I confess that I went to this film when I had a cold and I had mixed impressions from watching it. I was cold and tired, or I really didn’t like the movie. I still try to convince myself that I just chose the wrong day to watch, but so far it does not work.
I note that I am not a teenager, but I love dystopias: when dark and epic and socio-existential themes are raised. Moreover, I do not have a high artistic taste and do not differ picky: almost indifferent to special effects, soundtracks almost never notice, I almost do not annoy vanilla, cliché, correlation with other films. So when it comes to fiction, I'm the optimal viewer. So that I do not like it, there must either be a solid dismemberment, or a complete lack of plot as such.
And the movie Insurgent seems not to like. More about the reasons.
In my opinion, the selection of actors is not very successful. The main character seems to be created for melodramas and is woven from a rainbow and foam - here she tearfully presses her lips at the thought of something ... and suddenly crunching - overwhelmed eight with one blow. It did not turn out the image of a strong outwardly but fragile intrigue, alas. In the first part, where Triss was a kind of slob, she somehow fit in, and in the second it looks stupidly fake and in the middle of the film begins to simply annoy. She's only good at shouting MA-MAA! To be honest, only Meg Ryan would be better suited for this role, and that is not a fact. Faure heroically loving Triss for the role of a harsh brutal handsome man selected successfully, quite fits and looks good. But who, tell me, made such a mummy on the plot and why? I've been so brutal. But no, it's not that simple. And the man who wrote in one of the reviews was right: the main character is more beautiful than the main character in the film - this is wrong.
Secondly, I didn't like the shooting. Very rarely do I pay attention to it at all, but here overdone. It feels like the cameraman is always riding around the set on a bicycle. It is clear that this in theory should give the picture a dynamic, but why arrange a permanent carousel? I think it's too much. And this distracts from the action, there is a desire to periodically look past the screen, so as not to get bored.
Thirdly, it may sound strange, but I was struck by the structure of the narrative. It seems that the directorial team decided not to bother and work on the scheme 5 in 5: five minutes of muzzle / chase / shooting - five minutes of talk. The number 5 is of course taken from the ceiling, it means that the scheme turned out to be too symmetrical. So much so that it became noticeable, and this is disorder.
Now briefly about what I liked. First of all, I liked the idea. And he still likes it. In my opinion, the universe here is much more interesting than in the same Hunger Games and the degree of its elaboration is better and the world is more logical, and the history is more utopian. It’s a shame that this story is spoiled by misplaced vanilla and other factors.
Kate Winslet is infernal and very successfully fit into the picture, although the role for her is unexpected. I really liked the kid, who all the time grinned and ended up on the side of good, it seems Peter.
Plus, it's not a bad story. For the action picture, it is quite complex, but at the same time understandable, and besides interesting, if you abstract from the main character, the mad operator, the annoying obsession with changing scenes.
If the directors had asked me for my advice, I would have advised them in the next two parts to stop trying to portray on screen the torment of love and remorse. Or put simply, snot in your fist, you give a dystopia! The part that conversations occupy, for example, to devote a more detailed drawing of the world and the plot.
While the assessment is difficult to put, I will try to watch the film again at home comfortably - and what if the cinema is really to blame?
I’m not going to explain the ten points I gave this film.
My subjectivity in the assessment is obvious, but I will write a completely objective review.
But after listening to some of my friends after watching, I thought, "People, what did you expect?" By God, I don’t understand why we should take this kind of film so seriously and why we should carefully analyze it into details and wash the bones of everyone.
The film is based on a book for teenagers. This isn't a fantasy classic. This is just another purely entertaining story. Enjoy the action, action, fantastic story about the future, cute actors, here you even Kate Winslet and Naomi Watts gave.
The original soundtrack is great, a couple of songs are also atmospheric. There is always something happening on the screen.
On the other hand, now people can compare as many as three approximately similar fan-chises: The Hunger Games, Maze Runner and Divergent.
Of course, the majority of votes will be for the Hunger Games, there is no doubt about it.
But at least two others can be seen in pursuit, in order to maintain the mood.
And if you are looking for the disclosure of characters, internal torments, drama and so on... full of serious dramatic films with serious actors, where this serious meaning at least ample.
I understand that I will be attacked like wolves on a goat, but let’s look at this work appropriately.
Consumption, argument, establishment, document, subscription, compliment, apartment, department, impeachment ... That’s how many more parts of the film adaptation of the acclaimed book can be removed using hard-to-pronounce masculine nouns ending in “cop”! Well, I’m joking, of course, but I can’t help but smile at the play of words by the creators of books and films, as well as the desire to enlighten us, readers and viewers, with new words in our lexicon. Perhaps we are even enlightened, creating a good goal? Well, I'm kidding twice. And I’m joking as much as you should treat these massive almost fakes – but no way!
Treat all such masterpieces, ranging from “fang twilight” and ending with “mazes” with respect and trepidation like “Obsession” (where Miles Teller shone) or for example “Titanic” (where Kate Winslet sweats) the soul will not turn! Typical consumer, designed for the fact that cute girls will lead or breed underheeled boys for completely unnecessary (unless, of course, this is the case when the boy invites the boy) session of this film. The girls themselves will cry somewhere, somewhere dream of bodily unity with the Fore, somewhere will pinch the heart ... Oh, those emotions... (approving, heavy sigh) But for someone this is "Divergent" exemplary film for a joint love viewing, and for someone another sad song with a classic set of stamps and cliches. With dialogues understandable to the second "A" and motives that not one sane psychologist will explain.
... Some miracle with a shade of "capricorn" I got to the session a year ago. Even more miraculously, I got into a session this year. In general, the film is not bad, but not in my taste. Given the fact that in the coming years we are waiting for at least two more parts, I am already looking for chains to chain myself from the middle of next March and no miracles would allow me to be at the next premiere of this fairy tale. In my understanding, a fantastic fairy tale is a fairy tale of the level of “Star Wars”, dystopia is the level of “mad Max”, romance is the same “Titanic”. But that's my opinion.
Who cares? Everyone chooses for themselves. Everyone needs something different.
An hour and a half after the movie begins. I look to the left, for there are almost no seats on the right. And a magnificent picture opens to the eye of the young: a few ladies of pleasant appearance (presumably pieces 5-6) are ready not only morally, but also physically to move to the screen, where there is a war between the unfortunate factions. Moreover, for physical movement, they have already taken the first step, bringing their heads and bodies closer to the big screen by half a meter. There are no charming ladies behind the fragile backs. But they're there! And all this voluptuous idyll is suddenly diluted by the already rhythmic snoring of my neighbor, who, apparently bored of yawning, must plunge into his dystopia. The dystopia is sweet, two-hour, sleepy.
Wearing 3D glasses, I continue to watch the magnificent action. It's a pity not for everyone...
The plot ... I won't describe it. The synopsis is at the top, and if I continue it a little, well, or elegantly unfold a few plot moves in words, you will not see my review. And what is the point in describing the plot of the film? See for yourself, just as interesting. As for the film, I will continue.
For all the absurdity, tension, snotty, stamping, without pleasant exceptions, it still did not do. The picture we see is interesting to watch. It's cute, interesting and well-drawn. Besides, not every day you will see the ruins of skyscrapers, conquered tunnels, catacombs and all that. For all the softness and charm of Shailene Woodley, she does not reject. And a short boy haircut, coupled with a naked gentle body, clearly symptatizes the eye. And in general, take the same James, or the insidious Winslet, the formidable Kourtney, the insidious Teller, the cute Kravitz, the sexy Watts and the irresistible Kew all of them as one and really complement and adorn each other, as well as the whole picture itself. The cast turned out to be stellar-modern. And let the bright star of class "A" with the exception of Winslet is not here, all the other guys are already the same old sharks: that Kourtney, that Teller, that Kravitz, that Watts.
Winslet, by the way, lost weight. Watts is old. Woodley's grown up. Teller's strapped. Kravitz got smaller. Courtney was dangerous, Theo James is beautiful.
I won’t forget the amazing music that is great! 3D is closer to the end, but not much, 6-8 minutes. In the rest, only a three-dimensional image, which does not play a special role. I often like sequels more than the originals. With Divergent, the situation is the same. In the second part, there are no dialogues of introduction to the course of affairs and factions, so we start immediately in a career. What was a year ago, I hardly remember, but it absolutely did not interfere with watching part number 2. The point was clear and the characters were already known.
In place of the creators would add more romance and sexuality. The movie clearly needs it. A more serious study of dialogues, as well as more adequacy and meaning in the actions of the heroes, would not hurt. If you want to find fault with all the absurdities of the film, then the “divergent” will explode to dust. Useful, new and wise when watching is not worth waiting, but to plunge into the fantasy atmosphere will never hurt.
The ending expectedly gave the lead to part three, which is to be and only to be. Well, this genre itself will rotate in cinemas and in the minds of the masses as long as it lasts forever. Or a little more...
I did not write a review of the first film. The solution was to watch the second film and then make some kind of conclusion about Divergent in general. That's the time.
I will say at once that I am not familiar with the series of books and make my impression of Divergent only from films. From the films it is clear that they were shot with the expectation that most of the viewers will be teenagers who will not think long in trying to break the world of Divergent into shelves, but will take rather superficial information about the film universe, and strictly follow the path that the writers laid for them. A closer look at this universe reveals many flaws and unexplained phenomena that will now have to be dealt with in detail.
The book and the film are two different things, and no one argues with that, but the film and the book should explain in detail to the viewer (the reader) what is happening (in detail). I believe that without it, but in our time when filming books a lot omitted, and some even changed. It's a pity, well, then get it.
At the beginning of the first film, the main character brings us up to date. This peculiar annotation states that there was a war and the rest of the world was destroyed, some “founders” erected a wall and divided the society into 5 factions in order to preserve peace. Well, if you've explained it so well, then the question is, why haven't I seen an old man in two movies? The oldest people in the Divergent universe are aged 50-60, but I have not seen 70-year-olds, 80-year-olds, let alone 90-year-olds there, although, as they say in the film “Two hundred years have passed...” during this time, not that old people should appear, but also cemeteries and everything adjacent to this, but this is not.
You feel that the situation begins to heat up and we break out of the rhythm of the story of a good good good teacher and gradually move to the semantic dismemberment of the film.
Now let's talk about factions. Who invented them? What logic did he follow? Why are there five? All these questions arose after watching the first part of the film (the second part also did not give an answer). It's not easy here, let's think about it. As I said, factions exist to keep the peace, OK, then what is the Fearlessness faction for? Okay, it's even less clear, because no one knows what's behind the wall, and the army should be in any way. But then why do we need the Sincerity faction? As the main character explains, “They always tell the truth, even when you don’t want to,” and what the hell? As it turns out from the second film, they can also decide the court (in my opinion, this should be their main task), but then the film contradicts itself. If factions are created to create a new peaceful society, then there can be no question of police and courts (because if there is a police and a court, then how will their society differ from ours?). As I understand it, society in Divergent is based on the peaceful coexistence of all factions, and this basis is the essence of division: “The genius of our system is that loyalty to one’s faction excludes the threat of uncontrollable will by people.” The existence of such factions is justified only by the plot, but if you look at reality, then half of these factions are simply meaningless.
Yeah, there was a lot of blood. The convulsions of the plot can be understood for a long time, but let’s take a break from this and talk about dialogues, sometimes just wooden. Dialogues in Divergent are not the basis of the film, but only plywood that fluctuates in the wind. Screenwriters have such a lack of imagination that they choose to exploit the same phrase. In the first film, Winslet's character says, "Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures," in the second film, she says, "Terrible Times Call for Terrible Measures," and I'll remind you that her character belongs to the polymath faction. The first phrase is very often present in films, and it no longer has any originality, but to duplicate not the original phrase, just changing the words in it is too much. Dialogue in Divergent is a slack (though I'm not surprised). It was more interesting to look at the armrest of your chair than to listen to the dialogue of the characters. And most importantly, the word Insurgent is never pronounced in the film, and accordingly, its meaning is not disclosed. It turns out that the name of the second part comes from nowhere, just out of thin air. I must say thank you to the creators for at least explaining who a divergent is.
You can talk for a long time about the flaws in the film: how in 200 years they have not been able to restore the city (or demolish it under the clean), oh, yes, I forgot, they do not have a faction of builders (although a huge skyscraper of the faction Erudition someone built), and how the filmmakers liken tall men to teenagers (a vivid example of Courtney’s character), and about where they get meat, if the only animals in the film are horses. But we will stop there.
The only thing I liked about the film was the progress of the main character. For two parts of the film, it is clearly visible how from a small grey simpleton from the Renunciation faction a brave brave warrior is obtained (at least in appearance).
But the big question is, should I watch the movie? Everyone decides for themselves. For me, this is a passer-by film, it just passed and that's all. Nothing. Emptiness.
It was very difficult to distinguish the previous part (Divergent) from the mass of such paintings about the dystopian future and heroic rebels. Everything was unoriginal, predictable and very far-fetched. That’s why the last part of the franchise didn’t impress me. Although the desire to watch the sequel has arisen. And now, having familiarized myself with the “Insurgent”, I can safely say that the creators carried out a huge “work on mistakes”, turning a slightly dull fiction into a masterfully shot blockbuster with a good plot. Which made me happy.
Speaking of the main character of the series (played by Shailene Woodley), in this part she is remembered much more than in "Divergent" primarily due to the new image. Finally, the heroine, as well as the action in the picture associated with her, is not an outright imitation of the Hunger Games, but something newer. In general, I have no special complaints about the cast.
The new part of the franchise was shot by a new director. That sounds good to me. Special effects and staging was an order of magnitude higher than the first part, in which the picture simply did not attract. Despite the weak effect of 3D, the film looks decent.
As for almost the most important plot in the cinema, I can not help but note that one of the main lines is very similar to another dystopian project “The City of Amber”. “Escape” (whoever watched, will know what I mean). But again, what is happening in Insurgent is addictive and really intriguing, which in most cases cannot be said about Divergent.
And in conclusion, for a stunning transformation and reaching a new qualitative level, without finding any special shortcomings, I award the Insurgent.
10 out of 10
I don’t understand two things: who created it and who likes it. I understand that this is the latest of the successful “Hunger Games” and, in my opinion, is intended for a teenage audience (and what reasonable, adult person would like it?), as well as the delusional film “Maze Runner”, and everything is done according to the book, but the plot, as such, must be present? Yes, such adaptations are made according to the books of some unknown writers, but I doubt that anyone will start making a film based on an uninteresting book.
Plot. In the first film, we are told about the world, show the choice of the faction, the teachings of recruits. In Insurgent, everything that happens happens is not clear for what. The information the viewer needs only comes at the end. If you remember Mockingjay, you can see that all the conversations there made sense, but it's not like that. Almost the entire Tris and Four movie is hidden from Jeanine.
If the first part is at least somehow fascinating, then in the second it is not clear what happens. I was shaking with boredom from the very first second. And this is Shailene Woodley's face in close-ups, and with a short haircut. It's funny when an actor is more beautiful than an actress, isn't it?
You want action? I wanted to, so I went, but he's hardly there. The only plus of the movie is the special effects. Yes, there did well some moments with slow action and destruction, but what else was spent 110 million dollars.
Acting. Of course, all these young actors looked like nothing near Kate Winslet and Naomi Watts. It was a pity for Miles Teller, who suffered on the set. What to say about Shailene Woodley, I plan to avoid her films in the future. Theo James played well for such a role.
Divergent, Chapter 2: Insurgent is a movie you don’t have to watch. Just pretend it doesn't exist and go for something else. I would rather go to the cartoon “Home”.
4 out of 10
The first Divergent made a big impression on me, going to the movies several times, especially to see Theo James. He was really handsome, manly, everything was with him. And Shailene Woodley also played great, there was a nice kind girl, open, sincere. And then in the second part, she cut her hair (she didn’t like it categorically), make a robot a killer machine that should die in the name of humanity. That is, really there were three men - one big pumped alpha male, one lean no boy and one man who shoots, torments himself all the time and is not perceived by a woman at all. Even the cover looks like a movie about two guys. This is unacceptable. A beautiful love story - for the female half of the auditorium - in the second part was openly killed, smeared and thrown into the abyss. Again, the views of Tobias-Theo did not feel anything, he was not presented as handsome, and his dignity was not emphasized. What didn't blow up was the plot. Here, yes, it unfolded well, interesting, some events were very predictable and banal, but original and interesting to watch. The film lost its passion. And very, very sorry. Anyone who likes to watch a fight will watch Jackie Chan. The pluses are good special effects. Very pleased with the objects flying apart, it was beautiful. I’m going to go on, but the movie of the year is definitely not. There were chances. .
Insurgent is a continuation of the film franchise gradually gaining in the youth environment, which, in turn, was created based on the no less popular trilogy of books authored by Veronica Roth.
Honestly, after watching Divergent, I got hooked on this fictional universe. I was very much waiting for the release of “Insurgent” on the big screen, I read the books of this series – in general, I hoped to approach the premiere fully armed... Sadly, as a fan, it went sideways. Let me explain why.
Of course, I knew there would be dramatic changes in the film’s plot compared to the book. What is worth, though, the “weaving” in the script of the most ill-fated secret box. In general, to finally evaluate the film, I went to the cinema twice. It was the first time I had a fan of the series. And every time an event in the film didn’t match the book, when something happened too early or not at all where the book should be, I spit bile.
Indeed, there are changes in the plot. But as the second trip to the cinema showed, they are not so serious in principle. The result of the film is the same as the result of the book. The only sad thing is that too little screen time was given to some of the characters from the book, which in principle are important in the plot - this is, at least, Marlene, Lynn and Yuraya (he certainly should have been more!). But in general, "Insurgent" is an interesting film. There are interesting fighting scenes, where the main characters to the left and to the right deal with opponents, and plot twists (again kindly left by the authors of the film), after which the pre-premier screening hall exploded with applause.
To sum up, the fan in me is somewhat saddened by the fact that the plot of the book for the film adaptation of it was partially distorted. But the movie lover inside me is satisfied - for the second time I enjoyed the fighting scenes, and the twists and turns of the plot, and the cool soundtrack, and the beautiful Shailene Woodley. So if you are a fan of this universe, then try to abstract from the content of the books and just appreciate the movie. Otherwise, your score will be much lower than mine.
8 out of 10
Fans of the first part will be disappointed. The film does not have the spirit that was in the real Divergent. The rest of the story is broken.
The filmmakers and screenwriters clearly do not suffer from logic. To begin with, all the events of the film are tied around a box that everyone is chasing. At the same time, why everyone needs it so much, no one can really explain. Everything is based on guesses about its contents.
Personal development of the characters in the picture does not occur. The system of factions appears in a very strange light where each faction is governed by its own leader and the center is connected only by the faction of the fearless. The wanted heroes can freely move around the city and no one is looking for them, does not arrest them and in general everyone is welcome.
Throughout the viewing, there was a feeling of strangeness, absurdity of everything that was happening on the screen. The topic of the formation of a factional system is touched upon, but even its creators did not want to disclose it fully.
A significant part of the film is occupied by trials that, strictly speaking, do not carry a plot load, this is only a means to achieve the goal.
There is no philosophical message in the film either. That's why it's so sad.
5 out of 10
Hey, everybody! Unfortunately, last week there were no interesting movies, so I did not have a traditional post, but this week there was a film that definitely deserves attention, namely Divergent, Chapter 2: Insurgent.
Apparently, the distributors were so unsure of the film that to attract more attention, they made a reference to the first film “Divergent” in the title, although the original film is simply called “Insurgent”, as well as the second novel of the Veronica Roth trilogy, according to which, in fact, it was shot. It is not clear what is the reason for such fears, because, traditionally, the release of the first films based on youth novels, such as “The Hunger Games”, entails a surge in sales of books – primary sources, and I do not think that the fate of Veronica Roth’s works in Russia was somehow different.
I will say at once that I did not go to Divergent, and I watched the film after the premiere, and I quite liked it, even more of The Hunger Games, which, after quite cheerful on the action scene of the first film, rolled into pink snot. Of course, in the case of the story of Tris, you can not avoid comparisons with Katniss Everdeen, although, I note that the theme of singles - revolutionaries who break the system, and in general dystopia is now extremely popular, novels come out in millions of copies, and film adaptations receive hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office. This year we are still waiting for two film premieres, one way or another revealing this topic: “Maze Runner: Trials by Fire” and “The Hunger Games: Mockingbird Jay”. Part II”. What is the popularity of this topic? The big question, but in my opinion, the main stimulus is the modern world order, and in particular, the state of affairs in developed countries, where the stratification of society is most noticeable, and where the young, talented, ambitious cannot get a place in the sun. And all personal dissatisfaction develops against the backdrop of incessant revolutions and wars in different countries of the world. And in books and on big screens, equally simple young men and women of the people take their lives into their own hands and with the help of friends overthrow an undesirable government. Does that ring a bell? I wouldn’t be surprised if a group of rebels would protest by jumping in the central squares of their cities. But, nevertheless, I am to some extent a fan of such works and read them with some interest. But back to the Insurgent.
I think that telling the story to those who have not read the books or seen the first movie makes no sense. I only note that, in my opinion, the second film is more saturated on the action scene, and the love line is somewhat sidelined. That fact is definitely encouraging. In addition, the plot pleases some absolutely unexpected twists, so call the plot linear language does not turn.
The cast has not changed. The main roles in “Insurgent” are performed by Shailene Woodley, Theo James and Kate Winslet, but I will tell about each separately. In my opinion, for Shailene Woodley, “Devergent” was the lucky ticket that opens the way to a big movie, because after working on this film Shailene played a major role in the beautiful film “The Fault of the Stars”, and this year the premiere of the film “Snowden” directed by Oliver Stone himself is scheduled. And do not forget about the final part of the trilogy - "Alligant", which will be divided into two parts. Unfortunately, it will not be possible to avoid the comparison between Shailene and Lawrence, in which Shailene Woodley, whose acting skills grow from film to film, confidently wins, while Jennifer Lawrence rapidly degrades to the level of Kristen Stewart, and even the mandatory attribute of the latter – forever open mouth – migrated to the face of Jay. Well, what else migrated to it Internet users could fully appreciate in various kinds of photos.
I can’t say anything about Theo James except that I thought for a long time that he and Mario Casas from Three Meters Above Sky were the same person. Naturally, the main role in this case is played not by acting talent, but by appearance.
But who surprised me the most was Kate Winslet. Yes, yes, the same Kate Winslet who did not let the hero DiCaprio climb on the wreckage of the Titanic and unexpectedly worked out a unique jewelry. In my opinion, Kate is a chic actress, who is subject to all roles, but I did not expect her to participate in this kind of film. But even in it she played fantastic and her character Janine came out surprisingly characteristic, serious and cruel.
In the case of Insurgent, the studio decided to go beyond the usual 2D version and released the film in 3D. Naturally, the main goal is to increase box office, but I advise you to go to the film in the usual format, because even despite the quite decent conversion, there is nothing to watch in the film. Yes, there are a couple of scenes with objects flying to the viewer, but this is where the beauty of 3D ends.
Well, it's worth it, because I was going to write just a few words. "Insurgent" is a must-see for anyone who is familiar with either the film or the books. Otherwise, you will spend a long time delving into the essence of what is happening on the screen.
8 out of 10
I understand perfectly well that now my review will collect 100 thousand million dislikes from fans-teens of this story, but I cannot remain silent because my outrage simply has no limit.
In this masterpiece, absolutely nothing is incomprehensible: no character is really revealed, there are no motives for action at all. Yes, give me at least something: regret, remorse, doubt, fear - anything, except not unconvincing snot for three hours, I will think further on my own, but no, emptiness, nothing to cling to. All the scenes that could show us at least something, at least some part of the soul of any character, crumpled, crumpled, cut, forgot to remove, I don’t know. So many chances to catch the viewer missed. Here it would seem, the confrontation with himself - here she is the perfect scene that helps to reveal the character, pff, no, let's better show more action, let's catch up with pathos, fists stretching will do their job. Or why does Brother Tris do what he does? I don’t see his emotions at all in any scenes, I don’t understand his actions or inaction, I don’t hear any clear explanations from him, zero! – either we don’t really show him at the right moment, or he doesn’t fumes at all for any reason, this is what kind of person he is.
Here's the emotional set of the film in total: one punch on the table, one very long cry, one concise dialogue, three cut scenes that could show anything if they were not shattered to dust. Not enough! I demand emotion, I demand motive! In short, the only moment that you can somehow cling to is 10 seconds of close-up Miles Teller, everything.
Maybe the characters are given so little time because it is necessary to show some general grandiose picture of what is happening, that is, the plot itself is full of some actions? Yeah. The hour of the film has passed - absolutely nothing happened: we went there, visited here, talked there, ran here; the result in the dry residue is a well-known zero. In general, and in the remaining time, there are no plot twists and turns especially not happening. We have a set of meaningless movements.
In general, it is worth noting that the level of meaninglessness is simply skyrocketing. I don't know what was in the book, but in fact, it's one of the most illogical films of recent years. Why you can not immediately tell who you are, without a fight for 15 minutes, which later turned out to be meaningless, how you can so stupidly lose a gun and generally any advantage, why trained fearless people can not really get out of the machine, how you can hide just by sitting down, how you can assume that you hid when everyone knows where you are and you are just standing on the street, what for the re-creation in the face of Faure the chef who allegedly shot almost all the Japanese aviation in the film “Pearl Harbor” – this is only a small number of questions that arise when watching the film.
What kind of dialogue? "I'm not coming with you? Why not? I don't like your plan, it's stupid. All right, bye-bye. And all that, or sweet-sweet lines that are just superfluous. This, by the way, is again a stone in the garden of poorly written characters.
In general, the creators, apparently, decided to hide behind the action, only, alas, the action does not pull and in no way covers the mud that seeps out of all the cracks. Graphics as graphics, tricks as tricks, why there is 3D as always unclear. I really enjoyed the jump in front of the train - breathtaking, but it was in the trailer, everyone saw it, no wow effect. It is worth saying in general that the trailer was many times better than the film itself, in which even a sensible soundtrack is not.
In the end, I want to say that in the process of filming a film, you can not openly focus only on raising money and hope to leave only due to an extensive PR campaign. Although wait, wait, wait... or you can, because this is how the creators of this film did.
Guilty.
4 out of 10
“Insurgent” is a dystopian work, a sequel to the work “Divergent”, authored by Veronica Rott. What is this story about? About who?
We were lucky to be in the city. They say it was a terrible war - the rest of the world was destroyed. Our founders erected a wall to protect us and divided everyone into five groups — five factions — to keep the peace. The story tells us about a girl named Beatrice, living in Chicago, who approaches several factions at once - like her called Divergents, and now Divergents are killed under the guise of suicide or accidents. Beatrice hides her peculiarity and chooses Fearless at the initiation. Janine Matthews, the leader of the Erudition faction, along with the leaders of Fearlessness, begins a civil war in order to destroy all Divergents - but there was no such thing. In The Insurgent, Janine realizes that we are not the problem, but the solution, and forces Tris to surrender to her in order to solve the problem. What problem? What happens next? I'm not going to tell you this, but in the meantime I'm going to turn to the criticism of the film:
To begin with, let’s talk about acting – I’ll tell you right away – Theo James and Shailene Woodley clearly drew this picture to a good rating, and Naomi Watts portrayed Evelyn as a funny fool (although she is far from that). Kate Winslet also decided to follow in the footsteps of Naomi Watts, the image of the evil fool was to nothing in the film - although this is already the problem of the director, not the actor. Ansel Elgort is generally a diamond after the success of the melodrama "The Fault in the Stars." About the rest of the actors will not talk, acting – 8/10
The musical accompaniment of this film, unlike the prequel, was not at all memorable. For the soundtrack I put 4/10.
As for the distortion of the plot (I do not want to talk about the plot itself, since the film is based on a book), another director tried very hard. He removed all the excess romance and clarification of relationships, added more action and was able to fully reveal the essence of the main character and the main character. Now, the film's biggest blunder is, why didn't the movie say Tris is Insurgent? I do not forgive for this, but still bet for distortions in the plot 9/10.
What else can I add? I will talk about the appearance of the characters - about the changes in the appearance of the characters. Shailene Woodley took great risks by cutting her hair so short (in the book they were longer), and yet, her risk was justified - it turned out some fighting girl with a mountain of compassion, poor was born, poor and die. Kate Winslet’s hairstyle was also a good option, which makes her character more cruel. I'll bet 10/10 for that.
The fifth point is missing, but I came up with it. What is it? Translation of the film into Russian. I was pleased with the translation of all but one heroine, Evelyn Eaton. I would be in the place of the actor for such a terrible translation would ruin everything and everything, it is too not so for her, too “thin”, what? I'll give you 7/10.
Well, to sum up: for the film I put 7,4/10, although I really want to throw another half point for IMAX 3D. I am happy to say that “Insurgent” turned out better than “Divergent” and did not pump up the entire trilogy (although there will be 4 films).
7 out of 10
Sooner or later, you will have to face your fears.
Having watched today the continuation of the film adaptation of the trilogy about the post-apocalyptic world of factions, I cannot but leave a review. The film is good, even very good, which is the merit of Robert Schwentke, who replaced the creator of the first part. The film, unlike the book, gained momentum, and lost several disadvantages of the work of Veronica Roth, which I was very pleased. The only obvious unclarified point that cannot be avoided is the lack of clarification of the concept of “Insurgent”. A person who is not familiar with the original novel will not be able to understand what this word is foreign. Although, in defense of the film, I can say that the author only once mentions this word in the book, explaining that Insurgents are people acting against the existing authorities, but not necessarily as a belligerent. In fact, even this concept could be avoided, but apparently, Roth just did not know what to call the second book, so came up with the term. It's not that important.
The visuals are chic, buildings, walls and imitations are shattering into millions of particles, and it looks very beautiful. The graphics are growing and pleasing. In this part, a lot of screen time is given to dynamics and graphic effects. And most of the action takes place in modulations or dreams. Everything was done with enthusiasm and talent. At the same time, 3D, as it often happens, is almost not tangible, so you can safely go to a regular session, you will not lose anything.
The caste in this film tried more than in the first film. Tris performed by the talented Shailene grew up under the yoke of the experience, became stronger, hardened, became more angular and lively (the hairstyle is quite successful and complements her image, besides it corresponds to the book), and selfless, but inside she remained vulnerable and lost, thirsting for maternal warmth and protection. Great acting, revealing the character. By the way, the episode with Tris when using truth serum in the faction “Sincerity” turned out to be extremely human, although it departed slightly from the book description. Woodley is developing as a performer more and more. The advantages of the film over the book. The director and screenwriters, fortunately, deprived viewers of the boring book and the constant quarrels and clarifications of the relationship between Tris and Four, which the 2nd book was stuffed to the top. And, importantly, Schwentke spared Tris a wrenching inability to take up arms after Will's death, so Tris became even more combative than before, although her nightmares did not go away.
Theo James is unquestionably handsome, courageous, strong and caring. And he is an excellent actor, and thanks to his hobbies in sports and self-development, he looks perfectly and harmoniously in the role of a fearless warrior. One of the scenes I want to highlight is a conversation with Evelyn at the table during dinner. I won’t tell you more about this episode, just enjoy the moment.
Ansel Elgort in the role of Caleb was always sweet plasticine, and the closer the end of the film creeped, the more dislike I formed his character, so with his task Ansel coped.
I also want to give a standing ovation to Miles Teller and his Peter, the main and only humorist in the film. By the way, in the first part from him also came a couple of jokes, but this film is not comparable to the first. Here Miles revealed without a trace, besides, not only in a joking way. I saw Peter’s ambivalence and my conflicting feelings toward him. He's perfect for this role.
As for the other actors, Kate Winslet plays smoothly without pulling the blanket over herself. Zoe Kravitz is almost invisible, because she is given much less time in the film than in the book. Evelyn performed by Naomi Watts is significant, but her story with Tobias is marked only by a couple of phrases. Perhaps the creators of the picture will take it to the next part.
The musical line is as beautiful as in Divergent, and the visual series is now even more pleasing to the eye, including thanks to the lands of the Friendship faction. The final footage of the running people is complemented by a great soundtrack, and the same emotional state is created as in the film “Island”, when the clones are released and they flee from their slavery towards a bright future. If you’ve read the trilogy, you know that waiting for a miracle is sometimes better than the miracle itself. But "now" people just happily run in the rays of the warm sun in hopes of the best. In view of all the above, the film leaves a lot of impressions, and I want to review it more than once.
The title of the next saga about fearless and (almost) immortal teenagers is probably derived from the book of the same name. At one time, after the stunning success of the first part of the “Hunger Games” (which, however, in the second and third parts have already gone into decline), there was a wild cloud of such literature from American underwriters who sought to share with the world their talentlessness and inexhaustible flight of crazy fantasy. Each online bookstore offered you not only Mockingjay, but also 50 books of this direction in addition. Read, say, develop. From development, they can perhaps expand only the vocabulary, and even then - fifteen-year-olds. This is where the legs of Devergent grow, which turned out to be the most adequate and ready for adaptation.
The first part, like everything new, the audience met not only normally, but even “hurrah”. Well, it was fashionable — new worlds, technology, super-guys, able to jump out of trains and stay alive. Against this background, it was even more fashionable to imagine a suffering girl who from the Restian-working class becomes a kind of Bond girl. Only instead of a sexy Bond hero, we have some pumped-up lipstick of an absolutely uninteresting appearance. They love something there, fight evil and everything ends well under the songs of hope, goodness and love.
The second part was already creaking. This is something like a first or second compote and eat a bun - there is not enough energy for all the menu. The first one you swallow without looking is hungry. And the second one already wants to try, consider and so and so, and even twist your nose, if you do not like the aesthetic moment of design. With the Insurgent, the same theme.
And I can't and don't want to scold this movie because I don't feel that way or reason that way. But there is nothing to praise him for. Such screen adaptations directly depend on the books - the script fully retains the main idea, you will not miss much. And all the disadvantages of the plot - the kind of writer. The viewer can appreciate only the visual component, the actors’ play, their relevance. But I had big, big questions.
Tightness. Unbearable tightness. I will say again – from the book, not from the evil one, but it is just shamelessness to prolong suffering, which, however, are the same from time to time. It's not interesting, it's boring, it's boring. Action, which evokes sleep and longing, begins only at the end, and even then, like, compared to the first part, it is much smaller, it is not so large-scale. But still. In my memory, I left the movie twice in the middle of the movie and fell asleep a couple of times. Here I just itched my whole body to get up and run away - so boring I was watching these nightmares, suffering and ravings.
The young mother of the protagonist, who appeared out of nowhere. Again, claims to the script, and to adaptation. The first shot that shows it is not even to make out who is standing in front of you, we were betting that the sister. For me, it remained a mystery - whether this was an important character, whether they dealt with their family troubles, why it was introduced at all, if the maximum returns are the fears and nightmares of the main character.
Probably, the unbearable invincibility and superpower of the heroes will not be considered as something special, but in a couple of moments I was directly amazed how their not very relief bodies set such a bang and so many huge men - mystic. Or should we call it the future?
I'm starting to get scared of the terrible tradition of killing Jai Courtney in the middle of all the tapes. At this rate, Sean Bean will soon be far behind. An interesting type, which I always look at with interest, whether it is a textured hero from “Unbroken” (the fact was enough for 10 minutes), or even the passing film “Special Serious Crime”. He wants to be held hostage to one role - a brave policeman, and this does not spoil his image and image. So many interesting projects ahead - at least they did not kill there.
It seems like a replenished, but such a beautiful face Snow Queen Winslet. Well, that's a classic - what can I say, a great English school. The only thing - the translation of some hysterically screeching aunt just killed me.
Tris and Fore continue to love each other, but more openly and sincerely than in the first part. When I first met. For some reason we are shown how they sleep, how she hysterically grabs him by the neck and with stubborn consistency strokes like the cheeks of an English bulldog, he seems to like and everyone is happy. But they seem to have no complaints, not considering the frankly stupid expression of Tobius. But here he is a superhero - what do you take from him? Well done, girl. True, the image of a kind of frightened "rural" was closer and sweeter to her, all these superhero things in the images of teenagers always strain me.
Daniel Dae Kim played a minor role. Nothing superfluous.
Great soundtracks, a ruined city, the final episode of the flight over a crowd of thousands. A healthy sense of presence.
A great dynamic ending, where you finally wake up and start to follow what is happening.
The brother of the main character as a character - I generally hz what and how. His incomprehensible throwing, his delusional dialogue, his inflated face.
I have the impression that the film adaptation is good. And all in their places. And the book is rubbish. What material is - you draw from an empty well into a beautiful bucket. Insurgent, devergent - the next hundred books - nothing changes from the title. Maybe in the printed version, all these anguishes and sufferings were interesting for teenagers, but there is no strength to look at it on the screen. Either make more movement, emotions, events, or stop torturing your characters.
In our world, the insurgent will be the one who dares to deny. Don't settle for a bad movie. Think about it and filter it out for yourself. Medium, bad, experience. Keep only the good in your mind. For example, the behavior of the main character. What is not a great example of victory over yourself?
Divergent 2: Insurgent through the eyes of the layman. So, the second part of last year's good movie, with the second title, similar to some kind of disease. The main character is like the strongest, but her parents were killed, the villain is like the smartest, does some very important shit, and then, blah blah blah blah blah love, blah blah blah blah revolution, in short, something like the Hunger Games, cool movie.
If the original "Divergent" was capable of anything, trying to pull away from "The Hunger Games," offering some - some amusing observations, and looking reasonably watchable. The sequel, alas, moves along the plowed furrow, catching fans of fashionable dystopias, and teenage blockbusters. The material completely merges with the already implemented projects, all ideas, all moves are already subject to the imposed laws of the new genre. For every 10 minute action, there will be twice as many pointless discussions and digressions. And it is good if someone finds romance or drama in this, but here all the nonsense ugly pulls the film, inflating the content, and gaping voids drive into boredom. So goes most of the film, up to the end, the final disperses a little melancholy mood, acting primitive in principle, but not boring. The moves, which probably relied on the creators, do not pay for an hour and a half eyeliner, because they are ugly secondary, one move the creators repeat themselves, the other they join the “antology of dystopias”, a typical layout of such material. Without seeing the same “Maze Runner”, “The Hunger Games”, and a couple of other films, one would be surprised, but alas. However, this does not cancel the insidious intrigues abandoned at the end, but in the dry residue they remain.
Discarding thinking about the content, bluntly focusing on the picture as a blockbuster, you can dig up a lot of marriage, both plot and technical. And without taking into account the standard questions about how a teenage girl did this or that, or how easily in the final “our” won. The actors play as if everyone already has a star on the walk of fame, and are present only for a tick, for example, Miles Teller, from whom they absurdly tried to make a character who would dilute the action with wit, but he looked excruciatingly sad. Shailene Woodley is an actress with good dramatic potential, and plays diligently here, but why is the image of Katniss Everdeen more memorable, and much more.
Robert Schwentke, at one time inspired actors - old people, creating one of the most old-school action films of our generation could not do anything like this with "Divergent", stupidly driving the creation into a frame. By killing off the social subtext they were trying to carry, creating a spectacle that looked like a one-off mainstream blockbuster, rather than a part of a big franchise that harbored deep meaning. Also lost the picture of distinctive features, as already mentioned, and against the background of all the creations that are forced to copy, “Insurgent” looks very poor. Revolution, as a conflict, is not as vivid as in the Games, there is no longer that spark of all-conquering love, and there is no atmosphere of survival and oppression, which is present even in Maze Runner. And, despite this scenario, the creators put a priori losing tasks, two more paintings on one book material, so it is customary today, but looking at previous similar projects, we can safely say that the Alligant will suffer in quality, and the Alligant 2 may suffer a box office failure.
5.5 out of 10
How do you copy The Hunger Games without getting caught?
I and the first “Divergent” seemed much more mediocre film than they say about it, so I was not going to spend money on continuing, but the coincidence of circumstances led me to a film session, the creators of which were so afraid that ignorant people will not go to an unfamiliar “Insurgent”, so they made a name worse divided into parts “Potter” and “Games” (most importantly, they managed to stuff into the title, but did not bother to reveal the meaning of it during the film). By the way, the final part of the franchise (yes, Chapter 2 is not the end) about divergents is divided into two. I wonder what kind of fraud with the name we will see. In principle, this is all that interests me in the continuation of Chapter 2, since Chapter 2 itself turned out to be, so to speak, nothing.
Leaving confusion about the title in the previous paragraph, let’s go directly to the film itself. “Insurgent” tells how the head of state, in which people are divided into factions, finds a mysterious book, or a cube, in which the message of the creators of this society is hidden, allegedly allowing to restore order in the event of an uprising of this or that faction. And only a real divergent, a 100 percent divergent, the most powerful and powerful divergent, a divergent before which other divergents bow their legs, a chosen one, in general, the girl Trix, who was the beginning of the movement against the existing system of factions. Obviously, for half of the film, some run from others, looking for help from others, and these thirds do not want to help especially, and do not mind surrendering the rebels. What exactly did you want, divergents? You super-duper people with sane minds, you have to understand that going directly to the almost allies of the main enemy and asking for help in the forehead, relying only on the fact that those "Dolverines" or "Pravdarubs" are stupid and arrogant. But they go, get first from some, then from others, but still go. Their perseverance was once to be rewarded, and they still find allies in the person of the Outcasts.
The second half of the film is about how Trix fights herself, making self-sacrifice to save the people around her, as the government turns them into zombies with some kind of sensor implanted in the body. Guys! Oh, come on! If everything is so simple, why do all these wars and running? So Miss Strictness and her company can subjugate people and force them to do whatever they want, but uses it only to make Trix weak??? Make everyone shoot themselves and that's it! You're on the horse, and everyone else is under you, because Trix and her friend are without an army? But no! We are hung on our ears one long product in the form of a drama, in which the main character to sad music with a decisive mine on her face goes to surrender to the enemy. Dear producers, this is such a ubiquitous product on the market that in such a gray film it looks like a hopeless attempt to give the film a little bit of epicity and seriousness. In fact, it turns out so: it seems edible, but tasteless, because it is already full.
Oh, and the special effects are pretty good. Not only are they made in such a way that even a blind person will see their improbability (I thought jumping over a double train would not outdo anything until Trix began jumping from the roofs of collapsing houses behind a house rising into the sky), but the whole action is buried not in formal reality, but in simulation. In reality, the maximum is shooting from assault rifles, and such is when n-adeen people run with weapons two in five meters, but none can get.
And to say that the actors directly pull the film into the category of cool, can not. Shailene Woodley with such a haircut from the boy help to distinguish only the eyes, but as it were in this and plus can be found: here, she should be childlike, so that what she puts in packs on the shoulder blades of opponents, did not seem strange. But something's wrong. She has no charisma, well, none at all, so passionate phrases from her mouth can not kindle a real fire to burn everything around. It turns out there's a little spark. And no matter how hard she tries, she still looks like a girl, cut as a boy, who does not know what to do. Her companion in the person of Theo James is much more brutal and powerful, but he does not according to the script to be a starter, so he runs after Trix, like a pop with yourself-know-what. By the way, the couple this time spent much less time talking about how they like each other, which, of course, plus the film. Kate Winslet is the most suitable for her role, strict, imperious, unshakeable, even if the cheekbones on her face were such, tougher, more expressive, and there would be no price at all. Ansel Elgort managed to play the simpleton Vanku the fool quite decently. And finally, Miles Teller, who played like that, turned out to be one of the most important people, having managed to achieve both rejection from the audience and sympathy.
In general, “Insurgent” is trying to show something, to prove that it was not for nothing that they filmed it, but these attempts are mostly in vain. Predictably, mediocrely, there is almost no interest, as well as worries for the fate of the main character. A lot of nonsense, from one side of the confrontation, from the other. In two hours, the film managed to make an unexpected turn. If anything in this world needs to be changed, it’s to stop producing unnecessary sequels/prequels. You can watch these movies at home without losing anything.
6 out of 10
Definitely a nice movie for family viewing in the cinema. Fans of the first part will be satisfied. The film can be revised, peer into the details, discover interesting, exciting and comic aspects of the life of other factions and not really tormented over the unravelling of the images of the characters and the motivations of their actions (since everything is literally laid out for us), but something just like “Wow!” does not happen, despite very high-quality and realistic special effects. A clear storyline left almost no room for intrigue and independent thinking, as it was in the first film. The viewer is fed up with the close-ups of the main characters and the demonstration of their established relationships, so full that the secondary characters begin to attract attention much more. The palm of the championship here is held by the hero of Miles Teller (perhaps the only one with whom there is any inner search and metamorphosis), and the heroine of Naomi Watts is a “dark horse” in every sense, ending the second film, intriguing and taking her to the future third part. For-Tobias is unambiguously handsome, brave and devoted to his girlfriend, but here is the shade of danger, unpredictability, ambiguity that was visible in the first part of it somewhere disappeared. He's just a positive hero here. Tris, opposite. If in "Divergent" we saw a soft girl trying to surpass herself, educate, temper, if the viewer was attracted by her expressive eyes with barely restrained tears, then here we see more and more an invulnerable aggressive boy.
Footage with Tris eyes is still a lot, she also easily lets down a tear in the intervals between the battle scenes, but this time she does not cause this emotional sympathy and empathy. An excellent acting work by Kate Winslett, deepening the image of Janine from just a villain - erudite to a scientific ruthless researcher of the divergents she captured. Such a sophisticated Gestapo of the future for the common good. Quite a little space is given to Christina, but it is a pity - she really diluted the surroundings of Tris. And finally - for romantics of all ages who have watched the trailer - if you are waiting for a special spark in the love relationships of the main characters, then it is in vain. It is not there for some reason, this special spark, as well as especially passionate scenes. If you’re waiting for them, you’ve seen everything from start to finish in the trailer. Tris and Fore generally appear in such harmonious personal stability, as if they have lived together husband and wife for several years. And therefore - safely take children to the session, without fear of damaging their tender psyche and have great pleasure.
9 out of 10
Hardly returning from the cinema, I immediately write a review of this film.
I will tell you right away – this work is like a vitamin salad in the summer. Refreshing, hunger cleansing and everyone happy. I have the same impression of the film. Something new, bright! This is a delicious mix.
But it's worth going deeper, of course.
First:play of actors. Everyone did very well. To tell you the truth, I myself sometimes in the cinema barely held back to not let a tear. The moment with my mother touched my heart. Everyone convinced me. Sincere smiles, tears, sorrow and joy.
Second: plot. They've made a little bit of a change from the first movie, and that makes sense. If you expect a mystery from the first part, then you expect a completely different one from the second part. There’s no such thing as “drawing into the plot” or “why exactly such rules.” Here the viewer walks along a rather familiar path, which is getting closer and closer to the key point of the plot and the idea of the writers.
Third:visual effects. They were great. As in the first part, the special effects were very realistic. I really enjoyed watching in the pen film, as they conveyed the “fantasy” of the main character. More precisely, her consciousness, when she passed all sorts of tests and so on. It is a similar situation, everything is very accurate, neat and beautiful. You sit there and you look at the picture.
In conclusion, I want to say: the film turned out very good. The set did its best. I have a lot of respect for everyone.
For those of you who want to see this movie, yes. It would take less than two hours from the beginning to the credits, but they were able to include the maximum in this film. There was no boring plot, there was no falsehood. There was a "D" - another view of the film, which is no less worthy!
10 out of 10
For me, this franchise is full of contradictions. And in terms of meaning, and in my perception.
First, perception. I used to try to read Veronica Roth. The Divergent barely survived. So tormented that about the other two parts of the trilogy decided: I will read them only at gunpoint. But she went to the film adaptation of the first series, considered it a film disgrace, and then, after the end of the rental in theaters... she revised it three times. And she never even scowled. It's kind of like a teenage dystopia, and I've been a long time since I was a teenager. It is difficult to admit, but what to do?
Now, the Insurgent. The producers replaced the American director Neil Berger on the German Robert Schwentke. This, in my opinion, is correct: Schwentke is above the class, he has at least two works, which, of course, can be called excellent – “The Flight Illusion” and “RED”. Berger has nothing unconditional about filmography. Another question is, how much can even a cool director with such a literary source?
Where genocidal ideologues are oddly inconsistent: Marcus claims to be the leader of Renunciation, and remains alive. Peter pacostite-pacostic all conscious life, and then suddenly from one episode imbued with conscience and elements of heroism. If no one has attacked the Wall for 200 years, why bother to nurture the Fearless? And Janine is kind of smart, and eager to reveal a secret that is not yet known what will bring her personally. Why? And there are a lot of questions in the course of viewing (although there are a couple of funny episodes).
It seems that Schwentke tried to make the analogy with the Hunger Games was less. Though I think it's useless. Genre one, the plot is similar, even armored cars cut through similar ones. But that's not even the point. Funny as it may seem, about the "Hunger Games" involuntarily remember every time you see in the frame Tris - Shailene Woodley, although prettier, wonderfully losing weight, but to Jennifer Lawrence she like the moon. And this is the understanding "you will not strangle, you will not kill." There is some kind of soft lethargy in Woodley that does not suit a strong unusual girl at all (and all these trilogies are always about unusual girls). Do you remember how in The Most Charming and Attractive Susannah speaks of “a shade of tired doom”? Woodley, in my opinion, does everything with this shade - even looks at Faur.
By the way, Theo James is very good. But personally, I missed his dramatic line with the unsavory heroine Naomi Watts (I won’t say who she is, so as not to spoil). How nice he barked at her at the table! It's a full-length Mexican drama! Even though she wasn't really open, she hooked me. In general, Naomi's participation looks promising - with the expectation of a third part. Although with supporting actresses, this franchise is generally very lucky. But they don’t always have much to play. I had few of them in the frame – and Naomi, and Maggie Q, and Ashley Judd, and Kravitz’s daughter ... Not to mention Kate Winslet (an actress of her level can play such a Janine easily - even drunk, in a dream or in a coma).
The producers of "Insurgent" clearly liked - even before the start of the rental, they approved Robert Schwentke as the director of the third part. To say clearly that I liked everything and I can not. What I absolutely liked, in the picture was not enough. But I will also be reviewing the Insurgent. It's embarrassing to confess, but what to do? It looks entertaining, and sometimes I want to.
Honestly, I liked the first part of this movie better. Standard scheme: determination of fate - training - battle - victory - & gt; second part. Everything was great, beautiful, spectacular and active.
The second part is called the Insurgent. To anyone who is lazy to Google, it means "guerrilla war." The word itself does not appear anywhere in the film, it is an encrypted spoiler about what the second part could be about. But that's not what she's talking about.
Throwing the main characters from side to side, persecution of the main characters, in some place an attempt to organize the same “underground guerrilla war” – but the idea of this war the plot ends, nothing like this in fact will not happen. The film will go on the rails of self-improvement and self-sacrifice of the main characters relative to each other, the world and the universe. In general, from the middle of the film, the second part of Divergent to tin begins to resemble the last part of the Matrix. And in ideological and plot moments, and graphically-visual. The directors are probably fans of the Wachowski brothers.
In general, the second part in the movie can be seen, but in my opinion it is weaker than the first, less spectacular, interesting and eventful.
The second film is surprising for those who have read the book, for those who are not familiar with the history of the insurgent, the film can cause a lot of other emotions. Here’s what it might have to do with it.
Following the example of “The Hunger Games”, the viewer could get used to the fact that Lionsgate films are shot almost strictly according to the book, letter to letter, and this causes positive reviews from fans of books and negative from the viewer, because he does not understand much. The script of the insurgent, it feels, was written from scratch, sometimes intersecting with the plot of the book. Of course, the general story is conveyed unequivocally, but the path is completely different. In this case, you should not draw parallels between the film and the book, comparing certain situations, because then each scene will have to be recorded in "Mistakes in the film" (there is already a similar record).
A worthy continuation that looks in one breath, periodically forcing you to flinch from unexpected turns and goosebumps to run somewhere near the moments that permeate the soul.
Despite the winning move with the script and excellent directing, the actors playing the main roles kind of relaxed, or they just lacked experience. Several times during the film, there are situations when it takes out of context and attention is captured by what is seen as the actor plays, and faith in everything that happens immediately collapses. But this is immediately forgotten, and rapidly developing events plunge back into the river of emotions and experiences.
Insurgents – armed groups of the civilian population opposing the authorities
I just got back from the theater. I’m very happy with the movie and that I finally saw it on the day of the premiere. The impression was spoiled only by teenage girls, who squealed and touched by what was happening on the screen in the back row. The second film is no better or worse than Divergent, it’s just different. This is a continuation of the story, presented from a completely different angle, it is the story of military operations with grown-up heroes, while the first part is the story of how these heroes grew up and became fearless.
Of the minuses of the picture I can note weak music, it is not remembered at all, but goes in the background, the magical "Tris" Junkie XL could not outshine anything. Of the songs, there was only a powerful inspiring "M83 - Holes in the Sky ft. HAIM."
I'm really sorry for a few book moments, especially the line "I'm your family now" ... people reading will understand. Yes, of course, every reader has moments and favorite characters that have not been revealed and shown, in this regard, the best for the audience, nothing distracts from viewing.
The funniest drawback is that the meaning of the film’s title has not been revealed! It was about divergents, but actually the movie is called Insurgent. Who are these insurgents left behind! So why not just call the movie Divergent? The second story, for example?
But there are a lot of pluses. In general, this film itself is one solid plus, it holds the viewer’s attention, the acting is simply unparalleled, all the actors tried to show their hero, tell the story from his point of view.
Perfectly shown experiences Tris, as well as her strength, courage, intelligence.
Shailene Woodley has a short haircut. Tris looks stronger but also more fragile with short hair and huge expressive eyes.
As usual, the Four (For) embodies the ideal of masculinity, courage, care. He is the perfect boyfriend, but he does not have sweetness and sweetness, he is just a real adult man.
Among the biggest changes we can distinguish the change in motivation to search for divergents, which seems much more logical than the scientific experiments and empty cruelty of the book Janine. Janine is a great villain, Kate Winslet deservedly got more screen time.
The discrepancy with the book even saved the lives of a couple of characters, and Friendship and Sincerity do not look mean without getting into war, but rather just weak and few, but fearless traitors even too many.
All the characters except Tris, Four, Peter, Janine and Caleb were extras, the focus this time completely focused on them. Is that good or bad? Well, probably good, otherwise the film could be safely made 3-hour, stretching the main plot due to the secondary lines of these characters, which would make it just protracted and boring. The details are in the books! I will mark the unexpected star hour of Peter, he dragged all the humor of the film on himself, was still a jerk, but a funny and cool jerk!
Chicago is even more beautiful in its destruction, the farms of Friendship, and all the heroes, and even the life of the factionists are beautiful. I just want to get into this world! The finale of M83 – Holes in the Sky ft. HAIM. These crowds, these walls... and I want to run forward through the ruins and fields there, forward. And it seems that everything is about to be fine, although it is not.
The creators of the franchise took the very bold step of dividing the final book into two films, see if they have enough margin of safety to justify their hopes. If the hunger games, having gone for it, you can already safely talk about it, did not lose the decision to earn extra money, albeit to the detriment of the dynamism of the plot, then in this case the producers walk on thin ice, no matter how failed.
The first hour and a half tickle the already tense nerves of the audience, those staunch tin soldiers who continue to be loyal to the franchise despite the indignation around, they say how much you can shoot a "teenager movie." I couldn’t help but think until the finale why they didn’t kill Kate Winslet in the first part, and why they were going to come back and do it, the lack of logic in some actions made it difficult to focus on what was happening. I felt like a deep-sea diver who, despite warnings, descended into the depths of the sea, but suddenly felt that someone pinned down a hose that receives oxygen. The sluggishness of the plot development and predictable dialogues, in which everyone feels like a psychologist who knows more about the main character than she herself, forced at some point to doubt the correctness of choosing a film to watch. But... suddenly this man took his foot off the hose and life-giving oxygen rushed into his lungs. A very long harnessed director in the final half of the hour broke out so exciting action, sometimes suggestive of "Island" with Johansson and some other dystopias, but by and large they are all somewhat similar to each other, there is nothing shameful in this. However, if the Hunger Games are called straightforward, they have a very clear and traceable idea, and very worthy and accessible to understand. In the first two parts - Divergent and Insurgent, I could not figure out what, how to say salt, where the same supermessage. Perhaps each age is different, and for teenagers who are considered to be confused and there is something special that they will understand here. And for everyone else, what is enough, the main thing is that there is an action, sometimes you want to enjoy chases, fights, broken houses and good music without thinking.
Strange as it may seem about Miles Teller, it was written that he played his role without straining and only for the sake of money, but in some places he looked much more convincing Shailene Woodley, to her honor, she played out, apparently felt not only confidence, but also began to enjoy what was happening. Theo James is the one who really fits into his role and plays it for 100. I also liked the serious face of Kate Winslet, in contrast to Ansel Elgort, she looked very dignified and added rigor to the action, something like a snow queen and Kaya with a frozen, in this case not only heart, but also brain.
The final half-hour that saves this film forces us to wait for a sequel, and drowns out the potential stream of criticism that could have arisen without them. Just as creators walk a tightrope balancing success and failure, my review will be neutral.
I’m a big fan of dystopias, from teenage novels (Veronica Roth as an example) to masterpieces like George Orwell’s 1984.
Surprisingly, the first part of this series I really liked, even more than the book (which is very unusual). It is interesting to show the structure of society, a very good, sustained idea of factions. Much more logical than in the book, divergence itself is justified.
What happens to the movie in the second part? The decision to step back from the original text and let the writers go was clearly unnecessary. As a result, it turns out such confusion from absolutely unnecessary twists and changes in the plot that the main idea simply changes, and not for the better. So extraordinarily to fuck through the key moments, you had to try. Well, enough of the long outpourings, I just don't know how to explain, so as not to start spoiling.
According to the film itself: as someone rightly wrote below, the chemistry of the relationship between Tris and Fora has gone completely and irrevocably.
As for camera work, I don't know if it's just my personal perception, but it's indescribably terrible. In any frame where there is a dialogue, the disproportionateness of the picture is off the scale.
Regarding graphics, hello to the computer games of the beginning of the two thousandth. Buildings collapse beautifully, but people (and objects, glass there, etc.) are so painted that the eye cuts. Director – I can’t say anything specific, but the first one was clearly better.
The game of the main characters, which I liked so much in the first part... well, remember Twilight? Pretty much the same. The first film was shot - still tried, and then they just started cutting money. Even the action scene does not reach the desired level.
Pros: Kate Winslet and Miles Teller are gorgeous. The first is matchless in the image of a pragmatic smart bitch, the second adds freshness and humor to the film.
As a result: they distorted the very concept, I have no idea how they will get out further.
We went to the side, far to the side, not there at all.
4 out of 10
Seriously, what does that mean? In the film, this word is never pronounced, what does it mean at all?
But God be with him, let's get to the point. I liked the first one, it wasn’t great, but it wasn’t bad, and I liked it (7/10). But the second part is worse than the first. The worst thing is that the whole plot of the second part can be described in three words (Next parenthesis spoiler!!!) (They read the text.) And that's unfortunately all. Nothing else happened in the movie. Well, of course, they ran to different locations, but everything is so meaningless and unnecessary that it catches the eye.
3D in the film is cool first 15 seconds of the film, when the screensavers of the film producers, and also twice at the end, with about the same duration. Also in the film completely (not counting the credits, but everything is bad there) there is no OST. In the first part, there were many songs that cut into the memory and helped to immerse more into the atmosphere of the film, as well as give dynamics to the film. In Insurgent, you get tired of just one type of Score. I don’t know who the composer of this film is, but his motives were put to sleep.
What's really good about the movie is humor. I think the first part was much bigger. Actors are just as pleasing. Yes, they do not play brilliantly, but the eye is pleasant, and Miles Teller and does carry the floor of the film.
As a result, the film does not have its own face, because of the rapid change of locations, the film is not remembered. I'm sure if you ask what you remember from that movie the next day, you'll only remember the flying house. In general, the film could have been much better if it had remained the former director, since the first film shows the style of the director, there is a standard program. And considering that the last chapter was divided into two parts, then it will only get worse, I think.
5.5 out of 10
The story of five factions and divergents, which developed very grayly and rawly on the pages of Veronica Roth’s novels, suddenly started playing on the big screen (thanks to the great magic of cinema) and acquired a certain digestible and quite attractive form. Therefore, it was very curious whether the writers, led by the director, will be able to continue to play this story so that the interest from the public does not cool down.
The film “Insurgent”, in my opinion, is not worse or better, but exactly the same as its predecessor – “Divergent”. There are still poorly drawn details in the narrative that should not be thought about, otherwise the overall picture of the future dystopian world ceases to be holistic, and, therefore, believable. Here on time come to the rescue of the action scene (so that with all the desire to think, the viewer did not have enough time). They are dynamic and capture attention. However, I did make smile one scene where an armed group of people fired on a moving train. Involuntarily, the association with an episode from the comedy “Shirley Myrli” surfaced when the policeman Piskunov, in pursuit of the thief Krolikov, who was traveling in the tram, shouted to his partner “Shoot on the wheels!”. Well, in general, the picture, of course, spectacular and beautiful, this Hollywood can not take away. Only here the effect of 3D did not have the proper impression, so you can safely ignore it and watch the film in the usual format.
What there is no desire to find fault with is acting. Everyone looked at the level, but especially attracted the attention Kate Winslet and Miles Teller. Their characters are contradictory and ambiguous, so it is interesting to watch them throughout the film.
The film “Insurgent” turned out to be a good sequel, which you can watch at home (right, you will not lose much). And it could be just wonderful if it was the final in the history of divergents. Then perhaps this franchise as a whole left a pleasant aftertaste. But since Hollywood often forgets to pull the curtain down, I dare assume that my interest in it will fall (especially when I remember that the third book, according to the good old tradition, was divided into two films).
7 out of 10
P.S. I suspect that one ball went off automatically because of the magic of the big screen and the atmosphere of the cinema.
As soon as I saw the first part of this film, called Divergent, I realized that this is the movie that, personally, I have been missing for so long. The film was very exciting and I was looking forward to continuing. And now, finally, the day has come, I bought a ticket and with great anticipation went to my session. And, yes, I didn’t stay indifferent for a minute, but more on that.
First, let’s talk about the storyline. It's beautifully built. Starting with unexpected endings, ending with the absolutely amazing ability of the characters to reincarnate from one psychotype to another, forcing the viewer to drop tears of annoyance or torn from chest overflowing joy. As for the ending, if you do without spoilers, it will be just explosive and hit, I think, anyone.
The cast began to play much friendlier, more cohesive, you feel that the whole team is interested in the success of their creative child. Shailene Woodley with her hair cut, maybe someone outwardly and will remind a cancer patient, a little infantile Hazel Grace Lancaster from "The Fault of the Stars", but this is only externally. The character of the actress remained as determined, bold and a little picture-confident, which goes only in the plus, of course. Theo James in the frame looked good, no complaints did not cause. But, for me, his character is still not sufficiently revealed and looks rather faded against the background of other colorful characters. But this is my subjective opinion, I think the beautiful half of humanity will challenge it. Kate Winslett One of the most talented and beloved actresses, in the plot and will remain insidious and heartless Janine, the leader of the Erudite faction. But this fact does not affect her undeniable acting skills, for me personally, every appearance in the frame is a great joy.
To sum up, the film “Insurgent” was not just good, it turned out to be delightful, magnificent and insanely exciting. I recommend watching absolutely everyone, from 12 (as the law dictates) to the most advanced age, because here everyone will find something interesting and may even be new for themselves.
10 out of 10
I'm not a big fan of the universe, but I really liked the books. The first picture got me hooked. Of course, it was not a masterpiece, but I was interested. In the first part, watching what is happening, you empathize with the main characters, imbue with their history, begin to dislike negative characters and watch everything with interest.
The second film really turned out to be very beautiful and dynamic, and the action scene looks very good. However... the whole impression was spoiled by a much changed plot and acting. Compared to the first part, the main characters here look different, unnatural. Janine Matthews no longer looked like an evil aunt, hungry for power. Characters like Evelyn and Joanna have not been revealed at all, as if they were just some kind of scenery. Tris' mental experiences are extremely disgusting. The whole drama of her fate looked something like this: 'I'm bad! I'm not good! Don't feel sorry for me!' Theo James has not changed at all, which is very good. He remained the same loving, caring and willing to do anything for Tris. That's what made me happy. Of the remaining characters, I want to highlight Christina, Juraia and Peter. Their characters here are more extras than any important person. Their characters are just as poorly revealed, especially Juraia, and Christina looked like a soulless brick.
The plot of the film is very disgusting. The life and life of the factions is poorly shown, some key scenes are either absent or simply changed (and not for the better). The main motives of negative characters do not correspond to the book version, and generally look doubtful. Some will say, 'So what? It's not a book!' The movie was based on a book, so why change it? You already have a story, so why not show it? Why reinvent the wheel? I don't understand that. I liked the book a lot more.
Divergent, Chapter 2: Insurgent is a film suffering from a long-known sequel syndrome.' A good action and beautiful picture is not enough to somehow outshine the minuses of this film. The undisclosed personalities of the main characters, the poorly shown world, the questionable motives of negative characters and the absence or change of key scenes simply drowned the picture. Going to the cinema, I expected something more than what I saw. Of course, this is just my opinion, but I think most people who read the book support me.
Outcome assessment:
So came the continuation of the trilogy "Divergent". And I will say that it does not lag behind its first part, but even in places distills.
Let me start with the most tasty bit - the cast and its work. If Kate Winslet and Ashlyn Jud were the “bait” in the last film, now Octavia Spencer and Naomi Watts have joined their company. Of course, not one of them showed a straight strong acting, but everyone was at their level and pleased the eye.
Shailene Woodley played her role really well. Theo James already feels better in the role of Fore/Tobias, and was also good in the frame. Miles Teller and Ansel Elgort did not disappoint.
About the plot: it has not changed much and it is insignificantly different from the book. Most likely, it was made more interesting and more difficult, but with this there was a sufficient number of plot holes. But due to the rhythm of the picture, not many viewers will notice them.
I’ll also add that many new characters just haven’t revealed themselves. In the book, they’re all interesting and we know a lot about them, but in the movie, there’s almost nothing, not even names. And what I especially didn’t like – the character of Fore from the book disappeared somewhere. It's not Theo's fault, it's the plot. The character that Tobias possessed in the book stifled the plot changes. And maybe Robert Schwentke himself didn’t understand what this character should be in this part of the trilogy. So that's a minus.
Now for the visual effects of the picture: they are very pleased! That’s what they did, and they did a great job. With them the picture looks newer and more interesting. I won’t say that in “Divergent” they “lipped”, but in this film they are clearly better.
What is the "b" musical accompaniment? It's beautiful! And for that, we should thank Joseph Trapanese. Still, many were afraid for the absence of the song in the film, but it did not worsen it.
I also want to note that “Insurgent” is not like other films of this genre. In fact, the previous film. This shows very different emotions during viewing. And that's very good.
“Insurgent” is a good continuation of the story. It will appeal to fans of the trilogy, as well as fans of action movies, fiction and even melodrama. But still, personally, I do not give rest to those undisclosed characters.
9 out of 10
Continuation of the dystopia “Divergent” I was looking forward to.
Since the events of the first part, several days pass, the action of the picture is transferred to the possession of the faction “Friendship”, where the main characters hide. After another raid in the Renunciation, the powerful head of Erudition Janine finds an artifact with a secret message that only a divergent can open. Having gathered her best people, she begins her search.
Robert Schwentke has done a tremendous job. His characters are interesting, each has its own line, not overloading the main plot: Tris struggles with her inner demons, Fore faces the past face to face, Janine wants more power, and Caleb makes a tough choice. All this fits into a dynamic narrative, swirling around the “cat in a bag” in the form of an artifact. It is logical that all the lines will converge in the final, but the director manages to smooth out sharp corners due to immersion in the inner world of Tris, her experiences and fears, without overreflecting.
Good camera work, good, sharpened under 3D, special effects, new factions with their leaders performed by brunette Naomi Watts and Daniel Dae Kim, a pleasant soundtrack with the beautiful Royal Blood on the final credits and beloved heroes from the first part - all this gives an excellent foundation for getting a worthy continuation. Not without typical stamps and some predictability, but I want to pay tribute to the creators – no excessive “vanilla” was not, and thank you.
Otherwise, a good continuation of a good franchise. We're waiting for the Alligant.
8 out of 10
