'Insurgent' Review Roundup: Divergent 2 Criticized for Limp Plot, Underwhelming Performances of Cast

Critics largely agree that "Insurgent," the sequel to "Divergent" which grossed over $288 million at the box office worldwide, is an improvement over the first film.

Despite this, the film still drew a lot of brickbats for what some critics said is its limp plot and underwhelming performances of its cast, especially the two main stars: Shailene Woodley and Theo James.

The New York Times offered a mixed review of the film, describing it as "tighter, tougher and every bit as witless as its predecessor." The review added: It "arrives with a yawn and ends with a bang."

Vanity Fair said "Insurgent" was like "Catching Fire," the second installment in the Hunger Games franchise, which was much better than the first film. The Vanity Fair review described the film as "compelling, startlingly violent, and graceful" even though the plot was "half baked."

The Rolling Stone was less forgiving, criticizing "Insurgent" for its rigid conformity to formula, or to the story described in the best-selling novel written by Veronica Roth. It said this was ironic since the movie was supposed to celebrate divergence as clearly spelled out in the title of the first film.

The Wrap criticized the acting of the cast, especially Woodley, who plays the heroine Tris in the movie. Although she has proven her acting chops in other films, "Insurgent" saw Woodley seriously "overplaying" her part when she was injected with the truth serum. The review also noted that the film was at it best when it "freed itself from the bonds of its own world."

Empire was severely critical of the movie's plot, saying it did not make much sense as the faction system is based on the five cardinal virtues. According to it, the film was held together mainly by Woodley's performance.

As for the chemistry between the lead pair of Woodley and James, Time Out London states it was largely "non-existent."