Insurgent Review

Last year I reviewed Divergent, and decided that while it was much better than the book, it still wasn't a wholly remarkable movie. I also said that I'd just barely liked it enough to check out it sequels. That is essentially the only reason I ended up at the movie theaters watching The Divergent Series' second installment, Insurgent. While Divergent was underwhelming, Insurgent proved even more so.

Following the surges of unrest among the factions at the conclusion of the previous movie, Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) is on the run with her love interest, Four (Theo James); her brother, Caleb (Ansel Elgort); and escaped Dauntless soldier, Peter (Miles Teller). The four of them have taken refuge in the Amity faction until they can formulate a plan. Racing against time, they must find out what Tris's family sacrificed their lives to protect and why Jeanine (Kate Winslet), the leader of the power-hungry Erudite faction's elite, will do anything to stop them. Haunted by her past choices but desperate to protect the ones she loves, Tris, with Four at her side, faces one challenge after another as they unlock the truth about the past and ultimately the future of their world.

For most of the movie there really isn't much that actually happens. There is certainly is a sense of urgency, but why time is of the essence frequently eluded me. In the wreckage of Abnegation, where Tris and Caleb's family lived, Jeanine's mind-controlled Dauntless soldiers find a box with the symbols of each of the five factions on it. Jeanine is certain it contains data from the post apocalyptic city's founders and the means to end the Divergence problem. Of course, only a Divergent can open it, but none of the ones Jeanine captures actually comes remotely close to doing it. Even when Tris and company figure out what it is, it's not as if Jeanine was anywhere near close to opening it.

Our heroes end up talking a lot about grief and forgiveness, identity and loyalty, politics and love, but never anything deeper than the most simplistic superficial speculations on such topics.  They spend so much time doing this that it doesn't allow for very much actual plot. In fact, things don't get moving until around the third act. It's a good thing they throw in random and usually unwarranted fight scenes, or I would have fallen asleep early on.

In my previous review, I pointed out that The Divergent series bears a more-than-passing resemblance to The Hunger Games; dystopian future, society divided into groups, rebellion, searching for a sense of identity, worrying about being different, etc. Insurgent feels even closer to The Hunger Games. There's a leader of the Factionless, Evelyn Johnson-Eaton (Naomi Watts), who wants to overthrow the Jeanine, and believes that war is inevitable. This sounds a whole lot like President Coin in Mockingjay. For Divergent, I thought things were similar to The Hunger Games because someone was trying to capitalize on its popularity. But for Insurgent there are so many more similarities that I can't help but wonder if there's potential for a copyright lawsuit. The Hunger Games did it first, and did it much better.

Tris often ends up having some trippy dreams and is put in some hallucinogenic simulations like she was in the first movie. The CGI and visual effects were even more impressive than they were in the previous film. Oddly, a lot of things (people, buildings, locations, etc.) shatter, crumble, and drift away in these simulations. This visually complements the overarching plot device that the faction system is weakening and crumbling away, but made less sense for Tris's character to have dreams like that. Insurgent was quite a bit more violent than the previous movie when they actually had action scenes. It stays safely in the PG-13 realm by having pointblank headshots occur just off screen, but they seemed to be trying to push what they could get away with. It might not be something to let younger audiences watch.

While Divergent was an uninspiring movie with a dull script, Insurgent was even more so. Again we've got some above average actors with very poor material to work with, some excellent visual effects that were genuinely interesting to see, and a story that lacked depth and narrative. Insurgent drew too much inspiration from  The Hunger Games, so you may as well just watch The Hunger Games and get a much better story. Even with its open ending, Insurgent has enough closure that doesn't truly require future stories. Unfortunately the third book is being made into a two-part set of movies, also like The Hunger Games. Insurgent wasn't as good as Divergent and that wasn't very good to begin with. It's not worth seeing in theaters, it's scarcely worth the cost to rent. I'd avoid Insurgent unless you were a real fan of the books.

Did anyone notice that Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort play siblings here and lovers in The Fault in our Stars? Can you think of other examples of actors playing siblings in one title and lovers in another? It's kind of weird to think about. Comment below and let me know what you think!

The Giver Review

I read Lois Lowry's book The Giver many years ago. It was originally published in 1993. Now that teenage dystopian survival movies have become so popular in wake of The Hunger Games, Hollywood seemed to think the time was right for a movie of The Giver (2014). The story has potential to be a great movie, but seemed afraid to take the necessary steps to make it a bold and memorable movie.

In the future society following a devastating war, "The Community" had decided to get rid of colors, therefore different races, and feelings. There is peace, harmony, and everyone has a purpose within The Community lead by the Chief Elder (Meryl Streep), and everyone is happy. Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) lives in his assigned family unit with his Father (Alexander Skarsgard) and mother (Katie Holmes) When Jonas and his friends Asher (Cameron Monaghan) and Fiona (Odeya Rush) turn eighteen, Jonas is chosen to be The Community's new Receiver of Memories. He enters into training with an old man called The Giver (Jeff Bridges). From The Giver, Jonas learns about pain, sadness, war, and all the unhappy truths of the "real" world. He quickly realizes that his community is fake. Confronted with this reality, Jonas faces the difficult choices about his own life and the future of The Community.

The Giver is a visually striking film. A lot of The Community had to have been computer generated, but it look clean and crisp and very comfortable. The first half of the movie is in black and white. Gradually more color seeps into the movie as Jonas learns what colors are and how to identify them. It's a very gradual transition that you hardly notice. Finally there are brilliant colors everywhere and it looks pretty. The camera work is above average and most of the sets are simple but elegant. There is plenty of stock footage and cut away scenes as The Giver gives Jonas memories. They are incongruent with the sterile, perfect Community but are still applicable to the story and look picturesque.

When a movie is based on a book it's hard not to compare the two. Really, the movie should stand on its own as a good movie independent of the book. There were so many changes between The Giver book and movie that they have to be brought up here. A few changes include Asher being assigned to be a Jet pilot. As soon as I heard that I knew exactly how Asher's character would play out and I was right. I didn't picture the story being nearly as sci-fi as it is depicted in the movie. There is a lot of subtle influence from Gorge Orwell's 1984. Jonas and his friends are supposed to be eleven going on twelve, but they are in their late teens in the movie. What's weird is they still frequently act like eleven-year-olds making pacts of eternal friendship, playing games, and getting into childish mischief. It's not unusual for young kids to behave that way but it's a bit creepy and weird for an eighteen-year-old to behave that way. Also, since they are older characters, there is an obligatory love interest between Jonas and Fiona which would have been very out of sorts if they were eleven. But thank goodness the movie doesn't use the overused teenage love triangle that is crammed into every young adult book movie these days, even though all the material was there. The movie plays up this "chosen one" trope which was completely absent in book; Jonas had been assigned to be The Receiver, not destined or chosen by fate.

The Hunger Games book focused on Katniss's perspective, while the movie added some scenes which allowed viewers a glimpse at the Gamemakers manipulating the games which Katniss would never have seen. In The Giver, there were added scenes that allowed us to see what was happening in The Community while Jonas makes a run for it. These scenes make perfect sense to the story and actually raised the stakes a bit more; this very well could have been going on in the book had the book's narrative taken a more omniscient perspective. Annoying as I found most of the new additions to the story, the ones towards the end of the movie were intriguing.

Even within the context of the movie's setting, there's a lot of holes in the plot. The Chief Elder seems to know all the history that The Giver knows; it's the function of The Giver to know the history and advise the Elders. If the Elders already know all the memories which The Giver is supposed to keep, why have a Giver in the community at all? Everyone in The Community takes injections to subdue their emotions, and yet when Asher tries to stop Jonas, Asher seems angry. We have no reason to believe Asher was skipping his injections, so was it even physically possible for him to be angry? There are plenty of others, and most of these plot holes seem to stem from not knowing the source material very well.

In the end, The Giver was a decent movie. Both the book and the movie got the same point across. The themes were still there, most of the story stayed intact, and it was, for the most part, a good time. Like the book, this isn't an action movie but a philosophical movie, contrary to what the trailers advertised. The great irony of The Giver as a movie that preaches the values of nonconformity, a lot of the story was changed to closely resemble The Hunger Games, Divergent, and other teen dystopian survival movies out there to capitalize on popular trends. Streep, Bridges, and Holmes were good, but the kid actors were pretty bland, even for characters who aren't supposed to have emotions. It's worth seeing, but it doesn't dig deep enough into the source material's thought-provoking ideas as it should have. This is a renter since it likely won't make a lasting impression upon its viewers. As a book, The Giver will doubtless continue to thrill readers of all ages, but the film version won't be enjoying a comparable shelf life.

Are there any other teen dystopia survivalist books out there? Would any of them make good movies? Are you getting burnt out on this subgenre altogether? Comment below and tell me all about it!

The Fault in our Stars Review

I had not heard of The Fault in our Stars (2014) before having a friend suggest we go see it together at the theaters. I did a little research and it looked for all the world like an independent romance film cram packed with every romantic trope to ever be written for a chick flick. I begrudgingly went along to see the movie expecting a rehash of A Walk to Remember, but I was pleasantly surprised by a well written drama with some interesting and dynamic characters.

Hazel (Shailene Woodley) and Gus (Ansel Elgort) are two teenagers who share an sardonic wit, a disdain for the conventional, and a love that transcends their physical ailments. Sixteen-year-old Hazel suffers from thyroid cancer and needs a portable oxygen tank to breathe adequately. Hazel is forced by her well intending parents (Laura Dern and Sam Trammell) to attend a support group for teens with cancer. During one of the meetings she meets seventeen-year-old Agustus, an ex-basketball player and amputee. Gus had osteosarcoma, but he is now cancer-free after having his leg amputated. Gus's incessant flirting results in the two forming a relationship and falling in love, but the relationship is anything but miraculous given the disabilities each one has and the prospect of death looming over them.

One of my many complaints about The Bucket List is how lightly it takes the subject of cancer. The characters in The Bucket List seem to suffer from a cancer that is nothing like cancer; the movie is so optimistic about cancer that the writers can't possibly know anything about it. In most Nicholas Sparks stories, such as A Walk to Remember, the terminal illness is treated like nothing more than a sad plot twist that is thrown in with no reason other than to jerk tears. The Fault in our Stars, however, depicts cancer in a very realistic way in all of its depressing, terrifying, and painful glory. I expected a rehash of A Walk to Remember, but The Fault in our Stars takes the bold move of having both lovers have cancer. No, this is not a romance that has a tragic twist at the end, it's a tragic drama that has a love story in it. That alone makes The Fault in our Stars a much more solid and interesting story than A Walk to Remember or The Bucket List ever was.

The characters in The Fault in our Stars were really interesting. Hazel struggles with depression, being a burden to her parents, avoids connecting with other people, and feeling like a time bomb of emotional trauma to those around her when she inevitably dies. Under similar circumstances, I could see myself struggling with those very same issues; Hazel is very relatable. Gus is the quintessential optimistic cancer patient, he's the type you hear about overcoming terminal illness based solely on hopefulness and a desire to keep going. But even ominous reality of death and the oblivion that lies beyond it cracks Gus's buoyancy from time to time. Gus's cheerful brightness contrasts his rare meltdowns so starkly that it makes the reality of death all the more terrifying.

The only other movie I've seen Shailene Woodley in is Divergent.  She didn't exactly have great material to work with there. Woodley's acting skills really shine through here. She's amazing. She handles a tragic character beautifully and makes her portrayal of Hazel seem effortless. She's an actor to watch for in the future. I've only seen Laura Dern in Jurassic Park and in a small cameo in Jurassic Park 3. But I think she played one of the more impactful roles in the movie. We see this scene repeatedly in a flashback where young Hazel is on her death bed at the hospital and in great pain from the medical treatment of her thyroid cancer. Hazel's mom is trying to stay supportive and optimistic, but is in great emotional distress at seeing her daughter in so much pain and so near death. She smiles warmly to her daughter and tells her that she can let go and let the pain go away, and then turns to her husband collapsing into tears and cries because she won't be a mother anymore. While we return to this flashback several times, it doesn't become any less affecting. The acting is absolutely incredible.

There are plenty of romantic moments in The Fault in our Stars. At first they are predictable, cliché, and very cheesy. When Hazel and Gus first meet and he starts flirting I couldn't help but think, "Ugh... are they really doing that?" It wasn't anything I hadn't seen repeatedly in other movies, and yet before the end of each scene I caught myself thinking, "Aww... that's so sweet!" I couldn't help but get caught up in the romance between the characters. There were many times when it was cheesy, yes, but it was handled in such a way that I was not taken out of the story for an almighty eye-roll as I was in A Walk to Remember. The difference is these were characters I actually cared about and were invested in and the dialogue wasn't forced and trite. When romance is done well in a movie it can be good, but it usually is cheesy and full of lines that no one with any real eloquence would say. But the romance in The Fault in our Stars was good and solid, if a little corny sometimes.

I truly didn't want to like The Fault in our Stars. I fully expected a sappy Nicholas Sparks style of story; devoid of interesting characters, romantic dialogue that no real person would say, and a story so sickly sweet that you'd need to brush your teeth afterwards. But none of that was the case here. I genuinely liked all the characters, I actually liked the romantic moments in this movie, and there was some very real drama in this movie. The story is wise, funny, and heartbreaking without resorting to cheap clichés and exploitation. The sweetness of the romance is overshadowed by the dark prospect of death, and gives it a very down-to-earth depiction of cancer. It's not just the patient that is pained by it; this movie shows how it affects everyone the patient knows and how painful it is for loved ones to see them suffer. The Fault in our Stars is a good solid movie that is romantic, funny, and philosophical. I think that if you enjoy dramas and romance movies, this is one worth catching in theaters. Make sure you bring some tissues, though. I cried a lot during this movie. I even think this is good enough to justify owning a copy of once it is available on Blu-Ray.

Well written movies should get an emotional reaction from you, not necessarily sad ones. What's the most emotionally intense movie you've ever seen? What made you so invested in it? Comment below and tell me why!

Divergent Movie Reivew

Oh, hey wow! Another set of movies based off of a young adult novel trilogy. We certainly haven't had enough of those lately. Contrary to the circumstances when I saw The Hunger Games, I had read the Divergent book before the Divergent (2014) movie hit theaters. This is a rare case where I think the movie is better than the book upon which it is based.

Set in a futuristic dystopia where society is divided into five factions that each represent a different virtue, teenagers have to decide if they want to stay in their faction or switch to another for the rest of their lives. Beatrice Prior (Shailene Woodley) makes a choice that surprises everyone by leaving the Abnegation faction that values selflessness and joins the rough and rugged Dauntless faction which values bravery. Beatrice and her fellow faction initiates have to live through a highly competitive initiation process and training from Four (Theo James) and other trainers. They must undergo extreme physical and intense psychological tests, which end up transforming them all. But Beatrice has a secret; she is Divergent, which means she doesn't fit into any one faction. If anyone knew, it would mean a certainty of death. When Beatrice discovers a growing conflict lead by Erudite leader, Jeanine Matthews (Kate Winslet), which threatens to unravel the seemingly perfect society, Beatrice's secret might help her save the people she loves, or it might destroy her.

So, I have read the Divergent book. It bears a more-than-passing resemblance to The Hunger Games; dystopian future, society divided into groups, rebellion, searching for a sense of identity, worrying about being different, etc. The characters were inconsistent, the story wasn't developed well, and most of the events were thrown together without obvious connection. It's a pretty weak novel that didn't inspire me to check out the others in the series. Having said that, I think the writers of the Divergent movie did a great job of taking a mediocre book and developing it into a decent movie. It's sad if the movie does a better job of telling the story than the original book did. In the movie the characters are more consistent, we understand the reason for certain events, and the story is more evenly paced. That's not to say the movie was exceptionally good, just better than the book it was based on.

Much of the film revolves around the rigorous training that Beatrice and the other newbies are put through. Four and Eric (Jai Courtney) are heartless and tough on the new recruits, so naturally Beatrice develops a romantic interest in Four. The scenes where this enigmatic interest develops was very much forced. Four puts his hand on Beatrice's side or back to help her with fighting stances and posture and then leaves them there just a little too long for comfort. Of course this is supposed to be romantic and is meant to illustrate the growing passionate tension between the two characters. It ends up looking so awkward and uncomfortable that I literally laughed out loud nearly every time this happened. I think this is more of a flaw of the script and maybe a lapse in directing; the actors do a decent job acting their part, they just didn't have very good material to work with. In fact, I think Woodley and James's performances were a strength in the movie, it could have been a lot worse with less skilled actors.

There are a number of creative liberties used in making this movie. We actually get to see Beatrice develop from a rather frumpy reserved puritan-like character into a hard core fighting machine and strategist. We get to see what make Four tick. Jeanine has a much more prominent and developed role as the villain. There's some emotionally intense scenes near the end that made me a lot more invested in the characters. The big fight at the end of the movie is very different, but much more logical and poignant to the story and characters. These differences made the movie a lot more solid than it was in the book, I think.

Apart from the hallucinogenic mind-test scenes, there isn't a whole lot of particularly intensive special effects. A lot of the action scenes were executed with practical effects which is always a plus in my book. Most of the CGI was in the exterior shots of post-apocalyptic Chicago. Ruined structures, the huge defensive fence around the city, and some futuristic buildings were rendered by computers with such remarkable detail that one would hardly suppose they were artificial. It really helped sell the post-apocalyptic setting.

Divergent wasn't a bad movie. It had plenty of weaknesses, including some shaky cam which I'm convinced was trying to imitate The first Hunger Games movie. The love interest was illogical, some characters were left underdeveloped, the Young Adult Fiction formula undercuts some potential for an interesting theme and makes the story predictable. On the other hand, the acting is pretty good, the special effects are well integrated and coupled with some good practical effects, the story is reasonably well developed, and we've got a strong female protagonist. Divergent was much better than the book, but still wasn't a wholly remarkable movie. The book didn't inspire me to read the others in the series, but I liked the movie enough to check out its sequels. Unless you're a huge fan of the books, I'd wait for this to be on home video. It's a renter, but it's a pretty good renter.

So, Young Adult books seem to be a movie genre any more. What is a Young Adult book series that you would like to see made into a movie? I think The Looking Glass Wars would be pretty cool. Comment below and tell me what you think!