Trying To Put The Surge In Insurgent

Another teenage girl threatening to save us all? Say it isn’t so! 

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): Following in the foot-steps of the first in the series installment, Divergent, Insurgent furthers the tale of super-special super kid, Tris who’s out to save the world (wonder if her room is clean). I get the sense these days that having a successful movie means establishing a franchise then hammering the idea of the movie over and over and over until moviegoers cry ‘uncle’ and just go. This is the distribution tactic that drives Insurgent. What did you think, Ponty? 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): When talking about a film adapted from a novel, there will always seem to be continuity issues Vader. This film is no exception as it took several liberties in retelling events in the book, from making major characters minor to leaving characters from the books out of the film altogether. Despite the many changes from that page to the screen, some might even say outright departure from the literary source, this film managed to get where it was going.

CASTING, ACTING & DIRECTING

AV: The cast from Divergent returns to Insurgent (Duh). Shailene “Tris” Woodly and Theo “Four” James reprise their roles and B-Listers Kate Winslet, Jai Courtney, Ashley Judd, Mekhi Phifer and Zoe Kravitz all come back as the story blunders in a society divided by walls, mistrust and deceit based on the division of the five virtues. The idea is ok but the execution is kind of hoo-hum. Neil Burger’s direction is compelling and the film is a joy to watch cinematographically. 

TP: Shailene Woodley and Theo James return to their roles as Tris and Four and deliver what was expected of them as the story progresses along with their relationship. There was no surprise, or disappointment. Kate Winslet continued to be the film’s villain and I thought she was very.…villainous, in the role. The roles of Jai Courtney and Mekhi Phifer were little more than cameo’s this go round and there really isn’t much to say about the few glances the film took in their direction. Overall, the film rolled right along and didn’t get bogged down with a lot of filler.

ON SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: With no shortage of visual effects to try and amaze the audience, Insurgent is a good looking movie that puts you in the thick of this selectively post-apocalyptic future-gone-wrong city of Chicago. Sure it looks great but nothing we haven’t seen before, Pontificator. Sci-Fi effects, as we have discussed in other reviews, has matured to an impressive standard and these flicks all look good. Really good actually, but that said, these rocking visual effects are so good, we are desensitized to their awesomeness. But what does that say about visual effects–and a movie–that is just this side of forgettable almost as soon as I leave the theater? 

TP: The special effects were very good in this film. As is my custom, I always see a film in IMAX 3D when available and such a decision usually only enhances the special effects and moviegoing experience. This film took advantage of the medium, especially during the simulation sequences where there was a lot more latitude to use them. Overall, the effects enhanced the film and while nothing ground breaking was done, they didn’t drop the ball either.

TAKING A CLOSER LOOK

AV: Hard to know when us movie-goers will get to see a decent original story in our beloved sci-fi and fantasy space but until then, we have these franchise money grabs. I am not qualified to proclaim the legitimacy of this films and their place in the cultural tapestry. I am qualified to let you know if I like them or not. I don’t. While I do hold a special place in my fan boy heart for all things Sci-fi and fantasy, these do not count among them. This is not an example of the hero’s journey that is particularly interesting or inspiring in any way. 

TP: Well.…the plot of this film could have used a little more attention. It didn’t make much sense that nobody else in the Erudite faction thought to even question the motivations and decisions of Jeanine given they didn’t always seem logical or the intellectual thing to do. It also didn’t make sense that the box that was supposed to reveal the true purpose of their society killed the very people it deemed most important if they failed to open it. It would have made more sense for Jeanine to simply kill the failures and anyone else that questioned her (after having someone question her) to both make sense and really drive home how villainous and driven Jeanine really was.

ON SEQUELS

AV:  I am sure the story of how Tris “saves us all” needs to be wrapped up with a pretty little CGI bow and brought to conclusion. We need that, we want it and dozens of vaguely compelled teenage girls are clamoring (somewhat) for it. So by all means Hollywood, give us more. 

TP: Well… if the box office numbers are large enough, we will likely see a film adaption of the third novel in the trilogy, Allegiant. I do, however, like how that this film ended in such a way that if a third film is not coming, the story can stand as is.

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates Insurgent: In all fairness, I didn’t hate this flick (I know, its not like you’d ever know it by my crit), but the disingenuous story, grossly overacted characterizations and safe and predictable screenplay didn’t suck all the life out of what could have been an incredible story but it didn’t do anything to help it either. This franchise feels like a great CW (tv) series waiting to happen. With that, I grab my Divergent buddies and bust five (5) Busted Blocks for Insurgent in glass-shattering slow-motion. 

THE PONTIFICATOR rates Insurgent: A good film to fill a Saturday morning, I found it entertaining and fun, even if it didn’t blow me away with it’s storytelling or effects. Everything about this film was just “good” and thus busted six (6) blocks on it’s way to remake society.

Divergent – 5.5 / 10 Busted Blocks

Giving Audiences a Heaping Spoonful of “Meh”

Mediocrity abounds in the latest fantasy sci-fi ‘super kid’ flick, The Giver.

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): Based on the wildly popular 1993 children’s book of the same name by Lois Lowry, "The Giver" presents us with a distorted utopian society that quickly repulses us and becomes increasingly dystopian. This society has eliminated pain and suffering by converting to "sameness," a societal brainwashing program that eliminates pain suffering, greed, music, dancing, art and even color from eyesight. The novel (and film) chronicle the life of a young man named Jonas, whose ‘come of age’ allotment to his society is to become a ‘Receiver of memory.’  This is the chosen citizen who stores all the past memories of the time before Sameness, in case they are ever needed to aid in decisions that others lack the experience to make. Jonas learns the truth about his dystopian society and struggles with suppressing his new-found knowledge and ultimately must chose between a life he’s always known and the true nature of humanity. Thoughts, pontificator? 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): The story sticks well enough to the events in the book. Written by Lois Lowry and having taken nearly twenty years to come to the big screen, it is reminiscent of other dystopian societies we have seen before…but more on that later.

CASTING, DIRECTING & ACTING

AV: While we were treated to Jeff "Obadiah Stane" Bridges as the veteran Receiver of memories, Katie “Rachel Dawes” Holmes plays Jonas’ Mom while Alexander “True Blood” Skarsgard is cast as Jonas’ Dad. the film features a cornucopia of budding young stars, too many to account for here. While the acting overall is decent, it is a bit stuffy, almost formulaic. Director Phillip "Salt" Noyce brings some particularly difficult and inspirational visuals together onscreen quite handsomely. Some of the most stunning cinema-graphic moments in this film include the (visual) transition of Jonas’ budding realization of the true nature of the world around him  as color is slowly introduced into his world. An awesome story-telling tool I have not seen before. 

TP: The two big names attached to this film are Jeff Bridges, who is the Giver, and Meryl Streep as the Chief Elder. Both play their roles superbly but I expected nothing less given their experience and talent. The rest of the cast did well, but with a society largely devoid of emotional expression, I think it takes some of the pressure off in terms of performance delivery. The film moved at a pretty good pace and never stalled which surprised me since a stale society can quickly become boring.

ON SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: As you well know old friend, my favorite kind of special effects are the kind the eye doesn’t know are effects. Seamless, clean, polished. That epitomizes the special effects of The Giver for me. From the hi-tech drone scenes to the transitional effects from B&W to full color to the expansive landscapes. This was some of the best SFX work I’ve seen this summer. 

TP: The special effects were not ground breaking, but they also were not shoddy Dark One. Most of the effects came in the form of the set and props (I was especially interested in the design of the bikes). The little bit of CGI that was used was used very effectively to advance the story and the use of old historical footage was also an excellent “effect” to push the point of the film. 

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK

AV: How many story lines about the ‘kid who’s going to save us all’ do we have to endure? I don’ t have an issue with formula, not when it works it works. Take a proven storytelling technique, wrap a new skin on that bad boy (so to speak) and I'm good to go. But pick the flick and I will show you the kid who is going to save us all from destruction, an alien invasion or catastrophe. Luke Skywalker. Harry Potter. Percy Jackson. Catniss Everdeen. Ender (from Ender’s game). Tris from Divergent. The list is endless. So, apparently, are the prospects for future films and stories with this trope.

Look,we’re both Dads here, P–Man. In all fairness, I can’t even get my kids to clean their room… and now I’m supposed to buy that they’ve got the secret powers/knowledge/lineage to stop our impending doom? C’mon Hollywood, check the cliff notes. Sure, sure. Young people are capable of incredible feats of accomplishment. But, let’s not call that out as the norm. The story of Jonas here, is no different. A super clean-cut white kid–who has only ever followed the rules his entire life–now knows more than people who have been around for six or seven decades? Nope, not buying it. I guess that’s the fiction in ‘Science Fiction.’

TP: There were so many elements of this film that I have seen “elsewhere” I almost felt that it was nothing more than a hodgepodge of earlier films. The ceremony to decide your place in society was seen in “Divergent.” The “releasing” of people to Elsewhere was similar to the ceremony of Carousel in “Logan’s Run” in that nobody realizes what is really happening is death. They further expand on the similarity by having Jonas “run” with Gabriel, who is slated to be put to death. Even the injections of the daily drug were also seen in “Equilibrium”…perhaps it was even the same drugs as both had the effect of suppressing emotions. It takes just a little bit away from the story when I’m thinking to myself that I’ve seen that in (insert movie here) throughout the film. The script could have been a bit tighter as well. Earlier in the film it is stressed that society has adopted “sameness” to suppress envy, greed, jealousy…and Jonas, upon seeing the past, remarks that he saw people of different skin hues (suggesting that for sameness there are no more people of color in society) but later they actually show people of color in that society, debunking “sameness” and Jonas’ reaction to seeing them in the past. I think this was a case of political correctness trumping science fiction.

ON SEQUELS

AV: This film is going to rear it’s unoriginal premise again I am sure. Companion books to The Giver from Lois Lowry include Gathering Blue (2000), The Messenger (2004) and Son (2012). The book’s reviews have been mixed at best. This quote from Wikipedia sums it up best; “Some critics find the work lacks originality or real literary merit, while others argue that books appealing to a young-adult audience are critical for building a developing reader's appetite for reading.” I can’t comment on the book themselves but my kids have all read The Giver so it is a property they are familiar with. For Hollywood these days, that’s about all they need to finance a movie. 

TP: The Giver is the first of a four part book series. Whether or not more films get made to continue the telling of this expanded story remains to be seen and is probably largely dependent on the box office performance of this film. 

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates The Giver: Look folks, this is far from the worst flick of the summer or even in  the genre. There are truly entertaining moments that are engaging and even emotional. I just think that for the tens of millions of dollars each of these film cost, we can expect a little bit more than formula. Every year we get astounding examples of fresh new perspectives on sci-fi and fantasy. I wish the Giver tried harder and had a higher calibre personality. Still, if you can shut off the monotony of the ‘kid saves the world’ formula, you’d be a better person than me, and might even give this film better than four (4) busted blocks. 

THE PONTIFICATOR rates The Giver: Although I felt this story has already been told in other films, it was still an interesting film to watch. I enjoyed the performances of Bridges and Streep although I felt the ending fell a bit flat. Considering all the elements of this film that have been played out before, it was still able to “give” six (6) busted blocks of entertainment.

The Giver: 5 / 10 Busted Blocks

A Powerfully Divergent Message

The #1 Bestselling Profile Of A Pre-Ordained Future Shines A Light On All Of Us 

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): Based on the incredibly popular first book in a series so popular, nearly every teenager in North America has a grasp on it, Divergent is a story based on the first in eerie sod books that portray a post-apocalyptic society, hell-bent on deceit, control and compartmentalization of the human spirit. Like the book, the story centers around a society re-structured in “old” Chicago after ‘the war’ (as identified in the movie). Clearly something awful happened and this new society has rooted itself in the ashes of the old one. In this choking and sobering dystopia, people are split into five factions; Abnegation (selfless), Amity (peaceful), Candor (truthful), Erudite (intelligent) and Dauntless (brave), based on their personalities. As a citizen of this “New Chicago” (“Buck Rogers in The 25th Century” much?), your personality must conform to one of these factions, pointy, or else. 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): This film is just slightly “divergent” from the novel of the same title, written by Veronica Roth. The areas where it differs aren’t really make or break points for the purposes of the film but no doubt fans of the book will likely have issues anyway. The idea of it all was intriguing to me as diversity is part of the human condition, a fact both embraced and rebuffed by this future society.

CASTING, DIRECTING AND ACTING

AV: There are some terrific casting decisions made for Divergent, Ponty. Shailene “The Secret life Of An American Teenager” Woodley plays the lead as Tris and heads up an impressive and surprisingly well-casted array of actors to help bring Divergent to life. Jai “I, Frankenstein” Courtney is fast becoming a go-to onscreen bad ass as Eric, the crooked training instructor. Who else is in this film you ask? Glad you did Ponty because I enjoyed Mikhi “8-mile” Pfier as the sinister Max. The other-worldly beauty of Maggie “Nikkita” Q, Kate “Titanic” Winsett as the devious Jeanine and Ray “Punisher oh, wait, i mean Thor” Stevensen as Marcus. Even an heiress to music royalty, Zoë “After Earth” Kravitz appears as the lovely and chaotic Christina and last but certainly not least is the stunning Ashley “Kiss The Girls” Judd as Tris’ Mom, Natalie.

TP: The casting was well done and the actors convinced me of the realness of their characters. Shailene Woodley’s “Tris” was a character I found myself rooting for as she navigated the demands of her faction within the larger scheme of the plot. I was also intrigued by “Four”, played by Theo James. His portrayal as a catalyst and mystery kept me interested in his fate, especially as it related to the machinations of “Eric” (played by Jai Courtney). Courtney is paving the road to being known for menacing roles, and his work here is certainly more ground work for that. Kate Winslet was also menacing, but in a much more subtle, yet more dangerous, way. Moving at a moderate pace, director Neil Burger didn’t let me fall asleep.

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: Depicting the blasted out remnants of ‘old’ Chicago was a CGI-flavored victory here, my friend. The beautifully rendered ‘reclaimed’ Chicago is breathtaking to behold. The visual effects largely support the story–what there is of it–and that is as it should be. The ‘dream’ sequences were eye-popping and stunning to behold. I tend to gravitate toward SF/X that are invisible in the tapestry of a story and this movie does great by the viewer by not having social effects–by design or by chance–that get in the way. 

TP: There was nothing new added to the special effects seen in films today, but there was also nothing by way of effects that detracted from the film. The effects used moved the story along and in the end, this film was not made or broken by effects.

TAKING DEEPER LOOK

AV: So here’s where I weigh-in on this film, Pontificator. I root for really strong female leads and Divergent come strong with Tris, a ‘Divergent’ (that’s someone who doesn’t conform to any of the five factions, yet shows strong tendencies toward all of them) who represents a threat to this new societal order. Inserting the dopey onscreen love interest of Theo “Underworld” James felt forced, and unnecessary. So much so that I feel Tris would be a stronger character without him. Furthermore, I found myself relating deeply to the main character’s plight. As a writer, designer and artist, I would NOT be one to conform to this system, and would likely be put down with a bullet to my head. I won’t give away major plot points here but I will share that the message of ‘don’t be labeled by society’ and don’t conform like cattle’ was very refreshing to me as the parallels to Nazi German society were haunting. The foreshadowing to the film’s “great wall of protection” made me want to know more and the film smartly, doesn’t engage my curiosity but instead chooses to tease me about an impending danger. So while I still struggle with this movie as another “young in’ saves our world” storyline, I must say, I enjoyed this film. P-Man? 

TP: Well Vader, despite my enjoyment of this film, there was always an underlying feel that there was so much more going on that I wanted to know. For me, it was the society in general that intrigued me the most. The idea of society being separated and broken down into five factions had me salivating for more on how they interacted and made it all work… Abnegation, for the selfless; Amity, for the peaceful; Candor, for the honest; Dauntless, for the brave; and Erudite, for the Intelligent. Let’s face it, the idea that you had to be a part of Candor to be a lawyer just floored me. Although I loved the details of Dauntless, how did they interact with the rest of society as protectors and police? Since Erudite felt they should run things (an obvious progression if you are part of a faction created for your intellect) it was no surprise that they came up with the science to do just that. What was confusing, however, was why the leaders of Dauntless would go along with their scheme. Why would they give control of their entire faction personnel over to the leaders of Erudite, with no oversight themselves? What was the gain for them to do that? What would stop the Erudite from eliminating the Dauntless leaders and why hadn't the leaders of Dauntless considered this? What happens to those aging in Dauntless? Are they discarded to be faction less?With so many unanswered questions, I felt a lot was missing from the story.

ON SEQUELS

AV: Obviously there is more to come. The Divergent series of books is a hugely literary success with young people and since both “Insurgent” (book 2) and “Allegiant” (book #3?) are in pre-production (as of the writing of this blog) I think it is a fair bet that future releases are inevitable. Let’s hope that means more fiercely independent development of Tris and not more love-smitten shenanigans over the hot-boy-of-the-hour. This movie–this story–has a greater potential I pray it lives up to it. 

TP: Based on a trilogy of books, they are already working on the next film, “Insurgent” which will no doubt be followed by the third, “Allegiant.” I look forward to them both and hope my concerns from this film are addressed in those ones. 

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates Divergent: Perhaps it was the rich-diversity in the casting, maybe it was the simplistic character development or maybe my expectations were just low but this film was enjoyable. While I could hardly urge our readers to go to the theaters for this one, it is good, solid and morally sound Sci-Fi. From one Divergent to another, I give this one a dystopian-skewed 7 busted blocks and keep my fingers crossed this franchise gets better as it goes.

THE PONTIFICATOR rates Divergent: A good movie with moderate action and intriguing story, “Divergent” was certainly entertaining. My need for answers to my questions detracted a bit from the film, but it was still able to bust six (6) blocks in it’s attempt to diverge itself from other films.

Divergent: 6.5 / 10 Busted Blocks