Comwayon
A Disappointing Continuation
FrogGlace
In other words,this film is a surreal ride.
Keeley Coleman
The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;
Michael Ledo
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.
MaximumMadness
Time travel has long been a fascinating and wild subject in the world of science fiction. It's a concept that has near limitless potential, and is so undefined in any sort-of "real world" manner that it's a creative goldmine. Many films, television series, stories and novels have revolved around this topic. Including many high-profile releases, including the recent gems of "Looper", "Predestination" and "Primer." And you get the feeling while watching writer/director Jacob Gentry's 2015 release "Synchronicity" that the film is aiming for the stars and striving to be another classic tale through time. Unfortunately, it misses the mark completely with an aggressively dull and sometimes infuriating sense of pace and a bizarre and distracting aimlessness that is more likely to inspire groans of frustration and dissatisfaction than to inspire the inquisitive thoughts its striving for.It's actually pretty hard to describe the story of the film despite having viewed it within the past week. It's essentially the tale of physicist Jim Beale (Chad McKnigh), who is working on a breakthrough in time-travel. However, his breakthrough is threatened by an opportunistic capitalist who is seeking to gain control over the project (Michael Ironside) and his own conflicted feelings towards a young woman he meets and feels attracted to (Brianne Davis)... but also concerned about because she seems to know too much. As the plot progresses and his life and science begin to collapse around him and fall out of his control, Jim will need to use his discovery of time travel in order to navigate a web of deception and try to put right what is seemingly destined to go wrong.The most striking thing about the film is honestly the fairly strong visual palette and nuanced direction thanks to Gentry's guidance. If nothing else, it's a very well-shot and competently crafted work. The sense of flow in each individual scene, keen use of image composition and intriguing style is usually stirring, and often key sequences are fascinating to behold on an aesthetic level if nothing else. It's a very pretty looking film and the aesthetic is well-utilized to convey the goings on and happenings. There's also the kernel of a good story beneath the surface, and there is a degree of potential as the film develops and elaborates on the characters and situation. The real tragedy is that it took what might have made for a good hour-long television episode and stretched it more than twice the length it needed to be.Yes, unfortunately the film's undoing is frankly a horrendous sense of pacing and a really troubling aimlessness that makes it difficult to watch... and even more difficult to glean any real point out of as a result. I can already hear trembling fingertips on keyboards from people who disagree, but I'm sorry- this is an infuriating and completely monotonous experience. It feels empty and pointless because so much of the story is so drawn out that it loses any impact. And I get the feeling its because not only is Gentry the director, but he's also the editor. And he didn't observe a really important part of what editing entails. That you have to be willing to "kill your babies" and cut out anything that isn't necessary for the film to function and excel. Too much time is spent on padding and sub- plots and needlessly prolonged sequences that it comes at the expense of the audience's attention and devotion to the story. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that it needs to move at a lightning fast pace. Deliberation is important. (Observe any of Paul Thomas Anderson's films for prime examples of deliberate but still completely enthralling and engaging works.) But too much deliberation is a very bad thing, and can start to feel like insecurity.Even as the film is drawing to the climax (which I will not spoil), I was gritting my teeth as it meandered on awkward pauses in the dialog... needlessly drawn out establishing shots... Twists and turns that lose any shock value because we've figured them out through visual cues long before the film pauses to very gradually explain them in clunky exposition dumps. I probably counted about a dozen or so scenes that could easily have been chopped in half with clever editing and a vast amount of needless shots and reactions in my viewing of the film, and the more I think about it... the more and more so much of it seems trivial. The fact is, the film feels like an early assembly cut. A rough version that was meant to be cut down more and more until it flowed well and functioned. Only it never went back into editing. There's a pretty decent 80-minute feature here, and a darned good 42-minute "Twilight Zone" episode... Only bloated beyond comprehension by padding it out into a 100 minute feature with side-excursions that add little to the proceedings and plenty of needless additions to the story. The focus and pace is simply dreadful and it robs what could have been. Add to that flat and stagnate performances from the bulk of the cast (sans the excellent Ironside), and it's a wholly frustrating work.I'm sure it will have its fans. But I can't help but suggest that you spend your time elsewhere. There's some interesting nuggets of story here and there peppered throughout, but it's a complete chore to slog through and feels superfluous by the time the credits roll. I wish I had a time machine so I could have stopped myself from wasting 100 minutes watching it. "Synchronicity" gets a poor 3 out of 10 from me.
Peter Lorme
Synchronicity (2016) is a forgettable science-fiction film that is not as thought-provoking as it wants to be. The amount of low-budget science-fiction films that have been coming out seems to be increasing at a rapid rate every year. With more and more being released, how many of them are actually quality films? How many of them are actually unique and memorable? To be frank, the answer is very few. There have been some pretty interesting ones, but most of them are unimpressive and lackluster. As for 'Synchronicity', it's not boring, but it's really nothing extraordinary. The plot is pretty interesting at first but slowly grows to be boring over time. The characters are solid, with some being more thought-out than others. The acting is decent, as it really didn't benefit or hurt the film as a whole. As for the direction, it's actually really good. The visual style really pops out, and the sets used help to create a very futuristic but believable environment. Also, I absolutely loved the score for the movie. I found it to be the thing I most enjoyed throughout the entirety of the movie. The problems lie in the script. I found myself struggling to pay attention after the 30-minute mark. This film is nothing I'll remember anytime soon, but it wasn't a terrible watch.
rottninge
Well, first, I was clearly biased when I watched this. This movie just happened to perfectly fit the location, mood, and life situation I was in at the time when I saw it.Nevertheless, I actually consider this movie to be more of a cinematographic state of mind more then a story line. And I think it's a success.The imagery, camera work, and the music, clearly pays its dues to movies such as Blade Runner and TRON: Legacy. I even believe (haven't checked it up though) the story takes place in the same universe as Blade Runner.I also found it to be well casted, smart, and well acted. I'm guessing it's made on a very limited budget but I think the money was very well spent. The CGI aren't in your face and I even found it hard to spot when it was actually used. That is possibly due to very wise choice of locations - we see many fastidious futuristic building buildings (the whole story takes place within dense urban areas) and concrete jungles.I found the music to be extremely fitting and after the end credits I directly started looking up the composer(s) of the motion picture soundtrack (Lovett), as well as the songs played during the end credits (Watch It - Space Art, Over the bridge - Ori Vidislavski, Mama - Ghostland Observatory, and Time Travel - Ben Lovett)The only negative I have to say about it is that I anted a bit more background and introduction to the min character (but now I'm really picky) and I think the atmosphere of the movie was lost right at the beginning of the end credits during the intro of the song "Watch It" by Space Art (bu, again, being picky here)So, for me:In the right mood, 9/10 Any given day, 7/10
