The Divergent Series: Insurgent

These teen novels from the pen of female authors, wrapped in pseudo sci-fi/fantasy crap are an unfortunate phenomenon of today's pop culture. Paraphrasing Simona Stašová in Cozy Dens: it cost so much money, and it's so stupid. I felt genuinely sorry for the respected character actresses Jodie Foster and Naomi Watts. I know how expensive mortgages in Florida can be, but still, do these two ladies need to do this? (21.08.2015)

Continuing from last year's impressive adaptation of excellent source material is not exactly an easy task, especially if this time you have something slightly less gripping to work with. Given the completely new creative team, I understand the completely different feeling and surprisingly nod approvingly at the omission of drawn-out book passages (the stay with the Factionless) and the fact that the main trademarks of the series still feel divergent enough. However, the biggest triumph remains the phenomenal casting. That year, during which the actors of the main group of youths (Tris, Four, Caleb, Peter) gained experience elsewhere, is reflected in their performances in a tremendous way, and it is their talent that completely makes us forget the unstable narrative foundation on which the whole saga ultimately stands. (30.03.2015)

A B-movie version of Hunger Games, just less political, less pretentious, and much more straightforward with a similarly likable protagonist and definitely better chemistry between the leading duo. Unfortunately, they were unable to avoid the typical trademarks of second-rate PG-13 entertainment: an embarrassingly predictable script, unbelievable emotional dilemmas, and hopeless plot twists (someone is about to die, and snap, the story takes a turn, and someone saves them at the last moment). Nevertheless, it still goes by significantly faster than the third installment of Hunger Games, and you won't have that feeling of being used because your expectations for the Divergent are not that high, though they should be taken into account. (12.07.2015)

Without prior knowledge of Divergence, this film is virtually unwatchable. The directing is worse, the film is stupider, and it has an even weaker plot and more empty dialogues. The action scenes are a slow, there is almost no emotional connection with the protagonists, and there are plenty of dead spots during which nothing happens. But the overall impression of Insurgent is that nothing happens in it for almost the entire runtime, and it can't be saved by any of decent actors, or by technically-successful digital tricks. The film is about nothing, the main protagonist deals endlessly with her traumas, and all we can do is shake our heads at how the futuristic world of Insurgent is desperately dysfunctional and meaningless even within itself. (19.03.2015)

Insurgent is in many ways similar to Divergence, so my viewing experience was more or less comparable for both parts. The second part is a bit more mature, more drastic and more rebellious, but even so, the relationships between the characters come to the surface again, balancing out the rebellious side of the film. Many claim that this is a poorer sibling to The Hunger Games, but I like both series equally, so I'm satisfied. In short, a decent continuation of a story set in a post-apocalyptic era that offers one more look at society and people in the future. (15.05.2015)

Well, this is really bad. A movie full of completely unnecessary scenes, lengthy storytelling that only leads to a boring ending, and you don't care what happens to the characters. If the book is written just as poorly, I really don't understand what the taste of the younger generation is and what they want to read. I wouldn't want to read this. Boring action scenes, boring scenes in a simulation, simply awful. (20.07.2015)