Raging against the man, or whatever

Theo James and Shailene Woodley star in "Insurgent." Photo by Andrew Cooper

All I can think about as I write about “Insurgent” is Yogi Berra's refrain about how some things are “like déjà vu all over again.” It's not only because the film is a sequel — just about every beat this film follows has not just been done by another young adult franchise, but done better and with more vigor and smarts.

“Insurgent's” influences are easy to spot. There's “The Hunger Games,” of course, with the violent female protagonist (Shailene Woodley's Tris in this case) who enters the second film in the “Divergent” series haunted by recent battles and experiences (just like Katniss Everdeen). She's on the lam this time with boyfriend Four (proper-nine Theo James), sarcastic Peter (Miles Teller) and her brother Caleb (Ansel Elgort), trying to escape the clutches of the evil Jeanine (Kate Winslet) and her henchmen (Mekhi Phifer and Jai Courtney).

The foursome is pretty safe when the film opens, hanging out on Octavia Spencer's farm until Winslet's soldiers storm in to arrest the young renegades. Teller surrenders, while Elgort, Woodley and James flee and meet up with James' mother Evelyn (Naomi Watts), a rebel with intentions that are vague at best. Like Woodley and James, Watts' group is part of an unwanted faction of the society Winslet's Jeanine wants to eradicate, sort of like the group that rhymes with puggles and is in fact Muggles from “Harry Potter.” Technically, both series lift the concept from the Holocaust, but “Harry Potter” does it better.

A few other adventures and shenanigans related to light romance, heavy violence and impetuousness ensue until Woodley has to prove that she is the special, the one that can end the fighting against other Divergents. Essentially, she's a tougher Harry Potter, or a female Neo, or Emmet from “The LEGO Movie,” but much less awesome.

Also, no LEGO Batman.

I didn't get the chance to watch the first film prior to the “Insurgent” screening because I messed up my Netflix que, which turned out to be a sizable mistake. In lieu of guiding viewers into the “Divergent” universe, “Insurgent” opts to dive right in while relying on the viewer's familiarity with either the source material (the book series by Veronica Roth) or the previous film, making it a bit tricky to keep up with the action.

That's not a ding on the filmmakers; they're savvy enough to know the majority of the audience will have that familiarity going into it. A little research about the “Divergent” series afterward, however, did reinforce one reason for my confusion; the plot is ridiculously and unnecessarily complex and contains more moving parts than the writers could balance.

Instead of trimming a bit more from the book — never an easy task, but a necessity on occasion — the trio of writers (“Batman & Robin” scribe Akiva Goldsman, Brian Duffield and Mark Bomback) crammed as much of the source material in as they could. The result is a series of sequences with a tenuous narrative thread keeping the movie from falling apart completely; in other words, it lacks narrative cohesiveness or even a sense of rhythm.

“Insurgent” is absent of any sense of inventiveness or independence from the swarming horde of films aimed at young adults as well. It's almost proud to be a pastiche, happily rollicking in desultory tropes and embracing trite plot twists telegraphed from miles away. The series even hires a few ringers (Winslet, Watts and Spencer) to fill the adult roles and add a little class to the whole affair. They're all either underused or misused, but having them around at least lets viewers reflect on their better performances: “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” (or almost everything else she's done) for Winslet; Watt for her brilliant turn in “Mulholland Dr.,” and “Snowpiercer” for Spencer.

Things are even direr for the kids, the actors who supposedly carry the film. Aside from the smarmy Teller (who I pity already for what looks like a dismal “Fantastic Four” reboot), Elgort, James and Woodley fall flat in their respect roles. It's easy to see how good of an actress Woodley can be — she does have a few flashes of quality — but the depth of her talent is hidden by the chorus of goofy faces she wears during the action sequences.

Everything is taken so seriously in “Insurgent” too, even though the world depicted in it is rooted in stupidity. Who would think it's a good idea to segregate people based on one underlying personality trait? Why would you reestablish society in a less than fecund city like Chicago? Why would you name your villain Jeanine?

The name doesn't quite scream villainous.

Most importantly, why have people supported this franchise? As the filmmakers continually hint at, there are far more appealing options just waiting for you at home.

Review: One and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 119 minutes

Genre: Sci-Fi

Ask Away

Target audience: Preteens and teens itching for that first taste of revolution.

Take the whole family?: “Insurgent” is impressively hardcore for a young adult film; the bullets and booms make it apropos for audiences 13 and older.

Theater or Netflix?: Netflix so you can rent “Hunger Games” instead.

Is it in 3D?: Of course there's a 3D option to this film for aesthetic reasons I don't understand. Aside from a few scenes that look moderately interestingly, “Insurgent's” runtime is filled mostly with exposition or people running, neither of which make for a compelling use of a third dimension. Even the more visually impressive shots would work just fine in a regular format.

Watch this instead?: Pick your series: “Harry Potter,” “Hunger Games,” “The Matrix” (at least the first one) or “The LEGO Movie.” Also check out Terry Gilliam's “Brazil,” one of the weirdest depictions of a dystopian future.

Just try to guess the context.