Diverge

This film is about a man and his wife who are living in a post-virus-apocalypse where it seems much of the world has been rendered unlivable. Soon, the man is told by another man that he has a chance to go back in time to "save the past".

Yes you've seen this concept before, yes its probably going to feel familiar.

The film has some beautiful shots in the future, with wide shots of an endless expanse of nothingness and the clearly horrible life they are living. We are even shown a city in the distance that is surrounded by this waste, showing us that it is very likely that this is a global pandemic, with everything surrounding major city centers being obliterated. Unfortunately, we never SEE the city to see if its a ruins, if people live there, or if its safe/unsafe, and only meet a couple characters in the past. When we reach the past, its a lot of drab, gloomy, dreary mostly-shot-at-night city-life shots.

None of the actors were anything to write home about, but they did a passing job for people I've never heard of (I didnt check if they have other credits under their belt).

Theres not much to talk about to sets, the scenery (other than the 'future'), or even the plot, which is quite sub-standard. This movie could have cut 45m from its run time and made an awesome short, OR it could have added something in those wasted minutes to give some impression of care about the characters or world building or anything really, but no, we get a bare-bones plot, some shaky sci-fi, and some questions left unanswered. There is even a clever little twist at the end that ties it all together in a bow at the end (If you didnt catch it, watch the end, then re-watch the future wasteland bit at the start).

The movie is by no means BAD, I rather enjoyed it for what it was. I am, however, a glutton for sci-fi, time travel, and the hope for a new view of the genres. There are no big action scenes, no explosions, no fight scenes, no daring rescues, etc. Its a rather slow movie with a respectable sub-90m run time. If the movie trimmed the fat and added something more interesting in its place I would likely have given it several stars more! However as it stand, its a mediocre film that needed a little more OOMPF.

If you are not into slow paced sci-fi, you will probably turn it off in the first 15m. If you hang in there, there is still a pacing problem but theres more to look at than the "nothing" in the 'future'. Its worth a watch when you have nothing else on your plate!

All in all a movie that you really do have to watch in its entirety to appreciate the plot, and a movie that you have to forgive the co-stars for being somewhat cardboard in their performances. But a movie worth the time if you have an open mind and are okay with seeing a time travel movie that a) doesn't attempt to represent the methodology behind the activity and b) doesn't add those silly paradox components where people vanish or explode if they come into contact with themselves from a different chronological pathway!

What started off as a promising premise quickly lost steam... and never really made a point

I must have watched about 15 min worth and turned it off.

Almost no dialogue. Many flashes to a wishful alternative happy reality like a flashback movie. Like when she picks up a sea shell to her ear, then the movie flashes from the dystopian salt flats world to a happy world -- where she is standing at the beach actually hearing the waves.

I normally like artsy movies, foreign films, and even dystopian movies like the one with Viggo Mortensen's "The Road."

But this was far from anything I liked.

Was drawn into seeing 'Diverge' with a cool poster/cover, a very intriguing if not innovative premise and as someone with a general appreciation for the genre as said many times. That it was low-budget, which from frequent personal experience is rarely a good sign due to that there are so many poor ones out there, made me though apprehensive.

'Diverge' is a film it doesn't do enough with its potential (although there are far bigger wastes of potential in film) and could have been much better. 'Diverge' is very weak with a lot of big problems. It certainly could have been far worse, considering the large number of films seen recently being mediocre at best and terrible at worst. There is very little to recommend here but it's not completely irredeemable.

The best thing about 'Diverge' is the sets/scenery, that look like a lot of care and time went into constructing them. Rather than limited and drab, they have elaborate atmosphere and they are nicely and slickly shot.

Music is similarly atmospheric, and avoids being over-bearing or too much of one mood, the sound isn't too cheap either. The lead acting is reasonable.

Rest of the acting however is pretty negligible. The whole cast are ill served though by very clichéd and sketchy characterisation and a too sparse script that felt incomplete and with a lot of ramble and cheese.

Despite the sets impressing, it can be too obvious that there were budget limitations and that it was made in haste. The editing is sloppy in particular. The story doesn't really get off the ground (the direction likewise), with a lot of the film dragging as a result of being over-stretched with the amount of content more suited to a short film, and clarity is not a strong suit, it is not easy to follow at times and it is rife with ridiculousness and implausibility too glaring to ignore. The ending felt under-cooked and the pace drags with too many scenes that go on too long and easily could have been excised.

In conclusion, weak. 3/10 Bethany Cox