3/24/2015 0 Comments 'Insurgent' Movie ReviewBecause the Hunger Games series is on its final legs, Hollywood gives us the sequel to last year's Divergent, Insurgent, with hopes of milking the profits until the "teen dystopia" well runs dry.
The story thus far: in future Chicago (don't ask me what's going on with the rest of Illinois, or the United States for that matter), society has been divided into five factions based on personality traits, such as honesty, bravery, etc. But there are those who fit into multiple factions, called "divergents." And these divergents, well, they simply must be stopped. Our lead hero, Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), is a divergent on the run from the powers that be. With the help of her brother, Caleb (The Fault in Our Stars' Ansel Elgort) and boyfriend, Four (Theo James), Tris is seeking to raise up an army of rebels to take on the leader of the oppressive system, Jeanine (Kate Winslet). Woodley is an actor who never gives any less than her all, and this film is no exception. She effortlessly evokes the emotional depth of a teen thrust into a leadership position (sort of like the protagonist from those Hunger Games movies). Though it's a note that's been played before, Woodley plays it strong and makes it her own. Unfortunately, however, Woodley happens to be the glue holding this thing together. Costars Elgort and James are just along for the ride, rarely sporting any conviction in their roles, and Oscar winner Kate Winslet is the most one-note blank slate since Johnny Depp in Transcendence. The most ostentatious extent of her performance is limited to standing stoically, while her menacing lines are all she needs to clue the audience in that she's the villain. The only supporting actor worth remembering is Whiplash star Miles Teller as Peter, a sharp thorn in Tris's side. Teller hits all the right notes of pure despicable enjoyment, appearing reminiscent of a gleefully cheesy '80s movie villain and happily soaking in every minute of the role. On another positive note, the occasional bursts of action are well-shot and exciting, injecting life into the otherwise clunky narrative. A particularly exhilarating sequence involves Tris wired to a computer simulator, attempting to unlock a box that only a divergent can open. This is exciting because on the one hand, the box is there to provide mystery, and on the other hand, you're genuinely rooting for Tris to beat the sim, all the while the line between reality and simulation is being blurred. But, then there's the story, the world of which is plagued by a lack of explanation. What happened to the rest of the United States? What led to the conception of dystopian Chicago? The first Divergent distracted its audience from these issues by crafting an underdog story that revolved around Tris becoming a fighter, and it was entertaining. But when Insurgent expands its grounds into the bigger world, it needs to make sure that its world has been fleshed out beforehand. Otherwise, the audience is just strung along in a make-it-up-as-you-go mess. While it's far from awful, Insurgent just isn't very memorable. It's not going to give you the night terrors of a truly terrible film, nor will it leave you pondering its meanings. And that's because it just feels like it's going through the motions, as though author Veronica Ross misinterpreted the best parts of The Hunger Games, and then forcefully fed the resultant through a movie-making machine. However, if you can look past the gaping plot holes and enjoy the film for its dynamic leading actor and thrilling action sequences, it can be a good time. And in terms of young adult adaptations, it's an insurmountable upgrade from the abysmal Twilight saga. On the whole, however, it just didn't do it for me. I'm giving Insurgent two stars out of four.
0 Comments
3/15/2015 0 Comments SPOILER Analysis: 'Whiplash'Whiplash is an excellent film with a very straightforward story on the surface, which makes for a ton of interesting complexities underneath. I would like to discuss these hidden meanings in detail, but before doing so, I should note that this will require dropping major spoilers, so if you haven't seen Whiplash, please check out my review, and then see the film. Otherwise, welcome.
Right off the bat, we're introduced to our two leading characters, college freshman Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller) and music instructor Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons). In their first scene together, we get just enough information about each character's personality: Andrew is an aspiring jazz drummer driven by his desire to become a legend, and Fletcher is an impatient perfectionist bent on creating a legend. From here on, we get to spend a little time with Andrew, learning about him as a character: he has a determined path, and his strong academic focus makes him awkward socially. He manages to ask out a girl named Nicole who works at a cinema that he frequents, but sticks out like a sore thumb in his own family. His father, aunt, uncle, and cousins listen to music for leisure, but none appreciate it as an art form like he does. This is why Andrew submits to Fletcher. Throughout the film, Fletcher becomes more and more relentless, peeling back the layers of his personality and putting Andrew through a barrage of abuses, including slapping, chair-throwing, and treating the youth as a verbal punching bag. So why does Andrew put up with it? Because, without even realizing it, Andrew appreciates what Fletcher sees in him. Fletcher believes that there is a legend inside of Andrew, and that with enough hardship, he can bring that legend to the surface. Andrew submits to Fletcher because nobody else, not even his father who loves and supports him endlessly, sees what Fletcher sees in him. Because his father doesn't see music as an art like Andrew does, he doesn't see Andrew as an artist, and can't guide him like Fletcher can (for better or worse). So, is Fletcher a misunderstood perfectionist, or just a straight-up monster? Depending on how you look at it, it can be both, or neither. In much the same way as Andrew letting Fletcher get inside his head, causing him to lose his temper more often and even break up with Nicole, Fletcher himself has unforseen consequences for his actions (or whiplash). He set out to create a jazz legend, pushing students beyond their limits and expectations, claiming that "the next Charlie Parker would never be discouraged." He even regales Andrew with a tale of Parker becoming famous after a higher up threw a cymbal at his head for slipping up, motivating him never to fail again, and then emulates the act by throwing a chair at Andrew during a rehearsal. If you can get on board with chair-hurling, everything checks out...that is, until it's revealed that Shawn Casey, a former student of Fletcher's, was driven to commit suicide. So, is Andrew truly the greatest jazz drummer of his time...or just the most resilient? This leads to my favorite part of the film, the ending. After attacking Fletcher for kicking him out of the band, Andrew is suspended from Shaffer Music Academy, and Fletcher has lost his teaching position. The two unintentionally reunite in a jazz club, and Fletcher invites Andrew to play with his band at Carnegie Hall, where he sabotages Andrew's performance. Humiliated but not defeated, Andrew leaves the embrace of his father and returns to the stage, delivering a rousing drum solo and giving Whiplash the perfect sports movie ending in which the underdog comes out triumphant. Or does he? By returning to the stage, Andrew thinks he's overcoming Fletcher, but it's really quite the opposite. Yes, he has outlasted Fletcher's demeaning teachings and even become a master of his craft (evidenced by his solo), but what's it all worth? Andrew has only proven to Fletcher that his teachings are effective, and thus encouraging him to do it again with other students. As a result, Fletcher will always believe he's won the war with Andrew, and Andrew will always be haunted by him. In the end, there's plenty to be learned from both of these characters. It's important to set yourself high standards, but when your pursuit takes away from your enjoyment of what you're doing, it's time to take a step back. Then again, you learn best from your mistakes, so maybe a little struggle is worth a lot of payoff. But how much hardship is too much, and when is the line crossed (and yes, Fletcher, there is a line, as we've learned from Shawn Casey)? Even Andrew's inspiration, the great Charlie Parker, with all of his fame and talent, still died alone and drug-addled in his thirties. Whiplash doesn't make a concrete resolution to any of these questions, it just leaves it up to the audience to decide. You can draw your own conclusions by watching the film yourself, and contributing to the debate. This has just been my interpretation. Thanks for reading. |
|