Another line of adaptations of youth books makes itself felt in 2015. Books break, books change. And, damn it, how popular it is these days. Crowds of teenagers run to the famous Hunger Games, the Maze Runner, etc., etc. This time, I was carried away by a sequel to Divergent, which was not a breakthrough, but was not a failure in the film industry. Somehow it so happened that this movie is associated with GI. Probably because the director wanted to repeat their success. Unfortunately, the second part did not surpass the first and came out almost the same.
The story comes from a book I haven’t read. But without reading it, I am sure that we have removed more than half of it and took only the most basic events, cutting the narrative as much as possible. Not to say that the plot is cool, it is typical and predictable. But we can thank the creators at least for the fact that he is present at all, given the current contingent and what is shown in theaters.
As for the actors, I’m disappointed again. Shailene and Theo are obviously trying, but they don't have the skills. And Ansel was walking by. Seeing him in the melodrama “The Fault in the Stars”, it was impossible not to notice what the guy is capable of. Here he was for the gray extras and his whole role is the “cattle brother of GG”. As a result, the younger generation tried, but to no avail. But the stellar and experienced – on the contrary: they did not try, but just stared at the camera. Now I’m talking specifically about the female caste, because of the men remembered only Daniel Dae Kim, who finally escaped from the island and got into a futuristic future in which he decided to tell everyone the truth. By the way, his appearance surprised me pleasantly, a very good man and actor.
The insurgent can be honestly equated with the last part of the GI. Both films are associated with the color gray. That is, they are either passable or simply uninteresting. Or maybe both. However, most people will surely like it. But my opinion is that they could have done better, they certainly could, but they didn’t want to.
Divergent, Chapter 2: Insurgent or How to Flee an already not the most masterpiece book.
So the long-awaited day came when I was finally able to carve out some free time to go to the movies. It's Friday night, and I'm excited to walk into the room, sit in my comfortable chair, relax, and get ready to enjoy the movie adaptation of my favorite genre. What a disappointment I had two hours later, at the end of the session.
This. Simple. Unimaginable. GREAT!!! How? How could you ruin the story like that? To say that the film is bad is to say nothing. But anyone can muddy the film, concrete examples are needed. You can find a lot of them.
First of all, the acting was below the floor. Let's start with Shailene. Her Tris was hysterical. No heroine development. At all. For example, when Tris is in Erudite prison talking to Caleb. It would seem that the moment is serious, the severity of the betrayal of the brother should hang over the heroine. But what do we see in the movie? A home-grown Wolverine-Shei who can’t be taken seriously when she has such a nightmare on her head. Or another example, Tris' wretched efforts under truth serum. It was just disgusting to look at. General impression: Tris is hysterical, who has trouble controlling aggression. I would advise her to enroll in anger management classes. On the other side is Theo James. As much as I liked this toned handsome man, his appearance did not save his squalid acting. A kind of eternally frowning Tobiasaka-Buka-Byaka with a constant wrinkle between the eyebrows. Both actors leaked a love line. No passion, no expression. As Stanislavsky would say: 'I don't believe it!' I won't say anything about Ansel, a flat-played character. But Miles in the role of Peter pleasantly surprised. He literally drew the film invariable sarcasm, among other things, clearly traced the growth of the hero from a scoundrel and a scoundrel to a person capable of taking risks to save others.
The second shaky cornerstone was the work of the writers. Are you guys serious? What did you do with the story? Important characters were cut out, a number of key moments - to the dump, the development of the characters in the course of the plot - to hell with it. Thank you for leaving the main characters behind. And then they screwed it up. Adaptation is no good.
As bad as the movie was, the visuals were decent. That's what I'll put a point on. One whole point.
Not the most epic, but generally suitable and spectacular movie.
I understand and partly share the indignation of many people about the highly reduced plot, logic in the actions and characters, and so on and so forth. But does anyone really expect such a movie to bring wisdom? I don't think so.
This is just a beautiful action with a touch of drama, accompanied by traditionally epic special effects and pathetic music, nothing more. Can you see anything more in this movie? You can probably if you're fifteen. But in general, like any mass cult film, these films are just a spectacle and entertainment. Like most modern fantasy and fantasy books.
Acting is also at quite a good average level - not cardboard, but not Oscar, of course. Liked Jai Courtney, could have been more of him.
In general, the movie is one of those that you do not even know whether to recommend or not. Of course, you can enjoy watching. But without looking, in principle, you will not lose anything.
7 out of 10
To be honest, the first Divergent did not impress me at all. The first thing that came to mind was a parody of The Hunger Games. Everything in Divergent seemed to be copied from The Games. A post-apocalyptic world, the futuristic city of Chicago, surrounded by a wall in which the last surviving people on Earth live. Doesn't that sound like Panem? The society is divided into five factions, just as Panem split into 13 districts (although there are 12 remaining). Another similarity is the main character Beatrice Pryor. I know who she looks like. After “Divergent” there is a feeling that the “Hunger Games” decided to reshoot, but unsuccessfully.
And now we move on from a brief review of the first film to the second, which in the Russian version received the long title “Divergent, Chapter 2: Insurgent”. The first thing that comes to mind after this movie is the bomb. “Insurgent” in all respects bypassed the previous film. If you are dismissive of Divergent, then Insurgent causes complete delight. You watch Insurgent and wonder if it has anything to do with Divergent, even though you realize that both films are part of the same franchise. But the fact is that Divergent and Insurgent are two completely different films. From the pitiful semblance of The Hunger Games, Insurgent becomes a large-scale blockbuster. Powerful action and in general a rare case when the sequel is better than the previous part. Something similar happened 16 months before Insurgent with The Hunger Games. Then “Fire will break out” in all respects surpassed the first “Hunger Games”. Ranked by box office IP for everything else. It is planned that the same can happen with Insurgent, although the film has a rather low rating. The rating should be much higher. Many of the disadvantages of the first part turned into pluses in the second. In the first part, the actors were annoyed, and in the second part, the actors fully revealed themselves. They did a great job with their roles.
Shailene Woodley.
The performer of the role of the main character Beatrice Pryor irritated with each appearance in Divergent. Even her hairstyle was annoying. Tris became better, more manly after cutting her hair with a short haircut. With short hair, Tris began to like much more.
Theo James.
Tobias didn’t like Divergent, nor did Tris. His character was poorly revealed. As Tris Fore became better in the second part. With his role Theo coped certainly better than in the first part.
Jai Courtney.
Bright, cool, charismatic. Real fearless. in "Insurgent" played perfectly. There is nothing more to add.
And of course Kate Winslet.
Janine Matthews is my favorite character in both Divergent and Insurgent. Each appearance caused a storm of emotions. Beautiful actress.
The rest of the actors also played well.
In general, the change of director favorably influenced the franchise. “Insurgent” showed that this series of films plot to become successful, popular. I want to believe that "Alligant" as the first part, and the second will be at the level of "Insurgent". Especially it will shoot Robert Schwentke, who gave us a wonderful sequel to Divergent. I’m looking forward to Alligant and Alligant. Part 2”. To those who think Divergent is a miserable shadow of The Hunger Games, yes. But the same cannot be said in any way about Insurgent, perhaps it is worth watching because of the understanding of Insurgent. "Divergent" was an easy warm-up before the real spectacle. I recommend you to watch "Insurgent" in the movie. This is an unforgettable experience.
Before going to the cinema, I watched the first part, and now I have the opportunity to compare them.
Let's start with the name. Many people will be lazy to search Google for what “insurgent” means, and therefore this mystery will remain unresolved for them. Why call a movie a word that is not even used in the movie? As if the fact that the film has some incomprehensible title, it automatically becomes cool!
Okay, let's get straight to the story... Now, Divergent has become absolutely like The Hunger Games! The rebellion, the main character, as a symbol of the revolution, the unification of factions and the emergence of a new force on the stage of war. The effect of déjà vu is guaranteed to you!
In addition to the clichés, the film gives us moments that pretend to be dramatic, but in fact cause only a laugh. For example, the court scene, which in my opinion was ridiculously absurd. (And why did the judge ask questions that had nothing to do with the case?) And the moment when it turns out that people’s lives depend on the choice of the main character and, of course, there is a person who shouts: “Let’s give her up!”, doesn’t it seem familiar? All the predictability of actions and the game of tragedy evokes only a sad sigh. Is there anything new to come up with?
In comparison with the first part, the film slid down, becoming absolutely faded and unremarkable. Yes, the first "Divergent" was not unique either, but it still had some highlight! But the second part lost all its attractiveness and turned into the most ordinary clichéd movie, which is unlikely to be remembered for a long time. The only reason I’ll be watching the next installments is because I want to see what’s out there (rather than interested in the fate of the characters as they should be).
Conclusion: "Insurgent" is a rather mediocre film that not only does not give us answers to the questions that arose in the first part, but also creates even more "misunderstandings."
To begin with, I didn’t even watch the first part of Divergent, but I was forced to go to a session. I thought I wouldn't understand, because it's a continuation of the story, but it was quite clear. The characters are brief, but tell us what happened. The genre of the film is fantastic. I was hoping to see at least some action, but it appeared very soon, and then only for 5 minutes.
The acting game is less good. Shailene Woodley could have played better, she did not give it to the end, apparently so there is no drive. Kate Winslet Perfectly coped with the role of the villain, just bravo. Thanks to Miles Teller there was a laughter in the audience, the only character who joked. Naomi Watts, she was given very little screen time, so her character was not established, apparently she was saved for the Allegent. And by the way, why is the film called "Insurgent"? I just noticed that everyone is talking about divergents, about how dangerous they are. And all the characters say a lot. After all, everyone goes to science fiction for “movie”, and not for dull conversations.
The graphics of the film are not high either. With $110,000,000 a budget, we could do better. Operator’s work is probably done perfectly. There are a lot of questions left after watching it, and that’s not because I didn’t watch the first one. In general, the film is made for teenagers and the creators slowly and boring lead us to the most interesting – what will happen next. After watching, there were mixed feelings. So I can't say whether or not to watch the movie. But I will say for sure, if you have insomnia, then the film is better than any sleeping pill.
5 out of 10
First of all, the name of the film draws attention to itself. Not the title, but the poster. There is only one word on it: 'Insurgent' This is the second film in the series 'Divergent'. Are they embarrassed?
By the way, 'insurgent' the whole film was never uttered, and who is completely unclear. Of course, English connoisseurs easily translated this, but alas, not all are. Why not call the film 'Divergent 2: Rebels'?
Nothing good can be said about the film either. The plot is absolutely nothing. Each action of the characters (both main and secondary) raises a bunch of questions, led by the question: 'Why is it so stupid?'
At the beginning of the film, a squad of trained fighters could not catch up with a guy who runs like a disabled man. Why not just shoot him?
They've been shot at the residents of sincerity with chips that allow them to control people; so why not give the command to catch Tris. In the worst case, enemies would simply kill each other.
Why would the main villain open the box when she has already seized power?
The entire budget of the film was within 15 minutes, when Tris was testing the box. There were no other effects.
There was one unexpected moment in the whole film when the fight between Fore and Eric ended in one blow (contrary to common clichés). But it's -- it's just disappointing.
What a cast. It is clear that the film about the Zachukhan girl, who eventually gains strength, finds a handsome guy and saves the world. But there is a boundary; why not so beautiful the main character. And generally begin to irritate films about scary girls and fat boys. Of course, you need to show everyone that they have hope for happiness, but after all, in the movies we go to see a fairy tale; otherwise you can turn on news on TV.
Of all the gray mass of characters, only Naomi Watts (who played Faure's mother) stands out. Which by the way at 46 looks much more attractive than 23-year-old Shailene Woodley
Many people praise Kate Winslet’s performance, but for me, she didn’t show anything outstanding in ' Titanic' nor did she show anything outstanding in this film.
The result is a very average film (as evidenced by the rating of critics of 3.5 points). I didn’t regret going to the movies, but I didn’t buy anything.
To be honest, my acquaintance with the original source was limited to reading only the first book, for I had so much to ask the author about the illogicality of the “divergent” world that I preferred not to aggravate my puzzlement with further reading. Although this is not peculiar to me at all: if I start reading something multi-volume, I always try to learn the story to the end. Well, come on, it's a matter of taste. So, the movie "Insurgent."
The first question that's on the agenda is, why doesn't one person in the movie fit the faction they belong to? What is this stupid system that I haven’t understood since the first book? And don't tell me it's utopia, so anything's possible. No, friends, any utopia must be adequately substantiated – only then can one believe in its existence, albeit on screen. You don’t have to go far, the Hunger Games. Yes, the idea of games is quite absurd, but when we are told why this system is needed, why it works, what it does and how it works, personally I can admit that it can be, because the logic, even the logic of tyranny, is present in it. As for “divergent” castes, what’s the point? After all, the world does not need only smart people, farmers, judges and guards, right? Even in a world that survived the Apocalypse. Here, for example, the cashier in the store - who is he? A polymath because he has to count correctly, or a friendly one because he has to smile and wish everyone a good day (like those weirdos in friendliness who don’t pray to the sun god in the movie). Or maybe he is from Renunciation, because if you work 12 hours a day and die of fatigue, then it kind of smells like a rejection of selfish self-love?
Is that what I mean? The fact that no matter how much the creator wants to adhere to this caste idea, nothing comes out. Brother Tris, for example, is a polymath, but does absolutely stupid things that neither he nor the writers of the film can explain to us. But Tori is fearless, but she somehow figure out how to solve the problem with the unknown stuff in the bodies of the rebels. Peter is a divergent by the end of the film (by the way, he is probably the only interesting character here). Janine for the polymath is also acting too unreasonable. You can say that about every hero. Therefore, the main system does not work, which means that the canvas of the trilogy, in my opinion, falls apart.
The content of the film itself. What's the point? I still don't understand why Janine decided there must be something in the box to help her get rid of divergents. And why even need this box, if it already catches divergents using new sensors (" Divergent 100%). Nope. It can't be. Let me check. Oh, definitely divergent 100%. Speaking of sensors. How can we determine the percentage of divergence in a person? I don't even really understand how one can determine belonging to a particular caste with such a thing. It’s like sitting in a chair, not doing anything – not really, not in my head – and the machine will point at me and determine whether I am a sanguine, choleric, melancholic or phlegmatic. Find the percentage of divergence... By the way, what does it depend on? Sorry, I'm not talking.
As for the picture. There are many special effects, there is much to see. Sometimes they seem to be out of place at all. So I want to voice at this moment the creators of the picture: “And look how we can?” Nice, huh? Although sometimes I, as a spectator, am inexperienced on this issue and can really agree with them - cool. It is better to have action than the snotty dialogues of the main characters.
You know, actually, I'm not a fan of a franchise. I had a pretty good time at the cinema. We just need to say clearly and clearly that this is a movie in which the brain is not needed at all, because it does not cause any desire to reflect on the topic “if only.” You can just have fun with friends, poking fun at ridiculous dialogues. Therefore, I do not want to scold the picture further and I will not. And I will appreciate only the picture, forgetting about the semantic load.
Some of us went to karate as children. They taught us all sorts of tricks, we practiced them like idiots and it looked cool in the hall. And when on the street we tried to show cool karate techniques to the kids from the yard, we got kicked in the balls and remained fools.
The same story here, the director of the film perfectly memorized the techniques from the books and did not think about the fact that within the framework of the film you can vary or invent something. I can understand that making a movie from a mediocre book is difficult. There are only predictable and impenetrable stupidities, but directors and screenwriters exist to correct this with a good reception. I sat honestly in the movies and knew what would happen in the next 5-10 minutes. I knew it was a book, and that the author of the film can not throw the words out of the song, but it can be played differently, but no! “Don’t go, I love you, we’ll come up with something, and if we don’t come up with something, we’ll come up with something anyway because I love you.” The brain just shrinks when you look at this...
I recommend watching the film only through the palm covering my eyes (it helped me a little).
But in the first film managed to get rid of “this”.
PS and 3D turned out to be cool.
I can’t help but start by focusing on the title of the film. I had a "tiny" misunderstanding about the American title. If it's called "Insurgent," why hasn't anyone said that strange word in the whole movie? Why would you even call a movie that? It would be called simply, "Divergent, Chapter 2" without unnecessary oozing. I understand that this is the name of the book and it probably gives a clear and detailed explanation of what this insurgent means. The film, in turn, does not even try to explain to the viewer who is not familiar with the books what it is. You can only guess. As far as I understand, the insurgent is a kind of real, clean, without any impurities divergent, which is a very rare and unique specimen. Correct me if that's not the case.
The day before the sequel, I watched the first part. Before I got to know her, I was very optimistic and expected something like the Hunger Games. I really liked the first half of the film. The whole concept with the factions, Tris's entry into the toughest of them all, and the way she's going on: overcoming the challenges, overcoming herself and the pain, it was all great. I was drawn into watching, interested in intrigue, sincerely empathized with Tris and rejoiced at her victories. But the second half crossed out the film completely. It was an order of shoals, stupid, illogical, pretentious and sweet moments, which the soundtrack made even more pathetic and even more sweet. Not without ridiculous dialogues, completely faded and frankly hulking action scenes. All right, full set. By the end of the film, I was completely confused. How come? How could a movie have been made so drastically?
In the end, I did not want to go to the sequel, but I still gave a chance for rehabilitation. Before watching, I was as skeptical as possible and did not expect any miracles, so as not to be disappointed twice. Fortunately, I chose the right approach, because by and large, the film didn’t seem so terrible. This time it did not cause rejection. Has the franchise been rehabilitated? Absolutely not. Despite the fact that the second part turned out to be more successful than the first, I will not turn my tongue to call it a good film.
The scenes of the fighting are once again limping. Let me quickly, in one example, explain how there are shootings. A squad of professional soldiers shoot at the main characters running in an open field and no one naturally gets hit. But as soon as Fore and Tris stop and turn around, shooting back, the enemy units begin to fall in pairs. Further, hand-to-hand combat in the car is in general complete insanity. Firstly, it is not set and filmed in the best way. Secondly, it was absolutely unnecessary, because it did not serve the development of history. I don’t know if this episode was in the book, but when you watch it, you can clearly see how much it is pulled by the ears. Action for action is one sign that the film is in serious trouble.
The worst part of all is Kate Winslet. God, what are they doing to her in these movies? Her character is just not good. There was a scene during which Kate with a tear, several times in a row shouts "Don't understand who: "Get her back!!" I don’t know how it was, but I never laughed so loudly at any of the moments. Naturally, it shouldn't have been funny. But this scene was so wretchedly directed that Kate's performance, to put it mildly, looked very unconvincing. To involve an actress of this scale in the franchise and not to take advantage of her experience, but to turn it into a drawback - it is necessary to manage a lot. Next, Naomi Watts, Octavia Spencer, Ray Stevenson and Ashley Judd are such names, and all useless. None of their characters are fully revealed. As a result, no one was interested.
Well, I can write about the bad for a very long time, let's take a closer look at the sane qualities of the film. The hero of Miles Teller is the golden stone of the sequel. In the first part, his character was not given much screen time. They were not very generous here either, but every time he appeared, I began to smile. What a great presentation it was. I do not want to reveal any nuances, so I will not talk about his Peter anymore. Only for him the film can safely throw a point.
Shailene Woodley first saw in “Descendants” Alexander Payne and even then it became clear that Shailene, this is serious and for a long time, since against the background of George Clooney she was not lost. Of course, she does not reach Jennifer Lawrence, but I am sure that Shailene will surprise everyone. The serum moment was great. Unlike her, I met Theo James in this franchise. Theo's not amazing. It's pretty average. But he's charismatic, and I like his Faure. Therefore, I will follow his progress. That's it. This film cannot boast of anything else. I sincerely try to remember at least something sensible, but alas.
Over. The film was not interested in anything. I hardly felt any emotional involvement. But the saddest thing is that the movie doesn’t make you think about anything. At least I just don’t want to do it because of the artificiality of the painting. "Insurgent" is grayness. One of hundreds of passing blockbusters, 10 minutes after watching which you will not remember its existence. I'll remember. And only because of disappointment for Kate Winslet, who you want to see in a real movie, and not in such empty spaces.
P.S. I forgot to write about Jaya Courtney. Before the beginning of the film, two videos were played: a trailer for the film by Russell Crowe, “Water Seeker” and a trailer for the new “Terminator”. Both involve this man. I’m tired of his face and the movie begins. Guess who I see first? That's right, Mr Courtney. This man is literally everywhere and I'm sick of him. Not because he's everywhere, but because he can't play. Jai is everywhere with the same expression on the face of a bullish brazen. If that fellow is the same in David Eyre's movie, Suicide Squad, which I'm really looking forward to! I sincerely hope that he will be killed at least in the first half of the hour, so that I can continue to enjoy watching, and not wrinkle every time he appears on the screen.
It’s time to change something in this world – it sounds very relevant.
To tell the truth, I always look forward to continuing my favorite movie. But Insurgent was a lucky exception. The second part of the trilogy was no less exciting.
It is difficult and deadly to be a divergent, that is, not like everyone else. Do not fall under certain limits and do not recognize absurd limitations. If you do not fit into any of the factions, you will be found and destroyed. For you are dangerous to rulers whose aim is unlimited power at all costs. You cannot be subjugated, controlled, forced to kill and betray innocents, you cannot enter your mind even by injecting chips and serums that control your mind.
The city around the perimeter is fenced by a high wall, a kind of “iron curtain”, where no one can penetrate without being noticed. At the same time, residents are convinced that their Chicago is the only place on Earth where life is still preserved.
But the main danger to the totalitarian ruler of this relatively small and closed society is the divergents. They are few and they are radically different from the passive and submissive majority. After seizing power by destroying the entire Renunciation faction, which previously ruled the city, Janine (played by the brilliant Kate Winslet), the leader of the Erudite faction, becomes the ruler. And now she spends all her energy on the search and destruction of divergents.
However, a mysterious find in the house of the leaders of the Renunciation faction of a box with an encrypted message shows Janine that not everything is so simple. Ironically, the daughter of former Chicago rulers and former leaders of the Renunciation faction, Beatrice (Tris) Pryer, becomes a “primary target” in Janine’s fight against dissent.
Insurgent means rebel, rebel. As a result of the total hunt for them, the Divergents are forced to become rebels. One hundred percent perfect divergent. Tris does not wish for herself or anyone close to her. Her main desire is that the world will be the same, where Tobias and her parents will be next to her, and there will be no war. But Fortune decided, as always, in its own way. It is Tris, raised from childhood on the principles of Renunciation, forced to enter into a fierce battle with the powerful Janine.
What struck me about this story was how vividly and expressively the author of the trilogy shows completely different people living in five factions, but equally exposed to human weaknesses - cowardice, betrayal, cowardice. But in the end, those who betray, get what they deserve, and those who have been deceived, are convinced that sooner or later in life justice will prevail.
Separately, I will mention my favorites Shailene Woodley (Tris) and Theo James (Four, Tobias). They won me over in the first movie. Characters Shailene and Theo immediately win sympathy, and throughout the film keep viewers in suspense, and sometimes even make them wipe away a tear. And, of course, they are a very beautiful couple! In the first part, Shailene Woodley was a clumsy, timid and angular young lady with a chic mane of blonde hair, and I somehow missed how amazing her eyes are! And in Insurgent, she appears as a kind of kid with a short haircut, who will have to endure a lot of pain and betrayal. Shailene manages to simply amazingly convey emotions, and in her eyes you can really drown!
Anyway, the movie is exciting! Not without flaws, however, I don’t know who should say “thank you” – the writers of the script or our translators. But from time to time, strange dialogues were infuriated, which sometimes resembled the communication of the heroes from Fifty Shades. Which, by the way, I didn’t notice in Divergent. However, the dynamic plot compensated for these flaws, and after a second I already forgot about some stupid dialogue.
I didn’t like the fact that in the second part the writers unconditionally gave the “palm of primacy” Tris, and Four turned out to be kind of on the "singers." In the book, their dramatic stories are told in parallel. At times, they were bizarrely intertwined, and it was striking how different the formation of these bright and strong personalities-divergents (yes, and Tobias, too). Tobias has a very peculiar relationship with his parents, and in many ways it is the fault of Marcus and Evelyn. In contrast, Tris' relationship with his father and mother was almost perfect.
And yet, their characters have a lot in common. It is this commonality that makes their characters so appealing, not just their youthful love. They really complement each other perfectly. And "bookish." Tobias always turned out to be a reliable rear and took a mortal risk for Tris. In the film, if the viewer has not read the book, one can only vaguely guess about Tobias’s dedication.
I think the film will appeal to fans of special effects and cool plots, and fans of melodramas. In this story, both are abundant.
In 2014, it was released 'Divergent' for some reason I really wanted to go to it. It seems that the alternatives were better, and the reviews are not the best, but the foreboding did not impress me, the film was not bad, even moved to read the book of the same name by Veronica Roth. I did not limit myself to one book and read the entire trilogy, but most importantly, after reading the books, I realized all the shortcomings of the film adaptation and Divergent & #39; I began to like less.
Here in the yard 2015 and the rental came 'Divergent, Chapter 2: Insurgent', which is a logical continuation of the first film. I want to note a strange title, I think it was done so that people did not miss the continuation of the first picture or the creators of the film wanted to make a single title for the whole story.
I’ve been waiting for this movie for a year because I wanted to compare it to a book. Robert Schwentke faced a difficult task, the fact that the second book was the most eventful of the trilogy. And the director had to separate not the most significant events from the important ones that would ensure the integrity of the picture. I think this task was completed in full, everything important was abandoned, the secondary was eliminated.
What's the plot? It is suitable, but with unpleasant nuances. In the film, a misunderstood stone appeared that was not in the book. Tris and Tobis' relationship was more tumultuous than in the book, and some interesting points were omitted. For example, I was offended when a very interesting life of friendliness was not fully presented. It seemed to me that in friendliness all they do is eat. Unlike the first film, the second one conveys the plot of the book quite well.
Old actors are good, but no more. It remained at the level of the first film. I won't focus on them. The new actors surprised Kate Winslet. She got used to the role of a powerful rebel and breathed life into an ordinary, in my opinion, character.
The dialogue in the film is terrible, it is monotonous and boring. This is the only significant disadvantage in this picture! The stunts and graphics are much better than the first movie, but I still don’t understand why I paid for 3D. Yes, there is a lot of action in the insurgent, but there are very, very few scenes in which 3D is appropriate.
The film was good, but it can be ignored. The main advantage of the picture, work on mistakes. I think ' Insurgent' must be seen by those who are familiar with the book history or the first film, the rest can safely go to another film.
8 out of 10
You know, when I really do not like the film, then I immediately have an irresistible desire to put all the minuses on the shelves.
The action takes place after the events of the film “Divergent”, which, although it had its own shoals, but was not so bad as to cause me so much outrage. What's going on in the new movie? And nothing really happens, people run back and forth, shoot a little, confess to eternal love, run again. What the hell box that we didn’t know existed in the first movie, but it turned out to be extremely important? Why the hell should the abdication faction have been exterminated if only divergents were needed? All these plot holes caused me a furious desire to punch my forehead and cry with sadness.
The events themselves are confused, smeared and not expressive.
Actors and characters I have absolutely no complaints about Kate Winslet - this is a chic woman who coped with her role one hundred percent, she managed to convey Janine's character, her beliefs and aspirations. Of course, this is not her best role, but she did everything that was required of her. Shailene Woodley played well, but not brilliantly, especially I remember the moment with the truth serum, but her heroine, Tris, which in the first part was interesting to watch, in Insurgent frankly infuriated. How, tell me, could this little, frightened girl become a completely different person so quickly? There is nothing left of the former Tris, as if we are watching a completely different character. The heroine somehow does not really want to empathize, well, she does not catch. But the winner in the nomination "worst actor" was Theo James. Is he playing? I didn't notice any change in expression on his face, like a rock that was stuck in the film to attract as many female audiences as possible. Four is such a dull and typical character that he and Tris make up the ugliest couple. I can’t help but mention Miles Teller, I liked him, but not so much as to shout “wow”.
Especially, I want to highlight the dialogues in the film, which in quality resemble the notorious shades of gray. Empty and worthless, not clingy, and when all this romantic barrage started, oh, I don't know what kind of person it takes to take it seriously.
Atmosphere Any film carries a certain atmosphere, and a film like Insurgent, which is considered a dystopia, should at least show this dystopia, the emotional state of people, their grief and calamities, but instead we are shown only destroyed buildings and that’s all. I did not feel the totalitarian power of the Hunger Games, the domination of one man and the mortal fear of him.
From plus I can distinguish only that good such special effects, a nice picture and my favorite Kate Winslet
Continuation of the film "Divergent", which brings one disappointment.
The plot of the film is very predictable, a lot of unnecessary. If you leave the most important moments in the film, the film will fit in 15 minutes. The plot of the film is very similar to such films as "The Hunger Games" and "Maze Runner", but lags far behind them. About the action in this movie. He's gone! If you are a lover of shootings and beautiful fights, then there is almost no such thing. In the film only 10 minutes of action, the rest is running around the city and clarifying the relationship between the characters and the constant whining of the main character. Plus, I would like to note that the dialogue of the film wants to leave the best. In addition, the title of the film has the word Insurgent, a word that has never been uttered.
Question about 3D. Why did they make a movie in 3D? Probably to make a big cashier. But the fact that the film only 3 minutes to see the effect of 3D did not bother them. You can only see 3D at the beginning of the film, when there is a screensaver of the producers and at the end of the film, when there is one final scene of the fight and that’s it. There is no more 3D here.
Summing up we can say: the film turned out to be tedious and not dragging a person into this story. Therefore, I strongly suggest to go past and choose another film. But the film will appeal to the female sex. When they asked them what they liked about the film, they replied, “The main characters!” But it's up to you.
- Everyone is staring at me.
You changed the world. (c)
You know it worked! To be honest, after long-delayed, but still finally held the viewing of “Divergent” – I was pleasantly surprised by this film. I liked it, it became interesting to see the possible continuations of this new youth saga, and moreover – I even wanted to read the original source – the popular novels of this young writer Veronica Roth. By the end of the first movie, I was sure I would like the sequel more. The matter is not only in the names of the creators of the picture (and the behind-the-scenes cast of the creators of the series in the second film changed completely), but also in the logical development of the plot: having won the fight, the heroes did not win the war. At the end of the first film, they went on the run, and the ruling faction of their state became hostile to them, Erudition, the head of which - cold and calculating Janine Matthews has a grudge against Tris - the heroine of the saga. In fact, the first, slightly drawn-out part (there are two versions of the film – a film rental with a timekeeping of 1.5 hours, and a video release lasting more than two) was “introductory”. It kind of introduced the uninitiated viewer into the developed world of the anti-utopian future from the film, introduced him to the characters of the story and their relationships. In other words, “Divergent” was a great prologue to subsequent interesting and exciting adventures, introduced the viewer to the mythology of the saga (after all, they did not read the triptych Roth) and intrigued his attention. And “Insurgent” was supposed to be an eventful and much more driving film. And he became that!
To shoot the second part, the studio entrusted the director of “The Flight Illusion” and “RED” – Robert Schwentke, who in turn became the very broom, which is a new sweep, i.e. – completely replaced the authors of the project. He took his own, proven cameraman Florian Ballhouse (with whom he shot "The Time Traveler's Wife"), the composer of "Oblivion" Joseph Trapanese, and famous screenwriters - Mark Bomback ("Die Hard 4.0") and Akiva Goldsman ("Mind Games"), along with newcomer Brian Duffield. They shaken the concept well, the plot of the film began to gravitate more to the genre of an action movie with elements of a psychological thriller (the influence of screenwriter Goldsman is especially felt - in the film there are many "unreal" scenes and dreams that the heroine sometimes takes for reality). The film became unpredictable, as if familiar characters suddenly give out such trouts. And seemingly bad heroes, suddenly turn out not to be such assholes, and on the contrary. A controversial character in this regard is the heroine of Naomi Watts – Evelyn, who turned out to be the surviving mother of Tobias. The final scene, as it were, made it clear that all the efforts were, if not in vain, then at least by their efforts, the characters, figuratively speaking, changed the stiletto for soap. Probably, this theme will be the key in the sequel, which, as we already know, will be the end of the series, and as it has recently become fashionable (again, after the final film “Potterians”) – will be a two-part series. There will also be something to see without it, because it turned out that the rest of the world there, behind the wall, contrary to beliefs, did not die.
The budget of the sequel has grown significantly (110 million dollars against 85). This made it possible to create large scenes using computer graphics, as well as for the construction of scenery for shooting panoramic views of the surrounding area. In addition, the second film was shot on the Imex camera and contains many scenes “sharpened” under 3-D. Not a fan of this format, I went to a regular session. Therefore, I am ready to assume that the audience who watched the film “in glasses” were completely delighted with him. Duration decreased and action increased. Therefore, in the second film more action, and it became more difficult - staged episodes look spectacularly on the big screen.
The director was able to shoot a sequel to a commercially successful project, leave the intrigue necessary in this case for the planned continuation and performed his duties so well that the producers left him at the helm of the project, giving the opportunity to complete this movie - the series. Again, we cannot escape the analogy with Harry Potter. Coming to the saga about the spectacle wizard David Yates became the one who ended it. True, the films of his production were very different from the adaptations of his predecessors, and they are not particularly drawn to review, unlike the first three parts of Potterian. Schwentke was able to find the right balance, and Divergent does not seem suddenly darkened and radically changed. On the contrary, with his arrival, the franchise became more assertive and psychologically dramatic, while maintaining the entertainment potential and fighting spirit of the first part. For me, “Insurgent” is a successful continuation of a successful film. And while everyone is waiting for the Alligant announced for next year, I will soon visit a second-hand store and purchase Veronica Roth’s trilogy. Still, I want not only to compare the book and its adaptation, but also to find out what is behind the Wall.
10 out of 10
P.S. For those who do not understand why the movie is called so, and even expressed his misunderstanding in the "red" reviews. An insurgent is an armed civilian standing up to the authorities.
Dolls from the sex shop instead of the main characters
With the proliferating adolescent dystopias of the past three years, it is undoubtedly time to end. During this time, films about eighteen-year-old saviors of the world with plump cheeks not only managed to completely devour and exhaust themselves from the inside, but also finally bored even the most inexperienced audience.
The penultimate part of the “Hunger Games” was greeted coolly even by some fans, slightly standing out from the general mass of “Maze Runner” will read us another five or six years of impenetrable boredom, and the newly appeared “Divergent” and does act as an inept fanfic about the adventures of Katnis Everdeen from the 13th district. In the end, as it was, for example, at the beginning of the zero with films about the Second World War, this trend will come to naught, but while the audience brings their hard-earned to the sessions, we cannot avoid the new part of Divergent. However, this is a matter of the future, today our main guest is the sequel, which will be discussed.
Totalitarian society of the future, in which the incorrigible maximalists who did not survive the fourteen-year-old polarizations won in the socio-political arena. The people are forcibly divided into several groups: enlightened, honest, fearless, etc. Members of each faction perform certain public functions to maintain order, and the state, albeit somewhat clumsy, still keeps its citizens in a state of peace and tranquility. But in a totalitarian idyll interfere teenagers-divergents who have all the qualities at once. These outcasts (well, are there any smart and brave people in the world at the same time?) put the system in danger, and they open a furious hunt. The main character, being the strongest divergent for the second film in a row, leads an unequal battle with the forces of order, finds out a relationship with her boyfriend, and simultaneously tries to change the world. We’ve seen it all before, haven’t we?
The main problem of the sequel, as well as the original, is not even that it is engaged in outright epigony and stealing the ideas of more successful competitors, but the lack of even an attempt to bring something of its own to the narratives. The main characters here perform the function of not even blinkered gestalts, they are more like rubber dolls from a sex shop, which were dressed in futuristic costumes and put them in a small speaker with three or four repeating phrases in a circle. No, honestly, here's an example of a standard dialogue:
- Someone is constantly dying because of me, I don't want it anymore.
- No one else will die, don’t worry!
- What if he dies? *whispering*
- Well, we'll definitely come up with something.
Because of the terrible script preparation, the main cast suffers. If the main roles were called really appropriate ineptitude representations of actors, the talented and not yet tired of the eye Miles Teller, recently pleased the audience in “Obsession”, here looks just pathetic. She is not trying to get any emotions out of Kate Winslet. However, it would be really difficult to do in a picture, the main drama of which from the very first minutes revolves around a new short haircut of the main character.
At the same time, it just freaks out in places excellent directorial and camera work. Sometimes in the film skip such interestingly made scenes that all the craziness of what is happening begins to even slowly forget. True, before the first pompous dialogue of characters. Why, I wonder, is quality photography annoying? I am very sorry for the unproductive nature of the producers. Such a good crew could be attracted to work on something better.
The new "Divergent" is a movie about which there is essentially nothing to say. From the beginning, we all knew what was coming, and the premiere only confirmed our fears. The fan base of the picture grows exponentially, the rays of hatred on foreign forums of lovers of good cinema reach grotesque proportions, and ordinary viewers wonder why watching this when there is “The Hunger Games”. The hype will subside in a couple of weeks, and new flows of love and hate in one bottle will pour in next year when the triquel comes out. I want to believe that the creators will at least abandon the new fashion for spin-offs. The divergent universe is definitely not worth it.
The moment you realize you shouldn’t have read a book before watching a movie. Because very rarely the director follows the author’s word and embodies only what is in the book without deviation. But when the book is cut in half, it becomes a little uncomfortable. Added some cube, removed a bunch of scenes, the moral image of the book and movie heroine – just heaven and earth. So I don't even know where to start. I will start with the main characters.
The main characters. To write about the fact that everything is wrong in the book is pointless, I mentioned it in the first lines. But at some point in the film is a reference to the book. The main character in the idea of the whole film should experience her worst act - in the first film she killed the boyfriend of her best friend. How? Don't you know she has a best friend? She talked to her a couple of times in the first movie. They jumped off the train and ate together a couple of times. She also plays Zoe Kravitz . Remember? I wouldn't remember. There was no sense of friendship between the characters in the first film. I'm not talking about her boyfriend and Tris killing him. It left no memories at all. At all. Therefore, review the first film, if you have not read the books, without it you will not even understand.
There. In theory, the heroine Shailene Woodley experiences tremendous stress, she is tormented by a sense of guilt, she has post-traumatic shock, she is disgusted with weapons. I may not be fair, but I didn't see any of it in Ms. Woodley's play. I don't feel sorry for her. At all.
That's the one who's happy about this is Kate Winslet. She just played it off by 200 percent. He wanted to hate her and kill her. Such a natural bitch Janine came out of it. Miles Teller, played by Peter, is amazingly revealed. Such a happy bastard who is not clear on whose side.
I do not want to write about Fore and I will not. Why? It has not changed since the first film. A beautiful dummy who just knows how to fight and periodically pleases the audience with a naked pumped torso. And his character is stupid and uninteresting.
The director's chair was taken by Robert Schwentke, whose films I constantly put 6-7 for flaws and shoals. And here too. There are too many special effects, even where they are not needed at all. We overdid it with action.
The music didn't catch on at all. There was no main sound that would drag into the world of factions and endless pursuit of divergents. From Joseph Trapanese after "Oblivion" and "Trona" I expected a lot more.
6 out of 10
Three times divergent, twice alligent, but never insurgent
Everyone has the right to their own vision of things. It was a revelation for me to find more in this film than fantastic action. If you move a little away from the analysis of details, script, plot, scenery, graphics and delve into the associations, you can come to a reasoning about the meaning lying on the surface. Tris, as an image of the human “I”, modeled 100%, which leads to the achievement of freedom, that is, the destruction of those walls that are erected within many individuals, by acquiring beliefs, decisions, in view of upbringing, experience, events in the past. The film is different, it is much deeper and, oddly enough, more instructive than it seems when watching the poster. At the same time, knowledge is combined with incessant movement. Due to the harmoniously blurred line between the essence and the vivid production, information is consistently perceived. The central character evokes sympathy, thanks to his ability to empathize, forgive, not to condemn, even traitors, mainly. Playing actors is trust. In this regard, saturation is guaranteed and, leaving the hall, you take the thread with you, scroll: is it possible for you to model five characteristics? All the pictures on the screen are images that take place in the universe. And, however, the reality is that it may take more than one visit to forgive.
10 out of 10
Let me start! I watched Divergent a year ago and was looking forward to the second part. There was enough time to read the trilogy. And a few days ago, when I left the theater, I kept thinking about whether the writers had read the book and how I felt about Isurgent.
Yes, for anyone who has read the work, the film adaptation will raise many questions. If we abstract from the book pages and perceive Isurgent as the second film of history, then we must admit that it was a great action. The plot is dynamic, not prolonged, keeps in suspense for almost all 2 hours. In fact, if you do not know how everything was in the book, then the development of the picture looks quite logical. But in my opinion, there is a lack of emotion! And then you have to turn to the book (a little spoiler later), as the work is built on emotions - they are in each paragraph (I read in English, so I can not say anything about the translated version). In my opinion, the main disadvantage of the film is that it does not convey the deep emotional depth of the relationship between many characters. First, Christina (Zoe Kravitz) and Tris' friendship develops very hard after Will actually dies. Throughout the book, both are tormented by doubts, but in the end Christina still forgives Tris. Secondly, how much was left unsaid between Tobias and Tris, and how both suffered, making their difficult choices, hiding a lot from each other. Third, the line about Tobias' father was central to the book. He was constantly tormented by the ghosts of the past, and fighting them was by no means easy for the fearless Four. Tris was tormented by the information her parents had died for, and Marcus was the only clue to her that could shed light on the secrets that had killed so many people from different factions. The heroine makes a choice that could separate them from Tobias forever and follows Marcus. Where is it in the movie?
Who are the insurgents anyway? The whole movie is about divergents. The very idea of why Kate Winslet was looking for divergents has been completely changed. The relationship between Tobias, Tris and his mother has not been disclosed. All this in the book is so detailed and it is these moments that make the story more real and interesting, make you worry about the main characters. Tory (Maggie Q) is generally put in a number of secondary characters, which contradicts the book.
Well, as I said above, if you do not correlate the book and the film, it is not even bad. The soundtrack is a bit weak to say. From the acting game, I would like to note Theo James. In my opinion, 100% match with the hero! Iron Lady performed by Kate Winslet! Brilliant! It’s a shame that her trilogy is over! Shailene Woodley, in my opinion, looked much more confident and harmonious in the first part.
Despite all the disadvantages I wrote about, I liked the picture and I look forward to continuing!
8 out of 10
It seemed that against the background of a post-apocalyptic utopia called the Hunger Games, another project of this kind would not take root. However, the film adaptation of the work of Veronica Roth, the trilogy of the novel Divergent, started quite successfully. Perhaps thanks to a well-chosen young cast and not just a young cast, perhaps thanks to a great soundtrack and special effects, but the franchise took root. It is not surprising that a year after the release of the first part, the second one appeared under the title “Divergent, Chapter 2: Insurgent”, simply “Insurgent”. In the new film, Tris continues to fight the faction system to protect himself and his loved ones. However, the main struggle takes place in the shower of Tris. “Insurgent”, translated from English, means “rebel”, “rebel”, which characterizes not only the situation in the system of factions, but also the emotional torment of the main character. The girl is consumed by a sense of guilt for the death of loved ones, for the committed actions. She is forced to take desperate measures.
Having played a cancer patient girl in the film The Fault in the Stars, actress Shailene Woodley has already managed to prove to the viewer that she is able to cope with a dramatic role. Having got rid of long hair right on the screen, the actress has noticeably changed. Let’s be honest, the actress ceased to be a gray mouse on the background of the same Jennifer Lawrence. She became outwardly interesting and even daring.
Faure, played by Theo James, as it should be, to be a real man, the whole film was a support and support for the main character. Kate Winslet, appeared before the audience in the role of antagonist Janine. But, damn it, in the role of a perfectly antagonist. You can not be angry with her for long, her actions are justified by blind faith and confidence in the rightness of her actions. At the very least, it deserves admiration. Interesting new character Naomi Watts – Evelyn, which in subsequent parts will play an important role in the plot. Miles Teller as Peter, the only one who diluted the gloom of the plot with his jokes and adaptive attitude to life.
Glass fragments and other objects of construction due to the 3D effect fly directly into the eyes of the viewer. Let's put a checkmark 3D.
I have always felt that Veronica Roth's novel is frankly weak, both in the plot and in the description. Therefore, here is the rare case when the film adaptation is better than the work itself! And if you bought a movie ticket, remember you're Divergent, 100%!
10 out of 10
Insurgent. Yeah, that's a pretty unusual name. No, I'm not saying anything, but it's a very strange title, and never mentioned in the movie. That's first.
Second, the cast. I'm not talking about that. Apart from the fact that Shailene Woodley and Theo James overplayed (in the literal sense of the word), Ansel Elgort had to play a guy who does not understand this complex world, not brave or brave, but in the end it turns out some kind of fool. No, seriously. Only Kate Winslant was pleased. I played very well, probably the only thing I liked. All these approximate and not quite pleasant faces of other actors, perhaps, not for me.
And third, of course, the story. The guys who have read the trilogy do not recommend going to this movie, because you will be very, very disappointed. Not only that some scraps appear first here, and then there, and now again here, the writers have changed the spine upside down the whole film, well, their script, after all (one question: why the hell then to make a film adaptation for a book, while half changing it?). I can even give you an example: Janine experiences Tris, well, there is a simulation and so on, in the original (book) she meets her mother on the bus (there is no point in telling, since it is immediately clear that something has already changed), so, well, in the film she meets her in a flying house, burning in flames. It happens, however.
In general, the film is nothing so, the ending is very good, shot posh, after all, but if not for a too changed script, in which a lot of things are missing ...
Driving in a movie younger brother (10 years old). He himself hoped to laugh at the stupidity of the plot and the world of Veronica Roth. It didn't work either.
The film begins with the consequences of the immense stupidity of the main characters in the first part. The reason for their stupidity is never explained. Here they had a great chance to announce to the world who the villain is, as well as if they wanted to kill the villain or take him prisoner, for example, but the heroes did not do any of this, and now their vision of the world has changed dramatically without any explanation.
The whole film is brightly crammed with the message ' all men are bastards!' Men betray. Men are trying to kill children. They turn everyone against the main character - men. On this basis it is even surprising that the main villain is a woman.
In any case, then we watch the main character, which causes absolutely no pity and empathy, even at the end. ' Normal' The acting is constantly supplemented by drops of Nasonex (here the heroine is all right, in two seconds - already tears the size of a fist). Never in the whole film to the heroine has not experienced anything: betrayal of a friend - no matter what, a threat to life - no matter what, betrayal and threat to life - no matter what.
The character of Calib, the heroine's brother, only pisses off the whole time he's on the screen. His behavior is not explained by anything at all: he calmly beats a man to death, and two seconds later calmly watches as his sister is about to die. But the sister, apparently, does not care, because she does not pay any attention to such negligence of her brother. And if so, why should the viewer empathize?
The atmosphere of the world continues to please: for all the time of life ' behind the wall ' a bunch of people within just one city and left most of the buildings to stand dilapidated. With this kind of technology. Seriously. Who cares, we have 5 factions, so everything is super!
The film is simply stuffed to the brim with attempts to cause the viewer pity, sympathy, sadness, disappointment, surprise... But it never works. Not once. For the whole movie.
Action is weak. Looks like a piece of music. The plot is unoriginal, boring and with huge as Black holes. The world is not worked out and composed ' to how '. Acting is zero. Not bad, zero. From the series ' Yes, but whatever' The soundtrack is not memorable. The dubbing sound is terrible: a constant unjustified echo. Why?
And finally, the funniest thing: our favorite 3D. Seriously, are they kidding me? 3D is just a way to raise more money. Half of the film can be watched without glasses, only the background remains unfocused. There has never been a moment in the film where 3D makes any sense. At the same time, there are really many moments when it would be possible to make epic flights of all sorts of collapsing stones, winding wires, fire and other things behind the screen. There were many, but none were used to justify 3D. Yes, who needs it, ' Teenagers already scoop '!
One of the most pointless trips to the cinema in a lifetime.
2 out of 10
The solution to a problem in Tris' world, but the problem in Shailene's world
I haven't been to the movies in a while. The last thing I saw on the big screen was Interstellar. But here spring, on television in all advertise the second part of the mega-popular franchise “Divergent”. The first part, let’s face it, I thought so-and-so, nothing special, but for some reason I wanted to go to “Insurgent”.
The plot is built very strange - it is delayed, then, on the contrary, develops too quickly. Some information is simply omitted, but omitted so carelessly that it looks more like outright holes in the plot. In some places, the plot is on the contrary. Towards the end of the film, an hour and a half later, I just started to fall asleep and hope that the whole mess would end soon.
Logic is also a problem. No, of course, I understand everything, I want to do it in a more original way (although everything turned out to be very expected), but do not forget that people have common sense and logic, and even there are brains in the plot! In addition, the second part stuffed some ill-conceived and, in my opinion, completely unnecessary characters. Why do Fore and Tris just walk the streets and nobody pays attention to them, even though everyone knows them by face? Because it's the Insurgent.
The cast. I didn’t like him even in the first part – all some pretty, not suitable for their characters, and even don’t know how to play! Everyone tries to squeeze something out of themselves, but they are not good at it. And if Shailene Woodley and Theo James still somehow, with a stretch, with eyes closed, you can try to believe, then everyone else – even the lack of vision will not help.
I didn't like the soundtrack either. Only the song at the beginning of the credits (Yes, I even lived to the credits).
So much for it. Who invented that name? At first, I stubbornly called this film "Instructor" out of ignorance, then - "Tool" - so as not to turn every sentence that includes the title of this film into a tongue-in-cheek.
Honestly, I thought it would be better. My assessment balances right on the edge between “wasted time and upset” and “I wish I hadn’t looked at all”.
5 out of 10
On the screens of the country demonstrate the continuation of post-apocalyptic dystopia "Divergent", bearing the proud name "Insurgent". Many viewers do not rest, what kind of beast is such, which is not mentioned in the film itself. Although these arguments are extremely superficial, it is only necessary to look at the meaning of the word. In fact, the epic tells about the rebels fighting for their truth, their freedom.
The second film is a logical continuation, clearly drawing a line of narrative. This is not an independent movie that can be watched with interest, without seeing the first part. "Insurgent" - the second book of the trilogy of American writer Veronica Roth, actually for her motives, the film was shown to the audience. The first film attracted the viewer with dynamics, spectacular scenes of what is happening. It is worth considering that the dynamic scenes in "Insurgent" are clearly less, but this does not make the film less exciting.
It is foolish to deny the fact that this whole story is very similar to at least a few others, the main thing is the extremely sophisticated storyline (the fact is that it is here) and the incredible cast. All young people cope with the roles perfectly, and in the background are all nominees for the Academy Award. You can sit and look for pros and cons, or you can just watch a fascinating, spectacular fairy tale.
"Insurgent" a more personal story, about the experiences of the main character, who lost almost everything. Tris continues his struggle with the system, this time dominated by internal contradictions. The whole point comes down to one small but brilliant phrase that the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said: “That which does not kill us, makes us stronger!”
Naturally, we are waiting for a continuation, otherwise it could not be and, based on what we saw, it is worth watching. "Insurgent" decent sentence "Divergent", watch the movie.
This is the long-awaited sequel to Divergent. To say that we did not expect him is to tell the truth. And why do you need "Insurgent", when the original was a completely finished work, the only feature of which was the ability to never see it again. “Chapter 2” came out and revealed to us a terrible truth – Tris, it turns out, the chosen one. And I thought that humanity would be saved by her brother, just this twist was saved for sweet. Thank you for dotting all over. But that's not the most stupid thing. The film is one continuous misunderstanding, the stupidity of which goes so high that it is quite safe to call it the best comedy of 2015.
So, the heroes escaped from the clutches of polymaths, settling in a nest of some endured, only to escape again when the almighty Janine by swipe finds them. What she did not do before - do not explain, keep intrigue.
In general, the whole film is an endless running. Heroes run from Janine, heroes run from warriors, heroes run from outcasts, heroes run to polymaths, heroes run from their fate, heroes run to a free box office. Diluted this tinkering with pretty good action scenes and incredibly absurd speeches, unrelated to each other. What to do, a tribute to fashion.
Seriously, nothing happens in Insurgent until the last 5 minutes. Even watching the eclipse is more interesting. To give “scenario nothing” dynamics, the authors use the aforementioned running. The decision is debatable, but who are we, and who are they, Hollywood figures? But in the finale they finally give food for the mind, a sluggish intrigue and ... the end, turning “Insurgent” into a finished work. And how do they do that? And then there are two more misunderstandings [crossed out] of the cool [crossed out] incredible [crossed out] movie.
The picture wouldn’t be complete without mentioning all those absolutely absurd, meaningless scenes. Imagine that the heroes stumble upon bandits with whom they start a fight. People die, everyone suffers, and then one of the characters gives information that immediately stops the fight. Think of a powerful artifact that can destroy all divergents and can only be discovered by a divergent. There’s also an amazingly poignant episode in which a thousand people just stare at the other 3 people jumping down from the roof. Karma's got something to do. But the most amazing thing comes with the understanding that the army of trained and trained warriors got into the main character only once (!!!) for the entire film. Hey, realism.
If you dare to go to Insurgenta, take a good company and something hot. For all sorts of funny comments, you risk a great time and please yourself and a number of people sitting. Wonderful opportunity, isn't it?
I honestly liked the first film - everything was cheerful, unusual, the picture is stylish and diverse. So all that was achieved in the first film of the franchise, unfortunately, failed in the second.
Picture
Okay, there's a couple of non-standard (non-black) pictures and general plans. OK, there are some really high-quality special effects series (train, house, character scattering), but why do they only appear at the end? The monotonous computer landscapes of the post-apocalypse do not touch - this we have seen many times in other films.
Plot
That's the weakest point of the film-nothing really happens, Fore and Triz first half the movie hide, then half the film tend to Janine. All. In between, they run, wander, walk through the ruins of the city. The dialogue is protracted, and the actions of brother Triz are completely devoid of common sense.
Music
And then the trouble is almost gone. There are no memorable songs from the movie. It’s a music story, and there’s a place to go!
The final film is clearly weaker than the first part in every respect. Probably need to look to understand the essence of the story, but it is possible to look at the house in 2 months in between.
4 out of 10
"Insurgent" turns out to be much more dynamic, tougher, faster than "Divergent", human feelings and humanity are important in principle, but recede into the background in particular - events develop too quickly, so that the characters simply do not have enough time for reflection.
The love line in this story acquires integrity, but goes to the background, giving the first entirely to the main character Tris, who is almost obsessed with the whole film. She is like a driven animal that bites and rushes with hopelessness and despair. The film uses her dreams as the embodiment of thoughts and fears. A state remotely similar to a dream is extremely important for Insurgent, it is in this state that the main goal of this picture can be achieved. Sleep is seen as a relatively harmless opportunity to know oneself; as a world in which anything is possible, both positively and negatively. The main difference of such a “dream” in the picture is the absence of the same harmlessness when you wake up in a cold sweat, but you realize that everything is not real. The nature of sleep as imagination is broken here: what Tris is ultimately immersed in has such features as limitlessness and uniqueness for each person, but also danger. This is an enhanced version of the dream, where the visions become a different reality, where the soul is transported during these visions. Real dreams of the heroine and her visions in the future turn out to be equally difficult for her, the only difference lies in this innocuity, and also in the fact that Tris’ abilities as a divergent can only affect the artificial state, and in a dream she is an ordinary girl, helpless before the events taking place.
Tris in this film is radically different from Tris in the past, and this Tris begins to act from the moment the heroine gets rid of her hair, which can be considered as a symbol of innocence and naivety, which is no longer typical for the new heroine. The determination of the new heroine is manifested primarily through her tension and even rudeness. It's like a tight string that doesn't let go for a minute. It's what's called hate that she experiences all the time. This behavior of Tris is emphasized by her movements: sharp, cutting, her looks, her clothes, even the fact that she very often stands with her arms crossed on her chest – a symbol of closure. Here Tris cannot be called an interesting heroine for analysis, even the forced breakthrough of her defense in Sincerity looks fake. The heroine seems to be a person with almost no emotional control, almost a machine, and this impression disturbs the understanding of her further actions. Usually such characters are attractive with their dexterity, causing attractiveness, and Tris has the corresponding charm.
The feature of the picture becomes a closer acquaintance with other factions inhabiting the city. This time it's friendship and sincerity. I would like to note a certain one-sidedness with which the first of the factions is shown. Tris' evil remark about "pink snot" turns out to be very relevant, the abode of the friendly is similar to both a mythical peaceful village and a hotel at the same time. All the friendliness of the inhabitants is expressed in false good wishes, smiles, which, if desired, can be easily copied. The sincere, on the contrary, are created somewhat more contradictory. Their feature is depicted as a "point" that they do not always follow. They do not lie, but they know how to play with words and manipulate, the communication of the main characters with them is like a game, when the only way to win can be only pressing them against the wall. The sincere are more like polymaths, and even progress in their lives takes place, and not the last. If the friendly are portrayed as simple and naive, the sincere are stylish, cunning and calculating.
The leaders of factions that stand apart from their wards deserve special mention. Both the leader of Friendship and the leader of Sincerity are not as simple as the others. All of them are capable of both cunning and intriguing, you may even suspect them of a certain proximity to divergents, but they are simply more advanced versions of human traits when they can use their shortcomings as a virtue. The head of the Erudites and the main antagonist of the picture performed by Kate Winslet turns out to be the most interesting from the point of view of studying the character of the picture, although she is not given so much screen time. At some point, it becomes obvious that she is driven not so much by her own interests as by the interests of the city as she sees them. In it one can see the vices of certain types of rulers: when prosperity and stagnation go hand in hand, and progress as change and progress is categorically not welcomed as something that can change the established order. And, in this view, it is inevitable to sow chaos. Divergents then are not even revolutionaries, but fragments of this chaos because of their own uncontrollability and ability to think, which sooner or later will play a role in history. Therefore, particles are more dangerous than any global force of ordinary people, because they can be intoxicated as you like. Association with modern society is quite transparent, when the conventional opposition in any state of the world consists of heterogeneous elements: both outstanding and not particularly, but when a leader appears, everyone else can join it. Even in this society, divergents are different, but, remarkably, they concentrate around themselves ordinary people, because there are few of them.
Not at all paid attention to brother Tris Caleb and Peter. These two personalities in the picture change their behavior dramatically and more than once, but all their changes remain off the scene, as a result of their actions happen unexpectedly and unpredictably. Tris as the central character is given more attention, but it is so closed that this decision does not seem reasonable.
The design of the picture seemed quite standard, even destroyed skyscrapers do not attract and beckon, as it often happens: they are not associated with any stories even in their design. These are heaps of ruins, in which there are no fragments of the former life. The frequent mention of the wall unexpectedly evokes associations with The Initiate, as well as some other plot twists. The reception is also not original: almost always there is something forbidden and surrounded by legends, somewhere outside the security, where the heroes should definitely get. In The Hunger Games, it's District 13, and here it's just something behind the wall. The expansion of the world must happen: unexpectedly, but the second film included many key events and key scenario decisions, so that about life in the city to tell, as if there is nothing.
Despite some plot flaws, the relative simplicity of the central characters (and there is a certain flaw of the main actress), the film is fascinating and makes you follow the events with interest. By the end, the tension increases, it is the finale that becomes the best in this picture, as it puts the viewer on the hook: it is very interesting to know what will happen next. “Divergent” turns into a very interesting story, even if it is not yet a complex and clever film.
7 out of 10
So came the long-awaited sequel to Divergent and we have even more revealed the story of the heroes we already loved, both from the last part of the film and from the books of Veronica Roth. Well, let's see!
This part I was very disappointed, and if in the first film not everything was according to the book, but it had a soulful and special atmosphere, then in the second part they lost it all.
The film seemed pretty dry and lifeless to me. The creators crammed action scenes at any convenient and inconvenient moment, completely forgetting about the development of the characters, how all events reflected on them, how they felt. On the battle scenes alone, no film will go far. Everything has to be in moderation. A search of such moments in the film error is very common these days.
The film lost its soulfulness so much that the couple as Tobias and Tris also looked very dry, no sparks, no tenderness, no romance, no passion, no feelings that bind people as a couple. They looked more like partners than lovers.
It was very upsetting that the line of Marcus and Tobias, which is revealed in the book (and in general Marcus plays an important role in this part of the book), was not only pushed to the background, but actually removed from the film. Tobias’ father was made a completely worthless character and removed at the moment when the film did not have time to begin. Other important characters were simply ignored. Christina was returned only to learn of Will's murder. The reunion of Tris and Christina as friends did not happen, which means that we have another unclosed and ill-conceived line.
If the creators thought about the trunk, they completely forgot about the branches. All films are connected by this very trunk, but each has its own branches and they should end in the same part where they began.
Although the creators tried to make spectacles with the help of action scenes, they failed. There are too many of them, and the viewer did not have time to switch. And if in the film all the time the so-called “spectacles”, then it does not look spectacular and all the magic disappears. The creators were engaged only in the development of faction lines and the organization of the world, completely forgetting to reveal the heroes.
In general, I want to say that the script is lame and unworked. The actors do not have the same purity, sincerity and sincerity as in the first part. Maybe it’s just a first impression, but that’s what it is. You need to watch only as a bridge from the first part to the next, but you do not need to watch it in the movies. The film did not please me either as a person who was hooked by books, or as a person who liked the first part of the film.
6 out of 10
Short for those who do not know.
Divergent (English diverge - diverge in different directions, deviate) - divergent, not like others, differing from others by non-standard thinking.
An insurgent (literally a rebel, rebel, rebel) is a person who fights against an imperfect government or army.
As you know, recently it has become very fashionable to shoot film adaptations on various books of various genres - from fantastic adventure novels to erotic melodramas. And this is not surprising, since the book sources themselves enjoy a very strong demand and supply.
I’m quite positive about it because I don’t see anything so bad about it. Since the book was a colossal success along with the same colossal discussion on the sidelines, why not make a film that will turn out if not so directly hugely successful, then at least watchable and not almost worse than its book version, but with its innovations and lotions.
As you know, films based on books find their fans among the teenage audience (from 12 years, according to the age limit of 12+), but I do not agree that only for teenagers such adaptations can be interesting. At our session, for example, in addition to teenagers, there were young people older than about my age of 25-26 years, and I will say more – they were very pleased with the viewing. It all depends on the person and how she came to the session. There, on cartoons, for example, and adult mothers and fathers with children go - and nothing, there is nothing to be ashamed of.
Not so long ago I was in a session on the first film of the franchise “Divergent”. Yes, of course, this is an entertaining movie, like all the movies that are under the genre of “Fiction”, “Science Fiction” or “Fantastic Action Adventure”, and the task of such a movie is to entertain the viewer, but this franchise hooked me not by that, despite the fact that I am far from 18. First of all, it was hooked simply because the story of one revolutionary man who challenged poor-quality (and therefore imperfect) social society and politics is always interesting – in a word, revolutionary and dystopian. And in general, I love this genre in fiction - or that all sorts of Hollywood action movies are tired and sitting in the livers already. In addition, such people (albeit fictional) sometimes want to be equal. Usually these are the main characters of the male sex for quite understandable reasons - masculinity, physical strength, etc. But the weaker sex is often deprived of attention or even underestimated, in the best cases pairing with the main male hero. But that it was the opposite or even solo - then you will find this in the movies very rarely. And it is not surprising that most reviews and reviews are written by representatives of our beautiful half of humanity.
The main characters.
Shailene Woodley (Beatrice "Tris" Pryor) - I liked what to do with it. The second belligerent “Mockingjay” or Joan of Arc of modern times, if to speak epithets. Compared to the first part, where she was more feminine, or because of her chic hair, in this part she seemed more masculine, again, because of the hair, only cut short.
Theo James (Tobias "Fore" Eaton) is actually the partner of the main character, but is not a secondary hero, since he is the same as her - "at the same time strives to be honest and selfless, intelligent, kind and sincere", fights against injustice and cruelty. Very ideally suited and as a beloved Tris – especially appearance: here, as they say, God beauty and attractiveness did not deprive. The love line here is more developed in contrast to the first part – I will not spoil, in the dialogues you will understand everything.
Ansel Elgort (Caleb Pryor) - At least until I fully understood which side the main character's brother was on, but in the second part, his position was very unexpected for me. Even I couldn't imagine such a quiet, humble guy capable of such a nasty thing. Despite the fact that he was the youngest of the actors, he coped with the role perfectly.
Miles Teller (Peter) - that's who surprised, so surprised. Machinations, intrigues, tricks, sycophancy ... and that's all Peter. Sincerity and erudition in one bottle. Now it immediately became clear why he changed the faction in the first part - only with such intelligence and cunning could Janine be surrounded.
Kate Winslet (Janine) – turned out a great villain and bitch – cold, ruthless and calculating.
Compared to the first part, the second part turned out to be even more rich and diverse for unexpected turns of events. The visual series, at least, became not so gray and gloomy - here, of course, thanks to "Friendship" and their farm, the monotony was somehow diluted - after all, it is not everywhere so bad, on the other hand.
I am sure that “Alligant”, the first part of which will be released in 2016, will not disappoint.
10 out of 10
The plot is indistinct, if there is any idea uniting the meaningless movements of the characters, it is the struggle of the main character with herself. But then what does "insurgent" have to do with it? All the actions of the heroes separately and the plot as a whole are unmotivated, illogical, the course of events is determined by some accidents that scatter the plot into fragments of the mosaic. In the dry residue - the pathos of moral self-admiration of the main character. It turned out to be a standard pye-girl, from those who always listened to mom and grandmother. But the film about the inexhaustible, for any reason, remorse of the conscience of a pye-girl is not interesting.
Separately, the quality of the picture should be criticized. 3D here is purely nominal, in many scenes the background is not visible at all. Everything is out of focus, blurred, blurred. It would be a normal picture, even black and white, and it would be better. You could do even more original and make a silent film, with the sound of the piano behind the scenes.
But I must admit, there were spectacular scenes, the storyline of the first (successful) film at least somehow continued, the actors squeezed everything that could be squeezed out of their flat roles.
