Sins of the Prequel: a review of Insurgent

Wherein I rethink my review of Divergent and backtrack on some of the points I’ve made there and why, I may have been wrong in my initial thoughts on the first film and how it impacts on Insurgent.

Read my review of the sequel here: Sins of the Prequel: a review of Insurgent.

Insurgent was not even half as enjoyable as Divergent, and by being so, opened my eyes on what was lacking from the first film

Insurgent was not even half as enjoyable as Divergent, and by being so, opened my eyes on what was lacking from the first film

The trouble, sometimes, with writing for online publications is that expediency is key. Getting the article out as quickly as possible means less time processing my thoughts and seeing how the film affects me after time. Yes, I enjoyed Divergent, but after some time, I realised that nothing really stuck. I barely remember the film. It was an on-the-moment enjoyment but it doesn’t stay.

For all my major complaints about the first Hunger Games film, it left lasting impressions on me that stayed with me for a long time. Now, the absence of a well-founded setting that I thought was excusable in Divergent has given problems to the follow-up, Insurgent, and it puts to question everything I feel about the first film as well.

It’s a shame because I like Shailene Woodley and Theo James. The ones who come out winners on these two films are Kate Winslet and Miles Teller, who manage to find their placement within the weakness of the script and manage to synch into the frequency of both films’ tone and come out more memorable and striking despite the failures of both movies. For me, it shows the weakness of Shailene Woodley. She cannot rise above the material (which Jennifer Lawrence always manages to do, even with a weak script like she does in Hunger Games: Catching Fire).

But Insurgent is still going to be a hit. So what do I know?

2 thoughts on “Sins of the Prequel: a review of Insurgent

  1. The Divergent film did no justice to the book. The acting was piss poor, and the director struggled even with basic continuity. The darker moments of the book were softened, and the characters’ development suffered because of it. The fact that the protagonist is portrayed with salon-perfect hair and no bruises after receiving a huge black eye and later after being hospitalized shines a huge light on the priorities of the film’s staff.

    • Well, I haven’t read the book and I think a film adaptation should be able to work on its own terms outside of the book.

      If the producers and director decided to pull punches in their adaptation, that’s their choice, but does it benefit the movie or not?

      There are films that prefer to stay in the level of entertainment and a certain level of suspension of disbelief must be earned and maintained for some films and stories to play out to keep good pacing and story-telling.

      In this case, though, it may have suffered because of it.

      But thanks for your input. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s