Whilst not having read the source novels, Divergent desire to be the next "Hunger Games" style franchise is evident in its dystopian setting, purportedly strong intelligent female characters ( they're not ! ) and sequel baiting in its resolution. What is disappointing is the lack of any originality to distinguish itself from other similar ideas - it's faction based society heavily influenced by films like Gattaca and others of that ilk. The film also spends an inordinate amount of time with one faction, and probably the least interesting one at that, devoting the bulk of its plot to the heroine being trained, and of course, falling for one of her trainers. You would think that the focus would be on the so-called Divergent group, given the title and the vague ominous warnings from several characters about their threat. Perhaps the sequels will develop this better, but here it is simply a plot device to touch base with typical themes of individuality, free will and teen angst over being pigeonholed, as well as provide a motivation for the villain's plot. That it rarely explores these within any great depth is the film's main problem, preferring to focus on the developing romance between the two leads. There are no surprises in the story, but the central leads do their best with the thin material and it is watchable enough.

With the flood of teen lit-inspired movies on the scene today, it can be all-too easy to unfairly shuffle them all under the same leaky roof. Often, that short-sells the more gleaming examples of the genre. Not so with Divergent, a ruthlessly narrow little bit of phony escapism that confirms every ugly stereotype. Dim and wooden, it's a thoroughly hand-holding bit of tack that can't seem to get over how breathlessly important it thinks it is.

The generic core storyline has nothing to offer, over-familiar and rich with the scent of manufactured drama. Its cast, thin and transparent as they come, spends most of the bloated runtime reveling in their own majesty at the expense of actual character development. Not that the actors seem capable of exploring any such depth, were they given the material to work with. Shailene Woodley and Theo James, beautiful people without so much as a single spark between them, seem to have been chosen exclusively for their pouty appearances on the promotional materials. Likewise, an awkwardly mismatched sparkle-pop soundtrack stands at odds with the bleak, dystopian tones that the plot stretches for. At least the visual effects are well done, for what that's worth.

It's a real waste of time and effort, an insulting vehicle to cash-in on the latest craze and promote a few of the parent company's tunes while they're at it. I wish I could get my two hours back.

I have read and enjoyed the book, and have finally gotten around to watching this film adaptation. On the whole it sticks closely to the plot and events of the book, but (as with most such adaptations) misses out certain events that may have enhanced the film. Shailene Woodley and Theo James were fine as the main protagonists, and I always like Ansel Elgort, although he really didn't have much to do in this film; he may have made a better Four than James, but James was good enough, and nice to look at. The role that was really mis-cast though was Jeanine Matthews. The book portrays her as a really cold, ruthless, manipulative woman, but Kate Winslet just can't carry off that type of character very convincingly; generally coming across as being softer and less believable, like she was playing at the part rather than actually living it.

The soundtrack could have been better, and the world/society perhaps needed fleshing out a bit more so that we could really get the feel for the differences between the factions. As it is, we only get to see Dauntless, Abnegation and Erudite. Amity and Candour are barely mentioned. Also, conceptually, surely Erudite - the intelligent thinkers, would have immediately foreseen the major shortcomings of such a divisive society, which would surely far outweigh the advantages. Every society needs some kind of law enforcement (Dauntless) - police officers, security guards, etc, and some elements of Amity, Candour and Abnegation, in a moderated blend, help to keep life worth living.

Instead, the powers-that-be seem to have decreed that being a well-rounded human is abhorrent and illegal, whereas herding them like farm animals into separate fields based upon one particular skill, but punishing them for any non-compliant self-expression, is the best way to carve out a future. I'd love to see how they pitched that future vision at the government meeting, and how long it took to actually build that society. Clearly they have learned nothing from history about the inevitable eventual rebellion of "freedom fighters" against such dictatorial/totalitarian regimes/empires that have sought to crush the human spirit and create nations of mindless drones that are just slaves to the will of the leadership. That whole concept of leadership is flawed and was probably what lead to the apocalyptic war that landed them in this mess in the first place. And somehow the forced the survivors to agree to this utter lunacy, even at the cost of banishing the free-thinking "divergents" to eke out a pitiful existence in the ruination of the old cities. This too is a major own goal, because it will only be a matter of time before some radical amongst them succeeds in rallying them together to overthrow their Empirical enemies. After all, they only really have to take out Dauntless and Erudite, and the other three will most likely capitulate peacefully. If Dauntless are overthrown, Erudite would surely see the wisdom of trying to reach a peaceful compromise that didn't involve persecution, slavery and adherence to stupid rules - what do Abnegation actually do if someone looks at a mirror for more than one minute? Thrown them in jail? Blind them so they can't make the same mistake again? Cast them out so that they're factionless, thereby condemning them to death, or a fate worse than death? None of those three options seems very compliant with the Abnegation ideals of always helping others, no matter what the personal cost, being forgiving and compassionate. This would also surely apply to Amity - the peaceful, friendly, considerate types, after all, "Ami" is French for friend. They're hypocrites to their own ideals just by allowing the very existence of factionless people.

Finally, if a drug/nanochip could be developed to completely supress a person's personality and turn them into a mindless automaton, why did Erudite feel the need to wield Dauntless as a weapon to subdue Abnegation? Why not just insidiously infiltrate Abnegation using just such manipulation to silently gain control of their leaders, and then instruct them to form a coalition with Erudite, but with the mind-control unit being a secret, hidden base that even 99% of Erudites don't know about? This would clearly negate the 'divergent problem' at the same time. There would need to be no (or at least, very little) bloodshed, it would just be playing a slightly longer game than seizing power by force - no doubt another overriding element of the former war.

This has only really occurred to me since watching this film (it has been a few years since I read the book) and makes me think that perhaps Veronica Roth didn't consider the massively illogical nature of the world she'd created when she wrote Divergent. However, I haven't read or watched the two sequels yet, so perhaps these issues are addressed in them?

I have yet to watch Gattaca, The Hunger Games or Maze Runner (they're all in my watchlist) so I can't draw any comparisons to them, but as far as this film goes, without taking in the bigger picture as above: yes, it's a pretty good film that sticks well to the plot of the book, and is definitely worth watching. Just don't expect anything too deep and meaningful.

I should probably mention right away that I have not read the book-trilogy that this movie is based on. Given the content matter I might actually have liked the books. The movie? Well to me the movie was a rather mediocre one. As the blurb states the story is set in a dystopian future but we do not really get to know how they got there except the standard explanation that “there was a war”. The world is a bizarre mixture of primitive post-apocalypse living and modern, futuristic tech. The division of people into factions…well to me it felt pretty dumb to begin with and the idea that some people could not possibly fit into more than one faction was absolutely ludicrous to me. How the hell was it supposed to keep peace by deliberately factioning people against each other?

Okay, trying to get over these gripes, what about the rest of the movie. Well it was okayish I guess. It did give me the same feeling as when reading a young-adult book and I would say that this movie is most suitable for a younger audience. The story is rather predictable. There is the initial training part where Tris of course gets a few friends and in particular befriends one of her tutors. Not surprisingly there is also the obligatory jerk. The one thing that makes the movie a bit out of the ordinary are the induced dream sequences which are not too bad.

Later in the movie Tris starts to discover the plot of the bad guys and of course goes off to save the day. Again these part are simple and predictable. The ease by which Tris and a few of her friends manages to infiltrate the lab/headquarters of the baddies is rather unbelievable. It of course helps that it seems like it is only the good guys who can shoot straight or fight worth a damned with a few occasional exceptions when the script calls for it.

The movie is, as far as I understand it, based only on the first book in the trilogy so it is perhaps not very surprising that it ends with a lot of loose ends but, for Christ sake, they fight their way to stop the plot, taking down a lot of people on their way, and then they leave the chief mastermind of this despicable plot lying unconscious but alive on the floor just taking off. That just felt dumb!

It is not a bad bad movie but I do not understand the high ratings some people seem to give it.

Remedial Dystopia

I'm not a big fan of YA lit. Nothing like it when I was young. I grew up with Kesey, Huxley, Salinger, Dickens and The Who. I probably would have liked a steady diet of teen vampires and young dystopians. I would have loved my comic book heroes on the big screen in 3D. And video games and smart phones and search engines. Oh to be a millenial!

I was introduced to a truckload of Young Adult Lit during English Ed studies and found myself wanting to read _Catcher in the Rye_ all over again. There was just something really amateurish and disposable about these novellas. Like the authors weren't fully-developed writers. Nor am I all that interested in movies adapted from these novels, unless they are packed with talent (_The Hunger Games_), or star someone I just can't get enough of. That someone at the moment is Shailene Woodley. A young woman who is just oozing talent. She has that authentic, subdued strain of self-consciousness, it makes you forget she's in a movie. In fact, her focus seems to come so unassumingly natural I wonder if she even knows she's in a movie.

I watched _The Fault in Our Stars_, The Spectacular Now and _Divergent_ in succession. _Divergent_ is getting short-changed by the same critics who praise _The Hunger Games_. Yes, it's simplistic, essentially a shallow allegory. Factions representing classes, institutions and vocations. The coercion of the Dauntless by the Erudite as a military coup. And rebellious adolescents as heroic Divergents. But if this gets kids even remotely interested in politics and the social sciences, I'm all for it. I'd prefer this to bare-chested werewolves and forest warfare. Then again, there's no defending _Divergent_ if it weren't for Woodley's splendid presence. Her inner strength mixing in with her vulnerability. She provides the suspense, as we are always awaiting her next reaction. Makes me wonder how she'll develop in the years to come? As well as Kate Winslow has I'm sure.