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.

A Quick Bite

I really like my new sidekick.

After my first "loyal" partner in cinematic crime decided to go all Nightwing and embark on a solo career due to those pesky "irreconcilable differences", I've been forced to go out in search for her potential replacement; the Flixmobile won't drive itself, after all. Well, my Jason Todd (no, that's not her real name) has finally arrived, and so far she seems perfectly suited to the role of following me around to watch films all the time (seriously, what does your sidekick do?). The big reason we've meshed so far is that, like me, she's a total sci-fi and comic book geek. Ask her anything about Babylon 5, Supernatural, or Doctor Doom and there's a good chance she'll be able to tell you the answer. That's why she and I saw Underworld: Awakening this past Saturday: it was HER idea, and my mind was blown. For me, this would be the first revisit to the modern-day vampire action series since 2003's release of Underworld in theaters. Despite some universally poor critical reviews, the film was hugely successful, enough to spawn off an even more disliked and profitable sequel and a prequel that broke records despite not featuring franchise star Kate Beckinsale. This new release (entirely in 3D, since that's apparently the new standard) takes place after the events of Underworld Evolution, promising some interesting, if not entirely original material for the audience to sink its teeth into.

You might want to get rid of that Axe body spray, boys

After Selene's (Beckinsale) actions in the previous films throw the remaining Vampires and Lycans (werewolves, for the uninitiated) into disarray, things pretty much go downhill. After centuries of remaining hidden from the human population, these supernatural creatures suddenly find themselves at war with their nominal food source. The sheer force the living bring down on the undead is staggering, and before long the few Vampires and Lycan left are hidden as deeply as they can to avoid detection. In attempting to leave the city with her hybrid love Michael, Selene and he are discovered and captured. Twelve years later, Selene awakes from cryogenic suspension to a world she barely recognizes, and the ongoing war between three foes has barely abated, leaving Selene to seek a new purpose in her unlife while trying to locate Michael once more.

Yes, the catsuit is back

Another Underworld film, another case of character development hell. Beckinsale is once again playing the role that arguably made her a star (yes, I know Pearl Harbor and Serendipity came out first; do you actually remember her in those?), and she returns to it as though to a second skin. Or second catsuit, whichever one might be tighter. Getting past the part where Beckinsale is indeed quite the visual masterpiece, her command of the role of Selene is the real reason to see this film. Her icy, commanding tone and suave and determined body language take charge and allow the film to successfully revolve entirely around her, a feat few performers can pull off. However, there's little here you haven't seen in her previous outings, and Selene's near-continuous search for Michael undermines her role as a strong woman to be reckoned with. Still, she's easily the strongest part of the film, for good or ill.

I doubt that pea shooter will do much...

It's too bad the rest of the cast has a difficult time keeping up with Becks. The closest in quality are almost polar opposites. Charles Dance plays a Vampire Elder who is distrustful of Selene's presence in the world, and wants to keep hiding until the Vamps can regain the strength they once had. India Eisley is Eve, a mysterious girl who is a hybrid (shares traits of both Vampires and Werewolves) like Michael, whose presence is thankfully explained quickly (if you've sight unseen already guessed where she came from, I guarantee you're right). While Dance is classic British theater and plays the role brilliantly as one, Eisley is far more raw, which allows her some interesting moments that are very different than her regular role on The Secret Life of the American Teenager. But the rest of the cast falls flat, from the young and excitable vampire David, played without conviction by Theo James, to Steven Rea as the film's uninspired antagonist, to Michael Ealy as a human police officer with deeper involvement than he'll let on. None of these characters inspire much in the way of interest, strength or intelligence, and if none of them return in future installments, I'll be quite happy with that.

Pregnant teenagers have NOTHING on this!

Let me just say how bad this movie is... no, I'm well aware how bad Underworld was. However poor you might think the original, at least the stylistic, moody settings and Vampire/Lycan backstory set it apart from a mythology that had been running on fumes of late. All of that is recycled in Underworld: Awakening, but piled on top are retreads of older, better sci-fi themes. The motherhood aspects of Aliens or Terminator 2? Yup, that's there. How about Resident Evil's evil super-corporation? Yeah, that's a major factor. In all, you could probably point to any scene and state what influenced that exact moment and how it was better in the original. It's not all bad, though: give credit to the series for never making an ass-kicking Selene boring, and the copious amounts of blood and gore present are the most realistic seen thus far. So for what it's worth, the serious lack of plot and believability (which would usually be a deal-breaker) are reliably replaced by purely aesthetic enjoyability, thanks to greenhorn directors Mans Marlind and Bjorn Stein.

Whatever you do, Kate, don't turn those to your right

After such a successful opening weekend, I wouldn't be surprised if this was not the last time we saw Selene and her bloodthirsty cohorts on the big screen. While it lacks in anything resembling depth or originality, I still had a lot of fun with Underworld: Awakening, and the 3D IMAX theater in which I watched it was the perfect atmosphere to take it all in. It also helps when the person you see a bad sci-fi flick with is also super-excited about what you both have just seen. But even if YOU don't have a loyal, sci-fi-loving sidekick, this film will soothe that nervous tick that only a full-bore action title can cure. It's the #2 film of 2012.

A reminder that this weekend is the Mr. Anderson Awards. Full honors will be posted Saturday, January 28'th, celebrating the best that 2011 had to offer! I hope to see you all there!