Synchronicity (IV) (2015) User Reviews

Needs Patience.

[reallyevilboy · 5/10 · 23 January 2016]

I needed real patience to get through this one.

The whole thing felt immature. The acting, some of the dialogue, some of the script.

Someone is about to embark on the biggest discovery in history. He's popping pills and drinking coffee just to stay awake because it's all he can do. Then for the rest of the movie all he's wanting to do is have sex with one particular woman. I did find this a little annoying.

They were trying to give it that eighties scifi look, synthesizers all over the place, bladerunner style. Even down to the opening font and concrete architectural landscapes. I quite liked the charm that it lent itself to. But it also lent itself to eighties boring. Long, over stylized, drawn out conversations, completely unnecessary unless there was a serious intention to make me turn it off.

And I nearly turned it off, many many times.

But there was a sense that maybe, just maybe the movie would get better. There would be a great ending, or something.

Over time it did get a little better and the main reason I did not turn it off was I wanted to see the end. There was a sense of deliberate creation here by someone who had it in him to make a great movie.

Not this movie though, He missed the target on this movie. You could see where he was aiming for. With the substance and style it could have been a great movie. But when you miss the mark, you miss the mark.

Time travel shenanigans

[Snorreplop · 6/10 · 16 May 2016]

A team of scientist is frantically pursuing a breakthrough in their work. They are developing a kind of black hole back-door to communicate through time and space.

As in most time travel stories, the plot twists and turns and multiple perspectives on the same scene from different angles make up a lot of the fun in these kind of movies. And Synchronicity does this well given the available resources. To be honest, this is not the most sophisticated time travel movie, but it has character and is well-made. It kept me hooked and interested.

Michael Ironside probably is the most appealing name of the cast, he has a minor role as an investor/shareholder in the project. Main characters McKnight and Davis have a nice chemistry together and carry the movie with their performances.

i should stop watching time travel films ..

[digdog-785-717538 · 5/10 · 5 May 2016]

So, it's a romantic film.

Yep, the paper-thin premise of time travel is nothing if not a poor excuse for a romance between the protagonist, and the Mysterious Woman (tm).

I really liked the introduction; i can see that someone here really cared, and they made the whole "experiment" seem like something out of a hard-scifi film, similar to Primer (2004). But after the first scene, the sci-fi stops and the film becomes a blue- tinted chase between the Scientist Hero (tm), and a girl who come out of nowhere.

Now, i personally would think, if you are on the verge of discovering wormhole travel, you would have reasons to avoid a woman's charms, more so when you are in a precarious situation and she could likely be someone trying to trick you; you've even received a phone call telling you to stay away from her.

But nooo, you need to go and chase a skirt, because who cares about science, not us scientists, no.

Add to the flimsy plot a mild, inoffensive villain (michael ironside, phoning it in as always), and stretch the resulting mess to nearly two hours, and you have a good impression of what Synchronicity is like.

The leads McKnight and Davis do a decent job of acting their parts, and the supporting try their mediocre best, but it's just the fact that the romance/intrigue bits, and the science/adventure bits, just do not mix together, with one being almost irrelevant to the other.

And finally, will directors of photography everywhere PLEASE learn to use natural lightning; this film is obviously going for that smoky Blade Runner look, but winds up mostly looking blue.

would not recommend, it will disappoint scifi lovers and confuse romcom fans. My final vote: 5.5/10 - not garbage, but so much wasted potential.

Choppy Love Story Disguised As A Time Travel Movie

[HorrorOverEverything · 3/10 · 22 January 2016]

Wow that was a rough one to get through. I really enjoyed Jacob Gentry's film "The Signal, it had tons of heart and originality, so I figured this had to be decent. Unfortunately that was not the case here.

"Synchronicity" is simply a love story, and not even a good one. It is about a man who is working on a time machine when he falls in love with a woman who is sexually involved with his investor. From there the film is basically a mash up of our main character doing some really lame time traveling and a bunch of scenes of him and his new love doing a bunch of uninteresting stuff. Honestly there is no chemistry between them at all, he falls in love with her in like 2 hours and is totally ready to blow everything he has been working on just so he can be with her.

The acting was pretty bad as well, some of the lines were actually laughable. There is one scene in particular between the main character and his love interest that is suppose to be super serious but instead it felt like a really bad youtube skit. It seemed like the worst actors got the most screen time while the more talented actors were left with very little dialogue.

This film was a mess, the time travel aspect of it has so many plot holes and never really goes anywhere and the love story aspect of it was just boring and didn't really go anywhere. I was hoping this would be a nice time travel gem similar to "Predestination" but instead it was just a very sub par love story with a dash or time travel sprinkled in.

3/10

Mostly misunderstood?

[eyefordetail · 7/10 · 19 April 2016]

Reading some of the other reviews, mostly focusing on the fact that the movie seems to be almost Bladerunnerish, they do not actually address what the movie is. So what that it has a musical and emotive reflection in a style that reminds one of a silver screen masterpiece? Many rappers have best-sellers based on the borrowed riff or refrain from an eighties classic. And they pull it off. The question is - did this movie get a fair shake in being rated as average? This simply means that some liked it and some did not. But slashing it for merely what it reflects is like smashing the mirror on a bad hair day. The movie is a love story. It's a simple plot, and when one sits back and reflects on it, it pulls off the simple plot. It is low budget, yes, but in a good way. Bad CGI and silly effects would not have added to the love story, but to the SciFi wrapper. And who eats the wrapper and writes a review on it? Quite a few people, if I read through them. I enjoyed the movie and the story and the way it unfolds. Perhaps it will not be memorable, but at least it was filling. Worth a seven, I say.

Failed Homage to The Blade Runner

[eno2000 · 4/10 · 16 June 2017]

Not much to say about this movie. The story line was weak. The acting mediocre. But the most maddening thing was the very obvious attempt to reproduce the look and feel of The Blade Runner. In that, it only partially succeeds by making it clear which shots were being replicated (har har).

Deckard's apartment is the most obvious source for the apartments of both the main character and his romantic interest: The light streaming in through blinds of vehicles flying by as an example. The scenes where elevators are moving up and down the external side of a building very much like the Tyrellcorp building elevators is another.

At one point there is a scene where the female love interest is asleep and the physicist is on the left side of the frame backlit. Very very reminiscent of the "do you trust me" scene in The Blade Runner. The apartment intercom is very very much like the scene where Deckard calls Rachel from the bar. Combine all of this with the use of Vangelis-like sounds that never quite go to the right places, and you have the makings of a film that elicits some amount of grief and a yearning for someone to do things right. This is not that film.

If you've never seen The Blade Runner, you need to see it and decide who does this better. Stories are completely different, but the attempt of look and feel is very obvious and ham fisted. If you haven't seen this movie, just go in expecting the quality of a 1990's SciFi original and you will not be disappointed.

Reflected and interesting movie about time-travel paradox.

[doktorwho · 7/10 · 29 April 2016]

Synchronicity is an interesting movie that makes you think. I've seen others movies on the subject of time-travel but few that goes that deep into the subject and explaining it that well.

It's by no mean an easy movie to understand as a whole plot-wise because of the whole time-travel paradox , but it actually illustrate the complexity of it in a very elegant and subtle manner without too many shortcuts.

The movie has its flaws however,some of the plot devices related to the time-travel paradox seemed a little bit too convenient in my opinion, and the ending could have been better. But as a whole I liked the story even though I didn't understand all the details involved. There is also a nice little love story which actually fitted quite well in the overall plot.

The cyberpunk setting wasn't a bad idea for the movie, but I wished they had been a bit more subtle about it. Some of the scenes of the movies were almost screaming "We bloody love Blade Runner" at us. I still liked the style and music but I think it was a bit overdone.

Apart from Ironside all the actors are refreshingly unknown, and do a very good job given the complex story they play.I liked the characters which were both human and interesting.

Synchronicity's story is by no mean easy to grasp , but I enjoyed it. It wasn't overly complicated but still gave me something to think about after watching it. I recommend this movie if you're in the mood for a bit more serious scifi.

Tries way too hard

[Jarlus1 · 3 February 2016]

This movie boasts a "sci fi noir" tag and I gotta say, it's a cop out. It's more of a b grade movie than a noir film of any kind.

The soundtrack was repetitive cut and pastes of 80s "sounds" which were super cheesy and just gross. Look back to The Machine for an example of a decent sound track, this sounds like the version done by an inexperienced composer.

The plot it's self is basically what Primer did much better but it had a romance that was essential for the plot to work and unfortunately this writer and the lead actress cannot pull off romance. Don't make a romantic relationship the key to your plot unless you're as good at romance writing as you are science fiction writing. The other aspect of the film, which many unfairly compare to Dark City, is that they use an endless amount of gloss and dark lighting to try to make everything seem dark and gritty. Combined with the music it was just tedious to take in.

Don't get suckered in by the comparisons made to better movies or the "noir" tags.

A movie 20 years late....

[mikedjstone · 5/10 · 15 May 2016]

I won't rant about this movie being terrible since I was at least able to get through it completely without turning it off, so that's a start! What I meant in my title of it being 20 years late is that the acting and music was all too reminiscent of a 90's movie, or better yet for those who remember the TV series "The Outer Limits" this is exactly how it is structured. The acting is so so, and the special effects are lack luster, especially considering what is available nowadays. The story had so much potential and really is an interesting idea, however i feel it's sort of been done with movies like Momento, or Paycheck, but just wasn't a great delivery to feel original. For scifi peeps like me it is worth a watch on a rainy day when there is nothing else on.

Well Worth Watching

[m_lecarre · 7/10 · 25 January 2016]

I've read the negative and 'so-so' reviews here on this movie and wonder if we watched the same movie. References to Blade Runner, capturing 80's style production etcetera - sorry but I don't agree. I Hailed Blade Runner as the best futuristically dystopian Sci-Fi movie as the best I'd ever seen way back when it first came out, I have every version of it and still watch them on a regular basis - it never fails to satisfy and leave me with a feeling of calm satisfaction. Just about every movie that's ever been made just like every story that's ever been written owes something to those that came before it: as they say there is nothing new under the sun. Now back to Synchronicity 2015. It is a stand alone movie with (all IMHO) a solid well-written script, a sound and interesting premise, more than acceptably good special effects (which it didn't need to rely upon to tell its story), very well cast and well acted and although not a 'drivingly wild video game movie' (yuk) it never lags in pace or fails to hold the viewers interest and curiosity. Nothing is certain ... is it past or parallel, real or imagined, it leaves a lot for the viewer to decide which is, I surmise, why the movie gets such a mixed reception. Not a typical Hollywood style wrap it all up neatly in buttered popcorn it needs your attention and perhaps more than a single viewing to appreciate the content. The sexuality/physical attraction that has been called a love story is neither pointless nor gratuitous but serves a well-defined emotional purpose given the context of events and the nature of the relationship which intertwines the raison d'être of the two characters involved with the development of the premise upon which the film proceeds. If you want or are looking for a movie that is blunt force trauma to the senses then this won't be for you. If, however, you appreciate subtlety of expression, timing and story development then give this movie a watch. I enjoyed it and will watch it several more times to allow the subtleties previously unseen to fully develop. 7 out of 10 at least on my scale for a movie that not only entertains, but holds ones attention for the duration of the movie and has characters that are believable and very human.

1 + 1 = 0

[A_Different_Drummer · 3/10 · 25 January 2016]

Talk about your mixed metaphors! Seen a lot of films, reviewed a lot of films, have found A movies I hated and B movies I loved, but cannot readily recall a film where the auteur put so much effort into creating an atmosphere that he completely smothers whatever spark might have existed in the film itself.

The plot is about ... honestly I can't remember. That's how distracting the direction and sound track were. They actually overwhelmed the story.

I was paying so much attention to the lighting and use of shadows and greys (very Blade Runner) that after a while the main characters and their incessant whining just became a nuisance.

Never mind the experiment in the script. The experiment that the film-maker attempted -- mixing two different genres in the same production -- was the real one (not the one in the story) and yes it almost collapsed the time space continuum as we know it.

For movie watchers anyway.

Great and lame at the same time, it barely missed the sweet spot

[siderite · 8/10 · 13 July 2017]

The film has everything you could want: a 1980's soundtrack, a noir look a la Blade Runner, a scientist mad with the possibilities of his time travel machine and a beautiful girl to make it all worthwhile. Add to this Michael Ironside, who just lends gravitas to the entire thing and the only thing you could be missing is a smart script. And you are not, because this movie is smart.

So why didn't it become an instant classic? Because in the end, it was one hour and forty minutes for a punchline. The possibilities were infinite, pardon the pun, but the movie did not capitalize on them. That is why many of the people are either disappointed with the result or frustrated for not getting the complicated mechanics of time travel.

For me, it was a stylistically beautiful movie, with a lot of love poured into it. The acting was good, the story interesting. Most stories are usually broken by the addition of time travel or are based on it so much that they ignore anything else that might matter. Synchronicity did not fall into the first category and came very close to slip from the second and into the one of great films. I am sure that if it would have been done in the 80s, the time it seemed to belong to - pardon the pun again, it would have had a great success.

Bottom line: clearly better than average, but not consistently so. It has great moments and silly underdeveloped ones, it has a story with a lot of potential, but only a bit of it capitalized into anything. Certainly worth a watch.

1980s vision of the future

[keyads · 6/10 · 22 January 2016]

The main visual inspiration is most obviously "Blade Runner" as the film goes through great efforts to emulate the look of those vast cityscapes, particularly during its establishing shots. And, like Ridley Scott's film, the movie has a constant hazy, smoky sheen throughout. Gentry appears to be really fascinated with 1980s sci-fi; you get the impression that the design of the film represents a 1980s vision of the future.

While the plot and some of the characters' behavior initially comes across as odd and incomprehensible, it really starts to come together in a surprising way once you get past all the time travel technical jargon from the first half hour. "Synchronicity" also entertains partly because it knows how to have fun with itself. The characters feel grounded and down-to- earth despite living in a world where time travel is possible. The film follows physicist Jim Beale (Chad McKnight) who, along with his team, invents a device that can bend space and time and create a wormhole. This wormhole can send something (or someone) back in time, but Jim Beale has difficulty proving it can work.

His first experiment resulted in receiving an exotic flower, a dahlia, from the future, but he can't prove that it was ever sent back into the past. This doesn't go over well with his investor, a greedy venture capitalist named Klaus Meisner (Michael Ironside) whose funding is desperately needed in order for this device to keep operating.

Watch "Predestination" Instead

[DrZom-77-388656 · 1/10 · 21 October 2016]

A time travel story is judged by how well it lives within its own created paradox. If you want to see that done well, choose "Predestination" over "Synchronisity".

There are two ways a story can deal with the paradox: one is to allow it to exist and the other is to threaten destruction, of the subject, of the universe, or both. This movie sadly chose the latter course and that is very hard to get out of.

If you travel back in time, say five days, you will have a five day long paradox. But that paradox both begins and ends when your primary self takes the trip back; a temporal loop has been formed where only for that five day period do you find yourself and your secondary self sharing the world. At the moment the primary makes the jump, at that instant the secondary becomes the one and only in the present, and the paradox ends. Almost a Hegelian Dialectic in its elegance.

The clever writer can create loop over loop over loop with still a satisfying explanation and ending. Then there is the writer who paints himself into that corner of destruction and must find a way out. Some Deus ex Machina.

I cannot detail how the god appears to rescue the character/universe from destruction in "Synchronisity" without spoiling the end. I do hate spoilers, but I walked away thinking I had my choice of endings.

My advice to you is to first watch "Predestination" and then go to this movie.

Oh, and some likable characters might have helped just a bit. I might have given a 3 out of 10.

Surprisingly Disappointing and Bad

[jesus_ninja_pants · 2/10 · 21 May 2016]

I love Sci-fi. I am OK with bad acting and even bad dialog if it's a cool story. This movie drops the ball entirely with the story. It's shockingly unimaginative. It all boils down to one idea -- the idea of time travel/universe jumping -- which has been done and done before. The story is boring, predictable, and creates an absurdity out of human nature and behavior.

It got so boring that I ended up skipping through the last 20 minutes of the film to discover that it ends exactly as one would assume.

Don't waste your time with this film. You could probably come up with a better story right now if you gave it a try.

What parallel universe is this?

[hevig · 7/10 · 28 April 2016]

After reading some reviews here, I decided to go see this movie. What if you could create a wormhole, connecting the present with the future? What if you'd hop through such a wormhole? What if .... Those were, no doubt, some of the questions which led to the creation of this movie.

So that is pretty much where the story starts: three scientists open a wormhole - or so they say. It doesn't take long or proof that it worked, presents itself.

And there is a girl - the lead scientist follows her into his own doom, risking it all. Yeah, women.

The 80's synthesizer soundtrack is really nice. It adds a familiar strangeness to the movie, it almost places it in the 80's. But no, the real setting is present day, with an eerie skyline with drones projecting swooping searchlights. An alternate universe, perhaps?

A rich dude provides the highly dangerous and expensive radioactive spheres (fuel?) which are crucial to the experiments. Then the machine is situated in a plastic tent, or at least they have to go through a tunnel which looks like a plastic tube greenhouse. But why? To contain radioactive particles? Now that's a laugh.

And then the rich dude cheats because the object going through the wormhole, is owned by his company and he lays claim om half the machine? I just don't buy it.

At the end, the mind-warping time-travel / parallel universe hopping theories leave you baffled. It's OK to try, but no one ever really succeeds in ending such a story, without leaving the viewer with more questions than answers. Maybe, that is not a bad thing. But, for me, things didn't add up.

Not good

[laserburn · 3/10 · 20 June 2016]

I've never seen a bad sci-fi movie that has so many good things going for it. The actors do a very decent job, the directing feels competent, there is a certain 80s feel and flow to the movie, the soundtrack is good...

But the plot is just plain silly. Even if you do your best to emerge in the strange logic of this film, you can't escape the notion how silly the story is. It feels like something that comes to you in a dream, but when you wake up, you realize it doesn't make much sense.

If you get bored half way through the film, it's probably the best to stop watching, it doesn't get better later and there is no great finale resolving everything nicely. But it's not impossible that you might end up liking this movie for it's good sides. I didn't.

TIME IS A GREAT TEACHER THAT KILLS ALL OF ITS STUDENTS

[nogodnomasters · 6/10 · 8 May 2018]

With the financial aide of capitalist Klaus Meisner (Michael Ironside) Jim Beale (Chad McKnight) manages to create a wormhole. A rare flower comes through from the other side which sets off a chain of events dealing with the paradox of time travel...or is it a parallel universe?

The film is built upon an idea that an infinite number of universes exist which includes all different possibilities. What happens is that we have to sit through that oh so clever watching the same scene again from a different viewpoint with words taking on a different meaning. Unfortunately it was long and drawn out and not exciting the first time through. The leading lady is Brianne Davis who is made up to look like J-Law.

This is low intensity science fiction and should appeal to fans of "Primer." Personally I would have loved to have seen an adaptation of "What Mad Universe" instead...that is if you insist on going down that route. For low budget science fiction I prefer "Listening" or "Time Lapse."

Guide: F-bomb. Brief sex. No nudity. For hardcore Science Fiction fans.

Don't bother

[craig_lawes · 2/10 · 27 January 2016]

Massive spoilers, don't read this unless you've seen the movie, I'm just here to vent!

This must be someone's pet project gone wrong. Whilst there are some good time travel related parts, the overall time line gets seemingly abandoned about half way through. Where do they get the third piece of MRD from on the 2nd go round? The first is used to create the initial wormhole, then they use up another piece on their failed attempt to send the guy back (which I still don't understand why they feel that is a good idea), then the girl sleeps with the investor to get money for a third piece to do the original '2nd wormhole'? The only way to explain it is "it's a parallel universe" which is a total cop out and he might as well have just woken up at the end and have it all be just a dream.

If you haven't seen the film but read all this, just watch Primer instead. That's how you do a movie about time travel.

Interesting and provocative

[TdSmth5 · 7/10 · 25 June 2016]

A group of 3 scientists is working on creating a traversible wormhole in their lab via a machine they built. The have a corporate benefactor who finances them and provides them with the rare and expensive radioactive material they need. Jim is the leader, Chuck the level-headed guy, and Matty is supposed to be brilliant but can't tell right from left, and yet he is in charge with inserting the material and then having to turn it right and left.

During the first phase--opening one side of a wormhole--of the experiment things work out well. Even more so, something extraordinary happens, a dahlia flower appears and on the camera, Jim can see something moving, something that looks like the shape of a man. When he goes outside for a break, he runs into a pretty girl. Things immediately click between them.

Now the group needs more material for the second phase of the experiment which will involve opening up the second end of the wormhole. They have concluded that they themselves in the future sent the dahlia which now appeared. Jim meets with his benefactor who is reluctant to help, because, where's the money to be made here? To the meeting Jim took Abby, the girl he met. She suggests that Jim is a modern day Tesla. The executive agrees but for half of the ownership of the machine. They settle for 49%. In the meantime, Jim and Abby become lovers even though he knows she has something with the executive as well. He finds a bunch of dahlias at her place. Now the problem becomes clear.

Jim gets a threatening call from the executive. Sure enough, because his corporation owns the rights to the dahlia used in the experiment he now owns 99% of the machine, or something like that. The day of the second phase experiment, Jim suddenly decides to enter the machine himself in order to return to the past and warn his other self to stay away from Abby and this guy. It works. He exits the machine in the past, as the shadow Jim saw on the screen. He goes outside and runs into Abby right before the other Jim meets her for the first time. So now we have these two Jims out there. The Jim of the past going through what we already saw. And the present Jim trying to keep the past-Jim from screwing up. Past-Jim suffers from brutal headaches while present-Jim's body starts decaying. All the while both Jims are in love with Abby who has some strange agenda herself. She keeps a notebook of scientific bits and of Jim's adventures.

I've never been much of a fan of sci-fi, but as of late all the other genres are boring me in their predictability. Movies like Ex Machina, The Anomaly, The Signal, Uncanny, and now Synchronicity on the other hand had be guessing where things were going to go. And they are not as formulaic. A big plus is the bits of science and the provocative ideas. Most of other movies offer zero ideas, just go through the motions. What I enjoyed the most about Synchronicity was the science and this paradoxical scenario of two versions of the self co-existing at the same time. The love story is the weakest aspect. Would a scientist on the verge of the biggest breakthrough in history suddenly have the time and lack of concentration to suddenly fall in love? I doubt it. The overbearing 80s digital music was also completely unnecessary and annoying. Brianne Davis on the other hand is absolutely lovely, you can almost understand Jim falling for her. The rest of the small cast does also well. If you set aside some minor weaknesses, there's a lot to like in Synchronicity.

'Do you even time travel, bro?'

[MongoLloyd · 5/10 · 5 February 2016]

Starts out promising. Cinematography is amazing, production design is amazing, and it was post-produced very well. The overt adherence to the Blade Runner aesthetic is more than obvious and so heavy-handed that it becomes distracting with a Tangerine Dream soundalike score, dark smokey rooms replete with mysterious moving shafts of light, and plenty of grand future-city night time vistas.

The story took a turn for the worse when the protagonist, a physicist on the verge of time travel, meets a woman who shows up from out of nowhere that he immediately takes a major liking to, admitting her right into the middle of his business.

I thought it took longer than 10 seconds for people to develop intimate feelings for one another, but I guess things are different when you're about to invent time travel. I never realized an impending monumental achievement like that makes you revert to a beta cuck mindset.

And don't get me started on the connection between the benefactor/investor, the female love interest, and the physicist. I have no idea whatsoever.

Classic sexy sci-fi

[artrouble21 · 10/10 · 28 April 2016]

I'm giving it 10 stars because the movie was far better by the end than I thought it would be at the start.

From the start though our cinematic sensibilities pick up quickly that there is not an "Independence Day" budget attached.

With a slew of time-travel themed movies recently relying on great story telling and acting and others on big budgets and vacuous stars I wasn't sure where this one would fall but immediately one was struck by it's style. A noir look and compelling soundtrack. But as the recursive story picked up - well written and a fine cast - any misgivings were forgotten.

This is an original story with not just fine twists but also perhaps a first in the time travel genre it's quite sexy. Great chemistry between the two main characters added up to a compelling tale that crossed interestingly between lust and science.

Not since Forbidden Planet haha joking but the soundtrack again is worth mentioning and will make a second viewing as enjoyable as the first. Sci-fi has been burdened by the heavy handed scores of John Williams for far too long. Ben Lovett provides a beautifully apt real si-fi soundtrack to a real sci-fi film.

Don't be misled by simplistic reviewers, it is a quite clever concoction of ideas but spread out across it's time frame with all the right moments well embedded the story is well told.

Jacob Gentry is a person of future interest.

This "aint" Blade Runner.....

[s3276169 · 6/10 · 14 February 2016]

This "aint" Blade Runner. Sorry Jim Beam but I could not help myself. I hope you don't mind.

Synchronicity tries very, very hard to recapture the music, sets and overall "feel" of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. Sad fact is, the latter film is a masterpiece, in a league of its own and any pretenders, are going to come across as Asian flea market renderings of the Mona Lisa.

That said, to be fair, this film is not awful. Its a modest affair and yes, it does do a reasonable job of recapturing the 80's feel found in Scott's film. I'll even admit I had a few "deja-vu", sentimental moments, that took me back to my teenage years. The music and dusky, smoky sets, in particular, were very emotive.

Its also worth remembering too that this film is not Blade Runner. Indeed, the film it most reminds me of is Videodrome, with James Woods. Not because of the storyline but more its slower pace and "surreal" feel. This film is best suited to a thoughtful, patient viewer, who is willing to spend the time and effort needed to understand its various complex, time travel based, paradoxes.

In summary, a reasonable if not exceptional film that, in one way or other pays homage to 80's sci fi classics. Six out of ten from me.

SF movies should have at least some real science

[Windsun33 · 2/10 · 18 June 2016]

I have to admit I only made it about 2/3 of the way through this. Aside from the poor acting and multiple plot holes that others have mentioned, the supposed "science" was just awful, and in parts sounded more like some internet conspiracy garbage. What stood out was the spiel on how Tesla had apparently been murdered by "Big Edison" to keep his free power broadcasting a secret - something that seems to have come right off the pages of Info Wars. And of course all the other participants in the plot just automatically bought into to it without question. If what are supposed to be the worlds smartest people buy into such crap without question, it is not "science" - it is voodoo.

So close to being good, but was definitely quite bad

[twitchydigits · 3/10 · 1 July 2016]

The acting wasn't terrible. The soundtrack full of kid's electronic keyboard reminiscent of terribly-conceived 80s soundtracks was terrible.

The inexplicable lack of decent overhead lighting in any setting was, well, inexplicable. It was reminiscent of Blade Runner, but in Blade runner, at least one had the sense it was due to it being somewhat of a slide down the other side of an undramatic apocalypse. In this case, there was no reason for the fact that the world had lost all desire for lighting or color.

The plot almost made sense. It was choppy and hard to follow (this coming from someone who has read this type of story for 37 years).

In summary: The characters were undeveloped, the plot confusing, chaotic (not in a good way), and inconsistent. The plot did not gel. The lighting was annoying, distracting, and inexplicable. The soundtrack was HIGHLY annoying and distracting. The plot was poor. The acting was okay.

The only reason I got to the end of the movie was the subject-matter. I await the day when a good SF story covering this subject matter is made into a movie.