The Divergent Series: Insurgent

*Warning: This post contains unmarked spoilers for the Divergent series. If you haven't yet read the books or watched the movies, I would strongly suggest that you skip this blog post. Seriously.
Or you can spoil it for yourself. I won't tell  you what to do.*

Good evening, internet! I recently had the chance to watch Insurgent, second movie in the Divergent series. And it was... interesting. There were a lot of good elements and a lot of elements that could've been better, and I have to say: rarely do I see a movie and have a list of pros and cons all lined up in my head half an hour later.

And so, I give you: my review of Insurgent. 

***

Good/Favorite Parts:

• The plot was very solid. There was plenty of action and a well-defined storyline, plus a very solid emotional arc for Tris. Her guilt and, I think, PTSD over killing Will translated well from the book to the movie, and the culmination of her arc--in which she finally confronts and forgives herself--followed naturally from her progression throughout the movie. (Of course, the movie deviated from the book's plot in several areas: I'll talk about that in the Negative section.)
• I just have to say, the scenery and cinematography in this movie were breathtaking. From the burnt-out shells of Chicago buildings to the Amity farmlands to the factionless headquarters, all of the sets were beautifully constructed and really moved the story along. There were also several helicopter shots, particularly at the beginning of the movie, that were great to see. 
• The acting was good. Shailene Woodley is very good as Tris and she did an amazing job of portraying everything Tris goes through in this movie. (My personal favorite scenes were the truth serum trial and the final Amity simulation.) In my opinion, Shailene Woodley was the best of the cast, although they all did well.
• I simultaneously hated Peter and loved watching him. He does some despicable things and is completely unafraid to put himself before everyone else, but he also has some of the best lines in the film.

Bad/Negative Parts:

• While Insurgent was a good movie with a solid plot, as an adaptation it... left something to be desired. The writers simultaneously left out a lot of the book and added several new plot points. The result is a movie that has a lot of the book's minor points, but less of its overall plot. 
• The conflict between Tobias/Four and his father was completely excised from the book except for one scene, which was never followed up on. While I can see why it was left out, this would have been an interesting thing from the books to explore. 
• It's been a while since I read the book this movie is based on, but I do remember that there was no search for a mysterious box left by the founders. That particular addition by the scriptwriters worked, and served as a good framing device for several scenes from the book, but it felt... odd to have such a large change in plot from book to movie. 
• Several smaller details were also left out in the adaptation process, and while these aren't as important, they would have made the movie a bit more coherent. Mentioning Edith Prior's name during her message might have been a good move, and I feel like the level of conflict between Jeanine's forces and the factionless-Candor alliance wasn't emphasized the way it was the book. I'm not sure what the movie version of Allegiant is going to be like, but I can see it also being quite different from its book incarnation, at this rate. 
• This movie also seemed to have the sequel-movie-adaptation syndrome of, "This character was pretty minor in the first book so we didn't include them in the movie, but oops now they're important in the sequel so we're gonna shove them in and pretend they were there all along." Uriah definitely got this treatment, and Lynne and Marlene were also pretty hastily introduced. (Marlene's name was only mentioned after her death, and Lynne was never properly introduced at all.) Edward wasn't included at all that I could see, which leads me to my next point. 
• By my count, two disabled characters from the book were edited out in this movie. In the books, Johanna, Amity's spokeswoman, was blind in one eye; the character as played by Octavia Spencer had a visible scar on her face, but clearly had two functioning eyes. Edward was nowhere to be seen. (Which makes sense, seeing as he wasn't in the first movie at all, but it still rubs me the wrong way to see a familiar disabled character replaced by a random white kid we've never seen before.)
• I... didn't really like Naomi Watts as Evelyn Eaton. I have nothing against Naomi Watts, but she does not look the way I pictured Evelyn, and she played her as way more manipulative than I ever saw Evelyn as. Maybe it's just me, but I would have preferred a different actress in that role. 

***

Conclusion:

There are a lot more negative points here than positive, but I really did like this movie. I liked the atmosphere of it, and the acting was good, and as far as book adaptations go it really could've been worse. So I'll give it three and a half stars out of five. 

***

To be honest, I have no idea when my next post is coming, or what it'll be about. At this point, your guess is as good as mine. (And, come to think of it, if there's anything you'd like me to blog on, the comments section is always open!)

Until next time; adiós!

Pacific Rim

*Warning: Unmarked spoilers may follow. Viewer discretion is advised.*

So I just finished watching Pacific Rim, for the third time. Having had time to both take in the story and analyze some of the finer details, I felt it was high time I did a review.

For anyone who hasn't seen Pacific Rim, the basic premise is this: A portal to an alien world (the Breach) opens at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, and huge monsters called Kaiju begin coming through and attacking populated areas bordering the Pacific. To avoid extinction, the countries of the world--or at least the countries bordering the Pacific--band together and build enormous, super-strong robots called Jaegers to fight the Kaiju. This strategy works, until it doesn't, as bigger and bigger Kaiju start coming through the Breach, picking off the Jaegers one by one, until only a few are left. Then the Jaeger program loses its funding, and it's up to the few remaining pilot teams to close the Breach before the Kaiju kill everything.

(Here's the trailer if you're interested.)

I know, I know. It sounds dumb. To be honest, it is a little bit dumb, not to mention really unrealistic. But despite that, I really liked it, and today I'm gonna tell you why.

Strap in, guys, 'cause this might take a while.

***

Good/Favorite Parts:

• HOLY HECK, PEOPLE OF COLOR AS ACTION MOVIE HEROES. 
• No, seriously, when was the last time you saw a Japanese woman as the main character of a big-budget action flick like this?
• And the no-nonsense military leader who holds the heroes together? Is played by Idris Elba. Yes. 
• At first, the movie's hero appears to be Raleigh Becket, the (ostensibly) American white guy, who loses his brother/partner in the movie's prologue. (I say he's ostensibly American because the actor, Charlie Hunnam, isn't, and his native accent pokes through in his dialogue a couple of times. Anyway.) Raleigh is the viewpoint character, but I don't think he's the hero, because his story arc in the movie, if he has one, is pretty undefined, in comparison to Mako Mori's. So I personally like to think that Raleigh is the POV character, but Mako is the hero. It's a split that I think makes a lot of sense, considering that it mirrors the importance of drift compatibility to the storyline. But enough of my rambling. On we go!
• All of the characters with any reasonable amount of screentime manage to be complex and layered. The one that impresses me most is Chuck Hansen, of the Striker Eureka Jaeger team. He starts out as your stereotypical bully character who's out to antagonize to main character--and he is, as Marshall Stacker Pentecost puts it, "An egotistical jerk with daddy issues." But he's nevertheless one of the good guys, and as time goes on, he and Raleigh earn each other's respect. And in the end, he sacrifices his life so that Raleigh and Mako can save the world. Like I said. Depth. 
• Did I mention the father-daughter story between Mako Mori and Stacker Pentecost? Because there's that, too. 
• And there's a father-son story between the Hansens, which doesn't get a lot of screentime, but the scene it does get is really emotionally charged. 
• And the animation in this movie! It's amazing! The CGI looks extremely realistic and everything is beautifully rendered. To say nothing of the designs for the various Kaiju and Jaegers. 
• Speaking of Jaegers, the attention to detail in this movie is also impressive. Every Jaeger has a distinct fighting style, which matches up with their various designs. 
• And I really appreciate how in this movie, the monsters really do target pretty much every country bordering the Pacfic, not just California and Japan. In addition to those two places, we hear about attacks on Alaska, the Philippines, Russia, Australia, and Hong Kong (much of the movie actually takes place in Hong Kong). 
• The acting is great, too, even if a couple of the actors seem to be having a bit of trouble with their accents. 
• And the music! I almost forgot about the music. But it's... thrilling. There's a perfect combination of well-written melodies and interesting instrumental combinations. 
• To sum up: the fight scenes are fun to watch and beautifully animated, and the acting and story are great. There's a ton to like here. 

Bad/Least Favorite Parts:

• Um... well... uh... hm. Let me think. I'm sure I'll come up with something I disliked eventually...
• Right! Unrealisticness! Did I mention how unrealistic this movie is? Like, even on the off chance that a portal did open at the bottom of the Pacfic, and on the even smaller chance that that portal spewed forth a bunch of monsters... why not just bomb the monsters from the sky as soon as they came through? It's the bottom of the Pacific, it's not like you're going to have a lot of casualties. Or, for maximum efficiancy, set up some motion sensors down there, hook them up to a rapid-fire detonation clock, and just set off the bombs as soon as anything comes through the portal.
  So, yeah. No realism here.
• As much as I LOVED the cast and characters? More diversity is ALWAYS appreciated. There are a bunch of countries in Central and South America that border the Pacific, and none of those were mentioned (we certainly didn't see any Jaegers or pilot teams from that area). The Phillippines were given a passing mention, but no more. So yeah--Pacific Rim was amazing as far as having a diverse cast goes, but it could've been better. It usually can. 
• It sure would've been nice if the movie had mentioned, at some point, what happened to Hawaii. I'm just saying. 

Conclusion:

Long story short, Pacific Rim is a really good movie, and I really recommend it. Do you like amazingly cool action scenes? Then you'll love Pacific Rim! Do you like emotional character-driven stories? Then you'll probably like Pacfic Rim! (...And you can probably skip one or two of the action scenes. Though I don't recommend it.)

In short, I'm giving this one 4.75 stars out of five:

***

And that wraps up my official review of Pacific Rim! Although, as a fair warning, this probably won't be the last time I talk about it. I really liked this movie. 

Next time: Something vaguely Halloween themed, maybe? See you then!

Thoughts From The Republican Presidential Debate

So tonight CNN hosted another debate between the many Republican Presidential candidates. I watched this debate, and these are my thoughts on the candidates and their opinions/thoughts/responses. Thoughts are organized by candidate.

***

Donald Trump:

• Way to insult a fellow candidate (Rand Paul) in your first statement, Trump. Classy. Also, if Americans thought we needed a businessman, we might've elected Mitt Romney. Just saying. Mr. Romney's business background was quite a point of contention when he ran. People were asking, "Do we really want a businessman as a President?" And, ya know, he was actually competent. Just saying. 
• Ad hominem, thy name is Donald Trump.
• CNN asks: What makes Trump qualified to be Commander-in-Chief? Wow, CNN, that's... actually a very good question. What does make him qualified? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
• To answer the question no one seems to want to answer, I for one would not be comfortable with Trump controlling anything in our government, let alone the nuclear trigger. 
• Mr. Trump [on the topic of casino gambling in Florida]: "If I'd wanted it, I would've gotten it. I know my people." Hmm. HMMM. What could this statement possibly say about Mr. Trump's business practices?  We just don't know.
• I'm starting to think Trump is allergic to giving a straight answer to a question. It's like he's physically incapable of giving an actual answer rather than, I don't know, dodging and stalling by talking about tangentially connected topics.
• Trump claims that when he commented on Fiorina's face, he was commenting on her persona; Fiorina retorts that Trump heard Jeb Bush's comment about woman's health very clearly; and she, and the other women of the US, heard his comment about her appearance very clearly. 
• Donald Trump wants to build a wall between USA and Mexico. How. Why. I mean, yes, we do need to build up border security, as other candidates have pointed out. But. Why is this such a talking point for Trump. How would you logistically even do this. We just don't know. 
• Mr. Trump, you took heat about your immigration remarks because they were pretty inflammatory and racist.
• And Trump didn't actually answer the question. (I'm gonna keep a count of this, I swear I am.) He talks big, but says absolutely nothing about how he'll do his immigration reforms and how much it'll cost. 
• CNN asks: Did Trump go too far when he suggested Bush's views on immigration are influenced by his Mexican-born wife? Yes. Yes he did. 
• And then he doesn't apologize to Mrs. Bush (who is there at the event), because he "knows he's right". Barf. 
• CNN asks: Trump has criticized Bush for speaking Spanish on the campaign trail; what's wrong with speaking Spanish? There is nothing wrong with speaking Spanish. In other news, Donald Trump is trash.
• Trump claims, among other things, that "We need assimilation to have a country." There are just. So many problems with that statement. I don't even know where to start. 
• If Trump is so against people coming to America to have "anchor babies", how does he propose we change the laws? How do we then initiate citizenship?
• CNN asks: What is Trump's response to Rubio saying his failure to know details about some US enemies is "very concerning"? Answer: Trump dodges the question, stalls, and deflects by saying that the government now knows those details and is failing. Question Dodging Counter: I don't know, 5?
• Trump Ad Hominem Counter: 6? Maybe? He jabs at Rubio's voting record while "rebutting" Rubio's statement. 
• Trump says, "I'm a very militaristic person, but you have to know when to act"; he claims he's "the only person on this dais that opposed our going into Iraq." 
• When the camera is on most of the candidates, this looks like an actual presidential debate. When it's on Trump, it instantly becomes a circus. This is terrible. 
• CNN asks: Should Trump stop saying that vaccines are linked to autism? Yes. Yes he should. As Mr. Carson says, there have been multiple studies with no link found to autism. The one study that claimed this was debunked.
• Trump claims that his Secret Service codename would be "Humble". Ha. Hahaha. 
• Conclusion: With this amount of logical fallacies, question-dodging, and general blowhard-ishness, Donald Trump yet again proves himself to be totally incapable and undeserving of this office. I don't know, guys. I'm pretty sure I could debate better than this guy. 

Ben Carson:

• Seriously guys, if you want a candidate who's not a sellout to donors, BEN CARSON. YOU WANT BEN CARSON. NOT DONALD TRUMP.
• Trump is the definition of a powerplaying billionaire political donor.
• Dr. Carson also points out that deporting all immigrants would be really hard and not too cost-effective.
• Ben Carson points out that the immigration strategy in Arizona works amazingly well, and that we shouldn't reinvent the wheel; if a strategy works, why don't we implement it nationwide?
• Carson says that we need to create a better minimum wage rate by getting people from both sides of the debate to agree on a good rate; and we need two rates:  a "starter" and a "sustainer".
• Rand Paul and Ben Carson point out that the both of them were also opposed to going into Iraq, proving Trump wrong. 
• Ben Carson: "There are smart ways to do things, and there are muscular ways to do things, and sometimes you need to look at both to come up with a solution."
• Carson does admit that we need to space out vaccines and give them in lower doses, so as not to jeopardize small children's health. 
• Carson says his secret service codename would be "One Nation".
• Conclusion: Dr. Carson's analysis and solutions are mostly spot-on. I still support this guy, and if I was old enough to vote, I would vote for him. 

Jeb Bush:

• Jeb Bush mentions the multiple non-Planned Parenthood organizations that work in woman's health, and maintains that these are the organizations we need to fund, not Planned Parenthood. 
• Jeb Bush retorts: On the topic of Trump's judgement, he claimed Ms. Clinton was the best person to negotiate Iraq, and that this level of naivete is dangerous in today's world. 
• Jeb Bush: "We don't have to be the world's policeman; but we do need to be the world's leader."
• Bush says that we need Supreme Court Justices who have an extensive record and reputation of willingness to uphold the Constitution. "We can't do this [appoint Supreme Court Justices] in a politically expedient way anymore."
• Conclusion: Eh... I'm pretty ambivalent, to be honest. 

Carly Fiorina

• You go, Carly Fiorina. I didn't know much about you before today, but I'm liking you more and more as this debate goes on. 
• If I wasn't such a supporter of Ben Carson, I'd probably vote for Ms. Fiorina. 
• Ms. Fiorina makes an excellent point about politicians having been in a corrupt system. "You know what a leader does? They challenge the status quo.... This is about changing the system." 
• Carly Fiorina lays down some truth on the subject of Vladimir Putin and how he won't listen to anything other than a show of strength. Not only is she completely right about what we should do, but she's incredibly decisive and smart about her hypothetical solutions. Take note, Mr. Trump. 
• Fiorina has a very decisive, very definitive plan for dealing with Iran. (1. Reaffirm that we are on Netanyahu's side; 2. Inform Iran leadership that if they don't open their nuclear facilities to any and all inspection by American forces, we will make it as hard as possible to them to function economically.)
• You go, Ms. Fiorina. Take Trump down. 
• Fiorina correctly points out that immigration didn't magically become an issue because Trump made inflammatory remarks about it. 
• Fiorina points out that it will take an enormous amount of effort to repeal the 14th Amendment, and in the meantime, "anchor babies" will continue to happen.
• Fiorina points out that Trump filed for bankruptcy four times; why would we put a person with that record in charge of an already-catastrophic national debt?
• Fiorina points out that she has many more achievements than Hilary Clinton, and that she doesn't have the track record of dishonesty. 
• Why does everyone keep trying to interrupt/cut off Ms. Fiorina? I mean, she's certainly not the only one--everyone's talking over their time, I think--but Trump in particular seems to keep trying to interrupt her, moreso than any of his male opponents. 
• On putting a woman on the $10 bill, Ms. Fiorina says that ultimately it's an empty gesture, and that the country will be better off when we recognize the potential and freedoms of women in the US. 
• Conclusion: As stated, I didn't know hardly anything about Ms. Fiorina before tonight; but in the span of about three hours, she greatly impressed me. I am completely willing to support Ms. Fiorina, and I really hope she'll continue past primaries. 

Marco Rubio:

• Mr. Rubio points out that a president needs to be able to lead the country on their very first day in office. 
• Conclusion: ???

Ted Cruz:

• Cruz dodges the question about the government shutdown by talking about the Planned Parenthood videos. Which everyone knows about. 
• Cruz sticks up for Spanish-speaking immigrants and talks about his grandfather, who was an immigrant, and who spoke Spanish. Good for you, Mr. Cruz.
• Cruz claims that the answer to the minimum wage program is to help people get the education they need for a better job. But where does the money for that education come from?
• Conclusion: ???

Scott Walker:

• Good for you, Scott Walker. You call Trump out on his crap. I'm probably not gonna vote for you, but I like the points you're making. 
• I feel like that was an ad hominem that Trump just used against Scott Walker. It probably was.
• Conclusion: ???

Rand Paul:

• Rand Paul: "I don't think we need to be rash; I don't think we need to be reckless; and I think we need to leave the lines of communication open." Good thought. 
• Rand Paul points out that toppling dictators often destabilizes countries, and our actions against dictators in the Middle East have been catastrophic. I probably won't vote for him, but I like the points he's making. 
• Rand Paul and Ben Carson point out that the both of them were also opposed to going into Iraq, proving Trump wrong.
• Rand Paul says that the "boots on the ground" in Iraq need to be Iraqi boots. He says that we need to defend American interests rather than fight an never-ending war. If the conflict goes on, we need to equip people native to the area to carry it on.
• Rand Paul points out that the poor people are going to jail for marijauna use, and that people in prison are often African-American or Hispanic, while rich teenagers are getting away with drug use. Mr. Paul thinks that the federal government should not override the states' rights to legalize marijuana; however, he is in favor of not incarcerating drug users and treating it as an illness rather than a crime. 
• Rand Paul says that it is hypocritical to put poor people in jail for marijuana, while letting rich kids off for more or less the same. 
• Conclusion: Rand Paul has some good points, but in my opinion he doesn't have quite enough merit or momentum to do amazingly. (Although he really doesn't deserve to be dissed by Donald Trump.)

Chris Christie:

• Chris Christie points out the infighting in this debate: the candidates' real issues aren't with each other, but with Democratic candidates and their values. 
• Chris Christie says that we need to secure the border and up surveillance of the visa system. But he does point out that deporting all illegal immigrants is an extreme, unrealistic, unattainable goal.
• Chris Christie promises to prosecute Ms. Clinton, both at the R vs. D debates and if he becomes President. 
• Christie says that he is for rehabilitation rather than incarceration, but he disagrees with Paul's statement that "the only victim of drug use is the user". 
• Conclusion: He's... okay? I guess? He made some good points? But there's really not that much distinguishing him from the other candidates?

John R. Kasich:

• In the words of my mom, Kasich doesn't seem like a politician; Cruz does. 
• Kasich is in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood, but isn't for shutting down the government  to force a solution (good for him). 
• Kasich points out that he worked on an economic plan that left the US with billions in surplus and a booming economy.
• Kasich points out the ideological battle with ISIS, and our need of a public condemning of the ISIS mentality. 
• Conclusion: See the conclusion for Chris Christie.

Mike Huckabee:

• I'm getting some slippery slope vibes from Mike Huckabee's argument on the Iran deal. Threatening the fabric of Western civilization? Really? Really? I know this is an ineffective deal and its outcome may be dangerous, but the very fabric of Western civilization? That seems hyperbolic.
• Mr. Huckabee points out that in the case of Kim Davis, she swore to uphold the law under the Constitution of Kentucky, which states that marriage is between a man and a woman. And furthermore, the Supreme Court isn't allowed to make up a redefinition of law like gay marriage out of thin air. 
• Huckabee says that a president needs to declare war on heart disease, cancer, alzheimer's, and diabetes, as these are taking the most lives in America. 
• Conclusion: ?? ????

And a general thought:

• Not that this necessarily means anything, but the candidate lineup seems really tokenistic. We have one white woman... one black man... two (white-passing) Cuban-American men... and a bunch of white guys. Hmm. 

***

...And that concludes my thoughts on this presidential debate. (I honestly didn't know this would end up so long. Sorry about that.) Feel free to weigh in with your opinions in the comments! And remember: Donald Trump sucks. Vote Carson for President 2016.

@Marvel: Seriously, Guys. You Need to Rethink Some of Your Decisions.

To start this off, I would just like to point out that I am a fan of Marvel. I don't hate them; I just think they could do better in certain areas. And I'm willing to point those shortcomings out, even as I enjoy their productions.

That having been said: Marvel, would it kill ya to add some diversity to your movie lineup?

I mean, Rescue was an awesome first addition to the MCU, but Pepper Potts has had three of her own films and two ensemble movies by now--when is Tony Stark/Iron Man going to get his own film? And I love Jane Foster as much as the next person (Darcy Lewis makes an awesome villain), but after two movies, I'm starting to wonder what a story centered around Thor would look like.

And I love Isaiah Bradley, believe me, but he's gotten two movies and we haven't seen hide nor hair of Steve Rogers--who, may I remind you, came from the same time period. (Oh well, at least we got Sharon Carter as a major player in the last Captain America movie. She might even become an Avenger now!)

Admittedly, moving from Ronda Rousey to Anne Hathaway as She-Hulk in The Avengers was a good move. Ms. Hathaway really embodies the character and she's one of my favorites. But what about Bruce Banner? I mean, he is her cousin and all. You'd think he might have been hanging around somewhere, even if he hasn't become the Incredible Hulk in that universe yet.

And now we've got a movie about the Wasp coming out this summer. As though a 5:1 ratio of women to men in The Avengers wasn't enough. As though the fans haven't been begging for a Hawkeye movie since his first appearances. That's bad enough, but it appears that in this new movie, Ant-Man--a founding member of the Avengers and core character--has been killed off before the film even opens. Way to take out a potentially interesting, diverse character from the get-go, Marvel.

And Fox: you're not off the hook either. Just because you have a bigger line up per-movie, doesn't mean you're inherently more diverse. I mean, I know Halle Berry is a great actress, and people are pretty much guaranteed to watch anything with Storm in it, but isn't it time to give Hugh Jackman his own movie? And way to sideline your male characters in the prequels, just so you can focus more on the conflict between Moira MacTaggert and Mystique. At least Magneto got to be the villain for a change in X-Men: Days of Future Past. And by the way, why would you put Scarlet Witch in the movie without Quicksilver? Why would you even do that?
(By the way, that "Magic fixes everything" scene in DoFP was totally gratuitous. Awesome, but gratuitous.)

Oh well. At least X-Men: Apocalypse is coming. We're guaranteed to get Cyclops, Nightcrawler, and Colossus in that, and hopefully Magneto won't get sidelined too badly.

And then... Sony. Sony, Sony, Sony. We've had two different Spider-Girl movie franchises, with another on the way, and you've had yet to show us anyone other than Anya Corazon. Where are Miles Morales and Peter Parker? Sure would be nice to know that they exist.

I don't know, guys. I don't feel like I'm asking for a lot here. All I want is some actual representation here--more than just token characters and love interests. (By the way, way to go with Guardians of the Galaxy, guys. A bunch of female characters and one token guy--now where have we seen that before?) This isn't hard, guys. All it takes is looking at other characters from the comics, stepping outside your comfort zone, and maybe acknowledging that everyone wants to be represented--not just your select group.

Good day.