Movie Review: How to Train Your Dragon 2

How to Train Your Dragon 2, like all good sequels, raises the stakes. Everything is bigger and bolder: the scope of the world, the themes and, of course, the dragons. It’s a darker instalment than the original, but it is all the better for it.

When we return to Berk, five years after the events of the first movie, we find Hiccup skirting his duties as the chief’s son and out exploring the world with his best pal, and dragon, Toothless. Hiccup admits he doesn't know who he is yet and shies away from the responsibilities of being the next chief. He’s an explorer, a dragon master, and is more interested in discovering the world than staying in Berk and protecting the clan.

We are reintroduced to the colourful characters of Berk and their beloved dragons through a dragon race: a vibrant and energetic opening scene that is a welcome return to the wit and charm of the first film's thrilling flight sequences. 

But not all is well in the world of Vikings and their pet dragons. There are dragon catchers about: capturing dragons for the dastardly Drago Bludvist, who’s intent on building an unstoppable dragon army. Up until this point, only the mysterious dragon rider—who rivals Hiccup’s control over the species—has managed to foil his plans. But as Drago sets his sights on Berk and their dragons, Hiccup must accept his responsibilities as the chief's son and protect the clan.

How to Train Your Dragon 2 is a bolder, more mature film than the original, with themes comparable to a Young Adult novel rather than a children’s book. Questions of identity, growing up, facing responsibilities and finding your place in the world are at the heart of this story, which is central to many Young Adult novels.

That’s not to say that this can’t be enjoyed by younger cinema goers, but rather that it can be enjoyed by audiences of all ages—like all great animated films. Children will revel and delight in the broad spectrum of colours and dragons and ooh and ahh at the soaring flight sequences. And older viewers will enjoy the more complex storyline that includes some unexpected, and dark, twists and turns.

Whilst the film is darker, elements of humour are retained from the first film; I particularly enjoyed Berk’s version of a crazy cat lady with her numerous, clingy dragons. And the voice cast including Jay Baruchel, Gerard Butler, America Ferrera and Kristen Wiig continue to delight in their roles, with Cate Blanchett as a wonderful addition.

The film's visuals are simply spectacular: the quality of animation, textures and effects are outstanding with Stoick’s beard as a standout. The set pieces are more impressive this time around, particularly the semi-transparent ice cave which houses the swirling and swarming colourful dragons. But the real star of the show, as in the original, is Toothless: a catlike black dragon that is so adorable and lovingly rendered that every cinemagoer is bound to want a Toothless of their own.

I thoroughly enjoyed How To Train Your Dragon 2 and look forward to seeing it again, this time in 3D.

I give it 4.5 out of 5 stars

The Fault in Our Stars movie review

*Please note: there are spoilers in this review. For those who have not read TFiOS, you have been warned.

Review:

The Fault in Our Stars should not have been my kind of movie. I like blockbusters, sweeping fantasies and dark and gritty dystopias. The Fault in Our Stars is a small, intimate love story about two teenagers with “a touch of cancer”. Yet The Fault in Our Stars is exactly my kind of movie. Let me explain…

Audiences go to the movies for escapism – for a glimpse into someone else’s life or to be transported into another world. We want to forget there’s a screen separating us from the world depicted onscreen and that we are watching real people with real stories – regardless of the genre. Many films fail at this believability, yet The Fault in Our Stars—or TFiOS as it’s commonly known—succeeds on all levels.

TFiOS is based on the novel of the same name, written by young adult author, John Green. The book has had incredible success since its 2012 debut for both teenage and adult readers alike. TFiOS’s narrator is Hazel Grace Lancaster, who at 16 has surpassed her life expectancy by a few years, thanks to a cancer shrinking miracle drug. But her parents think she’s depressed, which Hazel admits is “a side-effect of dying”, and she’s forced to attend a cancer support group to make friends. Here she meets 17-year-old Augustus Waters, who lost his leg to cancer but is now in remission. The two bond immediately, not over their cancer stories but their unique and quirky view on life.

The cast of TFiOS are perfect. Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort are not merely acting as Hazel and Augustus, but become Hazel and Augustus. It’s rare for that line between actor and character to be completely blurred, but both young actors do an outstanding job of bringing these characters to life.

After seeing Divergent, where Woodley was the main star with varying degrees of believability, I was a little concerned as to how she would tackle the serious subject matter of this film. I shouldn’t have worried. Woodley’s acting is simple yet heartbreaking. As Hazel, she’s young, raw and brave. And Elgort portrays Augustus with equal parts of likable boyish charm and tangible fragility. The two are beautiful together.

Whilst I enjoyed the novel, the snappy dialogue and jovial attitude (especially in the beginning) feels a little unrealistic for teenagers dealing with cancer and death. The film, however, is more successful in balancing the bitter and sweet tone. My other issue with the novel is that the characters all have the same sense of humour – with the author’s voice shining through. And whilst the film lifts dialogue directly from the novel, the actors are able to make it their own, bringing warmth to the characters and their witty repartee. It is a rare book-to-film adaptation that improves on the source material.

In the novel, the scenes that never failed to make me cry involved Hazel’s parents and the injustice of knowing their terminally ill daughter is likely to pass before them. Laura Dern and Sam Trammell are fabulous as the Lancasters, although their screentime is rather short. Their blend of love, tears and humour are incredibly believable. Dern, in particular, did a fantastic job, she was the first to bring tears to my eyes.

Whilst the story is incredibly sad, it’s not depressing. TFiOS doesn’t want us to pity the characters but rather shows us the raw realities of cancer and how it affects those around them. Most important of all, it portrays on Hazel and Augustus as real people – cancer is not their defining characteristic.

Often there is criticism of YA novels where romance is at the heart of the story, as if teenage relationships are not as important, simply due to their age. Yet, Hazel and Augustus’s love story burns brighter due to their shortened lives. Their love is meaningful and valid and is not belittled or diminished because of their age. I believe it is this respect given to the lives and loves of Hazel and Augustus that appeals to younger readers and is key to successful YA - whether it be contemporary romance, dystopian or paranormal.

TFiOS is one of the strongest book-to-film adaptations I’ve seen in some time. Everything added, or subtracted - such as the superfluous subplot of Augustus’s last girlfriend, works for the adaptation. I also really enjoyed the nods to the book’s fans, like the use of the novel’s typography and the neat way emails and text messages are displayed onscreen. The fantastic soundtrack is an added bonus.

Whilst Hazel and Augustus’s circumstances are tragic, The Fault in Our Stars is not a tragedy. Many tears were shed whilst watching the film, but somehow I left the cinema feeling that I had witnessed something important and special. The tale of Hazel and Augustus will follow you home and linger for days, but this is exactly the feeling you should have after watching a great film, or reading a great book. Important and meaningful entertainment is not fleeting.

The Fault in Our Stars is heartbreaking but lovely. Go see it, love it, weep, and then see it again. I give The Fault in Our Stars movie 5 out of 5 stars.

*Many thanks to Penguin Teen Australia for the invitation to the advanced screening. The Fault in Our Stars is released on the 5^th of June in Australia and the 6^th of June in the United States.

Movie review: Divergent

From a box office perspective, Divergent is already a success with the current takings at over $124 million. Consequently the sequels have been green-lit and there’s talk of splitting the third book into two movies to further extend the franchise’s success and box office takings. As a fan of the novels (mostly books one and two, with less affection for book three) I’m not surprised at the film's success.

Author Veronica Roth created an intriguing dystopian world where the remnants of society are divided into factions, driven by one virtue: Abnegation (selflessness), Amity (kindness), Erudite (intelligence), Candor (truth) and Dauntless (bravery). At the age of sixteen, each member of the community participates in a test to assist in choosing a faction and either stay with their families and the faction they were born and raised in, or deviate and never return. Only sixteen-year-old Beatrice Prior’s test is inconclusive, receiving multiple faction results. She is ‘Divergent’, someone who can’t be controlled. Being Divergent, being different, is dangerous to the stability of this society. Beatrice (later renamed Tris) must choose a faction and hope she is not uncovered for being Divergent.

Divergent is a well made film and the grey crumbling Chicago, in which the society lives, is eerily beautiful. The film's beginning made me hopeful that this was going to be a moody, tense film about differences, finding yourself and standing up for what you believe in. However, I found myself questioning the world’s logic. In the novel, it’s easier to accept that a war could have fractured the community into such distinct segmentations. However, on the big screen, seeing everyone dressed in their faction colours and behaving only within the confines of their faction’s virtue, was more difficult to accept.

This is one downfall of dystopian novels; the author has to completely break the world as we know it to be able to create a character, or characters, that will then stand and fight the new order. And sometimes it's broken to the point of unbelievability. Unfortunately, having only one virtue that defines you (aside from the Divergents) results in the characters being one-dimensional and hard to relate to.

Tris is often a difficult character to connect with, which unfortunately tainted my impression of Shailene Woodley’s portrayal. The novel is written from Tris's perspective so we gain a clearer understanding of her thoughts and actions that are absent in the film. There’s a greyness to Tris, and not just because of her clothes, but because she’s grown up in Abnegation where they’re taught to never think of themselves. This means Tris is a bit of a blank canvas, a work-in-progress: a “Stiff”. She thaws out a little during the movie, the scene where she zip-lines through the night’s sky is particularly satisfying, but unfortunately most of the time she feels a little out of reach and detached.

We need to be able to connect to our main character, it’s through her eyes that we see the film and garner our feelings and expectations. I wanted to love this film, to feel something, but unfortunately I was left somewhat apathetic. There needed to be more humour, more anger, more heart. Tris goes through hell, however I felt like I wasn’t taken along for the ride.

This is not to say I didn’t enjoy the film, I did. Theo James was well cast as Four, although standing next to Shailene Woodley, their age gap was a little too apparent. He did the strong and silent type with a hidden soft side successfully and I could see why he would catch Tris’s eye.

Kate Winslet played an entertaining villain and I also enjoyed Tris's friendships with her new Dauntless friends Christina (Zoë Kravitz) and Will (Ben Lloyd-Hughes), this gave her more warmth as a character. The action scenes and visual effects were impactful and effective and there was real suspense towards the end of the film, although I knew the ending.

Whilst I didn’t love Divergent as much as I’d hoped, it is a successful, and fairly faithful, film adaptation. Insurgent is a superior book in my opinion, so it will be interesting to see how the second film turns out.

I give Divergent 3 out of 5 stars. 

Have you seen it yet? What did you think?

Movie review: Vampire Academy, and translating books to film

Not all good books make for good movies. In fact, a film often pales in comparison to the original source material. This is due to the fact that they are two very different mediums with unique story telling traditions and techniques. There’s a fine line between being too faithful to a book versus making changes that work for the medium. Filmmakers don’t want to offend fans of the book, yet they also want to draw in new audiences. It’s a balancing act. But they shouldn’t treat the mediums the same, because as audiences, we certainly don’t.

Reading a book is a personal, mostly solitary experience; the process can take weeks or hours, depending on our reading habits—or spare time. Movies, on the other hand, are restricted to around two hours of (mostly) uninterrupted viewing. We have limited time to explore the characters and plot. Subtlety is often glossed over and background details and mythology are rushed. Lately mainstream films show preference for action and spectacle over quieter, meaningful story telling. There isn’t the same space to breathe and explore as in novels. There isn’t the same time to read between the lines. Therefore, film is often a much more blunt form of story telling—don't get me wrong, I'm a huge proponent of both film and novels.

Although the mediums are different, much of what works well in a novel should translate easily on screen. A good story, is a good story, right? Often I’ll read a book and think, yes, this would make a great film. Either the scenes are highly visual or the story is immediate and impactful. However, when I read Vampire Academy, whilst I enjoyed the book, I was unsure how well it would translate to the big screen. Much of the novel is spent setting up the characters and their relationships (like many first books in a series) and there were only a few key scenes I could visualise as being successful on the big screen. As I mentioned in my review of the book, the heart of the story focuses on the friendship between two best friends. This personal and intimate focus is hard to replicate within a two-hour movie timeframe, hence I was hesitant to watch the film.

Yesterday, I finally watched Vampire Academy with a group of VA fans. Whilst I had read some negative reviews, I was determined to go in with an open mind. It helped that I was surrounded by VA fans, the buzzing atmosphere was contagious. Yet after the credits rolled, I had to collect my thoughts before I could voice my opinion on the film. Whilst I had no overwhelming love for the big screen rendition, I didn’t dislike the movie either. It was fun and enjoyable, although I was left feeling a little indifferent about the experience. 

Certain parts of the film worked well, I particularly enjoyed Zoey Deutch’s snarky and sassy portrayal of the character Rose, yet other elements were not as successful. Due to the film's restricted duration, there wasn’t enough time to build empathy for Lissa’s plight (played by Lucy Fry). Another element I didn’t fully connect with was the romance between Dimitri  (Danila Kozlovsky) and Rose. Again it felt too rushed, although the end scene was highly enjoyable and succeeded in replicating the book’s blend of romance and humour. Other plot lines that resolved well in the short running time included the character arc of Natalie and her father. However, subplots involving the scheming, revengeful Mia and the confusing behaviour of the school’s headmistress, felt muddled and unresolved.

Whilst Vampire Academy was not the most successful book to film adaptation, it was certainly not a bad film. However, I believe VA would have been more successful as a television series, making the smaller, intimate moments more meaningful. The extended timeframe of a television series would provide the opportunity to delve deeper into characters, allowing us to connect and empathise with them over time. I really wanted to be moved by the emotion in Lissa’s final speech, but unfortunately I felt disconnected from the goings-on. The film was too bogged down by having to introduce the book’s mythology and various characters in a short space of time to allow for a stronger emotional response. If the plot and mythology had unfolded week-by-week on the small screen, this would have greatly improved the audience’s connection to the story and characters.

Unfortunately, due to low box office attendance, it appears that a Vampire Academy sequel may be off the cards, for now, anyway. Whilst I empathise with VA fans’ desire to see more of the series on-screen, I would advocate for a television series, rather than another film. I believe this would provide a more faithful and satisfying rendition for fans and newcomers alike.

What's your favourite book to film adaptation? I loved Warm Bodies, both the novel and the film. Please let me know in the comments.