Benutzerrezensionen

'Coherence' is master example of what you can achieve with close to no budget, but enough inventiveness. Shot over five days with almost unknown cast (except maybe Nicholas Brendon from 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer') and mostly improvised scenes and dialogue. The writers (director James Ward Byrkit and Alex Manugian who also played the role of Amir) had only written just story and established rules while most of the witty dialogue were improvised by actors themselves, thus proving that the film doesn't need some superstars, but rather talented ensemble cast. Although the hand-held camera-work might seem to take viewer out of the story, it was just another way to give more room to the improvisation. Despite all of that the film manages to keep an eerie atmosphere, and the story movies on one continuous flow without getting sidetracked. The story also doesn't crumble into pieces under it's own ambitions. The twists hold together and actually makes sense. Although the final twist might seem to be rushed and thrown into there just for the sake of it, but it kinda fits and doesn't change the film's overall tone.

'Coherence' is slow burning psychological science-fiction for a thinking person, and it holds up much better than most big budgeted pretentious science-fiction extravaganzas. Recommended especially for those who like independent sci-fi and/or films that take place in one room.

Eight friends get together for dinner while a comet is passing overhead. After a power blackout across the neighbourhood strange events start occurring.

A clever drama, with an interesting anchoring in scientific theory. Very intriguing, as the events unfold, especially as you don't know where this could or will lead. Due to the originality of the concept and plot, the options are almost endless.

Unfortunately, that's where the movie falls short of greatness. Having presented this wonderfully original idea and developed the plot quite well around it, writer-director James Ward Byrkit doesn't quite know where to go with it. The ending is very disappointing, especially after all the potential the movie had for something profound or impactful.

Based upon viewer comments, this is either great or horrible and, for my money, I agree in both cases. Maybe it's a matter of expectation? If you like movies with effects and high production values (no shame in that) this isn't for you. It you like creators trying to be unique, then this might be fun.

For me, there are a couple ooooo moments that make this worth while. And I love that Nicholas Brendan's twin brother shows up as a special effect, like he did in that really good episode of Buffy.

Coherence kept popping up on lists of best sci-fi films which was surprising because I had never seen a trailer or heard anything about it. I found it free to stream somewhere, so I checked it out, and I am so glad I did! What I found was a very low-budget film with a cast you have never heard of but a premise and script that were so well executed that this movie blew my mind! The panic and anxiety of the characters as they try to understand what is happening around them is told with such brilliance that the audience is lost, intrigued, overwhelmed, and bought in all at the same time. I'm telling you - watch this movie!

I've never watched a film that made me feel stoned. Until now.

Although the trailer peeked my interest, I didn't go into this movie with high expectations, being that it is a low budget film with actors you don't see to much. But I couldn't have been more wrong.

The movie has good writing, dialog, all around great acting, and keeps you interested with nice twists throughout the movie. Another thing I liked about it, was the fact that they don't spend unnecessary amounts of time getting into the actual story. Maybe 5 or 10 minutes tops. It also has a storyline that is pretty original in my opinion. Yea, certain little things could be associated with other movies, but overall its an original idea. Sci-Fi movies these days tend to have so many similarities, that when a movie like this comes along, its refreshing to see something new.

One of the more creative movies I've ever seen. The premise showed great promise, and it's fleshed out about as far as you could take it. The problem is... things accelerate at such a high rate, that you quickly figure out that the details don't matter. If the movie had a smaller scale, or a more claustrophobic feel, I think it would have worked better. In a mind-bending movie like this, usually noticing details is what pieces everything together. But here, most of what happens turns out to not be of any consequence. The ending only serves to ram this point home - it seems like they just ran out of ideas and wrapped it up as quickly as possible.

I think this was a good film... but with a steadier pace, a tighter narrative, and a stronger finish, it could have been great.

A group of friends in LA come together for a dinner party on the same night as a comet is going to be passing close to Earth. Warned of potentially odd events, the group is bemused by the loss of phone signals, and the occasional cracked handset, but a little more freaked out by the loss of power to pretty much the entire neighborhood. One of the group, Hugh, has a brother who works in the field of astrophysics and had suggested weirdness may occur – so Hugh and Amir head out to the only house in the area they can see with power, hoping to find a working telephone to contact him on. However, while they are out, other weirdness starts to occur.

Several years since it was made, this very low budget film arrives in the UK with only a few screenings in London that I know of. I had never heard about it till I saw some positive reviews in the paper, and reading about it afterwards (as you will) I learnt that it was shot in only 5 nights pretty much using the director's own front room as the set. This does show in the final film – not that it is cheaply made, but that it is a sci-fi where the ideas are the thing rather than big special effects or anything like this. It is said that the best sci- fi are about ideas and I would say this is often the case, when they are done well; fortunately Coherence is a film that (mostly) does it well.

Not to say much, but there are elements here that will be familiar to anyone who has seen time-travel films with alternate versions, or anything in Twilight Zone/Outer Limits involving alternate universes. Going online you will find lots of discussions about the film including a great thread here on IMDb where someone has broken down the entire film into diagram showing all the time-lines in more detail than I would guess even the makers ever did; however this is not to say that the film cannot be enjoy at a more reasonable level. I found it very nicely delivered so that we are pretty much our group the whole time in terms of their understanding of events – sometimes I was behind the plot, sometimes a little ahead of it, but mostly it kept me engaged and keen to see what happened. A few jump scares and loud noises are used to perhaps raise tension artificially early on, but otherwise the film manages to use the closed location and small group to increase tension and fear of the unknown throughout, making it enjoyable.

As an idea it is not perfect and you will find flaws if you pull at the edges, however I found it satisfyingly constructed and delivered. Some have complained about the camera-work and to a point I can understand the question as to why it needed to move around so much in a comparatively static area; however I found that to a point it helped put me in the room with the characters. This doesn't totally excuse some of the more amateur aspects of the look of the film, with so-so lighting and changeable color – although a perhaps accidental impact of this is that it also made me question where I was in the film. I was a bit surprised to see some complain about the acting, because actually I thought the unknown cast was very good. I bought into them as a dinner party group of artists and Los Angeles successes, and I thought they stuck well with their characters even as odd things happen; okay none of them coped well with some of the clunkier moments (the book was not the best way to bring exposition into the film) but otherwise they worked well.

Coherence is not as good as you have heard, but it is a very enjoyable film nonetheless – I think part of the high praise it receives is that it is a low-budget film that delivers much more than most viewers would expect. I found it mostly cleverly written and well delivered to draw the viewer in, give plenty of mystery and tension, and generally satisfy throughout and at the end. The low- budget nature of it does show, and the writing is not as perfect as it appears, but for 90 minutes I really enjoyed it and appreciated how engaged I was by what it was doing.

This was recommended to me by a horror movie forum and it's not horror but much closer to a Twilight Zone episode. It's very much a "what is going on here" movie

It has an overall fun concept that I have not seen before but is full of flaws that make it less enjoyable than need be.

First off the characters often do lots of puzzling things. Things that I guess one might do in that situation but had me screaming(in my head) for them to do something completely different. It takes me out of the film throughout.

Second issue is that the topic can be a bit obtuse, so the characters are constantly giving out exposition to tell you what is going on. The (and pretty much all)movie would be better served to have natural and environmental exposition rather than the characters telling you exactly what is going on.

Last is the otherwise nonsense ending. I actually appreciate what they tried to do but the execution was awful and resulted in a mess.

The movie is basically all shot in one house and otherwise feels cheap. While the acting is fine you can tell it was mostly improv which often resulted in a lot of unnecessary dialogue. Some of the camera work, specifically the camera cuts, resembled that of a found footage film which I felt didn't work. But it's mostly well acted and competently done.

This could have used good amount more polish to get it to greatness but it's a fun ride if you are up for a Sci Fi mystery.

I was fortunate enough to catch this at a local screening in Los Angeles recently and I have to admit that this film took me completely by surprise!

I knew some details before going into see this film: Low Budget, quick shooting schedule, etc. so I was preparing myself for a bit of a tough ride. I was sooooo happy to see that this was not the case AT ALL! Smart dialogue, fluid and intimate use of the camera, great characters and a storyline... it all comes together to really surprise you!

Being a bit of a science nut, I also loved the fact that this storyline was ahead of the curve on a newly introduced theory making the rounds in Physics. I won't say anymore for fear of spoiling the ride, but trust me... this is a very well done film!

If you still hold onto your sense of imagination... if you still believe that anything is possible... if you still love going to movies for a sense a magic and love a good story... this film will not disappoint!

I didn't know what to expect from it, but I am glad I checked this movie out.

Without giving too much, story is quite witty and entertaining, it will keep you interested in what's going on, even when most of the plot points are relieved. Characters were descent, most of them acted like people would in extraordinary situation that happens in the movie (with few instances where I thought it went into overacting territory). Confused, dazed and paranoid, yet characters always seem to find a way to keep things going.

Camera work is the movie's biggest problem. I am not sure if it's a trend for new filmmakers, but why they keep using dancing stadycam when movie clearly doesn't need one. It should have been shot as traditional movie. I've seen this in lot of new movies. It kinda adds to intimacy of the movie, but it felt distracting. Still camera didn't go berserk like in most stadycam movies, at least they tried to keep it "tame".

If you're not easily bothered by "dancing" camera, then this movie might be for you. You should check it out anyway, it's a good example how indi movies can be done and done well. All you need is a good idea and good story and not get lost into pretty CGI and lot of special effects.

It should be noted that it's refreshing to see group of actors in new horror movies that don't consist of Supermodels-only club. There's variety of actors and actress looks, some better looking then others, so it adds some realism that this could be legit group of friends. Even Emily Baldoni, who is rather beautiful doesn't fall into "supermodel-only" category.

Cleverly crafted plot executed well by a group of truly fantastic actors.

Mind-bending and quite terrifying, the cosmic horror vibes are strong with this one.

Everything I love about movies, no excessive use of computer graphics, pyrotechnics or violence. This leads to an experence which feels grounded and authentic. Sometimes simplicity really is best. Love, Love, Love this movie.

Coherence (2013)

A twisty, semi-sci-fi improbable movie with enough fun antics and mind bending ideas to make it work. The basic idea has been visited often lately—there are more than one of us out there. The closest parallel is "The One I Love" which has the different versions of people encounter each other in oblique ways, but it occurs differently in "Sliding Doors" which is even mentioned in this film.

Which is to say: not quite original.

But the ensemble acting is so solid and natural all along, it makes the improbable slightly believable. If you don't buy the wobbly science (they confuse a comet with a meteor, it seems, when talking about Finland, and the whole coherence idea which is apparently only true for subatomic physics) you can at least see yourself in these rather ordinary people. Well, upper middle class educated people.

Eight of them have gathered in a suburban house for dinner. A phone screen cracks mysteriously. The comet is mentioned. And then the lights go out. Fine so far, armed with candles and glow sticks. Then one guy sees a house two blocks away that has its lights one.

And the credibility is strained even on non-cosmic aspects. Because, for example, this lighted up house scares them, even after they realize it might have a generator (and even after their own generator turns on). And then they are scared to walk outside and ask the house to use their phone—in the sweet warm suburbs? Hmph.

These little things matter—like hinting at dangers that we don't really feel are dangers, but now that they are hints we come to suspect some foul play or weird effects ahead.

Still, there is the creepy sensation of sensing you might have a second—or third— version out there. And that you might meet, and then? Exactly—then what? It gets startling and spooky and fun. It resolves slightly by the end, with a final cliffhanging phone call.

Nothing brilliant here despite the underlying strains of intellectualism. But it's natural and a good lightweight game.

I first saw Coherence a few years ago, and recently decided to rewatch it, and my opinion on it has remained the same: that this film is so close to being a classic that it hurts. It probably just needed one more script revision to fully realise its potential.

That said, it's still highly enjoyable with plenty of mystery and unnerving moments as the group try to figure out who - and what - they're dealing with. Combined with the night-time setting and the sparing yet haunting score, I really love the atmosphere of this film.

One of the keys to enjoying this film is not to overthink it. If you start pulling at the threads, it will untangle and you might find plot-holes everywhere. Though that's not a fault of the writers, it just comes with the territory of tackling the sci-fi subject that they have.

Indeed, it's commendable that this film turned out as well as it did. As a low budget sci-fi, this film could so easily have gone badly wrong. Instead, that I still remember it years later is a testament to the great job they did.

Would recommend... just don't ruminate on it when you've seen it.

I wish people would pay more attention to what motivated Schrödinger's analogy (describing the absurdity of the contemporary theory on quantum mechanics).

Okay, I can accept that the characters are not savvy enough to talk knowledgeably about quantum mechanics, and the audience is equally ill-equipped to understand actual quantum mechanics... but, it seems the filmmakers themselves are ill-equipped to use anything but bad popular metaphysics. It's all just a pile of pseudoscience nonsense. Throwing "quantum" into a script doesn't make it science fiction. That's just the woo-ification of the word. Promoting the story as science fiction does no service to the audience or to science.

But let's talk about the characters: why all the fear, paranoia, and hostility? Myself and people I know would have been filled with curiosity and wonder, had we been in the position of the film's characters. Are we supposed to believe that these characters are representative of average people, such as those of us in the audience? If so, it feels false, at best, and insulting at worst.

Scripted hostility and paranoia tends to feel false to me in many films and shows, but it's even worse here. I think that the method of filmmaking used (notes and improv, rather than scripts) is exactly the cause: Instead of giving actors a well-drawn scripted story, with sensible character motivations, a room full of improv actors was forced to come up with their own interpretations based on a few daily notes given them by the director. It's no wonder that the notion of a room full of friends feels like a room full of isolated, disparate microcosms.

The budgetary constraints are probably the major driver behind the contrived character behaviors: we can't have people engage in curiosity, because then the director would have to film the results. Instead, they're instructed to be fearful, so the director can keep the visuals simple and eliminate the need for extensive difficult in-camera tricks or expensive visual effects.

I want to appreciate the effort and ideas tried in this film, but the end result left me irritated by the pseudoscience and the character behavior. This was not entertainment. It was an exercise in forcing myself to sit through something actively annoying. I could not identify with these paranoid and irrational characters. I would not have willingly spent an evening with these people in real life; watching them on screen for 88 minutes was more than enough. Was the filmmaker's goal to annoy the audience?

There's no objective measure or accounting for taste, but seeing this film treated to praise such as "cerebral" (when that's not an insult, because anti-intellectualism) and "intelligent" just annoys me. It reminds me just how credulous and uncritical audiences are. In fact, there's a sad irony here: the characters, with their credulous consumption and regurgitation of bad pop science articles and woo are misinterpreted as "intelligent and aware" by an audience composed of exactly the same type of people.