The Fault in Our Stars

When I started to think about my feelings regarding this movie, I somehow managed to split the movie into two halves for myself. I like to refer to them as Pre-Amsterdam and Post-Amsterdam. Unfortunately, only one of these is good, or watchable, or effective in any way, shape or form. And that would be Post-Amsterdam. You have to give the writer and director credit for sticking so closely to the beloved book, but, at the same time, sometimes books just don't transfer to the big screen very well. Sometimes, you have to make changes in order to make it work for a movie. After all, books and movies are two very different animals. So, for the most part, I felt the first half of the movie was pretty damn bad, to be honest. The second half, post-Amsterdam, was a good movie - an unrelenting emotional roller coaster, but, by then? Too little too late.

The Fault in Our Stars is based on a almost universally acclaimed YA book by John Green, that I happened to absolutely love. It follows the story of Hazel (Shailene Woodley), a 16 year old with terminal cancer who meets Gus (Ansel Elgort) at a cancer support group. Gus is there to support his soon-to-be-blind buddy Isaac (scene stealer Nat Wolff), but is also a cancer-free survivor. Of course, Hazel and Gus fall in all kinds of love, and they are adorable and cute and all those things you want them to be. This is pretty much what the first half consists of, and it's all pretty terrible, to be honest. The witty, meet-cute dialog and banter that flows so well in the book? It sounds clunky and cheesy and over-wrought in the movie. It's just hard to invest in these characters because they don't feel like they are well-developed, it feels like the audience is just supposed to feel invested in them, because we read the book and that's how we are supposed to feel, and that's a short cut that isn't fair or good enough.

Then the story travels to Amsterdam. Hazel wants to meet the writer of her favorite book. She has a lot of childish questions regarding the ending the book, and Gus uses his cancer wish to take her (and her mom, since she's a minor!) to Amsterdam. Amsterdam, itself, is pretty hit or miss. The scene with the eclectic asshole writer played by Willem Dafoe is fantastic, and their sweet date night is beautiful. But then they go to the Anne Frank house and in the most eye-roll inducing scene you will see in all of cinema this year, they proceed to make out in the attic of the house while a bunch of uppity Dutch tourists applaud for them. I'm pretty sure people wouldn't give a standing ovation to a couple of horny teenagers who decide to suck face at a historical landmark, but maybe that's just me.

Post-Amsterdam, the movie gets infinitely better. The emotion from the book transfers very well to the big screen and it's an unrelenting emotional journey that just doesn't let up. You will cry during the last hour or so of the movie, and you may very well start crying and not stop for the entirety of said final act. I don't want to give anything away for people who may not have read the book, but, let's just say, it's a tearjerker. But, to be fair, you can't judge how good a movie is by how much it makes you cry. And the fact that the movie finally finds its footing is relieving, but also not quite enough.

The performances are a bit hit or miss too, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not entirely sold on Woodley as an actress. For all the times she delivers a scene perfectly, and beautifully, there is a scene like one of the voice over scenes. She was supposed to be telling her cancer story to Gus, but it doesn't sound like a character living these experiences. It sounds like an actress reading lines, and it's jarring and disappointing. But, she mostly delivers here, especially in the final act of the movie, although everything is elevated by then as well. Elgort is a mystery to me as well. He plays this part so overly excited and so earnestly, that sometimes his actions don't feel honest at all, but rather like he's trying to dupe Hazel for some reason. Although, if you read the book, you know he's a good guy, in the movie, he seems too good to be true, like there will be some final act reveal that he's truly evil, or something. The true star of the movie, for me, was Nat Wolff, who absolutely steals all the scenes as the blind Isaac. He's wonderful as the comic relief. He makes you smile every time he's on screen. This movie needed 100% more of him, and then at least when it was dreadful, it would have been entertaining.

Grade: C+