Change Your Image
lopezmaggivonkarma
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Fault in Our Stars (2014)
"The Fault In Our Stars" My Modest Review
These are films for receiving any luck. Although based on a bestseller, the story about a character affected by cancer should not receive much attention in cinema considering the invasion on TV about this kind of telefilms. But nevertheless took the Box Office arriving at 1st place and temporarily blurring the attention of "Maleficent" on the public. But it would not be big news if it were not also surrounded by laudatory reviews in specialized media Journalism
And truth, "The Fault In Our Stars" feels like a TV movie but more budget. Follow the outline of a TV movie, with characters who are collaterally developed (only get voice and presence when sharing scene with any of the protagonists), and characters which we see for a moment and then not see them again during a considerable time, which is a symptom of direct-to-DVD films which are poorly edited or unprepared (eg "Lol" featured Miley Cyrus). That's why (warning: little Spoilers in the next sentence) the appearance of Willem Dafoe in the funeral is meaningless, and the meeting between Shailene Woodley and Nat Wolff in the end has no coherence, since they are not strictly friends but their friendship is only appearance maintained by the link gave by Ansel Elgort; then only serves as a Deus Ex Machina to Wolff advise about the letter. The worst punished is Sam Trammell, who not only has little presence but even his acting is not convincing, looking more like a adult friend than a father. But what really superfluous are the flashbacks of the protagonist as a child, which are completely standard and could have been omitted
The problem of "The Fault In Our Stars" is not to follow the steps of a television drama. Here's Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort, in a truly bizarre turn of events have gone from being brothers in the hit "Divergent" to be dating in this film; although there are not too creepy innuendos that could emphasize this Pseudo-incest? And in case of Woodley, her performance is not just good but brilliant; what is even more remarkable considering her poor performance in "Divergent". Elgort is pretty good but pales in dramatic moments and must contend with an overly indulgent script
And is that part of the errors is the script focused over Elgort, incurring in the vices of the new Hollywood cinema. Apparently, there is now a very strong belief in business where the adolescents should be very confident and loving for the public to sympathize with them. While the interpretation and charisma of Ansel Elgort do not bother, the script is so desperate to make him a lovable character who flooded in a sea of improbability. Of course, as soon as he meets the girl, Elgort does not remove the look in her, and even the first day invited to his house where she accepts the invitation (Who said that a woman is difficult to conquer?). Not only do these exaggerated first steps, but some improbable nonsense for a teenager like lending a friend trophies to destroy them or the cigarette metaphor, which is good in theory but in practice is shameful. Moreover, in any case, would be fine the nonsense about the cigarette within the protagonists circle, but the desperate script does not conform and decides to cross barriers: so, they tell the cigarette metaphor to a stewardess (as if the stewardess mattered actually she does not care)
This review continues on my personal Tumblr (Reviews and the city tumblr), which has no commercial purpose now
The Pirate Fairy (2014)
"Tinkerbell: The Pirate Fairy" My modest review
Due to its Spin-Off nature, "Tinker Bell" film products have been relegated to the status of DVD products; and "The Pirate Fairy" is no exception to this bureaucracy. It's really very easy to see the low quality of a movie for DVD, even if this is attempted also sell to large romos
"Tinkerbell: The Pirate Fairy" is essentially an exercise in committee. Well, it's true that "Maleficent" (the latest A-Class release by Disney) is a film made with eyes on market rules, but ultimately despite its mediocrity works as a less polished but equally charming haven that "Despicable Me". Here is true that the idea of Tinkerbell could make people think this is a movie for a girl, but the truth is that the flying yellow bell is not very charismatic to carry the weight of a premiere, so creatives have designed a film that operates through a wash of images. That is, to capture the viewer through the visual surface. For the rest, "The Pirate Fairy" works like a theme park, with alarming situations that do not maintain a consistent connection to the next. For example, from the background of Zarina (the first 10 minutes of the film) to pass without much diplomacy a packed stadium where fairy Zarina makes everyone sleep, and then spent a few scenes on the coast, and then spent the skull world. It's not that other films have characters wandering about many places, but the progression is more natural while here walking giant portions of geography at short times. This is because the goal is to create situations, regardless of the core. One can notice this in scenes such as waterfalls where the protagonists discuss their lack of powers all culminating in a scene where they slip and fall into a kind of slide made from plants
But if the movie has this feeling (at least for the first half hour, then stabilizes a bit), the argument does not make much sense. Here Zarina played with elements that should not, but that element is the fairy dust, which is supposed to be the raison d' être of Tinkerbell world, so not much of prohibited. Also, if the fairy dust is as dangerous in the wrong hands, not explained about the ease with which Zarina steals the blue powder; No security guards? And the possibility that Zarina can create her own fairy dust tree has not much sense, because it will eliminate the solemnity of forbidden treasures in adventure films (including this one). It's like Lord Voldemort (to give an example) had the ability to manufacture his own sorcerer's stone with minimal elements instead of pursue the stone
This review continues on my personal Tumblr (Reviews and the city tumblr), which has no commercial purpose now
Scarface (1983)
"Scarface" (1983) My modest review
Sometimes, the mere fact of entertaining is enough. This is what happens with "Scarface" (1983 ): hugely entertaining and enjoyable, but nor think is the masterpiece which all shout. In its premiere, received enormous negative reviews, but as often happens with many works, and as Tommy Duncan said, "Time changes everything". That axiom enthusiastically applied in the film, growing over the years to become a cult. The famous double DVD edition marked the success that it was not his first release. Everyone love the movie; Why not ? people crying: Tony Montana; mountains of drugs is what people crave to see, that fantasy and metaphor of the American Dream is what everyone wants to look
But if you momentarily abstracts that universe, "Scarface" has a facile and affected loading, that hardly combine with the less exhibitionist reality of drug trafficking. It's "Alice in the Wonderland", but Heroin and money version. Part of facility moves to aesthetics, a catalog of eccentricities invading. A soundtrack hyper-saturated of sensationalism stylization (the songs "Vamos a Bailar"; "She's On Fire"; "Push It On The Limit"), exotic and flashy suits, Cadillacs, mountains of cocaine, the "king" chair of Montana, etc. Blood, black and the white of the drugs are the three primary colors of the film, like a mafia cartoon at its best. Maybe the real problem is the movie length: if the movie was shorter, would win more precision, but nearly three hours where there are many good scenes but easily editable, so there are too much excess. Tony Montana fighting alone at the end of the film WITH ONLY A HANDFUL OF HELPERS is an excess, demagoguery of the script to boost the protagonist as hero or martyr
Oliver Stone's script for Al Pacino's version takes some elements of the 1932 version eg the obsession with sister, the murder of the husband of this sister, the phrase "The World Is Yours", the betrayal of Tony's boss, etc. Oliver Stone's problem is: transfers certain customs and details in a movie that strongly develops interpersonal relationships: in "Scarface" (1983) his sister's husband is a close friend of Montana, so the murder was nonsense. In the 1932 version, the husband was more a bully in the service of Tony. In addition, this 1932 film, obsession to his sister could be understood as the custom of those times where the role of women was too restricted, while in the 1983 production is a bit contradictory: as liberal and anti-communist as Tony Montana is so strict with Gina. In Scarface 1932, Tony Camonte was a coward which only had courage when he had a weapon, and that assumption is proved at the end of the film. In the 1983 version, Tony Montana is portrayed as a brave, intelligent and arrogant individual; but yet at the end of the film when he goes to kill Sosa's soldiers, this attitude is not so much like a super criminal individual, but of a vulgar and desperate man taking his last measure for not die
Tony Montana is arrogant, says phrases for a poster, he does not care about human life and makes apologist of guns. The problem is not that (ultimately all heroes like Terminator or McClaine do), but "Scarface" has two serious problems: one is Brian De Palma , who is unable to moderate the behavior of Al Pacino. Pacino is a great actor, but when he overreacts becomes a parody, and that excess is what happens with "Scarface" (1983). But actually the problem of Pacino would not be so terrible if the script did not makes a second fatal mistake. The real problem lethal in "Scarface" 1983 is: Stone tries to inject a tragedy where there is none. When an overwhelming person like Montana appears, is necessary to write a good core to his character, and so prepare him for the tragedy. The story of Tony Montana should be similar to that of a monster and a sinister sociopath, but the final quality offered by Al Pacino, De Palma and Oliver Stone is a "bad guy" who takes drugs to exhaustion
This review continues on my personal Tumblr (Reviews and the city tumblr), which has no commercial purpose now
Carlito's Way (1993)
"Carlito's Way" My modest film review
This is another of Brian De Palma failures that have left him with little chance to reverse, falling totally in the collapse after "Mission To Mars", and this Pacino movie has emerged as a cult film. It's actually not so true this last statement: "Carlito's Way" is not so much a cult classic, simply because it is always overshadowed by her capricious sister "Scarface", but also due to the same reasoning is not completely forgotten because shares a similar genetic
If one compares, "Carlitos Way" is slightly better than "Scarface", but also has the usual De Palma serious problems (and we do not talk about Hitchcock imitations). But though this 1993 film is based on a book, has a striking eye to correct the errors of the film 1983. Al Pacino is much more controlled (however here also tends to overflow, to relax) and while sometimes falls into inertia, on the other hand is brilliant in the dramatic moments. Also, the relationship with Penelope Ann Miller is much more heartfelt, unlike the insipid and quasi-misogynist Tony Montana / Elvira connection. There is a sense of sophistication over Carlito Brigante, and even the soundtrack is much more current than the over-stylization of Giorgio Moroder, same with the aesthetic that is much less colorful
But it is true that the argument does not click where it belongs. This is the story of a man who is redeemed, and could be taken two ways: become an existential crime drama à la Woody Allen (highly unlikely), or be a Western transferred to mafia traditions. Instead deviates to casual reflections in the vein of "The Godfather 3" ("Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in"), and then continue as a bastion of "Scarface" in style and repeating many of its sins: again the flashy aesthetics in the disco, again the unimpressive criminals, again the ridiculous nicknames for the gangsters (here: "Saso"; "Pachanga"; "Lalin"), again the relentlessly repetition of the word "fuck" (the most punished is Sean Penn, who often repeated), again the mediocre actors. While "Carlito's Way" corrects some problems of the 1983 movie, in turn there are some pretty bad scenes: the pool scene is artificial, with Pacino went really placing the ball to give right on the target, with Pacino running so clumsy to the bathroom. It is certainly an achievement of direction and style, but it is less shocking than the chainsaw scene of "Scarface", plus it follows the same pattern: the pool scene, like the chainsaw, are disconnected from the film, with the sole purpose of generating a "Wow! " scene; plus we again find mafia scams who want to kill their main stockists
And like "Scarface 1983", the film is long, full of easily editable sequences: for example the appearance of Viggo Mortensen seems a desperate cameo for the actor to appear in the movie. The OFF voice of Pacino is good, although it is packed with some Pop psychology about urban life rather than a true reflection of his redemption. But despite the errors, the script and De Palma are responsible for a great moments. Pacino's relationship with Penelope Ann Miller is felt, even with some nonsense (Pacino goes to a home roof, with a trash can lid on his head to cover from the rain, watching his beloved) and the fact that De Palma costs to move to another instance (which makes the romance consume unnecessary minutes). For its part, the script adds sophistication to Carlito Brigante: this is a smart guy who knows the actions of the mob. Pacino performance in the drama is excellent: in the pool scene for example, Pacino's face in the first moments warns us that something is wrong here; and other scenes we can also discover more of his interpretation (when Penn appoints the boat in front of Miller). About style, De Palma sometimes tuned to "The Untouchables" and is generally pretty good, but suffers from excessive expressionism: Not all camera movements and angle distortions are subtle. However, in his honor point out the sequence of persecution in the terminal, which is even more tense than the defaulter tribute "Battleship Potemkin" in "The Untouchables"
(Warning: Spoilers in this paragraph) And while the film is fairly good (even the non-gangster Carlito Brigante nature of his redemption can justify some numbers: eg supposedly prestigious and millionaires mobsters using only a few thugs, ahem), the film decides to commit a suicide in almost end. Just a bad end, and there are three main reasons
This review continues on my personal Tumblr (Reviews and The City tumblr), which has no commercial purpose now
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)
"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" My modest review
...Then, one day, Captain America came to the present. As expected, "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" must have in most reviews the word "entertaining" or closest synonyms, but still the overall magnitude of the new Marvel film is uneven. The big problem that dilutes the new release is that the writing and execution do not break the mainstream, but the film is a puzzle with pieces of other hero products that have circulated in recent years. "Collage" is an appropriate definition, where the show always ends up triumphing before the few lucid moments of exposure of the plot
Making a timeline with "The Avengers" the most American hero is in this second movie today. This leads to a couple of personal problems for the protagonist: has now become a museum relic, his wife of the 40's has aged to old, and no longer has his old friends on earth. But because a Marvel superhero movie has no time for drama, all the psychological and emotional wounds of Steve Rogers (because the drastic change) are discarded as fast as possible (the committee think "we do not want this to become "Hulk 2003"). On the other hand, the plot and its execution is not great: the plot has the thriller format in the style of "Iron Man", but is more likely to follow the flow of the James bond films (one can seriously think that this is a recycled "Moonraker " and "The Spy who Loved Me"); as for implementation, there are too many symbols that desperately re-call "Batman: The Dark Knight" (the epic or motivational speech, the infiltrated police). Fighting (except the final show) also follow the trail of "The Dark Knight" and the latest James Bond film, with fights where are needed hands and muscle or a few weapons, without favoring exotic gadgets. And of course, occasional humor of these projects
As you can see, there are many ideas and recycling, which inevitably culminates in an inert point . The drama, as we said, is lukewarm, like motivational speeches; humor ranges from the funny to lukewarm and predictable (even the one- liners are not as impressive) or sometimes bizarre (some platitudes to fill time, eg Johansson asking the protagonist if the kiss he gave her is the first after the 2nd world war); the argument is lukewarm and the excuse to kill 20 million people to establish a higher order sounds, according to the statement made ??by the film (with videos of different social stages), more fitting for revisionist conspiracy theories as Zeitgeist, rather to a sophisticated villain (This continues in: http://reviewsandthecity.tumblr.com/post/81957637320/captain-america- the-winter-soldier-film-review)
Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013)
"Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues" My modest review
"Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues" is the sequel to the film made in 2004. Yes, 10 years after the sequel comes out. Except where classics were slow to offer their continuation (eg " Terminator", spent seven years to "Terminator 2"), the idea of a film that takes a decade to debut as a sequel, it's a bad sign. It happened with "Silent Hill 2" and it happens now with "Anchorman 2". It's like someone, almost asleep, it occurred at the bottom of the light that his film could again be lucrative if it expands
That's why "Anchorman 2" feels overheated, as if the writer was asleep or with intent to do this project quickly enough to avoid major architectures and so the film is ready at short notice. Refine heavy jokes with a luxury soundtrack and leave the rest of the joke to hiring an expensive cast, but even they and their talent can not overcome the poverty of material. It happens that the movie makes roughly when giving grace, and this ends with an overwhelming focus: instead of giving accurate and fair times, dozens of jokes soar in seconds. There is a popular bad tendency to believe jokes make grace simply because are jokes, which is not. A gag or joke are more fun according to the context and the degree of dosage. "Anchorman 2" follows the bad tendency, to the point that the actors involved here minimize their personalities and become little reworkings of Mike Myers: try to be funny all the time and are able to repeat the joke more effective for many times (even if that joke really is not funny). The scene where Will Ferrell repeated "black" 100 times, not unlike the joke of "Austin Powers in Goldmember" where Myers repeated "Mole"
This review continues on my personal Tumblr, which has no commercial purpose now
http://reviewsandthecity.tumblr.com/post/81808652150/anchorman-2-the- legend-continues
Free Birds (2013)
"Free Birds" My modest review
"Freebirds" is the first animated film for Reel FX studies, which are finding a niche to compete with the huge market of Disney, Dreamworks and (in a lesser extent) Blue Sky. While these large companies also calved low box office films (eg: Chicken Little), it is generally difficult to face these monsters, though some probed with an overly frenetic approach as "The LEGO movie" or "Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 2", questionable artistic decisions but hit the public with success. But "Free Birds" betting with a new proposal, sank worldwide while garnered terrible reviews. Generally before writing a review, you usually look at the opinions of others to know if going in the right direction, but is not the first time a very good movie gets very bad press and then the same critics should change their opinion with the advancement of time (eg, "A Clockwork Orange"). Unfortunately, there is little chance of reversing the situation with "Free Birds". From now come large portions of paragraphs explaining the operation of the film, but in a nutshell the only failure "Free Birds" is completely lacking in comedic timing
(Warning: spoilers in this paragraph) Its argument is original, in part. Two turkeys want to stop the culture of roasted turkey on Thanksgiving, so time travel (like "Terminator", not like "Back to the Future") to the first day of Thanksgiving and remove the culture of turkey in the traditional menu of that day. Even at a time when there are so many coincidences to "Mr Peabody and Sherman", like a predecessor.That does not mean it's a bold argument: the film does not have the courage to show us a world without turkey on Thanksgiving day, and even replacing the turkey for the pizza is not as unpredictable because the course of the movie
The problem is that the company Reel FX is so desperate to make a successful film that rises directly on the proved formula, unassembled minimal process so that the assault is not as strident. The story begins with different turkey to rest (à la " Ratatouille"), but as the film is not about that subject , all the discriminated turkey conflict is quickly discarded (in fact , You never know exactly why his teammates got kicked out of the farm). After 6 minutes the turkey already in the president's house eating pizza and watching a Mexican TV drama, but as the film is not about that issue quickly the turkey is placed in contact with an effusive Jake, which the writers crave develop as a kind of soldier ready for war, but also write a lot of jokes and gags Slapsticks for him, so that the character is not convincing anywhere. All the initial launch in the time machine is chaotic because the film does not give the nonsense never, desperate for a joke to hit the target at the public; but the slapstick humor is stilted (the entire sequence of the nut is absurd), and Jake jokes contradict his development as an expert to war
Once in 1621 year, is so sad to see how the film's own committee decides to invent some new characters that only overshadow the protagonists, and other decisions. Ranger is a bit more serious than Jake, but "Free Birds" can not forget about Jake and then they snap together with Ranger for a series of jokes that have nothing to do with the context. The gag dancing between these characters may or may not make you laugh, but is unrelated to the situation. Meanwhile the villains take up too much time overshadow Reggie. When Reggie should be the hero, the script offers a number of Deus Ex Machina (remote laser; time machine) that bombard his chance to be someone interesting and safe. Also the movie spend so much time to prove the formula for success that the background of Jake (a turkey freed by his mother and failed to bring some eggs to rebuild a family) arrives late and in the middle of an impending battle; whereby one assumes that Jake is not a super prepared for the battle but an excruciating unprepared which enters the war without much hesitation
This review continues on my personal Tumblr, which has no commercial purpose now
http://reviewsandthecity.tumblr.com/post/81602867766/free-birds-film- review
Noah (2014)
"Noah" My modest film review
"Noah" is an emotionally incomplete film. There is a great casting, but with the end result one can see that this is a ploy to attract any public, as well smoothing with the stars the rough connotations of material. Yet there are problems with the casting: Russell Crowe is a very good actor, but has always liked this kind of theater projects, so when one goes to see a film with him, know that you will see at least one heavy film (eg, "Les Misérables"). On the other hand, Anthony Hopkins has a rather roguish face that conveys playfulness, one sees Hopkins as a rogue and friendly old man with a beard, when his character Methuselah had been better with a man who inspires a paternal image, eg Michael Gambon or Ian McKellen. And finally Emma Watson, whose performance is really mediocre, generally she is not bad actress, but here is facing a dramatic range that can not cope
(Warning: from now the review contains heavy spoilers, although some are not technically spoilers if you know the epic of Noah) But these casting problems are outweighed by worse problems. Darren Aronofsky is a great director who made great movies, but can not deal with his script and appeals to easy and sloppy tricks. The film is not didactic: If you did not read the Bible, you can barely understand "Noah". The film begins with a world destroyed and you do not know why (actually is nothing special: it is the artistic vision of the world in decline by Aronofsky, before the flood). The "Noah" directorial logistics is almost episodic and lacks narrative bridges in the first hour, everything is a succession of events in the movie where there is no coherent link to move from one event to another. Thus, we see special effects forming forests or water jets or large herds of animals without knowing how or when, we see scenes that should have been seen sooner rather than later (eg scenes of Tubal- cain massacres , or whole story of the creation of the universe ). Also the edition of the protagonists is mixed, with many characters coming and going to places that only know when they left. Because of the shallowness, the role of the villain is not well defined and their threat is more apparent than real
But speaking of villains, is where "Noah" shows its limitations. The film takes enough licenses and expanding moments in the life of Noah that do not appear in the Bible, in order to form a psychological picture of the protagonist. Not very different from "Troy" movie where the Iliad got a Freudian value. There are stone beings as a script resource to provide some battles in a story that lacks action. The stone beings are a resource to replace what would humans battling in "The Lord of the Rings", it happens that Noah is not a warrior who possesses an army to defend him, so give real soldiers to defend Noah would have been an embarrassment and thats why the script chose fantastic beings.
The problem with the psychological approach is that instead of hiding the Christian connotations , put them out even more clearly. One should not criticize holy bible, but it is true that the world has changed and our thinking is more modern therefore many ideas of the film are overwhelmingly sad. View as a superior being dedicated to massacre an entire world is unacceptable, especially since the villains are not defined (perhaps due to time), and when the film gives them an exposure time, the dialogues are unfortunately too feasible. One can not hate the villains simply because their only sin is to try to survive. There are some scenes (arriving late in the film) shows where Tubal-Cain and his followers committed gross acts, but they are so short and little explanatory that are not helpful to demonize Tubal
In contrast , the character of Noah is just a shame. One expected, according to the psychological approach, that Noah will be a guy fighting hard on his divalency between obeying God or not, but in reality things are far from this theory. However, Noah is an individual willing to defend the principles of his creator and only in the end he gets a glimpse of mercy, and this is not so much hint of generosity but of cowardice. The rigidity and lack of modernization of the Bible generated the most embarrassing moments of "Noah": Na'el death, which is a cruel detail
This review continues on my personal Tumblr, which has no commercial purpose now
http://reviewsandthecity.tumblr.com/post/81406036755/noah-film-review
La vie d'Adèle (2013)
"Blue Is The Warmest Color" My modest review
"La vie d'Adèle" ("Blue is the Warmest Color" is the English title) is destined to win the critics and viewers. From their home country where the gay marriage law is discussed, coupled with racy scenes in sex, awards received at festivals, and statements of the protagonists ensuring their hatred of the director, because his excessive madness to direct the film (they promised not work never more with it)
"La vie d'Adèle" received an overwhelming amount of near perfect reviews. This film is not pornographic or sex-centric: not only shows nothing very explicitly, but hot scenes occupy no more than 20 minutes divided into segments, compared to the other two and a half hours
However, "La vie d'Adèle" does not become an explosion in the brain as you expected. While the sex scenes are the best (shows many things but with thin strokes. Titanic work of the director and the actresses are insured), the little problem with miss Adele is: much more conventional than our expectations. This is a story that has been in an infinite number of tapes in the format of heterosexuality, about the turbulent relationship of two people to end up as good friends (eg "Annie Hall"). But in this film the things works with a different twist: they are lesbians. This happens a chronology of the sexual life of the protagonist that names the title, but it is seen trivially, as parts of the person: She impresses arbitrarily with the blue-haired girl on the street (à la "Desperately Seeking Susan" where Arquette obsessed with Madonna), discovers that she is not interested in sex with men, frequents gay clubs, she tries to save appearances with her parents, kissing with a partner, etc
They are very good moments, but there is no insight, and homosexuality does not get the discussion that should
There are some warps aimed to touch the discomfort society of this type of sexuality. The first is the shame of Adele with a friend at school by discovering her lesbianism. Here many students the school maintain a diverse but stupid position: some look askance at homosexuality, others does not condemn it, but any of the positions are buried by the juvenile folly and lack of perspective that age to build something useful and helpful neighbor (eg one of the men make gay jokes) . The second is with parents: when Adele tries to maintain appearances with them to introduce to her "friend" and not to reveal her sexual identity. But the good moments are not reflections, and the parents of Adele in the last hour of footage are buried, disappear of the screenshot
(Danger: Spoilers in this paragraph) Because the plot seems to be trivialized, some flaws that undermine the common sense because the film is about lesbians: there is infidelity by one of the girls, but this deception is with the other sex, indicating that they can change so quickly, as if sexuality were a revolving door. It is true that homosexuality is primarily a disorder for the individual by the confusion that must feel and taboos, eg tell to your parents (or suppress it, hide it), so interruptions of the common sense regarding the "sides" with what you want to stay, are continuous. But in the present case, the sexuality was already sharp enough for that failure logic of the script
This review continues on my personal Tumblr, which has no commercial purpose now
http://reviewsandthecity.tumblr.com/post/70707492998/blue-is-the- warmest-color-film-review
Divergent (2014)
"Divergent" My modest review
To write about the film "Divergent" is first necessary analyze the literary substance which it is based. Because, upon closer inspection, that's the main flaw of the film
To properly analyze the book, a lengthy prologue about the conduct of a dictatorial government and its implementation on the novel by Veronica Roth necessary. Just as there is a forensic awareness in the serial murderer (able to find excuses for their behavior), there is also a totalitarian awareness in many dictatorships: arise in times of great social disorganization, impose control over the people, atone and classified and exterminate the "threats", expand and seek to obtain a balance or a happy society, even if they must use the most violent and cruel methods to achieve that goal. Even the Nazis sought a world in peace and harmony, but for this task were insanely convinced the domination of the Lebensraum and the extermination of "undesirables", plus the loyalty of the people to the Nazi Party
Veronica Roth respects part of this common sense: the dictatorship of the novel comes at a time where wars almost destroyed the world, and this new totalitarian government seeks a peaceful state curtailing freedoms. But is Roth who also added a bunch of craps: this dictatorship imposes an impractical system of dividing society into groups of coexistence, where some people to meet majority must choose one of the groups to live forever in it and not to contact legally the other sectors, which means that many families would be torn apart by the division if their children chose a foreign group, triggering a social imbalance that is somewhat unfair in a totalitarian government that could well impose another system without disrupting society so drastically. In "The Hunger Games" there is the classical system of minorities with money vs enslaved and poor people, with dreams of belonging to the elite minority, which is a scheme that allows poors to be with their families until they are chosen randomly in combat (it is not very realistic, but certainly much more flexible). But this approach that Roth tre is surprisingly fla even for a real dictatorship. Furthermore, the system designs its logical failures: people living in their family's are to meet certain age and choose, which means that the sectors may suffer easily seepage of personalities from other groups just because a guy gets two personalities (the personality of the family and the new personality of the group); in fact in the film alludes to this point
But also Vernica Roth, either she lacks imagination or personal beliefs, embarks on theological estates where human ills are products of elementary, almost cultural and godlike factors that humans suffering. Thus, wars are caused by the qualities of ignorance, selfishness, etc., and the solution is to remove these qualities. It is an excessively naive view, today there are materials and advanced sciences like ponerology who developed the explanation of a dictatorial government as complex mechanisms where the executors suffer serious pathological deviations.
And if all this world sounds implausible, worst of all is the bizarre taste of the novelist to give substance to her name and universe. It's horrible: the groups were called "Candor," "Erudite" "Amity" "Abnegation" and "Dauntless". Each of these factions meets the personality according to the title of the group, eg if you belong to "Dauntless" then you'll be a brave person for the rest of your life. It's so absurd and obviously the names of the groups, and the objectives of the factions also ridiculous
The film is directed by Neil Burger, who knows how to deliver some power but does not have many exceptional films (not even "The Illusionist"). In "Divergent" applies enthusiasm enough to be entertaining, even if only dedicated to copy some tips from other directors, even if only dedicated to emulate the energy of the films "The Hunger Games" 1 & 2. Many scenes action / adventures are good but unconnected, with the only purpose of generating a little entertainment in a production that focuses on the main character training. There are awkward moments: the test sequence (the protagonist with the wolf) is really flat, instead of waking some lyricism. The Soundtrack is bizarre and out of context, Pop songs when the movie tries to sell this as "Serious"
The protagonist decides to belong to "Dauntless" (because it is the most entertaining group to make a film, right?), And is warned about two special groups: the "factionless" where individuals who did not pass the test of their faction live in an area of ??decay; and the "divergent" group where they are people who do not fit the mold of legal groups and are quickly killed to prevent rebellions. In the "factionless" is absurd to think that people who have own culture fall into a state of total decay, simply for failing a test. And in the case of the "divergent" if you think about it deeply, has exactly the same characteristics of a "factionless". Why not classified in the same group?
This review continues on my personal Tumblr, which has no commercial purpose now
http://reviewsandthecity.tumblr.com/post/80744453615/divergent-film- review