sucked

I dug it. Shailene is really good and for the most part the movie is on par with the book (which wasn't that good in the first place but eh) Despite it's 2 and a half hour runtime it does feel a little rushed though. Could've been better but I enjoyed it.

Divergent is fantastic...

...at least it was for the first hour.

If I had been called away from the movie then, I would now be writing a rave review. However, once the story proper gets going it's just plain repetitive and dull.

But ya know what? I'm just going to forget all that last hour and twenty minutes of blather, and focus on that great set-up - - the introduction of the society is aces, so I'm going to erase all memories after that.

Divergent is fantastic!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~135 out of 5~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In a futuristic postwar Chicago, society is divided into five factions based on individuals' defining characteristic or interest, from courage to honesty to intelligence and so on. By extension, each serves a well-defined purpose, from policing to scientific research. Placement is determined through mental testing, and those who do not find their rightful place are either murdered or lead lives of desperation on the street. Such is the high concept of Divergent, which focuses in particular on a teenage girl, Beatrice or "Tris," who discovers her mind contains elements of each faction and tries at first to hide this to avoid becoming a target of her city's overbearing, even dangerous government. On the surface, the idea is rather preposterous since each person has more than one dimension and an interior life of many colors: for instance, a policeman's duty requires at least a degree of curiosity and wit, not just drive-on, no-question nerve. At the same time, however, the idea has a certain charm, viewed through teenage eyes in particular: does not every adolescent at one point or another believe he or she is a lone complex soul in a sea of conforming friends and, worse still, adults (parents, perhaps, or teachers) demanding a safe, well-defined plan for the future? Here this sweet byproduct of youthful navel-gazing is cast as an outsize science-fiction action/adventure saga, and the result is highly entertaining.

Director Neil Burger, whose previous credits include Interview with the Assassin and The Illusionist (with Edward Norton), has a potent visual style and understands how to stage set pieces with agility, atmosphere, and clarity. He has particular fun with the many sequences which find the heroine undergoing mental examination, rendering her very imagination as a perilous and ever-shifting space on the screen; it even becomes a literal hall of mirrors at one point. And in the lead role, one which both she and her agent no doubt hope will elevate her closer to Jennifer Lawrence status, Shailene Woodley is convincing in her portrayal of fragility giving way to ferocity as Tris' physicality hardens alongside her resolve to survive and rebel. A capable ensemble further shade the film and, in the case of Kate Winslet as the icily regal antagonist, lend it an air of prestige. The film, I concede, loses a bit of focus and flair in its final 25 minutes as if it realizes how long it is and begins racing toward the end credits. As a result, the final confrontations are not as riveting as the earlier ones despite having grander implications. Overall, though, this is a persuasive start to what I hope will become a worthwhile trilogy.

B+

lol

I enjoyed myself. Divergent is entertaining throughout and Neil Burger does a fairly good job establishing the film's world. Shailene Woodley is strong and appealing in the role of Tris; she doesn't become an immediate "classic" heroine like Katniss, of course, but Woodley continues to map out a solid career for herself. Theo James (who is super hot btw) makes a similarly favorable impression here that should lead to more projects soon. The rest of the supporting cast is a bit of a mixed bag; Miles Teller, Ashley Judd and Tony Goldwyn are all woefully underused. But Jai Courtney gets to show some menace and Kate Winslet is fairly icy and detestable in her first villainous role (that I'm aware of). I do hope in subsequent films that they go more in depth into some of the ideas that are introduced here without really being expanded upon. B

I'm kind of embarrassed to say this but I thought this was actually pretty great. It was completely engrossing, exciting and entertaining, and Shailene Woodley was excellent. Theo James was also solid and Kate Winslet was great as the villain. Almost on par with the first Hunger Games for me and I'm excited to see where this franchise goes. It is one of the more competent and polished franchise starters to come along in recent years, that's for sure. A-

In the realm of big YA adaptations, Divergent falls snugly between the sagas of Twilight and The Hunger Games: it lacks the immediacy and relatively sharp social observations of The Hunger Games, but it's also far more interesting and involving than Twilight (and undoubtedly also the half-dozen or so failed attempts at replicating it). The symbolism is plainly obvious and the filmmakers hardly even try to cover up some of the gaping plot holes in the story, but its ideas are sufficiently compelling to make for an enjoyable viewing experience. Moreover, Tris is a strong and likable protagonist, and Shailene Woodley's performance is a strong one that easily and successfully connects the audience to the drama.

B

Given the next movie in which the two actors will appear together, I laughed out loud at the scene in which Tris's brother references an amputee.

This was really entertaining. Not quite The Hunger Games, but the time flew by and I'm really looking forward to the next. The romance aspect works too. Both Shailene Woodley and Theo James were very solid in their roles.

8/10 (A-)

I may have liked the Divergent film more than The Hunger Games film. The Hunger Games is the better adaptation of the source material, but I still like the concept of Divergent enough to find it the more enjoyable film. I was really into The Hunger Games a couple years ago, but after revisiting both the books and films, I'm not as fond of them anymore. And the climax of The Hunger Games series is simply unsatisfactory, and I doubt the the film adaptation is going to go to such lengths to change that. I've read and seen a better Hunger Games in Battle Royale (which I still find quite emotional) in the end.

Divergent definitely has flaws, and I found it really dragged after Tric's initiation and before Erudite's plan of motion began, but the concept and solid performances help to balance it. Kate Winslet gave a very convincing performance as Jeanine, one where I believe most viewers will despise her character but may also understand her ideals at the same time. (B)

As far as more recent YA franchises go:

Films: Divergent > The Hunger Games > Beautiful Creatures > The Mortal Instruments > Twilight.
Books: The Mortal Instruments > Divergent > The Hunger Games > Beautiful Creatures > Twilight.

Overall, these YA franchises really struggle with satisfying conclusions. Hopefully the final book in The Mortal Instruments series can avoid this same fate later this year.

I, on the other hand, enjoyed the training portion of the film the most: from her choosing her faction through to around the capture-the-flag war game. I found the evolution of her character riveting, as well as the sense of discovery.

I thought the film became a touch generic and less involving during the final "war" scenes.

You make a good point about Tric's character development over the course of her training. Which was fine, and it was efficient. Maybe since I've read the books I was just wanting the story to advance sooner seeing how quite a bit was left out to focus on her training in Dauntless.

I'll probably watch it again in a few weeks.

It wasn't horrible but is far from great. I was in invested in the story as it began but as it kept going, it just got so generic and the message of the movie was just lost. It isn't a bad film by any means, it's well made and Shailene Woodley is great in the lead role. Kate Winslet was also great and Theo James was really good. It was also nice seeing Ashley Judd in a movie (of course this is the second time in a year I went "oh yay! Ashley Judd in a movie again!" only to be killed off lol). It was serviceable, just generic and by the end I didn't care what was going on.

Another thing that while the movie wasn't confusing by any means, there were some things that were unclear to someone who hasn't read the book.

C+

B-

The first third sucked really bad. The idea of this society is idiotic.

Once she got into her faction, it started getting pretty good. And then the last third sucked.

Also, it was SO. LONG.

Once again Chips is wrong

The movie slays, almost on par with the first Hunger Games.

A-

Also, the movie was like a love letter to Ellie Goulding. I loved the way the used her songs in the film, especially Beating Heart and the way it was used in the final scene... It was... Purrfect.

Well that proves my point.

I"m pretty much on the same page as David on this one. I thought the first half of the movie was excellent. The setup of this world, and the development of Tris's character were done very well. I'd say this setup and character are on par with The Hunger Games. The setup is more believable to me than The Hunger Games setup, so that's a + in Divergent's favor. The place where Divergent handily beats Hunger Games is the Theo James character. I was intrigued by 4's character and the interaction between him and Tris. I felt nothing for Peeta in Hunger Games. However, Hunger Games does finish stronger and smoother. The last half hour or so of Divergent seem rushed. Not bad, just not as good as the set up. Overall, I'd put this on par with Hunger Games, or maybe give Divergent just a tiny edge over it.

A-

Not much happens in this one. The plot is a bit too simple. Especially the Erudite plan. It comes as an afterthought almost.

5/10 or C-

Divergent

Unimpressive and overlong teen mediocrity. I get that it's the sort of story that will make little girls believe that their true love is out there, and they will relate to this film in a dream-filled obsession. But I'm not a teenage girl. A premise like this (much the same problem as The Hunger Games) needs to be R-rated for it work effectively. The threat level was never beyond 'mild' and that was one of the elements that ruined the film. I admit that it's better than most teen crap, but it's still teen crap.

Although a positive for the book and not the film, I do think it is a terrific and powerful allegory for modern societal pressures and expectations. People choose a path in their teens, and they can never go back and change it. They're set for life. That part of it is admirable. Also with many of the quotes ("fraction before blood" comes to mind), it is very much a representation of modern teen and young adult life where friends are often put before family and careers are also often put before roots. It's a fairly simple idea to recognise and convey in the films' setting and circumstance, but nonetheless notable. Another relation to everyday life; if you are too good, people will hate you. If you are too bad, you die by your own inability. This applies to every facet of life, but mainly the workforce, and it is a very clear message for the target audience of such a film, and one that they will surely nod along in agreement with.

The film doesn't add anything that the book didn't already include, though. This and other errors are why the film stinks. For example, Beatrice states that her faction doesn't look in the mirror because they do not believe in vanity, but then her and her mum are both clearly wearing make-up. It panders to teen stereotypes too; the distant, hunky dreamboat who falls for the hidden-beauty new girl, then saves her life, and they have an inner connection that transcends love. Ugh. Give me a fucking break. Eye-roll inducing cliché. And another one; they spotted one pretty much stoned divergent and went up and put a bullet straight into his head. But when they captured the other two much more ruthless and dangerous ones ("Four" and Tris) intent on bringing down the establishment, what did they do? Oh, they talked to them. Explained their master plan. Waited. Gave them an opportunity to escape etc. So shit.

One thing struck me as kind of odd, though, and it's how no matter how many meanings the author/director attempts to put into the film, one thing will always be true, in any organisation or society; fucking the group leader is the only way for a woman to progress to the top, and with this story telling faux pas, Divergent collapses and ruins its impact by ignoring its own apparent awareness.

The film ends with a good song. However, Divergent is just quite dull, unengaging, anticlimactic, and full of stupid teen melodrama.

D

The fact Algren did not give it a F and wheel out ten-plus feces references is, in my opinion, a rousing recommendation.

Ha ha. This is an amusing comment. Is he the absolute leader, though? Or just a person of authority?

He is respected to the same level as Jai Courtney is, and in my book, that makes him a leader enough for the female to sponge some benefits from.

This film is not a complete turd. It's just that the negative outweighs the positive by 9 to 1.