Divergent (2014)

Four is the name of an important character in the movie. Apparently, it stands for poor writing, poor directing, poor casting, and poor acting.

Let's start with the poor writing. Obviously this movie would be more enjoyable if one had read the book. Well, I hadn't, and therefore I was confused because the back-up story was non-existent. The movie takes place in an dystopian society. However, nobody tells what really happened to the world. Without adding any spoilers, it is hard to specify why the quality of the writing is constantly so poor, but let's just say that the story is so full of holes it looks like an emmental cheese.

Poor directing. Good directing could have compensated for the ludicrous writing, but in Divergent they seem to form an unholy alliance. The scenes lack credibility - especially the action ones. Because of this, Divergent is a movie for the children at best.

There are three characters that look somewhat the same. It took constant effort to keep on track on who is who. The absurd changing of the scenes didn't help. However, the biggest mistake of the casting crew was hiring Shailene Woodley. Sure, it is cool to see a relatively new face in a big budget movie, but there is a reason why it is so rare - they cannot act.

The previous statement takes me to the final part, which rendered this movie close to unwatchable. The actors consist of young and inexperienced actors mostly. Because of the cheesy writing and directing, their acting seems even more horrible than it already is. Again, without including any spoilers, I won't go any deeper, but just watch the so-called "chemistry" between Tris and Four... Makes you feel awkward, huh?

Finally, I want to clarify that I usually like dystopian films. In this case, I was expecting a rating of 7 or 8, so I'm still quite shocked because the movie fell below my expectations so badly. It just makes me so disappointed that this kind of budget goes to absolute waste because of these flaws I mentioned above. All in all, I wouldn't recommend this movie unless you are a big fan of the books!

Fmovies: When reading the book, I had concerns about how well it would translate to film. It's a book without much action and most of the narrative is internalized to the protagonist. Books like that tend to struggle to adapt well and Divergent is no different. The director tried to make changes to the story in order to try and make it work but I honestly think it was futile. It's just not a good story for a 2-hour interpretation. Even at that, I would rather have seen the story stay true and struggle to adapt than change and struggle. All in all, it was set up to fail from the beginning. Shailene Woodley and Theo James gave solid performances and the special effects and action sequences were done well but they made the film watchable and slightly enjoyable at best.

I read the trilogy (which was nothing special and kept getting more annoying each sequel), but at least the first book had some kind of * something * to it. The movie sucks. It is boring and there is very little action (and what little there was is over too fast and not very thrilling). The violence is sanitized with the only real blood being when Four nicks Tris's ear with a knife toss. The two most horrifying scenes in the book are not even included: the attempted rape of Tris by Peter's gang and the transfer girl who jumps from the train and misses the Dauntless rooftop to splat on the street below. Tris doesn't have a "save the cat" moment early on and provides no real reason to ever like her.

The story takes too long to get going, then the training goes on forever, only to have the ending feel rushed. Not once did I feel anyone's life was in danger. Not once did I perceive any credible romantic chemistry between Tris and Four. Not once did I laugh, cry, or feel anything but bored. And it goes on for two and a half hours! Ugh. Sure, the production values are high, but who cares if I can't relate to any of the characters or the story? It's just a dumb waste of time. I didn't hate it (only because I scored a free ticket), but have no desire to watch the sequels.

However, I'm glad Divergent made a bunch of money opening weekend to pave the way for other YA books to be adapted into films, but they need to do a better job. The reason all the recent YA adaptations tanked at the box office is because they sucked (Vampire Academy, Beautiful Creatures, City of Bones). The only decent one I can remember was Warm Bodies.

Divergent fmovies. I went to see this movie misled by the high rating on IMDb. Unfortunately it looks like Hollywood makes movies for people with short memory. I admit I haven't read the source book, but I guess I wouldn't, judging by what came out of it. I hereby venture myself in saying that the book is also a bad SciFi novel. It has way to obvious imports from well known themes that have been exploited to the brim by today (like the "perfect" society that sacrifices diversity for peace, the "different" guy that stands-up to the system, the genuine technology that controls individuals (poorly described, by the way), the fear confrontation ad the list could go on and on. It is not essentially bad to bring these themes in a movie, but I see nothing new, original here. So... if you have seen Equilibrum and the Hunger Games then you know it all. Movies today are just mobile phones... keep reproducing "features" from the competition, while it is supposed to be an art. Another thing can't stand in movies in general is the poor IT incursions. I am talking about the scene in which Jeanine is asked to turn off the "control system" which consists of a huge touch screen in which she just hits some "cancel" button. That was really pathetic... Anyone could have done that right? Another thing that I can't stand, is the cheap psychology things in these movies. They are all based on some sort of psychoanalysis which is long time deprecated in therapy. But it is somehow considered to be "cool" and "trendy" by producers to insert these kind of flavour into the movies to make it more profound. Or are they just as stupid and ignorants as the target viewers? Anyhow... to me, this is bad taste in art. If you want to really go for it, you must do way better that that and if you can't, then at least make it more interesting. It is also true that movies like "Inception" don't occur every month, but once they do... they set a trend and everybody will just take a byte of it. Don't get me wrong, it is a "watchable" movie, perhaps a little too long for its story, which, by the way, is very predictable and full of clichés. I read some users claiming it resembles "The Hunger Games" and so it is, especially with the modest ending that awkwardly announces a sequel. I could predict how the story developed and ended after the first 15 minutes and that's what makes this movie mediocre. Script is mediocre, but at least it does not abounds in stereotypes so it's bearable. What can be said about acting... there is no acting in this kind of movies, you only need to be young and good looking, be able to learn your part and you're done. It's not that the actors are bad, but the movie itself is not based on any acting mastery and just because of that, the girl gets a plus for making something out of it. I am curious if the ratings will stay as high as now in time.

SPOILER: The main problem from Divergent is that its premise is too far-fetched, improbable and illogical. If the story had been ingenious enough to justify so many conditions and unearthly circumstances, there wouldn't have been any problem. But no... this is simply another juvenile tale about the typical main character who must overcome her insecurity when she finds out she's "special", and her actions escalate until she practically saves the world... without forgetting, of course, the "unexpected" romance in the road to her destiny. Well, I'm speculating about saving the world. Divergent is based on a series of "young adult" novels I haven't read (and I will never do so), and the producers obviously expect to shoot sequels, so this first film establishes the (absurd) post-apocalyptic world, the bland characters and the obligatory conspiracy in which NOTHING IS LIKE IT SEEMS (translation: everything is exactly like it seems, from the predictable villain to the gallant who starts being a hateful lout, until he softens himself and shows his romantic side). In other words, a simpleton and innocuous teenage fantasy made for female spectators; and another attempt to create the saga which will inherit the crown from The Hunger Games... something which isn't precisely bad. Divergent was made for a very specific audience, and I sincerely hope that the female fans of the novels are left satisfied by this film. For the rest, the production values are pretty high, the special effects are competent and the cast is composed in a big part by attractive multi-cultural young people who seem taken from a catalogue of Urban Outfitters (what a luck for the post- apocalyptic world). I don't know how the casual spectators can take Divergent; in my personal experience, it bored me very much (specially during the "exciting" conclusion full of action), but I'm very far from belonging to this film's objective audience. Each one will know his/her posture and tolerance to this kind of film; I personally regret having wasted my time and my money on it.