The Dystopian Future Is In Vogue

Rating: 9/10 (2 November 2014)

I'm amazed to read most reviews here. It seems to me that most IMDb readers/users think of themselves as "film noir" critics, or maybe the second coming of Roger Ebert. When I watch a movie, I like being entertained. Sure, the story must be good but not necessarily plausible. If that was the case, movies like STAR WARS or even TITANIC would've been colossal failures.
DIVERGENT was such a movie: entertaining, teen-oriented, post- apocalyptic fun. In the not so distant future we find out that there was a terrible war. Little is said who started it or what provoked such devastating war. What it is clear is that mankind survived and made strict rules for its new society in order to ensure the peace. This new society has been classified into different personality categories, or factions: abnegation, candor, dauntless, Amity and Erudite. Each strata of this new society complements the other factions so to keep a harmonious balance. The members of this society reach a certain age (18, I guess), they go through a series of tests that will define their definite personality, regardless if they come from a different faction. This new society's motto is "faction before blood", so one has to be more loyal to his or her faction than to their families. Those who do not fit in any faction are called (most obviously) faction less, but they do not pose a threat to society, simply an uncomfortable burden (they are the homeless, the tramps, the scum). As the movie moves along we find out that there is another profile of people who also don't fit in, but pose a supposedly "serious threat" to society. These are called "divergent" and are to be terminated as soon as they are spotted. Divergents possess qualities of all factions, they are like a "greatest hits" of factions.
As you might guess, the movie revolves around a girl named Beatrice "Tris" and her finding that she is a "divergent" and how she must survive in a society that has no room for her kind.
Shades of THE HUNGER GAMES are evident all over the place. THE MATRIX too, even FLASH GORDON (1980), but all done in very good taste. I found myself enjoying DIVERGENT significantly more than THE HUNGER GAMES (at least the 1st installment), which I'd like to remind all IMDb critics is a "light version" of BATTLE ROYALE. We get to see Kate Winslet (TITANIC) as the baddie. It was never clear to me if she was the President or what, but she seems to be in charge of this new society. Ashley Judd and Tony Goldwyn are in there too and that's about it as far as "names" in this picture. All other actors are basically teens or twenty somethings, so yes, there's a strong effort from the filmmakers to attract a young audience (like THE HUNGER GAMES).
Anybody who's worked for a big, multi-national corporation will quickly see the similarities between the dystopian society portrayed in this movie and the company they might work for. Companies ALWAYS want to label their employees, as if we could only be ONE type of personality, so I found this intriguing. I supposed most "Roger Eberts" in IMDb barely perceived this. Was it a predictable movie? Most movies are, in a way. All Disney movies have happy endings, don't they? Being predictable is not a sign of being a BAD movie. I found DIVERGENT getting more interesting and interesting as frames passed by. It has good special effects and the acting is quite bearable. Trust me, I've seen far, far worse movies that end up being praised as the ultimate in cinema.
If you didn't like the movie, that's OK, you're entitled to think and say whatever, just as I'm entitled to say that DIVERGENT was a truly entertaining, interesting and fast paced futuristic movie. If you ask me, I enjoyed it far more than the over-blown HUNGER GAME series.