The Fault in Our Stars

Starring: Shailene Woodley, Ansel Elgort, Nat Wolff, Laura Dern, Sam Trammell, Willem Dafoe, Mike Birbiglia
Directed by: Josh Boone
Rating: PG-13
Genre: Drama, Romance
2014

Times Seen:
Tim: 1

Summary: Two teens with cancer (Shailene Woodley, Ansel Elgort) fall in love in a treatment center.

Review:

Tim: I was looking forward to The Fault in Our Stars- it was well-received by critics, featured Shailene Woodley, who is building an impressive Hollywood resume, and it seemed like a good old fashioned tearjerker. I was excited to see it. I'm not sure exactly what happened, but the movie just did not connect with me at all. I really struggled to sit through the film. I'm shocked that so many people liked this movie because it just didn't do anything for me.

I think the idea of a love story among cancer patients is a great idea. It's tragic and sad, undoubtedly, but it's a very different romantic movie than we're used to seeing. You just have a feeling that "they lived happily ever after" won't apply. This is a movie I was very glad was made, but still, despite my interest, I just couldn't connect.

Intellectually, I liked the characters. Hazel seems like the kind of clever, well=spoken character I usually like. Gus seemed like a good dude. And yet, I just wasn't able to invest in either character emotionally. Maybe it's that I just recently saw Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort as brother and sister in Divergent, but their relationship never felt real to me. It felt forced and a bit cliched. I never bought why they fell in love. Woodley and Elgort both give good performances, so I can't fault them too much, but I just felt like their chemistry was pretend.

The other issue I struggled with was the whole subplot about the writer in Amsterdam. This might have made more sense in the book, but I just did not understand why it mattered at all. I get wanting to meet your favorite author. The idea that the author responded via email but would only give details in person felt like an incredibly contrived plot device. It also felt incredibly convenient to me that Gus had "saved" his wish from a charitable donation, allowing him to whisk them off to Amsterdam to meet said author. Seriously? I'm supposed to believe all this is even remotely plausible? Then, you have the weird scene at the Anne Frank house. What was I supposed to be feeling? Was I supposed to be worried that Hazel was going to die right there? The scene felt completely off, like the tone was completely wrong. I suppose it was just meant to serve as misdirection, which I did not care for at all. The final scene with the author at the end of the movie also just felt incredibly forced and unbelievable. I simply didn't understand why the author would fly so far for so little. Maybe it made sense in the book, but it detracted from the quality of the movie for me.

I'd be lying if I didn't get a little choked up towards the end- come on, it's nearly impossible not to. I know that "manipulative" is a word that's thrown out way too often with films that try to make you feel something, but the scene at the church did feel a little manipulative to me. Yes, I felt emotional, but I also felt some frustration at the way the movie got me to feel what I felt. It just didn't sit right to me. By the time the saddest event occurred, I didn't feel a whole lot of anguish. I don't know, besides the scene in the church, I don't think I ever felt what this movie wanted me to feel. That was a disappointment to me.

Hey, for everyone who liked this movie (and a lot of people did, apparently), I'm glad you liked it. I wouldn't argue with anyone who claims this is a good movie. I personally didn't find it very engaging, so the 126 minute run time felt incredibly long to me. The Fault in Our Stars might not be a terrible movie, but I really didn't care for it at all. That surprised me, but it's the truth.

Rating 1-10
Tim's Rating: 6



If You Enjoyed This Movie, We Recommend: Divergent, White Bird in a Blizzard, The Descendants, The Spectacular Now