Divergente

Just finished reading the book "Divergent" before the movie opened today. It was a quick easy read. There was obvious inspiration from various other futuristic young adult books I have read, like "The Giver", "Ender's Game" and the "Hunger Games" books. Like the others, the treatment of the story was cold, But its descriptions of the initiation rites were very much more violent.

The setting is the walled city of Chicago after a great war. Their society is divided into five distinct Factions based on personality traits: Dauntless (brave), Amity (friendly), Candor (honest), Erudite (intelligent) and Abnegation (selfless).

At the age of 16, a child takes an examination to help him choose which one will be his faction for the rest of his life. He may follow the suggestion of the exam results, or he may decide on his own. Those who fail to be accepted into a faction becomes factionless, as they become hopelessly poor and destitute for life.

Our heroine Beatrice Prior has been born to the Abnegation faction with their grey clothes and disdain for any form of vanity. However, her examination results are revealed to be inconclusive, so she has to make her own decision. Meanwhile, an uprising is brewing in Erudite against the government run by Abnegation.

I had some problem with the book and the way they try to make the Factions distinct from each other, when it is easy to see that overlapping does happen. These traits simply cannot be mutually exclusive from each other. It is also disturbing the way the author describes the Dauntless. Does being brave mean jumping off running trains, having piercings and tattoos, beating each other up mercilessly, or even killing yourself? This may give immature readers the wrong ideas about courage.

• o - o - o -

The film was a perfectly conceived interpretation of the book. In the first few scenes where they show the color-coded clothes distinguishing each faction was quite clear. How director Neil Burger showed us most of the memorable scenes in the book, like the choosing ceremony, the jumping on and off the trains, the fear landscapes of Tris and Four, and the invasion of Abnegation were all very well done.

There were some parts which were reinterpreted in the film. Most did not really affect the story-telling, like changing how Tris meets her Mom during Visiting Day, or glossing over a particularly violent episode where Peter stabs a fellow initiate in the eye. There was one big change towards the end about how a climactic surprise rescue transpired. I thought the version in the book was so much more better set-up and executed than the less-dramatic altered version we saw on screen.

As I suspected, the tall and beautiful Shailene Woodley is definitely not the small and mousy Tris we imagine while reading the book. However, I thought Shailene gave an excellent portrayal of Tris' character, how she developed from a shy dependent girl to a confident fearless warrior. For people who have not read the books, they will not be aware of any discrepancy at all.

Theo James had very good romantic chemistry with Shailene, so his Four never really felt like a threat to Tris, unlike the initial parts in the book. The director gave James a lot of lingering close-ups for the benefit of the teenage fan girls.

Ansel Elgort, who played Tommy Ross in "Carrie" recently, now plays Tris' brother Caleb. His Caleb is less dynamic than I imagined him in the book. Coincidentally, Elgort has an upcoming movie with Shailene Woodley later this year called "The Fault in Our Stars" where they play boyfriend-girlfriend.

More up and coming actors play other more minor characters. Zoe Kravitz, who was in "After Earth" last year, is not exactly how I envisioned Tris' best friend, but she won me over as the film went along. Miles Teller, who was recently in "That Awkward Moment", plays bad boy Peter, whose role in the film is much diminished compared to the book. Jai Courtney, who played Bruce Willis' son in "A Good Day to Die Hard" last year, brutally plays Tris' tormentor in the training camp.

Among the senior stars, Ashley Judd makes a nice comeback of sorts playing Tris' mother, who had major secrets of her own. Maggie Q played Tris' examiner and tattoo artist Tori with the requisite compassion. Kate Winslet plays the cool and calculating Erudite uprising leader Jeanine with icy perfection.

Overall, I thought this film was a practically perfect interpretation of a book that was less than perfect in itself. So, whatever things the film might show us which we might not like, like the slow pace of action progression, and the questionable motives of the characters, are actually because the book told it that way. Fans of the "Divergent" books will find this film version faithful. While it cannot compare to the high standard set by the Hunger Games film series in terms of cinematic quality and character casting, "Divergent" definitely has its own entertaining appeal going for it. 7/10.

"Divergent" is the first Sci-Fi movie of this trilogy and in this movie we watch a world that is divided into factions and each person has to be a part of one. Unfortunately Tris cannot be a part to any of these factions because she is a divergent. Divergents are considered as the most important and dangerous people and have to be eliminated but why?

I liked this movie because it has a different kind of plot from other Sci-Fi movies and that's something that made this movie interesting at first. The direction which made by Neil Burger was very good with many good action scenes. Also the interpretation of Shailene Woodley who played as Tris was very good. An equally good interpretation made by Theo James who played as Four.

Finally I have to admit that I did not expect much from "Divergent" but it was a very nice surprise. This movie made a very good start for this trilogy and I hope to continue like this and even better.

I have to say that the producers would have to be stupid not to use Burger again as the director. He did such a great job with this one. I thought I was going to see a film that was mostly aimed at teens. However the story alone makes this far superior to most teen oriented films. In fact this didn't feel much like a teen film at all. The fantasy story is a great metaphor for our current society, it's simply a very relevant film. The directing here was spot on. The story as fun as it is, does have a few holes, sure, but they are easy to look over because they are such small holes. The film simply works as a commentary piece on political philosophy, and as an entertaining action film laced with some romantic tension. In my view this film was far, far superior to the very teen oriented and very one dimensional Hunger Games, and it's certainly more unique as well. Woodley is impressive here, clearly showing the ability to play a very layered and complex character.

8/10

DIVERGENT delivers where so many of the recent young adult novel film adaptations have failed. I saw this film not having read the book and on its own it stands very well.

First off the bad:

1) action sequences feel slow and not natural. You can tell that the actors were not particularly familiar with hand to hand combat, not to say their characters weren't supposed to be but even when they're supposed to know how to fight it feels lackluster. 2) obvious age difference between the two main characters. 3) high school Clich feel for the first half of the film.

Now with that said ^ here is what Worked:

1) length. Often we see film adaptations of novels try and cram everything into 90 or 100 mins but Divergent takes its time. Normally this would be a drawback but the film makes good use of the extra time (the film is 145 mins) to really progress. 2) the performances of the main characters are solid. Nothing amazing but the dynamic between the two main characters works well. - the visual style of the film is very good. The dystopian city of Chicago is very well realized. 3) brings to light moral and societal problems. Suprizingly deep for a young adult film.

OVERALL divergent is a good film. It fails in few places but succeeds in most that count. With the failure of young adult movies such as Percy Jackson, Divergent healthily separates itself from them. I would recommend seeing it. There WILL be a sequel.

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.