The first hole in the plot - well, you can't cut your hair the way Tris did - is such a neat back of the head that not every hairdresser can cope. And after the mockery of one of the characters "what's so crooked?" for the whole film remains puzzled "what was it?". But other holes are not so striking. Maybe that's the point.
As a rule, in franchises, the second part is always trying to do more, better and more interesting. This is especially true for teenage series - "The Hunger Games", "Maze Runner", the same "Twilight" and similar titles are much better since the second part at least in terms of picture, epicity and scope. But with the second "Divergent" for some reason happened the opposite situation.
“Insurgent” turned out to be a very boring film, empty and very poor for events. The narration for some reason stretched as much as two hours, although critically important plot scenes here can be accumulated for thirty minutes. After the first Divergent, we already know how the world works, we know everything about the main character, and the sequel was supposed to develop the story further, making the characters deeper, adding new conflicts. But there's nothing really like that. The tape just stomps in place, making barely noticeable steps forward.
And as if the choice of the main character was not enough, the plot goes on, making Tris chosen among the select. They say that she is not just a divergent, but the most divergent, one hundred percent divergent, and only she is able to open the local McGuffin, hiding the main twist, for which the second part was created. In fact, the twist, since it came, is not so unexpected.
The dynamics of Insurgent are horribly low, even against the background of the first film, where the plot was constantly moving forward one way or another. At the same time, the visual sequel turned out to be weaker, there are practically no memorable, bright scenes, so there is nothing to distract attention from the boring narrative of the Insurgent.
Verdict: Insurgent is a tape that for the most part is not needed at all. I honestly don’t know how much the film follows the original book. Maybe all of this is more interesting. But watching was frankly boring.
From what the viewer saw in the first part, it was possible to draw a couple of conclusions. “Divergent” had a powerful cast, but a very faded storyline, which did not prevent the film from earning a lot of money at the global box office. Against the background of such success, its producers quickly gave the sequel the green light and very quickly began shooting. Only now they did not expect to leave the post of director Neil Berger, which is why Robert Schwenke was pulled to work on the sequel, who once issued “The Time Traveler’s Wife” and “The Flight Illusion”. Did this replacement play for the worse? Let's figure it out.
Although the studio had a new director in its hands, no one managed to make the second part more unexpected. Giving the picture the title “Insurgent”, the film crew continued with the perseverance of a ram to climb the old gate. The team managed to inject some fresh blood into the story, but the presence of actresses such as Octavia Spencer and Naomi Watts did not bring any high points for the plot. Yes, the movie had a little more dynamics, becoming more action than drama, but it did not help the story. The story remained sterile, without great intrigue and striking solutions. Everyone seems to be happy with that.
The idea of the picture was to show the audience the growing scope and intensity of passions, but as a result it turned out more modest, quieter and less ambitious. Now it turned out that the main character, along with friends, took on the unbearable burden of the struggle, which inexorably led to new troubles, deprivations and casualties among the population. No one is happy with the poor characters, all parties would shun them further, if not for the common enemy in the person of Kate Winslet, whose bitchy image at all costs vowed to destroy the unfortunate divergents from the face of the earth. For the viewer, again, even here they did not give a clear reason for their urgent elimination, it seems that the authors hoped for the usual ass.
UIt will be locally noted that this time the Insurgent received more maneuvers and moves for the development of the main events. How successful this was under the script is an even bigger question. To do this, even Akiva Goldsman was attracted, apparently, the authors still tried to cover up some errors and shoals. They didn't do that well. The film lost its uniqueness, turning into another conveyor for profit. It was shot in a hurry, which is clearly visible in the quality of the main picture. The graphics here are still the same, but it ceased to have the magic that was inherent in the original. Also, the cinema lost a beautiful musical background, here only in return unspoilt melodies.
PActually, from the shooting of "Insurgent" turned out a little. In this film, the viewer learns why one faction crushed all the others. The authors decided to expand the geography in their project, they threw the rod for the filming of the third episode, firmly saying that their characters will still go beyond the walls of the lonely city. Again, there are so many inconsistencies that you can sew a warm sweater from them. That appeared in the plot of a certain box that can shed light on the founders, then in divergents there was a need for the ruling smart people. Something like this was not in the first film, that is, the face of open contradiction. You'd have figured it out first before you killed the unfortunate.
GRoughly speaking, this sequel always stomped in one place, not wanting in some ages to loudly declare themselves. In Insurgent there was more experience, reflection, some fear of the heroes for the future, for their actions and words. This entailed conversations, quarrels, skirmishes and clarification of relationships. Psychology somehow coped with its task, but as for shootings, fights and chases, they only overgrown with a little more effect, no more than that. In this aspect, this picture continued the line of the original, reminding us all that the main emphasis was made on teenagers, children and fans of a whole series of books by Veronica Roth, whose writing sketches became the main help for the studio. Therefore, the movie came out soft, without much slob towards cruelty and blood.
E If you look at "Insurgent" indifferently, then before us a smooth and all the same naive movie. It doesn't even have anything to stumble for, for that matter. The viewer will look at it only by inertia, ride on it as on a smooth floor. The work of Robert Schwenke turned out without pretentious lines, it is so direct that it never stumbled to the side. It is a slick project, where any idea is clear from the beginning. This certainly doesn’t go as a bonus for the picture, because it doesn’t make its audience think, worry, or sympathize. Otherwise, what's the point? Heroes will do what they have to, the situation itself will play out as notes, all this gives a bitter irony of self-repeat.
NYou can feel at least some bright emotions for such a nondescript film. They just don’t stay after watching. If in the distance and looms a small part of interest, it is only because the viewer is always driven by curiosity. “Insurgent” tried to bring the franchise to a different level of development, but he lacked a fuse, some fresh motivation, as the theme locked in one space residents have long ceased to cause surprise. This doom runs through the entire film. The sequel wanted to say something, but in the end it rolled a little lower and ran very quickly on the consequences of the first part. He shot back and stepped aside, giving the authors a chance to shoot something else, despite the cries of the crowd.
This attitude after the third part led to the franchise’s death. Like her heroes, she ran in a circle, devouring herself without a trace. Whether it was all in the original source, or the audience ate to the belly similar to each other projects – now it is not so important. “Insurgent”, of course, collected the cash register, pushed the story into a triquel, but in essence remained even more toothless and naive than “Divergent”. A kind of faint tracing, which viewers watch in absentia, giving some credit to the creators. After all, we are all fueled by hope, for which many people vote in cinemas in rubles or dollars. It is a pity that sometimes all our expectations are just blown to the wind.
5 out of 10
The stupidest thing you can do in a movie is to make a character who is the strongest by fact, by birthright, just like that.
We see the main character, which is just so unusual. We are not shown the choices that make her stronger than anyone else, nor are we shown the characteristics of her character. At the very least, it is ridiculous that divergents (1) do not think in a standard way (2) do not know how to obey. Do you remember anything? Oh, yes, most of the teenagers who are the target audience of this film.
The main character is empty, uninteresting, we do not understand her motives, we do not understand her peculiarity, but obviously everyone wants her, her power, her strength, her ' unconventional' thinking?
I don’t understand the meaning of the film, no one is developing here.
Funny detail, there are outcasts who do not fit any faction, however, divergents are suitable for everyone. But what's the difference? Are outcasts less friendly? Less intelligent? Less disciplined? Then how are they different from divergents? According to the film, I will say - nothing, it's just an idea to make our lava heroine such as not like everything look even more special.
The main character's hairstyle. Of course I understand, cutting your hair is a way to let go of the past, but for me, this hairstyle is terrible. The type of actress does not go so short hair, she began to look like the mother of her Fo, but what is her mother, older than the main villain.
A villain. We have gained power, now we begin experiments incomprehensible to anyone and the extermination of such people. If you judge her, if she became fearless, she would stay with her until the end. From childhood she was brought up in a prism ' fraction above blood'. When she became fearless, she became fearless. She showed no abnormalities in routine tests. She followed orders, did what they said. So how does its divergentness manifest itself in ordinary life? No way.
A typical sequel to a typical teen movie to look like an ordinary girl to see herself. I'm no different than anything special. I fit everything. This movie is a teenager. He is filled with incomprehensible pontificates, thoughts of deep, but so superficial, for good and justice, although she has enough sins. I didn’t like the idea and idea, I didn’t like it.
The second part ' Divergent' fairly consistently continues the first.
Young Tris in the world, which is divided as if into castes, into factions, turns out to be suitable for everything, so she is a unique person - Divergent, of which there are few.
At the beginning of the second part, Tris and her friend Fore go on the run because they are in danger.
They meet Fore’s mother, Evilen (N. Watts), who is also a special person, because at that time she did not fit into any of the factions. But now Evilen is a significant figure.
In this movie, Tris and the others need to get tested. First through the faction Friendship is a kind of judicial system, where it will have to go through the semblance of a lie detector. And all the contradictions that tormented her will have a stronger effect here. This is especially true of the fate of her parents. And here the idea is important that a person from a young age lives in harmony with his conscience, with his inner world, does not commit offenses.
Then the polymath test. Which of the youth their device will determine as a divergent one hundred percent?
And it is important that Tris find harmony with herself and unity. Even if her doppelganger is the one that others see in her, and she herself will not be identical.
Then again the heroine Kate Winslet enters the confrontation. But her rival is Evilen.
And in the end, the message in the box matters. Who should bring the world into the system, being exceptional in the name of this initially?
The film still teaches to appreciate the uniqueness, individuality of each. The need to live in harmony with your conscience, your inner world.
9 out of 10
Unlike the first, so-called "chapter" of "Divergent", the second part under the name "Insurgent" (God, well, terminology), is distinguished primarily by extremely tedious demagogues, clarifying relationships, cute "loves" and a large number of special effects ... that, in other words, does not save the situation by any means.
Not to say that the first creation of Neil Burger was better, but there, at least, there was no logical component and understandable motivation of the main characters. At the same time, the action takes place around a mystical artifact of the First. Who appears from nowhere, it is not clear why and hides in himself the ignorance of what. But the main villain named Janine (Kate Winslet) knows what the “secret” of the cherished “box” is, and therefore tries to open it with all her strength (not without the participation of divergents).
I remember in the first picture paid enough attention to the staging of fighting scenes. It is correct – stealth action implies the quality of this aspect. In this part, on this side, which could be salvific, just “scored”. Therefore, she is full of various blunders and incomprehensible actions, and this still looks ridiculous with the already inexpressive play of “licked” and reference heroes Shailene Woodley and Theo James .
Insurgent is not the best example of the dystopia of the future. Therefore, behind the spectacular covers, an attractive trailer and a pop soundtrack, the commercially greedy “leprechaun” is actually hiding, which has already targeted the wallets of the main and future audience (girls from 12 to 17), which means that it is even scarier.
Meanwhile, the illogical world of Beatrice Pryor, contrary to all logic, continues its illogical existence, delving into a logical singularity that breaks the causal continuum in the flash of computer graphics.
Neil Berger, fearing for his sanity, decided to leave. Which was the right thing to do, though late for one movie. His place was taken by Robert Schwentke, which was not previously noticed behind the big hits (and later too). They tried to compensate for the lack of talent with money. “Insurgent” sometimes quite effectively rings a sweaty wallet, and the ringing of this echoes reflected in the vacuum heads of 12-year-old fans of the “Diverged Saga”. Those who start digging the code of this rather average graphic run the risk of being sucked into the black hole of Antinolan, number 1408 of Antiking, and remain in the abyss of an antilogical world for the rest of their lives.
The grayness of this world infects all other components of the canvas, which is called "Insurgent". Memory cannot cling to smooth (like the brains of fans of the series) acting work, unremarkable plans of the operator, musical accompaniment in the style of “heard what is not”, and not outstanding editing. Memory clings to and stumbles only about the plot and scenario, in which the broken phantasmogoric angles of logic and common sense are a giant mountain range of the planet Mann, which is from Nolanov’s “Interstellar”, and that they do not have a rigid support.
Protect yourself from stroke: watch "Insurgent", without looking or reviewing.
The film is still painfully reminiscent of 'The Hunger Games'. The reasons lie on the surface. This is too deliberately demonstrative cruelty, and a similar main antagonist, and the main characters themselves, and similar plot twists, thanks to which the film becomes very predictable and practically does not surprise until the very end, when at least some intrigue flashed.
A simple layman may find the title of the film strange and even complicated, since the word 'Insurgent' is never pronounced there. Although it reflects its content (not completely). From the title, we can assume that in the second part we will be shown an uprising, a war, some mass battles. But nothing like that. Only local skirmishes, yes momentary ' action' scenes. In this regard 'The Hunger Games' went much further.
The beginning of the film immediately makes you feel negative towards the heroine Shailene Woodley Tris. The reason for this is the change in the image of the character with a pretty long-haired girl with expressive eyes on a short-haired ' boy' that causes not sympathy and tenderness, but disgust.
In general, after viewing both parts, it feels like they are not people, but robots, the nature of whose behavior is strictly determined by the faction, which does not allow any deviations. This leads to questions such as: ' Why did he do this? Is it a human being, not a programmed robot? '
The change of director from famed ' Areas of Darkness' Neil Burger to Robert Schwentke did not justify itself. The first part was more interesting, but the second... The director seemed to be something that did not allow him to open up and show himself - too stereotyped, and where he still tried to show skill turned out amateurishly. It's a lot of action, then protracted meaningless moments. The film has no balance and it feels like it. This is probably a flaw in the script.
In general 'Divergent' this is another teenage saga that replaced 'Harry Potter', 'Twilight' and 'The Hunger Games' But unlike its predecessors, it’s just one look. Despite the shortcomings of the film, it still catches something. It can be seen, and even in places it can be liked by the viewer.
7.5 out of 10
To be honest, the first part did not impress me much and the second I began to watch only by inertia. And again felt the same feelings of boredom and anticipation of the end as a year ago.
The main character – Tris wants to destroy the system that haunts her and others like her. I do not see any point in writing more about the plot, because if you have to write more you have to write a lot ...
Almost nothing in the picture could hold the attention, neither the chase, nor the shootout, which in principle should be designed for this. But without the emotions of the characters of the picture, any action scenes come to naught, no matter how they were originally filmed.
The only actress who has managed to show any emotion in the film is Naomi Watts. And the motives of all the other characters are so far-fetched that it seems that their roles could be played by anyone. Here you can hardly say about anyone that this character could not be played by anyone other than him.
But I still consider it my duty to highlight the positive aspects of the tape. From them you can answer some originality and elaboration of scenery and a rather unexpected end. But that's not enough.
In general, this is an ordinary passage tape, after watching which there are no positive emotions, no pleasant memories, only questions remain to the logic of the plot, the characters ... But these questions can easily be answered by the figures of the collection of the picture. And it says that still for someone the film is in demand and not just for someone, but for many people. I didn’t like the movie and I don’t know why I would like it.
There are many oddities in the Divergent universe. Well, there is no logic, it was leveled as a concept, but then how do the filmmakers so deftly manage to bring everything to a decent ending for the second film in a row? The script is a nightmare, the dialogue is a nightmare (the Twilight effect again), the development of the characters is a complete nightmare. The soundtrack is the same as the whole story: somewhere. The acting game is very average, even Kate Winslet has something to scold for: when she was closer to the finale, she screamed the same word with ... well, how to say it, with a completely inappropriate facial expression, I wanted to give her on the head. The secondary characters are much better than the main ones, Miles Teller, whom everyone already mentioned in a good way, and the truth stood out from the crowd (I still worry that he fell into the Fantastic Four; maybe he likes the word “four” in the film, either in the name or in the title?) .
Recently, she has often remembered Neo, but how can you not remember when GlavHeroine in the plot is his simplified copy with all these wires and “chosenness”, which is intensely heated by her lover. Last time I called it normal, nothing has changed since then. Tris was branded a messiah, but this did not add significance and weight to her, although the writers, and perhaps the author, really wanted this. There is no strength, no leadership, in Insurgent they are not even more than before. Katniss Everdeen was not elected, she simply did not agree with the lawlessness and in the conditions of the war, which was already brewing, with a personal example inspired people to exploits - a girl who since childhood fought for life, for a piece of bread, learned to be strong, she is one of those who are awarded medals for courage. Filled and quite comfortable Tris Pryer knew no hardships, and all her problems fell on her at the same time and almost crushed. Not fair, but a fact.
There are positives in the film, there are. For example, a finale or turn with Teller’s character. Not to say that it is boring to watch. Just the main couple annoys with their immature Shakespeareanism, and the two older women upset their “puppet” confrontation. In other words, I wish there was something to cling to in the last part. Do not double the budget for special effects, this will not save the picture. I would like Shailene Woodley to find more motivation in her character, some personal characteristics, and not the insecurity of a constantly crying teenager. And I would like to at the end clearly explain why it was all to start?
7 from 10
Who in the army served, that in the circus is not laughing! this is a pro book... after it the film is quite watchable!
So the second part.
There was no deep philosophical thought. The logic of the story, the plot: barely a soul in the body. The film raises more questions than answers.
You can take the girl out of the abdication, but not the abdication out of the girl (I’m sure this is a find exclusively Russian translators). It should be noted that this phrase applies to each of the heroes, Faure, who suddenly became neither fish nor meat, Caleb with his sudden stupor, Peter ... people do not change! - everyone remained true only to him known ideals, development and personal growth / adulthood is not here.
Many family skeletons, childhood injuries, some omissions and resentments, it should be noted, which no one is trying to recycle. Not until then, apparently.
The film strengthens the viewer in the idea: faction above blood!-heroes, in the end, unite on this principle. Tris is smoothly brought to the role of Jeanne Dark.
Instead of discussing tactics and strategy with a more experienced teammate, Tris chooses suicide campaigns. For those who have not read the books, her motives will be very vague and irrational.
Tris’ behavior in modulations is puzzling, where did her abilities go, from which she passes each level as a mere mortal from each faction?
Fore is there, going to rescue her alone. Write to youthful maximalism ... but the leader of the faction Fearless (albeit with self-renunciation) ... a controversial decision!
The love line is brought to a dead end by the authors, sex is presented as a way to put a man to sleep. The scenes are chaste and even shabby.
Perhaps Peter was pleased... the dynamics, adjustments to the wind he has the most adequate situation.
Only one thing pleases me: the plot of the films is “about” the book, but no more, it gives me hope, for a worthy denouement.
4 out of 10
The divergent, despite his zakidons (the most serious of which is whence at the end, when all the fearless were hypnotized, suddenly appeared a divergent man? He didn't know he was a divergent, he didn't pass the test, he didn't know where he came from, I liked it anyway. Not a masterpiece, but you could see it. But "Insurgent" of course sucks, and crushes all the success of Divergent.
First, the big joint of the movie. Why did the main character cut her hair under a boy? That's why? In the first film, it was at least pleasant to look at it, for this it was already possible to say thank you to the film, and here at least someone was pleased to watch this “miracle-jude” a non-homeboy, a non-girl. Really, Tris in this film irritated and calloused her eyes already with her appearance, this stupid boyish hairstyle, to her.
The most important thing about the movie is that it is boring and stupid. If Divergent had at least some plot that was interesting to watch, and overall the film was well done. The Insurgent does not have any of these qualities, he is stupid. What is this box, unknown, from which the main villain is trying to open? Why is it suddenly, it turned out that each of the residents, a certain share of "divergent" and turns out to have a device to determine this. I don’t know why, but it seemed to me really some kind of stupidity, why then these people did not “open themselves” on the test and why then they use this device only now, and not completely? Why in Divergent the Outcasts were beggars, frightened homeless people, and here pumped up fighters with machine guns, where did they get them?
The movie is so boring. The heroes were first friendly, then the Outcasts, then the sincere, then this virtual test, which was also boring. And all this is really boring, there was no action, action, intrigue, quality dialogue, just good interest in the film.
One more question. And why is there a faction of the sincere in this world at all? Just as I understood the Fearless are the police and the army. Friendly people are farmers. Erudites are scientists. The detached are rulers, and what do the sincere do they do? They are the local opposition, they poke people’s noses at their shortcomings, what are they for?
And the ending, frankly, did not impress at all and leaves more perplexed.
Bottom line: The Insurgent tarnished Divergent’s good success, in which he reminded me directly of the second part of Maze Runner, which had the same flaws and because of this also tarnished the success of the first film. Divergent was also not perfect, but at least it could be watched, the same film causes drowsiness with its lack of action on the screen and sluggish, inadequate plot.
In short , I looked at [Divergent 2: Insurgent]. So came the second chapter, stories in which they tried to achieve world peace through a special system of factions. Honestly, I liked the first part, but I wasn’t impressed and now I was waiting for the second part to hook me more. In the second part, it was no longer necessary to acquaint with the world or the main characters, since the first part did it perfectly. And now, as I thought, it was time for the main characters to act, and on a global level, as their world is not perfect as it turned out, so I also expected more action scenes from the film, and in general dynamics. I would love to see the lives of all the factions, because in the first film, we were only honored to see half of them. In general, as the slogan of the film says, "It's time to change something in this world".
In short, the action still takes place in Chicago, our heroes, who at the end of the first part, prevented the plans of the “Smart” faction to seize power, are now forced to hide, since all the blame for the attacks was pinned on them. They try to sit in the Mercy faction until everything calms down. The head of the Umnikov faction, Djanin [Kate Winslet], finds a box that only Divergent can open, in this regard, now the Divergents are being hunted. And that’s where the most interesting thing begins.
So, , the second part of Divergent, met my expectations for the most part. In terms of the plot, the second part continues the story and explains all those moments that were not clear in the first part. If I had seen both parts at once, then my opinion of the first part would have been a little different, as you get answers to questions like: Why do we need a system of factions? Why don't they leave Chicago? What happens to the outcasts? Regarding the acting, in this film, I would like to note such a character as Peter [Miles Teller], as it turned out to be quite juicy and thanks to him, the film at least somehow had unexpected turns. What’s also a plus for me personally in this part is more action scenes that look quite interesting and dynamic. Another plus is that we were finally shown the lives of the rest of the faction. But the film is not complete, without silly scenes or some blunders that are very noticeable. And in general, it turned out to be a pretty good movie, which I recommend to watch, both for fans of the series and for ordinary people, who, like me, do not often get to watch such films. We’ll see what happens next.
To be honest, this is my first review of the film, although I have seen many different films. I was pushed to the first review by the outrage from the movie “Divergent, Chapter 2: Insurgent”.
I'm a fan of dystopias. And yes, I read The Hunger Games and Divergent before watching the movies. I agree that books are always better than movies, but here writers and directors would like to wish to read the original before shooting. Now a little bit of history...
American writer Susan Collins wrote the first book “The Hunger Games” in 2008, then “Fire will break out” in 2009 and “Mockingjay” in 2010.
American writer Veronica Roth wrote her novel in 2011, the second book “Insurgent” was released on February 21, 2012, the third – “Ellient” was released on September 26, 2013. So Divergent was clearly impressed with The Hunger Games. It's Roth's debut, and frankly, it's noticeable. I read the first book very quickly and with great anticipation of the beginning of the second. It is clearly worse than the first... All the throwing of the main character, incomprehensible victims and rash actions ... I advise you not to take the third book at all. It seems that it was written as in the cartoon “Three from Prostokvashino”, all in turn, without reading the previous narrators. After reading, I have more questions than answers. It was not the logical actions of the main characters that pissed me off. And of course, I did not expect much from the film, but the director and writers “exceeded” all my expectations.
I watched the movie with my husband, he didn’t read the book. I constantly had to explain to him why this or that hero acts like this and what the essence is. In general, the topic of why the second book and film are called “Insurgent” is not disclosed. The writer has reduced the number of actors. Why?! Shailene Woodley is not so beautiful, and the game she reminded me of Kristen Stewart in Twilight, no special emotions to watch the whole film. Those characters that were introduced during the film were little noticeable, and some are not necessary at all. But practically cut the line of Pope Tobias, who plays a big role in the book. Nor are Tobias’ friends supposed to appear mysteriously in the third movie (because they’re needed there). I wouldn’t be surprised if they decided not to show anyone except the main characters. The actors are certainly not bad. According to the book, Tris is not pretty, so Shailene Woodley fits well. Theo James is so handsome, he didn’t have to play much. Of the younger generation, I liked Miles Teller the most. Kate Winslet and Naomi Watts are perfect.
The movie was called “Run, Shoot, Don’t Think.” A kind of modern gum for young people. Come to the cinema, do not think about anything and leave in 2 hours unencumbered by any meaning.
6 out of 10
I will be brief, because I do not want to spend much time on this masterpiece.
After watching Part 1 I didn’t want to watch this. It's kind of weird. When I saw the trailer, the movie was interesting. But really, what kind of depressing dystopia is this? Why do people like that? Maybe I'm stupid and don't understand anything?
Well, let’s talk about the second part. The main character is still stupid. Oh, my God, as long as you can. Are there any girls who want to be like her? Well, just reading / watching something we put ourselves in the place of the main character, so are there people who want to be THIS?
The acting game was not in the 1st part, so there is no in this. I keep wondering how Kate Winslet agreed to play this? All events are meaningless. The actions of one side and the other are stupid. Everything is boring.
Oh, it was funny that the name of Theo James' character was translated in the books, both as "Four" and in the first part of the film it was so. And then they decided to leave it sounding like the original "Fo." God, why? Why do you do this when you have already translated?
This story should have ended soon. And rather the fashion for dystopia passed. I'm tired of looking at the same thing. There's nothing original.
Teenage series of books, imbued with an extraordinary love story unfolding in an extraordinary fantastic world, do not even think to slow down the popularity. “The Hunger Games”, “Maze Runner” and other works fight each other for the favor of the public, without harm to their creators, because while young people are ready to accept more and more stories about anti-utopias, you do not have to worry about profit. It’s no surprise that every successful youth book series turns into a film franchise. Divergent was no exception, although its popularity on large screens is several times less than that of the same Hunger Games. Nevertheless, while the project pays off and brings at least some profit, Hollywood producers will never abandon it. So after the first part of “Divergent” followed quite logical continuation, received in the domestic box office the pretentious name “Divergent, Chapter 2: Insurgent”, although it is much easier to perceive the tape exclusively as the original “Insurgent”. Expecting a much larger box office from the project, the studio bosses increased the production budget of the film to $ 110 million, and in the director's chair seated Robert Schwentke, who knows a lot about both tense thrillers ("The Flight Illusion") and mindless movies built on special effects ("Ghost Patrol"). All, without exception, leading performers led by Shailene Woodley and Theo James returned to the lineup. was not without a star replenishment in the face of Naomi Watts. It is no wonder that the creators expected from Insurgent to repeatedly overlap the budget, but this did not happen. Despite the impressive costs, the tape, based on the work of Veronica Roth, showed almost identical results with the first part, which was alarming news for subsequent films of the franchise. Viewers, saturated with an abundance of similar stories, were in no hurry to go to “Insurgent”, because he, in all respects, is inferior to the “Hunger Games” – interesting heroes, strong ideas, high-quality special effects and tricks. A secondary product can never reach the top, no matter what you do with it. And if the first film was able to catch the audience, then the second had to change something. And it's cardinal. However, nothing significant happened - "Insurgent" turned out to be mediocre, nothing more.
As for the plot, it begins almost immediately after Tris (Shailene Woodley), Faure (Theo James) in the company of several fugitives disappear from the city to find a safe shelter and develop a further plan of action. In the absence of the rebel, the oppressive head of the Erudite faction, Jeanine (Kate Winslet), prepares for a swift attack on dissenters. In her opinion, absolutely all citizens showing the makings of the Divirgents should be rushed to headquarters and isolated from society, at the same time establishing absolute power over all adjacent factions. Meanwhile, Tris and Fore are not sitting idly by either. Heroes have to make difficult decisions, threatening to unleash a full-scale war. To do this, they need to go back and lead disparate resistance groups that have nothing to lose. And in all this turmoil, Tris gradually becomes the hope of the disadvantaged that has long been expected. The girl shows by her own example that the Divirgents are not a threat to the general order, but a true hope. Gradually, all the secrets associated with the division of society into factions are revealed and finally it becomes clear why the ancient founders organized a community governed by extraordinary laws of behavior, and what awaits all survivors of a global catastrophe, when the alarming time comes when they still have to go beyond the walls into the unknown.
Like any other adaptation of popular youth dystopias, "Insurgent" could not be integrated into the format of a full-length film, otherwise its creators would have to double the timing at least twice. However, with a reverent treatment of the source, it was possible to preserve in integrity the unique emotional intensity of passions, for which Veronica Roth’s novels were so famous. Despite the fact that in the center of the whole narrative is the struggle of the progressive stratum of the population with the old rules that lead society to the abyss, the writer was able to write in reality a deep, penetrating drama of the relationship between the main characters. In addition, the book in detail revealed the problems of perception of reality by different generations of survivors. Carefully approaching the eternal problem of generations, Veronica Roth saturated history with the brightest types, capable of both broad actions and betrayals. For some elders, their children were of no value, while others did their best to protect them. Conflicts of interest were not always resolved with a gunshot. They approached the denouement of contradictions intelligently, presented arguments and were ready to listen to criticism. Disclosure of characters, non-stupid dialogues and thoughtful development of the plot, permeated with accessible philosophy, allowed the trilogy "Divirgent" to become a full-fledged bestseller, which by the efforts of not the most talented filmmakers turned into mediocrity, erased from memory immediately after watching.
Under the guidance of Robert Schwentke for more than an hour and a half, we are forced to watch a sluggish, emotional spectacle, periodically diluted with more or less tolerable action scenes demonstrating the excellent physical training of Shailene Woodley and Theo James, persistently punching through the walls of cutting eyes of computer graphics. Combat episodes are the only worthy spectacle for which it is worthwhile to start watching. Of course, if you wish, you can find a lot of flaws in them, like the same primitive graphics, but when the film has nothing more to boast of, then it is worth to fairly evaluate at least some of the merits of its creators, justifying the very existence of the film. But when it comes to the dramatic part of the narrative, “Insurgent” does not withstand any criticism. It seems that the characters and images of the characters caught in the middle of the first film of the series, and further revelations from them can not be expected. Shailene Woodley is definitely disappointing. Throughout the film, she portrays a single emotion, a frightened aggressiveness, periodically leaning to one extreme, then to the other. It is noticeable that the actress did not worry about how it will look in the frame. In turn, the director was not going to instruct Woodley, allowing her to work on programmed compressions, as, indeed, the vast majority of the entire cast. Did not bring anything special to the narrative and Theo James, finally dissolved in the image of a handsome soldier, for some unknown reasons, inflamed with warm feelings for the expressionless Tris.
Quite stupid looked in the frame eminent performers, for whom participation in “Insurgent” is difficult to put in the asset. And if Kate Winslet is still trying to play the part of Jeanine in such a way that the viewer from the heart hates her, then inviting Naomi Watts to one of the key roles is absolutely meaningless. Not only was she given very little time, but she was also forced to become a participant in one of the most absurd moments of the film, worthy of a second-rate slasher shot for pennies. Nothing special can be said about Jai Courtney. Static role of furniture does not deserve attention.
“Insurgent” did not live up to expectations, from which the continuation of the story is put under open threat.
5 out of 10
It’s really time to change something in this world.
I got to the premiere in the half-empty theater hall by accident, I had to pass the time, and in the cinema there was only this film and some cartoons. The first part of this saga, so to speak, I mastered the third time, considering it a mixture of the Hunger Games & #39;, & #39; Harry Potter & #39; and the series ' Fallout & #39;. As usual, the chosen one (in order not to insult Potter, the hand will not rise to call her ' the chosen one ' with a capital letter) is persecuted and suffering, but does not give up and gradually blah blah blah blah. . .
All this was relevant when it came out 'A New Hope' Lucas, the subject of the Chosen Ones hasn't been revealed yet. When Rowling wrote 'The Philosopher's Stone' she breathed a second life into the subject. Collins took a different path and did not endow her character with the features of the savior of the world, she made Katniss an ordinary girl with the usual motivation - to save the only beloved creature - her sister.
Veronica Roth read and watched all these books and movies and put together everything she remembered. It was bad, what to expect from the movie?
It is not, although, I think, even Kristen Stewart could cope with it.
All actors are like mannequins, Woodley is just the apogee of indifference. She doesn’t care what’s going on, sometimes she screams and shoots, both in the first and second movie. The rest of the actors do not even want to describe, I forgot the names of their characters twenty minutes after the end of the film.
It is also not, but this can hardly be blamed on the screenwriters, they may have tried to smooth out the angles of delirium from the book, but it is very difficult and I sincerely feel sorry for them.
Special effects? I had the feeling that I was watching something made by Bondarchuk, so tasteless and ridiculous it looked.
I don’t remember the music at all, if it was.
A few months passed, I watched it again, but on the TV screen, so as not to be mistaken with the conclusions.
Two of them.
First, I regret that I unwittingly sponsored the sequels of this film, made my small contribution to the box office. Excuse me.
The second is a two-minute trailer ' Ages of Ultron' before the film was in all plans cooler than the whole film 'Divergent, chapter 2:Insurgent'.
In the title and there is a brief description of "Insurgent". And “light” is its banal ending, which the experienced viewer will not even be surprised by.
The film begins with Tris, in a sign of breaking up with her past, cutting off her hair while doing a short haircut. True, it did not help to forget all the bad things that happened to her, but there is such a psychological thing as a change of image. In addition to the new hairstyle, Tris got nightmares and hallucinations, which is not surprising, given how much she had to go through.
If in the first part the main character looked like a cute and inept child, then in Insurgent we see an aggressive and not quite balanced mental fighter, eager to take revenge on Janine.
Honestly, the brutal glint in my eyes and the straightforward words “I’ll kill” made me feel negative. But later, Tris had to overcome cruelty, a fierce thirst for revenge, and try to find the strength to forgive. If everything remained the same, I doubt I liked the film more than the first part.
However, along with the change of the main character, the atmosphere of the film changed, everything became much more serious and gloomy. I'd have added some scent if it wasn't for Tris's funeral look. In principle, the feelings tearing the girl from the inside, perfectly found a response from the outside, as in the classics: bad weather corresponds to the unimportant state of health of the hero. It is impossible that the heroine suffered, and around rode pink ponies with a rainbow.
The other characters play well in the background. Especially pleased Miles Teller, who played Peter, forced to feel for his hero, then disgust, then grateful admiration.
I also really enjoyed being introduced to the other remaining factions: Friendship and Sincerity. I was pleased with how people from there showed their views on the world. For example, Friendship is not spineless and weak-willed, on the contrary, to forgive the enemy, you must have a strong character, and sincerity is completely impartial and makes decisions based on justice. In fact, it was the latter faction that should govern the state, but honesty and politics are often incompatible.
Compared to the first film, the second one was better. There’s the maturation of the character, the ambiguity of some decisions (and even some characters), and the ending. Let me call it banal at the beginning of the review, in context it seems appropriate. The end is a ray of light that leads out of ignorance and puts everything in its place. If you take it into account, the first film does not look so straightforward and primitive.
7 out of 10
Due to inconsistencies in the schedule, the director of the first part of the fantastic action movie “Divergent” based on the works of the American writer Veronica Roth Neil Burger could not continue working in this role, limiting himself to the functions of an executive producer. But the replacement he found, let’s say, worthy – the second “Divergent” was invited to shoot the German director already firmly settled in Hollywood Robert Schwentke. He directed films such as The Flight Illusion with Jodie Foster, The Time Traveler's Wife with Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams, RED with Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich and Helen Mirren, and Ghost Patrol with Jeff Bridges and Ryan Reynolds. Agree that the companies in his films are selected as necessary, but here Schwentke was, as they say, on the pick-up and he had two ways: to shoot “Insurgent” in his own way or go along the road laid by his predecessor. The German chose the second.
There are almost no changes in the overall sequence of events. The main character Tris (Shailene Woodley) is still able to counter her enemies with her power of a special person. In this she is helped by her lover Fore (Theo James), as well as several unexpected friends, for example, Fore’s mother Evelyn (Naomi Watts joined the acting group just in the second part of Divergent). While Tris dreams of forgiveness, of a free and peaceful life, her enemies, led by the cruel Janine (Kate Winslet), are eager to destroy her. Tris has no choice: you have to fight and checkmate your opponents. Again, you need to hone the skills of a fighter and puzzle over what you can use to get even with those who are looking for her to kill. But Tris doesn't yet know that Evelyn has far-reaching plans for her. It is to become a visual propaganda of the revolution against Janine and her ilk. Oh, Divergent, how much do you look like the Hunger Games, like a stencil watching.
The second part of “Divergent” is unlikely to conquer more viewers, except for those who have already become imbued with the story of Veronica Roth’s fantasy after the first series. Everything in Insurgent is too narrow, there is no new breath, special effects and action scenes similar in all components, all the same tortured dialogues that are perceived only on the condition that the actors with all zeal want to demonstrate that they are not from the Hunger Games came, they are a separate story of the alternative development of our planet. And while young actors prove their worth, experienced and well-known performers make attempts to add psychological tension to the film, make it not only an action, but also a duel of characters. Thanks for this, but in the plot of “Insurgenta” it looks like improvisation, good such, but not quite fit into the overall picture. Probably, it would have been worth "Insurgent" more saturated not with the political context of the struggle of evil and good, prison and freedom, but with visual entertainment, then they would have gone out on popcorn, or even conceived charisma to fight.
I admit that in the first part of Divergent, actors Shailene Woodley and Theo James liked it much more than in the second. In the second, they looked unchanged, in the sense that their characters did not get any development, and that their love leads to bed, so this is already a 5th grade student would have guessed, so this is no development. I will add that recently I managed to watch the film “Descendants” by Alexander Payne, in which Woodley I really liked and comparing this role with her role Tris I can say that in “Descendants” she played wonderfully, and in “Divergent” she lacks something with all her desire and efforts. Kate Winslet, Naomi Watts, Octavia Spencer, Ray Stevenson and as guest guests Ashley Judd with Tony Goldwin make up a strong set of authoritative actors who carry the adult power of the characters of “Insurgent”, but somehow you expect the wrong from the film itself, although there are no complaints to the actors: everyone in his place, everyone worked as a professional. But again, I wanted to see more!
Despite the fact that “Insurgent” did not overcome the seven-point bar either at the KP or at IMDb, it collected a little less than three hundred million dollars at the global box office with a hundred and ten dollars spent on production, which suggests that the producers can be satisfied, but the viewer somehow did not take the second part with a hurrah, let’s hope that the next two will be more interesting and more exciting.
6 out of 10
It amazes me that people keep filming this nonsense, and it's even more amazing what they keep watching.
In the last part, the main illogical thing that really caught my eye was the distribution of factions. I'm sure everyone has noticed that a person who has passed the test for a particular faction is suddenly free to choose any one. The whole point of such a system is lost. After all, if everyone can go where they want, then why be afraid of divergents? And why even factions? I don't understand.
After watching the second movie, a similar question arises. Suppose the divergent opened the box. But how can this divergent help make other people more human? How? Go out and preach?
In addition, other issues arise along the way. Like, why did Mr. Clever become a double agent? He didn’t know at first that Miss Poor would have to be saved.
And that's a lot to watch. It's just that there's a lot of questions, like you think that the writer or the writers have no logic at all. I've never seen such a big mistake. In the twilight or the hunger games, it was much more logical. Here, just hell.
I don't agree with people who say it's better than the first. It may not be so uninteresting, but logic is also missing, acting is almost always poor. But don't get it wrong, the actors have nothing to do with it, the script, or the book, and the characters, the actors just don't understand what to portray.
It is very sad that people shoot this, and even sadder that they watch. Apparently, people really are becoming less culture and elementary logic.
Instead of filming at least one adaptation of Roger Zelazny, or any of the great science fiction (which has very few adaptations), we shoot a third-rate, four-rate, and very bottom. And the worst part is what we’re looking at.
The continuation of "Divergent" is certainly more serious than "Twilight" and outgrows this audience of viewers, but apparently in view of the fact that somehow too much attention has received pictures for this age group in recent years, the release of each such film becomes more and more uncomfortable for perception.
It seems that a well-developed marketing plan works both in building the basis of the script, ending with the release schedules of each film from similar franchises. And this destroys any creative or artistic component of any director, and Robert Schwentke was no exception.
"Divergent 2" is still cold-blooded in some of its episodes, sometimes seems to be at the limit of PG-13, but if you look closely at the story that the authors blow - this is a typical teenage thriller, heated by all sorts of love lines and a desire to show the individuality of the teenage age group.
Robert Schwentke did not succeed, because the signature on his contract with the funding studio made him another slave director, who does not have a step to realize his creativity. They shot the film in acceptable templates, hit financial results, and already sow plans for who and what yacht will buy themselves after the predicted box office success of subsequent films of the franchise.
5 out of 10
The second part of the film was watched almost immediately after the first, so the impressions were very vivid. It was very interesting to see what would happen to the heroes. Surprisingly, Tris decided to change their hairstyle, most likely this is the idea of the director, for sure, the girl did not want to part with her chic hair. But she looks as good as ever! She became more courageous, purposeful, and her view more expressive.
There was not a single boring minute in the film, the actors did their best! Poor Tris got even more than in the first part, it hurts to see her suffering. But she was picked up by a good couple (Fore), who are ready to rescue her at any minute and take on some of the blows. They are worth each other, in a good sense of the word.
It was a pleasant moment that the essence of two more factions was revealed, although it was interesting to learn more details about other factions.
The insurgent is successful, looks in one breath and wants more. In the meantime, we will wait for the sequel, which, I hope, will be with the same characters and no less exciting!
10 out of 10
Sorry, I didn’t want to watch the first movie, but what can you do for the company? Here we go.
The action of the second chapter of the “epic saga” unfolds, apparently, after a short time from the events of the first picture. By the way, what was there in “Divergent”, I do not remember: the film is so boring that I had to re-read my own review in order to refresh my memory.
The second film in the saga about the girl Rambo brings a number of equally surprising questions:
1. How did the heroine of the movie manage to make a perfectly smooth boy’s hairstyle with only scissors? I'm sorry, I cut my hair in school. Even my mother laughed at me. I remember not the most successful film about a cat woman - there was the same situation, but the main character at least had supernatural dexterity.
2. Why cut your hair? The heroine Shailene Woodlin is not the most seductive, and after the haircut became suddenly with cheeks and looks like a dealer - the hairstyle added years and several square centimeters on the face.
3. The words of the main antagonist “we have a box that will destroy divergents, but only a divergent can open it” are introduced into a stupor. Excuse me? What's the condition? It is one thing for divergents to want to open this impromptu “Pandora’s Box” that will ruin them, but it is another thing when they avoid opening it in every way and the evil blonde force them to do so.
4. How can a platoon of a dozen soldiers not get caught up in three not-so-smart and agile heroes out of several machine guns in the open?
5. Why are moss-covered buildings not being renovated? Why haven’t you spent two hundred years exploring the area outside the walls?
6. Why is a person publicly, under the influence of the drug, confesses to murder and is not sentenced?
7. Why does the headman say to the heroine: “Listen, the villain wants to take you hostage to stop suicides ... and then let’s kill everyone from her gang and destroy the latter from the state system?” At a time when the transfer of the heroine to the antagonist is an advantageous solution, and the question of extracting some prodigy from the body remains open.
8. Why are people from different factions so radically different again? Again, hardworkers under amphetamines, again too honest representatives of the judicial system (they say that people lie at least ten times a day and the deviation is shiza), again our, inadequately going against all reasonable, divergents.
I'm tired of asking questions. According to the script again talk about the chosen, 100% divergent, predictable ending. Now, along with the beautiful Kate Winslet, the incomparable Naomi Watts got into the theater of the absurd. And, by the way, they did not explain what the “insurgent” is and how it relates to the story of 100%, not diluted divegent.
I recommend watching the sequel only in the company of a stubborn friend who will poison jokes that dilute viewing. I feel like an equally epic story will follow.
The first part of the “Divergent Series” turned out to be quite a strong dystopia, which was not based on the ridiculously cruel idea of killing children, sown by the “Hunger Games”, but was a despotic ruler, ready to sacrifice lives for her goals. The director of the second part, Robert Schwentke, I know from the film “RED” with Bruce Willis and, above all, from the series “Lie Me”, which already inspires confidence in the director. I was not worried about the sequel to Divergent.
Well, the director with his duties coped with the whole hundred - the continuation turned out to be quite interesting, cheerful, not giving to get bored - events develop rapidly, new charismatic characters are introduced, important for further storytelling, unexpected turns happen. However, the picture lost some monolithicity of the first part. This is the fault of the screenwriters, mercilessly cut an already thick book, and much changed in a special way. As a result, the film acquired the features of an expensive blockbuster, striking the imagination with mind-blowing special effects, a flying cube and problems with logic.
The main antagonist, Janine, who is the leader of the polymath faction (which should speak of very high intelligence), finds a box in the Pryor house (which was not mentioned at all in the first part) containing a message from ancestors, the contents of which, according to Janine, will help defeat divergents, despite the fact that without them (divergents) the box cannot be opened. Logic here is not just lame, but completely absent. Later, divergents are called the solution to all problems, as if they are all angels, but during the film, people often die because of their mercy. There are other violations of logic, not so significant, but still striking. However, apparently, having sacrificed the plot, the creators managed to complete the film so that (hopefully) without flaws to remove the following parts.
And that's what the "Insurgent" has no problems with, so it's with the actors - the leaders of the factions are played by such extraordinary personalities as the ones already familiar from the first Kate Winslet (Janine, the leader of the polymaths), who need no introduction, and Ray Stevenson (Marcus, the leader of the renounced), who is remembered to us in the role of Volstag, the eternally hungry friend of Thor, as well as playing new heroes Octavia Spencer (Joanna, the leader of the friendly ones), Koning Jackson, who is the leader of the film, and "Konigreneb", "Konievsky, who is the leader of the heroine, who is here, "Korneb", "Koni", "Konigovo, who is the leader of the hero of the live" (Kohraine"). Their first appearance immediately bribes and distracts from all plot flaws, and the acting game sets the film a good level. Shailene Woodley, Theo James, Ansel Elgort, Miles Teller and others are struggling to keep up with their eminent colleagues, and they generally succeed.
So, “Insurgent” is a good spring blockbuster with a star cast, successfully continuing this series of films, but as a film adaptation of Veronica Roth’s second book, it definitely loses the first part in terms of logic.
7 out of 10
I watched the first part. I can't say I was very excited. At least I liked that movie!
Yeah, I get it. A movie for teenagers. Rebels, fighting against the system, all that stuff. But here, unlike other similar films, the same “Hunger Games”, a normal state was built! I'll say more, almost a perfect state! And in my opinion, divergents are very dangerous. Willy-nilly while watching, I realized that I was on Janine's side. So if you look, you'll understand my wild disappointment.
I didn’t like the spontaneity of events. And a lack of logic. I always had a feeling of raggedy, and sometimes I felt like a fool. For he understood nothing.
Actors are what saved the film from a very bad assessment. They were perfect for their roles.
Shailene Woodley – 5, the perfect choice for the role of divergent.
Theo James is 5, an unusually charismatic actor. I liked him the most.
Jai Courtney is 5, the one called the villain. It was impossible to play better.
Miles Teller - he had to play a huge amount of emotions, which he successfully coped with.
So I'm completely dissatisfied with the film. But for excellent actors I put
It's a very stupid movie. Yeah, that's it, from place to place. Why? The film begins to show its level from the first seconds. Just imagine a situation in which the president of the Russian Federation, for example, would address the people with a message that begins with the words: “Russia is a federal republic with 85 constituent entities and is under threat.” Sounds silly, doesn't it? Insurgence starts like this. I understand about the exhibition, not all viewers are familiar with Divergent, and they need to briefly outline what is happening. But why couldn't it be made less clumsy?
"Clumsy," pay attention to this word because it refers to many aspects of the film. Characters, conflict, the structure of the world and much more done in an extremely inept way. But these problems began in the first part, so I will not focus on them. What you should pay attention to is the story. The author of the book decided, without hesitation, "Here's the mysterious box, here's the people who want to open it." Dance from that. The design is more trivial. Yes, a good author will handle her, but we're talking about teenage dystopia, actually. The script lacks much ingenuity. There are no intricacies and intrigues, continuous straightforwardness with a predictable end and far-fetched situations.
- Why did I even look at it? – I had a question in my head.
I guess I was just wondering how much the director and screenwriters can do, realizing the unpretentiousness of their target audience. And that’s where I have to give the film credit, because compared to the first part, it’s not that bad. Funny nonsense became less, and good action - more. Not to say that it greatly affected the overall quality (too shabby source), but, hey, progress is already good. It remains only to teach the actors of the leading roles to show at least some emotions, and there will be, in general, a good movie for once.
6 out of 10
The global and very personal for each person theme of rebelliousness, with the advent of modern digital technologies, capitalism, democracy and other “crutches” boarded up on top of the system of everything, naturally, has not gone anywhere, but has become even more attractive and curious for authors of manuscripts of various lousyness and filmmakers of all genres. It makes sense. People became more cautious, bolder in their views and more determined in their motives. Against the background of the consumer and intoxicated with material trinkets masses, no – no, and a percentage of people are born who are able to shout: “Enough!” Down with all this tinsel! The show dragged on. Take off your masks, weirdos. Therefore, as everyone understands perfectly well, a whole cult of literary products like Divergent was born. And then the films began to shoot. No wonder the slogans for the paintings sound very brave and assertive: “You are dangerous if you are different” and “In this world it is time to change something.” I actually agree with both phrases. It's time to change a lot. And we should start with ourselves, guys. Because we are the people (and, to be more precise, the representatives of the youth caste), and we are the cogs and spoons, gears and ramparts that make this giant mechanism – modern society – work.
Another very topical topic is feminism, of course, does not go away when you watch a movie like this or read a book like this. Since women really want to declare themselves and prove that they are not weaker than men, but even stronger than them, the authors of such novels make a deliberate emphasis on women’s independence and “chosenness”. No wonder, the author of the original source for the franchise is a young author – Veronica Roth. Why do such manifestos, “packaged” in post-apocalyptic and fantastic shells appear? Of course, from a lack of attention and desire to express themselves and their thoughts out loud. And the plan is, it seems, good and even right. I think.
I remember the first film of the series I gave a good rating with a background for the future. I thought out of my naivete and kindness that a very interesting franchise could develop out of such an idea, where there would be a little bit about that and a little bit about that. About the pain. In the light of recent political and economic developments, such films are quite appropriate. But a very good idea, unfortunately, at the disposal of an incompetent author and equally incompetent screenwriters quite quickly (after all, two more films are planned) turned into another loose cranberries for teenagers who do not want to work, but want to have everything and walk among peers with a crown on their heads. The message is no, but it was obvious from the first minutes of the first film. You're the chosen one. It's time to ram the damn system off the ground and smash it to pieces. After all, if not you, then who will challenge this giant meat grinder, in which all the undesirable processes are grinded into shapeless mince. And then, here we go. And not quickly, with the roar of the engine and applause, but rather, twitching at the blanks and shooting exhaust like a killed clunker. In short, the topic has not been properly developed.
“Insurgent” froze somewhere between the frank banal sloppiness and something lean, but sometimes giving signs of life and common sense. In such cases, it is usually said that the patient is dead rather than alive. Having changed director and composer, the second film was doomed immediately, to be honest. In principle, there are no special claims to Schwentke and there cannot be. The director shot from the script. And the material was bad, no matter how bad. Don't take it off. What good special effects do not twist. The script is simply illumined. It is loose, incomprehensible, stretched and uninformative. The plot rod overgrown with a large number of indecently stand out from the general background of snot and saliva, which, not that they do not touch, but on the contrary, are pretty annoying. But with the composer came a blatant blunder. The atmosphere of the first film was achieved mainly thanks to a good composer Junky Ax-El. It was his soundtracks that influenced the atmospheric background, which was able to draw you into what is happening on the screen. Joseph Trapanese, who replaced his colleague in the second part, clearly did not know where and how to push. The music is faded, does not create a mood, does not set the desired rhythm for the narrative. Almost everywhere I go.
There were no miracles on the front either. The only one who truly believes in what he is doing is Shailene Woodley. She had a haircut under the boy, but the girl had little to play. She tries to be as convincing as possible under the circumstances. Theo James still doesn't know what he's doing here or what they want him to do. Charisma did not increase, which was expected and natural. Teller tries to seem like a charming clown and a lighter guy, but he can not cope with such a task here. Winslet and Watts are good (especially, to a large extent, the first), but such actresses have nothing to play here. Not their level (no incentive to try and take the highest bar). In such projects, such actors only earn.
Returning to the theme and the film itself, I want to say that the new franchise for a teenage audience clearly loses to its genre counterparts and direct competitors. It does not feel the general confidence, strong script acumen and tangible intrigue. Characters are represented by tin soldiers who talk about everyday and boring dialogues, but can not declare themselves as textured and “live” personalities. There are inevitable repetitions in the actions due to the patient lack of originality and freshness of the plot presentation (an example of this is an extremely stingy bed scene similar to that in the first series). The film adaptation of the work of Veronica Roth has almost nothing to lose, but it is impossible to find something standing inside yourself. The second film ends with a cunning seed for the intrigue of the third. But it's pretty predictable, folks. The franchise stalls in place, and this is a direct regression. It seems that the authors have nothing to tell us. The obvious question is, isn’t it too early? Movies are secondary, at least. As the creators’ appeal to their audience, this film is like a quiet whisper from the crowd. As an entertaining production, it is literally full of a critical lack of dynamics, interesting directorial finds and cheerful action scenes. As a cash machine for emptying spectator wallets, it also did not take place in the best way. The conclusion is self-evident.
P.S. I accidentally came up with a slogan (read the title) for one of the next movies. Where can I get a cup of tea for this?
Most people are not interested in issues of spiritual development, so in such films as “Insurgent” or “The Matrix” for them made the external form – a cool film, with amazing special effects, watched and forgot. But for those who can see something more behind the outer form, these films deliver deep aesthetic pleasure and cause great philosophical interest.
Let’s look at the external form, and immediately many people have a question about the titles of the films of the series, what do these words mean?
The main heroine is among the people who are called Divergent, which means “not like everyone else”, “changed” or, in relation to the girl, “chosen”. Divergents’ DNA evolved to bring them to a new level of consciousness. Divergents are so different from ordinary people that they are not affected by the proven technologies of control and zombification of the population that the government uses, so divergents are perceived as a threat.
The rulers are afraid of change, afraid of losing their posts, and as such people grow more and more every year, using the levers of power, the government decides to destroy all divergents. In fact, it is genocide, but, as is usually the case, everything is under a beautiful pretext: they are not like us, so they are bad, and therefore – shoot!
Divergents try to survive, find allies and organize an uprising against the government, so the second part is called Insurgent, that is, “rebel” or, in relation to the girl, “rebel”. The uprising is going well. Everyone reveals a shocking truth that the rulers tried to hide: divergents are not a threat, but the next step in the evolution of mankind.
What is behind this external form? What is the divergence, the evolutionary difference between new people? "Insurgent" answered this question in a stunning way. With the luxurious special effects of American Hollywood, the filmmakers managed to immerse the viewer in an atmosphere of constant doubt about the reality of what is happening, caused the viewer to feel the illusoryness of this world, and at the climax of the film, the main character says: "Enough of my death". But not only does she refuse to attack her enemy, because of which she lost her father, mother and her usual life, Tris does not stop there, she goes deeper and realizes that she does not forgive others, but only herself. The spiritual depth of this realization is enormous! Only those seekers who have spent years or even lives in true spiritual practice can do this.
Today it will seem incredible, but the level to which Tris has reached is already available to the earthlings and, according to predictions, humanity will reach it in the next 200 years and finally realize the essence of Jehusha’s words when, when asked by the disciples how many times it is necessary to forgive your brothers, He answered: “I tell you not seven, but seventy times seven” (Matthew 18.22). As a human being, we are all on the verge of divergence.
That is why it is incorrect to compare the Divergent series with the Hunger Games series. The scenery, of course, is the same: young girls in the lead role and events in a post-apocalypse setting. But spiritually, these films are the opposite. The essence of "Mockingbird Jay" is revenge, where the main character takes revenge and destroys President Snow, while the essence of "Insurgent" is forgiveness .
“Insurgent” firmly took a place in the video libraries of spiritual seekers around the world, along with such masterpieces as “The Source Code”, “Eternal Shining of the Pure Mind”, “The Matrix”, “Inception”, “Memento”, “The Butterfly Effect” and others. Don't miss it!
For those of you, dear readers, who are a seeker and want to dig deeper into the topic of forgiveness, I recommend the book “The Disappearance of the Universe”.
10 out of 10
