'Insurgent' gets poor reviews – will the next movies be better?

The movie starring Shailene Woodley isn't doing well with critics so far. Like many other movie adaptations of young adult series, the final book in the trilogy, 'Allegiant,' is being split into two movies. That may mean even worse reviews are ahead for the films.

|
Andrew Cooper/Lionsgate/AP
'Insurgent' stars Theo James (l.), Shailene Woodley (center), and Miles Teller (r.).

The movie “Insurgent,” based on the second book in Veronica Roth’s dystopian young adult “Divergent” series, is being released on March 20 and is so far receiving tepid reviews.

“Insurgent” currently holds a score of 43 out of 100 on the review aggregator website Metacritic. It’s actually only a bit lower than the score currently held by the first film, “Divergent,” which has a score of 48, so neither have been well-reviewed.

Will the next movie in the series improve things? According to Deadline, the final book in Veronica Roth’s series, “Allegiant,” is being split into two films. And if movie history is anything to go by, that may mean “Allegiant – Part 1” will be even more poorly reviewed.

As noted by Monitor film critic Peter Rainer, conventional wisdom holds that for a movie series, creating a middle film is hard to do. “Most middle movies in a trilogy simply mark time,” he wrote in a 2013 review. So much of the action is often saved for a last installment that a second-to-last movie can be boring. Exceptions include the “Star Wars” second film “The Empire Strikes Back” and “The Godfather: Part II.” (Does the last one count if the third film came 16 years later and is widely regarded as not very good?) 

However, with adaptations of young adult series, the problem seems to often lie with whatever the second-to-last movie in the series is. You see, those behind the “Harry Potter” movies split the final seventh book, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” into two films. Other young adult series, from “Twilight” to “The Hunger Games,” have followed suit. The “Twilight” four-book series was adapted as five films and “Hunger Games,” a trilogy, is being adapted as four movies. As we noted previously, the “Divergent” trilogy is being adapted as four films, too.

So for many of these movie series, the second-to-last installments suffer the problems originally attributed to a second movie in that it seems like the movie’s plot is waiting for the action of the final film. “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1,” the second-to-last movie in the “Twilight” series, has the second-lowest Metacritic score of all the “Twilight” films (the second movie in the series, "New Moon," just beats it by one point). And the second-to-last “Hunger Games” movie, “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1,” felt “like a massive placeholder for the grand finale,” Rainer wrote in his movie review. He gave the movie a C, the lowest grade of any of the “Games” films so far. Even “Potter” suffered from this. “Deathly Hallows – Part 1” holds a 65 score on Metacritic, while “Deathly Hallows – Part 2,” the final movie and the one that had – you guessed it – all the action, has a much better score of 87. 

So maybe those behind “Insurgent” shouldn’t be worrying about the poor reviews – they should be hoping to avoid the trend of audiences being bored with their next movie, “Allegiant – Part 1.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to 'Insurgent' gets poor reviews – will the next movies be better?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Culture-Cafe/2015/0319/Insurgent-gets-poor-reviews-will-the-next-movies-be-better
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe