The Divergent Series: Allegiant

First Hit:  As the second to last film in this series, it moves the storyline along and was watchable.

Series films have become prominent fare being produced by Hollywood. Originality appears to be too risky and studios are banking on a prior successful story-lines, many times with the same actors, to produce dollars.

There are series films that have done well and grow in their story-line and presentation. Some are sequential types of films where the story develops over time (e.g. Rocky). Other use the same actors and/or their characters in new situations (e.g. James Bond films). Two of the latest series sets are The Hunger Games series and the Divergent series.

Both of these film series have heroines, use young actors, but the major difference between film number 3 for both these, is that Divergent is watchable and has a plot, whereas The Hunger Games was barely more than a set-up for the fourth film and virtually unwatchable.

Acting wise there are stronger actors in The Hunger Games however the script and possibly the direction let them down.

In this Divergent film, we find Tris (Shailene Woodley) disliking the change in leadership of their community and with this wants to breakthrough the wall surrounding Chicago to find out what else exists. In a daring escape she and Four (Theo James), Christina (Zoe Kravitz), Caleb (Ansel Elgort), and Peter (Miles Teller), go over the wall and end up in the Bureau of Genetic Welfare where Tris meets and begins working with David (Jeff Daniels).

As the façade of David is exposed, Four heads back to Chicago to help his mother Evelyn (Naomi Watts) sort through the problems of governing a division free Chicago.

Woodley is good enough in this film and I don’t know if it was the script, direction or her abilities that lowered my interest and caring about her character. James was consistent in his role and was one of the better characters. Teller was also very consistent, not only in this film, but through all of them. Elgort seemed amateurish in his portrayal of Caleb. Daniels was sufficiently strong as the antagonist. Watts was OK in a role that seemed unrealistic in its portrayal. Noah Oppenheim and Adam Cooper wrote this mediocre script. Robert Schwentke did a fair job of keeping the film moving along despite the lack of solid substance.

Overall:  This film wasn’t completely lost and hopefully its conclusion in June of 2017 will work better.

Steve Jobs

First Hit:  I liked the intensity brought forth in this film of Steve Jobs as played by Michael Fassbender and developed by writer Aaron Sorkin.

I’ve seen a number of Steve Jobs films and have read Walter Isaacson’s book and numerous articles about Steve and what works for me about this one, as a biographical drama, is that it takes 3 product launches and builds the Jobs’ persona and struggles around and through these launches. And although these launches probably didn’t have all the interactions shown this this film, it gives the audience a view of the man.

The often rumored Jobs' intensity and single mindedness is well represented in these 3 product launches: The issues and his responses around the demo’s not working, his distaste for Chrisann Brennan (Katherine Waterston) the mother of his daughter, his lack of acknowledgment, support and love for his daughter Lisa (Makenzie Moss – 5, Ripley Sobo – 9, and Perla Haney-Jardine – 19), the struggle with the Apple Board of Directors, his admiration and anger towards John Sculley (Jeff Daniels), the friendship and differences between himself and Steve Wozniak’s (Seth Rogen) view of their relationship and computers, and how much he depended on his Marketing Executive Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet).

Sorkin’s script is crisp and brings out many of Steve’s strengths and challenges while Danny Boyle’s direction puts all this on the screen in an interesting, dynamic way.

Fassbender is strong and intense in delivering the Jobs identity. Rogan is very good as Woz and the scene in the final product launch was excellent. Moss, Sobo, and Haney-Jardine, especially, were excellent as Lisa in their different ages. Daniels was outstanding as Sculley. Winslet was amazing as Hoffman and kept the whole film centered. Sorkin wrote an marvelous script and kept it focused. Boyle clearly did an excellent job of directing the characters through the script and scenes.

Overall:  I was fully engaged in this film and all the ups and downs experienced by each character.

The Martian

First Hit:  Matt Damon is wonderful in this interesting and engaging film.

With the latest news indicating that there is water on Mars, this film will have even more interest from audiences.

I cannot speak to the science demonstrated in the film and I will say the story is compelling mostly because of the acting. We have a crew on an extended mission to Mars but because there is a huge storm, they have to leave early leaving behind one of their team.

Mission Botanist Mark Watney (Matt Damon) was thought to be dead when the crew led by Captain Melissa Lewis (Jessica Chastain). NASA led by Teddy Sanders (Jeff Daniels) decides to not tell the crew heading back to Earth that the person they left behind is still alive. The reasons he uses are valid from one point of view but, the on Earth, person responsible for the crew, Mitch Henderson (Sean Bean) decides to inform the crew about Mark’s survival on Mars.

This works well as a plot device to set up an attempted rescue by this same crew later in the film. A good portion of the film is about how Mark solves the dilemma of being in a place where his food won’t last until a possible rescue mission comes back for him. He solves this problem with great verve, humor, ingenuity.

There is a bit more focus on the music he’s left with (disco era music) by Captain Lewis and it got old to me. I know it was used a clever plot device to created amusement and it wore thin. I’ve no idea if NASA works the way the film portrays but it was believable.

Besides the wonderful acting by Damon on Mars, the mixture of other characters helping to rescue him was also very good.

Damon was really strong as “the greatest botanist on the planet”. He does well at showing a positive outlook, intelligence, and fortitude to take this difficult situation and survive. Chastain was good as the mission leader, showing compassion, strength, and willingness. Daniels was very good as the no-nonsense NASA leader. Sean Bean was good in his small yet pivotal role. Donald Glover was probably the most interesting minor character. His portrayal of a certified genius able to solve the problem of identifying a rescue plan was perfect. Drew Goddard wrote a wonderful, interesting and, at times, amusing script. Ridley Scott did a great job of creating great sets (spaceship scenes were reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001) and getting some very strong performances from his actors.

Overall:  Although a little long it was an enjoyable and entertaining film.

Looper

First Hit:  A film that had me thinking about the story the morning, which bodes very well for it.

While the film attempts to draw one in about time-travel, it is the strong acting and inventive story that makes it work well.

Joe (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) puts aside any feelings he has about assassinating people because; it makes him a good living, the people are from the future – so they’ve already had a life (30 years more than if he were to kill them in real time), and it pays for his drug habit, which is one way he escapes caring much about his actions.

The way this works is that only organized crime, which lives 30 years in the future, has the ability to send people back to the past to be killed. The future world sends notice to Abe (played by Jeff Daniels), who is in the present (or past world) to have a “Looper” (one who assassinates) ready to kill whoever arrives at the designated spot from the future.

The Looper's payment for the kill comes with the person killed in the form of silver strapped to their backs. As a film viewer, you could get caught up in the time dilemma by wondering how the film explains both the past and future existing in the same moment of time, but I strongly don’t recommend bothering with it, especially if you wonder why only crime organizations uses time travel. 

If you buy into the story as the film presents it, the time travel phenomena the director takes us through is used to share meaningful parts of the story. And the meaningful parts of the story are about loving someone and how that love drives us to act in ways of honor and dishonor.

The future or Old Joe (played by Bruce Willis) comes back to change his future destiny because of love and Young Joe finds love with Sara (played by Emily Blunt) and her son Cid (played by Pierce Gagnon) and wants to see them live on.

Gordon-Levitt once again shows why he is being a frequently sought after actor – he’s excellent here as Young Joe and carries just enough of Willis’, Old Joe, look and feel to make it believable. The one thing that did bug me was Willis’ ear lobes and Gordon-Levitt’s ear lobes are very different (but they got the injured top part of the ear just right). Willis, is as he does of late, provide an intelligent, relaxed performance that is believable. He’s very good. Blunt, despite a wobbly accent, is outstanding and continues to show me why she is one of my favorite actresses. Daniels in a limited role is perfectly wonderful and takes scenes over when he is in them. Gagnon as Blunt’s child is creepily and charmingly fantastic. Piper Perabo (as Suzie) is wily and wonderful as Young Joe’s favorite hooker. Rian Johnson wrote a strong character script and although the requirement of parallel realities existing at the same time wasn’t handled real well – this film isn’t about time travel and he directed this cast in a strong story about love and redemption.

Overall:  The title of the film detracts from a film that is full of excellent acting and an intriguing story.

The Answer Man

First Hit: As the credits rolled at the end of the film, I realized I had really enjoyed it despite its obvious flaws.

Jeff Daniels plays Arlen Faber a lonely critical curmudgeon who, twenty years earlier, wrote a spiritual self-help bestseller called “God and Me”.

In his current situation he refuses to respond to letters, denies he’s Arlen Faber, and holes up in his house for days on end because of his own difficulty to be happy and seamlessly interface with life and the fame the book brought. In the book he wrote; Arlen posed questions to God and then provided answers which were purportedly received from God.

Arlen became known as the “The Answer Man” because the answers to the questions were so profound to the average person which is what caused his book to become a best seller. 

The film doesn't go into how he got to the state of needing to write the questions, let alone how he came to the answers. What we do know is that his father died 5 years before the film begins and he was very close to him, and he doesn’t have a connection with God. We know the latter because he’s shown going to churches asking for guidance by speaking and looking into the empty halls and ceilings, he shown reading spiritual books which are piled up everywhere in his house, we see him listening different spiritual CDs, and is shown doing different meditations and yoga poses.

Arlen also has a bad back and because of this, he seeks help from Elizabeth (played by Heather Graham) a healer and Doctor of Chiropractic. Her son, Alex (played by Max Antisell), is being overly protected by Elizabeth because of her own fearful reasons. When these two meet, a shift happens for them and others who are connected to each of them.

John Hindman wrote and directed this screenplay. Although the concept is good, I think more could have been done to create deeper and more interesting characters. Because of this, the film jumps from section to section with both extraneous scenes (If you see the film think of the mailman and his family and multiple shots of him lying on the floor with bad back) and scenes not developed enough (More about his relationship with his father and more about why he wrote the book - what drove him). Daniels, to his credit, was good and at times did more with the character than what was probably in the script. Graham was good and very engaging as was Antisell as her son and Olivia Thirlby as Graham’s receptionist Anne.

Overall: I liked the concept and most of the acting and was drawn to the subject matter. However, the screenplay needed to be rethought and enhanced along with stronger direction to make this a more powerful film.