A whole post-apocalyptic film, a continuation of another bestseller book and a one-year-old film that broke the box office, the plot of which is based on the search for a person who can open a video on a flash drive. Seriously, 2 hours is devoted to this!
Continuation of the epic teenage dystopia about the degenerative society of the future, divided by someone for some reason into 5 factions, in order to artificially divide ordinary people by their talents in order to identify among them ordinary people who combine several talents. This is not a joke.
Shortly after the events of the first film, the characters found refuge on a farm of friendliness. The attack on the abdication carried out by Janine in the first part was completely able to throw on the divergents. It is amazing how imperceptibly a huge number of soldiers of fearlessness, destroying renunciation could not attract attention and society scooped up a duck about divergents. At the same time, almost two hundred Tris henchmen, with weapons and war skills, took refuge in the center of the city, not wanted by anyone.
We are also introduced to the homeless, that is, with outcasts, which this society has spawned a huge number. And the acquaintance begins with a fight and several corpses, but after hearing the name of Fore, the fight stops and they, it turns out, have long been looking for homeless people. Photographs in this world died out with the brakes on trains. It is striking that apart from 5 factions, outcasts can no longer go anywhere - banal to builders and finally repair their city. Since the first film, the devastation has gotten worse, but nobody cares, nobody cares. Why should society breed people who are angry with the system who simply do not fit any of the factions? Where are the builders, plumbers, penguin lifters and all the other professions? And is it really impossible to throw them on friendliness, let them take care of farms, there is definitely a huge talent inherent in the example of fearless or polymaths do not need. Everything is better than loitering, angry and useless bums. Oh yes, there you also need to walk with a lying smile and repeat to everyone you meet "peace be upon you" like some sectarians.
Why is erudition concerned with creating computer systems and all sorts of serums, and not creating, for example, cars, helicopters, scooters ... at least some means of transportation? So why do the just (or like them) have armed guards, so not only fearlessness can learn how to handle weapons? What do they even do if they want to put Tris on trial in erudition? Why is the movie so stupid that every minute a couple of questions arise.
Getting to Janine, Tris, having seized the weapon, does not notice an open door the size of a wall, but agrees to the conditions of the experiment. And the experiment itself can only withstand a divergent of 100%... what? In the film there are 10, 40, 50 and so on percentage divergents. How's that? And the cameras in Janine's lair are installed anywhere but the lab and corridors, allowing the heroes to walk around and shoot the resisters. All 2 hours of thought and slipped to urological-gynecologic terms. I feel the authors’ sick list full.
A few words on the pluses. If you compare it with the first part, you can see an improvement in the production. However, most of the scenes with special effects account for the imitation of factions in the experiment. A kind of parody mixture of either Star Wars ( Stormtrooper syndrome pursues all without exception fearless), or the Matrix, or complete nonsense. And I lean towards the latter as the closest option. But the most important plus - the amount of hatred and anger when watching this delirium was less than in the first part.
I remember watching Divergent during the scene about the capture of the flag, asked two girls why Fore left his team without giving commands for further action, and went for Tris, got the answer - because he loves her. That is, the main contingent for which this film is designed does not care about the stupid illogical inconsistencies of this, let me call it, fantastic epic, because she is so unhappy, and he loves her. That even the Hunger Games, with its senile plot stretched out the whole story and did not slide into total nonsense about ... what the hell is this film about?! Why, in the 200 years of the existence of this society, no one thought of organizing an expedition and exploring the world beyond the wall, and are only engaged in clarifying the relationship between factions. And these relations cannot be established even within the same city and divided into factions with clearly defined functions. This film is nonsense, boredom, despondency, short haircut Tris, parody of the matrix, hatred.
The first film “Divergent” was warmly received by young viewers and collected a decent amount of money around the world, so the continuation did not take long to wait. A new chapter titled "Insurgent" reveals the continuation of the story of a young girl Tris. She lives in a society where everything is controlled and every individual is destroyed. Tris is a divergent and a threat to the system of this rigid society. The girl is the strongest divergent who can open a mysterious box that carries a message to the world.
I was interested in seeing the sequel, but I have to admit, I was expecting more. The film turned out to be fleeting, its plot is simply sucked out of the finger. I wanted to see something more exciting. The sequel turned out to be a one-time blockbuster for cinemas.
In the second film, the young and beautiful duo again entered Shailene Woodley and Theo James, to whom "Divergent" brought world fame. Both actors were well suited to their roles, and the young actress was in this part in some new light. Most of all in this blockbuster, I liked the main villain, which was so chicly played by Kate Winslet. It was really nice to look at her. The villain got what she needed. In a small role, it was interesting and unexpected to see Naomi Watts.
Divergent, Chapter 2: Insurgent is an American, youth, fantasy blockbuster of 2015. The film has a beautiful poster, a tempting trailer and a good cast of actors, the movie itself is disposable and a little empty. After watching it, you think: what is this movie about? Pure action, adrenaline, cool scenes, and the movie itself for once.
6 out of 10
I have not read the book, so I am based on what I have seen. Although, considering what I saw, I do not even want to take the book into my hands.
I understand that the film is aimed at teenagers and they will eat everything as it is, without delving into the plot and the quality of the film. But it's not just teenagers watching it! The film abounds in just a huge amount of stupidity, meaninglessness of scenes, dialogues and other things. I don’t know how to spend $110M, but I don’t know what the details are. They're more like that.
To begin with, I didn’t know what that part was about. Maybe I missed something, fell asleep somewhere (with such dialogues I admit it), well, maybe I’m just stupid and the film is not for my mind, but... 2 hours the heroes run, jump, mumble something. It wasn’t until about halfway through the movie that I realized they had to open the box to listen to the message. In short, the whole film can be described like this: 'pee-pee, snot-snot, stupid dialogue, senseless murder, more stupid dialogue, the end'.
The scene with the train. Jumped in front of the train. Yeah, it looked more or less normal. Okay. The positives are over. Then the heroes run after the train to get into it. That is, at first the train was rushing at high speed, and then he specifically slowed down so that the heroes could catch up with him. Is that it? The question is: “What are the cars made of?” At first, bullets fired by fugitives in pursuit, stitch through at least 4 layers of metal. Well, it's a super modern rifle, let's say. Which, by the way, has absolutely no returns . Then, during the fight, someone just takes and stabs ... or cuts through ... the wall of the car. That's the coolest part! Fight! That is, first punched each other's faces, threw some people off the train, broke someone's arm, and then: '- I'm Tobias. - Oh, cool, we were looking for you, go with us!' Couldn't we just find out and not have a fight?
Court. Why was the introduction of the serum accompanied by different sounds, as if Fora her & #39; shot & #39; and it was smoothly introduced? Come on, it's little things. How can serum deliver pain when resisting telling the truth? My knowledge of biochemistry cannot explain this. Why ' court' sentencing Fore, but no divergent? I wanted to see her sentence too, so sit back and think what they said.
This scene shows us that they have a court, even a fair one. But at the same time, Fore simply took and executed one of the fearless. Just put a bullet in, without trial. What is better than others?
Simulations. Maybe that’s the only thing in the movie. But it's not without sin. I got hooked on the fearlessness simulation scene. During all the actions of the heroine, it is striking that she absolutely does not make efforts where physical strength is required. It pulls up, flips over, climbs the ledges so easily that the muscles do not even tense. It's like in a simulation, gravity is much smaller. That is, it is clear that the tricks themselves are not delivered qualitatively.
Before the last simulation, the security guard, I'm sorry, forgot his name, injected her with some kind of paralytic. Actually, why didn't it work right away? Namely, they work: injected - immediately acts. And then she almost passed the simulation and somehow miraculously it worked at the right moment. What? What is this about?
The stupidity of dialogue. Just a few examples:
- On the train. Kalib: 'Eer, is this the fabric for the garment of renunciation? .. ' Well done! Defused the situation! I still don't understand what this question has to do with it. I would ask him what kind of perfume he uses.
- After the trial, Tris walks and Kristina stands in the way of Sama and says, '. Go away.'. I mean, she stood up and said go. She doesn't know what she wants. . .
- In the simulation room, a security guard pointed a gun at her head and threatened her. What a stupid scene, politely, that they need her alive and well 146% will not kill.
- The scene at the table with Fore's mother. Fora hits the table, freaks out and leaves. Mother Faure: 'Do you want me to help you put him down?' What? What nonsense? You'll have to change your diapers.
And that kind of dialogue throughout the film. There is not enough room to mention everything.
And more. We are told things in the film that we understand only through dialogue. The characters are not revealed at all. Tris supposedly hates himself, as we're told in the last simulation. Yes, it glimpsed in the beginning of the film, but it was not recorded. Fore's mother says he's seen as a leader. Oh, God, it's not shown at all. I'd rather believe Tris is seen as a leader. That is, we are just pushed some information that we would never understand from the actions of the heroes. Why did Brother Tris turn ' to the side of evil'? Not shown either. But it shows him being heresy with Tris. It's very depressing... I also don't understand why the city is post-apocalyptic. As far as I can remember, there wasn’t so much global carnage in Part 1 that the city suffered like that. How can you be 10% or 40% divergent? You can't be 20 percent pregnant.
In the end, the film for 1 time. And then, as a background, while you peel potatoes or cut salad.
In an authoritarian society there is no place for vanilla and snot
The continuation of the story of a girl named Tris, who is very, very similar to Kitty from The Hunger Games (not in appearance, but in image), has become even more vanilla and snotty.
If the first part was still interesting to watch, draw parallels, observe a rather unusual division of society into layers according to their qualities, the second turned out to be such “Twilight” in the authoritarian regime of the post-apocalyptic world.
I didn’t like the image of Tris. Was it possible to change her appearance so that the polymaths would not recognize her? They cut her hair so that the girl looked like a tomboy. Shailene Woodley herself, who played the main role, in principle, does not belong to the first beauties - and the shape of the eyes is different, and the nose is not pretty enough, and the outlines of the oval face are too round, but what they did with her now - just turned into a horror story.
This is particularly noticeable in some scenes where Tris's face appears swollen, as if she had been bitten by bees. It was as if she had been dipped in a hive with bees.
I did not like the fact that the whole tape was smeared in vanilla snot: “I need you.” I love you, I don't know what we're going to do, but I love you and we'll figure something out. Too much talk and exhortation about “the two of us,” about “how we’ll live together growing goats and chrysanthemums in the garden.”
I will immediately say that I have not read the book and maybe everything is painted in it (although some novels are notable and the film does not look like a print edition), but all this running around one city looks too stupid. Can't polymaths catch "enemies of society" in Chicago, part of which has been destroyed? Are the polymaths and some of the fearless ones who joined them so oblique that they cannot get into one single person with a heavy fire?
It is also unclear why everyone believes the polymaths. Why should the faction “Sincerity” not invite the leader of “Erudition” to their place and arrange an interrogation with prejudice regarding the events of the first part or the attack on “Friendship” in the second? They are sincere, how can one live next to the aggressor and tolerate him, and listen to speeches about the fact that one single person organizes an attack on the Renunciation, but at the same time, the fearless fighters, those who took part in the attack, like under the leadership of Tris, then remain unpunished and serve the polymaths?
Were they all killed and there were no witnesses who could shed light on what had happened?
In general, the first film was much more interesting.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
Well, I can't understand these girl movies. The Hunger Games, The Guest, 50 Shades of Grey These films are so banal, but also so popular that there is no objection. Is it enough a couple of drops of tears and snot, a couple of kisses and half an hour of jogging holding hands to the female half of the audience liked the film? I may not be a strong romantic, but I know how to distinguish between poor quality and sincerity.
It is necessary to show on the poster a militant couple and immediately such a hype, ala “Twilight”, and who do you like better, a wolf or a vampire? What about realism? And then they wonder why men are such assholes, took advantage of the naivety of girls. You bite yourself, you need to be smarter, and these paintings are an example of this, so banal, but you like it.
The first part liked the post-apocalyptic background, isolation and extreme. And this atmosphere was diluted by the existence of quite real mean people who exist in any team. But then it turned into some kind of cheap love story and that story leaked into the second part. And now I can not react positively to what is happening, because this fictional romance eclipses all the above advantages. At stake are human lives, dangerous deeds, fights, wars, all sorts of bloody conflicts, but there is no blood, no cruelty, only love and snot. A pure fairy tale for little girls, where love saves the world and your lover will always come for you breaking through a hail of bullets.
Even more spoiled the picture of computer graphics, which caught the eye with special effects. Not to mention the environment. Some local commentators see this as a plus. More graphon, less realism. Graphon and snot, snot and graphon, a little joint runs and again graphon, snot ... A masterpiece.
Such films weaken the psyche of people, making them naive, stimulating their desire to hover in the clouds, dream about a prince on a white horse, about consequences without consequences (sorry for the tautology). As a viewer who was forcibly dragged and forced to watch by her lover, I will rate the film at 6-/10, just so as not to offend those who liked it. To view once with the second half is suitable.
What a feeling this picture is! There is distrust, and skepticism, and disgust, and even nostalgia, and in its most terrible sense.
Well, tell me, what can this film with a wise, and besides a long title teach? Does Tom need to cut his hair to change his life? Or, perhaps, walking with a gun? And it is quite possible to spare neither oneself nor the moviegoer, torturing oneself with moral torments with all the ensuing consequences? At least that's the impression. And why are we surprised that teenagers become more violent? Rating, for a moment, 12+ (by the way, the book on higher mathematics, which I bought a couple of months ago, was seriously written proud 18+). This world has long since gone mad.
My only question is, why do we allow another continent, another mentality and other values to penetrate and master our moral values? Why is there no censorship, especially for teen films? Yes, I understand perfectly well that not only cinema affects the education of minds. But it's crucial because books aren't as valuable to young people right now. But an interesting, developing movie can make you read the book on which it was shot. And here's the system by which you can get young people to learn the magical world of literature. But, unfortunately, no one who is “at the top” needs it. You, as they say, solve your problems related to the upbringing of children.
Now, let's take a quick look at the movie. Acting skills: Sorry, I didn’t see them. The playfulness that is present in the film borders on the famous pofigism: “We made this film from one of the best-selling books, you have to go to it and look at this work of the writer, director and all the actors.” It does not matter whether you like it or not, but we will collect a lot of money, and this is our main goal.
Soundtrack: everything according to the canons, a song and a life-affirming melody at the end.
Special effects: a lot, a lot. And in the pursuit of special effects, the whole point is lost.
Scenario: running, jumping and shooting children in an attempt to save the world from impending disaster. We've seen it somewhere before, haven't we? But most of all, I was happy with the ending. I thought that such nonsense could only be in “Maze Runner”, but I was wrong.
The film is not recommended for me to watch. Find something better than this mediocre creation of human hands, and preferably with meaning.
2 out of 10
They have already been deverged, to be honest, by these divergents and their insurgents. Drive a normal movie with meaning, good acting and at least a little original plot. I mean, what am I doing? This type of movie, if it appears on screens, is very rare, and the producers do not pour much money into their pockets. Another thing - insurgents, divergents and all sorts of different - blue and red jays of the mockingbird with their quantitative to terribly stretched series, which one left collects not a small granny from the people, eager to see the so-called "action".
I was peeling green peas. Yeah, it was. Mom made me peel a whole bunch of green peas. Well, in order to somehow pass the time and not feel so much pain in the fingers, I decided to distract my eyes and brains by watching the second chapter of Divergent, who now seems like an insurgent too. It's a fucking pharmaceutical thing. What do you got out of your head? Well, there's a new drug called Insurgent. Take two pills after your main meal. Since the first part was spitting from my feet to my spine, and the flood to my head, the attitude to the second film was appropriate. Which, in principle, was the right move.
The second part is as murky and boring as the first introductory film with the main character Tris, which is ridiculous, pathetic and, in an idiotic way, performed by Shailene Woodley. There's this whole girl named Tris that belongs to the title of the movie. She is a divergent who, at will (and she clearly does not have one), can make a revolution in the future and destroy the order created by a bad aunt named Janine. That in the first part, and in the second, this same Janine is hunting divergents, fearing that they will awaken determination and grow iron eggs, with which they will be able to reboot the system and meet with the architect, where Neo will choose love and condemn Zion to destruction, but that is another story.
I have never read or heard of the book personally. And not because I don’t read books, it’s just modern fiction is such shit that I equate reading and watching something from this area with the brutal murder of my free time. Well, if the fees are going, the money is dripping, then people like it. It's weird, though. Well, in any case, exactly the moment in which you understand that the film is empty, and even with a worn-out theme of the “beautiful future”, where people are morons, the bad hero is frightened by his own power, and the main fighters for freedom are not cool at all, but on the contrary, pathetic, but cute and believe in love. The casting director understands well that in the frame it is simply necessary to flash the snouts on the pumped boys. You have to go to the movie theaters.
In the meantime, back to the green peas that I've almost peeled. After all, time passed unnoticed. I managed to finish the work, and evaluate the film, which would not be exactly watched, allocating him some specific time. But under green peas such a mud to assess just normal. There will still be films, somehow I can’t prevent their production personally, because what can a guy who just peels green peas do to Summit Entertainment? Technically, the film may be attractive, but the idea itself, it ... no, it is devoid of the slightest passions around the same characters or around the whole world, divided into factions or capitols, I am even entangled in all this shit.
3 out of 10
We are finally waiting for the sequel to Divergent. A movie that many expected to see, including myself.
Plot.
In the film, we see what happens to the heroes after the target of polymaths became divergents. But if before they posed a threat to society, now they must help the erudition to make a breakthrough-open the box where the answer to what to do with divergents, who they really are and what will happen to the factions next is possible. Tris realizes she's the only one who can do what Janine wants - open the box.
Film.
Most of the film we see Tris is tested by all factions, so in this part there is not as much action as in the previous one, there are almost no chases, there are not so many fights and get ready to watch computer graphics, and good computer graphics.
If in Divergent we see the “new society” as a whole, get acquainted with it, then in Insurgent the center is Tris, her experiences.
Heroes.
Tris. An honest girl who doesn’t want anyone to suffer because of her and is willing to sacrifice her life for it.
Fore. Just as brave and true a man as they say. He protects Tris as best he can and tries to find new ways to solve the problem of opening the box.
Peter. Well, where without that good asshole? He is certainly not the most honest hero, but he still makes you laugh (or at least smile). And at the very last moment he does everything according to his conscience.
Zhanin. As always in his repertoire, he tries to do everything possible to achieve his main goal, so there is no price even for human life.
Caleb Still my most disliked character. As a scoundrel and lived under the motto "Faction above blood" nothing has changed.
P.S. Many people didn’t like The Insurgent because many of the details of the book were changed (and I like the first part, too), but evenly, I’m even glad, because when I read the book, I felt doomed in some ways. It seemed that the heroes still could not avoid trouble. But when it was different in the movie, it didn’t bother me. After all, how few films can give us hope that a happy end is possible.
8 out of 10
All right, I'm kidding, there's only one proletarian character for the whole movie, the rest of the hardworking extras are either dying out and bleeding at the very beginning, or they're ramming the revolution in the future. It seems like everything in life, but realism from fiction is not necessary, even ricochets here do not happen, from a purely artistic point of view, the film is again weak and does not reach Neil Blockamp, for example. Including it can be seen that, instead of neatly smearing the special effects on timing most of the budget, the producers broke into two or three scenes at the end of the film, so the screenwriter, with all the desire as usual, could not fit into the film and half of the book, outstanding beauties from the operator can not be expected, the actors and director also coped with the tasks exactly as required, and no nomination more – in this regard, everything is like in the Hunger Games, which many appreciate much better only because they were filmed earlier.
BUT. From an ideological, life point of view, this is an impeccable educational program about where everything comes from and how it really is. Timid, frail and frankly plush nerds-heels are arranged here by hard workers in the factory completely on a par with aggressive rambals, hatred of the native mother makes the peasant see in the second half all that he lacked in childhood and be her happy slave, the support of the security forces is a key condition of the revolution, the leader of the Bolsheviks here sharply contrasts with the co-operative of rusty garages feeding her not because “adored, how she will defend the interests of the people if she is not homeless”, but because even the smallest ponies do not like grandmothers – there is nothing terrible rain and nothing in this terrible blow.
And a lot of small details, spoiler that does not make sense.
When I read the first book of the trilogy, I liked it, but I finished the second with almost no interest. Not ideal, of course, but not fused. What do you see in the movie?
Slack, slag, slag. The movie is ruined. Starting with the ABSOLUTE coup of the original plot (the box, the testing, the friendly stomping behind the city wall, although you can not lure them there in the book), the removed characters (Cara and Fernando are wanted!) and episodic characters who appear only in a couple of scenes (Yuraya), die almost immediately after the appearance (Marlene) or do not die at all in spite of the book plot (where Lynn’s death and the admission that she loved Marlene not only as a friend?). It is unclear why Christine suddenly rushed to look for Will, without previously removing the love line in the first part of the film, it is unclear how she even forgives Tris (in the book – of course, here – no).
What do the authors of this picture offer us? Bed scenes that make you sick, boring shootings, too many landscapes.
Outcome? From a book that could be filmed as candy, made shit. Everything is cut and forced into the framework of teenage movies: a lot of action and kisses, little sense. I watched the whole session because it was unbearably boring. I was sorry for the money I spent.
2 out of 10.
And lastly. I am surprised by those who say that I have never seen anything better than this, and I just want to ask them one question: what else have you seen so low-grade?
The title for her review was chosen for a short time, because the whole essence of the narrative boils down to about the following: who, or what is "insurgent", and why is this word mentioned in the title of the film?
So: Insurgents (Latin insurgentes, unit. insurgens - "rebels") - armed detachments of the civilian population opposing the authorities. (Thanks to Wikipedia for interpreting).
That's a pretty good title for the movie. Before my eyes immediately rises battle action scene with a detachment of armed guys in protective equipment. They bravely and harmoniously storm the “camp” of opponents, periodically losing someone from the group.
Well, that would make sense to me personally. What I certainly did not expect - the constant runs of young guys and stupid tearful dialogues from the category:
Because of me, everyone will die!
- You're wrong! And if so, the main thing is that you are alive!
Yes, yes, very touching and sacrificial. If I were among the supporters of Tris and her boyfriend, I would have long since left this friendly company, wishing everyone good luck.
It's not about my cowardice. On the contrary, like most fans of dystopias, I often imagine myself in the place of colleagues of the main characters. But forgive me, the main characters are divided!
Here for Katniss from District 12 I would go without hesitation, she is strong in spirit, smart, ready to sacrifice herself for the sake of family and friends. What about Tris? Weak in all respects, the girl (we all remember in the first part that it took her great trouble to cross the red line in the rating of recruits of the Fearless faction), capricious and infantile, having no attachment to family (quite cool relations with her brother), or friends (do she have them?), or anyone at all.
But let’s leave the global subtext of the film for a moment and move on to issues close to everyone.
So, did Tris have any friends? Surely everyone will immediately remember the beautiful mulatto, whose lover the main character killed. But here comes the question: They were friends? Based on the first part, I got the impression they were just friends. Young girls who find themselves in an unfamiliar place in an unusual company. A comparison with freshmen comes to mind, in order to avoid pressing on the part of older comrades grouping together. Same here. Yes, the girls are familiar, but live and even sleep on the next bed, have several mutual acquaintances and go to the same “lessons”. All... I don’t know about the book, but in the film about their strong friendship is not said a word.
Girlfriend's boyfriend GG... There's another blunder. Judging by the first part of the film, there were no tender feelings between the young people. There were no feelings at all.
Another controversial point is the love line of GG and pumped pitching. It is not possible to speak about Fourth in a serious tone:
A) he is too typical, a kind of TP in the male version: rocking, stylist and his tattoo master,
B) this character is completely devoid of any semantic load and emotional subtext.
I still don’t know how this couple formed. Okay Tris, a quiet and modest woman who fell in love with a tough guy, with an excellent press and a cold-blooded character. But what did he find in her? I don’t doubt that the actress herself is quite attractive, but there is no emphasis on this in the film. Her appearance is not shiny, like the moon on a dark night, there is no character as such and there was no, and long ago she was not the most talented beginner. Then what? There is no answer to that question. Viewers are simply invited to take on faith: Biatrice and mulatto best friend, Biatrice and Fore (pretty as it is) love each other, all have deep feelings and strong experiences.
Against the background of all the above, I do not even want to describe the relationship between the main character and her family. It's simple: nobody cares. Sounds rude, but it is. The brother does not care about the fate of his parents and sister. His parents, Chuck Norris in his best years, are fighting on the side of the rebels (I don’t even remember, to be honest, whether they survived or not). Three Everything that happens is no more exciting than her brother.
All more or less significant scenes, not thought out and cut. The struggle of the heroine with his inner self. Two minutes of staring with the phrase, a la, "I'm not afraid!" I forgive myself! - That's the whole scene.
There is much more to say about this film, but there is no desire.
The result: a meaningless film in its performance, not endowed with any originality and originality. Heroes are template and not interesting. In the course of action there are more and more new questions, not related to the actions of the film.
Let's say: why in 200 years no one has puzzled himself with the restoration of destroyed buildings? Why does someone voluntarily beg (hello to Renunciation and Friendship), while a whole ravine in the person of the Erudites and the Sincere chirps in new skyscrapers, stupidly sitting leather chairs? Why do you even need factions? Why are they like that? Why didn’t anyone go outside the walls?
Some questions... And note that none of them has anything to do with the fate of the main character.
4 out of 10
Set records for the speed of film adaptation, “Insurgent” was released on the screen just three years after the first publication of the literary source. Being a hundred pages larger than the first volume called Divergent, the second book received $ 30 million more production budget and a new director. The results of the first weekend, however, were lower than expected (recovering, however, all costs), and the reviews of the audience and critics have become much less favorable than they were a year ago when meeting the heroine named Beatrice Prior.
The fact that this variation of adolescent adventures in the dystopian world (where society is divided into factions according to abilities and inclinations, and unselected strict selection is expelled), do not contain deep philosophical foundations, but are based solely on borrowings and market flair writer Veronica Roth, was clear already from the "Divergent": the idea of self-determination within a totalitarian society was lost among the plot lines about the love and friendship of the girl Beatrice and axe action inserts. However, this narrative looked very decent, possessing the right morality. But in “Insurgent” exciting scenes that hold the viewer’s attention in view of the lack of intrigue, became an order of magnitude less, and the drama of the relationship, meanwhile, could not be read and transferred to the screen even by the efforts of three screenwriters (among whom was the most talented Akiva Goldsman). As a result, two hours of screen time serve as an example of the fact that accurate adherence to the methodology for the production of teenage films and marketing calculations almost never give positive results when it comes to art.
In such franchises that have already become classics as “Harry Potter” and “The Hunger Games”, the form and content complement each other – a fairy tale and exciting fiction, not only rely on eternal values, but also contain vivid images, metaphors, may be incomprehensible to young viewers who came to the cinema to see their favorite characters, but easily read by the older audience. For example, the logical line is built between the “dirty-blood” Hermione and the fact that at some point on her hand appears a kind of inscription (read, numbers), indicating its insufficiently “correct” origin. Or the scene of the storming of the dam in the third part of the “Hunger Games”, which evokes the barricades and the banner of the Republic. In “Insurgent” there are no images and metaphors, statics prevails over dynamics, and the formalism and indispensable attributes of teenage fiction (an attractive heroine, her no less attractive boyfriend, all-powerful villains and overcoming any difficulties) seem more important for the creators of the picture than the story told.
Director Neil Berger, who directed a decent film based on the book “Divergent”, was replaced by Robert Schwentke. Such a reshuffle did not entail qualitative results, since Insurgent is essentially a set of scenes unrelated to anything other than the presence of the main character, in which the diligent work of the production artists is visible, coupled with the helplessness of the scriptwriters and the desire of the producing studio to the PG-13 rating. We can assume that this clumsiness arose as a result of the replacement of Berger on Schwentke, who does not have any cinematic achievements, while Berger in the asset “The Illusionist” and “Darklands”, and recruiting new writers. What the studio wanted to achieve, completely changing the creative team – it is unclear, to repeat the success of the “Hunger Games”, which Francis Lawrence gave a second wind, failed.
If in "Divergent" even unfamiliar with the novel, the viewer was exhaustively clear course of events, then what are the goals and motives of the heroes of "Insurgent" for this part of the public remains a mystery - Beatrice and her lover move through the territory of the reservation, protected from the desert by a wall, and chaotically come into contact with its inhabitants and the main antagonist named Janine. At the same time, the director does not observe the tempo-rhythm at all and it is absolutely impossible to understand the day or hour passed between certain events (the same could be observed in Peter Jackson's "Battle of the Five Armies").
Perhaps the reason for the fact that the film literally falls into separate sketches and does not contain any trunk line, served as significant edits and abbreviations of the literary source, and this is legitimate if we consider "Insurgent" as a whole. But it does not stand up to criticism within the framework of individual scenes - for example, a vivid example of this is the interrogation of the main characters in the headquarters of the faction "Sincerity", which the lack of logic in the questions asked will perplex almost anyone, and even more so, who read the novel.
The director tried to compensate for the lack of action with timid attempts to introduce a sexual component, but it turned out to be extremely awkward in view of not only the age restrictions of the picture, but also the lack of sensuality (which is most obvious for those who saw the White Bird in a snowstorm and the naked Shailene Woodley having sex with Thomas Jane, it will be extremely obvious). Also, despite a number of fights, there is no blood and mutilation in the world of Insurgent. Only once the crimson color will appear in the scene of the beating of the hero Miles Teller, but compared to how cruel and bloody it was in the novel – what happens on the screen is simply nothing.
The visual side of Insurgent is sometimes questionable – the special effects in some scenes seem to be at the level of technology 10 years ago, and the work of the costume designer and makeup artists raises a lot of questions. For example, the painful thinness of Shailene Woodley, acquired by her for the film “The Fault in the Stars”, is not hidden by the costumer, but on the contrary – is emphasized by short sleeves and an open back. This point is important, since her heroine Beatrice in the plot has a physical form that allows you to enter into confrontation with opponents superior to her in strength, and in the complete absence of muscle mass this is simply impossible. And the way Beatrice’s hairstyle changes from scene to scene – from styling to hue and length of hair, Luke Evans and Orlando Bloom, whose heroes in the aforementioned “Battle of the Five Armies”, have undergone similar astounding metamorphosis for the viewer, would envy.
If for the sake and what is worth watching "Insurgent" so for the sake of the cast. Shailene Woodley is brilliant, although she has nothing to play here, and the on-screen partner in the person of Theo James does not stand the level set for her. Ansel Elgort and Miles Teller, playing secondary roles, their charisma easily eclipse the main romantic hero. But the participation of Kate Winslet and Naomi Watts in such a project is extremely doubtful, it adds marketing attractiveness to the film, but takes points from the reputation of the actresses, transferring them to the category of once famous, and thus able to attract the viewer to the cinema.
However, the finale of “Insurgent” is intriguing, although it does not make you languish in anticipation of the third part of the franchise, but definitely sets you up to watch it. But this does not remove the question of the quality of the film adaptation of the story about Beatrice Prior. Most of all, in this respect, the fans of Veronica Roth’s book are sorry, since instead of a really exciting film, they received an extremely careless sketch from a director interested more in the size of the box office, and not in considering the issue of overcoming their own weaknesses, to which the book version of “Insurgent” was devoted.
I haven't read any books, but Divergent enjoyed watching. The second part of the trilogy about the city behind the high wall and five societies, was not interesting. I'll explain why.
1 minus: Shailene Woodley got lost in this movie. Her role, initially, was quite complex: both dramaturgy and action scenes. Her character hardly develops. She is boring and constantly wants to whine. But she's a divergent, guys! She should be stronger. Her intuition, as always, does not fail, which is absolutely not impressive. She knows the answer, she does everything right, and the story ends. . .
2 minus: Stupid, banal dialogue. I watch the whole movie as some conversations are replaced by others. What's the message? They have never put forward assumptions like ' what is in this box?', ' What kind of life awaits us behind the wall reduced by ancestors?'. And, although Shailene conveys emotion well, it becomes boring after the first words.
3 minus: Why such an obvious ending? I was sad in the middle of the film when it turned out that Tris is a unique divergent and opens the chest with the message, because at the same moment, I knew that the contents would be a salvation. Period.
If you decompose the film into components – it’s kind of good: the plot continues, the actors’ play does not cause nausea, the end suggests a new beginning. In general, everything is too poor (except for special effects and Kate Winslet, who was given a few command lines).
I wanted to write a license for a long time, but I was not sure that I was ready.
First, the story itself. It is too crumpled and too much action takes place in 2 hours. I, of course, perfectly understand that this plot is easier to perceive by an ordinary viewer, but for me (a lover of the trilogy) caused confusion. I just didn’t get used to the situation.
Secondly, the disclosure of minor characters (Tris’s Friends, who were among the main characters in the book). I knew the names of the characters, but decided to check on my friend, who had not read the trilogy. She immediately said she didn't remember the names of these heroes.
Third, I was just killed by some of the characters. Like Tobias. In the first film, as a naive teenager, I did not notice any shoals in Theo’s game at all, but in Part 2 I knew perfectly well that his play was at a very low level. Especially at the headquarters of sincerity when he's injected with truth serum. I didn't believe him at all.
However, some of the characters performed very well. Kate Winslet was amazing, Naomi Watts also decorated this picture very well. Shailene Woodley and Miles Teller were also at a high level.
Compared to 1 film, I can say that the soundtracks were delighted. In 1 film dominated by the songs of Ellie Goulding, which made a sad dystopia some happy melodrama.
Originally it was expected that the 2nd movie would be much inferior to the first, but some, like me, expected more. Alas, I was wrong. I looked at the clock 2 times. Unfortunately, the producers were not able to show the picture at a high level.
6 out of 10
Or the beginning of a new one, or a specific failure.
My favorite trilogy. I waited for the premiere all year after the first movie. I couldn’t even get an objective opinion on this. It's in order.
First of all, plot. The plot is really cool, no matter what they say about the similarity with the “Hunger Games” and the like – these are completely different dystopias with their fates, tragedies and so on. A lot of people say it's just a story for teenagers, and they're kind of right. There are more than three million movies in the world, and I think some of them should be teen movies, right? Especially the message, especially for them. I liked how the director was able to conduct a chain of events, not missing important moments and not destroying the first ideas about the main character and her character.
Next is music. I didn’t pay much attention to that part, but overall it was good. In this film, it was not required much, only at some climax moments and these moments were emphasized well.
Shailene recently opened up to me as an actress and I have not seen her work before. But then it became interesting to see a few pictures with her participation and I really liked how she completely and without a trace gives her role. She is a really talented and very gifted actress. But it happens that such talent fades against the background of another main character. In this case, Fora. He did not open in this film at all and did not show himself from any side, the acting was bad. I think for people who haven't read the book, it's still a dark horse. No, of course, it is clear that he is a good guy and all that, but he has no emotional history like Tris.
In many trilogies as such, there is a beginning, development, culmination and, as usual, an end. Many people are unhappy with the boring line of events, although I wouldn’t say it was boring. I guess, more precisely, I know that this is development. There is usually nothing in these parts that you will focus on in the first or last part. The calm before the storm, isn't it? I really hope so. And I'm looking forward to the next film, hoping that this development will be the start of a good climax where it's going to be much more interesting. I can't be indifferent to this story, so upfront
It is known that Insurgent is a teenage movie. It deals with the themes of maximalism, individuality and the struggle against the system. With one BUT - the filmmakers frankly ' wave' in the direction of justifying nihilism.
In this regard, I would like to consider this film in comparison with the anime Psycho Passport.
Idea: In both the film and the anime, the action takes place within the system. The system is dystopian: there is a distribution of people on the shelves & #39, limited freedom of choice, maximum isolation from the external environment.
Heroes: In the anime, he is not only the Chief Crime Inspector, but also the antihero, Maxim Shogo. In Insurgent, the hero is a rebellious girl who did not meet any of the criteria.
Voiced thoughts: There are no voiced thoughts in Insurgent. There's a lot of drive, beautiful scenes, but no thoughts. What will the world look like after the rebels win? Do they realize that most people will not survive in the Beautiful New World 39?
So the whole fight of these rebels is the fight of cancer cells with the body?
The Psycho Passport suggests that yes, the system may be bad. People cannot exist without a system. People cannot live in anarchy. Isn't that what we see in a number of color revolutions '? Is this what we see after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
Hence the main idea voiced in the Psycho Passport: the law does not protect people - people defend the law.
What good can an insurgent say?
What will the world look like after the rebels win?
To go to the movies on “Insurgent” I approached thoroughly reading the trilogy of Veronica Roth, and now I basically knew what to do. To be honest, these books were a bit hard for me to read, unlike the same Hunger Games, which I easily coped with. And here’s what I can say that the film adaptation of “Insurgent” turned out better than the book. In my opinion, this was facilitated by the fact that they slightly changed the plot, of course the essence remained, but everything was reduced to one, unlike the book, I mean the artifact that should open the divergent, removed unnecessary characters, unnecessary dialogues that were in the book and this, in my opinion, benefited.
The film turned out to be quite dynamic, in principle, there were no saggings in the plot, the territory of events expanded, we were shown the factions of “Friendship” and “Sincerity” and out of the shadows came the factionists headed by Evelyn, Tobias’ mother. From a visual point of view, the film did not look bad, especially in terms of simulations Tris.
The actors. Shailene Woodley, Tris, in my opinion, she conveyed the emotions and experiences of her heroine well, as in the book she is trying to find herself, she took on the burden of responsibility for the death of her parents and the murder of her friend Will, it torments her and in the film it is perfectly shown, I would like to note that the changes in the image of Tris have benefited her, she began to look more serious and mature.
Theo James, Tobias, his character in this part also got a meeting with his mother, a tense relationship with his father, as in the book at a crossroads. What do I do? Where to go? Which side to take? All of these aspects were well reflected, and Theo James got into his role. Naomi Watts, Evelyn, is a woman who is on her own mind and can be called a “dark horse” who will still show her true face. Kate Winslet, Janine, as in the first part obsessed with the search for divergents and the goal of keeping everything under control, in my opinion, Winslet perfectly conveyed the coldness, prudence and severity of her character. Miles Teller, Peter, in this part his character becomes very important and you can say that by the end of the film he even empathizes.
In general, the film adaptation of “Insurgent” turned out to be quite fascinating, thanks to changes in the plot, if you compare it with the book. But the idea of the book is perfectly transferred to the screen, there are personal experiences of the characters, their doubts and torments, there are mysteries that need to be solved, there are enemies that need to be defeated, and in general, the movie turned out to be quite not bad and interesting, I personally liked it. I'm looking forward to it.
The first part of Divergent left behind a lot of questions that the upcoming sequel had to answer. "Divergent" number 1 was not always logical, to the plot periodically there were claims, but the overall impression nevertheless turned out to be positive. What can you say about Insurgent...
The story continues from the moment the credits went in the first episode. Somehow, the Ministry of Propaganda managed to twist the facts so that divergents were found guilty of all the troubles and blood spilled. They are hunted, especially vomit and dream Eruditsiya and Fearlessness (however, it is not surprising). At this time, the heroes seek refuge first at Friendship, and then in the den of the Rejected (but where they only do not look for it!).
All this is accompanied by a long and completely empty reflections of the characters on morality. In addition, the film has even more problems with logic than its predecessor. Let me give you an example: Tris, Fore, Caleb jump on the train at full speed, fleeing from a platoon completely cross-eyed Fearlessness. But the wagons are already occupied. A fight begins, during which several people are broken limbs, and someone may even be killed. When the three of our brave men are pressed against the wall, Fore says his name and they are calmly released. Just no comment.
The director tries to somehow smooth out sharp corners, stuffing his project with special effects. However, it is made clumsy, without any taste. There is a strong influence of The Matrix, but in this case it is not a compliment. It is not possible to use a ready-made idea correctly.
In the end, we have a disposable popcorn fantastic action movie. In principle, you can go to it if you do not know how to kill the next two hours or suddenly you are a fan of the book series. In other cases, walking is not recommended.
I’ll start with the general impression of the film, I liked it. Definitely. Sometimes, when watching a movie, it seems that it has been going on for a very long time, but in fact it takes about 40 minutes. Sometimes, even if you like a movie and it’s interesting, you still check how much you’ve watched and how much you still have. I really didn’t know what to expect from the second part of this fascinating and vivid story about dystopian Chicago and it probably played into my hands – the film was held in one breath and the thought never even came to mind to check the clock, and this is the most important thing.
Plot. One thing I knew for sure was that it would be radically different from the story shown in the first part. It always happens: at the beginning we see the innocent story of how it all began, kept in soft and bright colors, and then the atmosphere heats up, serious events begin with serious consequences, which entails a change in the mood of the narrative. Despite that, I loved the plot — first of all, the story itself — new characters, new mysteries, a completely different concept from the first one. And those characters with whom they were already familiar showed themselves from the most unexpected and new sides, which also cannot but please. There is a development of the relations set in the first part, and more importantly, they still do not come out on top, leaving room for the development of the story itself. As a result, we get a cheerful teenage fantasy-adventure film with the right amount of drama, which, in my opinion, was appropriate and pleasing to the eye. "Insurgent" does not seem long, does not sag, it is full of dynamics and harmoniously combines all genres.
Actors. I can’t help but praise someone from the cast, as they are perfect! I recently (a little less than a year ago) began to closely follow the career of the beautiful Shailene Woodley. She quickly became one of my favorites. Talented and beautiful, she perfectly conveys her character, showing her experiences and struggles with inner demons. And most importantly, Tris, which we see in the second part, is still the same Tris, which we met in the first: she is emotional, kind, confused and responsive, although she has become much stronger. Also, one of the main factors I started watching the franchise was another favorite on my list — Miles Teller. I really liked that his character got more attention in this movie than in Divergent. Rest assured, you won’t regret it either. I can't find fault with Miles' game. Despite the “negative” image, the viewer cannot but like it, and is it worth talking about the chemistry that it forms on the screen with Shay, despite the fact that their characters (cautiously, spoiler) are not in the best relationship. I will pass by the rest of the actors: before watching two films, I was skeptical of Theo James - I thought, another handsome main character, always confessing love to the main character, and no! Theo created an excellent image of a brutal and cold-blooded leader, in whose heart there is still room for love and warm feelings. A great acting was shown by the aspiring actor Ansel Elgort, to whom I wish only success in his career - for the actor he is really talented. I want to mention Jay Courtney separately, because many people call him a mediocre actor, but I want to assure you that this is far from the case - Jai also created a great image, which is at least pleasant to follow, and he did not pump up. And, of course, an excellent and graceful woman, Kate Winslet. She proved it to everyone long ago. We just have to watch her on the screen and admire, admire and admire again – in her place, I can’t imagine anyone else in this role, and I shouldn’t. The rest of the actors coped with their work, but it’s probably their characters – they just melted away against the background of the above.
Execution. The first part was shot by a fairly well-known and very good director Neil Berger, known to us for the films The Illusionist and Areas of Darkness. However, in the director’s chair of the second part was Robert Schwentke, who directed “RED” and “The Time Traveler’s Wife”. I don’t even know if changing the director was good for the franchise, but I’ll tell you for sure – I liked directing. The film is made beautifully, brightly (despite the rather gloomy atmosphere of events), dynamically. High-level special effects. In general, the visual range pleases the eye and looks spectacular. And most importantly, after the film there is no effect of understatement or thoughts like: "Here I would add this, and then removed this." Congratulations, Robert. Keep creating.
In conclusion, I don’t know the original source — who knows, maybe I would have said it differently. But this, of course, is a plus – I don’t know what will happen next and I’m looking forward to the sequel, which, I hope, will not disappoint, as well as able to adequately evaluate this work of art as a film, and not as a film adaptation. And you, my friends. Enjoy the adventures of Tris and KO.
For the premiere of “Insurgent” I booked tickets on the first day of rental. I read the book before reading it, so it would be very difficult to disappoint me. After all, I already knew in advance that a very small secret would be hidden in a large box. Therefore, you do not immediately set yourself up for action. This will be much less than in the first part, which affected my final assessment accordingly. Judging by fairness, “Insurgent” is a purely passable film for commercial purposes. But that's probably his biggest plus. It seems like nothing supernatural show, but damn it, it’s interesting to know the ending! Although I will not fall for this bait again and will not rush to buy a book.
The advantages of the film over the book, first of all, that here a little reduced remorse Tris and their ridiculous clarification of the relationship with Tobias. That’s why I want to thank the creators. Well, of course, the effects during simulations are also pleasing. By the way, the version in the film with the opening of the secret box I like much more. In the book, this was less interestingly played out as a degree of protection in Janine's office. And with this arrangement, the motivation of the main polymath in the hunt for divergents is somehow more logical. I have a special curtsey towards my beloved Naomi Watts. It was clear at once that Mommy looked too chic and young, but I am pleased with every appearance on the screen. Kate Winslet, as usual, played the best. She's got the perfect shot. Theo James has a purely aesthetic function. His influence on the story was minimized.
In general, it turned out to be a good commercial product, giving hope for an interesting ending in the next films. But if you evaluate it as a film adaptation of the novel, it was terrible. They twisted everything that could be lied to. First, Christina's line. Tris could well control herself under the influence of truth serum and consciously confessed. Here it was shown that she did not want to tell the truth, but had to. The episode was more funny than dramatic. It's like Shailene Woodley has Tourette's syndrome, but instead of swearing, she admits her crimes. Marcus was almost forgotten in the film. In the book, he was always a dark horse. Well, talking about such secondary characters as Tori, Yuraya, etc., does not make sense at all. But for all their shortcomings, two hours fly by unnoticed and interesting to know the ending. This is the most important thing for me.
It is worth admitting that dystopia has now strongly moved to another format. The more youthful. Someone does not recognize the new format, someone does not care about it and he looks purely because of the beautiful picture, but someone looks and hopes that the new format will bear fruit and I, I will not hide, count myself among these people. To be honest, “youth dystopias” are very slow in development and all the films of this genre only do that more copy each other than try to distinguish themselves and bring something new to the audience. A great example is the rivalry of the “giant” in this genre of “Hunger Games” with the young rival “Divergent”. And if at first it seemed that the books themselves were to blame, then later it becomes clear that books do not play a major role. “The Hunger Games” though unsuccessfully started in the 1st part, but the creators understand their mistakes and try to correct them later. And now, although there are also many complaints about the “Hunger Games”, the creators are trying to raise the franchise to the bar higher. But the creators of Divergent are trying to lower the franchise. I don’t know if the 1st part is too strong.
Traditionally, when you give a review of the 2nd part, always first talk briefly about the first. Well, I won't stand out and say a few words. Part 1 is a secondary product. The script seemed to be written according to some instruction. All the actions, plot twists, actions of the main characters, drama, action - all this was brought in sufficient quantity and put where it is needed. It has worked a million times and it will work again. I mean, let me tell you that the film was stable and everything was going as it should. But at the same time, this plus instantly turns into a minus, since the viewer can quickly get bored from such a secondary. The only entertainment he will find in this film is if he guesses all the subsequent events. The Hunger Games went on the same rake and later corrected the problem. The change of director and writers played a positive role in Part 2. In "Insurgent" also changed the director, screenwriters, and the operator in addition. Except it didn't make sense. It is based on the same “template” again. Drama, action, love scenes, etc. are still placed where they need to be. The protagonist plays the protagonist and the antagonist. And it feels like I'm looking at a secondary product based on a secondary product. It sounds silly, but there is no other way to call it. And this “copying” makes itself felt, since the sequel now has problems in the structure of the narrative. In the 1st part, they were also very few, while in the 2nd they can not be counted. First, they introduce action scenes that do not carry any meaning, and later the film hints that it could be cut. Further, the actions of the main characters and in most cases the heroine Tris performed by Shailene Woodley are not clear. At first, she does not want to perform an action, thinking that it is wrong, then after a few minutes she is suddenly struck by the thought of doing it. Well, Fore in the performance of Theo James here is just a "smokehead". The love for Tris from the fighter just blew his brains out. “To think, to assess the situation? Not you! I'd rather trust Tris because I love her! Well, later the film begins to sink into the inherited errors of the prequel.
When I went to Insurgent, I was hoping that the franchise, like The Hunger Games, would correct most of its mistakes and I would finally watch a good and interesting film, and it would be difficult to fall asleep in a session, encouraging myself to guess the next action. But I actually got more sleeping pills than before. And the worst thing is that even spectacular action does not help. The basis of the film ruins everything. The plot does not try to be interesting, but to the questions that arose in the last film, and does not want to answer. I’m not saying that Insurgent is a bad movie. You can watch, but I'm not sure you'll be happy after the session. Such secondaryness is very quickly bored.
Not all “epopies” of young-adult are awarded a successful film adaptation, and if for some it can be humanly offensive (remember at least the ruined potential of the “Vampire Academy”), others – like the trilogy of Veronica Roth – receive an unexpected gift of fate from directors and screenwriters. Transferring to the screen the empty throwing of immature - brain and body - characters in which the American writer got stuck in the second part of her novel-series would be extremely risky. Therefore, instead of the psychological traumas sucked out of the finger and “deepening” into a superficially thought-out political system, the creators of the film version went the proven way. Less words, more action. Well, less words, more body.
Fans of the franchise, of course, will be dissatisfied with such a free treatment of the source: the long-suffering Tris from the very first minutes actively waving her fists and scissors, running against a freight train and flattening the heads of offenders against concrete walls. And this is instead, as in the book, shivering at the sight of weapons, eavesdropping on adult conversations in the bushes, and cuddling your boyfriend/ex-coach. The latter still looks as spectacular as in a leather jacket, and without it – and no problem that he did not get dramatic scenes with on-screen dad and mom. It is not a pity that it was not necessary to play out stupid quarrels with the chosen one, which of them should die for the sake of the other; it is not a pity that it was not necessary to put on yourself the mask of the leader, the general of the revolution. Tobias is needed for a cute picture in romantic scenes and for greater persuasiveness in fights (after all, the girls did not have to save themselves). The only thing you can rebuke the creators is the rolling rating PG-13, which did not allow you to pay due attention to the characters in the semi-naked state.
I want to say a special thank you to the scriptwriters who radically redraw the indistinct plot of Insurgent. Let the intrigue with the magic box, which opens only at the behest of the Chosen One, and not very original, but it directs all the trimming of characters from faction to faction to some logical goal. Also, instead of describing in detail different communities and their customs, the creators are limited to a couple of spectacular details: listened to hypocritical wishes in Friendship – ran on, dined in the darkness of the catacombs at the Outcasts – and again on the road. A little more time is given to the sincere, however, in vain. No new visual decisions the director did not bring (except that Daniel Day Kim in the BC?), and tearful confessions of the central characters look pathetic smear. When the action finally moves to the Erudite central headquarters, one sighs with relief: finally the final battle with the unshakable Janine. Winslet is still flawless in her portrayal of obsession, hard heart and cold reckoning. What’s remarkable is that she barely moves in the entire film, unlike the young people who are always running somewhere. We see only a sharply delineated silhouette, a face completed as a geometric figure, and a steely, convinced look. Perhaps it is her image that pulls this teenage jelly to another level and makes you wait with trepidation for the outcome.
In the finale, by the way, the viewer is waiting for another surprise – and this is not the expected call for revolution, but references to “Ghost in the Shell” and “The Matrix”. Of course, the picture can hardly be called uplifting or innovative, but allusions to the classics work on some subconscious level. Tris in the first film was called the Chosen One, but it was in Insurgent that she justified herself.
I didn’t read the book because I don’t want to waste time, so those who read the book may laugh at my conjectures, but nevertheless I saw 3 questions in this film:
1 question: What should be the ruler?
2 question: The power of a system of government.
Question 3: Problem ' white crow' in the collective.
I'll start with 2 questions.
The film presents a system of factions, almost isolated states without strong interaction, at least among ordinary members. By joining a certain faction, people completely break all previous contacts of their lives. Faction is stronger than blood. And there's a leading faction that seems to allocate resources, and there's some interaction between factions. In the film, this role is given to the faction of abdication.
The very system of factions based on human qualities raises the question of who can be elected to the role of ruler.
Let’s start with the leading faction renunciation. In this faction there are people who have overcome all human feelings, for the sake of others, so to speak, altruists. It would seem that a politician should be such an altruist that no one was offended and everyone existed in the world. And as we can see from the movie, they lived 200 years. And then there was the problem of other power-hungry people who are ready for anything for the sake of power. The very essence of renunciation contradicts the struggle for power, and therefore, when inaction, power is lost, which happened in the first part of the film. Therefore, we say that this faction cannot be the governing, simply will not retain power.
The next fraction is benevolence. In short, people are happy to be taken care of and forgiven, but friendly people are objects for manipulation and hard influence. That is, the ruler will be like a movie (the head of the faction with the fearless) Allow others to do and will not protect their people. So they can’t lead either.
The truth fraction . Truth will always play in politics more by the method of influence than by the essence of politics. Sometimes you don’t have to tell the truth or half-truths or misunderstandings to win somewhere. I have never met anyone who does not cheat. At least everyone is cheating.
^ "B" is "Fearless". What a faction of strength and courage. The development of two primordial societies is either stronger, right, or constant wars, which is also bad for politics.
The fraction erudition. They believe that they are the ones to govern. Yes, but intelligence, when we choose a path, makes us inhuman, we come to a conclusion for the sake of the result. Because we're looking for the easiest way to solve all the problems. This leads to inhumanity and a lack of respect for the right of others to know. Using everything for the benefit of the system. As shown in the film, therefore, we, as people who know the concept of freedom, are also not satisfied.
And here comes the Divergent who includes everything. He can be absolutely open and understand the need to speak the truth and its power, overcome his fear, benevolent and mindful of others, intelligent, and able to suppress his feelings. I think it’s a good leader for the country.
So just for the fact that I was able to think about politics from the point of view of human qualities, thank you to the author and I did not look at it in vain.
The actors, well, not all the talents, but they did their job, I didn’t often see them lying. Maybe the main character shows little emotion, and often does not believe in what she says. But it is quite at the level of today’s stars. And that didn’t bother the movie.
Special effects are normal in them even if you look carefully you can see the hidden meaning of the struggle with the negative aspects of our souls.
I did not see any strong contradictions either, but perhaps someone looked more closely at me.
The white crow question, which has already been described in millions of films, is therefore not interesting. But the fact that it was turned on to me seems to have attracted teenagers who have just such problems. Which is also good and not much spoil the film.
6.5 out of 10
(Where 1 is the movie Arriving Train if it had been filmed in 2015, 10 is the Green Mile, or escape from the showshank)
Insurgent is the second film in the Divergent series dedicated to American dystopia in the distant future. A total of four films were planned, and they all follow Veronica Roth's books. If you haven't seen the first movie, Divergent, you won't understand Insurgent very well. If you saw the first movie, like me, the second one will probably disappoint you. Although the first film is difficult to call a masterpiece, there was nothing negative about it. Actions, dynamics, plot, heroes were not bored, and therefore the overall impression of viewing is positive. Something similar I expected from Insurgent, but alas, the second part was much worse.
The film develops very slowly, stretches like rubber, knitting, towing. There are many dialogues, but they are banal and uninteresting. There are few actions, and even with all the special effects, they do not cause any delight. Jumping, fighting, shooting, riding not on trains look unpleasant and fall short even to the average level. Heroes are dull. They don’t develop, they don’t move forward. And the main character, Tris, by the middle of the film and completely lost among what is happening around. The director, Robert Schwentke, of course, makes attempts to bring her back to the forefront, showing us love relationships and emotional excitement of the experience, but he does not get it well. The connection with Tris is always cut off, and this is not particularly worried about the heroine.
What you see on the screen is more like the bridge that leads from Divergent to the third film. And when you walk on the bridge, the bridge itself is not particularly noticed, the main thing is to get to the other side. In the case of Insurgent, this bridge is sluggish, unsightly and 199 minutes long, and it is only worth crossing if and when the third film in the series comes out. In the meantime, it is better not to approach it, because this film itself is an empty one, created so that the viewer does not forget about Tris, the factions, and the dilapidated Chicago of the future.
For me, it is better to take everything that is happening in Insurgent, cut it down to twenty minutes and add it to the first film. Then it will be much more fun, and the story will not suffer, and the viewer will not sleep.
4 out of 10
Tris (Shailene Woodley) and Fore (Theo James) hide from the insidious and ruthless Janine (Kate Winslet), but this can not last long, because it brings the loss of many lives – people who are hidden and helped by fugitives – the fearless. Being 100% divergent, Tris becomes the number one target for Janine, who wants to discover the artifact - a message to the inhabitants of this world from ancestors that will shed light on the phenomenon of divergents. In the game for power also enters Evelyn (Naomi Watts) – the leader of the outcasts, who can not belong to any of the factions. Will Tris be able to make the right decision and become a salvation for the world in which she lives - an inner experience and an endless struggle with the regime and, most importantly, with herself - this is the main theme of this film.
I haven’t read Veronica Roth’s books, so it’s a complete surprise to me that the story unfolds in the film. It should be noted that, as a rule, the second parts of the trilogies sag somewhat (I am not talking about the third parts, if the last book is divided into two films) and are passing with a boring course of events. Here, as in the first part, there is tension, you do not know who is a traitor and who is a friend. There is a love theme between Fore and Tris in the film, but there is no love triangle annoying everyone. The ending is impressive, so I want to see the third part, which in any case will be different from the previous two.
The plot is very dynamic. The film is full of shootings, chases and fights. Special effects and 3D effect are performed at a high level. Very fascinating is the very atmosphere of this dystopian society, which sometimes can not go against the faction even for the sake of a loved one, as can be seen in the example of Caleb (Ansel Elgort) - brother Tris. The musical accompaniment is powerful and memorable - what you need for a blockbuster.
As for acting, Shailene Woodley is a good actress, but the drama is still closer to her, but, on the other hand, there is nothing to rejoice in this film, where her parents died and the world is about to collapse. Toe James, as always, is brutal, caring and patient, here he is somewhat lost against the background of Tris' experiences. It was nice to see Naomi Watts - her character should be older, according to the plot, but she is very good in the role of the leader of homeless outcasts living by their own rules. Octavia Spencer, Miles Teller, Ashley Judd, Ansel Elgort - all coped well with their roles.
I think that the picture should certainly be a success among the public who read books and just a huge number of schoolchildren and teenagers who have not yet had time to get fed up with the followers of the Hunger Games. It’s a good movie to spend the weekend with friends.
“Divergent” and “Insurgent” are amazing, in my opinion, paintings. I confess that I have read the trilogy, and it is truly a monstrous book. I don’t even know what to compare, but in short, the differences from the films: the main character of the books is an uncontrollable hysterical, obsessed with renunciation and self-sacrifice, For... it is simply disgusting to read from his face, because in the first book the description from the outside is brutal almost macho, fearless, attracts the truth? Yes, only in the third book the description on his behalf and everything ... the opinion about him is irrevocably stamped under a heap of unfulfilled hopes. Christina in the book is not the most pleasant person, Peter forked an eye out to a friend, Caleb was grinning from a divergent, you could suspect. Well, that's short of course. I do not recommend reading, you will only lose time. The third book is not to be chewed.
But movies... It is difficult to say what made them: whether the director Robert Schwentke, or Shailene Woodley is an outstanding actress with an extraordinary appearance and manner of acting, Kate Winslet, Miles Tenner or music.
Music, by the way, is beautiful, harmoniously fits into history.
I liked that the main characters did not have all these snot, boring conversations, some glances tell everything, and this is great. This kind of chemistry is rarely seen. Shailene and Theo's kisses (just kisses) are hotter than explicit sex in "50 Shades of Grey."
Shailene Woodley is singled out separately, since after the drama-melodrama “The Fault in the Stars”, she struck me and made me cry for a very long time. Very unusual, extraordinary personality and actress, with a non-standard appearance. All the understatement in Insurgent is in gestures and views. She deserves a tenth.
Theo James in the first part impressed more. But honestly, I don't know how he had to play to make me like it. He's a talented actor, but in "Insurgent" he's like furniture in places (no matter how hurtful it sounds). And the actress who plays his mother is generally “bypassing.”
Miles Teller is great, to his work I gravitate. Kate Winslet in a word - professional.
After reading a lot of reviews after watching “Insurgent”, I can not understand one thing: why compare the films “Divergent / Insurgent” with “The Hunger Games”, “Initiated” (in general, a failure), and I do not remember the titles, but with a similar plot you can type with a dozen more films.
Yes, I agree, the general structure of the world (after the apocalypse) is similar, but, in my opinion, there is a fundamental difference. I honestly watched a lot of these pictures, but Divergent/Insurgent changed my view of my own fears. Root. These films are not just a representation of the world divided into factions, they are overcoming their own fears, trying to become stronger, trying to fight. That's what got me so excited. Well, coupled with a good cast, so generally a great show.
Fighting your inner fears, demons, cockroaches, whatever you want, is the right thing to do. It inspires, and it encourages insecure people to become stronger, more confident.
This is the best thing a movie can do.
I bet 10 out of 10, Shailene Woodley, Miles Teller, Kate Winslet, the good mood after leaving the theater, but this movie ended the divergent for me, because I read three monstrous books and I know the end. I'll have enough dilogy.
10 out of 10
On March 21, I was lucky enough to be in the lucky category of people who saw the exciting movie Insurgent. Since I was excited about the first part of the film and the book, I just couldn’t help but go to the premiere of this film and not read the book before that. It is best to start reading after watching the movie. I tell myself this every time, but I do it differently. I just want to feel better about the atmosphere of a movie that is filmed. Let’s get to the movie itself.
Over a long period before the premiere, after watching a large number of trailers, teasers, fragments, previews and other things, I realized that the second part will be breathtaking even more in every sense, more effective on productions and locations, more eventful than what is happening around our favorite heroes, Tris and Fore. In this part, cardinal changes are taking place in the government, the introduction of new rules that do not allow the destruction of the so-called “peace” within the society of created factions, because 200 years ago it was decided to divide people into 5 separate factions so that humanity would remain calm for as long as possible and know its purpose in this difficult chain of existence. Everyone who has seen or read the previous part remembers that in prison a war begins against the coming to power of the most ruthless, but so necessary for our habitation faction - Erudition. But if you think about it, they were the first to be aggressive. The confrontation of Erudition begins for the sake of restoring justice and trying to prevent the death of the innocent population of Renunciation, by people from the Fearlessness faction under the influence of damp modeling created directly by the leader of the polymath faction-Janing. She wants to achieve her own power with all her strength and capabilities under her leadership. In this sequel, we see the beginning of the military actions of Erudition against the Divergents, the so-called threat to society and people hiding them from the government. After all, this is the only way to maintain a world that is on the verge of destruction, as we are told around. But who will be easier and more peaceful to live if the power comes to Erudice? But the faction is trying with all its might to achieve its desired, despite the fact that, according to them, a dangerous group of people-Divergenti is on the way to completing the goal. Throughout the film, viewers are kept in a tense state and a whole bunch of mysteries. At some points, you may even begin to forget that you are watching a movie, as you are completely immersed in the world of danger, unpredictability and uncertainty of the next days and moments. You begin to experience all the same emotions as the main characters of the film, as if it is happening now and with you. In most moments, you sit and are afraid to even move, worrying not to miss anything necessary, because every second of what happens for each of you is expensive and unique in every sense. It no longer mattered to me that I was not alone in the room, now there is only me and what is happening at the moment with the characters of the film.
For me, Tris and Fore opened up from a new, real side. This time, a great emphasis was placed on the emotions of the characters on the basis of everything that is happening around and what position they occupy in this. Some continue to be in the category of neutrality and are not going to leave it, some are desperately trying to fight for their freedom and to the last breath to defend their place in this world of factions, where if you are special, then you have no place to be and live in this world, because you are a threat to the society here and bring all the bad. This movie is not some stupid fiction that does not even make sense to exist. This film is a very deep meaning that is nourished to convey to our minds and reach common sense. This film makes you think about a lot, rethink your priorities in life, appreciate every second of what is happening to you and your loved ones. Defend your point of view, do not try to sit in the corner and observe passivity, yes, it is simpler, but do not sit back and do not even try to do otherwise. Each of us has the right to be heard, even if his opinion is contrary to the opinion of others. As the movie says, “It’s time to change something in this world.” We have to be the ones who try to change our world for the better, and yes, it's not that simple and not everyone has the strength and courage to do it, but we have to try. After all, the destruction of the world comes closer and closer every day.
So, as you can see, this part made a huge impression on me. Let a lot of scenes were cut, in a different way provided to the viewer, added new for a change to all the readers, of course, you could add some moments and small accents to the film, at least make the ending a little long, but I was not disappointed and such a plot, I was even more interesting to watch what will happen next, how will this or that character, and even how will dress the main characters, and directly their conversations or answers. This film was very difficult for me emotionally and psychologically, I still can not move away from what I saw. Indeed, the film is deeply embedded in my soul, and every day I rethink what the characters say, all their actions and feelings. And what soundtracks were given to our ears throughout the film, especially the one that played at the end of the film, I literally fell in love with it, I admire it. She only more powerfully presented the ending of emotionality and drama with her sound. Each song in the film complemented the scene in which she played, adding to the tension and feeling that she was actually playing at the time. And 3D expansions have made a big difference in this film, as they have made the scenes in this film more spectacular. Though not always, but without this movie effect I can not imagine watching this beautiful film and it will not feel like watching in this format. I completely satisfied my essence, I did not regret that I waited so long for the moment of release on film screens. This film deserves everyone’s attention. Everyone who has read this series go, you will definitely like, of course, the film is not directly based on the book, and it has its shortcomings, it deserves to see fans of these books and the first part, eager to know what follows. I think the film deserves it, it deserves it. And I am looking forward to the next 2 no less beautiful prequels, which I am waiting with even greater anticipation and anticipation of something unreal and incredible.
Continuation of another dystopia about the girl-chosen (just think what a surprise!). Last year’s “Divergent” seemed pretty good to me, and I was still wondering what happened to the characters there, because it ended quite positively. But it wasn't. Immediately I say, I read only the first book and a little second, so I can be biased against the author of the trilogy including.
Let’s talk about the bad first.
- absolutely non catchy soundtrack. I liked only one moment: the minute before the credits and the credits themselves. But throughout the film, I didn’t hear anything memorable.
- Where is he? Many of the hero lines that were really worth uncovering were left behind. Perhaps there’s a lot more in the book, but it wasn’t clear to me, for example, how much of a fright Peter was getting over to Four and Tris. Yes, he said it was because Pryor had spared him in a fake world, but it was not the first time she had shown mercy. No wonder he constantly poked her into this and called her miserable.
Next, the line with Christina and the death of her boyfriend Will. Where's the conversation? There should have been a conversation between them in which they would discuss everything that happened. And so the girl simply silently forgave Tris the murder of her lover and again found herself on her side.
And where did Father Four go? Why did Caleb do what he did?
Personally, all these lines seemed to me not that unfinished, but cut off. The focus was on Tris. She is certainly the main character, but you should not forget about secondary characters either.
I would like the title to match the content. We could once for decency and turn the word “insurgent” into the dialogues of the heroes.
- illogical moments. For example, Janine declared all divergents wanted, but for some reason she did not think to run through all factions. After all, for a while the gang of fugitives rested well there, even managed to settle down. And wouldn’t it be logical to assume that Friendship is the best option for divergents, and from the very first day search everything there?
Pros:
- persuasive acting. Theo James (Four) wasn’t particularly impressed, but it’s probably his role. And the character in this part is kind of forgotten, I thought. In the first part there was much more depth.
I don’t understand why everyone is praising Kate Winslet. It seems to me that this is not a role that you had to try hard and apply all your acting abilities, which Kate undoubtedly has.
- special effects. Don't say that, but money does its job. In 3D, everything looked even cooler, although there were not so many moments that led to the choice of this format.
- to someone the plot seemed uninteresting and stretched, and I was forced to keep in suspense and not be distracted by the phone, as it happens on uninteresting tapes.
The film is quite watchable. I’m sure I’ll want to revisit the entire trilogy in a few years. But as happens with films-dystopia-trilogies about the chosen ones, the best in the end are the first and last parts.
7 out of 10
The first film was good despite the squalid source, an interesting brisk and really strong Glavheroine, which, thank Gods, the guy is not in first place, but in third and even in fourth place after, parents, brother, faction and world peace, calm, reasonable and somewhere audacious. In addition, with a very unusual appearance, but at the same time very beautiful. In general, there is no question why this is the coolest guy in their faction. The plot was unoriginal, but the pitch was good - on the half of the film sleep was not drawn at all. Other characters, though, went the background, but someone still remembered. The 8th is a very weak one.
The second film is noticeably weaker, but the creators still have to pay tribute - the second book, based on which Insurgent was shot, is even worse than the first. The writers and the director pulled everything they could out of it, and the fact that the bums stuffed - so it only benefited.
Tris changed her hairstyle, I liked her in this image, in my opinion she still fits, except that this cardinal change of image added to the excessive fragility of the girl. But the character on the contrary has deteriorated markedly - mood swings, cruelty to himself and others, mental throwing ... All this is clear, the film is more focused on girls, but it only tired me. The previous Tris from the first film I liked more.
Faure passed by consciousness, in general there was a feeling that he did not exist. Well, he did not remember much in the first film, and here he also plays the role of furniture.
The best friend of Tris Christina pushed into the background and forgotten, but Peter, the main rival and foe of Tris, unexpectedly pushed forward and a third of the film exactly rests on him. His socks, sarcastic remarks and sometimes malice may have been outdone, but at the same time, you quietly begin to feel sympathy for the character, Miles Teller played it very well, just decoration of the film. And his jumps – good, bad, good again and bad again – only stir up interest. Of course, it is clear that the first option is most likely, but the actor was able to present his character so that completely different thoughts creep into his head in addition to his will. And it's attractive. Now I will be following this promising young actor.
Kate Winslet is so gorgeous that a good actress Naomi on her background fades and is quickly forgotten, but ruthless Janine is remembered for a long time.
Well, if in general on the film, it is rather not liked than liked. But nevertheless, I do not consider it a failure - firstly, Peter was well revealed in Insurgent, secondly, there were many Janines, and thirdly, the ending. That’s the idea and could end the series and do not need any sequels. Bright, on an optimistic note, to a good music and with a little bit of mystery. Because the third book is much worse than the previous two, so I’m definitely not going to watch the third movie. For me, Divergent will remain a good dilogy.
Almost always there is an opinion among the audience that the sequels always turn out to be worse than the original and in the case of this film directed by Robert Schwentke, comparisons are quite inappropriate. The first film was certainly the crown of teenage fiction, which partly outplayed everything that could be seen in “The Hunger Games”, “Maze Runner”, “Initiated” and a number of other works of the same genre with almost minimal changes. Thus, showing a kind of lack of progress in the genre. When exactly this progress is the film directed by Robert Schwentke, who is very decently rehabilitated after the questionable quality of his previous works and especially “Ghost Patrol”.
Of course, when viewing the picture, the fact that the director of the film Robert Schwentke did not repeat the path taken by the director of the first film Neil Burger and significantly “shopped” the whole concept of the picture. Thus, history develops in a completely different direction, with a different movable force, and this really gives the impression of a full continuation of history, rather than its repetition. Perhaps the film Schventke and does not tell a fascinating story full of rich details and drama, but still pleases with how voluminous and detailed the author approached the disclosure of the screen world of the franchise "Divergent". Thus, introducing a lot of new characters into the story, covering new horizons of the screen world and even ruthlessly killing very key characters in two films of the franchise, the murder of which came as a surprise to me personally. It is obvious that the creators of the picture do not want to get stuck in place, but are going to continue their way further and for this they are even ready to let charismatic characters be scrapped and this creative risk of the creators is really pleasing.
A very good impression is made by the visual component of the picture. Since if the first film is something incomprehensible in terms of genres, this film to some extent equates itself with a fantastic action movie and even a thriller. Even if it's a teenage spill. Moreover, bringing to the picture a considerable number of spectacular scenes of the spectacle and luxurious visual effects, which are more concentrated in the final 30 minutes of the picture. Nevertheless, the creators have something to strive for and it is clear that the film sometimes has a very lame narrative dynamics. Actually, like the story itself, it turned out to be more boring, and the huge social message available in the first tape is alas absent here completely. Moreover, without bringing, despite the numerous statements of the participants in the filming process, the picture at least some deep and even educational meaning that I would like to take as food for thought.
Shailene Woodley is certainly very good and once again cemented the title of one of the most talented young actresses of our time. Much deeper image brought and Theo James, who finally pleased quite interesting and dramatic character, and not the usual charismatic handsome with an emphasis exclusively on appearance. Kate Winslet and Jai Courtney were certainly the main advantages of the picture. Largely due to how ordinary and natural they played out in the images of the main villains and constantly thereby causing disgust on the screen. Miles Teller also enjoyed a very rich game, which made his character even more rich and interesting on the screen. Since throughout the film it becomes difficult to determine whether he is a positive character or not. When such actors as Ansel Elgort, Naomi Watts, Octavia Spencer and many others simply were not allowed to play out and will be remembered by the viewer. Which is very, very sad.
Unfortunately, the film loses in terms of musical design. One of the main advantages of the original film was certainly the luxurious music of the famous electronician Junkie XL seasoned with the charming vocals of Ellie Golding and with all my attitude to Joseph Trapanese, it is worth admitting that nothing at least remotely worthy of this, he failed to create. The music turned out not bad enough, but alas, even against the background of events taking place on the screen, it looked too belittling and restrained. Moreover, it is disappointing that after “Tron” and “Oblivion” from “Trapanese” was expected something more.
6 out of 10
Divergent, Chapter 2: Insurgent is a very good continuation of quite tolerable underage fiction, which becomes evidence of the progress of the franchise, but a little to lose in terms of the dramatic work. Nevertheless, without causing much dislike when viewing and certainly remaining quite an amusing means for killing almost two hours of his time.
