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

Scatterbrained Maze Runner Entertains

The unexpectedly intelligent Maze Runner leaves audiences with more questions than answers.

CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): Holding surprisingly true to the book of the same name by James Dasher, the young-adult post apocalyptic tale is the opening salvo of a trilogy. My kids all read the book series so I was odd-man out at the theater but given their–often audible–reactions, it appears the film tracked fairly well with its audience. Was that your experience, Pontificator? 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): The Maze Runner, like most books made into films, did not make the transition without some changes Vader. I’ll let avid readers of the books (your Sithling children) decide if they were minor to major ones (Ben being a runner, the look of the Grievers, no telepathy) but in the end, the film was not something totally unrecognizable from the book. It remains to be seen if future installments align more or diverge more, from the books they will be derived from.

CASTING, DIRECTING and ACTING

AV: With an entire squadron of fresh-faced up and comers, Maze Runner was rife with genuine, new pasty-faced, wide-eyed young Hollywood hopefuls. Director Wes “God I love Star Trek” Ball shared a cinematographic vision that is oddly gripping and carries the viewer through a very swiss-cheese storyline. Despite the many issues this film has–and believe me, there are many–the entertainment value is high. The story-pacing does well to move the shoddy screenplay forward. The acting is nothing to write home about, but their is magic here, and the cast feels engaged.

TP: Bring out your young up and coming actors, we have a teen movie to film! This is a great film to get some actors started as evidenced by there being no really big names in the film. Dylan O’Brien leads with help from Aml Ameen and Ki Hong Lee. All deliver good performances and the film flows well enough from the directing. My only issue was with the story, but I’ll get into that a little later.

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: I was expecting heavy-handed visual effects in Maze Runner, and by jove, P-Man, we got ‘em! The spider-like guardians (keepers) of the maze, imagined as some odd hybrid of monster and machine, was a well-handled visual effect. Watching the maze, shift and transform was an awesome spectacle. While not a particularly stunning visual effects film, the notable effects that were shown were quite well-handled.

TP: There were no breakthroughs in technology or new ground broken visually, but there were also no glaring mistakes (as far as I could see). The effects were good, heck, even great in those scenes where the landscape was the special effect. The film drew me in with a sense of being there, which helped given my grievances with the actual plot. 

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK

AV: This movie doesn’t require a lot of brain power to absorb. What’s nice is the feeling that there is a bigger plan in place. Why are these kids here? Why are there no girls (until the very first shows up near the end)? Why go through all the trouble to look these young boys and men away and have them fight for their lives and slog it out for their salvation against the elements, weird wild animals, and each other? Leaving me with more questions than answers is fine. My issues with this film are the inconsistent acting quality, even from individual actors and the goofy premise to the story. However, the film’s end offers a nice twist (again, didn’t read the book so the end was a surprise). The end of film does leave audiences in a kind of WTH moment and also leaves an interesting door open for a sequel (or sequels). P-Tiff?

TP: I was very excited about this film seeing the previews, not so much after seeing the film O’Dark One. I just don’t get it. A solar event has killed half the population of the planet and ravaged the surface. A virus had popped up soon after killing even more. To combat the virus, teenagers are put into a plush, green, thriving arena to be tested to engineer a cure for the virus? What? Um…why not just take them to a lab and test them biochemically? Obviously they have advanced technology to engineer the Grievers, a mesh of biology and technology. How is dumping these children into a maze, exposing them to dangerous conditions, even killing some of them, advancing the cure for the virus? Visually, the film was fun…intellectually, it made no sense. 

SEQUELS

AV: Its always odd to me when films come out with the intention of being the first of a trilogy, rather than being a solid film all its own. Maze Runner has been out for nigh on 5 weeks as of this blog post and has raked in just shy of $95 million. With a (reported) production budget of $34 million, that makes this a marginally profitable film with promise for a sequel. The real question to ask is, ‘would you see another installment of this film?” Yes, Ponty, yes I would.

TP: There are two more books in the trilogy, so I expect that as long as box office bottom line is viable (and its “just” according to the numbers), we will see those books on the silver screen. Hopefully the story improves.

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER Rates The Maze Runner: If you find yourself in need of overly trite teenage melodrama filled with man-boy actors trying to make sense of a non-sensical world–and let’s face it, who isn’t–then Maze Runner is for you. I can’t lie, I did enjoy this movie. Even with a cumbersome plot and lofty screenplay you can still have a good time. Engaging, if not brainless, Maze Runner earns six (6) busted, if not puzzling blocks.

THE PONTIFICATOR Rates The Maze Runner: The film was fun to watch visually, but the constant questions nagging me and the less-than-fulfilling answers that followed tainted this film for me. The story just doesn’t make sense and that says a lot for someone like me that often suspends logic and belief for the sake of entertainment. Leaving the maze was just the beginning, and this film only found six (6) busted blocks on the way to the exit.

Maze Runner:  6 / 10 Busted Blocks