“Insurgent,” the second film in the “Divergent” series based on the books written by Veronica Roth, debuted March 20 to an eager audience.

I went into the theater hoping for more than just another teen dystopian film. I hoped that the characters would be fully formed and the acting superb. I had higher hopes that the action would be breathtaking and the finale one to remember, but in all honesty, I got much less than what I was hoping for.

Comparing novels to film is tricky. Novels have much more time for development and character depth, while lacking a certain punch that only cinema can bring to the story.

For many, the “Divergent” series’ first installment was a raving success alongside its famous genre-mate “The Hunger Games.” With a wide fan base, I expected a strong showing from director Robert Schwentke after Neil Burger did such a great job with the first film. How could you possibly screw up such a strong storyline with such popular characters?

Well, it turns out you can. I went into “Insurgent” with not much grip on the book or previous film. I wanted a clean slate feeling, and I got that. The writers did a good job of flashing back to keep new viewers in the loop, but in the end, it just fell flat for me. So after leaving the theater, I thought to myself, “There is no way this movie was so popular and so bad at the same time. I must be missing something.” I went home and watched the prequel and found, to my surprise, that my feelings toward the sequel didn’t change much. In fact, I liked the first one much, much more.

In “Divergent,” the storyline was so strong and consuming. It was interesting and fun, and the actors’ chemistry was strong and made me feel all the feels I was supposed to. But when I looked back on “Insurgent,” I found the story flat, the characters dead behind the eyes and an ending that made little, if any, sense.

The book may have given me some scope on the ending, but in truth, I never find that to be true. The film and book are to be considered separate, and if there is something that is to be conveyed on the screen, it falls to the screenwriter, who didn’t exactly nail it in this film.

“Insurgent” was a visually stunning film. I will give it that.

I found the main character Tris, played by Shailene Woodley, inconsistent with the first film in behavior and development of her skills. It seems like in a matter of weeks she goes from a mouse of a character with a lot of spunk to a full-fledged bad ass. It just was a jump I couldn’t make. There are so many intimate scenes between the two lead characters (Woodley and Ansel Elgort) that were unbelievably hard to stomach. Unfortunately, the duo did not have the fire they did in the first film, which was plain to see on the screen. In addition to a jumpy story and odd writing, this film was particularly weak in its ending. It left off with a mix between a Disney princess ending and “Taken” parody flick.

I was completely thrown. If that was an attempt to make a smooth transfer to another installment, I give it a thumbs down. One highlight is that the story does leave off at an interesting point, which will make for another installment worth seeing. It just could have been done a lot better. In fact, there were a few points that would have made a phenomenally better transfer to the next installment, but instead they got passed over by dribble.

I give a tip of the hat to the graphics crew, but a total wag of the finger to the writers and actors who took what I would consider genre gold and turned it into little more than a lump of coal. But who knows what that coal could power if they do another installment? I hope to find a diamond in that lump of coal.

“Insurgent” is playing at the Cinemark Theater in Conway. “Insurgent” is rated PG-13 for intense violence and action, some sensuality, thematic elements and brief language.