Synchronicity

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.