TIME movies

REVIEW: Divergent is Deja Vu of Post-Apocalyptic Y.A.-Fiction Thrillers

Divergent Film Still Shailene Woodley Theo James
Jaap Buitendijk—Summit Shailene Woodley and Theo James buck the postapocalyptic order in Divergent

A stale take on a stultifying genre

There’s an awfully familiar feeling to Divergent, the movie based on the best-selling novel by Veronica Roth: post-apocalyptic landscape, the almost colorless tones, the drab clothes—and, eventually, our ruthlessly scorned hero. It’s impossible to ignore the overwhelming sense that we’ve seen all this before, only with better execution, in this fall’s The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.

In a futuristic, bombed-out Chicago, residents choose to live as part of one of five geographic factions based partly on a government–administered personality test. If you like living off the land in harmony, you choose Amity. If you get kicks from adrenaline-fueled, strangely acrobatic law enforcement, you choose Dauntless. You also have the option of Erudite, Candor and the enticing Abnegation. Weirdly, future Chicagoans are pretty much O.K. with this. The city appears content.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Problems start when Tris (Shailene Woodley) discovers on Choosing Day that she is a rare, uncategorizable Divergent. This means she’s not just a freethinker; she’s also dangerous! And, darn it, Erudite faction leader Jeanine Matthews (Kate Winslet, as the leader of the intellectual folk) is hell-bent on stopping young Tris (born Beatrice, for all admirers of Dante), even though we never know quite why she’s such a threat.

Against her parents’ wishes, Tris chooses the Dauntless faction and soon finds herself jumping from moving trains and plummeting from rooftops. She eventually befriends Dauntless dude Four (Theo James), who of course has secrets of his own. The real secret, though, is that Divergent has scarcely anything new to say.

Which is a shame, because Woodley’s performance is wasted on what is starting to feel like a young-adult novel action-movie template, as opposed to a movie that at least attempts to explain why we should care about what’s happening on the screen. For a film that supposedly celebrates freethinking, there’s a woeful lack of it here.

Tap to read full story

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com


Dear TIME Reader,

As a regular visitor to TIME.com, we are sure you enjoy all the great journalism created by our editors and reporters. Great journalism has great value, and it costs money to make it. One of the main ways we cover our costs is through advertising.

The use of software that blocks ads limits our ability to provide you with the journalism you enjoy. Consider turning your Ad Blocker off so that we can continue to provide the world class journalism you have become accustomed to.

The TIME Team