Insurgent - Movie Review

Insurgent

Director: Robert Schwentke

Written By: Brian Duffield, Akiva Goldsman, Mark Bomback (screenplay), (based off the novel by) Veronica Roth

Starring: Shailene Woodley, Ansel Elgort, Theo James

Released: March 20, 2015

119 minutes

Produced By: Neil Burger, Lucy Fisher, David Hoberman, Todd Lieberman, Pouya Shahbazian, Barry H. Waldman, Douglas Wick, and John Wildermuth

I have to say up front that it's been since 2012 that I read Insurgent, and I've only read it one time. Insurgent was such an emotionally draining book that I haven't quite wanted to re-read it yet. Plus with knowing how things end in Allegiant...yeah. Even though this was a really good series, book-wise, I haven't been driven to re-read the 2nd or 3rd books yet. That being said, the little details aren't going to be things that I remember so much as the main events. So keep that in mind when I'm relating something that happened in the movie to something that happened in the book.

Even though I don't remember the little details, there were obviously some fairly major changes made from the book to the movie. There always are. I didn't get bogged down with those too much. I think for the most part, the major events were mostly intact, and if not really intact as far as events go, then usually the emotion behind the events remained. I will say...It was obvious that Tris was really struggling with the deaths of her parents as well as her own hand in Will's death. Shailene Woodley did a wonderful job in the Candor truth syrum scene. But, I still felt like Tris from the movie came off as very strong--even though suffering. That was just not my experience with reading the book. I zeroed in on the way Tris felt in the book. She felt guilt, yes. She didn't feel like she could forgive herself, yes. But it went further than that. When she hands herself over to Jeanine in the book, Tris is doing that more out of self-sabotage or self-punishment than any self-righteous or self-sacrificing reasons. And that is key to the contrast between the events that take place in Allegiant. I didn't feel like the movie did that exactly right.

The actors did a wonderful job. I mentioned Shailene Woodley's portrayal of the truth syrum scene. She's quickly becoming a favorite actress of mine because she really makes me feel what the character is feeling. Theo James did a wonderful job playing Four. He's so tough. Easily believable that he has only 4 fears. And his chemistry with Shailene seems genuine. Ansel Elgort...well that's like a whole different ballgame. I mean in the last movie I saw him in (The Fault in Our Stars), he's playing opposite Shailene Woodley as Augustus Waters--a most beloved character. And so for him to step into the role of Caleb took some adjusting. Yes, he'd played Caleb in Divergent, but he didn't have a huge role, and that was before being Augustus. At one point during Insurgent when Caleb, Tris, and Four are running to jump onto a train and Caleb is struggling to run fast enough, Husband leans over and whispers "He has cancer!!!" I couldn't help but crack up. Seriously though, Ansel does a good job transitioning to Caleb because you can see his cowardice, and you can see at times his struggle with Tris being his sister versus not actually being on Tris's side. I thought that was well played.

Other than the emotional rollercoaster Tris goes through not being quite as brutal as the book, the other there was really only one other moment that caused me to overthink a bit. I don't remember it happening in the book, but I couldn't say for certain that it didn't. And I don't want to really say what it was for spoilers sake--both movie and for Allegiant.

All in all, I thought this was a really solid movie. I really enjoyed it. I love the casting. Visual effects were really good. And even when events from book to movie were different, for the most part the emotion behind the events stayed consistent. I'm giving Insurgent 4 Stars. Have you seen Insurgent? What did you think? Let me know!

Divergent - Movie Review

Divergent

Director: Neil Burger

Written By: Evan Daugherty and Vanessa Taylor (screenplay), Veronica Roth (based on the novel by)

Stars: Shailene Woodley, Theo James, Kate Winslet

Released: March 21, 2014

139 minutes

Produced By: Summit Entertainment (presents) (A Neil Burger Film), Red Wagon Entertainment

*Spoilers for people who haven't read the books.*

You guys...Divergent has easily been the best book to movie adaptation that I've seen in a really, really long time. Let me just put that out there immediately.

The actors: Shailene Woodley (Tris), Theo James (Four), Kate Winslet (Jeanine), Ashley Judd (Natalie, aka Tris's mom), Jai Courtney (Eric), Zoe Kravitz (Christina), Maggie Q (Tori), and Tony Goldwyn (Andrew, aka Tris's dad) all did magnificent jobs. I felt like Shailene and Theo especially were perfect for these roles. They were both how I pictured Tris and Four while I was reading Divergent, and they never once acted out of character. Truthfully, that's hard to find. I loved the chemistry that Shailene and Theo had while Theo also maintained Four's standoffish feel through the beginning of the movie. Their relationship felt legit. Shailene's best acting scene was when Tris lost her mother during the Dauntless attack on Abnegation. I teared up during that scene because her grief felt so real. You guys know I'm not a crier, so that's a small victory in and of itself.

As always there are differences between any book and movie made based upon a book. The biggest differences that I noticed involved the widespread knowledge that Divergents exist at all. In the book, the only people who seem to know about Divergents are those who are Divergent themselves, ones who have family members who are (or were) Divergents, and Jeanine. It was slightly confusing to me as a viewer why Tris didn't know any details about what being Divergent meant when the knowledge that Divergents exist at all was fairly widespread. I feel like the moviemakers made this decision in order to help along the viewers who may not have read the books.

I was almost sad to see how little screen time Al was given. I don't know that we'd even been told his name when the major events involving him took place. I figure his scenes were probably cut for budget and timing purposes, but I was sad that we didn't see more of him and his struggle to become Dauntless. Four tells us that he was failing, but even if they'd simply told us his name and flashed to his ranking on the scoreboard we could have figured that out. Similarly, Molly is shown and there are a couple of scenes with her, but I don't think we were ever told her name in the movie.

Probably for me, the most deviations revolve around Jeanine. She was a lot more present than I remember her being in Divergent, but I'm assuming that's because you don't hire an actress like Kate Winslet and not give her any screen time. PLUS I imagine the bigger reason being that because Jeanine's so present in Insurgent, she needed to be firmly established as "public enemy number 1."

Another addition the moviemakers made but that I actually think made more sense involved the mirrors in Tris's simulations. It seemed to me like Tris being able to look at her own reflection for any length of time is what usually woke her up to the fact that the simulations weren't real. And I liked how the moviemakers pulled that in from the first scene of the book and made Tris's relationship with her own reflection have a deeper meaning and purpose.

However many deviations there were between the book and this movie, I wasn't upset with any of them. Everything felt so much better with Divergent than with the other book to movie adaptations I've seen recently. The actors. The locations. The special effects. The smart decisions on what should be changed and what should remain the same. The marketing strategy. The overall feel of the movie. They just did so much right with this adaptation, and I can't thank the director and producers enough for doing a worthy job of this book.

I wanted to spend some time addressing other specific scenes that I enjoyed so much, but when I started naming them in my head I felt like I was essentially naming all the scenes. HA! This is definitely one that I'll pay to see in the theater twice, and I can't wait to see them make Insurgent since there's not a doubt in my mind that they will. Divergent gets 4.5 Stars from me. Have you seen it? What did you think? Let me know!

P.S. I've reviewed Divergent twice on my blog. Here is my original review and here is my 2nd review.

Vampire Academy - Movie Review

Vampire Academy

Director: Mark Waters

Written By: Daniel Waters (screenplay), Richelle Mead (based on the novel by)

Stars: Zoey Deutch, Lucy Fry, Danila Kozlovsky

Released: February 7, 2014

104 minutes

Produced By: Angry Films, Kintop Pictures, Preger Entertainment

**There will be spoilers from the movie, but only for those who haven't read the book and when discussing what is different from book to movie.**

Does anyone else hate that movie poster? The hot pink and neon green just aren't doing it for me. Plus the whole "they suck at school" slogan has a way of making Vampire Academy seem very "teeny-bopper" to me. I think the director was aiming his target audience at the same crowd that enjoyed the Mean Girls movie that he also directed with some of the pre-release choices. Personally, I don't think this was the right approach to this franchise, but I guess we'll see how it plays out over time. Also, while I'm discussing pre-release stuff, the initial teaser trailer I think was a letdown. It's hard to say what was "wrong" with it exactly, but when you compare it to the teaser trailer for Divergent, it's easy to see that Divergent's trailer was a lot more enticing. It also seemed like the trailers for Vampire Academy that came on TV before the release had several different variations aimed at appealing to a variety of audiences. Those trailers looked a lot better than the teaser, and I almost wish they had waited until they had a finished trailer and skipped the teaser altogether.

As always whenever a movie is made based off a book I expect differences. Sometimes they need to cut a character to save money so they merge that character with one they're going to keep. Sometimes they cut scenes and merge those scenes with other scenes to save time. Sometimes they cut scenes and characters altogether. I realize that most of the decisions made in changing a book to movie have a reason. Things are different in a visual medium than in written word. Scenes need to be visually appealing, they need to save time, cut money costs where necessary, and appeal to an audience beyond fans of the books. So I know that the differences made from book to movie meet these needs, and I expect them to be there. But as Vampire Academy is my reigning favorite YA book series, it's hard for me not to be a purist about this movie and my hopes for it. Let me go out on a limb and say that book purists everywhere are overall not going to enjoy this movie. It's hard for me to fathom that Richelle Mead is happy with how much was changed, but she did in fact do her own movie review of it where she says that she loved the movie. So you can read her thoughts for yourself. But here are mine.

Let's start with the good.

The best thing about this movie was Zoey Deutch. She does a great job playing Rose Hathaway. Did she deviate from my own picture of Rose at times? Yeah, sure. But for the most part, Zoey Deutch hit Rose right on the money. She was snarky, sarcastic, funny, hard core, and protective of and loyal to Lissa. She was great in the fight scenes. And I just loved her. Great choice in casting there. My husband said, "She's Ellen Page 2.0." What a compliment coming from him because Ellen Page is one of his favorite actresses.

I thought Dominic Sherwood did a pretty spot on job with Christian, and I couldn't have asked for much more from him. Also, Cameron Monaghan's performance as Mason was right up there as well. Oh Mason. *sad sigh* As well as Sarah Hyland playing Natalie. I initially wasn't thrilled with how much screen time Natalie gets, but after having some time to think about it, I think it makes sense visually for continuity.

The not so good, but not quite bad either.

Danila Kozlovsky. Truthfully, I was extremely concerned about his performance of Dimitri. Dimitri is probably one of my all-time favorite book boyfriend, and so this performance was crucial for me. There were moments when I loved Danila in this role and thought he was doing a great job playing Dimitri. There were also moments when I just wasn't impressed and needed more from him. Specifically in the "couch scene". To be honest, I'm not sure that was Danila so much as a directing/screenplay decision, but wherever the decision came from, this scene was lacking the heat that I wanted.

Those who've read the books know that this is one of the key scenes in the book. Rose and Jessie are making out on the couch and Dimitri comes tearing through like a Strigoi's in the room, yanking Jessie off Rose and slamming him up against a wall. He tells Jessie to leave, and then he and Rose proceed to have their first real moment of importance. I mean they've had small moments before, but this one is big. Rose flippantly asks Dimitri if he sees something he likes (which was a huge mistake IMO to leave that line out of the movie). Dimitri takes the opportunity to show his disappointment in her behavior, and Rose realizes for the first time how much she truly cares about his opinion of her, and how she wants to be worthy. She wants to be worthy of being Lissa's guardian, and she wants to be worthy of Dimitri's good opinion of her. She doesn't want him to think of her like a child. It's a sexually charged moment, but it's also deeply charged emotionally. In the movie, this scene is merged with another scene. That wouldn't have bothered me except for the fact that filming the two scenes they chose to do together cuts the intensity of that scene in half. And then when Rose and Dimitri finally have their moment in the film version, there is more affection in the scene than I think comes off in the book. Rose and Dimitri hadn't quite yet developed "affection" in the book by that point. Sexual tension? Sure. Affection? Not quite.

Also, I know Dimitri has long hair in the books, but long hair just doesn't do it for me. In the movie, I didn't mind the scenes when Danila's hair was pulled back into a messy ponytail, but when it was down...I don't know...just not my thing. Danila Kozlovsky does have a great smile though.

Because a book is to an extent capable of containing however many pages necessary to tell the story but movies are limited to a range of acceptable lengths usually around the 2 hour mark, some scenes get cut. But even the ones that don't get cut often feel rushed. That's a bit how I felt in several places. I put this in the not so good, but not quite bad category because it's not really something that can be helped. Yet, I felt it should be noted.

The bad.

While Richelle Mead's post comes off as saying that she was impressed with how true to the book the movie is...what she actually said was that she was surprised that they didn't cut more and that every major scene in the book that is a fan favorite was at least given a nod to...these two things aren't one in the same. Yes, they did give a nod to every scene that is a fan favorite. But they also changed every single one of those scenes in one form or other. I know they had reason to. But that, from a huge fan of the books, doesn't always sit well.

The note passing scene is one of the funniest scenes in the book. The director gave a nod to it, sure, but instead of Rose and Lissa discussing the intimate details of her makeout session with Jessie that was interrupted by Dimitri, the filmmakers decided to change/merge this into another one of Mia's bullying moments. So they gave a nod to the scene, but they also completely changed the feel of it. And this is just one example. This type of change happened in almost every noteworthy scene.

As a side note, I understand that MOST of the changes from book to movie have purpose, but sometimes there are changes that just don't seem like they have a reason at all. Like how Ralph's name was changed to Ray. Why? And Mr. Meisner. I can't say I'm 100% on that, but I don't think that was the teacher's name either. What is the purpose of altering character names? I'm truly curious here. Anyone have any ideas? And what about "Mia's Friend Bruno" as imbd labels him. I'm pretty sure I know why he was added to the movie...but still...such an addition wasn't necessary.

I was disappointed that the filmmakers chose to change Lissa's cutting to being a byproduct of her magic. I mean I realize the cutting is in fact a byproduct of her use of magic, but they almost made it appear as if the magic does the cutting for Lissa on it's own, and not that it was something she was doing to herself because of the darkness that using her magic brings upon her.

Richelle Mead also says in her review that sometimes adaptations cater too much to fans of only the books or cater too much to new viewers who have never read the books. She thinks the changes made were smart decisions in order to reach the right balance. Maybe it's unfair of me to offer my opinion on this because I can't exactly unread the book and therefore experience the movie as someone in the dark on the storyline, but it felt to me like there wasn't enough fan service to the readers. I did force my husband to listen to the audiobook version of Vampire Academy so he knew the storyline overall (that was several years ago though), but he's not made it past book 1. He, however, said he enjoyed this movie much more than the City of Bones movie.

I think a lot of non-reading viewers have to come to expect a level of cheesiness in movies based off of books. I blame this on Twiligt--specifically the first movie of that series. But there were definitely moments in Vampire Academy that even I could admit were beyond cheesy.

And my last big complaint, like City of Bones where a major plotline of the overall series was ruined in the first movie, Vampire Academy had a similar plotline ruined. Maybe the moviemakers aren't expecting book 6, Last Sacrifice, to ever make it to film, but if it is, they've totally ruined one of the biggest plot points of that book. So thanks for that.

Overall...

I'm probably forgetting some moments that I wanted to touch on, but for the sake of time I'm wrapping it up here.

Vampire Academy had moments the I loved and moments that I really disliked. Zoey Deutch is again the best part of this movie. The other actors do a good job backing her up and stepping in the roles created by Richelle Mead in the book, but I wasn't thrilled with some executive decisions on changes. Again, I often understand the "why" behind the changes, but that doesn't make me like the changes they made when it alters the feel of a particular scene.

I'm truly torn because I wanted to love the movie, I was nervous after seeing the trailers, but I left the theater feeling torn and slightly let down. Yet, I want them to continue making the other books into movies. The making of the remaining books in this series into movies depends solely on how well the movie does. Considering the fact that my local theater was only offering two showing times (2:00 pm and 7:30 pm) I don't think they expected a huge turn out. And for opening night, our theater was not packed at all. But I also hope that if the remaining movies are made, the moviemakers will cater a bit more to the fans of the books. I realize they need to EXPAND the audience to non-readers, but they need to focus on not losing the readers in the process.

I'm having a hard time rating the movie from 1 to 5, but I think I'll land at 3 Stars even. I didn't hate it, but I didn't leave excited about it either. Have you seen Vampire Academy? What did you think? Let me know!

In case you're curious, here's my review of Vampire Academy the book.

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones - Movie Review

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones

Director: Harald Zwart

Written By: Jessica Postigo (screenplay), Cassandra Clare (based on the novel by)

Stars: Lily Collins, Jamie Campbell Bower

Released: August 21, 2013

130 minutes

Produced By: Constantin Film Produktion, Don Carmody Productions, Unique Features

Let me start off by saying that I go into any movie inspired, based upon, or made from a book expecting there to be differences. I've NEVER seen a book to movie adaptation where there weren't differences. And those differences can come in any number of variations from missing characters, meshed characters (meaning two characters turned into one), additional characters, changed scenes, missing scenes, and so on and so on. Sometimes the changes are due to money, time constraints, and various other issues of translating a book to the big screen. Because I expect these differences I don't tend to leave the movie disappointed because X character wasn't included in the movie or they left out X scene.

All of that being said, I actually think they did a pretty good job sticking to the book for the The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones. Of course, several things were different. They always are. They always will be. There was one line inserted into the movie that grated on me because of how much of the experience that line altered for the viewer, especially the viewer who has not read the books. But as irritating as that line was, I still feel like the rest of the movie outweighed the damage done with that line. So be prepared about that. And while that one line was the one thing I wish they hadn't decided to change (or in this case, include), I do think they can work around it in a way that doesn't completely ruin the experience, though the experience will be altered for the viewer who hasn't read the books.

Lily Collins did a great job as Clary in my opinion. I was expecting her to do well in this role, but she exceeded my expectations. And Jamie Campbell Bower, well he totally blew my expectations out of the water. I wasn't impressed with his performance as Caius in the Twilight movies, but to be fair, it's not like he had many lines or much screen time. But he's much skinnier than I pictured Jace, and I'm not really a fan of long hair typically. However, he totally pulls off the Jace sarcasm and one-liners in a way that I just wasn't sure he was capable of doing. Overall, I was super impressed. And even though he's majorly skinny, you'll also see how cut he is in one scene. Most importantly was the essence of Jace, and I really ended up being impressed with his performance.

The secondary characters were both good and unimpressive in varying degrees. I thought Robert Sheehan (Simon) did a decent job in some scenes, a really good job in other scenes, and then eh not so much in others. Isabelle (Jemima West) and Alec (Kevin Zegers) I was generally unimpressed with. Hodge, played by Jared Harris, was pretty much exactly what I pictured in my head. Lena Headly as Jocelyn did a decent job in my mind and goes to town with a refrigerator showing she hasn't lost all of her shadowhunter skills over the years. Jonathan Reyes Meyers does a decent job as Valentine. He's menacing and seductive when he needs to be. Truth be told, I could really only see King Henry VIII from The Tudors in his portrayal of Valentine. But whoever decided he needed those braids needs to be fired.

And then there's Magnus. I've heard differing opinions on Godfrey Gao's performance as Magnus. He truly didn't have much screen time all in all, but I was somewhat disappointed. I was hoping for more "umph" from his character. More outrageousness from his outfits (not wearing pants isn't not really the same thing as bright pink or neon green skinny jeans--not necessarily straight from the book descriptions, but something I could imagine him wearing with a matching shirt and perhaps scarf of some kind). And more of the blue sparks from his magic fingers. I get maybe that may fall into the category of the first paragraph I discussed above, but his character is just so out there. I'm hoping we see more in the future.

As far as special effects go, The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones was much better than our first Twilight installment. (I can't help but to compare it to Twilight and I think a lot of people will do the same.) I even jumped at the creepiness from some of the demons. I thought the effects and fight scenes were well done. Kudos.

There are a few cheesy things. One line in particular involving talk about seeing an angel and a trick using the portal. But nothing compared to cheesiness we've seen in past book to movie adaptations. And nothing close to overboard.

I'll definitely be purchasing this for my collection once it's out on DVD/Blu-Ray. And I'll probably try to go see it in the theater one more time as well. I don't think that The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones is getting the recognition that it deserves. And I hate to think that the other movies might not be made because it doesn't get the deserved press (City of Ashes is to begin filming next month to be released next year). I highly encourage fans of the book series to check out this adaptation as soon as you're able. There are some differences, but I think overall you'll be really impressed.

I'm rating The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones movie as 4 to 4.5 Stars. Have you seen the movie? What did you think? Let me know!

Check out my review of City of Bones (the book) as well.

Top 10 Best/Worst Book to Movie Adaptations

Top 10 Tuesday is a post hosted by The Broke and the Bookish and this week's topic is Top Ten Best/Worst Movie Adaptations.

Worst

1. Twilight by Stephenie Meyer- Ok come on. Seriously! I LOVE this book--still! But this movie was CHEE-to-the-ZEE! There was so much wrong with this movie. Robert Pattison's horrible sunglasses (that are actually his), the horrible "stank" face that Robert P. made in biology class. The whole spider monkey thing. The "it's really just a scary story." Taylor Lautner's AWFUL wig! Oh yeah...I love Twilight--and I've seen this movie a dozen time. But it is BAD! As in the worst!

Best (some of these I haven't read the books so...yeah, take that into consideration)


2. Harry Potter by JK Rowling - Of course I've read the books. And these are ALL great movies. Sure there are some deviations. But I don't think any of the movies take away from the books.

3. The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkein - I have read these books and the only big thing I remember being all that different was the huge section the movies left out of the beginning book 1--The Fellowship of the Ring. But since that part was thoroughly boring and confusing, I think they made a good call.

4. The Chronicles of Narnia by CS Lewis- Ok so I haven't actually read these books--though I know I need to. But these movies are pretty dern stinking awesome.

5. Breaking Dawn (Pt 2) by Stephenie Meyer- Look, y'all know that twist they threw in at the end was EPIC!

6. The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold- Another one I haven't read the book, but this movie was majorly good.

7. The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins- I know people have their beef, but I enjoyed it.

8. Something Borrowed by Emily Griffin- I haven't read the book of this one either, but my sister has. She said the movie was a pretty good adaptation from the book--though like always, there were some differences. I enjoyed the movie for the most part.

9. Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief by Rick Roirdan- Yeah, haven't read these books either. But I saw nothing to complain about in the movie.

10. (this one is a bit of a cheat) A Song of Ice & Fire by George R R Martin - because it's a TV show! I LOVE it and for only having 10 shows each season, they do a remarkable job covering all that the books cover.

So that's my best and worst book to movie adaptations. What are yours? Let me know!