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+

Horror Movie Month: Carrie

The Stars: Chloe Grace Moretz, Ansel Elgort, Judy Greer, Julianne Moore

The Plot: A shy, strange teenager is bullied by a group of her classmates while also discovering she has kinetic powers. Needless to say, a horrible prank at the school prom climaxes in a bloodbath.

I'm going to go ahead and be brutally honest for a minute: Growing up, I was bullied to nearly my breaking point and around this time I discovered the original Carrie, starring Sissy Spacek. While I didn't exactly want to kill any of my tormentors, Carrie did sort of become my hero, because how I wished and wished I had powers that would make these jerks suffer. So, the original Carrie is sort of special to me. I guess it's hard to remake a movie that is so iconic, but I'm also not completely against it. I mean, we get different versions of Shakespeare every few years, so why should Stephen King be any different, really? The problem with remaking a movie, however, is that everyone knows exactly what happens. It takes away from any sort of anticipation. So, you better do something really special with the movie in order to compensate. Director Kimberly Peirce does nothing at all special here. The movie doesn't really get good until the last twenty minutes or so (and star Moretz looks so good and creepy during the scenes when she is so covered with blood, even her eyes are red). Up until then, it's just a boring movie that we've all seen before. I was most worried about Moretz. I know Spacek was way too old to play a teenager in the original Carrie, and Moretz is only 16 or whatever, but she's also too pretty and perfect to ever know what being bullied actually feels like. However, I was sort of impressed with her. She does an absolutely great job as Carrie. In fact, the acting all around is superb, especially from new find Elgort (this is his first movie and he's following it up with two super anticipated YA adaptations: Divergent and The Fault in Our Stars), and Moore, of course, who steals the entire movie. But did anyone expect any less from Moore as Margaret White?

The Scares: Carrie was never a scary movie, per se. It was more a suspense movie, I guess. Although the original movie did have one really great scare. This version, unfortunately, doesn't use that moment, or even re-imagine it in any way.

The Body Count: So many, some more deserving than others!

The Grade: C