This movie was actually really good! I thoroughly enjoyed it, the characters were great, storyline was intriguing, and acting was good. I expected a 6.6 movie, but got one way better than that.
716 Reviews
I don't understand the bad reviews
km-equines9 June 2020
Not enough space...
jlajdova29 February 2016
I hesitated to watch this movie for a long time - reason being my endless love for the adapted book, which is my absolute favorite. It is needed to be said in the review, because even with all the effort it is impossible for me to review the movie without influence of the book.
Movie did actually better job than I expected. I liked the cast of the main characters, Harrison Ford and Asa Butterfield. Both did very good job. A big positive surprise for me was the visual aspect of the movie, I liked it actually so much, it is the main reason, why I keep my rating for the movie so high despite the negatives.
The biggest problem of the Ender's Game adaptation is the race against the time. The movie tries to squeeze huge amount of information in a short time and it just does not work. I cannot imagine, how I would feel without having any background information from the book. Even if we can discuss whether the "Earth" sideline with Ender's siblings has to or doesn't have to be in the movie (it does not), there is the main storyline describing Ender's time spend in Battle school and it is handled so shallowly and quickly, it hurts. This story just needs more space. Without it there is almost no character development. No emotions towards side characters, like Bean or Petra or all the others, barely recognizable for the viewer. Even the great ending is ripped of emotions partially because of it. I felt all the aspects of the movie are more handled as trailers to that aspect than actually diving into it. And it is a pity.
It was still a nice experience, seeing the universe come to life.
Remember, the enemy's gate is down!
Movie did actually better job than I expected. I liked the cast of the main characters, Harrison Ford and Asa Butterfield. Both did very good job. A big positive surprise for me was the visual aspect of the movie, I liked it actually so much, it is the main reason, why I keep my rating for the movie so high despite the negatives.
The biggest problem of the Ender's Game adaptation is the race against the time. The movie tries to squeeze huge amount of information in a short time and it just does not work. I cannot imagine, how I would feel without having any background information from the book. Even if we can discuss whether the "Earth" sideline with Ender's siblings has to or doesn't have to be in the movie (it does not), there is the main storyline describing Ender's time spend in Battle school and it is handled so shallowly and quickly, it hurts. This story just needs more space. Without it there is almost no character development. No emotions towards side characters, like Bean or Petra or all the others, barely recognizable for the viewer. Even the great ending is ripped of emotions partially because of it. I felt all the aspects of the movie are more handled as trailers to that aspect than actually diving into it. And it is a pity.
It was still a nice experience, seeing the universe come to life.
Remember, the enemy's gate is down!
Needs an extended version
Jerghal2 February 2014
The box-office failure of big budget (110m$) book adaptation 'Ender's Game' doesn't bode well for the future of my favorite movie genre. Writer Orson Scott Card has had many offers since the book release in 1985 to turn it into a film. He rejected many of them because of creative differences and because most Studios insisted on making Ender older (in the book he's 6 to 10 years old). There were plans in 2003 by Warner Brothers to let Wolfgang Petersen have a go at it with a script written by Card himself. Card's script was a fusion of 'Ender's Game' and 'Ender's Shadow'. In 2010 Gavin Hood got attached as director and screenwriter and the script became based on the first book again with plans to make it into a franchise or a TV series if successful. Unfortunately EG made only 112m$ worldwide (although it opened first place in the US with 27m$) so all future plans have been put on ice. It's really a shame because as far as science fiction flicks go this really is one of the better ones. The VFX were done by Digital Domain who also co-financed the film and they look absolutely stunning. This film will a good 4K showcase Blu-ray when they finalize the format at the end of 2014. The film follows the book quite closely but because of the time constraints of the film medium a lot of events had to be compressed and some subplots where eliminated. 113 mins really is too short, an extra 40 mins or so would have let more room to expand on Ender's training etc. Altogether I think most fans of the book will be happy with the end result but it it just lacks the depth the book had to offer. So hopefully they make a 3 hour extended version (depending on how much material they shot) on BD to give the story more time to breathe.
Science fiction semi blockbuster
seany-exton10 July 2014
I went into this movie with no preconceptions at all.The only thing i'd heard about this film was the title.I'm so glad i didn't read up on it first because i think this would have spoilt it for me.For the best part of the film its shot in space which credit where credits due is filmed fantastically what with the like of Gravity not long coming out and stealing all the limelight for its display of life in space and hands down it certainly deserves its merits.With that aside Enders Game is a marvel in itself.Great direction and production in this leaves you happy that you took the time out to watch this.A good cast of young actors who lead the movie very well and you can easily bond with these characters they portray.Iv'e given this movie only a 7 because with all its positive ingredients and an interesting plot line it still lacks something that i can't put my finger on.With that aside its still a must see for any science fiction fan.
What does it profit a man to save the world and lose his soul? Hood doesn't flinch from dark nature of Card's seminal novel.
s_campanale25 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Science fiction started life around the Enlightenment as a conduit for debates about society, about morals and about what makes us human, and what the future might hold, maintaining that same role as our science and technology advanced exponentially over the centuries. Then came its poorer sibling, the sci-fi that was just about the thrills and spills and the effects and action only. The best science fiction of course is a fine blend of the two, of the cerebral and the visceral.
One such novel was "Enders Game" by the Orson Scott Card, which used the familiar sci-fi cliché of the alien invasion of Earth and the pan- national fight back to examine a very real but troubling dilemma which affects any nation that considers itself to be "modern" and "civilized", which is that often in order to protect those very things, we, or those entrusted to defend us, have to embrace the opposite of all our values. The young men and women we take and train to kill without hesitation and mercy, to risk death and injury while taking life, then expecting them to return home and be normal. But to abandon that duty of defence may leave our values and our futures at stake, and so by doing nothing lose everything. Is there even a correct answer to this conundrum, and if not then how can we handle the conflict that arises?
After many years as "an unfilmable novel" it finally arrives as an impressive medium budget movie. Director Gavin Hood, who helmed the mess that was "X-Men origins: Wolverine" 4 years ago redeems himself on the sci-fi front by delivering a film that is at once spectacular looking and narratively flowing and gripping, while at the same time not flinching from the dark, sombre heart of the story.
The plot takes place 50 years after a devastating attack on Earth by highly evolved Ants called "Formics" who were looking for new colonies to deal with their chronic over-population, an invasion repulsed thanks to an "ID4" style manoeuvre by legendary pilot Mazer Rackham. What was left of us evolved into a highly advanced, but highly militarised society with interstellar capability and fleets of high tech space cruisers. The military realised that the best minds for strategy where those of children, who were gifted in intuition and daring thought lost in conventional upbringings, and so train the young at tough military academies, selecting the best for officer command. The brightest star is young Ender Wiggin ("Hugo"s Asa Butterfield) who is targeted by chillingly utilitarian General Graff (Harrison Ford) who subjects him to often horrifying mind games, putting him into conflicts with the other cadets around him, isolating him and putting his back ever further to the wall. The only one to help is psychologist Anderson (Viola Davis) who knows that she is complicit in the warping and destruction of the souls of children even if it is to a greater good. He makes enemies but also friends, chief among which is Petra (Hailee Steinfield) When he shows brilliance at the zero gravity team war games, a fight with another cadet ends in tragedy and Ender turns his back on everything, being especially conflicted by the fact that his unique understanding of Formic thought and culture makes him empathise with the very ones he is to destroy. Using his beloved sister Valentine (Abigail Breslin) as leverage, Ender is given command of a fleet positioned off the Formic homeworld, with Petra and his friends as his team, where a massive military build-up is terrifying the veteran top brass into a strategy of all out aggression. Here he is taken under the wing of Mazer Rackham (Ben Kingsley) himself. As the big attack on Formica approaches, Ender begins to feel some of the Formics are trying to communicate with him telepathically. Can peace prevail, or can only one race be left standing? And even if they win, what will be left of the soul of Ender and his team at the end of it?
The special effects are impressive, even if most of the "big battle" stuff is in the trailer. The excellent cast all do justice to their characters and their struggles, and every part from the major to the minor are well filled and directed. The film also updates the sentiments to our current world, not hiding the obvious fact that we are all living out this dilemma right now but without giving simple answers. "Star Trek", which was the modern home of ethical dilemma sci-fi, attempted to grapple with similar questions in this summer's "reboot" instalment "Star Trek into the Darkness", yet did so with all the clumsiness, lack of skill and tracing paper thin profundity typical of what now calls itself "Star Trek". This film on the other hand treats it as the REAL series that Gene Rodenberry created would have. It also evokes thoughts of some of the higher end Japanese Manga and Anime, who use a similar set up and youthful military elite in their dark, ethically troubled tales.
Not the fun, exciting happy go lucky movie for kids that some of the marketing suggests, it is instead a deep, warm, troubling, thrilling, moving, spectacular film that is suitable both for adults (despite the juvenile cast) and for teenagers and children (8+) who will hopefully be introduced to the ideas and questions it raises, and will find themselves stimulated to form their own answers, as they must inevitably do some day.
One such novel was "Enders Game" by the Orson Scott Card, which used the familiar sci-fi cliché of the alien invasion of Earth and the pan- national fight back to examine a very real but troubling dilemma which affects any nation that considers itself to be "modern" and "civilized", which is that often in order to protect those very things, we, or those entrusted to defend us, have to embrace the opposite of all our values. The young men and women we take and train to kill without hesitation and mercy, to risk death and injury while taking life, then expecting them to return home and be normal. But to abandon that duty of defence may leave our values and our futures at stake, and so by doing nothing lose everything. Is there even a correct answer to this conundrum, and if not then how can we handle the conflict that arises?
After many years as "an unfilmable novel" it finally arrives as an impressive medium budget movie. Director Gavin Hood, who helmed the mess that was "X-Men origins: Wolverine" 4 years ago redeems himself on the sci-fi front by delivering a film that is at once spectacular looking and narratively flowing and gripping, while at the same time not flinching from the dark, sombre heart of the story.
The plot takes place 50 years after a devastating attack on Earth by highly evolved Ants called "Formics" who were looking for new colonies to deal with their chronic over-population, an invasion repulsed thanks to an "ID4" style manoeuvre by legendary pilot Mazer Rackham. What was left of us evolved into a highly advanced, but highly militarised society with interstellar capability and fleets of high tech space cruisers. The military realised that the best minds for strategy where those of children, who were gifted in intuition and daring thought lost in conventional upbringings, and so train the young at tough military academies, selecting the best for officer command. The brightest star is young Ender Wiggin ("Hugo"s Asa Butterfield) who is targeted by chillingly utilitarian General Graff (Harrison Ford) who subjects him to often horrifying mind games, putting him into conflicts with the other cadets around him, isolating him and putting his back ever further to the wall. The only one to help is psychologist Anderson (Viola Davis) who knows that she is complicit in the warping and destruction of the souls of children even if it is to a greater good. He makes enemies but also friends, chief among which is Petra (Hailee Steinfield) When he shows brilliance at the zero gravity team war games, a fight with another cadet ends in tragedy and Ender turns his back on everything, being especially conflicted by the fact that his unique understanding of Formic thought and culture makes him empathise with the very ones he is to destroy. Using his beloved sister Valentine (Abigail Breslin) as leverage, Ender is given command of a fleet positioned off the Formic homeworld, with Petra and his friends as his team, where a massive military build-up is terrifying the veteran top brass into a strategy of all out aggression. Here he is taken under the wing of Mazer Rackham (Ben Kingsley) himself. As the big attack on Formica approaches, Ender begins to feel some of the Formics are trying to communicate with him telepathically. Can peace prevail, or can only one race be left standing? And even if they win, what will be left of the soul of Ender and his team at the end of it?
The special effects are impressive, even if most of the "big battle" stuff is in the trailer. The excellent cast all do justice to their characters and their struggles, and every part from the major to the minor are well filled and directed. The film also updates the sentiments to our current world, not hiding the obvious fact that we are all living out this dilemma right now but without giving simple answers. "Star Trek", which was the modern home of ethical dilemma sci-fi, attempted to grapple with similar questions in this summer's "reboot" instalment "Star Trek into the Darkness", yet did so with all the clumsiness, lack of skill and tracing paper thin profundity typical of what now calls itself "Star Trek". This film on the other hand treats it as the REAL series that Gene Rodenberry created would have. It also evokes thoughts of some of the higher end Japanese Manga and Anime, who use a similar set up and youthful military elite in their dark, ethically troubled tales.
Not the fun, exciting happy go lucky movie for kids that some of the marketing suggests, it is instead a deep, warm, troubling, thrilling, moving, spectacular film that is suitable both for adults (despite the juvenile cast) and for teenagers and children (8+) who will hopefully be introduced to the ideas and questions it raises, and will find themselves stimulated to form their own answers, as they must inevitably do some day.
Better than I thought it would be, but not as good as I'd hoped.
al_oxley25 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Having divided opinion so much before its release due to many people being offended by the authors outspoken beliefs, and due to the die hard fans of the novel's excited anticipation of the long awaited movie adaptation; Enders Game will continue to do so after its release for a far more fundamental reason: Viewers who have not read the book may find the plot difficult to follow due to it's fast pacing, while viewers who have read the book will probably find themselves wishing that more of it had been included. This is definitely a movie that needs an extended "directors cut".
That said, despite the various omissions and short-cuts made by the film makers, there are many positive things to report.
Firstly the casting is superb, with very few exceptions; most noticeably Dap and Anderson, who I feel were so different from their counterparts in the novel as to feel out of place.
Secondly the film is visually stunning to look at with some truly great sets, costumes and special effects. The score and sound is also very good and sets the mood nicely.
Thirdly the story itself is very good, not at all the "Star Wars meets Harry Potter" or "Hunger Games in Space" that is being touted, but a far more serious allegory about the effects of unreasonably high expectations of someone so young and the impact it can have on them.
It is just a shame that the film seems to be in such a hurry to get to the finale that it rushes through so much of the early story:
Not enough time is spent developing secondary characters such as Enders older brother Peter, who gets very little screen time, certainly not enough to demonstrate to the novice viewer why Ender is so afraid of becoming like him. Very little mention is made of Enders outcast status as a third child or why this is important. It's not explained why Ender must feel that no-one will ever come to his aid, just that they won't.
All these aspects are present in the film, it's just that they are glossed over so briefly that someone with no prior knowledge of the story will either be forced to take them at face value or spend a lot of time thinking "why?".
Far more serious are the more obvious omissions:
The entire Locke/Demosthenes sub-plot is absent and Enders progression through battle school is alarmingly expedited, going directly from his promotion to Dragon army commander to their final battle together with no explanation as to how Ender takes a group of unseasoned "launchies" and defeats TWO armies (one of which has never lost) with them.
Whilst I understand, and to a certain extent, agree with the first omission; I can't see why a simple 2-3 minute montage of Dragon army training together, winning battles and moving up the rankings couldn't have been included to exposit the latter.
In short the whole of the film leading up to the finale feels hurried and confusing.
That said the finale is excellently realised and genuinely moving, if you know the story or have managed to make sense of the film so far! I think more emphasis could have been placed on the twist at the end of tale before moving on to the epilogue, but it still plays out well.
In conclusion this is a well acted and visualised film that is worth seeing. Just don't expect to understand it all if you haven't read the book, and expect to feel a little short changed if you have.
That said, despite the various omissions and short-cuts made by the film makers, there are many positive things to report.
Firstly the casting is superb, with very few exceptions; most noticeably Dap and Anderson, who I feel were so different from their counterparts in the novel as to feel out of place.
Secondly the film is visually stunning to look at with some truly great sets, costumes and special effects. The score and sound is also very good and sets the mood nicely.
Thirdly the story itself is very good, not at all the "Star Wars meets Harry Potter" or "Hunger Games in Space" that is being touted, but a far more serious allegory about the effects of unreasonably high expectations of someone so young and the impact it can have on them.
It is just a shame that the film seems to be in such a hurry to get to the finale that it rushes through so much of the early story:
Not enough time is spent developing secondary characters such as Enders older brother Peter, who gets very little screen time, certainly not enough to demonstrate to the novice viewer why Ender is so afraid of becoming like him. Very little mention is made of Enders outcast status as a third child or why this is important. It's not explained why Ender must feel that no-one will ever come to his aid, just that they won't.
All these aspects are present in the film, it's just that they are glossed over so briefly that someone with no prior knowledge of the story will either be forced to take them at face value or spend a lot of time thinking "why?".
Far more serious are the more obvious omissions:
The entire Locke/Demosthenes sub-plot is absent and Enders progression through battle school is alarmingly expedited, going directly from his promotion to Dragon army commander to their final battle together with no explanation as to how Ender takes a group of unseasoned "launchies" and defeats TWO armies (one of which has never lost) with them.
Whilst I understand, and to a certain extent, agree with the first omission; I can't see why a simple 2-3 minute montage of Dragon army training together, winning battles and moving up the rankings couldn't have been included to exposit the latter.
In short the whole of the film leading up to the finale feels hurried and confusing.
That said the finale is excellently realised and genuinely moving, if you know the story or have managed to make sense of the film so far! I think more emphasis could have been placed on the twist at the end of tale before moving on to the epilogue, but it still plays out well.
In conclusion this is a well acted and visualised film that is worth seeing. Just don't expect to understand it all if you haven't read the book, and expect to feel a little short changed if you have.
Humanity worth protecting
michaelRokeefe24 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Superior FX and intelligent action flick that finds an insectoid race returning to infect Earth. The International Military makes use of talented preteens, including Ender Wiggin (Asa Butterfield), to conjure a game plan to battle the second invasion. The characters are developed well for a syfy film and the action is strongly paced.
An outstanding cast also featuring: Harrison Ford, Hailee Steinfeld, Abigail Breslin, Moises Arias and Ben Kingsley.
An outstanding cast also featuring: Harrison Ford, Hailee Steinfeld, Abigail Breslin, Moises Arias and Ben Kingsley.
The book, the movie and a video game
antcasq12 November 2013
When I watched the Ender's Game trailer for the 1st time browsing the IMDb and I though: Here's a Sci Fi movie that I will probably see. My life went on and a few months later I saw the trailer again mentioned in a space video game called Skyjacker (Skyjacker - Starship Constructor update 20 in August). I got curious enough and decided to read the book first and watch the movie in November. Then I discover that there wasn't only one book, but a bunch of them. The Ender's Game saga!
I'm a bit lazy when it comes to reading, so I decided to listen to the audio books instead :) I got lucky, since from the author's point of view this is the ideal medium for enjoying the story. The author also had some concerns about making a movie since:
1- In the book the narrator is inside the character head. Making a movie with 3rd person speaking the thought of another one all the time would not work very well for the viewer.
2- The kids must be very young about 6 to 12 years old and it's very hard to find outstanding actor at that age that can give the required dramatic performance.
3- There should not be a love story and Hollywood tends to take advantage of the teenager feelings to do that
I was skeptical about the movie and unfortunately I was right. However they were able to do somethings right:
What's wrong with the movie then?
-- The training should take years, not days
-- Ender's ascension to power is not credible. He fought too few battles to be promoted to commander
They should have taken special attention to the cast. If the Bonzo character supposed to be funny, I assure you that none of the Ender's Game books fan laugh when saw him!
The movie should have been split into two parts, in order to develop the Ender Wiggin personality and make is ascension on the Battle School credible. Also since they had Bean from the beginning why not develop him too? With a 2 parts movie everybody would have won. The producer would sell 2 movies for the price of producing 1. After the 1st movie the book would sell as hell and people would still be interested to see the 2nd part of the movie.
Last, but not least, I must say that Human fleet looks good, although compared to the Skyjacker video game fleet it just feels short
Taking all into account I gave this movie a generous 7, when it had the potential to be a 9 or 10, if the had done it right!
I'm a bit lazy when it comes to reading, so I decided to listen to the audio books instead :) I got lucky, since from the author's point of view this is the ideal medium for enjoying the story. The author also had some concerns about making a movie since:
1- In the book the narrator is inside the character head. Making a movie with 3rd person speaking the thought of another one all the time would not work very well for the viewer.
2- The kids must be very young about 6 to 12 years old and it's very hard to find outstanding actor at that age that can give the required dramatic performance.
3- There should not be a love story and Hollywood tends to take advantage of the teenager feelings to do that
I was skeptical about the movie and unfortunately I was right. However they were able to do somethings right:
- Amazing special effects;
- Amazing final battle;
- Cut the Locke and Demosthenes characters from the movie, since it was impossible to develop them in a 2 hours movie, along side the main story;
- Give a plausible explanation about the bugger motive to attack Earth;
- Create some doubt about the bugger intentions.
What's wrong with the movie then?
- Almost everything happens too fast in the Battle School;
-- The training should take years, not days
-- Ender's ascension to power is not credible. He fought too few battles to be promoted to commander
- Bonzo supposed to be BIG!
- Bean supposed to be tiny
They should have taken special attention to the cast. If the Bonzo character supposed to be funny, I assure you that none of the Ender's Game books fan laugh when saw him!
The movie should have been split into two parts, in order to develop the Ender Wiggin personality and make is ascension on the Battle School credible. Also since they had Bean from the beginning why not develop him too? With a 2 parts movie everybody would have won. The producer would sell 2 movies for the price of producing 1. After the 1st movie the book would sell as hell and people would still be interested to see the 2nd part of the movie.
Last, but not least, I must say that Human fleet looks good, although compared to the Skyjacker video game fleet it just feels short
Taking all into account I gave this movie a generous 7, when it had the potential to be a 9 or 10, if the had done it right!
Tragedy the sequel was never made
bbosma-244036 March 2022
Apparently Enders Game was considered a flop and only just broke even. Hard to understand, because it's a truly excellent movie. The plot is very good, the cast outstanding, the production top quality and even though it's science fiction, it's very believable. And something else; it was very poignant. Overall far better than the Maze Runner and Divergent series. Oh, and Harrison Ford was perfect for the part.
A good book and movie with occasionally outdated concepts
ivko2 May 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I'm going to discuss some plot points that could be considered spoilers, although I won't be giving away the (whole) ending.
The book this movie was based upon has long been a favorite of mine. I probably read it a good five or six times over the last few decades before I ever saw the movie, and I recommend the book as well as the movie. The story is an examination of the human relationship with violence. The way it effects us and our society, the ugliness of it as well as the necessity and seductiveness of it. The book also examines warfare strategy in some detail, although the movie spends less time on that aspect. The central premise isn't exactly novel: in the future humans encounter a hostile alien species and engage in a war for survival, with a focus on the rise of a brilliant child named Ender as humanities best hope for survival. What is more unique is the exploration of the idea that defeating a powerful enemy requires such intimate knowledge of them; their tactics, their society, and their perspective, so that eventually you come to empathize with them to some degree. In other words, victory should be derived from the complete comprehension of an enemy civilization and the necessary application of force required to achieve peaceful coexistence, but with a cognizance that your enemy is thinking and feeling and their society has value even if circumstance pits you against one another. It doesn't proffer the idea that war is completely evil or unjust, despite admitting the potentially horrific consequences of it, but rather that it shouldn't be entered into lightly or with the naive belief that it can be humane and glorious (i.e. 'just war' may not be an oxymoron, but 'humane warfare' is). These ideas are explored in both the movie and the book, although the book goes into much greater detail using allusions to the founding fathers of the United States via a series of opinion letters published under a pseudonym by his siblings.
Setting aside the stories quasi-acceptance of violence, which is a deeper question not suited for this forum, the book/movie has several conceits that are a little outdated, to my thinking. The first is the idea of children as military leaders. This plot point is inspired by the fact that children have a very high capacity for learning. There are a host of biological reasons for this, but I think that drawing the idea out to this extent is more dramatic and gimmicky than realistic. While it's true that children can learn certain skills such as languages and mathematics faster than adults, there are distinct limits to this. First of all, knowledge without experience can't be wielded very effectively. Part of the process of a maturing mind is discovering how information fits together and can be creatively recombined to face new challenges. The evidence for this is all around; there have been many child prodigies who went to some Ivy league school at 12 and completed one or more doctorates before leaving their teens, but if you look at the record of great literature or mathematical or scientific achievements, you won't find many references to great works by teenagers. I'm not trying to downplay the incredible potential, only pointing out that the creative spark that fuses raw knowledge into meaningful insight tends to come later in life, with a little perspective. So you might be able to stuff young minds made powerful by incredible neuroplasticity full of strategic theory and physics, but I have serious doubts that the product would be a 14-year-old Hannibal.
The second problem I have always had with this is the application of the "everything genius". This is one of the most over-used tropes concerning intelligence, because it seems intuitive even though it is wrong. The basic idea is if someone is a genius at one thing, then they must be a genius at everything. So a math prodigy can also play any musical instrument simply by hearing a piece played once or write great novels or become super warriors by calculating the angle of blows or whatever. The truth is this just isn't how genius works. A math prodigy might have trouble tying their shoes or be unable to comprehend grammar or some such. Because while genius is still a mystery, there is some evidence that it is basically a hyper-specialization of the mind. And hyper-specialization in one area means some other areas might not get the attention that even an average intellect would give them. The story explains that Ender was selected because he is a genius, and then shows him excelling at hand to hand combat, physics, mathematics, strategy, etc. Basically, he becomes the perfect human being, and the explanation, insufficiently, is that he's a genius.
My third issue is with the requirement for a gifted human commander to lead the troops. The story presents the idea that humanity needs this commander to handle the enormously difficult task of guiding the armada during battle while executing optimal battle strategy, etc. Every scene in both the book and the movie shows him acting as a battlefield commander only. There is no long-term strategy planning, he just shows up as the battle is about to start and has to see it thru to victory or defeat. The thing is, the story is set at some point in humanities future. Technological development has proceeded to the point where Ender uses a computer with a smooth brain-computer interface and the government is capable of installing a probe that literally see thru the main characters eyes. So my point is, there is no reason to expect that their computers aren't at least as good as ours, but in this day and age we can already see a near-future where that battlefield commander job would almost certainly be performed more capably by a computer than a human.
Chess, long held as the strategists proof of skills, fell first. When it happened it was a huge shock; people had long held the belief that no computer could ever truly be as good as the best human players. I remember reading many reasonable sounding arguments for why humans would always have the upper hand in chess, and once it was clear that not only could computers match the best human players but were now in fact pulling ahead to a degree that we were unlikely to ever catch up, those same arguments switched to the game of Go. And, of course, now computers have pulled ahead in that as well. The fact is that companies like Microsoft now claim their systems have superhuman language comprehension (they understand the spoken word better than we do), have pulled even in language to language translation capability, and are drawing in on image recognition as well. All of which is to say that in future warfare, the control and direction of battlefield units will almost certainly be AI driven. It may be scary, but this is just an area where the machines outpace us. So Ender would not have been necessary, unless E.N.D.E.R. was some acronym like Efficient Neuro Data Event Responder or something.
And finally my biggest problem with the story. The entire war is eventually revealed *SPOILER ALERT* to be the result of an inability to establish communication between the humans and aliens. Ok, I can see that. But then there is a subplot where a mind-controlled game (which exists in the story to facilitate communication with the aliens and to keep us wondering about Ender's true nature) mysteriously includes images of the aliens and alien worlds. It turns out that the aliens hacked the game and placed these in it in a desperate attempt to communicate with Ender. Here is where I call BS. There is simply no way you could understand human technology to the degree you could hack into a mind controlled program and alter the content and not be capable of at least basic communication. It simply requires too much knowledge of us and thus the way we think and communicate. Computer programming may seem like symbolic nonsense to a non-tech, but it is actually deeply rooted in language and math , and of course a machine that can directly interpret our thoughts to drive its activity must almost by definition include a road map of how we communicate. How else would such a computer interpret commands?
All in all though I'm nitpicking. Some of the ideas may be outdated or force conditions convenient to the plot (the straw-man bullies Ender fights that cap each section of his training during his rise to commander are another example of this), but the movie manages to retain the underlying ideas of the book very faithfully and the visuals are excellent. So is the acting and editing; the movie moves very smoothly and maintains your attention well. I liked it enough to buy it for my movie collection and would recommend it to others.
The book this movie was based upon has long been a favorite of mine. I probably read it a good five or six times over the last few decades before I ever saw the movie, and I recommend the book as well as the movie. The story is an examination of the human relationship with violence. The way it effects us and our society, the ugliness of it as well as the necessity and seductiveness of it. The book also examines warfare strategy in some detail, although the movie spends less time on that aspect. The central premise isn't exactly novel: in the future humans encounter a hostile alien species and engage in a war for survival, with a focus on the rise of a brilliant child named Ender as humanities best hope for survival. What is more unique is the exploration of the idea that defeating a powerful enemy requires such intimate knowledge of them; their tactics, their society, and their perspective, so that eventually you come to empathize with them to some degree. In other words, victory should be derived from the complete comprehension of an enemy civilization and the necessary application of force required to achieve peaceful coexistence, but with a cognizance that your enemy is thinking and feeling and their society has value even if circumstance pits you against one another. It doesn't proffer the idea that war is completely evil or unjust, despite admitting the potentially horrific consequences of it, but rather that it shouldn't be entered into lightly or with the naive belief that it can be humane and glorious (i.e. 'just war' may not be an oxymoron, but 'humane warfare' is). These ideas are explored in both the movie and the book, although the book goes into much greater detail using allusions to the founding fathers of the United States via a series of opinion letters published under a pseudonym by his siblings.
Setting aside the stories quasi-acceptance of violence, which is a deeper question not suited for this forum, the book/movie has several conceits that are a little outdated, to my thinking. The first is the idea of children as military leaders. This plot point is inspired by the fact that children have a very high capacity for learning. There are a host of biological reasons for this, but I think that drawing the idea out to this extent is more dramatic and gimmicky than realistic. While it's true that children can learn certain skills such as languages and mathematics faster than adults, there are distinct limits to this. First of all, knowledge without experience can't be wielded very effectively. Part of the process of a maturing mind is discovering how information fits together and can be creatively recombined to face new challenges. The evidence for this is all around; there have been many child prodigies who went to some Ivy league school at 12 and completed one or more doctorates before leaving their teens, but if you look at the record of great literature or mathematical or scientific achievements, you won't find many references to great works by teenagers. I'm not trying to downplay the incredible potential, only pointing out that the creative spark that fuses raw knowledge into meaningful insight tends to come later in life, with a little perspective. So you might be able to stuff young minds made powerful by incredible neuroplasticity full of strategic theory and physics, but I have serious doubts that the product would be a 14-year-old Hannibal.
The second problem I have always had with this is the application of the "everything genius". This is one of the most over-used tropes concerning intelligence, because it seems intuitive even though it is wrong. The basic idea is if someone is a genius at one thing, then they must be a genius at everything. So a math prodigy can also play any musical instrument simply by hearing a piece played once or write great novels or become super warriors by calculating the angle of blows or whatever. The truth is this just isn't how genius works. A math prodigy might have trouble tying their shoes or be unable to comprehend grammar or some such. Because while genius is still a mystery, there is some evidence that it is basically a hyper-specialization of the mind. And hyper-specialization in one area means some other areas might not get the attention that even an average intellect would give them. The story explains that Ender was selected because he is a genius, and then shows him excelling at hand to hand combat, physics, mathematics, strategy, etc. Basically, he becomes the perfect human being, and the explanation, insufficiently, is that he's a genius.
My third issue is with the requirement for a gifted human commander to lead the troops. The story presents the idea that humanity needs this commander to handle the enormously difficult task of guiding the armada during battle while executing optimal battle strategy, etc. Every scene in both the book and the movie shows him acting as a battlefield commander only. There is no long-term strategy planning, he just shows up as the battle is about to start and has to see it thru to victory or defeat. The thing is, the story is set at some point in humanities future. Technological development has proceeded to the point where Ender uses a computer with a smooth brain-computer interface and the government is capable of installing a probe that literally see thru the main characters eyes. So my point is, there is no reason to expect that their computers aren't at least as good as ours, but in this day and age we can already see a near-future where that battlefield commander job would almost certainly be performed more capably by a computer than a human.
Chess, long held as the strategists proof of skills, fell first. When it happened it was a huge shock; people had long held the belief that no computer could ever truly be as good as the best human players. I remember reading many reasonable sounding arguments for why humans would always have the upper hand in chess, and once it was clear that not only could computers match the best human players but were now in fact pulling ahead to a degree that we were unlikely to ever catch up, those same arguments switched to the game of Go. And, of course, now computers have pulled ahead in that as well. The fact is that companies like Microsoft now claim their systems have superhuman language comprehension (they understand the spoken word better than we do), have pulled even in language to language translation capability, and are drawing in on image recognition as well. All of which is to say that in future warfare, the control and direction of battlefield units will almost certainly be AI driven. It may be scary, but this is just an area where the machines outpace us. So Ender would not have been necessary, unless E.N.D.E.R. was some acronym like Efficient Neuro Data Event Responder or something.
And finally my biggest problem with the story. The entire war is eventually revealed *SPOILER ALERT* to be the result of an inability to establish communication between the humans and aliens. Ok, I can see that. But then there is a subplot where a mind-controlled game (which exists in the story to facilitate communication with the aliens and to keep us wondering about Ender's true nature) mysteriously includes images of the aliens and alien worlds. It turns out that the aliens hacked the game and placed these in it in a desperate attempt to communicate with Ender. Here is where I call BS. There is simply no way you could understand human technology to the degree you could hack into a mind controlled program and alter the content and not be capable of at least basic communication. It simply requires too much knowledge of us and thus the way we think and communicate. Computer programming may seem like symbolic nonsense to a non-tech, but it is actually deeply rooted in language and math , and of course a machine that can directly interpret our thoughts to drive its activity must almost by definition include a road map of how we communicate. How else would such a computer interpret commands?
All in all though I'm nitpicking. Some of the ideas may be outdated or force conditions convenient to the plot (the straw-man bullies Ender fights that cap each section of his training during his rise to commander are another example of this), but the movie manages to retain the underlying ideas of the book very faithfully and the visuals are excellent. So is the acting and editing; the movie moves very smoothly and maintains your attention well. I liked it enough to buy it for my movie collection and would recommend it to others.
Fails Spectacularly as a Movie
darmstead011 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
When you go to a movie whose book you have read several times, You expect it to compromise the story a little. But I did not expect it to fail so spectacularly on every level.
No character development. You get no sense of who any of the characters are.
The battle game is barely in the movie. Ender gets Dragon army; He says "training begins now" and then it just cuts to an image of Dragon moving up the leader board.
At no point do they attempt to explain why Ender is chosen to be the commander of the entire Earth fleet. They show none of his innovations, leadership ability, and he is downright unlikable at times. Everyone moves to his lunch table because he insults Bernard in class? What? That's why people will follow him to their death? Snark?
I've known for two years that they cast an Ender that's too old but I didn't expect him to be a FOOT TALLER than Bonzo Madrid. They call Ender a Third several times but don't bother to explain what that means.
The acting is awful (especially Ender, WE DID IT!!), the dialogue is pathetic. The special effects are nothing groundbreaking. The simulator scenes are pointless as you can't follow what's going on.
Command School is "near the bugger home world". WHAT? How did they get there in time?? The fleet left right after the buggers did! And it's Molecular Disruption Device, not a Scorch the Surface of the Planet device.
Three stars just because it was recognizable as Ender's game
No character development. You get no sense of who any of the characters are.
The battle game is barely in the movie. Ender gets Dragon army; He says "training begins now" and then it just cuts to an image of Dragon moving up the leader board.
At no point do they attempt to explain why Ender is chosen to be the commander of the entire Earth fleet. They show none of his innovations, leadership ability, and he is downright unlikable at times. Everyone moves to his lunch table because he insults Bernard in class? What? That's why people will follow him to their death? Snark?
I've known for two years that they cast an Ender that's too old but I didn't expect him to be a FOOT TALLER than Bonzo Madrid. They call Ender a Third several times but don't bother to explain what that means.
The acting is awful (especially Ender, WE DID IT!!), the dialogue is pathetic. The special effects are nothing groundbreaking. The simulator scenes are pointless as you can't follow what's going on.
Command School is "near the bugger home world". WHAT? How did they get there in time?? The fleet left right after the buggers did! And it's Molecular Disruption Device, not a Scorch the Surface of the Planet device.
Three stars just because it was recognizable as Ender's game
Very enjoyable movie that doesn't do justice to the book
clark441 November 2013
As a fan of the book, I really wasn't sure I wanted to see this movie. Great books hardly ever adapt into good films. But my friend wanted to see it, so I agreed to tag along on opening night.
I have to say, as a movie, it is genuinely enjoyable. The visuals are starkly entrancing without being distracting. The casting is pitch-perfect - Harrison Ford and Asa Butterfield, in particular, do a great job. The ending is particularly well done (don't worry - it wasn't really spoiled by the trailer).
The problem is, it's really just a caricature of the book. The drama in Battle School moves too quickly, the characters of Peter and Valentine are almost completely absent, and even Ender's video game is sadly underdone. I'm not usually a fan of splitting books into multiple movies, but this is one where two films would have done it justice. Also, the kids are just too old - there's an ironic moment in the movie where two officers talk about how conscripting kids under 15 "used to be illegal", yet all the actors playing the kids look 15 or older!
Still, it's a fun ride, and if you hadn't read the book these flaws really wouldn't be apparent. Definitely see it in the theater if you can - the battle room scenes are best on a big screen.
I have to say, as a movie, it is genuinely enjoyable. The visuals are starkly entrancing without being distracting. The casting is pitch-perfect - Harrison Ford and Asa Butterfield, in particular, do a great job. The ending is particularly well done (don't worry - it wasn't really spoiled by the trailer).
The problem is, it's really just a caricature of the book. The drama in Battle School moves too quickly, the characters of Peter and Valentine are almost completely absent, and even Ender's video game is sadly underdone. I'm not usually a fan of splitting books into multiple movies, but this is one where two films would have done it justice. Also, the kids are just too old - there's an ironic moment in the movie where two officers talk about how conscripting kids under 15 "used to be illegal", yet all the actors playing the kids look 15 or older!
Still, it's a fun ride, and if you hadn't read the book these flaws really wouldn't be apparent. Definitely see it in the theater if you can - the battle room scenes are best on a big screen.
Eh
jordanw-815538 December 2019
The movie, Ender's Game was a great story as a book but as a movie, the plot was a bit lost. I also didn't really like the acting but the special effects made it easier to watch the entire thing. Overall, I feel as though this movie was a 6/10.
Loved the book, Severely disappointed with movie
drhanusey1 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I saw the trailer for Enders Game about 6 weeks ago, its piqued my interest so I investigated and wound up reading the book. I was blown away! in 6 weeks I've read 7 of the 13 titles in the "Enderverse". So to say that I have been staring at a calendar waiting for this movie to be released is an understatement. Right from the beginning I was disappointed with the portrayal of Ender. His distinguishing feature is his intelligence, and the slow talking Asa Butterfield almost seemed to be concentrating on his lines and being able to deliver them in an American accent rather then speaking like one of the most intelligent 12 year old's on the planet. I understand he had big shoes to fill, Ender is one of those great characters that stay with you for the rest of your life, that being said I firmly believe they chose the wrong actor.
I don't mind that they had to change things around, I realize it had to be done, however they tried too hard to take a little bit of each section of the book and put them all together with out realizing that without enough detail the smaller samples were not realistic or convincing. Ender is supposed to become one of the greatest leaders in human history as well as winning his soldiers respect to that point where they would "follow him to the moon without a space suite" during his time at battle school but the movie would have you believe Ender won the allegiance of his hostile class mates by cracking a single joke!? There was no character development for Enders fellow classmates, other then Petra this movie could have been written without any of them and probably would have been better off for it.
The battle room looked fantastic. The special effects in said battle room came up a little short. Maybe because I saw the making of Enders Game, or maybe because I saw "Gravity" a few weeks back, but the zero G stunts were not very good. Even though that was the case the look of the transparent walls of the battle room with Earth looming in the background carried enough weight as eye candy to make me want to see all the battles that Ender winds up winning with Dragon army. Unfortunately for me and those that read the book there was only one battle, a mix between 2 of the battle from the book that came towards the end of his training. This was just too rushed, I realize you can only cover so much with a 2 hour movie but this was not the way to do it.
They quickly promote Ender to command school where he will be trained to command against the formics. They changed up part of this story and skipped over some of the deeper explanation about the ansible and sending the fleet to attack the buggers planet 50 years earlier immediately following the first invasion, but i feel this lack of detail left the following scenes less emotional then they could have been. The feeling that Ender was humanities last hope, and that the following battles would determine weather or not humanity will continue on or perish came up very short. I gave this film 3 stars pretty much based solely on the last several "simulation" battles. the special effect for these I thought were very cool. Enders control of the battle and being able to change perspective and zoom in and out were nice. But as was the theme for the whole movie, things were rushed, a montage was used to give the feeling that the team was being run down, Enders mentions at one point how hard him and his team are taking it having to do all these simulations over the past months. However Asa Butterfields acting didn't sell it. None of Enders soldiers really sold the feeling of being completely run down to the point where (in the book) Petra falls asleep in the middle of a battle, or Hot Soup (i think it was him) goes catatonic due to the grueling schedule. Again, these 12 years olds are supposed to be the best of the best on earth trained in a military facility to be Napoleonic commanders, but come across as a bunch or little kids having a good old time playing wii at a sleepover where they stayed up past their bed time. These kids shouldn't have been smiling at all, there should have been cold calculating looks on there faces with intelligence in there eyes and barrack talk coming out of their mouths. Anyway, the final "test" was visually stimulating, it did have a sense of urgency, and there was a nice boom at the end.
I could go on about several other aspects of the movie that I was disappointed with (Graff, Anderson, Dap, Mr/Mrs Wiggins, Ender/Valentine, Bonzo..... all fell short) but I won't. I truly truly do not understand any positive reviews from anyone who has read this book. I can only imagine they were as hype as I was going into and let there preconceived notions of how great this movie would be take over for the time being. 7.0 / 10.0 .... way to high. Movies aren't supposed to be better then the books, everyone knows this, but as "The Hunger Games" recently demonstrated, they can still be good.
I don't mind that they had to change things around, I realize it had to be done, however they tried too hard to take a little bit of each section of the book and put them all together with out realizing that without enough detail the smaller samples were not realistic or convincing. Ender is supposed to become one of the greatest leaders in human history as well as winning his soldiers respect to that point where they would "follow him to the moon without a space suite" during his time at battle school but the movie would have you believe Ender won the allegiance of his hostile class mates by cracking a single joke!? There was no character development for Enders fellow classmates, other then Petra this movie could have been written without any of them and probably would have been better off for it.
The battle room looked fantastic. The special effects in said battle room came up a little short. Maybe because I saw the making of Enders Game, or maybe because I saw "Gravity" a few weeks back, but the zero G stunts were not very good. Even though that was the case the look of the transparent walls of the battle room with Earth looming in the background carried enough weight as eye candy to make me want to see all the battles that Ender winds up winning with Dragon army. Unfortunately for me and those that read the book there was only one battle, a mix between 2 of the battle from the book that came towards the end of his training. This was just too rushed, I realize you can only cover so much with a 2 hour movie but this was not the way to do it.
They quickly promote Ender to command school where he will be trained to command against the formics. They changed up part of this story and skipped over some of the deeper explanation about the ansible and sending the fleet to attack the buggers planet 50 years earlier immediately following the first invasion, but i feel this lack of detail left the following scenes less emotional then they could have been. The feeling that Ender was humanities last hope, and that the following battles would determine weather or not humanity will continue on or perish came up very short. I gave this film 3 stars pretty much based solely on the last several "simulation" battles. the special effect for these I thought were very cool. Enders control of the battle and being able to change perspective and zoom in and out were nice. But as was the theme for the whole movie, things were rushed, a montage was used to give the feeling that the team was being run down, Enders mentions at one point how hard him and his team are taking it having to do all these simulations over the past months. However Asa Butterfields acting didn't sell it. None of Enders soldiers really sold the feeling of being completely run down to the point where (in the book) Petra falls asleep in the middle of a battle, or Hot Soup (i think it was him) goes catatonic due to the grueling schedule. Again, these 12 years olds are supposed to be the best of the best on earth trained in a military facility to be Napoleonic commanders, but come across as a bunch or little kids having a good old time playing wii at a sleepover where they stayed up past their bed time. These kids shouldn't have been smiling at all, there should have been cold calculating looks on there faces with intelligence in there eyes and barrack talk coming out of their mouths. Anyway, the final "test" was visually stimulating, it did have a sense of urgency, and there was a nice boom at the end.
I could go on about several other aspects of the movie that I was disappointed with (Graff, Anderson, Dap, Mr/Mrs Wiggins, Ender/Valentine, Bonzo..... all fell short) but I won't. I truly truly do not understand any positive reviews from anyone who has read this book. I can only imagine they were as hype as I was going into and let there preconceived notions of how great this movie would be take over for the time being. 7.0 / 10.0 .... way to high. Movies aren't supposed to be better then the books, everyone knows this, but as "The Hunger Games" recently demonstrated, they can still be good.
A warning about the obscenity that is militarism.
lomd16 October 2017
I have read the first two Ender books years ago, so I knew what to expect from the movie. And it delivered. "Ender's Game" is a deeply disturbing tale of a child made into a monster by the fears of his society. Much like "Neon Genesis Evangelion" at its most puissant, it makes one wonder what is there in humanity worth protecting, and at what price.
So close yet so far.
lazaro27521 July 2020
Ender's Game review
renegadeviking-271-52856822 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Do the ends ever justify the means? Is it ever acceptable to do something wrong if it helps bring about a cause that is noble? Is it ethical to require a few to make painful sacrifices for the good of the majority?
These are questions all societies must ask during times of war, and the answers to these questions are rarely easy or clear-cut. "Ender's Game," a new movie based on a popular 1985 sci-fi book, explores some of these issues, as well the fall-out for those who have to make these difficult decisions.
In the future, the planet Earth is almost destroyed by an insect-like race of aliens known as Formics. To prepare for what humanity assumes will be the inevitable second invasion, the military begins training children to serve as commanders of the space fleet that will be used to fight the Formics. One of these children is Ender Wiggin. Lonely and bullied - but also a tactical genius - Ender is singled out as humanity's best hope for defending Earth from the Formics.
He is sent to "battle school" on a space station, where he is pushed through seemingly endless rounds of physical and psychological testing. The training will prepare him to lead Earth's forces, but how much of his innocence and humanity will he be required to give up?
One of the most fascinating things about "Ender's Game" is that the book feels perhaps even more relevant than when it was released in 1985. At first, it does takes a bit of a leap for viewers to buy into the fact the military would actually put children in command. However, the story's futuristic form of warfare is controlled in a way that's eerily similar to modern videogames, which today's children have grown up playing - and they are, admittedly, better at these games than many adults. As the film's voiceover states, children have quicker reflexes and haven't learned to be afraid to make risky, out-of-the-box tactical decisions.
Although the film has solid supporting actors - including Harrison Ford, Viola Davis and Ben Kingsley - the stars of the movie are its young (and refreshingly diverse) cast. Ender is played by Asa Butterfield, who is able to make the character both vulnerable and impenetrable. His icy blue eyes are intense and infinitely sad. He intentionally remains a bit of a puzzle, to both his adult trainers and the audience.
Hollywood long considered the book to be unfilmable, but I think the director Gavin Hood managed to pull it off. The film falls just a bit short of "epic," and I wish just a little more time would have been devoted to character development, to help us make a deeper emotional connection to the characters. However, it's still an intriguing, thought-provoking film, and the special effects - particularly the scenes with the glass-enclosed, zero-g battle room in space - are stunning. "Ender's Game" forces us to think about the choices we make during war, and what those choices cost us in the long run
These are questions all societies must ask during times of war, and the answers to these questions are rarely easy or clear-cut. "Ender's Game," a new movie based on a popular 1985 sci-fi book, explores some of these issues, as well the fall-out for those who have to make these difficult decisions.
In the future, the planet Earth is almost destroyed by an insect-like race of aliens known as Formics. To prepare for what humanity assumes will be the inevitable second invasion, the military begins training children to serve as commanders of the space fleet that will be used to fight the Formics. One of these children is Ender Wiggin. Lonely and bullied - but also a tactical genius - Ender is singled out as humanity's best hope for defending Earth from the Formics.
He is sent to "battle school" on a space station, where he is pushed through seemingly endless rounds of physical and psychological testing. The training will prepare him to lead Earth's forces, but how much of his innocence and humanity will he be required to give up?
One of the most fascinating things about "Ender's Game" is that the book feels perhaps even more relevant than when it was released in 1985. At first, it does takes a bit of a leap for viewers to buy into the fact the military would actually put children in command. However, the story's futuristic form of warfare is controlled in a way that's eerily similar to modern videogames, which today's children have grown up playing - and they are, admittedly, better at these games than many adults. As the film's voiceover states, children have quicker reflexes and haven't learned to be afraid to make risky, out-of-the-box tactical decisions.
Although the film has solid supporting actors - including Harrison Ford, Viola Davis and Ben Kingsley - the stars of the movie are its young (and refreshingly diverse) cast. Ender is played by Asa Butterfield, who is able to make the character both vulnerable and impenetrable. His icy blue eyes are intense and infinitely sad. He intentionally remains a bit of a puzzle, to both his adult trainers and the audience.
Hollywood long considered the book to be unfilmable, but I think the director Gavin Hood managed to pull it off. The film falls just a bit short of "epic," and I wish just a little more time would have been devoted to character development, to help us make a deeper emotional connection to the characters. However, it's still an intriguing, thought-provoking film, and the special effects - particularly the scenes with the glass-enclosed, zero-g battle room in space - are stunning. "Ender's Game" forces us to think about the choices we make during war, and what those choices cost us in the long run
Killing is child's play - and fun!
sb-901-39540430 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This movie has achieved a high rating but possibly due to all the wrong reasons. Scanning the reviews here the allegory of this film appears to have been missed despite the message being simple: those indoctrinated into today's contemporary US military complex, running the military machine; the generals, admirals, NSA/CIA commanders, are nothing more than naive children. These "children" are controlled by the "adults" who know best. And who do the story's adults represent? The American mega rich elite. These elite are incapable of achieving anything on their own (as matters are much too complex) but must depend upon the skillful "children" (society's workers) to maintain and extend their power.
How are the "children" controlled? Through deception. It's ironic that the books upon which this film is based are apparently recommended/required reading at US military training centres; despite the clear indictment of the US imperialistic state system, military recruits are encouraged to read the text - showing just how blinded the US (and British, Australian, etc.) population is to the indoctrination they have received since birth.
Another important aspect of the film is the use of games. This is analogous to the use and purpose of sports in the training in jingoism, and the ease with which the skills and aggression developed in sport are transferred to warfare; the US (and other ultra right wing Western countries subservient to the US) obsession with sports, is important to all states as a vanguard of fascism (or nationalism generally) with its veneration of strength and youthfulness. Thus, we can see the importance of contemporary violent video games and films in nurturing violence required by the state. This is common to all states, not just the US. Also an important value of sport/games is the in-group/out-group mentality that is encouraged, shown by research to enhance feelings of competition against the out-group and preference for the in-group - essential values to instil in those being prepared for war. Imagine if you will, an Olympic games in which the nationality of participants was unknown, and the goal for each participant (as opposed to competitor) was cooperation - to maximize the performance of all.
Democracy or anarchism will not be tolerated. When Ender is asked about his abhorrence in being subjugated by orders/others, the "adult" presents the solution/reward; domination of others (given power to order others around). So we see cooperation is neither encourage within the institution or without (i.e., with the "enemy"). Here we see veneration of the totalitarian structures that form the bedrock of "capitalist" society (ignoring for the moment that espousing institutions are "too big to fail" denies capitalism, as only the strong are supposed to survive in a truly capitalistic system) - individuals within corporations/governments fight each other as they fight "the enemy". There are no friends, Ender must be made to "feel" alone (another lie, he is not alone; people naturally wish to help and receive help, when left to their own devices). Analogous to the learned helplessness of today's citizens as unions and governments fail them, as corporations reduce them to "individual atoms of consumption" - the only solution is to use Nietzche's "will-to-power".
Who are the "bugs"? The US elite's "enemies", properly dehumanised. Just as the Nazi propaganda machine paired images of cockroaches with that of Jews, in order to dehumanise those that are to be exterminated (in order to minimise otherwise natural feelings of compassion with one's fellow humans), so too are the film's contrived "enemies" portrayed as insects. This can be seen in the comments of today's US drone pilots that describe their murder of innocent civilians and "suspects", as "bug splats".
Throughout the film Ender struggles with his emotions that are constantly being manipulated by the "adults", as well as the constant doubt as to the ethics of his actions. Underlying the "adults' " motivations is their fear of the "enemy", that need complete annihilation in a pre-emptive strike - otherwise the US elite might have to share their wealth with the rest of society and the world. Also important is the film's portrayal of the lack of any threat posed by the "enemy" (indeed, all they wanted was to share the Earth and to continue to live, as any sentient being would) and the desire of the "adults" to nevertheless obliterate any chance of being subservient to (or attacked by) them. This echoes the US elite propaganda that portrays targeted groups/countries as "enemies" engaging in unprovoked aggression towards their "children" (by only offering government/corporate censored/doctored accounts of events) - the elite invariably portray themselves as mere peace-lovers engaged in self-defense.
This is not a movie about children, but it would serve them well to watch it, with instruction, to break free of the the lies around them, much in the same way as Edward Snowden / Ender Wiggin did. However, given the US military use of the books, the chance of lifting the fog of lies appears slim.
How are the "children" controlled? Through deception. It's ironic that the books upon which this film is based are apparently recommended/required reading at US military training centres; despite the clear indictment of the US imperialistic state system, military recruits are encouraged to read the text - showing just how blinded the US (and British, Australian, etc.) population is to the indoctrination they have received since birth.
Another important aspect of the film is the use of games. This is analogous to the use and purpose of sports in the training in jingoism, and the ease with which the skills and aggression developed in sport are transferred to warfare; the US (and other ultra right wing Western countries subservient to the US) obsession with sports, is important to all states as a vanguard of fascism (or nationalism generally) with its veneration of strength and youthfulness. Thus, we can see the importance of contemporary violent video games and films in nurturing violence required by the state. This is common to all states, not just the US. Also an important value of sport/games is the in-group/out-group mentality that is encouraged, shown by research to enhance feelings of competition against the out-group and preference for the in-group - essential values to instil in those being prepared for war. Imagine if you will, an Olympic games in which the nationality of participants was unknown, and the goal for each participant (as opposed to competitor) was cooperation - to maximize the performance of all.
Democracy or anarchism will not be tolerated. When Ender is asked about his abhorrence in being subjugated by orders/others, the "adult" presents the solution/reward; domination of others (given power to order others around). So we see cooperation is neither encourage within the institution or without (i.e., with the "enemy"). Here we see veneration of the totalitarian structures that form the bedrock of "capitalist" society (ignoring for the moment that espousing institutions are "too big to fail" denies capitalism, as only the strong are supposed to survive in a truly capitalistic system) - individuals within corporations/governments fight each other as they fight "the enemy". There are no friends, Ender must be made to "feel" alone (another lie, he is not alone; people naturally wish to help and receive help, when left to their own devices). Analogous to the learned helplessness of today's citizens as unions and governments fail them, as corporations reduce them to "individual atoms of consumption" - the only solution is to use Nietzche's "will-to-power".
Who are the "bugs"? The US elite's "enemies", properly dehumanised. Just as the Nazi propaganda machine paired images of cockroaches with that of Jews, in order to dehumanise those that are to be exterminated (in order to minimise otherwise natural feelings of compassion with one's fellow humans), so too are the film's contrived "enemies" portrayed as insects. This can be seen in the comments of today's US drone pilots that describe their murder of innocent civilians and "suspects", as "bug splats".
Throughout the film Ender struggles with his emotions that are constantly being manipulated by the "adults", as well as the constant doubt as to the ethics of his actions. Underlying the "adults' " motivations is their fear of the "enemy", that need complete annihilation in a pre-emptive strike - otherwise the US elite might have to share their wealth with the rest of society and the world. Also important is the film's portrayal of the lack of any threat posed by the "enemy" (indeed, all they wanted was to share the Earth and to continue to live, as any sentient being would) and the desire of the "adults" to nevertheless obliterate any chance of being subservient to (or attacked by) them. This echoes the US elite propaganda that portrays targeted groups/countries as "enemies" engaging in unprovoked aggression towards their "children" (by only offering government/corporate censored/doctored accounts of events) - the elite invariably portray themselves as mere peace-lovers engaged in self-defense.
This is not a movie about children, but it would serve them well to watch it, with instruction, to break free of the the lies around them, much in the same way as Edward Snowden / Ender Wiggin did. However, given the US military use of the books, the chance of lifting the fog of lies appears slim.
Fun & exciting. Geared toward teens but adults will like it as well. The violence isn't anything for parents to be worried about
cosmo_tiger25 November 2013
"In the moment when I truly understand my enemy. Understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him." After an attack on Earth by an alien race the International Military Academy will do anything it take to keep it from happening again. Colonel Graff (Ford) is in charge of training and finding the future leaders. When he watches a young soldier named Ender Wiggin (Butterfield) he thinks he has found the future. I will do this review in two parts. First of all this is a fun and exciting movie that is geared toward teens but adults will like it as well. The effects are great and the violence isn't anything for parents to be worried about at all. For then entertainment factor alone I recommend this for all families. The second part is about a deeper meaning. I could be reading way too much into this and I don't mean to get political but the movie is kind of a metaphor for the Iraq war. I don't want to give anything away but if you go into it with that mindset you will see what I mean. I know the book it is based off of is older then the war but when you watch it you will see what I mean. Anyway what I'm trying to say is that this is a good family movie that I recommend. Overall, exciting and entertaining and me and my son both liked it. I give it a B+.
Ender's Game review
Al_The_Strange4 November 2013
It seems as though all the great sci-fi takes forever to become films. It took over seventy years to give John Carter his big-screen debut. I had a copy of L. Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth that claimed that it would become a motion picture soon, but that never happened until almost twenty years later (and many would probably argue that it should not have been made). Ender's Game is another one of the best sci-fi novels I've read, and a film for it has been in development for something like ten years. So, in 2013, I couldn't have been more excited.
Ender's Game is kinda like The Hunger Games set in outer space, only more aggressive, more fantastic, and more original. EG has its fair share of special-effects-laden spectacle, with massive swarms of spaceships and incredible planetscapes filling up the screen. Fortunately, it's not all just action for the sake of action, it is all a direct consequence of the story. When the space battles aren't breaking out, the film still moves very fast with loads of character-driven conflicts.
The film still maintains most of its focus on telling the story, and it does hit up all the necessary plot points that were in the original novel. Some major subplots get cut out, the training/battle scenes are truncated, and various other liberties are taken, but for a two-hour movie, the filmmakers did their best to cover the entire plot, right up to its bizarre ending. A lot of scenes are exactly as I pictured them from reading the book (even the fantasy CGI mindgame scenes, which I always fancied should be animated Pixar style, and it turns out they were!), and the dark aggression of the book is mostly translated well into the film. Best of all, the book's biggest twists still bear some decent weight in the movie's narrative.
Unfortunately, some things are lost in translation. Just as it is with The Hunger Games, the specific nuances of the characters, their relationships, their emotions, and their overall pathos is better conveyed in the narrative of the book than it is on film. Ender's relationships with his friends (and even his enemies) are left at the surface level, and never really reaches the same depths as the novel. Some things remain unexplained or glossed over. Deeper themes are never fully explored. Although one can't expect every single thing in the book to make it into the film, EG falls just a little short in immersing the audience in the characters. It may be easy to root for Ender when he stands up to his bullies and commands a whole fleet, but the film won't leave that much of a lasting impression.
As a film, it looks pretty slick and stylish, with solid photography and editing. Acting can be rather mixed: I think all of the child actors did their jobs really well. Harrison Ford gets the most grief for his role, for he pretty much phones it in, but I still didn't think he was as terrible as other reviewers make him out to be. Ben Kingsley plays it kinda creepily in his role, and Viola Davis is pretty much herself. Writing in this film is okay, but has a rather bad penchant for exposition. This production has some good-looking sets, props, costumes, and special effects. The music score is not bad either.
As usual, the book is better than the movie, but I think the movie still does a good job as an adaptation. I expect that average audiences unfamiliar with the book will think this movie is okay, but might miss out on certain nuances. Book fans might gripe that the film doesn't do justice to certain things. In any case, I think the movie is worth a rent to all dedicated sci-fi fans.
4/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Good | Film: Pretty Good)
Ender's Game is kinda like The Hunger Games set in outer space, only more aggressive, more fantastic, and more original. EG has its fair share of special-effects-laden spectacle, with massive swarms of spaceships and incredible planetscapes filling up the screen. Fortunately, it's not all just action for the sake of action, it is all a direct consequence of the story. When the space battles aren't breaking out, the film still moves very fast with loads of character-driven conflicts.
The film still maintains most of its focus on telling the story, and it does hit up all the necessary plot points that were in the original novel. Some major subplots get cut out, the training/battle scenes are truncated, and various other liberties are taken, but for a two-hour movie, the filmmakers did their best to cover the entire plot, right up to its bizarre ending. A lot of scenes are exactly as I pictured them from reading the book (even the fantasy CGI mindgame scenes, which I always fancied should be animated Pixar style, and it turns out they were!), and the dark aggression of the book is mostly translated well into the film. Best of all, the book's biggest twists still bear some decent weight in the movie's narrative.
Unfortunately, some things are lost in translation. Just as it is with The Hunger Games, the specific nuances of the characters, their relationships, their emotions, and their overall pathos is better conveyed in the narrative of the book than it is on film. Ender's relationships with his friends (and even his enemies) are left at the surface level, and never really reaches the same depths as the novel. Some things remain unexplained or glossed over. Deeper themes are never fully explored. Although one can't expect every single thing in the book to make it into the film, EG falls just a little short in immersing the audience in the characters. It may be easy to root for Ender when he stands up to his bullies and commands a whole fleet, but the film won't leave that much of a lasting impression.
As a film, it looks pretty slick and stylish, with solid photography and editing. Acting can be rather mixed: I think all of the child actors did their jobs really well. Harrison Ford gets the most grief for his role, for he pretty much phones it in, but I still didn't think he was as terrible as other reviewers make him out to be. Ben Kingsley plays it kinda creepily in his role, and Viola Davis is pretty much herself. Writing in this film is okay, but has a rather bad penchant for exposition. This production has some good-looking sets, props, costumes, and special effects. The music score is not bad either.
As usual, the book is better than the movie, but I think the movie still does a good job as an adaptation. I expect that average audiences unfamiliar with the book will think this movie is okay, but might miss out on certain nuances. Book fans might gripe that the film doesn't do justice to certain things. In any case, I think the movie is worth a rent to all dedicated sci-fi fans.
4/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Good | Film: Pretty Good)
Stunning but Rushed
Nevele23 December 2013
I won't make this a long review. Ender's game was a highly enjoyable movie to watch. The surroundings, the spaceships, the planets, all is absolutely stunning and great to see. The casting and acting are well done.
The movie feels very rushed and chopped though. You're going through a great story with light speed, and none of us could shake the feeling that this movie could've done with at least half an hour more. The speed in which this story is told doesn't leave enough room to establish the characters, and certainly not to see their progress through the story.
I will eagerly await the 3,5 hour during directors cut in a year or 2, hopefully.
The movie feels very rushed and chopped though. You're going through a great story with light speed, and none of us could shake the feeling that this movie could've done with at least half an hour more. The speed in which this story is told doesn't leave enough room to establish the characters, and certainly not to see their progress through the story.
I will eagerly await the 3,5 hour during directors cut in a year or 2, hopefully.
From a die hard fan to a disappointed one
naduenas31 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I read this book for the first time as a teenager in high school and found it to be a world of unknown limitations, where rational thought intelligent decisions, and carefully calculated emotions ruled the day guided by a genius mind. The images conveyed in every page of detailed descriptive writing, from the desperation of Valentine losing a 6 year old Ender, to the anguish of Ender, knowing he killed Bonzo, every major emotion was exploited and bared before the reader. The book was too short for what the readers wanted, and left us craving more, both in the continuing back stories such as Ender's Shadow as well as the deeper philosophical aspects of Xenophobia and those books which followed.
This movie, however, left those of us who eagerly awaited the transition of the novel to the big screen appalled and eager for the lights to come up so we could hastily exit the theater, shaking our heads in utter disappointment at the epic failure that is Ender's Game: the movie. From the lack of voice-over (the only proper way to explain the large portion of the book told through Ender's thoughts) to the stilted acting, to the condensation of close to a decade of learning to less than a year, each minute was painful to watch, and even more difficult to swallow. The only thing that could have made this movie more of a disappointment in my book, would have been if it had been not only poorly written and acted, but also lacking in the visual graphics.
I will say, the movie is beautiful to watch, though incorrect according to the descriptions in the book, but at least there's something nice on the screen that can ease the sting of the tattered shreds of a great story that's being crammed down your throat...
This movie, however, left those of us who eagerly awaited the transition of the novel to the big screen appalled and eager for the lights to come up so we could hastily exit the theater, shaking our heads in utter disappointment at the epic failure that is Ender's Game: the movie. From the lack of voice-over (the only proper way to explain the large portion of the book told through Ender's thoughts) to the stilted acting, to the condensation of close to a decade of learning to less than a year, each minute was painful to watch, and even more difficult to swallow. The only thing that could have made this movie more of a disappointment in my book, would have been if it had been not only poorly written and acted, but also lacking in the visual graphics.
I will say, the movie is beautiful to watch, though incorrect according to the descriptions in the book, but at least there's something nice on the screen that can ease the sting of the tattered shreds of a great story that's being crammed down your throat...
Exploring the nature of the pre-emptive strike
The-Sarkologist11 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This is a movie based on a best selling book by Orson Scott Card, and it is interesting that when this particular author is mentioned there is always an outcry against his position on homosexuality. While I am tolerant of homosexuality and will tend not to make statements as controversial as Card may have done, I do feel that the same tolerance that I am showing to the LGBT community is the same form of tolerance that is shown towards Card. In fact it sounds as if the producers of this movie deliberately kept Card away from its production due to a potential backlash from certain groups who are threatened by his views, and this is a man who is a self proclaimed Democrat, communitarian (I note that he does not use the term communist, but his description makes it sound like a less Stalinist version). While I may not agree with his Mormon beliefs, I do not find him anywhere near as objectionable as some people claim him to be (and I assure you that there are worse people out there than Card).
As for the movie, I thought it was brilliant. Earth has been attacked by a race of aliens known as the Formic, and by a bit of luck, were beaten off. However, the people of Earth have decided that they need to act to prevent another such tragedy, and begin a rigorous training program to find a general that will lead them to victory against the Formic and they do this by recruiting children and testing them through the use of games which become progressively harder, and more realistic.
The movie follows the life of a boy named Ender, and the military minds who are watching his progress. It is clear that Ender has an exceptional tactical mind, but it is also clear that he is not a warrior and does not have the mentality of a warrior, which makes it difficult for the military to use him to meet their objectives – which is why they end up disguising the operations as games and military exercises, and why they also work exceptionally hard to hide the truth about his actions from him.
The key to this is the idea where at the beginning of the movie he knocks down a bully, and then proceeds to continue to kick him not to exact vengeance or uncontrolled anger on him, but to prevent him from getting up again. This is an aspect of violence that many people do not understand. When you win a fight, you do not necessarily defeat your opponent, but rather you end up angering your opponent who then looks for the opportunity to seek revenge against you. It is an endless cycle that ends up going nowhere.
However, despite the attitude of Ender in that he only fights to defend himself, it is clear that the Earth military are seeking vengeance. In the final battle Ender notices that the enemy are not attacking, and they only attack when he makes the first move. There are a number of instances in the film where he makes the first move in a simulated battle, however it is clear that this is simulated and the first movie needs to be made. However, in the real battle (which is disguised as a game) this is not the case, however because he believes that it is a simulation he believes that this is a case where the first move needs to be made.
This is a film which is about battle and about military tactics, however it also questions the need for a pre-emptive strike. While Ender does make some strikes in this film, it is clear that it is in a battle situation, however there is a different situation where, as is clear in the final scene, or at least revealed in the final scene, that this is not a battle in a war, but it is a final strike against an enemy who has already fallen and is not willing to get up again. This is why Ender is so sickened at the outcome at the end because he is not kicking him to prevent him from getting up again, but taking out vengeance against an opponent that has already been defeated.
As for the movie, I thought it was brilliant. Earth has been attacked by a race of aliens known as the Formic, and by a bit of luck, were beaten off. However, the people of Earth have decided that they need to act to prevent another such tragedy, and begin a rigorous training program to find a general that will lead them to victory against the Formic and they do this by recruiting children and testing them through the use of games which become progressively harder, and more realistic.
The movie follows the life of a boy named Ender, and the military minds who are watching his progress. It is clear that Ender has an exceptional tactical mind, but it is also clear that he is not a warrior and does not have the mentality of a warrior, which makes it difficult for the military to use him to meet their objectives – which is why they end up disguising the operations as games and military exercises, and why they also work exceptionally hard to hide the truth about his actions from him.
The key to this is the idea where at the beginning of the movie he knocks down a bully, and then proceeds to continue to kick him not to exact vengeance or uncontrolled anger on him, but to prevent him from getting up again. This is an aspect of violence that many people do not understand. When you win a fight, you do not necessarily defeat your opponent, but rather you end up angering your opponent who then looks for the opportunity to seek revenge against you. It is an endless cycle that ends up going nowhere.
However, despite the attitude of Ender in that he only fights to defend himself, it is clear that the Earth military are seeking vengeance. In the final battle Ender notices that the enemy are not attacking, and they only attack when he makes the first move. There are a number of instances in the film where he makes the first move in a simulated battle, however it is clear that this is simulated and the first movie needs to be made. However, in the real battle (which is disguised as a game) this is not the case, however because he believes that it is a simulation he believes that this is a case where the first move needs to be made.
This is a film which is about battle and about military tactics, however it also questions the need for a pre-emptive strike. While Ender does make some strikes in this film, it is clear that it is in a battle situation, however there is a different situation where, as is clear in the final scene, or at least revealed in the final scene, that this is not a battle in a war, but it is a final strike against an enemy who has already fallen and is not willing to get up again. This is why Ender is so sickened at the outcome at the end because he is not kicking him to prevent him from getting up again, but taking out vengeance against an opponent that has already been defeated.
The life of Earth depends on gaming skills
bkoganbing5 November 2013
After all the controversy surrounding the author of Ender's Game and his iconoclastic views on so many subjects, I quite frankly didn't know what to expect from this film. It's far from the greatest science fiction endeavor I've ever seen. It really ought to be seen back to back with Starship Troopers on a number of levels.
In both cases the earth has been subject to an alien invasion of an insect civilization of sorts. Starship Troopers never has any doubts or qualms about the citizen's exercising their right to defend planet earth from the bug invasion. The insects aren't even given a generic name, they're simply referred to as 'bugs'. And the bugs only see earth as some kind of feeding ground.
These insects in Ender's Game are called Formi and they invaded and several million people were killed before the invasion was repelled. But they've been quiet over the last several decades, no one can say for certainty what they're intentions are. But earth isn't waiting, Harrison Ford is in charge of developing young and I do mean young new commanders with computer precision skills, honed to perfection on computer games.
The one he favors is young Asa Butterfield who seems to have more of the right stuff than anyone else. In the end as you would imagine he does, but what he does raises certain issues that Starship Troopers would never imagine.
It's ironic that the biggest strength of Ender's Game is the way that computer gaming skills have been refined and are so desirable. The Armed Forces in its recruiting for several years has made a selling point of gaming skills. All the weapons from the most sophisticated missiles down to tanks and even some hand held weapons have a computer guidance system of sorts. No more just point, aim, and shoot. Ender's Game has multiplied that exponentially. In fact in this futuristic society, one with the requisite skills can be drafted.
In the end a mixed message is sent to the audience robbing some of the effectiveness of Ender's Game. It still has a lot to recommend it and the contrast to Starship Troopers is quite intense.
In both cases the earth has been subject to an alien invasion of an insect civilization of sorts. Starship Troopers never has any doubts or qualms about the citizen's exercising their right to defend planet earth from the bug invasion. The insects aren't even given a generic name, they're simply referred to as 'bugs'. And the bugs only see earth as some kind of feeding ground.
These insects in Ender's Game are called Formi and they invaded and several million people were killed before the invasion was repelled. But they've been quiet over the last several decades, no one can say for certainty what they're intentions are. But earth isn't waiting, Harrison Ford is in charge of developing young and I do mean young new commanders with computer precision skills, honed to perfection on computer games.
The one he favors is young Asa Butterfield who seems to have more of the right stuff than anyone else. In the end as you would imagine he does, but what he does raises certain issues that Starship Troopers would never imagine.
It's ironic that the biggest strength of Ender's Game is the way that computer gaming skills have been refined and are so desirable. The Armed Forces in its recruiting for several years has made a selling point of gaming skills. All the weapons from the most sophisticated missiles down to tanks and even some hand held weapons have a computer guidance system of sorts. No more just point, aim, and shoot. Ender's Game has multiplied that exponentially. In fact in this futuristic society, one with the requisite skills can be drafted.
In the end a mixed message is sent to the audience robbing some of the effectiveness of Ender's Game. It still has a lot to recommend it and the contrast to Starship Troopers is quite intense.
5 things that would have made this movie better
djc123-612-31988817 January 2014
When I first heard this film was coming out, I decided to read the two books on which the movie was based (Enders Game & Enders Shadow). I really enjoyed the books and was confident that with a bit of thought they could make a decent screenplay that would be true to the story in the books as well as being entertaining to watch. Like many others, I was incredibly disappointed with the movie. Here are 5 things that would have improved it greatly:
1) Show the passage of time: Whilst I understand that it would be tricky to show the 5 years or so Ender is in battle school, having him writing an email saying 'we have been studying for months' doesn't really cut it. Everything moves so fast that you get the impression he has only been there a few weeks. This prevented something essential to most movies, character development.
2) Show Battle School as a school: Much of the book is about how the battle room games shape and define Enders character as a person and (eventually) a leader/commander. This is barely touched on the movie with the few battle room scenes being very disappointing and Ender becoming both an expert in the battle room and leader of an army within what seems like a week! Also, in the books there are a few hundred children at battle school, a lot more than the sparse 50 or so we see in the movie. Even classic Star Trek gave the impression of a large crew on the Enterprise by having extras walking in the corridors, how hard can it be to copy that?
3) Show that Ender is truly on his own: In the book, Ender doesn't have any friends as such, he has to earn respect by becoming the best in the battles, then people start to follow him. When Ender arrives, Graff says that Ender has to feel alone, but from then on he always has someone to help him or be his friend.
4) More Bean, less Petra: Petra is a great character in the books, because she is a bit of a b**ch! Yes, she helps Ender with shooting practise but she is fairly ambivalent towards him the rest of the time. Bean is the person who Ender eventually trusts the most, and even confides in. In the movie, far too much emphasis was put on Petra's relationship with Ender (she didn't even seem like the 'real' Petra to me) whereas Bean is just a face in the crowd.
5) Show Ender getting tired: Even if they failed in all the other areas, they could at least have made Ender look tired from all the battle games! His exhaustion is what drives him to 'quit', again this doesn't come across at all in the movie. How hard could it be to show that?
I could write more, but in summary this movie was an epic fail with very few redeeming qualities. The sad thing is, it could have been one of the greatest sci-fi movies ever, but instead they traded the 'soul' of the book for a few flashy effects and a lightweight story. Somewhere in the process the real Ender's Game got lost.
1) Show the passage of time: Whilst I understand that it would be tricky to show the 5 years or so Ender is in battle school, having him writing an email saying 'we have been studying for months' doesn't really cut it. Everything moves so fast that you get the impression he has only been there a few weeks. This prevented something essential to most movies, character development.
2) Show Battle School as a school: Much of the book is about how the battle room games shape and define Enders character as a person and (eventually) a leader/commander. This is barely touched on the movie with the few battle room scenes being very disappointing and Ender becoming both an expert in the battle room and leader of an army within what seems like a week! Also, in the books there are a few hundred children at battle school, a lot more than the sparse 50 or so we see in the movie. Even classic Star Trek gave the impression of a large crew on the Enterprise by having extras walking in the corridors, how hard can it be to copy that?
3) Show that Ender is truly on his own: In the book, Ender doesn't have any friends as such, he has to earn respect by becoming the best in the battles, then people start to follow him. When Ender arrives, Graff says that Ender has to feel alone, but from then on he always has someone to help him or be his friend.
4) More Bean, less Petra: Petra is a great character in the books, because she is a bit of a b**ch! Yes, she helps Ender with shooting practise but she is fairly ambivalent towards him the rest of the time. Bean is the person who Ender eventually trusts the most, and even confides in. In the movie, far too much emphasis was put on Petra's relationship with Ender (she didn't even seem like the 'real' Petra to me) whereas Bean is just a face in the crowd.
5) Show Ender getting tired: Even if they failed in all the other areas, they could at least have made Ender look tired from all the battle games! His exhaustion is what drives him to 'quit', again this doesn't come across at all in the movie. How hard could it be to show that?
I could write more, but in summary this movie was an epic fail with very few redeeming qualities. The sad thing is, it could have been one of the greatest sci-fi movies ever, but instead they traded the 'soul' of the book for a few flashy effects and a lightweight story. Somewhere in the process the real Ender's Game got lost.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
