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.

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.

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.