THE FAULT IN OUR STARS(PG-13)
*1/2 (out of 5)
June 6, 2014
STARRING
Shailene Woodley as HAZEL
Ansel Elgort as GUS
Nat Wolff as ISAAC
Laura Dern as FRANNIE
Sam Trammell as MICHAEL
Willem Dafoe as VAN HOUTEN
Lotte Verbeek as LIDEWIJ
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Directed by: Josh Boone
BY KEVIN CARR
Listen to Kevin’s radio review…
To call “The Fault in Our Stars” a bona fide tear jerker is a bit dishonest to me. Will most people find themselves crying at some point in the film? Probably. However, this is not necessarily because it’s an effective movie. Instead, it’s a shameless piece of emotional manipulation that hammers away at the audience with as many different scenarios as possible.
Yes, the audience can be made to cry, but what “The Fault in Our Stars” really does is prove that cheap parlor tricks can achieve this. And that’s exactly what “The Fault in Our Stars” is: a cheap parlor trick disguised as a wondrous love story.
Spoiler alert: It’s not a wondrous love story. It’s as much a romance and misery-porn fantasy as a flirtatious wink from a stripper shaking her rump on a stage.
Like the now-popular breed of Nicholas Sparks-inspired drivel, “The Fault in Our Stars” uses cancer as a MacGuffin to bring the audience with it. Instead of showing a realistic and honest portrayal of this deadly disease, the film exploits it for it’s personal impact on the audience. You see, cancer is so widespread that I doubt anyone over the age of three hasn’t been touched by it in some way. Whether it’s a loved one who died or a friend you know going through treatment, cancer is an easy enemy to put in a movie. It’s the Nazis of the medical world, something that everyone can relate to negatively.
(If you think the Nazis comment was a bit of a stretch, wait until you see the movie, in which the bluntly unsubtle parallel is drawn between those very historical figures and the struggle that our young lovers must go through. It’s kind of sickening, actually.)
“The Fault in Our Stars” follows a 19-year-old girl named Hazel (Shailene Woodley), who has been dealing with lung cancer since she was thirteen. Now, as she has seemingly given up on life and relationships, she starts to fall in love with Gus (Ansel Elgort), a teenager in remission whom she met at a support group. Together, they find their young love challenged by their own end-of-life scenarios.
What’s even more offensive to anyone who has ever been personally touched by cancer is how cavalier this film is with it’s own imagery. Cancer is a terrible thing, and this movie plays around with it like a child playing dress-up. There’s no indication of the terrible effects cancer actually has on people. It goes beyond the absurdity of Ali MacGraw looking adorable moments before her death in the groundbreaking 1970 film “Love Story.” This presents cancer as an angst-filled challenge that deserves Bella Swan mopiness without showing the loss of dignity, physical appearance, and overall ability to function.
I know I’m being hard on this movie, which is really doing nothing more than trying to give its audience a cathartic moment. However, these are core problems with the film at the story and concept level that make it terrible.
On the more superficial level, “The Fault in Our Stars” is poorly written with terrible characterization. Sure, Woodley does her best to redeem her acting from the quite dreadful “Divergent” earlier this spring. However, Ansel Elgort phones in his own performance. Not that he had anything to really work with, of course. His character is woefully underwritten, existing for no more purpose than to dote over Hazel to the point of being almost robotic. There’s no depth to him or any complexity below his smug grin.
While it’ll be adored by fans and it’s getting what I consider inexplicably decent reviews, I found this film to be a chore to watch. It’s painfully predictable with oodles of cringe-worthy dialogue, overly convenient symbolism, and story cliches that would be too much for a TV movie in the 80s. For a cynical SOB like me, I found myself rolling my eyes far more than I did wiping them.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
To be completely honest, I don’t think you have other right to be writing this review. First of all, Hazel is a 16 year old girl, not 19. When you said it was offensive to people who have been around cancer was a lie, for some people this book has helped them through rough times. Also the movie defiantly showed the overall struggle to function, when Hazel tried to climb stairs she struggled her way through it, and she could barely breath, even with her oxygen tank. As for the writing of the movie, it was practically on point with the book, if you read it.
To be completely honest, I have every right to write this review because that’s my job. And what I said was not offensive to people who have been around cancer because *everyone has been around cancer*. If the book or movie helps someone, more power to them. But to say that I don’t understand the struggle of the cancer patient because I found this movie vacuous and trite is an empty argument. It’s a predictable and boring film. That’s one man’s opinion.
And no, I’m not going to read the book. One shouldn’t have to read the original source material to “get” a movie. If you do, then it’s a poorly made film.
Finally, sorry I got Hazel’s age wrong. I guess that’s what happens when a 22-year-old actress plays a 16 year old. I tend to think she’s older. Either way, it’s not important.
Burn.
I feel like you have to read every book in order to REALLY understand the movie. That doesn’t mean the movie is poorly made. It’s incredibly difficult to capture all of the emotion from a book into the movie. You simply cannot. In books, the character’s thoughts are continually recorded. You can’t always do that in movies. That’s why movies are never as good as the books they’re based on.
If you had read the book, you’d understand that Hazel is not your typical 16 year old. The dialogue in the book is not the typical dialogue you hear out of teenagers mouths, but that’s what made it so good. To say that this movie is offensive to those you have been affected in one way or another by cancer is OFFENSIVE. While it ends on a sad note, it’s also hopeful. And for me personally, it really makes me think about how I should be able to find joy in life every day no matter what I’m going through. If these two people with a terminal illness can find contentment, why can’t I? I know, they’re just fictional characters. Hazel’s character is based off of a real person though. A real person who, even though she lost her battle with cancer, found joy.
Like I just mentioned, Hazel’s character is based off of an actual 16 year old girl that the author of the book met. She had thyroid cancer like Hazel, and her personality was much like Hazel’s. So while it may be unrealistic for most teenagers to be like Hazel and Gus, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any similar to them. What’s even better about this film is that while the ending is heartbreaking, it’s HONEST. Hollywood rarely ever makes movies that don’t have a happy ending. It may not be your favorite kind of movie, and that’s fine. It’s not for everyone. But to say that it’s not a good movie at all? I think you’ve missed the point of it entirely. You probably won’t read the book, but unless you do, you don’t really know anything about this movie.
I know you’re going to disagree with every word I just wrote. And that’s find. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just thought I’d TRY and bring a new perspective to the table. 🙂
I’m going to see the movie this weekend. I’ve read the book so I think i’ll enjoy it; but from seeing the trailer and the small clips I think it’s obvious that the movie won’t really be intellectually satisfying in isolation of the book.
I agree that a movie *should* be a standalone feature. There are plenty of adaptations that have been great – sometimes better (in the case of Game of Thrones) than its source material. However, I think something we’re going to be seeing more and more of – especially in this era of Kickstarter projects and reality-based entertainment – is this creation of content “for the fans”.
Another example is, I suppose, Veronica Mars. The movie probably isn’t anything great if you haven’t seen the TV series. However, it was a self-proclaimed love letter to the fans. That’s a bit different, since it was a serialised story… but the point is that I think we’re going to be seeing a lot more content that is less about telling an independent story, and more about complementing an existing experience.
Even John Green qualified his glowing review by saying that you have to read the book first.
It’s definitely lazy, but it’s what will keep the fans tweeting and sharing the content.
I’m going to walk into TFIOS with the exact same attitude. I don’t think it’ll be great on its own, but I think it will bring the story I read to life adequately.
I should clarify that TFIOS the movie is a love story to the novel which, in essence, is in itself a love story to Esther Earl (upon whom the book was inspired). So there’s two layers of fandom there, and it’ll be a very rich experience for those who have had the benefit of riding the entire wave.
I totally agree, this movie was awful. No real depth, unrealistic dialogue throughout the whole thing, of which the whole movie relied almost completely on (dialogue, that is.) I was with my teenage daughter and even she said “no one my age talks like this.” And that inevitable teenage angsty cynicism, as if being cynical is the only thing a young person can aspire to, they make wordy, witty cynicism seem so “cool.” And don’t forget to make fun of Jesus Christ in the opening scenes as well, while you’re at it. Weak, bad, cringey turnoff. I also guess we’re supposed to naturally find sympathy for the main character but I could find none whatsoever. Neither for that awful girl-short haircut I had to look at for 2 hours. Boring, predictable, Willem Dafoe was its only redeeming quality and maybe 5 comical minutes from the blind kid.
Kevin got it right, just got back from seeing this film and it was awful. One-dimensional characters, teen-angst writing and dialogue, sweet and syrupy and the part at Anne Frank’s house was very un-tasteful. Not a good movie at all…
This review is actually like Peter Van Houten, seriously.
Haha! Well played!
I lost someone I love to cancer very recently so I am a little biased. I won’t watch the film just yet, since just watching the previews have made me want to vomit or throw something (or both). It is so obvious that it’s another rehash of tragic love story that it insults most people’s intelligence. I wonder if people would think it’s romantic if they showed what cancer really does to a person in their last days? I am also amused that someone in the last stages of lung cancer can carry around a oxygen tank like it’s a cute little portable. Those things are huge, heavy and awkward. And you have to change them out every couple hours, so forget long trips with just one.
I could write more, but it just shows my bitterness. I hate cancer, but I hate Hollywood cashing in on cancer even more. Just my two cents.
If you read the book you would know that she’s in stage 4 of thyroid cancer. It is beginning to spread to her lungs and as a result they fill up with fluid from time to time, which is why she has the oxygen tank. I don’t want to spoil anything so I’m not going to say much else about her. However, it isn’t pretty or glamorous towards the end. It’s not cute. Cancer isn’t cute and they don’t make it out to be that. It’s even more detailed in the book naturally. I have lost multiple relatives to cancer. Neither the book nor the movie offend me in any way. The story is not even about cancer. Further, the main character is based off of a real life girl who had thyroid cancer and passed away a few years ago. It isn’t totally unrealistic.
You don’t have to like this movie and I can see where you’re coming from. However, don’t knock it if you haven’t watched it. I suggest starting with the book. It’s actually a really beautiful story and there’s a lot to take away from it. Do some research. I think you’ll find that it’s not in any way trying to make cancer something that it’s not. The girl who the main character is based off of developed a friendship with the author. The book was written in honor of her. Her name was Esther Earl. She made youtube videos shortly before her passing. I suggest checking them out.
I see your points, Kevin. The book was truly great but the movie is lacking…. They have tried to copy the book exactly but much is lost. I was disappointed.