Friday, March 21, 2014
With the Hunger Games screen adaptations in full force, raking in money by the truckloads, Hollywood's choice to adapt this bestselling trilogy to screen was a no brainer. It's not exactly the same, but it's close enough to attract the same audience. Both feature young women as the protagonists (though, as much as I loved Shailene Woodley in The Descendants and 'The Spectacular Now', she's no Jennifer Lawrence.) Both take place in futuristic societies, one with 13 districts and the other with 5 factions, and both on the precipice of a revolution. Both feature a Kravitz (though 'Hunger Games' Lenny beats 'Divergent's Zoe hands down.) Both are laden with enough young adult romance to keep the tween girls swooning, but fortunately neither one hits you over the head with it. Both feature seasoned actors as the antagonists, and 'Divegent's Kate Winslet is always a powerhouse actress, though Hunger Games' Donald Sutherland wins by a nose if only because he's more devilishly fun to watch.
At the end of the day, if you like 'The Hunger Games', you'll enjoy 'Divergent', though probably less so. The fact is, 'The Hunger Games' is better in every way. But 'Divergent' is still decent. It certainly held my interest throughout its 2 hours and 20 minutes. I never read the books, so I never had any idea where it was going. But unfortunately it wasn't anywhere quite as interesting as I'd hoped. Maybe the sequel will be even better.
Who is this movie for? Young adults. Tween girls. Fans of futuristic societies.