Just Another Y.A. Blockbuster

Thanks to the box office success of Twilight and The Hunger Games, we can pretty much expect every semi-popular young adult novel to get big screen treatment in the near future. Every studio of worth out there will spend the next few years purchasing filming rights, throwing them at audiences, and seeing what sticks. We've already seen several examples of failures ranging from I am Number Four to Beautiful Creatures, and if there's something to be said for the adaptation of Veronica Roth's Divergent, it's that it stuck. Not "great" or "wonderful," or even "unique."That's because the story is so derivative of other, better material that it's bound to appeal to not only fans of the novels but any similar moviegoer curious enough to check it out.

The movie follows The Descendants star Shailene Woodley as Tris (God, it even rhymes with "Katniss"), as she navigates the trials of growing up in the ruins of a futuristic, post-war Chicago. Society in this world has been divided into five factions to maintain peace, and Tris is of the age where she can decide whether to stay with her family in the kind and selfless Abnegation faction, or join one of the other four groups, which pride themselves on traits like intelligence, honesty, and peacefulness. This is complicated when the test that helps students decide to what faction they "belong" fails to work on Tris, categorizing her as "Divergent" and unlikely to fit in anywhere. Naturally, Divergents are treated as enemies of the system, and our heroine tries to hide her nature by joining up with the brave, kinda-crazy faction "Dauntless", where she falls for the hunky instructor known as "Four" (Theo James). But when Divergent-hunters come calling... you know what? Forget it, I'm just going to stop right there.

She got tattoos! So you know she has an edge now.

There is barely a single word or sentence in that previous paragraph that could not be used to describe countless titles that have come out just in the past decade (except perhaps Abnegation... learn something new every day!), and that's Divergent's biggest, BIGGEST problem. Whether it's due to the direction of Neil Burger (Limitless), the screenplay by Evan Daugherty (Snow White and the Huntsman) and Vanessa Taylor (Hope Springs), or even Roth's novel itself (Or, most likely, a combination of all three), the biggest sin is that there is barely anything noteworthy or original to grasp onto and declare "Yes, this is why it's special!" For all the crap I give it, Twilight took a familiar concept (supernatural) and put a unique twist on creating its universe. The Hunger Games, while ostensibly a copy of the Japanese book/movie Battle Royale, still made itself original enough to stand alone (not to mention the casting of Jennifer Lawrence). Beautiful Creatures had an amazing and appropriate setting. I am Number Four and the Harry Potter franchise had excellent lore. Divergent DOES have an interesting premise, with the factions and the disparity between them, but barely touches on it in what amounts to a rote, romance/action story. Well, to be fair, it also has... umm... wait a moment... it has... ergh... well, no... I guess... excellent acting?

Why hast thou forsaken us, Kate?

Yes, Divergent is fortunate to have such an amazing cast assembled, because they absolutely needed the best. The characters are so one-dimensional that only someone with the chops of Ashley Judd, or Kate Winslett, or Maggie Q, or Mekhi Phifer, or Ray Stevenson could make it work. When Miles Teller shows up as the generic bully, he actually brings some gravitas to the role. When Tony Goldwyn appears on screen, he isn't just a blank slate as Tris' father, but actually shows some magnetism, through his voice if not in his poorly-written words (one character ironically wonders why people keep asking her the same question; it's because of the inept dialogue, dear). And it's a good thing Shailene Woodley and Theo James are such excellent performers; Woodley plays the worst kind of female heroine, whose actions are entirely based on what is done to her and not on any driving force behind her vanilla temperament; while James' character development begins and ends with "brooding hottie". And yet, both actors make the material work through sheer force of personality. The romance between them, while basic, predictable and cliched, ends up working by virtue of their great chemistry, and they do the absolute most they can with the material. If it wasn't for that, this wouldn't much of a film. Yes, there are a few legitimate duds in Jai Courtney and Zoe Kravitz (sheez, Divergent even has a Kravitz in the cast), but even they don't detract from the story too much when all is said and done.

Where Hollywood thinks women should be: out of sight and silent.

But the acting can't fully save a story that borrows from literally every genre and trope in existence, from The Matrix (one person throwing a system out of whack), to Logan's Run ("I'm hiding my secret from the ruling government!") to Starship Troopers ("Let's get tattoos!"). Seriously, if the villains were as smart as they are supposed to be, they'd have realized that their plot to take over the city has been done a million times before, and BETTER. It's almost as if Roth cobbled together this tale from all the pop culture references and Young Adult novels she had accumulated in her young life, with nary an original thought or idea. To be fair, that might be over-simplifying things a bit; I have yet to read the book, so I can't say how many of Divergent's problems stem from her writing and how much from the adaptation process itself. But if she had ONE original thought when she compiled her novel, it never make its way to the big screen. Even the faction system is not a truly original concept, and that's the closest Divergent ever gets to declaring its independence from standard YA fare. The story is so reliant on coincidence - from Maggie Q's first appearance to just about EVERY major twist and turn - that it defies all expectation for the audience to accept the plot as it develops. And I'd even go so far as to say that wouldn't necessarily a BAD thing, as long as the story itself is told competently and the actors do a good job with the material. In fact, Burger is a pretty good, if not great, director, especially suited to this type of non-risky script, as he proved in 2011's Limitless. Even though the script is the kind of hackery that would demand multiple rewrites if it not for the film's brand recognition, Divergent turns into a competent, if not standout, filmmaking product.

Get it? It's "Red pill, Blue pill!"

Divergent tries to push a moral of anti-conformity and self-identification, but ironically does it in the most conformist fashion possible, stealing from everything that has come before and not standing out even remotely on its way to box office success. Naturally, every YA movie adaptation wants to see the same kind of success as The Hunger Games, but Divergent could only WISH that it was as interesting, compelling and urgent as the movie whose success it would wish to emulate. It's definitely a BAD movie, and yet also a WELL-MADE bad movie that overcomes many of its narrative obstacles through heart and sheer force of will. If only the filmmakers had taken more risks, as the movie does nothing to differentiate itself from the bland, predictable tropes and cliches that have never been so transparently on display as they are here. If it had attempted to deviate from the terrifyingly dull norm it had set for itself, it might have turned into something great. As it stands, Divergent is just okay, and I think we'll see subsequent sequels Insurgent and Allegiant justifiably fall off in audiences as a result. Teen girls (and anyone who identifies with teen girls) will watch and enjoy anyway, but anyone else can steer clear.

We Find the Defendant... Entertaining

As a birth-born resident of the city of Boston, I've always been interested in films that focus on cities or locations in the state of Massachusetts. Even if the films aren't of the higher quality (I'm looking at you, overrated Mystic River) the locations and aesthetics just feel like home, making the theater feel cozy and warm. And from the misty, haunted asylum of Shutter Island to the gritty Charlestown grotto of The Town to the blue-collar Lowell of Oscar-nominated The Fighter, 2010 was a big year for the Bay State. One that might have slipped under your radar however is this small gem that didn't do a lot at the box office, but nevertheless confidently tells the haunting true story of false imprisonment and uplifting redemption surrounding the Ayer arrest of Kenneth Walters in 1983. Conviction didn't draw much of an audience, mostly due to little or no marketing, and failed to capture even local Massachusetts audiences in the numbers other films handily made. The film even has heralded stars in two-time Oscar winner Hilary Swank and underrated performer Sam Rockwell. So how IS the film? I was interested enough to find out.

Let the record show that Juliette Lewis has forgotten her lines

Betty Ann Walters (Swank) is a mother and happy woman in the year 1983. Married with two children, she has a strong relationship with her brother Kenny (Rockwell), a devoted family man with a string of minor crimes on his rap sheet. When he's arrested for the murder of Ayer resident Katharina Brow, Betty Ann is the only one who seems to believe that he didn't commit the crime. The police match his blood type to the crime scene. Family and friends who have witnessed his violent ways in the past act nonchalant and surprised at this apparent development. Only Betty Ann, with memories of the caring and loving brother she grew up alongside, refuses to believe this. Over the span of eighteen years, the endeavors to complete her schooling, enter law school and pass the bar to try and get her brother's sentence overturned. Obstacles block her every path, but her resolution and determination drive her forward.

Whitey Bulger, however, walks free

When you first witness the blood-splattered crimes scene that is presented in the film's first few minutes, you might get the impression that you're in for a terribly depressing tale. The setup for the film follows this path, with scenes of Kenny's trial and sentencing and various flashbacks to the duo's unloved childhood painting a bleak picture for what is to follow. All that changes, however, when Betty Ann goes back to school and the rest of the film is as inspiring and uplifting as it had been dark before. It makes for a surprising turn, and I was pleasantly surprised how much better the film got because of it.

I didn't know the law library had copies of "Little Bo Peep"

The acting here is top notch, led by the simply amazing performances of Swank and Rockwell, who could easily have earned award nominations for their work had the film sold better and gotten more supporters. Swank especially is inspiring as the real-life crusader, who loses so much in pursuit of justice, not the least of which her marriage. Despite this, her single-minded quest to find her brother innocent makes for a riveting portrayal, one in which you find yourself wanting her to succeed against all odds. Rockwell is also amazing and surprisingly sympathetic as Kenny; I say surprisingly because, not to judge, but Kenny is played as kind of a dick. Short temper, bad relationship decisions, violent outbursts: everything that most people would hate, and most in the film as least are put off by his character. Kenny is given some saving graces: the obvious love he harbors for his daughter, and the care he's always had for his sister. Most actors would have fumbled this role but Rockwell (seriously, why couldn't he have gotten a nomination for the tragically underrated Moon?) manages to make the character someone to fight for, a mean feat in itself. A worthy supporting cast of Minnie Driver, Melissa Leo, Juliette Lewis, and Peter Gallagher fill the proper narrative holes with solid performances, though only Driver is given material substantial enough to stand out. This is a film that really relies on its stars to shine, so at least that part worked out.

Don't be sad, Hilary. We'll get you that third Oscar soon!

The film does have some problems, most notably the massive weight of the tale's message. Obviously the ability to perform DNA testing was a huge milestone for crime investigation, but the film's critical eye towards those detectives in not back-checking every murder and rape case to make sure they got the right guy is not a little overwrought. We're pretty much told outright that the law is corrupt and attempting to keep Kenny down, rather than being open to the possibility of simple incompetence. I was actually okay with this for the most part, but when Betty Ann tells one character that after eighteen years, Kenny "would be dead by now" if the state had instituted the death penalty, it was about as damning as you can get. Whatever your opinion on the death penalty, you can't help but be put off by the statement, as it seems to take the film in directions unneeded. But the biggest problem I had were the myriad flashback scenes showing how tough the main characters had it growing up. Some scenes would have been fine, but director Tony Goldwyn didn't know where to stop, forced only by the continuing narrative of the film to stop showing little kids pretend to be actors.

With a message so heavy it would make Kendrick Farris wince, it's fortunate that the strong story and inspiring acting keep the film on track and as uplifting as possible. While Swank and Rockwell should have gotten more attention for their performances, Conviction settles on that second tier of film quality, not quite good enough to run with the big boys but enough to recommend for a casual rental, or at least that's what this jury has concluded.

Mechanical Problems

Sometimes it doesn't take much to get me excited about seeing a particular movie. Violent, explosion-laden films are the easiest to tempt my palette, since they offer maximum excitement with minimal brain activity. I enjoy the mood-laden, intellectual film more than most, but just being able to turn your cognitive center off for a couple of hours to enjoy a show is just as much fun, and that's why The Mechanic was one of my more eagerly anticipated releases this month. A remake of the 1972 film starring Charles Bronson, this title's trailer alone guaranteed gunfights, explosions and more mature content than you could wave an AK-47 in the general direction of. Not unlike last year's The Losers or The Expendables, The Mechanic promised the kind of entertainment normal guys flock to in droves and normal women pretty much ignore altogether.

You might not like Arthur's version of "tag"

In the film Jason Statham plays Arthur Bishop, a "mechanic" or contract killer. Arthur's talents at subterfuge are so good that he can pull off a hit in a remote area without anyone knowing he was ever there. He plans every killing out for every contingency, making him among the most successful assassins in his organization. Things are going fine until his only friend and mentor Harry (Donald Sutherland) is assassinated for selling company secrets, and Arthur teams up with and trains Harry's son Steve (Ben Foster) to get revenge on the people who had Harry killed.

And don't expect him to pick up the tab, either

One of the reasons I was so enticed to see this film was that it's precisely the type of film Statham does so well. I remember first seeing him headline The Transporter to great effect, and I've enjoyed him as a performer since first seeing him in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. That's not to say he's incapable of making bad movies (the man WAS in a Uwe Boll film, after all), but a simple, action film of this caliber is the type of thing that goes right up his ally. The plot is swift-moving to keep the holes from being readily apparent, focusing almost entirely on the action when available. Character interaction goes out the door during these scenarios, unless you count people shooting one another as "interaction." The way in which the action is directed is itself hardcore and believable, with only Arthur's apparent perfect executions stretching the feasibility factor a pinch.

The "Rooftop Olympics" are underway

Statham is pretty much what you'd expect from a lead role of this kind. Arthur is played as almost emotionless when it comes to doing the tasks he's assigned, but when he's home he's a refined individual chomping at the bit to let his more emotional side forth. What works so well in this case is that Foster is across from him, playing Steve in the exact opposite formula. Steve is a passionate individual, with a mean streak (not unusual for Foster, looking at his resume) and a passion that comes out explosively during missions. For a pair of leading men, the partnership works wonders, and their scenes together are some of the best the film offers. Sutherland is a heralded performer, and for good reason, but he can't get the good roles like he used to. His role here is interesting, but several performers could have done the same job he did for the little time his character affects the audience. Once he's gone, he's barely left a presence for us to feel, and he's quickly forgotten. Tony Goldwyn does manage to stick around as Arthur's boss Dean Sanderson, but his role is mostly dry. Unlike several villains from similar 2010 titles, however, I actually got the feeling that Dean was dangerous, thanks to a hulking physique and deadpan stare. He was certainly more threatening than Jason Patric or Patrick Wilson.

The Julie Taymor stage play has been plagued by delays...

One thing that did bother me was the lack of strong female roles. I understand the film is a remake of a seventies cult hit, but the entirety of women in this film are servants, prostitutes, whores, or victims, in that exact order. There are no female assassins, no female executives for the agency, not anything resembling a powerful character throughout the film's runtime. While I'd be incorrect in stating that the film objectifies and exploits women, it would be more accurate to suggest that the filmmakers purely didn't think about them at all. THIS should be the film feminists are speaking against... but I guess the lack of award nominations lets it pass.

No, not THE bomb... just a bomb

The action is non-stop, and while the annoying close-up shots mar the on-screen violence at points, on a whole it's better done than your average film of the like. For what faults it has, that's what The Mechanic does well. It might not be as competent as it's originator, but what it does well it does competently and without mistakes. That's not enough to propel it to the top of the heap, however; The Mechanic comes in at #2 for the year. It probably won't be among this year's best, but it can safely be assumed it won't be among the worst either.