Allegiant

The story drags itself onward, but doesn't quite reach the end with this third installment to the Divergent movie series. The biggest surprise for me is how this film is actually better than Insurgent in many ways. It's worse in some ways too, but I thought it would be all terrible.

Um. Did Tris just become Jeanine??? She looks exactly like her, and is about as relevant as her too -- and Jeanine is dead.

I actually gave a positive review to Insurgent after seeing it in theaters, and then promptly forgot it existed, which made me rethink that score. Insurgent somehow did a better job assimilating the appearance a decent quality movie while showing us nothing interesting or memorable. Maybe it reminds us of Divergent, which, whatever its flaws, was at least entertaining and a clean, straightforward adaptation of its source material.

But Allegiant strays even further from both the source, and the story's original starting place. It does away with the Factions -- the highlight of interest for the series -- and starts feeding us things about "pure" and "damaged" like that's what the story had been about the whole time. Then it takes us out of the dystopian walls of the crumbled Chicago into an otherworldly orange and red landscape and shiny floating futuristic cities. The only thing that connects this film with Divergent is that middle movie, which I've seen twice now and I still can't remember what the actual heck happened in that film.

The movie started with the same group on the run who were on the run at the beginning of Insurgent. With a handful changes they could have skipped that movie altogether!

In that way Allegiant feels even less like a Divergent Series movie, but in straying so far away, it stumbled on something that the last movie lacked in spades: memorability. A handful of things stick out as memorable, and, granted, some are not positive, but giving the movie some unique points made it more enjoyable than expected -- in spite of decidedly worse scripting and acting, and a random plot that goes nowhere. Of course I said Insurgent was memorable too at some point, so maybe a couple days from now I'll have forgotten about this one too. Here are a few reasons why I think I'll remember:

Bad special effects. With recalling the striking red landscape outside the wall comes the image of our heroes (and anti-hero Peter!) floating around in those transport bubbles. That was hilariously, awfully, painfully bad. The futuristic city had cool design elements to it, but most of the time when it was being shown along with characters, green screens and CGI was obvious and cheap. It was weird, like a cool scifi world had been created somewhere, and then all the characters from Divergent jumped over from a different universe and began to populate it, but don't fit there because they're worn out and dry. That feeling was enhanced by the city residents knowing who they are -- like they were movie characters brought into reality.

This is concept art. Someone obviously worked hard to make this place different and interesting. Then they tried to populate it with dead characters for cheap.

And like they would in reality, these characters begin to crumble in front of their new backdrop. Like in the book, Tris' character fades away, while Four finds himself the main character in every actually compelling scene. Hardly anyone is trying at this point, but Shailene Woodley isn't even pretending. She stares, she delivers her lines, and she's forgotten. Theo James manages to keep whatever interest he had from before, and could have carried the whole film decently on his own if he had been allowed, but half the movie still focused on stale Tris. Poor Miles Teller yet again makes the most of what he has, and all I can say is congrats dude on surviving these movies with your career intact. I can hardly believe how bad Ansel Elgort is, especially after being so enjoyable and capable in Baby Driver. Every scene Caleb is in is physically painful to watch.

I'm glad I waited until after I saw IT to watch this though, because Bill Skarsgård is in this, and he amused me to no end by making subtle faces in the background that reminded me of Pennywise. And maybe I only noticed because I was paying attention to him, but his character Matthew was a decently interesting character. I know he was in the book, but I swear I don't remember a thing he did, so the mystery of whether he was good or bad worked on me. Plus the bit he's a part of where Four tells him to tell David (Jeff Daniels) that Four left him behind so that Tris would know he was lying and find out the truth -- well, if I forget the rest of the movie I think I'll at least remember that bit.

Also the bit when he smiles at Tris while disappearing behind elevator doors. Made me laugh.

I just remembered that there's a whole plotline with a memory-erasing serum. I keep talking about forgetting and remembering, but didn't remember that element until right now. The serum is used for the movie's climax where it works terribly and makes no impression. And when it ends, there's no real conclusion in sight, because the final film has been abandoned. Yep, not even cool art design, rabid fans, or a freaking Skarsgård can save this directionless rust-bucket. Now my spirit is with Peter, jumping around and waving in front of the invisible gate, begging to please please pretty please be let back into the super cool futuristic city -- where characters resemble real people instead of dead horses.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - September

August was a no-go. It was such a no-go that I didn't even watch The Little Prince off Netflix. Netflix. Could have watched at any time and all I did was watch Stranger Things three more times. Not that that was really a bad decision or anything. That show is the greatest.

September has a handful of movies with interesting trailers, but no must-sees currently. I won't be surprised if I don't go to the theater again this month, and that makes me sad.

Does anything look good to you this month? And have you seen Stranger Things yet? You absolutely must!


The 9th Life of Louis Drax
Sep 2nd (limited); R
This one is pretty interesting just because the trailer was very unexpected. I did not expect a creepy sci-fi element. It's also a mystery and a drama, but the supernatural side is really the most appealing aspect to me. Since it's coming out tomorrow there are reviews already, and it's not looking particularly great.




Sully
Sep 9th; PG-13
Not that this isn't an incredibly neat story or anything, but I wonder if it really warrants a full-length film. It seems like they're adding a lot of drama (via "the untold story") just to push up the run time -- to a whopping 96 minutes. Of course Clint Eastwood is a great director, and Tom Hanks is a great actor, so maybe they can make it all worthwhile for more than just a shot at some Oscar attention. The trailer is definitely of a first-rate brand!




London Road
Sep 9th (limited); NR
This movie is so strange I just had to include it. Watch the trailer to see for yourself because it's hard to describe, but it's a musical -- an actual stage musical being adapted for the screen -- about the small, oddball town of Ipswich when a high-profile murder case made them the center of attention in 2006. And it's a musical. And the music is so strange. Seriously just watch this trailer. Olivia Colman and Tom Hardy lead the cast.




Snowden
Sep 16th (limited); R
I'm not really privy to the controversy about this dude, but putting the true story part aside, this trailer makes this film look like an excellent, tight and suspenseful thriller (even though the main genre it's labeled as is "drama"). That, plus Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and I'm sold. If it proves to be what it promises I'll be looking for it on VidAngel.



The Magnificent Seven
 Sep 23rd; PG-13
This is to me the most interesting release of the month. Which is a little sad considering it's a remake and I'm sick to the teeth of terrible remakes. However, I haven't actually seen the original Magnificent Seven, so that helps a lot, and maybe this will be one of the few that actually is a worthy remake. I love the cast, and the trailer -- even with the modern music that is odd but fitting. I definitely want this one to turn out good, but I won't be getting my hopes up anytime soon.




The Dressmaker
Sep 23rd (limited); NR
On the surface this one seems odd -- a little too odd. But I really enjoyed the trailer. The fashion, the mystery, Kate Winslet... it all has an air of originality to it, and that makes me want to see it. Isn't Liam Hemsworth quite a little bit too young to play this part though. Maybe he's playing older and Kate is playing younger. Like I said, odd.




Deepwater Horizon
Sep 30th; PG-13
Ah, true stories of disaster. You know this is gonna be the biggest drama an action film ever was. And still I list it here. Maybe because it's one of the bigger releases of the month, maybe because it looks like there may be some neat action after all, maybe because Dylan O'Brien is in the cast... who knows.




Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children
Sep 30th (limited); PG-13
I read the book, but strangely it didn't make me all that interested in seeing this movie. Asa Butterfield as Jacob will probably be perfect, but otherwise the adapting doesn't have that since of love and devotion you look for in franchises like this. The lead girl has someone else's powers, and the other character is cut out completely? What's up with that? Anyway, I will probably watch this, it's just a matter of when -- as determined by how good or bad it is considered to be by fans and critics.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - March

February was another slow movie month for me. I still want to see P&P&Z, and Hail, Caesar! -- plus Eddie the Eagle which I missed when doing my last Upcoming Movie post, but have taken notice of since -- but I haven't gotten to the theater for any of them, and will probably just end up waiting. But maybe not, because March doesn't have any must-see-in-theater flicks either (as far as I can tell), though it does have quite a few that land in the same "really want to see at some point" category that the previously mentioned three are waiting in.

Which March movies look interesting to you?


London Has Fallen
Mar 4th; R
Aaron Eckhart and Gerard Butler return as the President of the United Stated and his loyal bodyguard who saved his life in the last film and is gonna do it again. But it London. With higher stakes, I assume. I caught Olympus Has Fallen on TV a while back, and enjoyed it pretty well. Though I thought it was pretty bad, it had a violent, serious appeal, and it was certainly better than White House Down with much more likable leads and its more hardcore vibe. So I wouldn't mind catching this one too someday.




Zootopia
Mar 4th; PG
It's not like I don't want to see this one, but right now I'm super tired of the trailers getting everywhere. Animated Disney movie trailers are seriously the worst things ever. They make this movie look so annoying and are probably giving away all the jokes too. However I have learned to not judge a Disney animation by its trailer, and all the extremely positive reviews coming in are much more convincing that this one may just be a gem. But the sloth jokes are driving me crazy.




The Divergent Series: Allegiant
Mar 18th; PG-13
Uuuuhhhhhh. Is it worth mentioning that Insurgent was so boring that I was basically done with this series as soon as I saw it? First of all, Allegiant was the worst book of the series, and I don't care to see it end on screen. There's no enjoyment for me there, unless some huge changes are made. Secondly, this isn't even the end, because (that's right!) the last book is split into two movies! Yaayyyy... Except no Part1/Part2, now there's an "Ascendant" to look forward to. I'm not saying I'll never see this one or the last one. There is after all, the matter of my curiosity and my favorite character Peter. But seeing it in the theater is a long shot. Almost as a long a shot as this movie breaking the pattern and being a truly good movie!




Midnight Special
Mar 18th; PG-13
I seem to find one every month. One movie that I know noting about but the cast makes me immediately want to see it. This time it's this sci-fi film that want to be like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and the interesting cast is Adam Driver and (his great uncle in the Star Wars universe!) Joel Edgerton. And slightly less interestingly, Michael Shannon and Kirsten Dunst. Plus it has the writer and director of Mud, which I absolutely adored. I love me some sci-fi, so the plot does actually seem intriguing too, and reviews are pretty positive, so I just may be giving this one a watch sometime!




The Little Prince
Mar 18th(limited); PG
This one's been a long time coming, but is finally almost here. This trailer is pretty spectacular, and the cast is large and talented, and I expect it'll be a very well-received movie. It looks great, I'll be very surprised if it isn't, and I'm definitely planning to want to see it for myself.




Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Mar 25th; PG-13
Do you have any idea of how hard it was for me to not type "Bateman vs. Superbman" just then? It was a struggle. At least I got it out of my system now. So Henry Cavill is back and Zack Snyder is back, and Ben Affleck's Batman is about to get its debut, and I can't decide what I think. Should I laugh? Cry? Shrug and roll my eyes? Forget about his whole thing and wait for a good hero vs. hero movie to come along -- AKA, Civil War? Funny enough, it actually looks like a decent Batman movie at the beginning of this trailer. Then Supes and Drama and Snyder's infamous action style shows up, and I'm back to rolling my eyes. Anyway, I guess I'm done now. Moving on...




I Saw the Light
Mar 25th(limited); R
Tom Hiddleston has faded a little away from the peak of his popularity, but he's still a talented actor and I imagine he does a fantastic job in this role. I don't think I'd mind watching him in anything even if he does trade in his British accent for a country one that sound like what I hear all the time, and he even sings in this movie to make up for it.... But besides that I have absolutely no interest in this movie whatsoever. It does not look good. And as much as I like Hiddleston, he's not going to be enough to get me to watch this. Ho-hum reviews coming in seem to share my opinion.

The Spectacular Now

This film is rated R, with a high amount of content I consider inappropriate (and did my best to avoid when I could) even imbedded in it's themes, which prevents me from recommending it without reserve. This review focuses on my thoughts apart from those problems.

Major Spoilers throughout.

"Bad boy" meets "good girl" and they rub their traits off on each other, encouraging each other to be simultaneously better and worse, in this realistic, unapologetic look at life and love through the eyes of a high school senior.

Said senior is Sutter Keeley -- on the surface, your average southern, easy goin', sweet talkin', foul-mouthed, foul-minded dude. The kind that has walked every southern high school hallway, plus some. A number have crossed my path. They're hard to miss. He is played realistically, to absolute perfection by Miles Teller. He lives with his mom. He's still mad about his parent's divorce. He's had a long string of serious-but-not-really relationships, the latest of which just dumped him. The only thing he really takes seriously is his partying, and that leaves him waking up at 6:00 AM, on a stranger's front lawn, hungover and wondering where his car might be.

Yet you never dislike him for even a second. The film rides on this character's journey alone.

Actually, someone wakes him up. Literally, from his nap in the grass, and, eventually, figuratively too. Her name is Aimee (played by Shailene Woodley). She goes to the same school as Sutter, but he never noticed her, because she's not his usual type -- she's sweet, reserved, not too confident, and unaware of her beauty. It doesn't take Sutter long to see her good qualities, and he enjoys hanging out with her, but is more interested in her potential to make his ex jealous than anything else -- for while that is. Then he suddenly notices himself beginning to change... for the good.

Of course that's not before Aimee takes the plunge into the world of teen partying, drinking and... loose morals. I wonder though, if Aimee really was the "good girl" we're supposed to believe she was from the beginning. It's clear from the moment they meet that she is interested in him, and is eager to pursue their relationship (in the furthest, shallowest way possible), and come over to "his side." She is "good" only in the worldliest sense. She follows rules; he doesn't. That's all that separates them.

The main reason I braved this turbulent film was because of Teller and Woodley and the glowing reviews they received for their performances. And I'll gladly add my voice to the resounding praise: they were real, they were natural; they were spectacular. Their scenes together -- especially the ones made up of one long take -- are an absolute pleasure to see, just because of the natural ease and grace they possess, making the scene feel more like real-life than I've ever seen accomplished in a film like this. This should also probably be credited to the director, (James Ponsoldt) who undoubtedly encouraged them to act on their impulses and improvise off into rabbit trails if the moment called for it, as long as they reverted back to the script eventually. In this way the pair's relationship was very real, but, I never found it personally, emotionally compelling.

They're also the most convincing twenty-somethings-playing-teens I've ever seen.

What I did find compelling, was Sutter. As good as Woodley is, this movie is all about Sutter, and Teller handled the complexities of the character amazingly. His dilemma over loving Aimee and being afraid that his bad influence is ruining her life is powerful; his issues involving his father, even more so. At first, Sutter's excuse for his bad lifestyle is his dad's absence, something he blames his mom for, believing he was a good man and she kicked him out -- and if she hadn't he would have been raised properly. But then he meets his dad again, (he is played greatly by Kyle Chandler) and realizes with horror that he's nothing like he'd remembered; seeing him was like looking at himself twenty years in the future, and suddenly he has no one to blame for his problems but himself.

Aimee woke Sutter up and told him he was in a hole; meeting his dad again was what made him realize he wanted out; but most importantly, it was his mother who was there to help him with the climb. This part had the least amount of time spent on it, but it was also the most straight-forward, and most untainted positive part of the whole film.

The movie is marketed as a romance. I found it both less and more than that.

In my favorite scene, near the end of the film, Sutter's employer -- and closest thing he has to a father figure in his life -- calls him to his office and gives him a choice: promise to stop coming to work loaded, or get fired. And I love Sutter's honesty; they both know that's a promise he couldn't keep, and so he doesn't make it. They shake hands, and he starts to leave, but then his boss adds that if he were Sutter's father, he might give him a warning lecture about the dangers of what he's doing to himself. With a subtle power that defines the character and film alike, Sutter replies to the good-hearted man that if he were his father, he wouldn't have to.

But Sutter is able to overcome the shadow of his father, realizing that it he alone is responsible for his life, and it's never too late to start living it right. At the end of the movie he is maybe not on the best path, but certainly a better one; meandering towards the light at the end of the tunnel -- with a smile on his face that allows us to hope that he just might make it.

Insurgent

This review is spoiler-free.

The training is over, and the real fight has just begun for Tris Prior. She worked so hard to become one of the best of the new Dauntless recruits, but now all that means nothing; she doesn't belong to any faction anymore, but along with her Dauntless friends has been branded an insurgent and is being hunted by the rest of the Dauntless who have joined forces with Erudite and Jeanine Matthews (Kate Winslet). But never mind that Tris barely got to be Dauntless before she was kicked out -- all that training is about to come in handy anyway.

She also picked up a useful fashion sense in Dauntless.

As she will always be, Shailene Woodley remains the best and most captivating thing about this franchise. When all else fails it is her face, and her performance that holds your interest. Her Tris has regal grace and strength, but can still convince us that she's a teenage girl, and her inner struggles with fear and forgiveness and self-loathing don't seem too petty coming from her so sincerely. With just a few looks she gives quiet depth to a character I found lacking while reading her every thought on the page.

Romantic co-star Theo James is Four -- mostly just around for his good looks and even better fighting skills this time, without much else to do. But still he is not without his charms, and while there's not much praise to give him, there isn't anything bad to say either. Previous-romantic-co-star number one, Ansel Elgort, as Tris' brother Caleb gets to prove why he was cast as Ansel Elgort this time, but still you can tell he's just setting up for the big stuff in Allegiant. Still the more screen time was welcome, and everything was set up really well.

Four's cool. Caleb runs funny.

My personal favorite (and previous-romantic-co-star number two) continues to be Miles Teller's Peter. Peter is the only character who I fully understand yet is still interesting enough to pay attention to. He's a fun antagonist, and the only one of this series. Every time he came on screen I could literally feel the weight of the movie lift with his lightening, less-serious presence.

In fact this movie's main downfall was the seriousness. Divergent, while still serious at its core, had an easy-going fun-to-watch element flowing though everything that happened. Insurgent, well, with the war games, zip-lining, and making friends being over with -- Insurgent just forgot to have fun. (Peter's the only one who remembered because he's the only one who just doesn't care.) There was a lot of heaviness, and not much at all to balance it out. Fortunately it could have been considerably worse -- while heavy and nearly unrelenting, at least all the serious drama was done well. Being at the core of the story and its drama, Tris and Woodley get the credit again for keeping it all afloat. Also worth mentioning is that I'm sure I'll be less bothered by this smallish problem when I see it the second time.

Oh boy. The bf and the ex-bf are going at it again...

That could also apply pretty well to the second and final problem this movie was hit with -- unfocused plotting. Not that plot events didn't make sense, but as a whole it didn't seem to know what it wanted to concentrate on. It was like a loopy little bee, flying in circles, trying to figure out which flower to land on compared with the simple, detailed and straightforward mapping of the first movie. I read the book, but still spent too much time trying to figure out where we were and what was important.

I guess you could say having read the book was actually unhelpful, since the plot was rearranged and simplified quite a bit. Since it is simpler, and more memorable, I prefer the film's version, but being simplified (not to mention having the middle-chapter syndrome) gave it extra time to deal with. Some of that time was used interestingly, but Tris' time-filling dreams got old fast -- especially with the later simulations having the same flavor.

"Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?"

The most fun this movie has is in the action scenes. Nothing particular about them stuck out at me, but overall they kept me more engaged than I was otherwise. So you can imagine what my favorite parts must have been -- places that had some fun fighting, plus fun-adding Peter involved. That one early scene at Amity was great. Hand to hand action was always good, but occasionally there was big, visual, or "action" stuff that didn't do much besides go pointlessly over the top -- mostly in sims, but sometimes elsewhere. And that last obviously CG shot of people from a distance? Not good.

Without the "wow" effect of a new dystopian world for us to wrap our minds around, Insurgent tries hard to make up for it with twists and turns, bigger fights and higher stakes. Some shots missed -- some of those seem like blind shots in the dark for any moral dilemma or twist in character an audience might find compelling without ever following up on them. And some shots hit the target. Those were mostly physical things you could see on the screen, like a performance that is compelling because the actor made it so, or an old-fashioned hand to hand showdown, or complex character relationships and motivations beginning to unfold.

Like Tris, this franchise isn't perfect, but it's going keep on fighting.

Or the simple reason we are drawn to these kinds of stories in the first place -- to watch a small, underpowered group of people passionately, dauntlessly standing up and fighting for what is right, when there's almost nothing left in the world worth standing up for.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - March

February was another disappointment for 2015. Although I did see Old Fashioned, and appreciated it very much, it wasn't as great as I'd hoped and didn't save the month from flops and disappointments. And on top of that Agent Carter is over. However, March is looking up! If all goes to plan I will be seeing two of these films in the theaters, and there's also a new season of a quality television show that is nothing like Agent Carter, but can perfectly replace it anyway. Is March looking up for you too? What movies will you be seeing?

Chappie
Mar 6th; R
What with the director of District 9, Neill Blomkamp helming this, I wonder if it will be the very first successful attempt at making an "AI" movie where the AI being is actually a good guy. I can't think of a film that has done it satisfactorily yet, so that could be very cool. But besides that, this looks like a very original and interesting movie anyway, with a cast including Hugh Jackman, Sigourney Weaver, and Sharlto Copley proving the voice and moments for Chappie. Still I suppose there's the possibility that this will be more "Elysium" than "District 9" but even that is better than most.




Cinderella
Mar 13th; PG
This is exactly what I need: a classic, cute, silly, beautiful new version of a great, happy, fuss-less classic fairytale, Cinderella. Something for us to lose ourselves in, and help us remember why fairytales are so appealing in the first place. Cast; large and familiar; Lily James and Richard Madden as Ella and the prince; Cate Blanchett as the evil stepmother, Hayley Atwell as Ella's real mother, and Helena Bonham-Carter as her Fairy Godmother; and Holliday Grainger and Sophie McShera as the ugly stepsisters. And Kenneth Branagh directing. This is the most promising thing I see; he really knows how to do old fashioned romance and drama with a beautiful style. I can hardly wait for this one!




Insurgent
Mar 20th; PG-13
#2 in the Divergent series. And I'm not as excited about his one as I would like to be. Mostly, I think, because I didn't like the two sequel books as much as I did the original. Still, there's plenty of potential there, and it might make a better movie than it did a book. Also this is the best installment for my favorite character, Peter, (Miles Teller) and I'm also looking forward to Caleb's (Ansel Elgort) expanded role. Then of course there's Shailene Woodley, and she is solely what makes this series tick as well as it does. Theo James, Kate Winslet, and in fact everyone who didn't die in the last movie return (and some who did -- what are you doing, Ashely Judd?) and there's lot of new characters too. I'm sure I'll be seeing this, but I'm not holding out any hope that it'll be any better than the first.




While We're Young
Mar 27th; R
With The Secret Life of Walter Mitty I suddenly started to like Ben Stiller, particularly his more sincere comedies, so when I ran across this trailer it caught my attention, and it looks like it could be a pretty interesting movie. It's about an older couple (Stiller and Naomi Watts) who start hanging out with a young couple (Amanda Seyfried and Adam Driver) and the interesting results of this unlikely, socially strange friendship.




Broadchurch
Season 2; premieres March 4th 10/9c on BBC America
Broadchurch is the exact opposite of everything Agent Carter was. It is dark, melancholy, serious, creepy and depressing. Hardly and light moments or even a break from the building tension. But it sure is good. Starring the great David Tennant as the disturbed and depressed Detective, and Olivia Coleman as his partner, who after the last season has a husband on trial for murder. (The cast is teaming with Doctor Who alumni; also Arthur Darvill, Jonathan Bailey, and David Bradley.) The reason this can replace Agent Carter, is because the season, James D'Arcy has joined the cast! This trailer suggests (strongly) that he'll be playing a bad guy, but still, it's something.

The Fault in Our Stars

This is a spoiler-free review.

And, this is my 100th post on this blog! So I just wanted to take a moment to say thank you to all my readers. I appreciate your support and encouragement -- you are all wonderful. Here's to the next 100! Now on to The Fault in Our Stars...

Hazel Grace Lancaster (Shailene Woodley) has cancer in her lungs. Terminal. It's really a miracle she's lasted as long as she has. But she's still dying, and she's depressed (it's a side-effect of dying) and worried about the scar she'll leave behind when the inevitable happens. So her ever patient mom (Laura Dern) sends her to a cancer support group where she has one friend -- sorta -- a soon-to-be blind dude named Isaac. (Nat Wolff) Augustus Waters (Ansel Elgort) had cancer at one point, and lost his leg to it, but now he's okay. He comes to the support group to, well, support his soon-to-be blind friend Isaac. And there, Hazel and Gus meet.

And with an opening like that, you can be sure that angst-filled romance is to follow.

In case you didn't know, this movie is based on the novel of the same name by John Green. It's an extremely popular book, but I'm usually not big on teen romances, especially if there's fatal illnesses involved. (And that was a big understatement.) But armed with an understanding of the awesomeness of the author, and the promise that it was better than a typical cancer romance, I gave it a shot. And if all sappy teen romance novels were as good as The Fault in Our Stars, then I probably would have read more than just one in my life.

Gus, Isaac, and Hazel may not look like much -- between the three of them they have five legs, four eyes, and two and a half working pairs of lungs. But they also have two dozen eggs.

So, as it always is with novels and their film adaptations, I already knew the best version of the story (the original is the best by rule) which I think helped and hindered my enjoyment of the film at the same time.

It helped in ways like making me even more impressed by already impressive acting and characterization through of my previous knowledge of the characters. Shailene Woodley was guaranteed to be a perfect Hazel from the very beginning, and she didn't disappoint. She is sweet and sullen and honest and caring and endearing and everything Hazel is supposed to be -- except not a teenager. She fakes it well of course, and Hazel is a mature sixteen-year-old anyway. Ansel Elgort matches Woodley's acting stroke for stroke for his part, and makes a very charming, adorable and accurate Gus. With the story belonging to Hazel, he received more of the dreaded Chopping Block of Adaptation, but managed wonderfully in spite of it. The two make as great pair, and I especially love how their friendship shines through their relationship more often than romantic tension.

They were obviously having fun with their roles, but not too much to spoil the performances.

 
Often with adaptations, the source material is only used as "more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules," so much so that occasionally you wonder if the writers' book was actually different from yours. The best though, are always done treating the book as a rule book, and that is what was done here. And it lands this film somewhere in my top five best book-to-film adaptations. Having John Green involved in the filming probably helped, fear of the wrath of the fans probably helped, but the biggest factor I'd say is very simple: the book demands its respect; it is unquestionably its best version this story could be. The filmmakers knew that, so they made it as similar as possible. Changes are minute and usually insignificant. But -- there are exclusions, as there always are.

Here is where knowledge of the book hindered my enjoyment. There isn't much original material that could be qualified as bad or unnecessary, so good parts are left out. Some being amongst my favorites; things I was anticipating seeing acted out on screen. It's the nature of the beast, but it still leaves empty spaces wanting to be filled. And being catered to the General Audience -- a relentlessly shallow creature -- it felt less personal than the novel.

I guess I just favored the less commonly liked parts more.

I wish I could separate the two, and judge the film without reference to the book, but they are so similar that I start every paragraph with the intention of doing just that, and still wind up using the word "adaptation" again. The film is the book, but less; and the best I can say about their differences is this: the film's best parts are different from the book's best parts, and that was very interesting and pleasing to see.

Watching the story rather than reading was enjoyable in a different way, and that plus the all-around fantastic performances from thoughtfully cast actors, and the simple, lovely look makes the film well worthy of its existence. It may not go as deep as the book, but it still goes deeper than any other films of its type that I can think of. The sap and the sentiment are both layered on as thick as it can get, but finds plenty to balance it with on the other side, with delightful light comedy and moments of honesty and sincerity. At the film's opening, our heroine tells us that there are two ways to tell sad stories: sugar-coat it, or tell it how it is. I think in this case though, the best route was taken, and it was neither; but rather a mix of sugar and honesty that made a happy, and sad, and heartfelt medium.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not is our stars / But in ourselves, that we are underlings. -- William Shakespeare

Divergent

This is a spoiler-free review.

In this post-apocalyptic world, there is a large community living in the ruined city of Chicago protected by a huge wall. The people there are divided into factions to keep things equal and organized. They are typed either Abnegation (the selfless) Erudite (the intelligent) Dauntless (the brave) Amity (the peaceful) or Candor (the honest). Teens, at a certain (read: unclear) point in their life take a test to see which they are, and then are allowed to choose any of the five to spend the rest of their life in. Beatrice (Shailene Woodley) was born into Abnegation, but always had a difficult time being selfless. On the day of the test she's afraid she won't test into Abnegation, but she's also afraid she will. Both her fears come true -- turns out she's selfless, and intelligent, and brave. They call it being "divergent" and in this community, it's not exactly something to be proud of.

Our heroine.

I liked this movie more than I thought I would -- in spite of a few things, and because of a few things I didn't really expect, and occasionally both those things are the same things. Like the plot -- it's halfway unique and halfway silly. And after the setup described above, it's small, episodic, and focused on Beatrice (or Tris) for quite a while as she struggles to fit into the fraction of her choice, before moving on to the big stakes. Not very much happens during that time that struck me as being very important, but at the same time I enjoyed those parts most because they were the most infused with character development -- something I didn't expect a lot of, and was therefore rather impressed with.

Tris and her brother Caleb (Ansel Elgort) at the reap-- I mean... the choosing ceremony?

I promise, I'm trying my best not to compare this film with... you know... that one movie that everyone compares it to... but I want to now, just to say that they're not really that comparable, especially in the case of the heroine. I know Shailene Woodley is a much respected up-and-coming actress (or perhaps now she's already up-and-came?) but hearing everyone say "this in the next..." -- you know -- I practically expected Tris to only be played by Woodley because Jennifer Lawrence wouldn't do it. But Lawrence as -- you know -- is very different from Woodley's Tris, who is peppy, and warm, and her charisma is friendly and inviting, and she draws our attention easily with her openness, sweet voice and those large, multicolored eyes. Since I've yet to read the book, I can't say (yet) that she's perfect, but I have a feeling, and see no flaws.

At any rate, with anyone less capable, this film would be a dismal little failure, as she carries the film very well, and almost entirely alone. There is a very large supporting cast, but none of the characters quite reach the heights of the leading lady. Theo James probably carries the next greatest amount, as the mysterious and devastatingly handsome Four (I assume that's how he's described in the book) but I wasn't too impressed with either acting or characterization. The mainly impressive thing involving him is how long it took his and Tris' relationship to turn romantic. Seriously -- it was better than you'd think.

Still, anyone could see it coming a mile away. But guess that's not the point.

I don't have much to say about the rest of the cast. None of them were bad or anything, really they were mostly just underwhelming, and the bigger the actors name the more underwhelming the impact. So smallest impact; Kate Winslet, then Ashley Judd, Maggie Q (actually, she was cool) and Tris' group of friends. But remember there's more overall character development than in your average teen movie, so they do all have their moments. Biggest name and biggest impact of supporting characters has to be Peter, mostly because I just saw Miles Teller in the Footloose remake (which he stole) and have been wanting to see him and Woodley in The Spectacular Now, so I paid more attention to him -- but then he did maintain it with a bold and interesting character, and, maybe a little bit stole some scenes. Or all of them. One of those.

This being the best still I could find of him is good proof that he wasn't supposed to make quite so much an impression (directly above Christina there (Zoe Kravitz)).

A number of things about this movie teetered on the edge of Quality, threatening to fall over into the pit of Teenage Ridiculousness, but ultimately only one aspect fell -- or rather it took a running leap -- the use of sappy modern pop music; what was up with that? When the soundtrack wasn't singing it was fine. You know how I know that? Because I never even noticed it. But every time some auto-tuned female would start crooning out "feels" I became severely distracted, and then would glance around, suspicious that someone was judging me, either for not feeling the feels or for not being twelve. Then it would end, and I would return to perfect comfort, enjoying Woodley's performance, and searching faces to see if Peter is in this scene.

As for themes, I'm not really sure what it was trying to say besides the obvious, "don't let anyone put you in a box," and the Disney-patented-classic "be yourself" but I believe that it believed that it was profound. Another reason to read that book.

After much hemming and hawing, I finally decided to go see Divergent without having first read the book. I was hoping (and also fearing) that seeing the film would make a fan out of me, but I am barely less indifferent to this franchise now than I was three days ago; still curious to read the first novel, still unsure if I'll do anything more. But I enjoyed the movie for itself, in spite of its occasional diversions into typical teenage romance and drama; in spite of its not being very thought-provoking, like -- you know -- (okay fine; The Hunger Games. There, I said it.) And because of more than I expected -- like it actually doesn't steal so much from the teenage fiction playbook as to make me ashamed to say I liked it. And the acting that ranged from better-than-necessary to great, and the story and story-telling was simple, fun, involving, and even pretty exciting. Divergent falls only barely short of living up to its name.