments. Experiments include: attempting to genetically engineer God in a laboratory and transmitting his own abstract artwork out into the cosmos.

 

  • Orshi Drozdik 

Her work consists of series of installations exploring subjects such as deconstructions of medical representations of the female body. Her installation series Adventure in Technos Dystopium deconstructed scientific representations of truth. For this series the artist created a fictional 18th century female scientist called Edith Simpson and from1989 she used models of her father’s brain as part of sculptural installations.

Album: Chvrches – The Bones of What You Believe

Written by Lowell Clarke on . Posted in Music.

Released 20th September, 2013

Virgin Records

7/10

Even a cheesy track can be soulful in the right hands, and the right voice. With Lauren Mayberry’s youthful vocals backed by a bright synth sound, you’d think The Bones of What You Believe was the soundtrack to a sunny day. But with subtle, underlying references to suffocation, deception and destruction, it’s not that clean cut. Chvrches haven’t just borrowed the sound of 80s pop, they’ve carefully considered the hidden tragedy and heartbreak that influenced it. But beyond bitter drops of dark lyrics in an otherwise upbeat mix, it can be hard to understand what Chvrches are trying to say (and I’m not talking about the Scottish accents). Their music never presents an obvious story or idea – these are songs written to get stuck in your head rather than to resonate with your heart.

Although well produced, the simplicity stops Chvrches from ever creating a massive anthem. Instead, they cultivate a sense of intimacy, spearheaded by Mayberry’s voice. The album opener and single ‘The Mother We Share’ lends a hand to the intimacy straight away. Perhaps due to the childish sound to the track that characterises much of the album, or the lyrics suggesting a deeper sort of connection with the listener.

It’s hard to find an unenjoyable moment on the album, but the simplicity of the songs bites back at them. Halfway through the album the formula begins to wear thin. Despite band member Martin Doherty lending vocals to ‘Under the Tide’, it becomes difficult to differentiate it from the songs before it. With single ‘Recover’ it’s similarly hard to shake a feeling of deja vu. After a brilliant but brief section of cut up vocal samples in ‘Night Sky’ comes ‘Science and Visions’ – a track that finally stands out. It steadily builds a darker and uneasy sound not previously aired on the album and effortlessly proves itself to be the strongest song on the album. From there the remaining three songs recapture your attention and see you through to the albums end. Doherty returns to vocal duties for album closer ‘You Caught the Light’, combined with one of the few appearances that a guitar seems to make on the album. The break from the formula shows some much needed flexibility – if they can develop that further without losing their identity they’ll be on the right track.

Opinion: Politics and Pettiness

Written by Patrick Hinton on . Posted in Features, Music.

Musicians are generally quite an outspoken bunch, is this a good thing? There are positives and negatives. The fame music generates for successful artists lends them a platform to transmit messages of real worth or in some cases to mouth off needlessly.

Russian band and political activists Pussy Riot are a great example of a group being outspoken for all the right reasons. In their music they tackle sexism, homophobia and authoritarianism; a mutually beneficial relationship that gives their songs real power. A number of the group are currently imprisoned for their dissent and one member was hospitalised in late September following a five day hunger strike in protest at human rights violations in her prison. Pussy Riot exemplify a band who utilise their art to try enact positive change and they are worthy of reverence.

And then there’s Azealia Banks – professional aggravator who occasionally dabbles in music. Azealia rightly shot to fame in late 2011 after releasing the aggressive immediate-anthem ‘212’. As critics scrambled to edit their big tips for next year lists to include the rapper, the Azealia Banks hype machine roared into life. Yet since then Banks’ output has been far from prolific. I’d say an acceptable turnaround from hit single to debut album is six months at most, after that the clamour for new material dies away pretty sharpish; we’re not a generation that likes to wait. It’s likely that if Banks had released her debut album in the honeymoon period following ‘212’ she could easily be established as a major name in the music world by now. Instead her musical output has been a constant story of singles being pulled and her album release date being pushed back from 2012, then to 2013 and now to January, 2014 – a date I would only pencil into your diary.

So what has Azealia Banks been up to if not making music? She represents the other end of the spectrum to Pussy Riot in which her outspokenness is negatively channelled into petty and often offensive disputes with anyone and everyone; consequently her musical career suffers. Unfortunately the takes-no-prisoners attitude that translated so excellently into her debut single is not a positive character trait in a person. Banks seemingly wastes all her time fighting those who slightly cross her. The ‘Controversies’ section of her Wikipedia details public conflicts with a solid twenty-three people. It’s got to be a little embarrassing to have had more feuds than songs released, at any stage of a career. The most recent example came last week when Disclosure downplayed the buzz over their collaboration that Banks had labelled the “greatest studio session EVAR”. The brothers merely conceded that it probably wasn’t “the greatest song of all time”; this enraged Banks who has now pulled it from her debut album and plans to leak it as an f-side, a “fuck-you side”. Whilst the song surely isn’t the best ever, I expect it is quite good so Banks is needlessly harming herself and her own career through her belligerent ways.

Banks’ position as an influential figure and her constant use of the homophobic slur ‘faggot’ is also troubling. After Perez Hilton predictably involved himself where he was not needed or wanted she directed a string of homophobic abuse towards him, writing comments such as “what a messy faggot you are”. I’m all for character assassinating Perez Hilton on his many, many flaws, but his homosexuality is not one of them. Banks defends her use of these words by pointing to the reappropriation of racial slurs by hip-hop artists and noting her own bisexuality, but that does not make her a spokesperson for the entire LGBT community.

It’s a shame as I am still anticipating the eventual debut album with some degree of excitement. There’s production from Lone on it which is a good sign – the current trend of UK dance music producers lending beats to American hip-hop albums has been a great success. See: HudMo/Kanye and Rustie/Danny Brown. But if another year goes by that’s filled with bickering and devoid of music I’ll be ready to give up on her altogether.

So being outspoken can empower and impair musicians. Long live the political activism of Pussy Riot, and let’s just hope the next time Azealia Banks opens her mouth it’s in a recording studio. Let the music do the talking.

Biopics: the curse of cinema?

Written by Ally Mitchell on . Posted in Film.

Casually perusing Imdb a few weeks ago, I stumbled across a new film starring James Corden. One Chance tells the story of young Paul Potts (Britain’s Got Talent series 1 winner) and his struggle to follow his dreams as an opera singer in an existence which seems fiercely antagonistic. Downtrodden and defeated, Potts eventually rises up to quash the bullies by entering and (sorry, spoilers) winning Britain’s Got Talent and becoming a superstar.

Not that I have anything against Paul Potts; I think he is a very talented singer. Rather it’s the fact that mainstream cinema is now resorting to the biopic of a previous Britain’s Got Talent contestant (and casting a number of well-known actors) which astounds me. Created by Syco Television, the makers of the X Factor, One Chance stands out as a form of Simon Cowell advertisement with very little substance. The trailer follows the structure of the reality TV it is based on, clichéd and over-dramatised, depicting Potts’ Cinderella-story which, if you watch Britain’s Got Talent or not, you know ends happily ever after.

Of course, this is a norm for mainstream blockbusters. With their epic music scores and careful editing, big-time filmmakers make sure that our emotions and opinions are constructed for us whilst we innocently watch the movie before us. Film especially manipulates our minds through biopics. Focused on a famous and/or historical figure, the audience’s emotions are forced to either empathise with or oppose the central constructed character based on the film’s interpretation of them. Paul Potts transforms from the underdog to a hero within an hour and a half. Something tells me he will be releasing an album in the coming weeks. However, the question remains, why do so many film makers feel the need to inflict their opinion of a person upon worldwide audiences?

Within the last year a vast number of biopics have been made. Jobs (Steve Jobs), Behind the Candelabra (Liberace), The Butler (the White House butler, Cecil Gaines) and Kill Your Darlings (Allen Ginsberg) barely scratch the surface, and currently in cinemas are Diana, Rush and The Fifth Estate. What is the need for so many biopics? Is Hollywood running out of ideas? Only this summer Lovelace was released, a film about a porn star. I’m not disputing she probably had an interesting life, but where is it that we now draw the line? Are we to commend her for her sexual exploits and selling her body? What does someone have to achieve to have a film made about them?

The increasingly technological world is expanding our previous knowledge of people, especially people in the spotlight. Just by Google searching we can learn about a vast number of even vaguely famous people from any era. With this immense scope, film makers can choose anyone with an inspiring life and document it effectively to interest the audience. We must remember that film making is story telling. There is a narrative. There is even narrative within documentaries as we are expected to respond to the constructed image created. Just because a film is about a real person, the actor is not that person. Biopics are an interpretation and therefore can be controversial; The Iron Lady famously sparked debate due to Margaret Thatcher’s modern-day depiction. Are biopics therefore just a money-maker? Does the life story of a famous person pull us in? One Chance certainly fits this description (I’ve written a whole article about it). I just feel sorry for Paul Potts. Let’s hope they don’t make a biopic about Simon Cowell next.

Preview: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Written by Parizad Mangi on . Posted in Film.

The “star-crossed lovers of District 12” find themselves back in the battling arena only a year after winning the Hunger Games in one of 2013’s most anticipated releases. Hollywood’s sweetheart Jennifer Lawrence (fresh from her Oscar win) returns as Katniss Everdeen, The Girl on Fire, who yet again has to escape the clutches of the Capitol alongside Peeta, played by Josh Hutcherson. This time around, all previous victors are rounded up to fight to their deaths (a devious plan hatched by the malicious President Snow). What’s more, she has to confront her attraction to lifelong companion Gale (Liam Hemsworth) all the while being pressured by her foes to keep up the farce of being devoted to Peeta.

Its predecessor earned a place amongst the 20 highest grossing films of all time, and broke a fair number of other box office records along the way. Adapted from Suzanne Collins’ book series, the plot centres around 24 children that are drafted from districts all around a post-American land called Panem every year and are forced to kill till there is only one winner left. Katniss’ wit to ensure a victory for both herself and Peeta sparks a rebellion around the country that the tyrannical rulers are adamant to extinguish.

This dystopia created by Collins has garnered millions of devoted fans around the world. Eager to see the universe from the books adapted to screen from the very beginning, the casting of these films has perhaps been the most exciting and frustrating aspect for them. And with several fan-favourite characters making their debut appearance in Catching Fire, the final shortlist elicited some strong reactions. Phillip Seymour Hoffman was roped in to play Plutarch Havensbee, while Jena Malone, who has several hits as a child star to her credit, will be seen playing Johanna Mason of District 7. The most awaited casting coup, however, was of course to be of the District 4 hunk Finnick Odair. Anything less than a Greek God would have been a disgrace to his legacy and at last Sam Clafin of Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides fame won the role.

Other changes are in order too. Gary Ross, director of the first instalment, will be giving up his director’s seat to Francis Lawrence. Ross decided to part with the project during pre-production and the duty was passed on to Lawrence, who has previously directed I Am Legend, Water for Elephants and several music videos for famous names in pop. The trailer promises this venture will be more ominous and beautifully brusque.

The good news is that the fans, who call themselves “tributes”, seem to approve wholeheartedly.

Catching Fire is released on 22nd November 2013.

Top 5: Movie Robots

Written by Lloyd Hammett on . Posted in Film.

5) Wall-E – Wall-E

Left alone on earth Wall-E has the impossible task of bringing life back to the planet the humans destroyed. He barely talks in the film but his personality rings through with his longing for company and how he never gives up on his beloved EVE.

4) The Machines – The Matrix

They were produced by humans, waged war on humans, defeated humans and then used humans as an energy source. The Machines can take on any necessary form they want, sentinels and agents, and are relentless in their pursuit of any resistance. Acting in a cold and calculating manner The Machines are the ever-present threat to humanity.

3) T-800 – The Terminator

An unstoppable killer sent to earth to kill Sarah Connor with an Arnold Schwarzenegger over coat and the haunting red eyes and metal skull underneath. In T2 the T800 becomes our protective hero for John Connor and instantly wins back our support after terrorising the screen beforehand.

2) R2-D2 – Star Wars

Entrusted with the vital message from Leia to Obi-Wan the importance of R2-D2 is instantly shown in the saga. R2-D2 is constantly in the thick of events, despite the reservations of the ever moaning C-3PO, unlocking doors, shooting lightsabers, putting out fires and when necessary he can even fly.

1) Hal 9000 – 2001: A Space Odyssey

Perhaps more artificial intelligence than a robot but Hal cannot be missed out due to the effect he leaves all over cinema. It is not a lack of a conscience that makes HAL chilling; it is the embodiment of cold rational thought he represents, as he kills to preserve his own life. The unnerving soothing voice never changes, whether being helpful or turning to a homicidal killer, as HAL’s priorities of life never falter.

Contrary Corner: The Desolation of Smaug? More like The Desolation of Tolkien!

Written by Tom Bruce on . Posted in Film.

Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy is arguably the most important cinematic event of the past twenty years.  The script wasn’t perfect, nor the casting, but Jackson managed to capture the scale and wonder of Middle Earth and transfer it to the big screen with masterful confidence.  Sure, the story underwent some serious refurbishment but the magic of the books remained. People said that it could not be done, but eleven Oscars and billions of dollars beg to differ.

In spite of Jackson’s former feats of direction I feel that forcing a trilogy out of Tolkien’s The Hobbit – essentially a 300 page bed time story – is a bridge too far. Jackson’s Middle Earth renaissance is curious to say the least. Reliving past glories? Atoning for critical flops King  Kong and The Lovely Bones by returning to more reliable source material? Guillermo Del Toro’s cancelled standalone Hobbit movie – which sounded like an intriguing, darker vision of Bilbo’s adventures- would have been welcome over Jackson’s systematic, nine hour annihilation of my childhood.

An Unexpected Journey, the first instalment in the new trilogy, was little more than an overwrought orgy of hollow, self gratifying nonsense. I have seen it twice in the cinema and three times on DVD (just to make sure) – each viewing makes me feel more bitter and betrayed than the last. It is so unashamedly identical to The Fellowship of the Ring in terms of themes and narrative, yet it carries none of the emotional weight or Tolkien spirit. Just like Fellowship, the party set out from Bag End,  take in the same landmarks (Weathertop, Trollshaw) and encounter minor peril before a bit of well earned R ’n’ R in Rivendell. Then they trundle through a goblin-infested mountain and engage in a final battle. Déjà vu strikes once more during a flashback which re-enacts the Last Alliance blow for blow. Oh, and Thorin is basically just Aragorn.

Now the impending middle chapter… A new trailer has just been released for The Desolation of Smaug and it appears worryingly similar in tone. That said, a brief glimpse of the mighty Beorn and a sample of reptilian menace from Smaug the Stupendous can still excite even the most sceptical of fans. Some major concerns remain; Firstly, The White Orc should not be a thing. Secondly, the ill advised return of Orlando Bloom’s Legolas (he does not feature in book whatsoever) has been contrived for a newly invented and unnecessary love interest. Tauriel is her name and copying Arwen is her game.

The Hobbit trilogy is the Star Wars ‘prequels’ all over again. If the hubris of George Lucas taught us anything it was this: never go back. As a devout Tolkienite, I truly hope that The Desolation of Smaug redeems the first Hobbit film and more besides. It won’t, but I will still go and watch it five times anyway.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is out on Friday 13th of December.

Top 5: 90s fashion on screen

Written by Natalie Clark on . Posted in Fashion & Beauty.

1. 1990 Pretty Woman

No iconic fashion-movie list could ever be completed without including Pretty Woman. Though Julia Roberts’ pre-hooker style may be a tad less wearable (unless you’re on Geordie Shore) her post-transformation wardrobe made the film what it was. From the brown polka dot ensemble at the Polo to that sophisticated outfit shopping on Rodeo Drive, Julia, you got it so right.

 

2. 1990 The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air

The Fresh Prince’s original style is still resonating 20 years after the first episode aired. Rocking vibrant colours, Air Jordans and crazy patterns, Will’s cult-like fashion following is still ever present today. Let’s not forget spoilt, ditzy, hat-loving Hilary Banks. She stole the show with her smart suits, cutout minis and bold accessories, because the only thing that matters is fashion, duhh.

 

 

3. 1994 Friends

The 90s would not have been complete without Friends, and of course, Rachel Green’s style. Despite Jennifer Anniston HATING IT, ‘The Rachel’ haircut sparked a locks-chopping phenomenon, and hersartorial influence continued to grow; cropped shirts, dungarees, sundresses and of course her statement LBD. Effortless, chic and fabulous, no wonder everybody wanted to be Rachel.

 

4. 1995 Clueless

Need I say more? Cher and Dionne of the almighty Clueless (movie or extended fashion show? You decide…) brought us out of the grunge era sweeping the 90s with their sleek silhouettes and classy ensembles. Plaid suits, chunky wedges, collared dresses and the white-shirt-knit-sweater-look; the Clueless nostalgia has even cropped up on the Autumn/Winter 2013 catwalks. And that white mini-dress? “A dress, says who? “ “Calvin Klein.”

 

5. 1998 Sex and the City

Two words: Carrie Bradshaw. Yes, many a time the outfits were questionable, but more times than not, she, along with the other ladies, started trends. Making designers like Manolo Blahnik household names, the power of SATC inspired women to challenge their fashion boundaries. Who else but Carrie could get away with pigtails and stilettos in one go?