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
