"The Divergent Series: Insurgent" Review

 

At times I'm at odds with my scoring system; I like to lean towards how much I enjoy a film, because after all, this dog-and-pony-show relies on subjective views and I don't want to come off as a self-proclaimed alpha and omega of film criticism. My problem today comes from talking about a movie that I know is bad, is riddled with plot holes, questionable design choices, and bland characters...but I love dearly. The Divergent Series: Insurgent is my favorite movie of the year...for all the wrong reasons. 

For newcomers to the series, a post-apocalyptic Chicago sees the government dividing the population into factions based on personality traits: Erudite (intelligence), Dauntless (bravery), Candor (honesty), Amity (peace), Abnegation (selflessness). Those who don't fit into one faction are "divergent," shunned as pariahs. 

Insurgent sees Shailene Woodley return as divergent-turned-Dauntless Tris Prior, now a fugitive after stopping the Erudite faction, led by Jeanine (Kate Winslet), from using a mind-control serum to subvert the Dauntless faction into her personal army and overthrow Abnegation from power. The damage has been done, however; Jeanine has orchestrated her government takeover, and now hunts Tris and the rest of the rebels, including Tris's unfortunately-named-boyfriend Four (Theo James), her brother Caleb (Ansel Elgort), and smarmy Peter (Miles Teller). (Am I the only one who does a double-take seeing three of Woodley's on-screen boyfriends: James from Divergent, Elgort from The Fault In Our Stars, and Teller from The Spectacular Now, in the same movie?)

Tris, overwhelmed by the deaths of her parents and friend Will, whom she killed in self-defense in the last film, blames herself for everything, sinking into depression, considering herself "deadly" to everyone she cares for. Throughout the movie, Tris battles with her grief and guilt, growing self-deprecating and hostile. Woodley's performance is diverse and raw, exemplified best in a confessional courtroom scene. I called her an "ugly crier" in my Fault In Our Stars review, and the honesty is no less brutal here.

Insurgent's supporting cast isn't unlike other young adult adaptations: skillful, but underutilized, their few appearances as gloriously goofy as possible. Naomi Watts plays Four's mother, leader of the divergent, and despite living in the concrete foundation of a bombed building, her hair looks absolutely flawless. It fits well with the "mom reliving her 90's glory days" wardrobe. Kate Winslet's Jeanine, while icy, looks too confused for someone supposed to be the smartest in the room. But if there's anyone to bring me joy, it's Jai Courtney who, while playing henchman Eric, looks like he's auditioning for his Terminator Genisys role, with his robotic gait and Bateman-esque grin. In another movie, he'd be intimidating, but here? Not so much. 

The movie suffers from its inability to get its advocacy for self-love across and build a convincing sci-fi story around it. It seems like the script is made up as the film's rolling, stringing together a multitude of ideas with long stretches of dialogue, pointless action, and the almighty McGuffin. Despite the heavy padding, the movie moves at a surprisingly brisk pace, to the point where I didn't feel the strain, as "Divergent" irritatingly did.

With director Robert Schwentke (RED, The Time Traveler's Wife) at the helm, Insurgent carries a more defined personality, with a bit more irreverence than Neil Burger's gray-on-gray Divergent. However, this story needs focus and less cooks in the kitchen (2 for Divergent, 3 for this film), to where we can get an ideas for what pieces should be highlighted. Perhaps the series can take the Gone Girl route and let Veronica Roth adapt her own novel.

As is, Insurgent is an easy watch, best suited for friends who don't mind cracking a few jokes at a film's expense. There's a good cast and director here, but the story can get so convoluted, it just brings giggles to my face. It's silly and runs on autopilot, but it's managed to find a soft spot in my heart. If you're a fan of the series, you're already going to see it; if not, turn your brain off and bring a hefty bag of popcorn.

Thank you all for reading; I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
 

"Run All Night" Review

I'd be remiss to talk about "Run All Night" without making the comparison to "Taken 3", 2015's first Liam-Neeson-shoots-bad-guys-to-save-his-family film. "Taken 3", through incomprehensible action and ho-hum characters, neuters the house its predecessor built; but this is where "Run All Night" comes in.

"Run All Night" is the better offering from Neeson this year, but not solely from the benefit of lowered expectations. It sticks to the formula, and works within its confines. With inspired action and strong performances from the likes of Ed Harris, Joel Kinnaman, Vincent D'Onofrio and Neeson, "Run All Night" delivers a solidly entertaining 90's-tinted revenge thriller.   

Neeson plays mob stooge Jimmy Conlon, working for the Maguire family, led by childhood friend Shawn (Harris) and his son, Danny (Boyd Holbrook). When the aftermath of Danny's bad business deal ropes in Jimmy's estranged son, Michael (Kinnaman), Jimmy confronts Shawn, the police, and his own past to save Michael and his family.

Where "Run All Night" differs from others in the Neeson catalog is in its characterization. The movie is a crossroads between corruption and redemption, scumbags and honest businessmen. Throughout, a tension brews as Jimmy tries to redeem (or at least, come to grips with) his murderous past, Michael fights to avoid becoming like his father, and Shawn reluctantly slides back into his old, violent ways. The film takes the time to let these performances create empathy and involve us into not only the bulk of the story, but its emotional undercurrents.

However, don't make this to be a dialogue drama; any movie involving Liam Neeson in a gunfight with Common (who oddly resembles both Clark Kent and the T-1000 as Shawn's hit man) laughs at such an accusation. Director Jaume Collet-Serra (Non-Stop, Orphan) crafts impressive action, most notably an early car chase that's in-your-face without blowing up every fire hydrant and fruit stand on the sides of the streets. Whether it be a fistfight or a chase, Collet-Serra plots each scene with purpose, raising the stakes and stacking the odds against the protagonists.

My main issue with "Run All Night" is its attempts to be stylish or artsy, with indulgent cinematography and CGI transitions. While they do give the film character, I find these elements to distract from the action, something Collet-Serra ironically mentions in a DP/30 interview. With such a dirty, realistic tone, these pieces don't fit.

Barring this nitpick, I'm pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed this film. Fun performances across the board, inspired dialogue and character development, well-constructed action: it all makes for a thriller that when stacked up against others in the Neeson genre, stands as a solid contender for one of the best. If you're looking for a hard-boiled action flick with a classic feel, this is a good choice for an afternoon matinee.

Thank you all for reading; I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off. 

"What We Do In The Shadows" Review



 

 

 

What We Do In The Shadows is a mockumentary exposing the lives of three vampires: the foppish Viago (Taika Waititi), short-tempered Deacon (Jonathan Brugh), and macho Vladisav (Jermaine Clement), flatmates in New Zealand. The trio struggles with keeping their identities a secret, delegating house chores, and hardest of all, figuring out the intricacies of modern life.

 

With the Scary Movie and A Haunted House series at an all-time low, What We Do In The Shadows is a breath of fresh air for horror spoofs, putting original, quirky, and witty twists on monster movies. Clement and Waititi balance making fun of the common (vampires' weakness to sunlight), and obscure (vampires' inability to enter one's residence uninvited) clichés well, in a move that satisfies horror novices and experts alike. The film throws nods to a variety of vampires: Viago borrows Dracula's sophisticated flair; Vladisav resembles his medieval, alluring namesake, Vlad the Impaler; the movie even namedrops Blade and The Lost Boys. Vampires aren't the only subjects of jokes; the film throws in zombies, witches, and werewolves. The werewolves, in particular, are hilarious, working to stay peaceful by any means necessary, whether it be chaining themselves to trees, or simply stop cussing.

 

 

The production matches its genre's aesthetics superbly. The Gothic house and Victorian-influenced wardrobes help make What We Do In The Shadows fit as a throwback to 70's horror, like Hammer Films' Taste The Blood of Dracula. Adding creature transformations, high-flying (gliding, really) vampire special effects, and of course, buckets of blood, gives the film a classic horror film with an modern indie edge.

 

It'd be easy to make a film with all gags, but the movie fleshes out each character, dedicating time for them to interact with each other. Waititi, Burgh, and Clement have great chemistry; their banter is quick, relaxed, and hilarious. Notable supporting roles include Stuart Rutherford as the vampires' only human friend, guiding them into the land of Google and Skype, and Ben Fransham as the Nosferatu-like Petyr.

 

What We Do In The Shadows breathes life (forgive the pun) into an otherwise stagnant movie genre. It spoofs the monster movie and found footage genre with a variety of references, in-jokes, slapstick, and wit, balanced in such a way to keep mainstream audience and horror buffs happy. My fellow theater patrons burst out laughing all throughout and I'm sure you will, as well. In a comedy climate full of The D.U.F.F. and Hot Tub Time Machine 2, you owe yourself a smarter, funnier movie, and this is it.

 

Thank you all for reading; I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.