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

Masked Mayhem

Disney pans for gold with the Silver horse-riding remake of the old west's iconic masked vigilante, The Lone Ranger.

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): It has been quite some time since the legendary tales of the masked marvel of the old west appeared on the silver screen. When the Lone Ranger (TLR) was relevant, Pontificator, a new home cost $4,200, movies were still in Black and White and the 'Red Menace' was the greatest threat America had ever known. A noble gentlemen who campaigned for justice in the lawless old west, this American icon of rebellion and good, along with his Native American sidekick, Tonto, helped settle scores, bring evil men to justice and right the wrongs of the new frontier. How do you think Disney fared on re-establishing one of fantasy's original larger-than-life-heroes, Ponty? 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): I used to watch the Lone Ranger on television as a child Vader, and was always entertained by it. Admittedly, I was a fan of Tonto and thought he was cooler than the Ranger. Fast forward to today and I’ve browsed through a Lone Ranger comic book, or two. I’m not a collector of the title since there was nothing in the book that captivated me... much like the recent film. Yeah... this is going to be that type of review.

CASTING, DIRECTING AND ACTING

AV: Hollywood leading action front mean, Johnny Depp was cast as the mysteriously quirky Tonto, a native American shaman who befriends and allies himself with what's-his-name to right the wrongs of the west. Armie Hammer was cast of the masked man and one of my all-time favorite British actresses, Ruth Wilson, graced the screen as the love interest and rugged western woman, Rebecca Reid. Pirates of the Caribbean's Gore Verbinski, brings his visionary directing style to TLR and makes a run at bringing some new perspective to the old west. Tonto was funny, introspective, engaging and thoroughly interesting in this film that would have been more aptly named "Tonto and his pale-skinned buddy." 

TP: About the best choice for casting this film offered was William Fichtner as Butch Cavendish. I wasn’t impressed with Armie Hammer... and although Johnny Depp managed to be mildly entertaining, once they showed real Native Americans, Depp just didn’t sell anymore. I was confused about what this film was supposed to be... action? comedy? drama? It dragged on in some parts so badly that I began not to care what it was supposed to be... and realized what it was: boring.

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: Too bad special effects, good film work and action sequences don't make for a blockbuster cause this would be one of the greats. Live action stunts, explosions-a-plenty and enough CGI to make your ten-gallon hat go five gallons flat. You could say that if this movie was only attempting to be a brainless action flick it would have succeeded. Silly, ridiculous, high-caliber fun–give or take the fun. Ponty?

TP: Ho-hum. If there were some effects in this film that were meant to impress... or even make a mild impression, then I missed the train on that one. There was no new ground broken, and no particular flare to the stuff we have already seen done a million times... and done a million times better.

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK 

AV: It is fitting that at the movie's grand finale there is a horrific train wreck because, Pontificator, that is exactly what this movie is. I don't understand the casting of Armie Hammer in the lead role. I don't understand what this movie's goal was and I certainly don't understand why this movie was more than $130 million over budget or why it was ever green-lighted in the first place. Ruth Wilson's beautiful eyes, hearing the William Tell overture and Johnny Depp's Tonto are the only reason's to EVER engage in this movie. It is too long, poorly paced and Armie Hammer's laughable portrayal is just way off as the oafish, bumbling and vaguely effeminate Lone Ranger. Even the iconic theme (William Tell overture) was oddly out of place during the movie's climax. While it had it's (mostly failed) attempts at comedy, this movie is a throw-away. 

TP: There is not much to look at here Vader. The deeper I look, the more I realize what a missed opportunity this film was. Here was a chance to make the Lone Ranger relevant again, to bring him to life for a whole new audience. This could have been done without leaving the PG-13 rating, all that was required was a little attention to detail and a bit more of a serious approach to make the audience invest some emotion into the characters. I was more interested in the villains of the film than anyone else because they were focused with a purpose and made me care about their machination... even if it was in the hopes that they would fail, with no help from the heroes.

ON SEQUELS

AV: Mercy killing, Hollywood, please... just no. Please don't further harm the memory of this American icon. Maybe, just maybe, we should let the idea of any more attempts at TLR ride off into the setting sun. P-Man?

TP: They left it a little open... but I’m hoping that box office sales (or lack thereof) have convinced them to close that door... and bolt it! There is no need to subject anyone to another round of nonsense. It’s unfortunate... but this film was so bad, I’m even going to advocate for not doing a reboot, at least not until every living person on the planet that has seen this film has passed away.

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates The Lone Ranger: With a 149 minute run-time, this movie feels like I am riding a horse through the desert. On the plus side, this movie will fade quickly from memory. I cannot say it was an outright bad film but you have to pan-handle pretty long and hard to sift through to something worthwhile to say. It is best to leave this one to fade away from our collective consciousness. Though I can't say I outright hated it, I lasso only 3 busted blocks for Disney's The Lone Ranger to drag behind me and my trusted steed as I gallop away into the setting western sun. 

THE PONTIFICATOR rates The Lone Ranger: There have been very few films reviewed here by me that have made me wish I could get my money back as I exit the theater. This movie is proudly inducted into that elite category. Instead of shooting out four (4) busted blocks, I’d have preferred to face a firing squad than this defecation on the silver screen.

The Lone Ranger–3.5/10 Busted Blocks

Abraham Lincoln: Bounty Hunter Is A Bloody Mess

America's 16th President Battles Slavery, Dissension, Vampires and Mediocrity in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): If we are discussing the vapid hysterical, uh I mean–historical revisionist tale of Abe Lincoln written by Seth Grahame-Smith, then this book follows the tale to a tee. If we mean the historical events and personage of the US Presidency during the war between the states and the years leading up to them… eh, not so much. A story like this is a real quandary for me, Ponitficator because I pride myself as an armchair historian (yes, I even subscribe to Armchair General magazine!), but this story, supposedly pulled from "secret diaries", recants a tale of honest camaraderie and struggle in the face of overwhelming adversity. I will dismiss now ANY notion of historical alignment and we will simply review the movie and it's popular cinema relevance. That said, the movie does the story justice. 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): I haven't read the book Vader, so for me there is only one frame of reference. So... does this movie stay true to the original historical material? Well, Abraham Lincoln lived, he was President, he had a spouse named Nancy and a son named Willie, but for a few other details... the film diverges from reality and leaves out much accuracy. With so much known about Abe, it only seems logical to streamline the facts... or bog the movie down with details that won’t make you jump out of your seat. Oh... and I’m pretty sure he didn’t hunt Vampires... although I can’t commit to this position with 100% conviction. 

CASTING, DIRECTING AND ACTING

AV: The casting was solid, particularly lead man Benjamin Walker as Abraham Lincoln. Tall, commanding, steadfast and portraying tempered resolve, he worked well in the role. Dominic Cooper plays writer and convert Vampire, Henry Sturgis and does so particularly well. Fittingly, the Vampires are portrayed as vile, ungodly and despicable monsters that must be vanquished. The movie's direction is solid with a classic array of slow-motion battle scenes, spliced with wide-angle battle-field shots and gore sequences of bloodletting as Honest Abe cleaves his way through the seemingly endless onslaught of undead bloodsuckers. I have to call out one shot in particular that felt so out of place that, though it was small felt odd and kind of off-set the entire film's pacing to me after it. There is a scene roughly a third of the way through the movie that does a fast close-up of a building in rural Illinois that feels so out of pace with the scenes that came before  and after that it just sort of left with a big WTF hovering over my head for the rest of the film. 

TP: Not going the big name actor route actually worked for this film. Benjamin Walker bares a resemblance to actor great Liam Neeson in this film and simply captures attention off this alone (lucky him). He is a great actor and was fun to watch as he brought Abe to life...while, uh... taking life from the... undead? It’s my biased opinion, but I also enjoyed Rufus Sewell as the Vampire head baddie, Adam. I loved his role in “A Knights Tale” and think him to be perfectly suited for the role of villain...in any film. The casting, therefor, was done well and the directing kept the film at a fast pace with plenty of surprises.

SPECIAL EFFECTS:

AV: The effects people really had fun with this movie, P-Man. There are some great panoramic battlefield scenes that are quite impressive. And  while I thoroughly enjoyed how this movie looked, I must say the burning train bridge/final vampire fight was just too over the top for my liking. While I would never want to deny any movie of it's potential, the SFX here are just overdone. The final fight with vampires atop an old-time locomotive was probably cooler in the storyboarding than it was in execution. It's hard for me to wrap my head around such sequences (not unlike those of the Sherlock Holmes ilk) where under-trained 'regular guys' can stand back-to-back on train moving 70 miles an hour and take down a horde of vampires in the dark. Sorry, as a life-long sci-fi and action movies lover–I ain't buying it. 

TP: I concur Vader. I struggle to see the relevance of 3D in most films, and this film really wasn’t any different except that the 3D wasn’t used to bring the action in your face as much as simply closer to you. Like every 3D film, there were scenes that leaped out... but I’m still waiting for this to happen consistently throughout the film. Everything seen here has been seen before. The slow motion action and freeze frame sequences made famous by “The Matrix” still look nice here... although some sequences had me wondering were my glass of wine was as I watched the cheese. In the sequence you mention Vader... I was looking for the whole bottle!

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK

AV: Let me take a moment here and inform our readers that I am absolutely enthralled with all things vampire. Underworld, Interview with a Vampire (book & film), Bram Stroker's Dracula, True Blood, Priest, 30 Days of Night, From Dusk 'til Dawn–yes, even (gulp!) the Twilight saga (the books at least have considerable merit)–the list is endless. So I have been known to give a pass to vamp flicks–and so it goes here as well. I actually had a fun time with this movie and saw it with my 14-year old son and his 12-year-old twin brothers. We all had fun and the though I did have to explain the historical inconsistencies–"no son, not all confederates were vampires"–, the value of this film lies purely in its ability to entertain. Not excessively gory, ridiculous if not fun and a great laugh-out-loud ending, this movie threatens to put a smile on your face and a few "what if" thoughts in your head. Some would say that makes the film a success. Thoughts, Pontificator? 

TP: I think much of the problem for this film was simply getting past the title, Vader. I’m guilty, like so many, of being put off by the idea of Abraham Lincoln hunting vampires. Once the movie started though and took a serious approach to the character and period, I was immediately put back on again and shook my head at what a mistake the title was. I also noticed that I wasn’t laughing... at all, during the movie. There was nothing funny as it took itself too seriously while bombarding me with over-the-top bloody action sequences. The general idea of the film though was very interesting... and prompted me to even research to see if silver was indeed used as ammunition at Gettysburg. There were some parts of it that physics says couldn’t be done by mere mortals... and I took those sequences a reminder that although the film took itself seriously, I really shouldn't.

ON SEQUELS

AV: Not seeing much value in pursuing future installments of this story, Ponty. This movie was fun, freaky fantasy but the value of this film stops there. Some vampire coolness to be sure but since NOTHNG was explained properly–like why was the confederacy in league with the vampires? What was in it for them? Why were vampires able to walk around in the sunlight but still be susceptible to silver? If the answer is 'go read the book' then I rest my case. This will be fine as a one-shot effort.

TP: Although the door was left open to continue in modern times with the whole vampire hunting gig... it’s best to let this movie stand alone and find more life in the rental audience than make, yet, another vampire film in a market that has been inundated with them. Vampires are cool again, but the constant milking of this cow will simply make them annoying... to everyone except those enthralled like you Vader.

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter: I cannot tell a lie–to this movie's credit, it is fun and doesn't require a whole lot of brain cells to enjoy. However, it's also the film's shortcoming. Choppy story-editing, fairly ridiculous dialogue and hyper-unrealistic, overly fantastic scenarios stop this movie from approaching even campy greatness. Still worth a viewing, but–honestly–(ahem) you could wait for the DVD or Pay-per-view rental on this one. With that, I won't drop the ax here because to be fair this flick doesn't–uh–suck, but at six busted blocks, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter does unfortunately bite off more than it can chew. 

THE PONTIFICATOR rates Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter: It’s a shame many were put off by the title and never gave this movie a chance. It turned out to be much fun and was more entertaining that I expected it to be. Box office revenue put a stake through the heart of this film, yet it was very entertaining and still managed to bite and suck the blood out of seven punctured blocks.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter: 6.5/10 Busted Blocks