Divergent (2014) Review

Directed by
Neil Burger

            Imagine this: In a not-too-distant future, America has suffered through a mysterious war and has subsequently been divided into twelve five factions.  These factions are based on socio-economic class intellectual aptitude, and each year, young people who have come of age must battle each other in a fight to the death choose a faction to join, which will determine which other factions they will battle against in a fight to the death.   

            One fearless, plucky young woman, Katness Everdeen Beatrice Prior, is chosen among the ordinary masses.  She must fight in order to protect her sisterbrother and the rest of her family from some mysterious, dangerous government types.  Along the way, she endures a series of brutal physical trainings and discovers that she excels at bow and arrow knife throwing.  She has a love interest named PeetaFour, who must hide his admiration for her in order to himself survive.  All the while, the ominous President SnowKate Winslet looks on, realizing that Katniss Beatrice has a special ability to resist conformity and lead a revolution against the evil people in charge.

            OK, so Divergent isn’t the world’s most original concept.  Like The Hunger Games, it adapts a popular Young Adult book series on to the big screen and opts to tell a dark, dystopian story that’s clearly too adult for Disney.  But let’s give it credit where credit is due – it does manage to be different than The Hunger Games in a few notable ways.  The Hunger Games holds an 84% approval rating from Rotten Tomatoes; Divergent only has 40% approval.  The Hunger Games grossed an extraordinary $190 million in its opening week, while Divergent only grossed a modest $68 million.  And while The Hunger Games managed to entertain both fans of the book as well those who were uninitiated, Divergent is impaired because of numerous loose story ends, which may have been accounted for in the book series but remain underexamined over the course of the nearly two-and-a-half hour film. 

            The story.  On the surface, its most obvious similarities are to The Hunger Games, but viewers older than 15 years old will also recognize parallels to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Minority Report and Inception (there’s even a scene where two characters hook up diodes to each other’s brains and enter a dream world).  As Beatrice explains in the most jam-packed opening two minutes of exposition since the first scene of Casablanca, the survivors of the unnamed war now inhabit what remains of greater Chicago, and are divided into five factions: Erudition, Dauntless, Amity, Candor and Abnegation (one wonders whether the book series was published with the hopes of boosting teen readers’ verbal SAT scores).   Beatrice and her family belong to the Abnegation clan, which operate the government because of their selflessness and care for humanity.  As she reaches adulthood, she must take a personality exam which will advise her which faction to join.  Once she makes her choice, it is permanent, meaning that if she chooses to join a group other than Abnegation, she will likely never see her family again.

            But why?  What is the point of this seemingly unnecessary and burdensome dispersal of the small remaining human population?  Even after seeing this movie, I’m still not sure I can answer this question (and like a couple of the houses at the Hogwarts School, at least two of the factions seem entirely irrelevant to the story).  Of course, we didn’t have all the answers at the end of The Hunger Games either, but that was OK because the main thrust of the narrative was simple to understand – two dozen kids killing each other in front of giddy audiences.  But the lack of clarity sticks out in Divergent like a sore thumb.  Every time we begin to become involved with the story, nagging unresolved issues frustratingly come into the fray, and fail to get sufficiently answered.

            The best part of the movie is in the first hour, when Beatrice has decided to reject her family and its faction by joining Dauntless.  She does this because the personality test she takes indicates that she has characteristics of Dauntless, Abnegation and Erudite – in other words, her results indicate that she is a “divergent,” which we’re told is dangerous because – well, again we’re never really told why.  Oh well, maybe they’ll explain it more in the sequel.  So concealing her true test results, she joins Dauntless, which is supposed to be the military clan, but the ways in which they crawl up buildings and leap off trains make them seem more like delinquent hoodlums.  The movie shows rites of initiation, and Beatrice (who renames herself “Tris”) must learn to suppress her “divergent” psychological tendencies and instead channel bravery and gleefully approaching dangerous situations. 

            These training scenes work because, like the training sequences in Rocky, Hoosiers or any sports movie, we like to see characters gradually transform themselves into more confident and powerful people – especially when it involves sweat, knife-throwing, and an upbeat soundtrack.  But even here, basic logic interferes with the skillfulness of these scenes.  What are they training for?  Is this future society preparing for war?  The stakes are never fully established until midway through the film, when we learn that Erudition is attempting to launch a coup against Abnegation’s unilateral control of the government.  But even this explanation is unsatisfactory because Dauntless is never able to put up a fight after Erudition induces them with a magical serum (gotta love those magical serums!) in which they blindly follow the orders of the radical and deranged would-be revolutionaries (headed by Kate Winslet, looking uncomfortably close to Hilary Clinton and invoking the diabolic spirit of Jodie Foster in Elysium).  Meanwhile, all people who are divergent, like Tris, are sought after because . . . well, maybe someone who read the books can explain this better than I can.

            You’ve probably had enough of reading about this ludicrous plot (I’m sick of writing about it), but let me just point out the most ridiculous part of the story.  Remember how I said Tris has to take a personality exam?  Well, the person who administers the test (played by Nikita’s Maggie Q) is the one who tells her to conceal her result of “divergent.”  So the movie moves on and we don’t expect to ever see her again, until suddenly, midway through the film, she shows up with the Dauntless people as – get this – a tattoo artist!  That’s right, after her daytime job as a tester on behalf of the state authorities, she moonlights nights at an underground tattoo parlor, where she is conveniently able to remind Tris that she’s in mortal danger and must not tell anyone about her divergence.  What are the odds!  She must have taken the second job because those Abnegations in charge must be underpaying their valuable employees at the testing center.  And that must be the reason why the government is being overthrown, since the screenplay doesn’t offer any other clear explanation. 

            So let’s remove the logic factor for a second and consider whether this movie is worth seeing so long as you are able to completely and totally shut off all deductive reasoning for 140 minutes.  Admittedly, there are good things about it.  As Tris, Shailene Woodley is likable and convincing (although it never feels quite right seeing her run around with a shotgun in her arms) and she has good romantic rapport with her fellow Dauntless member, Four (played by Theo James, effectively able to combine Team Edward and Team Jacob into one analogous dreamboat).  As stated above, the training sequences are lively and the movie manages to move along at a brisk pace (save the climactic battle scenes at the end, which drag on far too long).  CGI Chicago looks great.  Fans of the book will undoubtedly enjoy it.  And even though the story is preposterous, there is something undeniably interesting about it (and it’s not like The Hunger Games is exactly Tolstoy).  Defenders of Divergent will say it is an underdeveloped introduction to a rich and complex world where your personality decides your fate; cynics will say that its appeal is a direct result of its close resemblance to better films in the already well-represented “dystopian future” genre.  But unfortunately for the film, in the internal battle between my heart and my brain, Amity is no match for Erudition. 

Rating: 2.5 stars

Read More

SNL 39.7 Review - Josh Hutcherson, Haim

When young celebrities get an opportunity to host Saturday Night Live, it is always interesting to see what kind of actor they really are.  Josh Hutcherson was just one of these cases.  Would he be able to hold his own, or would he have to be carried through the episode?  Not only did Hutcherson hold his own, but he ended up carrying everyone else in what was probably the worst episode of the season so far.  Hutcherson was great, but the writing staff really gave him nothing to work with.  From start to finish, it was just a poor effort.  Let's look at it.

Cold Opening

To lead off the show, the writers decided to attack another contemporary topic much like they did the time before with Rob Ford.  However, this week did not go over quite as well.  They started with their great impression of Piers Morgan from Taran Killam, but the topic of George Zimmerman, the man connected to the tragedy of Trayvon Martin, was not funny.  I found it tasteless and ill-spirited.  There's something about kicking a guy when he's down that doesn't strike me as funny.  The Rob Ford sketch the week before was a little better because, honestly, it's one of those "can't make it up" scenarios.  The plight of George Zimmerman I find more depressing than anything.  Why make fun of it?  On top of all that, can we get a better impression than Men's Warehouse's George Zimmer than Beck Bennett repeating "I guarantee it" over and over again.  It did not get the show off to a good start.

Monologue

With Josh Hutcherson hosting, you knew The Hunger Games had to come up at some point.  The monologue was a good way to get it out of the way so they could say they did it and move on.  This is exactly what they did.  However, the way they did it ended up with the cast hijacking Josh's monologue in a "cast member fight to the death" scenario.  It wasn't very funny, but rarely are these pop culture references a huge hit.

Weekend Update

It seems the Weekend Update segments have been shrinking over the last couple episodes.  At one point, we were up to three solid guest appearances on the segment.  We only had one this time (at least one worth speaking of).  Aidy Bryant is always someone worth watching when she gets a chance to shine as she did here as the "Worst Lady on an Airplane."  It wasn't a great new character, but like I said, Aidy owned it and made it one of the few highlights from the episode.

Best Sketch

This was a hard one to determine.  The one I wanted to go with here was a creative sketch where the entirety of Josh Hutcherson's lines were from the hit 80's classic "Your Love" as he tried to woo his crush.  However, because of the lovely copyright laws it will never be seen online.  So instead I'll name my favorite from this episode one that has really grown on me since I saw it.  It documents the work of a subway dance troop named Matchbox 3 that specializes in crowded subways.  The highlight of the troop is Lil' Peanut (Hutcherson).  Enjoy the show!  Enjoy the show!

Worst Sketch

There were so many odd sketches in this episode that just didn't work for me.  The worst of these weird sketches was about a top economist who just happened to be stuck in a baby's body.  Yep, a man in a suit acting like a baby.  I really like Beck Bennett being in the cast, but he really had some big duds this time around with this being the biggest of them all.  This was just stupid.

Dark Horse Sketch

One bit of silliness that happened to be a lot of fun was one of the later sketches where silliness is supposed to reign.  It surrounded an animal hospital that was very particular about their forms after each pet they received turned up dead.  Josh Hutcherson really shined in this one along with several others.  That kid can really act.

Grade

Like I have said, Josh Hutcherson showed that he is worth inviting back.  He is quite the talented young actor that took a lot of risks for a first-time hosts that paid off.  The problem was nothing else worked.  The sketches were bad, the writing was weird, and some of the performances were dull.  Hopefully, they weeded out all the duds leading up to their big run towards Christmas.  In fact, the best part of the episode was finding out the next three hosts were Paul Rudd, John Goodman, and concluding with Jimmy Fallon hosting the Christmas episode with Justin Timberlake as the musical guest (which basically makes a co-host scenario of two of the best they could get).  Hopefully, the writers do a better job putting together good material for this all-star lineup.

***D***

Watch full episode here:

Read More

Zach's Top Ten Films of 2012

I disagree with Todd about 2012.  I think it was the best year in movies since (at least) 2009.  In fact, I can prove this: That year, Inglorious Basterds ranked 5 on my year-end list.  This year, Django Unchained did not even make my top ten list.  And yet, I would consider Django a slightly better film between the two (solid Tarantino, not amazing, but still undeniably entertaining).  It is also the first year in my life where, if given choice between going to a theater and staying at home watching a movie, I would stay at home.  Theater audiences are talking and texting at seeming record-highs.  And it’s not a “generational” thing, as the talking heads love to claim – it’s more often than not 40-50 year olds who can’t shut up.  One of these days, I’ll grow up and tell them what I think . . . or maybe I’ll just trust the opposite of my instinct. OK, I’ll stop being grumpy now.

Films seen: 53
Thumbs up percentage: 56.66%

Best Actor: Jack Black, Bernie
Best Actress: Jennifer Lawrence, The Hunger Games

Best Supporting Actor: Michael Pena, End of Watch

Best Supporting Actress: Cecile de France, The Kid With a Bike

Underrated Films: Prometheus, The Dictator

Overrated Films: Silver Linings Playbook, The Cabin in the Woods, The Avengers

If I was an Oscar voter: Zero Dark Thirty, Michael Haneke (I haven’t seen Amour but it would be cool if he won), Daniel Day-Lewis, Jessica Chastain, Tommy Lee Jones, Helen Hunt. I think the Oscar nominations this year absolutely suck.

Worst Films of 2012: I’ll write this in an article about this later this week.  They deserve to be criticized at length.

Honorable Mention: Django Unchained, The Grey, A Late Quartet, Lincoln, Magic Mike

10. Compliance (Craig Zobel) Let me explain this pick.  First of all, I would not recommend you see this movie.  It is absolutely unbearable to watch.  Like Funny Games, it is not so much a movie or conventional story, but an experiment in illustrating human depravity manifested in its must vulgar forms.  The story (based on real-life events) takes place at a McDonalds restaurant, where a prank caller posing as a police detective orders one of the young female employees to strip, while various men are escorted in to “watch over” her.  It is neither entertaining nor sensational nor even particularly insightful.  It simply portrays the events as they surely must have happened, and it is horrifying.  It is like the 15-minute rape sequence in Irreversible stretched out to 85 minutes.  Some objected to the film’s sympathy for its characters’ unbelievably stupid actions, but the film effectively makes audiences question how blind compliance leads to unforgivable consequences.  The jury may be out on whether this is a “good” film or not, but few films have ever gotten deeper under my skin. 

9. Arbitrage (Nicholas Jarecki) When this film came out in September, most of the publicity it received was a result of its simultaneous DVD-theater-on demand release (“day-and-date” release).  But refreshingly, it actually turned out to be an outstanding film, starring Richard Gere (in maybe his best performance ever) as a hedge fund magnate who is caught in two serious, coinciding crises: The buyout of his firm, which has been guilty of accounting fraud for years, and the death of his mistress, for which he is squarely responsible.  The ways in which he is able to constantly get himself out of the walls caving in around him is amazing, and really makes you wonder whether the movie is just showing the powerful connections of Wall Street elite or, in a strange morbid way, romanticizing the craftiness of corrupt officials like Bernie Madoff (which Gere’s character appears at least partially inspired by).  Like last year’s brilliant Margin Call, this is a film rich with details about not just the downfall of Wall Street after the 2008 meltdown, but about the people most responsible (and subsequently affected) by the crash.  This is made all the more impressive by the fact that is the first feature screenplay and film by the 33-year-old director.

                                                         

8. Looper (Rian Johnson)  Think Minority Report-meets-The Terminator with a little bit of Inception on the side.  It’s not just that the story is ingenious, involving elements of time-travel, black market crime syndicates, and vigilante terrorism, but that the particular dramatic situations cannot possibly be described without an intricate knowledge of the sophisticated world the movie creates.  The screenplay is ingenious in its construction of this dystopian future, but also its creation of interesting characters and wonderfully unique encounters (such as when Joseph Gordon-Levitt converses with Bruce Willis, the future version of himself, over a cup of coffee).  Where it lacks Minority Report’s jaw-dropping visual palette, it makes up for in a surprising degree of intimacy, particularly with the characters of Gordon-Levitt and Emily Blunt, who are left with the unenviable task of (yes, just go with me here) deciding how the fate of the world will be impacted through their actions.  And believe it or not, there is not a second of it which is corny.

7. End of Watch (David Ayer)  Technically it is a buddy cop film, but honestly, it is much deeper than that.  Not unlike The Hurt Locker, Ayer’s film explores the undercurrents of men who seek out dangerous situations for a living.  They do it not necessarily because they feel a larger duty to improve the world, but also because they are addicted to the thrill of it.  To them, there is no other worthwhile existence.  Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Pena play the two LAPD cops at the center of the story, who monitor the streets of South Central Los Angeles. The film charts roughly a year in their lives, as they go through various marriages and childbirths in the midst of ongoing drug busts and homicide investigations.  The film is exciting, funny, cynical, tense, and most of all, real.  These feel like extremely real people, which is the result of a unique handheld visual aesthetic, career-best performances by Gyllenhaal and Pena, and a story which at first seems familiar, but delves into quite unexpected terrain at times. 

6. The Queen of Versailles (Lauren Greenfield)  Let me describe this film for you (and hopefully you’re looking at the picture I’ve provided).  This is a documentary about Jaqueline “Jackie” Siegel, a bleached-blonde former model with an impressive boob job.  She is married to David Siegel, 30 years her senior and head of the world’s most profitable time-share corporation.  They are billionaires.  When the film opens in 2008, they are in the process of constructing the world’s most expensive private home (which they dub “Versailles,” pronouncing the “s”).  The first half-hour feels like a Real Wives-esque exploration into the absurd lives of the rich and famous.  But as this film goes along, it turns into something very different: a portrait of aristocratic people struggling to retain not only their economic status, but their dignity.  It does a tremendous job of showing (but not convincing) audiences why anyone ever voted for Mitt Romney.  And maybe the most amazing thing about it is that, in a strange way, the Siegels come off as . . . kind of likable.  Particularly Jackie, who is less bubbly and vapid as she is insightful, candid, and self-deprecating.  And I hate rich people.  I watched this film curious and bored late on a Saturday night.  I have been thinking about it ever since.

5. Bernie (Richard Linklater)  There was no funnier movie in 2012 than Bernie, and there was no performance as dynamic, hilarious, and surprisingly deep as Jack Black.  He plays an East Texas assistant funeral home director who befriends an elderly widow who everyone in town hates.  From there, the story turns into a dark comedy of manners by way of Texas stereotypes (always good fodder for Christopher Guest-inspired mockumentaries like this one).  This is the first collaboration of Black and Richard Linklater since their wonderful School of Rock in 2003, and like that film, Bernie features great music, hilarious one-liners, and a story which at first sounds contrived, but when put in the right hands, is completely unique and fascinating.  Also – the scene introducing the juror members in San Augustine may be the funniest scene I’ve ever seen in a movie.  I’m not being hyperbolic.  When I saw it, I went into compulsive, uncontrollable laugher and missed the next five minutes of the film attempting to be polite to the rest of the audience by controlling myself (unsuccessfully).

4. Argo (Ben Affleck)  Affleck’s three prior features (Hollywoodland, Gone Baby Gone, and The Town) showed competency, even while lacking in sophisticated narrative structures, but Argo is clearly the finest film he’s ever been a part of behind the camera.  The story is compelling because it is constantly shifting between three interesting components: The plight of the hostages in hiding at the Canadian diplomat’s house, the escalating security crisis at the CIA, and the cynical lives of B-list film executives.  Appropriately, the film is full of heart-pulsing action and suspense, tense drama, and biting satire.  Can you think of a more unexpected hybrid of genres?  Not to mention, this film is all based on true declassified events.  There is not a single uninteresting moment in this film as the story is shown with great economy, rising tension, and many surprises.  This is one of many major Hollywood features in the last decade to deal with major crises in the Arab world, but this may be the only one that does it in such a riveting and flat-out entertaining manner.

3. The Kid With a Bike (Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne)  The Dardenne Brothers have never made a bad film (except maybe Lorna’s Silence, which was only OK) and The Kid With a Bike is one of their very best.  The story is, not surprisingly, simple: A 12-year-old boy (with, yes, a bike) is abandoned by his insolvent father, put in an orphanage, and befriended by kindly hairdresser who eventually becomes his guardian of sorts.  He then is tempted into criminal action in spite of his better instincts.  If this sounds like the plot of Oliver Twist, you’re not too far off, since the story also deals with issues of peer pressure, alienation and abandonment, and class divisions.  This is one of those wonderful movies, like last year’s A Separation, which shows straightforward, easily-understood events, but characters whose thoughts and actions are fascinating to read into.  Why does the boy resort to the actions he does?  Why is the woman so deeply drawn to him?  What will happen to these people?  In a lesser film, these might be flaws; in a great film like this, they are blissfully unresolved circumstances left to ponder by engrossed audiences.

2. Zero Dark Thirty (Kathryn Bigelow) Let’s tackle the controversy head on.  First, Republicans have vilified this film because it shows how torture tactics were used to gain intelligence from suspected terrorists (which they say had little direct impact on the Seal Team Six raid), while hunches such as the one Maya has in this film were routinely scoffed at by CIA bureaucracy.  Meanwhile, liberals claim that the film shows how the Obama administration’s anti-torture policies were met with resistance by anti-terrorism units.  Roger Ebert attacked the film (unfairly) as jargon-ridden poor storytelling, while the Academy distanced itself from controversy by not nominating it in several obvious categories (Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Sound).  All of this is inexplicable.  First of all, the torture scenes are shown as part of the larger reality of interrogation processes that existed in detention camps in the years following 9/11; as Bigelow herself recently told the Los Angeles Times, no one can deny that waterboarding was common, if not routine.  To exclude portraying it would be irresponsible and would make Bin Laden’s capture oversimplistic.  The Obama administration is tacitly criticized in the film, but by its characters, not its filmmakers, and the intent is to open up a wider discourse about how we treat suspected terrorists and what appropriate methods of gathering intelligence should be.  Not only is this masterful cinema, but like all great movies, it begs a meaningful dialogue afterwards.  I don’t know if this is a better or worse movie than The Hurt Locker, but for what it’s worth, Bigelow and Boal are the best filmmaking team working today.

1. The Hunger Games (Gary Ross) Like two years ago when I walked into a theater showing the bastardized American remake of Let the Right One In, I never in a million years would have guessed this movie would top my list of the year’s best films, let alone be mentioned on the list (except maybe a spot on the year’s worst films list).  But the truth is, from its opening moments and through its entire running length, The Hunger Games was the year’s most entertaining, unpredictable, and captivating motion picture.  It was the only 2012 film that, while watching it in a darkened, packed movie theater, made me completely forget about the real world around me.  Forget the fact, for a moment, that the film was based on a popular teen book series; this was a film that had a surprising amount of depth in its treatment of media, culture, and socio-economic divisions.  In an election year where the Right vilified “47 percent” of listless Americans (read: anyone not male, white, affluent, or straight), The Hunger Games’ portrayal of the lower districts’ triumph over the aristocratic elite was uplifting, powerful, and surprisingly relevant in today’s society.   Yes, Elizabeth Banks and Wes Bentley looked ridiculous, but if you can get past that, the story is quite deep.  But the film also worked as terrific entertainment, with Jennifer Lawrence giving the best “girl kicking ass” performance this side of Beatrix Kiddo.  Looking back at the last few years, the films which tend to be number one on my list share one trait: They take themselves seriously.  The Hunger Games could have been a kitschy, over-the-top action satire for teens, but Gary Ross and screenwriter Billy Ray knew this story was more than that, and they made a movie adaptation of the book far better than it deserved to be. 

Thoughts? Disagreements? As long as its not spoilers about Catching Fire, feel free to post below!

Read More