I have read and enjoyed the book, and have finally gotten around to watching this film adaptation. On the whole it sticks closely to the plot and events of the book, but (as with most such adaptations) misses out certain events that may have enhanced the film. Shailene Woodley and Theo James were fine as the main protagonists, and I always like Ansel Elgort, although he really didn't have much to do in this film; he may have made a better Four than James, but James was good enough, and nice to look at. The role that was really mis-cast though was Jeanine Matthews. The book portrays her as a really cold, ruthless, manipulative woman, but Kate Winslet just can't carry off that type of character very convincingly; generally coming across as being softer and less believable, like she was playing at the part rather than actually living it.

The soundtrack could have been better, and the world/society perhaps needed fleshing out a bit more so that we could really get the feel for the differences between the factions. As it is, we only get to see Dauntless, Abnegation and Erudite. Amity and Candour are barely mentioned. Also, conceptually, surely Erudite - the intelligent thinkers, would have immediately foreseen the major shortcomings of such a divisive society, which would surely far outweigh the advantages. Every society needs some kind of law enforcement (Dauntless) - police officers, security guards, etc, and some elements of Amity, Candour and Abnegation, in a moderated blend, help to keep life worth living.

Instead, the powers-that-be seem to have decreed that being a well-rounded human is abhorrent and illegal, whereas herding them like farm animals into separate fields based upon one particular skill, but punishing them for any non-compliant self-expression, is the best way to carve out a future. I'd love to see how they pitched that future vision at the government meeting, and how long it took to actually build that society. Clearly they have learned nothing from history about the inevitable eventual rebellion of "freedom fighters" against such dictatorial/totalitarian regimes/empires that have sought to crush the human spirit and create nations of mindless drones that are just slaves to the will of the leadership. That whole concept of leadership is flawed and was probably what lead to the apocalyptic war that landed them in this mess in the first place. And somehow the forced the survivors to agree to this utter lunacy, even at the cost of banishing the free-thinking "divergents" to eke out a pitiful existence in the ruination of the old cities. This too is a major own goal, because it will only be a matter of time before some radical amongst them succeeds in rallying them together to overthrow their Empirical enemies. After all, they only really have to take out Dauntless and Erudite, and the other three will most likely capitulate peacefully. If Dauntless are overthrown, Erudite would surely see the wisdom of trying to reach a peaceful compromise that didn't involve persecution, slavery and adherence to stupid rules - what do Abnegation actually do if someone looks at a mirror for more than one minute? Thrown them in jail? Blind them so they can't make the same mistake again? Cast them out so that they're factionless, thereby condemning them to death, or a fate worse than death? None of those three options seems very compliant with the Abnegation ideals of always helping others, no matter what the personal cost, being forgiving and compassionate. This would also surely apply to Amity - the peaceful, friendly, considerate types, after all, "Ami" is French for friend. They're hypocrites to their own ideals just by allowing the very existence of factionless people.

Finally, if a drug/nanochip could be developed to completely supress a person's personality and turn them into a mindless automaton, why did Erudite feel the need to wield Dauntless as a weapon to subdue Abnegation? Why not just insidiously infiltrate Abnegation using just such manipulation to silently gain control of their leaders, and then instruct them to form a coalition with Erudite, but with the mind-control unit being a secret, hidden base that even 99% of Erudites don't know about? This would clearly negate the 'divergent problem' at the same time. There would need to be no (or at least, very little) bloodshed, it would just be playing a slightly longer game than seizing power by force - no doubt another overriding element of the former war.

This has only really occurred to me since watching this film (it has been a few years since I read the book) and makes me think that perhaps Veronica Roth didn't consider the massively illogical nature of the world she'd created when she wrote Divergent. However, I haven't read or watched the two sequels yet, so perhaps these issues are addressed in them?

I have yet to watch Gattaca, The Hunger Games or Maze Runner (they're all in my watchlist) so I can't draw any comparisons to them, but as far as this film goes, without taking in the bigger picture as above: yes, it's a pretty good film that sticks well to the plot of the book, and is definitely worth watching. Just don't expect anything too deep and meaningful.