Let’s not mince words: "Divergent" is a dumb movie, lazily cribbing off Suzanne Collins’ notes to create a dystopia idiotically sectioned into five key personality traits that both logically and logistically made no sense. And yet despite its cheap and crumbling foundation, "Divergent" was watchable. Perhaps more busy stage-setting than ever particularly entertaining, but at least director Neil Burger kept things moving, and the two leads Shailene Woodley and Theo James almost rose the material to their level. It was dumb, but not necessarily bad.

No such luck here.

If "Divergent" was like "The Hunger Games" took a brick to the head, then "Insurgent" plays like "The Hunger Games" got lost in a brick hail storm. The sequel doubles down on the idiocy, incoherence and creative kleptomania the first film struggled through. Part one made it palatable; part two makes it laughable, with the results coming as an embarrassment to everyone involved – including the director whose last job was "R.I.P.D."

Deviating (or maybe even … diverging?) from both Veronica Roth’s books and the first film, "Insurgent" sets its attention on a mystery box, never mentioned or referenced previously. Apparently it was important, though, because the parents of our heroine Tris (Woodley) supposedly died trying to protect it, and the evil dystopian ruler Jeanine (Kate Winslet) now desperately wants to crack it open, needing a powerful Divergent – "a very special one," as Winslet notes like a grade school teacher – to do so. You’d think something like a magic box containing the fate of the remains of mankind would’ve come up before, but oh well; thus is the intricately weaved fabric that is the world of Divergent.

As for Tris, after the small uprising of the last film, she’s on the run, hiding out amongst the peace-loving hippies in Amity (led by a wasted Octavia Spencer). Unfortunately, the peace isn't contagious for Tris, as she's haunted by the memories of those who’ve died in her name – so much so, she has to give herself a dramatic new haircut, with impressive layering and coloring considering the circumstances.

Boyfriend and resistance leader Four (James) does his best to keep her relaxed, focused and sane; smirking rival turned dubious teammate Peter (Miles Teller, "Whiplash") does the opposite of that. Meanwhile, her wet blanket brother Caleb (Ansel Elgort, Woodley’s fellow ailing lover in "The Fault in Our Stars") isn’t sure he’s cut out for the fugitive life, possibly because his exaggerated run is very funny. He looks like his limbs will fly off at any moment. This is important.

The gang, however, can’t hide forever – especially with Jeanine’s cronies (Jai Courtney and Mekhi Phifer) on the hunt – so they set off to find their old Dauntless friends, develop a strategy and grow an army to take down the walled city’s cruel dictator, who's mowing through unworthy Divergents in her quest to open the box and reset peace between the growingly unsettled factions. As the posters and ads have hinted, a lot of glass and walls die along the way as though everyone’s auditioning to be the next Kool-Aid Man.

While watching "Insurgent," I was amazed by apparently how little I really remembered about what happened in the first film (there was a zipline, right? And tattoos?). Forget the silly dystopia; the biggest flaw in "Divergent" was how little an impact it made, especially considering its sequel doesn’t catch viewers up much at all. Characters and past events keep getting referenced and discussed – I hope you remember Will; you know, Will? That one … guy? – but other than dedicated fans who’ve probably already bought tickets for parts three and three and a half, these relationships don’t mean much.

Not that "Insurgent" shows any interest in developing them more. The narratively unfocused movie is crowded with these inessential, ill-developed parts. Four’s abusive father (Ray Stevenson) only gets two incredibly short scenes with maybe three lines of dialogue. Meanwhile, there’s some drama between Tris and her BFF Christina (Zoe Kravitz, mostly just walking pertinently past windows and wearing dystopian crop tops) because of Will’s death, but it’s mostly just a few moody looks before back to the status quo. 

Even the major characters are inconsistent and ill-developed, with Peter and Caleb hopping back and forth between emotions and sides only to suit the screenplay’s unfocused whims. In one action sequence on a train, Caleb goes from a cowering dweeb to murderous to back to cowering dweeb. Even Tris is confusing, getting grumpy at Four for forcing her to take a truth serum trial, despite the fact that it was provably only way to stay alive.

She’s not only confusing; if I’m being honest, the script makes her rather annoying as well. Tris is coping with the guilt and sadness of those who’ve died during the fight, of being the flag for which some are willing to die. And yes, subtract an "r" from Tris and add a K, A, N and extra S, and you’d have literally the plot to the last few "Hunger Games" films. But while those films make her struggle feel real and substantial against a larger, complicated and deadly conflict, Tris here just seems whiny and shortsighted – a complaining teenager's diary submission in human revolutionary form.

It doesn’t help that she seems to be the only focus of this great clash; the war and the world feels small, less about an oppressed people than a moody girl who, gosh mom, just wants to be accepted for who she is. The fact that the villain’s name is the Jeanine – resulting in laughably straight-faced lines like, "We must kill Jeanine!" and "Jeanine will never stop!" – and responding to guilty PTSD nightmares is an edgy haircut doesn’t help the feeling that we’re rebelling against an overbearing stepmom rather than an oppressive regime governing the last of humanity.

An icy, taut villainess named Jeanine, however, is the least of this dystopia’s silliness (though I still laughed every time her name was intensely muttered). The faction system and their excessively verbose names ("The remaining Dauntless are hiding in Candor!") are still ridiculous. In classic action movie fashion, large armies can’t hit the one person in plain sight they’re aiming for.

Plus, for a world under oppressive watch, wanted fugitives walk around pretty freely, and security for the city’s most important building is set at paper thin. A climactic scene involves Teller trotting into Jeanine’s headquarters, causing a security breach and then walking right out somehow without literally anyone noticing. There are ways to make these clichés and cheap story beats less goofy and more digestible, but director Robert Schwentke (the auteur behind other logic-deprived larks like "Flightplan" and "The Time Traveler’s Wife") does no work to hide the film’s increasing ridiculousness.

While "Insurgent" may be on par with Schwentke's resume (to his credit, the movie – from the sets to the action sequences – looks clean if undistinguished) the real disappointment is the cast, which is way too deep and talented to be this bad. Put this way: A movie where Sam Worthington 2.0 Jai Courtney delivers one of the more noteworthy performances means something’s gone horribly awry.

There’s not enough of Spencer or series newcomer Naomi Watts as a rebel leader and Four’s assumed dead mother to really say much. James, a genuinely pleasant surprise in "Divergent," fades on screen – save for a dinner table discussion where he loudly and overdramatically insists his name is Four (why you’d want to stick with it, I don’t know). Winslet delivers the nadir of her career, merely showing up without any hint of what little menace she had during the first film.

It’s hard to blame her though; the script – from Brian Duffield, Mark Bomback and "Winter’s Tale" screenwriter Akiva Goldsman – is tremendously awful, from her hilarious stiff exposition to a rooftop exchange about Tris’ "scary boyfriend" out doing "scary boyfriend stuff." At least Teller seems to be having some fun, bringing some cocky and smirky entertainment to the film. It’s as though his performance is poking fun at the ridiculousness of it all.

And as for the very talented Woodley – so exceptional in "The Descendants," "The Spectacular Now" and "The Fault in Our Stars – this performance is a colossal step back. Action heroine doesn’t seem to fit with her, her attempts to look intense and angry appearing more like a pissy pout. Even outside of the glass-smashing action, however, her work is off mark. There’s a truth serum scene where she’s trying to fight off its effects and avoid telling the truth, and it’s just too much. Too much writhing and face scrunching. Too much whimpering and squeaking. It’s a painful scene – not because of the actual emotions at play, but because a good actress is trying way too hard to make it work.

It’s a lot of effort for a movie – and a franchise – that has shown little to none so far in return. Maybe if the film was trying something interesting or new, it’d be worth mildly recommending (as flaming as dumpster fires like "Jupiter Ascending" or "Chappie" can be, there’s a thread of ambition there – albeit gone awry).

There’s nothing here though. It’s "The Hunger Games" mixed with "The Maze Runner" mixed with "The Giver" mixed with a hundred other young adult dystopian franchises. Concepts and visuals from "The Matrix" and "Inception" have now been stapled on sloppily, and even the climax is essentially the Nega-Scott sequence from "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World," except taken hilariously serious.

At its best, "Insurgent" is yet another utterly unremarkable YA action thriller just with less going on upstairs; at its worst, it's the SNL digital short "The Group Hopper" except with even more laughs. And, of course, it ends on a dramatic twist promising a big change to the franchise … that you’ve already seen in about ten other YA adaptations. It sets up the final two chapters on a cliffhanger, but after two lackluster entries, I’d just let this series drop.