The Giver

Show me a movie based on a young adult novel that captures the voice in a simple, mature way, and I’ll show you a surprised critic. Probably a panel of them. But that doesn’t always mean it’s a bad film, which is something worth remembering that, going into a film like “The Giver.”

Based off the famous 1993 novel by Lois Lowry, it follows Jonas (Brenton Thwaites, Maleficent, Oculus) through the utopian future he lives in. There’s no war, there’s no strife, there’s no pain. In its place is sameness, and a society run by elders (headed by Meryl Streep, The Devil Wears Prada, Doubt) that — nicely — governs the lives of its citizens so thoroughly it observes them and then assigns them a job when they come of age.

And so Jonas passively accepts his new role to take over for the current Receiver of Memories (Jeff Bridges, The Big Lebowski, True Grit), a rare position that he’s warned will cause pain and isolate him from the rest of society.

Next to a veteran like Bridges — an actor whose permanent disposition is followed by his own drummer — Thwaites’ Jonas seems even more like a sheep getting the wool out of its eyes. As he’s exposed to his first taste of difference, color, and life beyond the society, there’s more and more of Bridges’ natural-Dude persona oozes out of him. His mannerisms are caught somewhere between the actor’s showmanship and the movie’s (intentional, I’m guessing) forced acting. Bridges walks the line the best, staying believable but not revolutionary to the societal norms, where others can’t quite break out of their two-dimensional boxes.

Like most teen films it won’t win any awards for acting. The script just isn’t there for the actors to grow from, but, importantly, the skeleton of the book is. Sure, there’s the compulsorily added romance and action sequence, and ultimately the insightful magic of the novel gets lost in translation. But that’s it. “The Giver” clearly has its heart in the right place (the novel) even if the messages can’t quite be broadcasted in the same way. Director Phillip Noyce has a solid grip on the simple, visual grace of the world; using color and flashbacks to effectively communicate to the audience whether they read the book or not. It’s a shame the Hollywood packaging can’t quite give it enough staying power the novel had.

Half of a Yellow Sun

Set against the backdrop of the Nigerian civil war in the 1960s, “Half of a Yellow Sun” follows Olanna (Thandie Newton, The Pursuit of Happyness, Run Fatboy Run) and Odenigbo (Chiwetel Ejifor, 12 Years a Slave, Kinky Boots) through their lives before and during the war. Olanna comes from a sophisticated family; she and her sister just returned from getting their education in England. Odenigbo, is a “radical professor,” who has a growing interest in the Igbo people struggling to create Biafra as an independent republic.

The story is an adaptation of the 2006 bestselling novel by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, a Nigerian feminist and writer whose TEDx talk was recently sampled by Beyoncé in her song “***Flawless.” The film is a sprawling story, anchored in strong performances by Newton and Ejifor, who each bring a quiet intensity to their roles, which drive the heart of “Half of a Yellow Sun.”

Most book adaptations can delve into episodic, and “Half of a Yellow Sun” is no exception. There’s a lot of ground to cover between the personal lives of Odengibo, Olanna, and her sister Kainene (Anika Noni Rose, Dreamgirls, The Princess and the Frog). Frequently it can feel as if the movie is delving into melodrama of the sisters’ lives and relationships, and though strong performances carry the film through its low points, it doesn’t erase them completely.

It might not stay with you forever; melodrama in book adaptations rarely do. And for all the finer points of the movie it’s hard to get past that. But there’s heart and history to be had in “Half of a Yellow Sun,” and set against the gorgeous Nigerian backdrop that’s not half bad.

Divergent

In the age of the Buzzfeed quiz (as it’s seeming more and more likely archeologists will refer to now) it seems serendipitous that Divergent would be released. The premise lies in a future, dystopian Chicago, where survivors live behind a wall, and are divided into five factions to “prevent further fighting” based on their strengths and values.

When you turn 16, you are tested and then choose between Abnegation, for the selfless; Amity, for the peaceful; Candor, for the honest; Dauntless, for the brave; and Erudite for the intelligent. When Beatrice Prior (Shailene Woodley) goes to take her test, she’s shocked to learn she’s one of the few that’s coded as “divergent:” she could test successfully into three of the five factions.

She opts to leave her Abnegation home for Dauntless, which are like the police force, if the police force was an action hero raised as a lost boy from Hook. As she struggles to make the cut in Dauntless, Tris (as she comes to be known) uncovers a conspiracy, and gets close to the hulky and aloof Four (Theo James).

If the book wasn’t so young-adult-novel about its message, it would be more interesting. It spends so much time talking about the dangers of conformity that ultimately its a pretty nondescript dystopian imagining. Divergents won’t or don’t have to conform to the structure of the government’s thinking, but it’s never quite clear what that means, or to what extent they are “free.”

It’s indicative of a problem the film has overall: basing itself on the pacing of the young-adult series of the same name, it settles itself in all the wrong places. Hoping to keep a PG-13 rating the atrocities are minimized, end game downplayed to almost nothing, and the endless training montages of the Dauntless camp seem to drag on. Divergent really lets you feel the full weight of the 139 minutes.

I’m told that the long run time (and seemingly random plot pockets) is a symptom of its strict loyalty to the book, which may please the fans who are able to follow the inner-workings of Tris and her society that don’t make it into the dialogue.

Woodley, a talented standout in films like The Descendants and The Spectacular Now, does what she can with the character of Tris, but she ends up doing a lot of the screenwriters work for them. It’s a sort of Jon Snow principle: the inner-thoughts on page that make the character dynamic and a viable conduit for the reader. Those of us who favor big screen adaptations are left filling in the blanks.

Divergent won’t be the worst movie of the year, by a long shot. But the little it has going for it is ultimately squashed under the weight of scene upon scene of training. Which in the end yield a whole lot of message for very little pay off in the end. So when it comes to dystopian action you’ll find me browsing a different category, because it’s not nearly as different or dangerous as it asks its characters to be.

Ender’s Game

Lowers surgery mask, shakes head slowly

Well folks, it’s finally here. The novel “Ender’s Game,” as classic to some as it is contemporary, is now a major motion picture. And apparently Battle School is sponsored by Adidas.

It’s hundreds of years in the future, and planet Earth has united behind the International Fleet to defend against an invading alien race known as the “buggers.” It’s decades after the devastating invasion, and mankind is preparing for the next one by sending off their most gifted children to train at Battle School. Young Ender Wiggin (Asa Butterfield) is a shy but tactically brilliant boy, and Colonel Hyrum Graff (Harrison Ford) believes that he may have what it takes to save mankind — one way or another.

It’s based off of the 1985 novel of the same name which its homophobic author Orson Scott Card once called unfilmable. And unfortunately, though this adaptation has his blessing, it’s still pretty clear why he said that. Much of the novel takes place in Ender’s head: his inner thoughts and feelings are what drives both his character and inform the story. In order to properly adapt the saga to the big screen the audience has to be somehow informed of Ender’s internal moral reasoning.

Unfortunately, “Ender’s Game” attempts this via randomly sprinkled voiceovers and a lot of painful, poorly written dialogue. The film sports a solid cast of veteran actors (Ben Kingsley, Hailee Steinfeld, Viola Davis, and Abigail Breslin join Ford and Butterfield for training) and in the end there’s no reason they should come off as wooden as they do, given their talent and source material. Butterfield certainly has the most material and does a good job grounding Ender intelligently as the teenager he is, but he’s also responsible for some of the most agonizing, exposition-laden dialogue.

There seems to be nothing the movie can do to really adapt the nuance of these characters; there’s just not enough time and far too much to adapt. The first 50 or so pages (the events surrounding Ender leaving for Battle School) will feel like a blur to book-readers who are mentally filling in the gaps, but people unfamiliar with the book may just be left dizzy from the pace.

It almost feels like a deliberate choice on the part of the director Gavin Hood (who also penned the screenplay) to make Ender feel like an outsider, even in his own home. But the story continues to blur by once it reaches Battle School. Switching quickly from montage to single scene, it expects viewers to see and accept all the personal growth of the characters without the satisfaction of understanding how they got there.

The big pay off for the movie lies in the special effects: the battle room at the school, the final war scene, the futuristic technology. While it’s true that Hood creates a world with advanced iPads and versatile Kinect technology, and the backdrop of the battle room is splendid, unfortunately, there’s no versatile camera work (a la “Gravity”) to inspire the true feel of zero gravity.

It’s hard to say whether “Ender’s Game” suffered because it tried to adapt itself too much or just in the wrong areas, but it’s clear early on that it certainly lost the nuance of the novel ― if not much more. Nothing in the sea of issues floating through the movie feels resolved by the credits, and certainly not to the profoundness the filmmakers seem to think it does. It’s shiny and glittery, but “Ender’s Game” has nothing new to offer. Game off.

Verdict: Fans of the book will be disappointed, and fresh viewers will likely find it messy in all the wrong places.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Oh no, not another teen movie.  The movie industry has churned emo after angsty film about how kids don’t fit in because they listen to The Smiths or wear cigarette thin skinny jeans.  These films often mistake melancholy for complexity and assume that MPDGs (girl or guy) or montage makeovers are instant remedies for social awkwardness.  Wallflower does fall victim to some of these tropes, but easily compensates these shortcomings with sincerity and honesty.  

The Perks of Being A Wallflower, based off the hit novel (which neither of us have read, so we can’t really speak to it as an adaptation), follow the introverted high school freshman Charlie (Logan Lerman, Percy Jackson, Gamer) through his roller-coaster freshman year.  His seclusive and quirky behavior quickly ostracizes him from his classmates. In a rare show of courage, Charlie makes friends with Sam (Emma Watson, Harry Potter films) and Patrick (Ezra Miller, We Need to Talk About Kevin), indoctrinate him into their motley crew of misfits and a life beyond his depression.

Stephen Chbosky takes on triple duty, being the author, screenwriter, and director (his debut no less).  The rookie director shows tremendous control and conviction throughout the film, notably through his navigation of different adolescent ambiances.  We feel Charlie’s ironic sense of existentially morose isolation in large groups but the same time we feel his invincibility of being able to make ephemeral moments infinite.

The movie wouldn’t be as profound if it didn’t have the acting chops to back it up. The three main stars, notably, all deliver more than solid performances; transforming what could’ve been mundane angst into realized emotions. Lerman and Miller in particular bring depth to their characters that lingers even when they’re off camera. Watson herself dons a pretty passable American accent and rises above the MPDG trope into a fleshed out female character.

Is Wallflower Rebel Without a Cause? No. Is it a John Hughes film? No.  There are moments of forced poignancy as well as over pretension.  As Ezra Miller’s character points out “My life is officially an afterschool special.”  And yes, you will feel this way.  But even the rather minor infuriations help elucidate not only adolescence, but our condition as well.  We profess our affection for obscure bands to feel unique, or over inflate instances to give our life significance.  But these imperfections help us grow and in the case of Wallower, helps it blossom.  So yes, there are definitely perks to seeing Wallflower.        

 

The Hunger Games

He said: 

            I’ll admit it. I jumped on hard on The Hunger Games bandwagon.  Just a short two or three weeks before the film came out, I devoured the three novels of the trilogy.  Soon, my room was adorned with pictures of Jennifer Lawrence and my Google searches were filled with Peeta Bread jokes.  While the prose had the sophistication of an ABC family series, the plot was compelling and appropriate for our times.  However with Young Adult debacles such as Holes, Eragon, and The First Two Harry Potter films, I tempered my expectations.  Even more than that, I feared that the movie would become greater than the social commentary.  A book that cried out against the obscene voyeurism perpetuated by a monstrous media had a film which paraded its cast around the country like the Tributes from each of the districts.  Faster than you can say Rooney Mara, Jennifer Lawrence became Hollywood’s new “It” girl and would become a blockbuster-gladiatorial spectacle. 

            So with reservations I entered the theater with low expectations, only to be proven wrong; at least by the first half of the film.  Gary Ross, having previously galloped into our hearts with Seabiscut, employs a viscerally framed camera to portray the grittiness and concentration-camp like atmosphere of the districts.  His sound mixing and editing seamlessly maintain the tempo of intense action sequences and the tender moments between the characters.  I was most impressed by both the subtlety and iconography used to force the mirror to society.  Ross demonstrates the naivety of the American public’s willingness to be manipulated by reality television and the media as well as our grotesque tolerance for violence and destitution.  I was most struck by a scene not included in the book, where District 11 riots against the Capitol, employing biting imagery not too different from the police brutality of our generation’s Occupy Movement. So yes, mirror to society; HELD.

            However, the second half of the film is where the shackles of the PG-13 rating takes its toll.  As I read the graphic details of death and trauma, I wondered how the film would still retain its poignancy with a PG-13 rating.  It was simple; it didn’t.  There were so many moments in this film where I could see it on the precipice of reaching greatness but instead exercised great restraint.  In order to hit a wider audience, the film went for a PG-13 rating, but at the cost of being bogged down by heavy censorship and pulled punches.  One of the aspects of the novels I praised was handling the subjects of trauma, but the movie softened many of its traumatic scenes, reducing the poignancy of the violence.  Even more so, I felt that the relationship between Peeta and Katniss was not completely fleshed out.  The cave scene was supposed to be sexually charged with tenderness and moments of sincerity.  That was the point in the book where I felt Katniss and Peeta really connected with each other, even if some of it was staged.  That tension and eroticism was completely missing from the film.  I was expecting the Girl on Fire and the Boy with the Bread to really burn some toast, but it was more like a limp loaf of Wonderbread.

            So yes, The Hunger Games is solid popcorn film that still maintains the integrity of the commentary and spirit of the novels.  However, the amount of restraint and lack of relationship left the film more of a crackling ember than a roaring flame.  Hopefully the next film will be able to (put glasses on), catch fire.       

 

She said: 

Regardless of whether you’ve read the book:
            This movie was definitely a really quality blockbuster flick. Gary Ross (Seabiscuit and Pleasantville) manages to completely utilize both the cinematography and soundtrack to create an atmosphere that envelops you until it finally reaches the end. Ross often lets the score fall as almost a secondary thought to the scene, letting the full emotional effect wash over you. A welcome breath of fresh air from the winter (largely) droll that has been gracing our movie screens. In the mood to treat yo’ self to a flick? Go see it.  

IF you’ve read the book:
            I read The Hunger Games long enough ago that by the time the hype and fan girl screams started on the horizon I felt ambivalent enough to land fairly decisively in the “Excited, but reserved” camp. While I accept that most book-to-film adaptations have to change things, I never seem to be pleased with the changes made. Unfortunately, Hunger Games didn’t exactly exceed my expectations.
            Don’t get me wrong though: Hunger Games is a good movie. But having read the book, I felt that it was a watered-down version of what I wanted: I wanted it to really pack the oomph the book does, to really reflect the Occupy movement, and incite discussion. The filmmakers did add in a nice scene of an uprising in District 11 that foreshadows the plots of the next book; reflecting some real turmoil of our times. But largely, it not only couldn’t facilitate all those things (the movie, while brisk, did feel a bit long after 2.5 hours) when watered-down, but also almost became exactly what the book set out to criticize. Everything is so simplified and rushed that the audience never really got to settle or deal with the shock of all the ill fortune. A curse also delivered in the form of a PG-13 rating; the violence is never allowed to truly jolt the audience, thereby losing the critique of it all.
            The book is chock-full of complex characters, biting criticism, and bitter pain. In its haste to make it to the big-screen the movie lets most of this fall by the wayside in order to deliver a more universally palpable movie. As far as big-budget movies go, The Hunger Games does deliver a good time. But all in all, despite the promise it manages to be little more than a blockbuster.