I was going to post this last night after I got back from the movie to make my deadline but returned late and felt like a review written while I was half-awake wouldn't be one worth reading. It would have been a disaster. A funny disaster, probably. But still a disaster.

WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR BOTH THE BOOK AND MOVIE VERSIONS OF DIVERGENT

This weekend, I finally got the chance to watch Divergent for the first time in theatres. I read the book last summer but put off watching the movie 1) because I was very busy at the time it came out and 2) I'm still mad about the ending of Allegiant so I was kind of boycotting it. Maybe.

Divergent premiered with many eyes watching and waiting to see if it would become the latest casualty in the search for the next YA hit franchise. While I believe these expectations to be "The Next Hunger Games" are unfair and unjust to YA books everywhere, they unfortunately make a difference in box office terms. Many great YA series have been panned because of their "unsuccessful" adaptations and there was debate whether or not Veronica Roth's best-selling series would be among them. Turns out Divergent had just the right ingredients to draw in a large audience and can be deemed a success in its own right.

I went into the theatre with dilapidated complacency, mostly brought on by the amount of time I waited to watch it. With this neutral outlook, I was able to sit back and actually watch the movie instead of picking it apart like I usually do with book-to-movie adaptations. Plus, it helped that I didn't reread the book right before watching the film. So my outlook is one of whom that is familiar with the book but doesn't have it committed to memory.

Honestly, I really did like it. With all thoughts of Allegiant out of my head, I looked at Divergent as it's own story - which it is, really. It's the beginning to a revolution, as so many YA dystopian stories are nowadays. The film kept the momentum and tone I loved about the book: something both daunting and hopeful. The audience developed with Tris through her trials and triumphs. I did, however, notice a lot violence from the Dauntless initiation period cut down in regards to one-on-one combat and training. Specifically, with the character of Peter. In the books, Peter is a sociopath and it's no secret. In the movie, he's just a bully. While his fight scene with Tris was kept in and added to his asshole-image, the audience only sees him as a boy making all the wrong choices - which comes to fruition in the final battle sequence (SPOILERS. Highlight white space to reveal) when Peter is standing guard without the influence of the mind control serum. A very disturbing scene involving a knife was not included, which would have made Peter a contestable villain. I'm not quite sure what the angle of this was - perhaps to make Peter more sympathetic as a character? Maybe to portray Kate Winslet's character, Janine, as the main antagonist? Regardless, I'm eager to see what role he'll be playing in the future films.

Also noticeably absent was the role of Uriel, another one of Tris's friends in the Dauntless initiate class. His positive and flirtatious attitude would have been a welcome reprieve from the dark overtones of the film. The whole Tris/Al relationship was also understated. While Al's romantic feelings were unrequited in the books, I believe they were important in his overall motivation for (SPOILERS) the cliff scene and his eventual suicide. While it was clear that he was a weak-minded individual, his romantic feelings also added to Tris's emotional distance and how Four was the one to help soften that disposition.

While the movie did not follow the book verbatim, I still think it was a wonderful adaptation. It helped me remember what I loved about the first book in Roth's series. The Divergent trilogy as a movie franchise looks to be in good shape, if it's gross income thus far is any attestment. The sequel has already begun filming. While I have mixed feelings about the third book being split into two movies, as do many people, I still look forward to future installments and wish the best for this new success story in the world of YA book-to-movie adaptations.

Everyone loves movies. Some people even love to hate them. But like it or not, they're a huge part of our lives. They are as diverse and emotional and controversial as life itself. And because of this diversity, different movies appeal to different people. Hell, that's pretty much the function of genre itself. Genre distinguishes the main themes of movies and books other art forms as a sort-of psychic paper. It allows people to see what they want to. (That one was for you, my fellow Whovians.)

Some people like Horror. Some people like Drama. Some people like a strange David O'Russell hybrid that can't even begin to be defined. Different people have different tastes in things. It's common sense. It's what makes people unique and interesting. I wrote about this in a post back in February dealing with how people get different things from books. The same goes for movies. And music. And pretty much everything ever. People are different. Get over it.

That being said, I'm going to tell a little tale for a second. It's about me and my brother. We're alike in many ways - we both love music, theatre, performing, and reading. We're also different in many ways. I won't list all those for your sake. The important thing we disagree on is movies (well, important for this post, at least). He's going to school for film, I'm going for writing. It's safe to say we get different things out of different movies. Don't get me wrong - we agree on a lot of things as well. But recently, that hasn't been the case.

Over our winter break away from college, we went to see American Hustle. He loved it. I didn't. I thought it was too long, too dry, and was trying too hard to be something it wasn't: An Oscar-winner. My brother, on the other hand, didn't agree. He thinks David O'Russell can do no wrong. That's all fine and good. I loved Silver Linings Playbook. Whatever. But when I broke the news to him that I didn't like Hustle, he became super defensive and started throwing questions at me like a baseball-shooting machine.

"What?! Why didn't you like it?! It was perfect! Oh my god. How could you - no. No it was amazing. Don't even."

I listed off my reasons, not trying to change his opinion or anything, just stating what I thought. He stuck out his hand in a very preteen manner, giving me a look, and just couldn't deal. How dare I? Rotten Tomatoes gave it a great rating. That means it's amazing.

Okay, let me press the pause button here.

Rotten Tomatoes is a fairly famous critical site that rates movies on a percent-scale by combining reviews collected by several "reputable" critics (I only put quotes around reputable because Rotten Tomatoes lists them as "top critics." I have no idea how this is determined). Now, I've never been one for critical sites. At all. Ever. I like to watch a movie and form my own opinions without bias before reading what other biased people have to say. My brother practically worships the site. Before he watches any movie, he has to check the rating on Rotten Tomato. It's apparently like the law or something.

It gave Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows a 78%. That's pretty much my main argument there. But, like I said, I'm completely biased. But so is everyone else.

Take, for instance, The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones. As a fan of the books and being within its age demographic, I feel like my opinion is rather valid on the quality of the film. I'm also quite critical of any book-to-movie adaptation so, if possible, I might be at least somewhat qualified to write a review about the film (which I did, btdubs). I liked the movie. I thought it did rather well for a first go at the very complex and detailed world that Cassandra Clare wrote. It was a bit rocky, not sure of itself. But overall, I think it was good and deserved a second go with a sequel.

This is the score that Rotten Tomato gave it:

(1) The only thing similar to Twilight is the romance. And even then, it's completely different. No emotional abuse here. Well, not really. Most YA fantasy series have romance. It's part of the formula to appeal to the female demographic. Chicks dig romance, man. It's a thing.

(2) This review isn't even about the movie. Keep your opinions of the book to yourself or post them on a book review site. Books and movies are not the same thing. Unfortunatly. (If you want a four-hour Harry Potter movie clap your hands!)

(3) For those of you who don't know, Cassandra Clare is a former fan fiction writer. Harry Potter, more specifically. She then wrote her own fantasy series. Which bares no resemblance to Harry Potter except that it's fantasy. I mean, there are witches and warlocks but the magic is completely different than J.K. Rowling's version. By far. I have no idea why this "Flick Filosopher" called the film out as being a "bad name" to fan fiction when it isn't fan fiction at all. I should know. At least I hope so.

Now, as a counterpoint to these negative reviews, let's take a look at the thing I would recommend paying attention to if you were to check Rotten Tomatoes for a film rec. The audience score.

The Vampire Academy book series is one that captures its readers. It's sexy, daring, funny, and even original.

I don't understand all of the hate that is coming out about this movie. I absolutely loved it. Of course, I had my stipulations, but all around I really enjoyed it. And, before you ask, yes I read the book. Honestly, I am insulted you would even suggest such a thing.

A lot of the problems people had about the movie are mostly to do with it being so slow-moving. And to that I say: Have you read the book? I read it for the first time this summer when I heard the movie was coming out. I had been recommended it before but never had much initiative to read it until I saw the first trailer for the film. And, I'll admit, it was pretty hard to get through. I'd heard so much about it. Heck, even my dad read it (which isn't that much of a surprise since he's more of a SciFi nut than I am... but still!). The majority of the book takes place at battle school, as does the movie. It focuses on the many battles Ender had to face such as the battles between armies and his personal demons, as does the movie. So really, I don't get why everyone is whining so much about it being so boring. My coworker, who hadn't read the book, holds that opinion, which I respect. But I honestly don't understand why people who read the book hated the movie so much. The acting was good, the visual effects were stunning, and it followed the plot as well as it could with the book's vast timeline.

Now, I'm not saying the film didn't have its weak points. SPOILER ALERT. PLEASE DON'T READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO AVOID MAJOR MOVIE GIVEAWAYS.

Peter. I wanted more of him. At the beginning of the book, we see that Peter is pretty much a psychopath. Now, the movie does allude to this. But then it just drops it. The movie version of Ender and Valentine do discuss later that Ender is not like Peter, yada yada yada. But if you didn't read the book, you really wouldn't understand what that meant. Peter is a guy who tortured living animals. I just wish that the movie would have emphasized Peter and his relationship (or lack thereof) with his family.

They also way overplayed Petra and Ender's relationship. I understand why - it's explained in this Wired interview with Orson Scott Card - but it was still unnerving to witness. Especially since I know in the books they have a significant age difference. *shivers*

My final point is a positive note to end on. Card has openly said that the movie is "damn good" so... there. I like it. Card is obviously fine with how it turned out. Now I'll just go off and bake a cake so we can all eat and be happy.

It seems like I'm giving this blog a theme with all the rants I'm posting about books and movies. I guess they're just all that I feel like talking about. Maybe I'll talk about makeup or boys in the next one.

Moving on...

Today's post is inspired by all the media surrounding the "50 Shades of Grey" movie. Let me just start out by saying that no, I haven't read the books. Nor do I intend to. I do have friends who have read them, however, and they have told me that they're not as bad as they're being portrayed. I considered reading the three-book series just to write an educated post about them but decided against it. Mostly because I'm lazy but also because I also have a pile of other books I have to read, as I've stated before. But I feel that I don't need to have read them in order to say what I intend to say so I'll just get straight to it.

"50 Shades of Grey" is erotica. It's a known fact. It can also be categorized as romance but who are we kidding. Anything with explicitly written sex scenes can be counted as erotica. I've read plenty of books with sex in them and can easily tell the difference between romance and erotica. Simply put: If the book has three or more synonyms for "penis" and "vagina," it's erotica. Also, plot. Plot is very important. If it's intricate enough, sex scenes are put in the backseat and aren't entirely relevant when it comes to the main story line. Hell, you could even skip them. But if they overshadow the plot (hence, the BDSM in "50 Shades") then it's clear that the plot isn't strong enough and cannot be carried without them. Erotica.

Good. Now that we've gotten that settled. Why in the name of all that is holy is this book being made into a movie? I mean, I could see full-on porn being based off of it. But a full-length motion picture? Seriously? This is just doomed to be a disaster. They're going to have to water it down a lot to get an R-rating. And even if they accomplish that, will it even be that good? I've heard snippets of the main plot from friends who have read it and don't think it seems all that interesting. It's main appeal is the sex and its, ahem, interestingly written scenes. Maybe that's why the cast hasn't been announced yet. Maybe the executives who were dumb enough to fund this project have seen some sense.

Having read a few excerpts of the text (Hamster. Enough said.) I could tell that this wasn't the greatest book to begin with. The main reason for its publicity was that it was first written as a "Twilight" fan fiction. Which I have the utmost respect for. Being a former fan fiction writer, I am proud and envious of the success of writers who got their start in fan fiction. It gives me hope. But still, when your story is as poorly written as "50 Shades," I almost take it back. E.L. James's success gives writers false hopes of publishing. She didn't get all of this attention because her book was good. She got it because she was riding the "Twilight" bandwagon in the steamiest and most controversial of ways. Is she setting a good example for future writers? No. She's "inspiring" them to write something controversial to get media attention and let themselves be remembered as that one lady who wrote that sex book. She's a fad and will be remembered for all the wrong reasons. She could have had the potential to be a truly fantastic novelist whose stories (yes, even erotica) would have been remembered because they were good, not because they were bad and falsely revered. Now she's the pinnacle of bad writing done right, which shouldn't prove as any encouragement to those wanting to break into the industry.

And they want to make a movie out of it. That's about as screwed up as the media can get.

/endrant