The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part II Review

So, we were left with a cliffhanger at the end of The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part I, and a year later we finally get to see the conclusion in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part II (2015). It's been an exciting series and this final installment lived up to expectations set by previous films. This one got really intense in some scenes, but felt lacking in some way in other scenes.

After young Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) agrees to be the symbol of rebellion, the Mockingjay, she tries to return Peeta to his normal state, tries to get to the Capitol, and tries to deal with the battles coming her way. Katniss teams up with her closest friends, including, Gale (Liam Hemsworth), Finnick (Sam Claflin) and a now unstable Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) for their ultimate mission. Together, they leave District 13 to liberate the citizens of war-torn Panem and assassinate President Snow (Donald Sutherland), who's obsessed with destroying Katniss. What lies ahead are mortal traps, dangerous enemies, and moral choices that will ultimately determine the future of millions.

I never miss an opportunity to praise Jennifer Lawrence for her acting chops. She's simply fantastic here; she's the caliber of actress who improves the quality of the film she's in just by her presence, even if the movie is bad (take House at the End of the Street, for example). Katniss a fantastic female protagonist. She's a somewhat oblivious but totally hardcore heroine who sometimes responds in stereotypically feminine ways but, more often than not, breaks convention. She’s a breadwinner and protector, quick to anger, emotionally damaged, confused, and heroic. Katniss is brave and strong, skilled and smart, and, always, distinctly a teenage girl. She's the kind of character I'd want my daughters to model. Josh Hutcherson was fantastic as well. By this point in the story Peeta is significantly damaged and has been driven mad, and Hutcherson plays that incredibly well and convincingly.

There were two scenes in the book that I was worried would be left out or downplayed in the interest of time; seeking asylum from a person living in The Capital whose cosmetic surgeries and fashionable alterations made her look inhuman, and the "true or not true" game. The surviving members of Katniss's group seek refuge from a fashion clothing designer named Tigris in The Capital, her body alterations made her strongly resemble a tiger. In the book she was depicted as a tragic character to show that the beauty obsessed Capital was cruel to even their own citizens who nearly destroyed their bodies in the interest of keeping up with expectations to the point that they were no longer themselves and then discarded. It's a small, but poignant role that backed up the theme. Sadly this was downplayed to just being a weird character that randomly helped our heroes. That wasn't unexpected, but I'm glad she at least appeared briefly.

In the previous movie, Peeta's memories were tampered with and was conditioned to think that Katniss was the cause of all the war and fighting. He actively tries to kill Katniss because he believes that's the right thing to do. After some reconditioning in District 13, he understands that his memories and personality have been altered. In order to help Peeta sort out true memories from fabricated ones, he and Katniss play this "true or not true" game where Peeta describes something according to his skewed recollection and Katniss tells him if it's accurate or not, which is confirmed by others since Peeta doesn't trust Katniss. Not only is this a fantastic bit of character development, it's also something that could legitimately be used for helping people with anxiety. This was incorporated perfectly into the movie and I was highly pleased to see it.

The action here is intense! It still remains within its PG-13 bounds, but wow, parts of it was intense. There are insane, sadistic traps our heroes encounter and try to survive. Some are really cool and lend themselves to some amazing action scenes. There is one part, however, that really set me on edge. In the tunnels under The Capitol, the team encounters some terrifying monsters. I knew it was coming, but I did not expect what happened on the screen. All our heroes were on edge hearing something creepy in the dark, you just know something is going to jump out of the dark for a big scare, but the anticipation lingers for a long time. So long, in fact, that I was feeling genuinely distressed and fidgety. Something is going to scare me, I just know it. The scene ends up going just long enough that I started to doubt that event was going to happen yet, at which point I jumped out of both my seat and my skin. It was followed by an insane action scene that was also highly intense. It was really good! Thematically the movie gets very grim and dark, so much so I wonder if some younger viewers would be okay watching it.

In my review of Mockingjay Part I, I complained that there was a lot of down time which hurt the pacing of the movie. That was less of an issue in Part II, but it still lacked something. The first two movies were both exciting and dramatic, and that made them incredibly good. I think the problem with Mockingjay Part II is that it's mostly just exciting. The action was great, the effects were stunning, the tension was palpable, and the characters were good. I think where the problem lies is in parts of the aftermath and conclusion. I'll avoid spoilers here, but there's a vague sense of betrayal between some of the characters which deserved a bit more exploration or at least allusion. A death of a certain character could have been more impactful. The personalities and importance of some secondary characters were lost in the transition from book to movie (like Tigris). I think that if these few bits had been given more gravitas, it would have made Mockingjay Part II even better. The decision to turn a 390-page book into over four hours worth of screen time (and a bonus payday for the studio) has resulted in a patchy end to a franchise that started so promisingly. It's still good, but the Mockingjay story was weakened by stretching it out further than was necessary.

Tragically, Phillip Seymour Hoffman passed away during the filming of both Mockingjay movies in February 2014. He played an outstanding Plutarch Heavensbee, but this was his last appearance after a long career in film. All but two scenes involving Hoffman were completed by the time of his death. Regarding Hoffman's scenes, Lawrence commented that, "He had two substantial scenes left and the rest were appearances in other scenes. We had no intention of trying to fake a performance, so we rewrote those scenes to give to other actors… The rest, we just didn’t have him appear in those scenes. There’s no digital manipulation or CG fabrication of any kind." It was an honorable way to pay respects to the actor and his accomplishments.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part II comes to an exacting and somewhat satisfying ending. Overall, the series of films is good, even if the two Mockingjay films suffered from being divided into two movies and lacked significant impact during the conclusion. It was still usually poignant when it needed to be and highly exciting. This last movie takes a remarkably dark tone even by comparison to its predecessors, some of the action and tension might get to be a bit too much for younger audiences, but it's positively riveting. If you can still catch this in theaters, I'd say go for it. The Hunger Games movies are worth owning copies of, and pulling out once in a while to relive the legacy of Katniss Everdeen again and again.

What other Young Adult novel trilogy would you like to see made into a movie in the future? Comment below and let me know!

Maze Runner: The Scorch Trial

The Maze Runner hit theaters last year and I was so intrigued by the trailer I read the whole book trilogy upon which it is based before the movie came out. I maintain that the books are somewhat underwhelming overall, but The Maze Runner and its sequel, Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (2015) did a better job telling the story than the books did. However, that doesn't necessarily mean The Scorch Trials was a good movie.

After surviving the maze and being transported to a remote fortified outpost, Thomas (Dylan O'Brien) and his fellow teenage Gladers find themselves in trouble after uncovering a diabolical plot from the mysterious and powerful organization WCKD. With help from a new ally, Aris (Jacob Lofland), the Gladers stage a daring escape into The Scorch, a desolate landscape filled with dangerous obstacles and crawling with the zombie-like virus-infected Cranks. The Gladers' only hope may be to find the Right Arm, a group of resistance fighters who can help them battle WCKD.

So, maybe it's just been awhile since I read the book, but The Scorch Trials are very different from what I remember the book being like. There are some significant changes as the book transitions into a movie. Dedicated fans of the books will be left scratching their heads at the many changes. But the changes are respectable. Director Wes Ball has borrowed one trope after another from superior post-apocalyptic tales for an amusing but overall hollow narrative that moves at a brisk pace. The changes to the movie end up telling a better and more concise story than the book upon which it is based. I became less invested in the books as I went on, but the movie kept me engaged for the most part.

The Scorch Trials relies on the assumption that you have seen The Maze Runner; if you start with this movie, you'll be totally lost. Main characters who are returning from the previous movie are already established. Thomas is able to evolve and develop a bit more. Instead of a brave "new guy" cliche, this storyline answers what makes Thomas such a capable and compassionate leader.  If you were left pining for answers after The Maze Runner's climactic cliffhanger, you'll find The Scorch Trials add some much appreciated context for the Gladers' former association with WCKD, which paints a much clearer picture of why Thomas is a hero both in the maze of the first movie and out in the real world in this movie.

Unfortunately, as O'Brian steps into the spotlight, the remainder of The Scorch Trials cast gets sidelined. Minjo (Ki Hong Lee), Teresa (Kaya Scodelario), Newt (Thomas Brodie Sangster), and Frypan (Dexter Darden) are reduced to expository soundingboards for Thomas and other dialogue-heavy characters rather than capable heroes who possess individual skills necessary to the group's survival. Fan-favorite Minho gets a few moments to shine but, like the majority of The Scorch Trials characters, most often he's simply looking to Thomas to call the next shot.

There is a generous amount of CGI used to make the post-apocalyptic world seem more real, but the actual physical sets used were most impressive. There is a scene in which two of our heroes are trying to escape some Cranks by climbing up the stairwell of a decrepit building which has toppled over into an adjacent building. The stairwell is at a highly inconvenient steep diagonal which forces our heroes to be creative while escaping from the crazed virus monsters. This was done with physical sets and left the actors with little wiggle room, which in turn generated some creative camera work.

Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials is packed with thin outlines and surface-level drama, however it maintains a semi-successful bar of intriguing movie escapism set by The Maze Runner. Fans who enjoyed the first film have a good reason to continue with the movie franchise, as it boasts some good camera work, great effects, and some decent action scenes. I jumped several times, during some particularly tense scenes. The movie lacks character depth (outside of Thomas), features an uninspiring storyline, and hasn't elevated itself to a platform for insight into the human condition (i.e. The Hunger Games theme of self-determination versus totalitarianism). As was the case with the previous installment, It's a decent popcorn flick, but unless you really value the big screen experience, it's a renter.

I understand that the third book in The Maze Runner Trilogy, The Death Cure will not be broken up into a two-part movie as has so frequently been done with Young Adult novels made into movies. Some of the Young Adult novels that have divided the last book into two movies had so little happening in the book that two movies were unjustified. Thank Goodness The Maze Runner isn't doing this! The final movie, The Death Cure is due out February 2017.

What's the best YA novel to transition to a movie in your opinion? Comment below and tell me why!

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 Hunger Games: Mockingjay part I Review

The first movie series to be based on books that had the final book split into two movies was Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. This made a lot of sense because there was a lot of story to cover in that last book. Then the Twilight saga split their last book into two movies. This made no sense at all because nothing had happened in any of the previous movies; it was clearly a marketing ploy to milk the Twilight brand for all the money the studios could. We could also accuse The Hobbit movies of doing this, but that's a discussion for another time. The Hunger Games have been very successful as future dystopian survival stories which a lot of other books and movies have failed to imitate. But did The Hunger Games: Mockingjay part I (2014) really need to be divided into two parts?

Following the destruction of the last Hunger Games event, a few of the tributes managed to escape as the oppressive Capitol tried to intervene. Among the escapees were Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), Finnick Odair (Sam Claflin), and Beetee (Jeffery Wright). They are joined by Katniss's friend Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth) and other refugees from their home in District 12 and end up in the believe-to-be-destroyed District 13. Under the leadership of President Alma Coin (Julianne Moore) and the advice of her friends, Katniss agrees to become the "Mockingjay," the symbol of the rebellion for the districts of Panem to overthrow The Capitol. Katniss is prepped and made over to inspire others for the rebellion, but her thoughts are with Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) and his safety while being trapped by The Capitol.

So, The Hunger Games was a pretty good solid movie with lots of action, some good characters, and an interesting story about a televised death match. Catching Fire did a similar thing and took everything to the next level; bigger action, higher stakes, and more complexity. Mockingjay part I went in a totally different direction; there's no Hunger Games whatsoever. The Hunger Games event is over, but the fight rages on in a different arena. Mockingjay is more about the political battle going on between The Capitol and the rebels. The Capitol is producing televised propaganda ads to belittle and dismiss the rebels as nothing but troublemakers. District 13 has been waiting for an opportunity like this for decades; now they have a symbol of hope in Katniss to bring the Districts together and fight against their oppressors. So they make their own propaganda ads featuring Katniss showing how evil and corrupt The Capitol is. It's like a political chess match played out through the media. We get to see how difficult it is to run a rebellion and the impact that media can have on a nation, for good or bad.

At the same time, it's mostly a movie about shooting television ads. While that is interesting, it gets dull. There is a lot of down time, which slows the pacing of the movie. The action scenes are fantastic! I loved seeing Katniss and Gale fighting Capitol airships, but much of the movie is rather slow paced. On top of that we get a whole bunch of new characters thrown at us, but apart from Katniss few of them are developed enough. There's a great action sequence featuring Gale. It was an exciting and tense scene, but this being the third movie Gale has appeared in and I still don't have much of a feel for who this character is. If I had, it would have made the scene all the more tense and would have made me want Gale to survive even more. As it is, Katniss gets most of the development and depth of character at the expense of the significantly expanded cast.

The Hunger Games books are told from Katniss's perspective, and something the movies have done is show us events that Katniss did not witness and thus was unable to narrate. In Mockingjay, we get to see acts of rebellion among the Districts as a result of the rebels' propaganda. Each District specializes in a particular industry, and we see them use the skills associated with that industry to fight against The Capitol's presence in a given District. We see guerilla war acts in District 7 who specialize in lumber and District 5 whose industry is electrical power. When these scenes start you know the District is about to fight back, but how they actually do it totally blew away my wildest expectations. These extra scenes were outside the canon of the books, but were creative and pertinent to the story.

Since Mockingjay is divided into two parts it doesn't have a satisfactory ending. What we get here is good, but not great, and once things really start getting interesting, the closing credits start rolling. It's like standing in line and anticipating an awesome rollercoaster ride, getting buckled in and ready to go, only to have to be taken out and told to wait for the next train. It's kind of a disappointment and almost feels like a bait-and-switch. Having read the books, I am of the opinion that of all the books the third one had the least amount of storyline, so dividing it up into  two-parts seems silly. But there's not much we can do except wait for Mockingjay part II.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay part I was good. It wasn't as good or exciting as the previous two movies, but it was satisfying enough, given the frustrating fact that we don't have a conclusion at the end. Mockingjay revs up our anticipation for the series' grand finale. It's loaded with outstanding, solid performances from the cast, even those who don't get much screen time; it's packed with intriguing, smart political subtext; but the movie comes up short on the action front, though what action scenes we are privileged to see are excellent. I don't think the story justifies a two-part set of movies, but I'm still psyched to see Mockingjay part II. If you're a fan of The Hunger Games this is worth seeing in theaters. But since this movie revs you up and leaves you hanging, you might want to just wait for this on home video and watch it once part II is in theaters so you aren't waiting around for the rest of the movie.

What are some of your expectations for Mockingjay part II? Comment below and tell me about it (no spoilers, though)!

The Maze Runner Review

Upon seeing the trailer for The Maze Runner (2014) I became really interested in seeing it. The trailer said it was based on a novel, so I looked up the book to learn more about it. As it so happens, this is yet another dystopian survivalist movie based on a Young Adult book trilogy. I've read the Maze Runner trilogy now and taking the books into consideration, the movie did a pretty good job.

Thomas (Dylan O'Brian) wakes up in an elevator, remembering nothing but his own name. He emerges into a world of about 60 teen boys who have learned to survive in a completely enclosed environment, subsisting on their own agriculture and supplies lead by Alby (Aml Ameen) with Newt (Thomas Brodie-Sangster) second in command. A new boy arrives every 30 days. The original group has been in "The Glade" for three years, trying to find a way to escape through the Maze that surrounds their living space. The Maze changes daily and at night is crawling with nightmarish creatures called Grievers. The boys have begun to give up hope. Thomas's curiosity spawns some optimism among the boys except for Gally (Will Poulter) who was suspicious of Thomas from the start. With a fellow Maze Runner Minho (Ki Hong Lee) to help, Thomas sets out to solve the Maze. But then a comatose girl named Teresa (Kaya Scodelario) arrives on the elevator with a strange note, and their world begins to change.

The nature of this story doesn't lend itself to deep characters; every single one of the boys (and Teresa, for that matter) have amnesia. None of them know anything about themselves apart from their first name. This keeps all of these characters from having a complex past to prompt present behaviors. Sure, they have their shticks, but that's pretty much the only thing that defines each of the characters. Thomas is very curious, but seems to be the only one out of 60 boys who have no idea why they are there. Thomas is also a heroic go-getter, but the fact that he's the main hero of the story practically requires that quality of him. Why is he like this? We don't know, and neither does Thomas.

One of my biggest complaints about the books is that the "why" never seems to be addressed in much detail. Thomas wants to know what's going on and the other "Gladers" either tell him they don't know, wouldn't give him a straight answer, or told him it didn't matter. This happened so much throughout the trilogy that by the time I'd finished the last book I still only had a vague idea as to why any of the insane plot actually happened. For the movie, they did explain a little more of the bigger picture at the very end than the book did. This made it slightly more satisfying, but still wide open for a sequel. The other irritating thing the book did was spam the reader with fictional slang used in place of actual profanity. While it was present in the movie, it was used significantly less than it was in the book, thank heavens. Other changes were relatively minor and were reasonably left out in the interest of time.

Teresa is pretty much the only female character in the movie. She plays a pretty important role in the book, but her character is so watered down and made so negligible, I have to wonder why she was included in the movie at all. She wasn't even included as an obligatory love interest; she seems to be there only to cause the boys to roll their eyes when she acts irrational. Teresa isn't even portrayed by a good actress; she's almost like a budget Kristen Stewart.

There is an unexpected moment of theme development shortly before the climax of the movie. It's a short scene where Thomas, Teresa, Newt, and a couple others are talking amongst themselves. They decide that past experiences aren't indicative of future experiences. They also talk about how the present is all that matters; they could stay there, worry, and panic about whether or not their misfortunes will come again, or they could ignore past wrongdoings and focus on what they can do about it right now. Who they were isn't nearly as important as who they are now. This was great and gave the characters a chance to show what makes them tick, it gave some thematic depth to the story, and moved the plot forward as they decide to take action. The movie really needed more moments like this. It was a great scene.

The book focused more on finding clues to solve the elaborate puzzle of The Maze, whereas the movie focuses more on the action while running around in The Maze. There are a LOT of scenes where Thomas is having to squeeze through walls that are closing in to crush him. It's enough to make anyone feel claustrophobic. The action is well choreographed. With shifting walls and Greivers attacking from various directions the action scenes could easily have become disorienting and confusing. But the shots were strung together in such a way that we're able to keep up with the action. The action scenes do lend themselves to some violent imagery. But just as things are about to get brutal, it cuts to another shot or something obscures our view of what could be a grisly scene. It remains safely within its PG-13 rating; I wouldn't worry about showing this to preteens if they really wanted to watch it.

The Maze Runner was better than the book it is based on, but that's not saying a whole lot; I didn't care for the books much. It's almost like The Hunger Games meets Pac-Man. The characters are shallow, some to the point that I wonder why they were included at all. The story is vague and leaves most of the questions it raises unanswered. The visual effects and action were quite good. All in all, it ends up being a decent popcorn flick; good special effects and action, but hardly anything else. This is a renter at most; young teens will probably love it, but anyone else should probably borrow a copy from a friend if you want to see it badly enough.

I've not given the last couple of YA novel movies very good reviews. Apart from The Hunger Games they follow a standardized formula and end up being uninteresting. Do you know of any YA novels out there that breaks the mold and are really good reads? Comment below and let me know!

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!

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!

 

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

It's hard to believe that it was only a year ago when The Hunger Games was released. A little over a year later The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) hit theaters with what seems like even more hype and excitement than there was with the first movie. This time, I think the hype was justified.

After winning the 74th Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) return home to District 12. On the day the two are set to begin a Victory Tour of the country of Panem, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) visits Katniss. He explains that her approach to ending the last Hunger Games, where she and Peeta attempted a suicide pact after learning they could not both survive, inspired a rebellion in the districts. He orders Katniss not only to convince the entire country of her and Peeta's supposed love as their reason for their actions, but to convince Snow himself. Last year's mentors, Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson) and Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), escorts the two victors and try to help act as distractions from the Panem's real problems, even as law enforcement cracks down on the districts. Fearing this is not enough, President Snow announces that for the 75th Hunger Games, the Quarter Quell, all tributes are selected from the existing pool of victors. Not only does this ensure that Katniss and Peeta will be returning to the televised fight to the death, but they will also be pitted against older, stronger, and more experienced killers including Johanna Mason (Jena Malone) and Finnick Odair (Sam Claflin).

The budget for Catching Fire was nearly twice that of the first movie, and it really shows. It's simultaneously more of what we liked about the first movie combined with a bigger story. There are a lot more sets as we get to explore more of Panem, there are bigger and more detailed CGI effects seen when the tributes train against holographic opponents and are faced with insane dangers in the games. Everything about Catching Fire is bigger, better, and more dramatic. It's not just a group of fellow kids after Katniss in an arena this time. The Hunger Games is a tool to tell a bigger story, with the story being a nationwide revolution. With the political intrigue, a nation in turmoil, and an oppressive government tightening its grip, it's not Katniss versus the televised death match contestants; it's Katniss versus an entire world that wants her dead.

One of my favorite scenes was just before the Quarter Quell games when Katniss is being interviewed by Stanley Tucci's TV host Caesar Flickerman. Katniss twirls about in her would-be wedding dress meant to distract the downtrodden populace of Panem. What initially looks like a multi-tiered, white-frosting cage is engulfed in flames and transforms into a midnight blue winged symbol of insurrection that emulates the Mockingjay, the mascot of Panem's growing rebellion. One gown represents female entrapment and expectations, the other human freedom and opportunity. It's like a Barbie meets Joan of Arc moment. Lawrence silently conveys the haunted psyche of Katniss's post-traumatic state of mind beautifully in this scene. The poor girl from District 12  grows into her role as an inspiration and a rebel fighter. She's a good, strong female protagonist, and a delightful change of pace from the surplus of male superheroes out there.

When I saw The Hunger Games, I had not yet read the book trilogy. I have since read them all, and I can honestly say I'm a fan. Now as a newly converted fan I can say they did a remarkable job transitioning the two books into movies. There is very little in the Catching Fire book that did not make it into the movie, and even then I could see why the relatively minor details were left out. The purpose of such story detail were either insignificant to the overall story, the same idea was established in other scenes, or it would have revealed a little too much too early in the story. Still it was a truly excellent transition from the book.

Catching Fire exceeded my expectation in nearly every regard. The visuals were better, the scale was bigger, the actors were excellent, and the story was more dynamic. Even the camera work was better than in The Hunger Games; no more obnoxious shaky cam to blur the brutality of the combat scenes! The costumes were phenomenal as well; seriously I want that shirt Peeta is wearing during the reaping scene. I can't think of anything meaningful that is negative to say about this movie. Catch this in theaters if you can, but make sure you've seen The Hunger Games first. I plan on getting a copy of Catching Fire on Blu-Ray once it's available.

What's the best book-to-movie transition you've ever seen? What are a few runners up that you liked? I think Catching Fire is a pretty darn good one. Comment below and tell me some good ones!