The Fandom Struggle is Real with Divergent

Since the epic finale of Harry Potter and Twilight, several young adult franchises tried to compete against the next-best phenomenon The Hunger Games. The list of franchises failing to get beyond a first installment is insane: Beautiful Creatures, The Golden Compass, The Mortal Instruments, Vampire Academy, Ender's Game, The Host, The Giver - to name a few.

A lack of interest by movie goers matched with negative reviews by critics is what has killed these potential series. Except for Divergent - the young adult series authored by Veronica Roth. Successfully making its way into a third installment despite less than favorable reviews is a major feat. Though it's not a universal favorite between reviewers and fans, and reached the same phenomenon level as Hunger Games or Potter, it's survived somehow.

I, for one, love the Divergent series. With the three-quel on its way to theaters, I realized how much my fandom for the series is quite ambivalent; a mixed bag of feelings towards the books and their adaptations.

Fancasting: The Choice By Nicholas Sparks

One of my favorite summer reads used to be Nicholas Sparks' books. I say used to because when he was served with a lawsuit in 2014 claiming racist and homophobic behavior, my hobby was somewhat buzzkilled. It was hard to separate the claims from what he was writing. Not only that, but every adaptation following The Notebook sizzles out into the Blandlands.

A lot of people will say his books are virtually the same and I'd agree: they are all about pretty people who are shot with a love-at-first-sight arrow by a North Carolinian cupid. Two people spend two hours or 300 pages in love with each other and don't face the obstacle challenging their true love until the third act. Despite reading the same thing over and over again, there were adaptations I looked forward to - Safe Haven, Nights in Rodanthe, Dear John. Yet every time, something fell flat - either the direction, the acting, the script, or all three.

When I heard last year that The Choice was going to be Hollywood's next victim, my inner fangirl spazzed. Typically, when an adaptation is made, the casting doesn't bother me. I'm all for whoever is chosen 'cause my imagination rarely matches up to how I picture characters or a setting. As far back as I initially read The Choice, my fancasting was finite. It's the type of casting I just can't accept otherwise. So no disrespect to the actors in the film but the trailer makes me shudder. (The cinematography is all over the map. What is up with the black-helmet wigs? And, why does he get all creepy-stalkerish at 1:16?) No - just no. That is not my idea of The Choice.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016)

2009 took a turn for the unexpected for the publishing industry: a mash-up of classic literature and supernatural sprang up in every book genre. Author Seth Grahame-Smith mixed Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice with zombies, which was followed by Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters. When I initially saw the parody novels in bookstores, I didn't know what to think - was it a joke? were classics so uninteresting they had to be remade? Fast forward five years I couldn't wait for this movie, and now I'm jumping on the book as soon as possible.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that Hollywood has done its fair share of Pride and Prejudice adaptations. In its most recent version the Regency era is an alternative world where England is coming under siege by zombies. A class system breaks out between the wealthy who can afford to learn defense skills, and those who cannot, as well as humans and zombies. Out in the open countryside where villages are overrun with the undead, Mr. Bennet ensures his daughters survival with training in the fine art of war against zombies. Meanwhile Mrs. Bennet is up to her usual match-making, ensuring marriage and a safety net for her eldest daughters. Col. Mr. Darcy makes it his  priority to rid the earth of the undead, especially when his heart is captured by Elizabeth Bennet.

When a movie like this has been done so many times before, it's difficult to not compare new versions to the others like the 1995 made-for-television version with Colin Firth or the beloved 2005 version with Keira Knightley. However, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies manages a consistent job of not forcing the newer story and its performances into the past.

Lily James helming an 'Elizabeth for a zombified generation' is a ferocious and exciting new star. Her emergence in the live-action tale of Disney's Cinderella put her on the map as a soft and charming actress with plenty of potential waiting to unfold. As Elizabeth, she completely turns heads with not only her character's sword skills but also stubbornness, passion, and charm. When matched with the Sam Riley as the intense Col. Mr. Darcy, her spirited nature is not confined to a knight-in-shining-armor. One second she's reluctant to speak out, and the next she's striding into action on a white horse. It's nothing of short kick-ass.

Like James who will surely be another favorite to long list of actresses who have portrayed Elizabeth, Sam Riley's Darcy is rugged and dashing. The loving and quiet nature of the most recent Darcy played by Matthew McFayden still lingers, but Riley exudes his rigid exterior more. His Darcy is a militant skilled and focused to slay. Burdened with heavier measures than what his heart desires, he carries a gentle nature with subtlety and mystery. Instead of just being restricted by their pride and prejudice, Bennet and Darcy are turned on by each other's agency to kill. Their chemistry together makes them another lively, memorable reiteration of this timeless couple.

Given more ample liveliness to the classic romance between Darcy and Bennet is other awesome and impressive list of characters: lady boss Lena Heady as Lady Catherine, one of the best trained zombie killers with a crew of ninjas, the charismatic Jack Huston as the dubious yet charismatic Mr. Wickham holding a grudge against Mr. Darcy, the innocent-yet-not-to-be-underestimated Bella Heathcote as Jane Bennet, and handsome Douglas Booth as the shy, clumsy Mr. Bingley. And, there's a special mention for Matt Smith whose transformation as Mr. Collins brings humor and quirkiness as the misplaced and unwanted pastor with his sights marrying one of the Bennets.

Director and writer Burr Steers handles what Austen fans love of her famous work and brings a modern twist. Though it might feel strange at first that these two genres have been paired together, Steers doesn't go for the campy route or a straight-up parody; he gives all of the characters agency to their own destinies, and to defend themselves and their loved ones. The action and zombie kills moves seamlessly in the middle of the romance and comedy. As the Bennets and Mr. Darcy manage the threat of zombies at every turn, we're put right into the middle of their relationship and the action. It feels like we're right on the battleground with them; we're allowed to watch some kick-assery unfold as well as a timely courtship. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is a great mix of Austen's story with an extra splash of blood and guts.

Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) Lacks That Something Special

Photo Credit: Fifty Shades of Grey / Universal Pictures

One of the most negatively panned and yet most talked-about series ever should have nowhere to go up but up when it's adapted to the big screen. Of course, pun implied, we're talking about Fifty Shades of Grey trilogy by E.L. James, the literary, erotic, and controversial phenomenon. And yet for all the anticipation both by legions of devoted  haters and fans, the highly anticipated adaptation manages to coast between the lines to lack that something special the books achieved.

BDSM billionaire Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan) recruits a young virginal graduate Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson) into "his red room of pain", aka a sexual contract where she becomes his submissive. He has rules. If she follows them, he'll reward her. If she fails them, he'll punish her. A chance encounter sparks a torrid relationship between the two, one that leaves Ana questioning if she wants a relationship where pain is a part of the package and forces Christian to confront his emotional limitations.

Despite its reputation as an erotica and a relationship that's supposed to jump off of the page, the movie doesn't offer much in terms of an actual story. Ana meets Christian and is propositioned to be his submissive, but for reasons that are continuously glossed over (probably to save for the sequel), we just don't understand why they're attracted to each other. If the movie is trying to explore a young woman discovering her sexuality, Ana's struggle to decide whether or not to sign the contract comes in last to pushing and failing to break Christian out of his shell. And to be honest, as Grey, there's not much there in terms of actual brooding you'd want to know more about. In-between the awkwardly male-gaze sex romps, you just can't help but realize that in place of what could be an interesting romantic drama, the characters just go at it all the time because they can.

While there is no grand love story in the first film, it's admirable that this is not a straight-up porno. Though it has its fair share of inserting a sex scene just because there's a lot of them in the books, the erotica is still surprisingly tame. (Johnson physically bares so much more than Dornan, it makes one think: wasn't this supposed to be for female audiences?). Even if it's all there in terms of going at it like rabbits, the film is nowhere near the taboo adult world people can find and already enjoy online or the real world. So critics might imply that the sex was too safe, but a lack of gratuity set a refreshing pace for the never-ending honeymoon-mode lifestyle.

What ultimately saves the movie is how it translates the books, especially for the haters who ripped it apart for grammar and narrative issues. The movie aptly removes the ridiculous first person perspective of Steele invalidating herself with inner goddesses and forty sub-consciousnesses to elevate her as much as possible. And because the film relies on the headlining stars to make the story shine, credit for making Ana someone worthy to watch goes to Johnson who brings a smoky humor, sass, and confidence to a role that you didn't know had that capability to shine. And for Christian, though Dornan wasn't everyone's first pick, he manages to make Grey charismatic enough to wonder if there's more to him than meets the eye. Together, especially since Dornan was cast at the last minute, make a decent pair for what they have to work with.

No matter the creepy logistics that Grey continually shows up wherever Steele is, and every important conversation of getting to know each other is unevenly shelved for awkward sex scenes, director Sam Taylor-Johnson does her best with what she wanted to achieve. She manages to bring  tangible aspects of the books to life through the cinematography, costume, production design, soundtrack, actors, etc. while a smarter tongue-in-cheek script can be found underneath a story that jumps all over the place.  If you are a fan of the books, Taylor-Johnson makes it possible to want to watch the movie over and over, and I dare say, she gave the film more consideration than many probably would've. And her foundation is surely something the sequels will miss out on if she isn't there to helm Darker and Freed.

More than anything else Fifty Shades of Grey aims to please fans and author. Surely, hardcore fans will be satisfied with the results and the studios who scored on curious moviegoers. Everyone wins except for those who fall outside of those two circles. But to rise above its hostile criticism already, the film doesn't or can't strive to raise a bigger discussion about Ana and Christian's relationship. It skimps along the surface of its inspiration because if it delved too deeply into James's world, it could be one huge joke (an even bigger one to those who hate the series). What remains is a well-intended production trying as best as possible to get out of the grasp of the inner circle of the author and the mind-boggling success of her story.

For book fans: ★★☆

For me: ★¾☆

For everyone else: ☆☆☆

Have you seen Fifty Shades of Grey? What do you think?

FanCasting: The Birds Remake

{ source }

Hollywood has been circulating a remake of director Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds for more than ten years. Every time a director and a writer commit to the overhaul, the project inevitably falls apart. It's seen its fair share of possible leading stars like Nicole Kidman, George Clooney, and Naomi Watts, hinting that it would be a retelling of his specific version rather than a take on the actual novel.

Being a big fan of not only the original film but also Daphne DuMaurier's short story, I finally felt it was time to let go of how I've always imagined the original source material translating to the big screen.

The original 1963 film was a cinematic introduction to model Tippi Hedren as Melanie Daniels, a complicated socialite who meets a charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) in a pet shop. Traveling to his hometown island Bodega Bay, she aims to surprise his younger sister with a pair of love birds. During her trip, flocks of birds attack the residents where she, with the Brenner family, are striving to survive in their home.

With the realistic special effects of using real birds and captured footage, Hitchcock's version doesn't variate drastically except in characters and story. As a leader of killer plots, he translated the book with an original vision in mind - one that holds up decades later. Even with The Birds as one of my favorite films, the drama veers towards melodrama in portraying the attack of the birds and the aftermath they leave behind.

{ x and x }

Mixing romance, suspense, and feathery gore, the movie is drastically different from DuMaurier's story. Shortly after the end of World War II, Nat Hocken (Joaquin Phoenix) is a disabled war veteran residing in a small Cornwall seaside town with his family (wife played by Rebecca Hall). Due to a sudden change of climate from fall to winter, thousands of birds attack the coast. Over the course of several days, Hocken tries to protect his wife and children in their small cottage as the birds invade their home and the neighboring farms.

A good three-fourths of DuMaurier's story is far more claustrophobic than what Hitchcock showcases in his version. When I first read the book I often imagined it as a gruesome play that has yet to be taken advantage of by theatre companies. The house can be easily situated on stage with backdrops used to show the road, nearby meadows, and farms. It's difficult for me to pin on who I would like to see direct a remake since most modern suspense movies lean towards blockbuster horrors. Having liked the direction of The Awakening by Nick Murphy, the slow-suspenseful ambiance he brought to that 2011 movie would serve well here too.

{ source and source }

Since the story is set and written in 1952, I wander when a future remake will be set and what special-effects will be used. Like the Brenner family, the Hocken clan is cut off from the outside world. While the former are residing in Bodega Bay, California, the latter is in a small seaside Cornish town. Birds brutally attack neighbors and invade the family's home from the attic and children's bedrooms. Since Hocken is the main character we only glean from his assumptions about the birds that they are not co-existing well with gathering food and are heading inland; but it's the violent attacks over people and homes that makes the suspense worthwhile. It's like slowly waiting for another war to go off, except we're facing birds and we have no real defense against them. The ending itself leaves us questioning if they or anyone survives.

As a novel it provides far more scientific information as to why the birds attack (it mostly has to do with the ebb and flow of the ocean, tides, and the moon). This may not interest many movie goers but I find the added information gives a whole new meaning to nature as a threat to humanity. We're so under the guise of living our lives routinely and that we have the environment under control, we forget how easy we can be picked off the top of the food chain - even if it's just by a few birds.