Aporia

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.

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.

Anything related to the concept of time and I will always jump right in, notwithstanding the eventual culmination. Suffice it to say that the same morbid curiosity had brought me here in the first place.

Now, I don't regret tuning in and checking this out, but I do have qualms about the film, specifically in regard to its lacklustre writing, which couldn't take advantage of the potential it originally possessed.

The execution has turned out to be underwhelming in practically every aspect, not just from a narrative standpoint but also from a technical as well as from a performance perspective. Nothing worked; nothing substantial was achieved. It feels exceedingly bland and strikingly uninspiring.

I'll save you the time: it has no resolution. I hate non-endings, open endings or whatever it is called when writers/directors can't commit to an ending. Don't know what to write as an ending? Let's make it super cool and make the audience figure it out!!! Argh. I am very much annoyed by these "endings", so I wanted to warn you so that you can skip it or at least have realistic expectations.

Imagine the ending of "The Good Son" where you don't know which kid the mom decides to drop at the cliff scene. That they just cut to her pondering her choices (unknown to you) at the end. Lame, right? Anti-climatic.

Pros: I really enjoyed seeing Judy Greer as the main character because I love her acting, but other than that, meh.

I love time-travel stories and I'll suspend belief in whatever you tell me the workings of the machine/ mind time travel entail. I did like the premise of it and found it interesting but with no ending, all the build up comes to nothing :(

I have the impression that this film wouldn't have the same charm if it wasn't super indie like it is. The story is about someone who invents a time machine and I imagine if there was money, this prop would be terribly sophisticated, the soundtrack would be present from beginning to end (something that really irritates me in Hollywood cinema) and there would be an all-star cast.

So, we have a well-known actress and others a little less so, but they don't do a bad job. I watched the film from beginning to end without getting bored at all, the story is well told and there are moments of tension and mystery. I would like to not reveal anything that would spoil the experience for those who haven't seen the film yet, but I repeat that it's not bad at all and I don't think anyone will regret watching it. It's a relief to watch a film that doesn't need the usual Hollywood gimmicks.