Divergente

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.

Settling in to this film, I expected to see Hunger Games again. Set in a near-future Chicago, what we see is another take on the dystopian society. The central plot here is that growing up in this walled in world, everyone must fit into one of five classes. But of course, the question here is what if you don't fit into the nicely packaged definition of a single class, then you must be Divergent, or in this movie, a danger to the perfect society. When our main character, Tris (played very well by Shailene Woodley)finds out she is Divergent she must hide this secret and discover the reasons why it is such a secret and why society fears Divergents. I'll leave all of that for you to watch unfold in the various physical and psychological training exercises that are portrayed on screen. In a nutshell, the world painted is similar to that of Equilibrium but with much less action. This is not a bad thing, since this allows the cinematographer to reveal a very wonderfully crafted view of this world. The pacing of this movie moves along nicely as we plod through Tris trying to fit in as a part of the Dauntless clan. Friendships are made, lost, and so on as expected. Even more so is the romantic involvement with the mysterious Four (or 4) played by Theo James (which I believe over acted his part entirely too much). So the mystery of why the government wants to kill all Divergents must be unraveled and this leads to the majority of the story. I was happy with just sitting back and enjoying the view during many of the scenes that were almost breathtaking. Not reading the book, I hope that the movie did well to portray the story but I also know it is a trilogy so they couldn't go from start to finish all at once. Stand alone I believe the movie was quite well made and under-appreciated, swept under the rug by the highly successful Hunger Games series. You will be hard pressed not to see the similarities between them. I am looking forward to seeing what else this world has in store for us and would recommend that moviegoers join me to find out. Will you see silly acted parts, and scenes that are just there to draw you in with nice landscapes and perfectly choreographed music, YES. But why would anyone complain about something like that? I know I wouldn't. Enjoy this film, you won't regret the time you spent on it.

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.

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

When beloved books make their way to the silver screen, the resulting movies are usually met with much frustration and rending of clothes from amongst the literary faithful. A character is changed beyond recognition; a crucial plot-point excised; an important theme lost in the murk and swell of a film. Oddly, Divergent isn't actually a bad adaptation. In fact, Neil Burger's film is as good a version of Veronica Roth's wildly patchy source novel as you're likely to get. Whether that makes for a good movie - especially for people who've never read the book - is another matter entirely.

Divergent begins in a post-apocalyptic Chicago divided into five factions, each valuing one virtue - Dauntless (courage), Erudite (wisdom), Candour (honesty), Amity (kindness), and Abnegation (self-sacrifice) - above all others. It's an odd system, perhaps, but one that is apparently necessary to keep chaos at bay. Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) has been raised in Abnegation but, try as she might, she cannot completely subsume her self or her desires. Indeed, the aptitude test that everyone must take at the age of sixteen suggests that Tris doesn't belong in just one category: she is Divergent, equally at home in three factions.

Come the day of the Choosing Ceremony, she decides to forsake her family to become Dauntless: a decision that plunges her into a nightmare initiation process in which the weakest are summarily kicked out of the faction. As Tris navigates the politics and perils of her chosen world, trying all the while to hide the fact that she's Divergent, she encounters her fair share of allies - Christina (Zoe Kravitz), Will (Ben Lloyd-Hughes) and possibly her charmingly broody instructor Four (Theo James) - and enemies, including the brutal Eric (Jai Courtney) and vicious Peter (Miles Teller).

Anyone unfamiliar with Roth's book might find themselves trying to puzzle through this seemingly shapeless mess of a plot. It ebbs and flows in odd directions, dancing around Tris' desire to be true to herself, before it gets a little lost in the dystopian clutches of Jeanine Matthews (a gleefully icy, evil Kate Winslet), an Erudite leader hellbent on bringing down the entire Abnegation faction. Along the way, Tris literally battles her fears under the influence of a simulation serum, toughens up physically, strikes up a sexy chemistry with Four and frets over her brother Caleb (Ansel Elgort). Within the confines of this universe, it makes an odd kind of narrative sense, but the logic of it all never really bleeds through.

Here's the thing, though: this strange, frequently illogical plotting is very much a defining characteristic of Roth's novel - and, in fact, becomes more of a problem as the trilogy progresses. (Anyone who's read Allegiant, the controversial final novel in the series, will know just how difficult it will be to adapt.) The emotional and logical flaws present in Divergent the film, then, are - for the most part - already inherent in the book. Why does Jeanine, supposedly one of the smartest people in the community, plot and plan the way she does? How does the entire society function in this utterly dysfunctional way? Technically, Burger can't really be faulted for failing to develop a coherence and logic that was never there in the first place.

In fact, Burger actually substantially improves upon the novel in several ways - he keeps the film mostly free of Tris' inner voice, which becomes increasingly moony and silly as her crush on Four grows by the day. Burger plays up a zip-line sequence that highlights the joyful recklessness of the Dauntless, as Tris soars freely through the midnight air. He also handles the problem of Tris' fear landscape very well: instead of simply willing herself out of the influence of the serum (as the Divergent can do), she must figure out how to face each of her fears in a non-Divergent way. These scenes are shot with quick, simple visual flair, dispensing with some of the novel's trickier convolutions.

Of course, Divergent isn't a perfect adaptation either. To Roth's credit, there are some truly dark, painful moments in the novel which transcend its loopy narrative. It's no surprise, and yet it's a little disappointing, that these bits simply vanish from the film, no doubt in the interests of securing a PG-13 rating. As a result, Peter is a far less repulsive antagonist than he is on paper. For instance, he doesn't brutally (and casually) maul a fellow initiate who's doing better than him in the rankings - an incident that's crucial in the development of his character in the subsequent novels.

The young cast works hard and quite well together. Woodley makes for an intriguing screen presence, effectively playing both the steel and softness of Tris' choices. James, heretofore best known for dying in Lady Mary's bed in Downton Abbey, acquits himself reasonably well - he's not as leaden as some of the trailers have suggested, and he forges a believable chemistry with Woodley. Of the supporting players, Teller is the standout, so good in his easy malevolence that he actually makes the thought of Allegiant as a movie quite appealing.

In the final analysis, Divergent is likely to divide audiences. Fans of Roth's books should be, on the whole, pleased. This is a frequently very good, intelligent adaptation of a rather problematic novel. Everyone else, however, might be less enamoured of the final product: a film that, just like the book on which it is based, boasts a compelling story and some great ideas, but is also messily executed, overly complicated and a tad nonsensical.