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.

Marguerite

First Hit:  This film was, at times, very funny, sad, and too long.

Marguerite Dumont (Catherine Frot) has always wanted to be an opera singer. She’s very rich, married Baron Georges Dumont (Andre Marcon) because she loved him and he had a title (Baron).

The problem with Marguerite’s singing is that she sings off key. Nobody has told her this and when she sings for her music club everyone applauds because she’s got money and contributes to the club’s cause. Her husband never comes to these events at their home because he cannot stand her singing and hates to be part of the delusion everyone perpetuates to get her money, just like his own delusion.

There is a side story as well with Lucien Beaumont (Sylvain Dieuaide) and a wonderful singer named Hazel (Christa Theret). Unfortunately, this story is not well established and poorly executed.

Marguerite insists on having a public concert and hires Atos Pezzini (Michel Fau) a fading quirky opera singer who has no prospects and needs the money. The scenes of him and his team (a bearded lady and a deaf piano player) are generally funny. But watching the scenes of Marguerite singing off key were hilarious.

It requires an amazing skill to sing that badly so well. However, the film seems to drag and it could have been shorted by 15 – 30 minutes and been just as good.

Frot was strong as Marguerite the loving wife and it was amazing how she could sing off key so well. Marcon was good as the husband who never wanted to hurt his wife’s feelings and grew to really care about her. Fau was very good as the gay fading opera singer who tried to help Marguerite. Denis Mpunga was fabulous as Madelbos, Marguerite’s servant and assistant. His double edged presence was great to watch. Xavier Giannoli wrote and directed the film. Some of the dialogue was amazing, especially from Mpunga and Frot. The length of the film was bothersome as it seemed to elongate sections for no apparent reason.

Overall:  Although I laughed and enjoyed the off-key singing and the story of truth and love was good, it just seemed to be overly managed/directed.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (3-D)

First Hit:  A very long, overly complicated, saga that makes little or no sense and is a waste of 151 minutes.

To make a film where Superman/Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) and Batman/Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) meet each other, let alone go to war with each other is a flawed concept because each are heroes in their own towns.

The film begins with a very convoluted sequence of scenes that attempts to build a story. It doesn't do this well. The strongest acting and segments of this film include Jesse Eisenberg (as Lex Luthor) because he’s actually interesting. That we have “Gotham” and “Metropolis” just across the river from each other is even more ridiculous.

Somehow a government Senate committee led by Senator Finch (Holly Hunter) is investigating Superman’s unfettered and unguided way he decides whom to help and when. Given that he is indestructible (faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful that a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound…) the government wants to have more control about his deeds. The motivation for Batman's actions against Superman is that he believes that when Superman saved the human race from aliens, his actions hurt his family’s business and all the people inside the family's building that was destroyed.

In the meantime Luther is doing his best to stir the pot because he knows that getting rid of Superman, he’ll have more power. The film also finds a ridiculous way to introduce Wonder Woman/Diana Prince (Gal Gadot).

That the resolution to Batman and Superman’s disagreement ludicrously comes because their mothers’ shared the same name (Martha) seemed far fetched and was telegraphed from the opening scenes in the film.

Cavill is OK as the stiff, socially uncomfortable, other worldly and powerful Superman. Affleck was interesting as the brooding Batman. Many of Batman’s fight scenes seemed stilted with Affleck’s lack of smooth movement. Hunter was wasted in this unneeded role. Eisenberg was perfectly manic, intense, and strong as the antagonist. Gadot was somewhat interesting as Wonder Woman. Laurence Fishburne was wasted in his role of Perry White managing editor of the Daily Planet. Amy Adams was sincerely doing her best in the role of Lois Lane. Jeremy Irons was OK as Alfred, Batman’s gentlemen's gentleman. Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer wrote this absurdly convoluted script that was created only to draw box office receipts. There was no effort to make an interesting film. Zack Snyder directed this mess.

Overall:  All told, the story, the direction, and much of the acting was poorly fabricated and executed.

Eye in the Sky

First Hit:  A complex film giving a really multifacited view of how fighting wars remotely, through cameras and armed drones, is changing the face and mental complexities of war.

Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) is in charge of a mission to capture a British woman who is, with her Arabic husband, helping Islamic revolutionaries with suicide attacks. Powell has been tracking this person for 6 years from England through the use spies, informants and remote tracking devices.

At the time, her remote surveillance is provided for by the US using drone pilots located in a USAF unit stationed in Las Vegas, Nevada. For the first time she has a chance to capture this person in Nairobi, Kenya along with two other people who have become radicalized, one a US citizen and the other a British citizen.

Also working with her is the Kenyan army who are ready to apprehend this group when the opportunity arises. Watching her and the surveillance feeds remotely from another part of England is General Benson (Alan Rickman), who is with others from the British Government including the Attorney General.

This group is viewing the remote feeds to ensure the actions the Colonel takes are legal. However, the radicals move to an area where the government army cannot go, therefore the capture is off and now it is about finding a way to take out this group by using rockets from the drone.

There is a lot of discussion about doing this, including the amount of possible collateral damage. When they “Eye in the Sky” a drone pilot Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) sees a 9-year-old girl named Alia (Aisha Takow) near the target area he asks for a re-assessment of the collateral damage area. While this is being assessed, Col. Powell is pressing for the attack, British Government sitting with the General are mixed in their assessment of weather to attack or not.

The US Government, which comes up in two different calls, states clearly they want the attack regardless of the collateral damage, and the Pilot and his co-pilot Carrie Gershon (Phoebe Fox) will do what they are ordered while showing the extreme signs of the stress and difficulty of the situation.

Mirren is really strong as the obsessed Colonel that will do almost anything to meet her objective. Rickman (in probably his final film) was really good using his typical droll and intelligent way of communicating. Paul was excellent as the drone pilot that was participating in his first use of deadly force. Takow was wonderful as the Kenyan girl causing all the questions. Fox was very good as the new inexperienced co-pilot. Barkhad Adbi was superb as the Kenyan undercover agent using miniature drone camera devices and finding ways to help minimize the collateral damage. Guy Hibbert wrote an exceptional screenplay. It was complex, filled with great dialogue and fully explored the dilemma afforded by fighting war with technology and remote abilities. Gavin Hood did an excellent job of creating the intimacy of each remote area and the wholeness of how remote wars are being fought.

Overall:  This film was excellent in so many ways and did a great job of bringing in both the political and military aspects of this type warfare to light.

Where to Invade Next

First Hit:  Very one sided view of other countries and the social programs their governments have implemented to improve their country’s well-being.

Documentarian Michael Moore travels to European countries to see what social programs their governments have implemented that improve their populations health, education and happiness.

In Italy the discussion is about vacation time and that the US has no law requiring minimum vacation time. In Italy 4 weeks is minimum and many have 8 weeks of vacation.

There is Slovenia where all college education is free. Iceland prosecuted all the of bankers that caused their country to go bankrupt (unlike the US).

Finland’s students have no homework. In Norway prisoners are guarded by officers that do not have guns while they endeavor to have as normal a life as possible away from the population of the country.

In most all countries Moore visits prisoners get to vote for elected officials. Lastly, all the countries he visited had free healthcare for all.

Moore also points back to the US where all these ideas had their germination many years ago. It isn’t that none of these things weren’t true, it is that the film doesn't point out the difficulties in each of those countries as well.

One item that stands out is that almost 60% of our tax dollars support "Defense" (think military and war based activities). I was left wondering what we would do with even 1/3 of that money spent for the good of the country’s infrastructure.

Michael Moore is his usual smart and silly self. I thought the planting of the American flag and claiming to take these ideas back to the US seemed contrived.

Overall:  It was very interesting to listen to people of other countries about the programs they have in place – you know they believe in what they are doing.