Ender's Game

Some kind of space Harry Potter in a dull story about doing a genocide US style as if it would be a video game. Boring and with the stupid "we are not so bad" ending to make everybody happy. Still wondering what Harrision Ford and Ben Kingsley are doing in this movie ...

I doubt "Ender Wiggin" (Asa Butterfield) would be anyone's idea of a soldier but "Col. Graff" (Harrison Ford) reckons his reaction to some bullies might suggest he has more mettle than his weedy physique indicates. His bootcamp experiences are much the same with loads of muscle-bound bullies making his life difficult but "Graff" isn't interested in making his life any easier, despite the occasional protests of his sidekick "Anderson" (Voila Davis). Indeed he actually ups the ante considerably when the young man is introduced to the eccentric "Mazer" (Sir Ben Kingsley). A veteran of the ongoing deadlocked war with the "Formics" that everyone hopes can train the the young "Ender" to break. Butterfield does quite well here as the youngster but both Ford and Kingsley underwhelm with the latter, tattoo-covered, character more hammy than intimidating as the story gradually stops being about the people and more of a video game with great visual effects, but a rather weak conclusion to the story that is inconsistently paced for two hours. I like the genre and it tries to be a bit different in it's approach to sci-fi story with a bit of a conscience. Worth a watch.

**Score: 6/10 - A Technically Proficient, Emotionally Hollow Adaptation** There are certain books that lodge themselves in your psyche so deeply that decades later, scenes, lines, and questions still surface unbidden. Orson Scott Card's *Ender's Game* is one such novel. Published in 1985, it was a seismic work of speculative fiction, a brilliant, brutal, and morally devastating exploration of childhood, manipulation, and the terrible cost of victory. For those of us who read it forty years ago and still think about it, the 2013 film adaptation arrives with impossible baggage. Judged purely as a movie, it is competent, visually striking, and well acted. Judged as an adaptation of a foundational text, it is a profound disappointment. **What Works (On Its Own Terms):** **Visual Spectacle:** The film looks the part. The Battle Room sequences, zero-gravity combat with floating armies of child soldiers—are rendered with genuine scale and excitement. The CGI is seamless, and the production design captures the stark, utilitarian brutality of the Battle School. It is a visually immersive experience. **Asa Butterfield's Performance:** Butterfield does credible work as Ender. He captures the character's isolation, his reluctant brilliance, and the terrible weight placed upon him. The conflict is there in his eyes, even when the script fails to give it the space it needs. **Harrison Ford as Graff:** Ford brings gravitas to Colonel Graff, the manipulative architect of Ender's torment. He sells the character's cold, utilitarian amorality, even if the film softens his edges significantly. **Why It Fails (For Those Who Carry the Book):** This is where the review becomes personal and necessary. **There is nothing in this movie that resonates.** The novel's power was its interiority. We were inside Ender's mind for every strategic calculation, every sleepless night, every moment of self doubt and creeping horror. We understood not just *what* he did, but *why* and the devastating psychological cost. The film, in its rush to cover the novel's sprawling narrative in two hours, reduces this internal war to a series of plot points. The moral complexity is sanded down. The other children; Bean, Petra, Alai—are reduced to archetypes. Their relationships with Ender, which in the book were lifelines of fragile trust, are rendered in shorthand. The infamous "giant's drink" sequence, a psychological crucible in the novel, is a brief, confusing montage. The "mind game" itself, which served as a window into Ender's subconscious trauma, is barely a footnote. And then there is the ending. The novel's final act... the reveal of the "simulations" as real genocide—is a gut punch of moral horror that recontextualises everything that came before. In the film, it lands with a thud. The pacing is rushed, the emotional weight undercut, and Ender's subsequent journey of atonement is reduced to a montage. The film tells you what happened; the book made you *feel* it. **The Unfair Comparison:** I never review a movie comparing it to the book. Adaptations are their own art form, and fidelity is not the sole measure of success. But *Ender's Game* is a special case. The novel was never going to be easy to adapt. Its power is in its interior landscape, its slow burn psychological horror, its devastating moral questions. A two hour film was always going to struggle. And this film, for all its technical polish, simply cannot carry the weight of its source material. **The Verdict:** For a viewer coming to *Ender's Game* with no prior knowledge, this is a passable, visually engaging scifi film. It tells a coherent story, features solid performances, and has enough spectacle to hold attention. But for those of us who carried the novel for decades—who still think about it... the film is a hollow echo. It walks the beats without feeling the rhythm. It is **6/10**: competent, professional, and utterly forgettable. A movie that does not resonate is, for a work that defined so much, a quiet tragedy. **Watch if:** You are unfamiliar with the novel and want a visually polished, straightforward scifi action film. **Skip if:** You hold the book close. You will find the experience frustrating, and the film will not give you what you need.