I’m not a fan of the first “Divergent” movie, released exactly a year ago. But for some reason, I had a feeling things will get more interesting with so much exposition out of the way. I was wrong. “Insurgent” is more of the same, and to be honest, I’m already dreading the idea of a third movie. It’s that bland and lifeless. Is the entire series a baldfaced attempt to cash in on the success of Suzanne Collins’ “The Hunger Games” trilogy? Probably. The plots, about two lovers’ fight to stay alive in a cruel, controlling society, are virtually identical. At least “The Hunger Games” spawned three exciting films so far and a breakthrough star in Jennifer Lawrence. I’m not saying Shailene Woodley is a bad actress (she was terrific in “The Spectacular Now” and “The Fault in our Stars”). But her onscreen chemistry with co-star Theo James couldn’t be more dull. Woodley reprises her role as Katniss, oops I mean Tris, a rare divergent in a future world in which people are divided into factions according to personality. The story kicks off where the first film left off, so anyone unfamiliar with the books, or the first movie, will be left in the dark as this is a direct continuation. Anyway, what you need to know is that Tris and her friends spend most of the time being on the run from evil leader Jeanine (Kate Winslet). That’s it. Nothing really interesting happens in between and the climactic turn of events makes no sense at all (except to announce that there will be a part 3). I’m not kidding. “Insurgent” is obvious like that, also dull and remote. The biggest culprit is the script by Brian Duffield, Akiva Goldsman and Mark Bomback, who are clearly fans of every cliché in the Hollywood book. At least the people behind The Hunger Games took chances. “Divergent” and “Insurgent” take none. It’s safe, sorry, and a crashing bore. If fans of the books revel in this installment and look forward for more of the same, good for them. I wouldn’t try to discourage anyone from doing so. I can only report my honest reaction.