Another movie adaptation of a young adult book series based on a dystopian future? To the book’s credit, though, the movie plays it very closely. This movie (and book) follows the trend of movies in the last several years. They present young adults in bizarre or dangerous situations in which they have to make decisions, take risks, and go their own way. Non-conformity in a dystopian future appears to be the choice theme and hottest phenomenon these days. Just a thought…who’s to say that our future will be dystopian? Isn’t it just as likely that society may not be torn by wars of epic proportions or ravaged by zombies? I like to think society will blossom and improve. Oh well.

It’s ironic, if not a little predictable, that movies from books like these are nearly risk-aversive. With your producer breathing down your neck, why rock the boat and jeopardize a potentially wildly successful franchise if you don’t have to? “Divergent” is the latest movie in a long line of similar predecessors like “Hunger Games,” “Total Recall,” “Blade Runner,” yes and even “A Clockwork Orange.” Like in “Hunger Games” and “Harry Potter,” apparently only teenagers or young adults have the courage and honesty to stand up for what is right and challenge the system or order of the current world, which for all we know only consists of a future Chicago that resembles current Detroit.

Though its main appeal will most likely be to those who read the book and are young adults either chronologically or in spirit, “Divergent” does have something for the rest of those who will undoubtedly watch it; and that’s the chance to see the pair of performers who make that romantic music together. An early choice to play the lead, Shailene Woodley who plays Tris (hmm…where have we seen an underdog female protagonist in a dystopian future before?), is one of her generation’s most beautiful and promising young female actors. Picking her soul mate took a lot longer, but the studio’s selection of the devastatingly handsome Theo James to play Four has paid off. Both the actors have excellent chemistry on screen and serve as a glue for the film.

Although I have not read the book, from what I have been able to research, except for some minor nips and tucks, the screenplay follows the book fairly closely. The biggest change is the further development of the Machiavellian Erudite leader Jeanine Matthews, well played by Kate Winslet, into full-fledged villain status. However, her character’s position is unable to elicit empathy from the audience. And, an audience empathizing with the villain is important in a well-written story. Furthermore, the cause for the takeover by the Erudites (one of five main factions) is never fully explained.

Cinematography and editing wise, the film has a very instagram look; but, that is not entirely uncommon for these types of films. It was refreshing to venture out of the Dauntless caves every now and again to see other colors besides various hughes of black, brown, and red. Regarding the structure of the movie, most movies follow a classic three-act structure. But as the title suggests, this movie “diverges” from the classic structure of a cinematic narrative story. Act one lasts 3/4 of the film, and acts two and three are only 1/8 each. The slow pace in the beginning does pay off with the fast-moving pace in the last two acts.

All-in-all, this movie contains elements that are par for the course in this genre. But a well executed futuristic action-romance film. Definitely one that a family can enjoy together, and one from which young women and men can learn honestly, respect, and courage. A good way to spend 2.5 hours.

Screened at the special presentation section at the 2013 Toronto International Film Festival and winner of the Best Picture award at the 2nd Canadian Screen Awards, “Enemy” is a slow-moving psychological erotic thriller starring Jake Gyllenhaal about college professor Adam (Gyllenhaal) who seeks out his doppleganger (also played by Gyllenhaal) after spotting him in an independent film.

The films opens with the phrase “chaos is order as yet undeciphered.” An accurate message to state at the beginning of this film as it lives up to it in spades. It’s artistic, splendidly undeciphered, and full of meaning…I’m just not sure entirely sure what that meaning is. In a psychological thriller, there are often elements that are not explained up front…but isn’t that what makes something suspenseful…the anticipation of what is to come or what the meaning behind something is? The problem with this film is that very little, if anything, is ever explained. The denouement is lacking and leaves the audience wondering “what the (you fill in the explicative).” There is lots of conflict; and any film student worth their weight in salt will can tell you that no well-written story exists without conflict. However, along with the conflict, there needs to be resolution. And, that absence in this film leaves a big gaping hole at the close of the narrative. It is almost as if the movie continues long into the ending credits, but we do not have the opportunity to view it.

The movie opens with a Kubrick style scene that could’ve come straight our of “Eyes Wide Shut” featuring an erotic dancer and a spider. Yes, a spider. This same spider follows the plot and Adam throughout the entire narrative–again, never explained. “Enemy” is the type of film, like a brilliantly orchestrated train wreck, that you can’t take your eyes off of, largely in part to Gyllenhaal’s performances as both men. Both men are the same, yet different. Nearly resembling an avant-garde film from the 1920s, director Denis Villeneuve keeps the film in hues of yellow and black, with dialogue sparsely thrown in. In fact, one could remove the dialog completely and be left with the same final product.

One aspect to developing a visual narrative that “Enemy” does right is engage the open-minded audience members to ponder and theorize explanations long after the film is over. If you are up to an intellectual challenge and enjoy a movie that causes you to think, this movie may be one for you; however, it is not a film for everyone, including the casual movie patron. Perhaps the movie achieved its goal after all: appealing to the artistic and intellectual movie connoisseur.

(C)2014 Fox Studios

The movie “Monuments Men” chronicles the greatest art heist in history. Taking place at the end of WWII, the film is about a group of men, with assistance from a woman in France, who are tasked with the responsibility of locating, protecting, and recovering Europe’s ancient and Renaissance irreplaceable treasures, including the Bruches Madonna and the Ghent Alter.

Although the movie possessed an impressive pedigree of actors and production value, it was lost between tones and genres. One of the main problems is that fine art and action simply don’t go well together. As a result, Clooney ends up stranded in some no man’s land between joshing Robert Aldrich-style action movie, rousing Second World War epic and essay in sappy art-history nostalgia. The screenplay failed to establish one of the most important elements in a well-written screenplay–having a well-defined and developed central character (or protagonist). It’s a perfect example of why an ensemble cast simply does not work; furthermore, it’s very difficult to do each of the characters justice. There are many moments in the movie in which this ragtag band of men are gazing in awe at a Michelangelo or Picasso one monent, and fighting to the death with Nazis the next.

Even though the audience may be asking Clooney to wake them up when he and his band of merry men find the art they are looking for, that is a harsh assessment of a film whose heart is in the right place–the “story” is fantastic–but, having a good heart alone does not a good film make. Due to the all-star cast, including Hollywood royalty like John Goodman and Bill Murray, the film is a throwback to the post WWII era films that were released about 15-20 years following the close of the war. Such films were aimed at a morally exhausted U.S. audience that wanted to be congratulated for its role in ending tyranny; but also wished to be entertained by a caper, romantic story, or drawing room humor. In order to have accomplished this, the screenplay should have elaborated more on the no-so-romantic relationship between Cate Blanchette and Matt Damon’s characters. As it stands, the time spent on the romance-that-will-never-be between them could have been spent elsewhere.

If you’re looking for beautiful cinematography of fine art, you will find it in the movie. The movie does a great job at bringing the audience as close as many will get to these masterpieces. And, it will feel like an art history class that is actually fun and interesting for the more educated audience who is undoubtedly the ones buying tickets to this movie. Another accomplishment of the movie is that it highlights a story that many did not know existed and shows the world how important art is. In an age in which schools are pushing their STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, & Mathematics), it is refreshing that a movie advocates the support of the arts.

Looking for the next historic tear-jerking blockbuster, this movie is not it. But, if you are looking to learn more about this special operation during WWII and be mildly entertained amongst the action, then this is a great way to spend a couple hours.