So here’s another in the long line of teen fantasy/dystopian/romance/drama movies-based-on-books. Is it any better than the rest? Is it worse? Is it a stand out? Is it worth seeing? Would I look good in a beret? Well the answers to those questions are yes, no, kinda, I’d say so, and of course.

The book vs the movie

I know I’d make many movie reviewers upset by saying that I don’t believe, as they do, that the movie should be judged separately from the book. I do believe that a book should be judged separately from the movie, but the goal of any filmmaker who is adapting a book should be to do the original work justice. Their goal should not be to retell the story from their point of view or to take it in an entirely different direction. I believe that you cannot give a comprehensive review of a movie-based-on-a-book without reading the book.

As such my first compliment to the movie is this: as a fan of the book I was satisfied. While there were and handful of important changes to the book, none of them were to the characters. For the most part the plot remains the same with only a few details being left out – mostly, I’m sure, for the sake of time. There are also details left out because some things play on the page that don’t on the screen. Fans of the book might miss the random death of a initiate that doesn’t make the jump out of the train at the beginning. It’s small but I’m sure a few will miss it. Also the relationship between Will and Christina is non existent. In general all the secondary characters are glossed over in favor of streamlining the plot. All that and it’s still almost two and a half hours. Some will be upset that the character of Al is barely present, I’m sure, though it didn’t bother me at all. I think the greatest change is Tris’ interaction with Jeanine, who of course plays a major role at the end of the book, but is barely there otherwise. I thought this was a weakness of the book, so I see it as an improvement.

The Cast

The casting and the resulting acting were decent. I wasn’t overly fond of Theo James as Four. I thought he was a little too pretty. To be believable as someone Tris would be afraid of, he needed to be a little more grizzly in his appearance. Shailene Woodley was a good choice as she fit the description of Tris quite well. Her child-like voice drove home Tris’s small stature, innocence, and naïve nature. Zoë Kravitz did a good job rounding out the family tradition of playing relatively minor characters in Teen-dystopian best-sellers-turned-movies. She didn’t exactly fit the description of the character from the book; Christina is supposed to be taller than Tris, but she fit the character well enough that it didn’t matter.

The secondary characters were mostly strong, especially the veterans like Kate Winslet, (now 18 years past Titanic) and Ashley Judd (18 years past whatever Ashley Judd shot 18 years ago) who gave a gravitas to their characters that was sorely needed to convey their importance with relatively little screen time.  The antagonistic Eric and Peter were played by Jair Courtney and Miles Teller. Both did a good job of making me not like them. (Though honestly Miles Teller’s filmography makes me not like him) And Maggie Q was a good choice for the role of Tori, though I wish they had spent just another minute with her character. If there was a weak one in the bunch it was the role of Caleb played by Ansel Elgort. Part of it may have been the way the character had to be cut for time, but in the book I remember liking Caleb more and I found Elgort’s performance to be too anxty.

And one more “nit-pick” is Theo James’s accent. Whenever an American plays a Brit they get hammered if their accent sucks, but here lately we’ve been totally cool with outsourcing our male leads to guys who can’t do an north american accent to save their life. (I’m looking at you Charlie Hunnam) He isn’t as bad as his Pacific Rim equivalent, but just listen how James goes from midwestern US – to british – to Chicago all in one sentence a few times. Just listen, you’ll hear it.

The production

The production choices were mostly great. Dystopian Chicago looks really cool and the attention to detail in the wide shots is very impressive. The choices of music were odd, however. If it weren’t for the music, the movie would otherwise be timelessly set in the future, but I’m afraid with the highly stylized pop soundtrack, including notes of dub step several times in the high-tension moments, there will be a constant reminder that though the movie is set in the future, we’re still living in the twenty-teens. And while we’re talking about strange choices I’ve got to talk about guns. Why do the guns in this movie look so goofy? This isn’t space or the 1980s. This is the US, did we forget how to make not-stupid-looking guns? I mean I guess if you were trying to make a gun with the purpose of having the other guy get distracted and laugh at you for carrying a supersoaker, then they accomplished their goal in the worst way.

Did Doctor Doofenshmirtz make this thing?

It really took me out of the moment a few times when someone is wielding a weapon that looks like it was bought on the toy isle of the dollar store.

Ok Ok Ok, I’m being harsh about a small detail. Basically, it was great. The movie followed the book well and the acting was basically good. Let’s talk about the plot.

The Story

If you’re not familiar with it, in the story of Divergent takes place in Chicago of the future wherein the US has crumbled in the wake of some war and large cities have been reduced to City-states left to their own devices. To maintain the peace society has has formed an odd system of separating everyone into five factions. Each faction aspires to a specific virtue and specializes in a different part of society.

There’s Candor who believe in truthfulness above all else. They manage the law branch of government. There’s Erudite they value knowledge and therefore manage scientific research. Amity is the faction that values peace, they handle health and farming. Dauntless is the brave faction. They handle police work and defense. And Abnegation is the faction that values selflessness. They are public servants and head the government.

When they come of age every member of society takes a test that tells the where they will best fit. They then choose which faction they want to be in. Think Harry Potter Sorting Hat meets Hunger Games’ Reaping ceremony.

Beatrice, the main character, grew up in Abnegation and has always been fascinated by Dauntless. After the test she’s told that her test was inconclusive. The word for it is Divergent and it’s apparently considered dangerous for some mysterious reason. The dauntless are shown running around to energetic music during the film’s opening so it’s not much of a surprise when Beatrice or – Tris – as she comes to be called, chooses dauntless. The Majority of the movie is about her initiation as well as the growing tension between the factions.

The movie gets a few things about the plot a little better than the book did. The book presents several events that are happening in the background, occasionally bringing them to the foreground, but the climax of the book seems to come out of almost nowhere as the events that foreshadow the ending are played down. The movie managed this much better. They essentially spell out the ending for you. The details are different, but it doesn’t matter as much when it is much more clear as to why the bizarre events at the end are taking place. In the book it comes out of left field in the movie it’s a line-drive down the middle. Some fans of the book won’t like it, but it plays better on film this way.

My thoughts

Even while reading the book I thought the premise was pretty crazy. It seemed too impractical to be believable enough as a world, but as I read on I felt like the world was well fleshed out and the characters seemed real enough to me. Eventually I got really engaged with the plot. While it’s not as good from a story or literary perspective as The Hunger Games, it still is miles ahead of series like The Maze Runner.(which would work better as an allegory)

It’s impossible to avoid the Hunger Games comparison with this book series and their films, but they are different books, written around the same time, and though they have many similarities; dystopian future, a ceremony, a scary government, teenage female antagonists, fight training, hunky guys… But that doesn’t discount its value as a story. While the hunger games is a better book in many ways, there are some things about Divergent that I prefer.

I hate love triangles as a story device and Divergent doesn’t have one. I can’t identify with a main character who has – as a major trait – an inability to get along with others. The story of Divergent isn’t quite as brutal as the hunger games, though it may not be as poignant. Because the premise isn’t an immediate turn-off, I don’t feel like I have to defend myself for enjoying it. And of course, the author, Veronica Roth, thanks “my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” first on her acknowledgments page.

The main thing I appreciate out of both the book and the movie is the fact that I  identify with Tris more than I did with Katniss. Of course, I’m a guy so I’m not talking about totally identifying with her, but we do have some similarities. We both grew up in homes that value selflessness. Our fathers are both leaders in the community. We both dealt with bullies who mocked our worldview. We’re both often underestimated. We both have a “goodie two-shoes” reputation. And people don’t think that we’d shoot them if we had to.

The world of Divergent does raise some interesting questions. What if our world were run by only the most selfless people? What if every person had to ascribe themselves to at least one virtue in order to fit into society? What would the world look like without one of these virtues? Are there any virtues that you would add? I could write a whole entry addressing some of these questions, but no one wants to read all that. Instead, I’ll say that if you ever want to have a discussion with me about it, I’d be glad to sit with you and talk about all the social/political commentary that the book has to offer.

Over all I’m not going to say that this is the best movie of the year, but it is fun and has lots of things that make it solid. The main character is very much like what the book described – a very different character from either Katniss or Bella, but still both a strong character that both guys and girls can identify with. The setting feels real, though it has a very fantastic aura surrounding it. Over all I’d recommend going to see it. 4/5 Stars.

So this summer has had more downs than ups in the big-blockbuster movie department. With several movies that weren’t “bad” but weren’t great either. It’s not that Pacific Rim is the best movie ever, it’s just that it’s so much better than any other movie this summer, it really outshines the competition. Put it up against last year’s line up of Dark Knight Rises and The Avengers or the previous summer’s Harry Potter Finale and it’s just “pretty good.” But in the backdrop of this year’s meager offerings it ranks easily as “AWESOME.”

The basic story is that giant Alien monsters have started coming through a portal in the floor of the pacific ocean. The monsters have been attacking major cities and to combat them humanity built giant robots called Jaegers (Yay-grrr, it’s German for hunter.) These giant robots have been mostly effective in fighting the monsters (which are called Kaiju) until the few years leading up to the main course of the plot wherein the monsters coming out of the portal have gotten much larger. It sounds like the plot of a sci-fi B-movie and in some ways it is, but there’s much more to it than that.

Now that I’ve thoroughly undersold it, let me build it up some. Pacific Rim has been often compared to the Transformers movies. But it is different in several key ways. The Transformers movies are about an annoying guy and his way-too-unbelievely-good-looking girlfriend and some robots were fighting too. Not sure which ones were fighting because they basically all look the same and between the camera shake and lens flares they all looked like an auto show in a blender. Don’t get me wrong, I liked the first one for the novelty of seeing a transformers movie. But after that, I was done, because I didn’t care about the characters. Really, comparing Pacific Rim to Transformers is like comparing apples to some fruit that was okay on the first bite, but after a while just got boring and confusing. I hate fruit that’s boring and confusing.

Even though the main character is a British guy with a bad fake American accent, and even though some of the dialogue is cheesy, even though the score sounds like the background music from an episode of Magnum PI,  you can push that aside because you actually care about the characters. Charlie Hunnam plays Raleigh Becket. He looks a lot like Garrett Hedlund from Tron Legacy, who I assume wasn’t available, because he would’ve done a better job. But Idris Elba does a great job – it helps that he’s speaking in his native accent. Rinko Kikuchi is adorable, Charlie Day and Burn Gorman provide some good comic relief, and Max Martini is his usual kick-butt self.

So you probably just said “I don’t know any of those people.” And that’s because the movie is cast mainly with B-Listers. Ron Perlman shows up for a cameo role, but for the most part you’ve got a movie full of somewhat recognizable faces without too recognizable names. It was a good choice for Del Toro to not spend his money on the actors, but rather on production, which is very solid.

Guillermo Del Toro, the director, isn’t a house hold name either. He’s most known for his Spanish art film, Pan’s Labyrinth, which is probably the best film that I ever hated. In that picture he showed his prowess for introspectively crafting a plot that focuses on  a few characters while something larger in scope is taking place around them. And while Pan’s Labyrinth has very little in common with Pacific Rim, you can see that same technique applied, making the scope seem both epic and personal at the same time.

This is accomplished because Pacific Rim is surprisingly original in the details of the plot. The Jaegers are operated by a neural interface  so that the machine does what the pilot does. Early in the Jaeger Program they discovered that the neural load was too much; the Jagers were too large to be operated by one person so a two pilot system was implemented. One person is the left hemisphere, the other the right. This means that when the pilots are in the Jaeger they are synced in what they call “The Drift.” Which means that they can see each other’s minds – they’re memories, hopes, and fears are all open to their co-pilot. There are no secrets in the Drift. This is a powerful plot device. As pilots must be “Drift compatible” it becomes difficult for Raleigh to find a new copilot when his brother dies.

Perhaps the biggest way that the movie gets you to care about the characters in by simple editing. You’re constantly being reminded that these big robots are being piloted by humans that are fighting for their survival. And as we watch the pilots perform kung-fu movies in sync with each other, it’s an added bonus that we’re being treated to some cool CGI monster/robots fights. Because who doesn’t like to see an enormous ocean freighter swung like a baseball bat?

As a friend said afterwards “This is what little boys are imagining when they’re playing with their toys.” And it’s the truth. I think most guys will find that this movie awakens the “little boy” in them. With elements of Top Gun, Godzilla, Independence Day, and yes, Transformers, this movie is just nothing but good ‘ol summer fun.

I have to say I went into this film with low expectations, so I don’t want to raise yours unduly, but it definitely exceeded what I had in mind. From the plot, to the characters the entire thing is simply an enjoyable ride. I was expecting tedious, inscrutable fights, but I was surprised at how entertaining the entire thing is. So while this isn’t going to beat out The Avengers, I certainly think that it is worth seeing on the big screen. And in the category of movies about giant robots, this one wins best picture.

From my earlier review:

There could be discussions going on forever about how Superman is like Jesus, as well as discussions about places where the similarities break down, but it is the choice to make this an overt part of who superman is what brings strength to the film.

Well the past week I’ve seen several negative comments and reviews regarding Man of Steel, especially from Christians. Since my review was generally positive, I’d like to add a follow up:

• This movie is not an allegory. I never intended to indicate that it was in my review and I don’t think that that’s a bad thing. Going through the movie detail by detail pointing out every dissimilarity between this movie and the story of Christ is, I believe, missing the point. The great thing is the fact that it allows us to create discussion, which is the most you can realistically expect from a summer-popcorn-blockbuster.
• I’m not going to go point-for-point and answer every criticism on where the similarities break down because that would be Tedious and I think the movie is meant to create discussion, not treatises. But, to address one of the complaints I’ve heard, it involves (spoilers) the fact that at the end of the movie Superman kills Zod. I knew when I saw it that it was going to controversial among long-time Superman fans as well as Christians noting the Christ imagery. Some say that it’s too far off the character of Jesus for Superman to be effective as even an abstract Christ image. I guess if were forced to draw the metaphor out, I believe Zod is representative of Satan. Read about the battle of revelation and you tell me if you think that God intends to love Satan to death.
• It was a basically respectful view of Christ out of the same guy who brought us Watchmen, 300, and Suckerpunch. Let’s think about how amazing that is. I can already imagine hearing from the filmmakers, “We give up. We tried our best to put Jesus in a movie and you guys complained. You complain about everything.” Can we, for a moment, celebrate the fact that someone in the entertainment industry saw value in the person of Christ?
• The most valid point in any of this, I think, is the concern that Jesus is being used as a device to “spice up” the story in order to get Christians interested. I’d say that this is almost definitely the case as the director is not a Christian. To me this is the issue tha troubles me the most. I don’t like the idea of “using” Christ for personal gain. But keeping this in mind, when you see dissimilarities between Christ and the movie, understand that there were probably really few actual Christians involved in the production process. To this I’d say don’t look a gift horse in the mouth – at least not while the gifting farmer is still there. I’d challenge you to think of these people as you would a young Christian telling their story. They may not know all the words to use or the exact right theology, but they’re trying – even if they don’t have the best motivation.
• No, the movie is not the gospel message. And yes, if you take it literally there are many problems. Some problems probably do need to be addressed, so I don’t mean to sound overly pejorative toward those who are addressing them, but to be honest, I expect very little from hollywood. I want to be as affirming as possible of their efforts to satisfy the Christian community. As someone who was reminded this weekend of all my Christian friends who are working in the film industry, I just want to say how hard it is to get any kind of overt Christian message into a mainstream movie.

The only two big block-buster movies I can think of that basically get it right are Les Miserables and Passion of the Christ. The former was popular because it was a well-known broadway musical and the latter was a hit mainly because it was seen as controversial. I don’t put Man of Steel in the same category as those films. It’s more of a look at Jesus from the view of a non-christian, which I always find helpful. And, again, that is why some commentary may be necessary.

I want to say this: Jesus can take care of himself. To quote Shane Hipps, The Gospel needs fewer guards and more gardeners. Don’t be threatened by the fact that every detail doesn’t match up with a Christian worldview. See this film as what it is: an opportunity to talk about Jesus where otherwise there wasn’t one.