CinePals
CinePals
June 14, 2026

THE DIVERGENT SERIES: ALLEGIANT (2016) Movie Reaction! | First Time Watch | First Time Watch

YouTube · e45sF6wnpYo

Quick Read

Hosts Jaby Ko and Michael Boost dissect 'Allegiant,' the final and critically panned installment of The Divergent Series, lamenting its weak plot, lack of character agency, and abrupt, unsatisfying conclusion.
Tris's agency was sacrificed, turning her into a passive observer.
The 'memory serum' created gaping plot holes and undermined stakes.
Splitting the final book resulted in an incomplete, unsatisfying film.

Summary

Jaby Ko and Michael Boost react to 'Allegiant,' expressing profound disappointment with the film's narrative and execution. They criticize the movie for its clunky dialogue, the main character Tris's diminished agency, and the underdeveloped villainy of David (Jeff Daniels) compared to the previous antagonist, Janine (Kate Winslet). The hosts highlight significant plot holes, particularly the inconsistent and ineffective 'memory serum' weapon, which undermines the film's stakes. They also discuss the movie's real-world box office underperformance, attributing it to franchise fatigue, poor critical reception, and the detrimental decision to split the final book into two films, leaving 'Allegiant' feeling incomplete and ultimately leading to the cancellation of the planned fourth movie.
This reaction provides a critical post-mortem of 'Allegiant,' offering insights into why a major young adult dystopian franchise failed. It underscores common pitfalls in film adaptations, such as sacrificing character depth for plot convenience, introducing inconsistent narrative devices, and the commercial risks of splitting final books. For filmmakers and studios, it serves as a case study on how poor storytelling and market saturation can lead to a franchise's premature end, leaving audiences with an unsatisfying conclusion.

Takeaways

  • The movie's dialogue felt low-brow and failed to advance the plot meaningfully.
  • The character of Peter (Miles Teller) was consistently obnoxious but served as a 'cockroach' who adapted to survive.
  • The 'Bureau of Genetic Welfare' and its 'pure' vs. 'damaged' ideology felt like thinly veiled eugenics.
  • The 'memory serum' was a major plot hole, inconsistently applied and ultimately inconsequential.
  • The film's ending felt like half a story, leaving major conflicts unresolved due to the cancellation of the fourth installment.
  • The decision to split the final book, a common trend at the time, backfired due to the film's poor performance.

Insights

1Diminished Character Agency for Tris

The hosts criticize how Tris, the main protagonist, loses her agency throughout the film. She is often a passive recipient of information or instructions, rather than actively driving the plot, which felt inconsistent with her character in previous installments.

Jaby states, "It also feels like they really took our main character and we're like, 'All right, cool.' Any sort of agency you had over yourself, gone. Let's just throw that out the window cuz it's inconvenient for our plot." Michael adds, "Tris was just sitting there going, 'Oh, but we got to wait for the council.'"

2Weak Villain Development and Comparison to Previous Antagonist

David (Jeff Daniels) is deemed a 'sniveling and obnoxious' villain who lacks the compelling presence of Janine (Kate Winslet) from earlier films. His motivations and actions are not clearly established or impactful enough, making him a less engaging antagonist.

Michael notes, "I think Jeff Daniels's villain didn't have and that may be because he wasn't going to be really villainy until the fourth movie and this was like his transition of revealing himself as a villain. But I I just felt like we got rid of Kate Winslett who was genuinely fun to watch as an antagonist and now we got this Jeff Daniels character who's like just I don't know kind of sniveling and obnoxious."

3The 'Memory Serum' as a Major Plot Hole

The memory-wiping gas is introduced as a powerful weapon but is inconsistently applied and ultimately ineffective in creating genuine stakes. The hosts question why main characters are immune or only partially affected, and why the gas, described as heavy, doesn't fill rooms more thoroughly.

Jaby points out, "I think I think one big problem with this film is they introduced a weapon or a tool that becomes a huge plot hole, which is the the forget gap." Michael adds, "It was largely ineffective because the gas was poured over the entire city and everybody just walked out okay having like micro dosed on it."

4Box Office Underperformance and Franchise Cancellation

Allegiant significantly underperformed at the box office, leading to the cancellation of the planned fourth film. This failure is attributed to franchise fatigue, poor critical reception, the decision to split the final book, and strong competition from other major releases like 'Zootopia' and 'Batman v Superman'.

Jaby reads, "The final installment was cancelled after the third film, Allegiant, underperformed at the box office... By 2016, audiences were already tired of young adult dystopian films... The film was critically panned... Allegiant opened up against major box office competitors like Zootopia, Batman v Superman."

Lessons

  • Filmmakers should prioritize character agency and consistent narrative arcs, especially for main protagonists, to maintain audience engagement.
  • When adapting books, avoid splitting a single story into multiple films if the source material or budget cannot sustain a compelling, complete narrative in each installment.
  • Develop antagonists with clear motivations and impactful presence; replacing a strong villain with a weaker one can significantly detract from a film's quality.

Notable Moments

The hosts' surprise and disappointment upon learning 'Allegiant' was the final film, leaving the story unfinished.

This highlights the abrupt and unsatisfying nature of the film's conclusion, which was not intended as a true ending, frustrating both the hosts and the wider audience.

The revelation of the 'Bureau of Genetic Welfare' and their 'pure' vs. 'damaged' genetic classification system, which the hosts immediately recognize as eugenics.

This plot point introduces a new layer of dystopian control and ethical questions, but the hosts feel it's not explored deeply enough given its implications.

The introduction and inconsistent application of the memory-wiping gas, which the hosts identify as a major plot hole.

This device undermines the film's stakes and logic, as its effects are selectively applied, making it difficult for the audience to invest in the threats presented.

Quotes

"

"It feels like half of a story. Yeah, exactly. They really should have just finished it out. They were trying to copy Hunger Games. Hunger Games did this. They all do it."

Michael Boost
"

"The dialogue was not highbrow. It was just like, you don't understand what we're doing here. I'm like, I don't even understand what you're doing here. I've been watching the movie."

Jaby Ko
"

"I think I think one big problem with this film is they introduced a weapon or a tool that becomes a huge plot hole, which is the the forget gap."

Jaby Ko
"

"It hurts more because first two films tricked me into thinking this was going to be better. That's what it is, right? You feel betrayed."

Jaby Ko

Q&A

Recent Questions

Related Episodes