Aporia

IN A NUTSHELL: Since losing her husband, Sophie has struggled to manage grief, a full-time job, and parenting her devastated daughter, but when a former physicist reveals a secret time-bending machine, Sophie will be faced with an impossible choice for a chance at happiness again.

The film was directed and written by Jared Moshe. Well done, Jared! Already, the film has been nominated for "Best Film" at the Fantasia Film Festival.

It's helpful to know that the word "aporia" means an irresolvable, internal contradiction or logical disjunction in an argument or theory (Oxford Dictionary). It's the perfect title for this film.

THINGS I LIKED: I've been a fan of Judy Greer for decades. She always gets roles as the best friend or some supporting character, so I'm happy to see her as the lead in this movie. She absolutely crushes it.

All of the cast members did a great job and include Edi Gathegi, Peyman Moaadi, and Faithe Herman.

Like a lot of films these days, this one tackles the human perspective of the multiverse. I love time travel movies and loops.

I love twists, and this movie forces you to think deeply about choices and consequences.

Most movies lately tell audiences to just do whatever makes YOU happy, with no regard for responsibility or consequences. I really like that this film explores those ideas deeper.

The color palette looked muted, which I thought was a great choice because the story takes a look at reality and alternate realities. The choices weren't always clear either.

THINGS I DIDN'T LIKE: The mechanical contraption that the former physicists built looks ridiculous.

The film completely glosses over the daughter's reaction to how her father is now alive. How is it determined who will have memories and who will not? There are some plot holes like that, so try not to overthink the story too much.

The film moves quite slowly.

I didn't feel a lot of chemistry between the leading couple.

There was a rumor that this film is related to the Cloverfield franchise, but it's not.

TIPS FOR PARENTS: Young kids will be very bored.

Profanity and F-bombs Talk of a drunk driver who killed a man Some alcohol and cigarettes People talk about killing other people.

The idea and twist on the conventional time travel genre was what interested me and ultimately kept me watching, but sadly, this film missed on a huge opportunity to capitalize on the concept. What follows is a meek, dull, repetitive - albeit though provoking story, that I felt was too aloof, riddled with plot holes, that asks too many unanswered questions.

The narrative kept spinning itself in circles but lacked finding more engaging material aside from the expected results. Plus I only found Greer's performance being the most nuanced, and not sure how or why Maadi was cast, as he was unconvincing, and I was constantly annoyed between trying to decipher his accent and seeing his backwards bowl short hairline-cut.

Additionally, the so called time machine wasn't convincing, and felt like an Inspector Gadget cartoon concoction put together from spare parts from a wrecking yard. So I'm not sure what film the critics saw that rated this so high, but I wasn't buying what the filmmaker was selling, and I surely didn't enjoy spending a slowly paced underwhelming 104 minutes to get such a lazy ending.

However, the concept is good.

What if you could kill somebody in the past

• whose action kills people and turns people miserable
• whose immoral action turns people miserable
• whose simple action turns people miserable
• who simply turns you miserable

Such quandaries hold the potential to produce a fantastic film.

But we don't see their past, and how it could affect the present; instead, a different present simply emerges. It made the director and writer's job much easier, as they lack original ideas

The dialogues are considerably basic, and the scenes are even more so. Standing at the open fridge, pondering what to take out... There are so many pointless moments to fill the film.

The actors struggle with the non-adapted dialogues and non-working connections.

It's all so superficial, simplistic, almost parodying.

Wasting my time made me upset and I interrupted watching after about 10 minutes, but then I read about the topic and decided to give it a go.

It is not given a second chance.

Whoever reviewed this and called it "repetitive" does a disservice to the movie.. I personally would call it anything but!

You have a simple structure that expectedly raises the stakes of using a "time machine" for personal purposes, specially when the effects are as impactful. There's no buildup, but it is more "revelative" as it develops. It does become predictable, though. It's also a tad too long, the pacing is somewhat slow in many parts, and lacks in engagement. But I can't see it ending in any other way, as it accomplishes what it sets out to do.

If it raises any questions, they are for the viewer to ponder, as the movie isn't interested in saying anything else nor has the room for it. And if the film's budget is preventing you from enjoying the story, then you probably shouldn't be looking at low-budget sci-fi.

I would compare this to a Black Mirror episode, and was enjoyable as such.

For those unfamiliar with the term "aporia," it refers to a state of puzzlement or bewilderment, especially in philosophical and ethical discourse. And, in the case of this latest effort from writer-director Jared Moshé, it's equally applicable to the essence of this film's existence. This romantic sci-fi saga of a nurse, Sophie (Judy Greer), who loses her engineer/physicist husband, Mal (Edi Gathegi), to a drunk driver follows the efforts to bring him back to life with the assistance of her late spouse's best friend, Jabir (Payman Maadi), a fellow scientist with whom he was working on a time machine. Unfortunately, the device doesn't function as intended, but it is nevertheless capable of sending a deadly subatomic particle through time whose impact is capable of killing someone - in this case, the proposed target being the motorist who killed Mal. The prospect poses a daunting ethical dilemma, but Sophie agrees to it, and she soon finds herself back in the company of her husband. But changing the past carries consequences, many of them unforeseen and difficult to deal with. The film presents an intriguing premise, to be sure, but one not unlike what was previously examined in "The Butterfly Effect" (2004). What's more, this offering is plagued by a number of issues, such as needlessly slow pacing, insightful but overlong ethical debates and a stunningly unsophisticated temporal device that looks like one of Rube Goldberg's comical contraptions. The biggest problem by far, though, is one of narrative credibility - not from a scientific standpoint but from a moral one: It's hard to believe that these three supposedly intelligent individuals can be so casual and cavalier when it comes to their ethics and morals. I find it unfathomable how a supposedly compassionate caregiver like a nurse could so willingly go along with a harebrained plan to willfully kill someone for self-serving purposes; it's a hallow, contrived and patently unbelievable story arc. And, when efforts to make up for this transgression surface, the plot truly starts to go off the rails. Indeed, the logic behind this tale truly needs to be rethought and reworked, because, as it stands now, it genuinely leaves philosophically minded viewers in a deep state of aporia, especially when it comes to figuring out why they bought a ticket to watch it in the first place.