NOTE IMDb
5,4/10
12 k
MA NOTE
Un physicien invente une machine à remonter le temps, mais une mystérieuse femme fatale tente de la voler. Le physicien doit alors voyager dans le temps afin de découvrir la vérité sur la ma... Tout lireUn physicien invente une machine à remonter le temps, mais une mystérieuse femme fatale tente de la voler. Le physicien doit alors voyager dans le temps afin de découvrir la vérité sur la machine, cette femme et sa propre réalité.Un physicien invente une machine à remonter le temps, mais une mystérieuse femme fatale tente de la voler. Le physicien doit alors voyager dans le temps afin de découvrir la vérité sur la machine, cette femme et sa propre réalité.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 victoire et 1 nomination au total
Chad McKnight
- Jim Beale
- (as Chadrian McKnight)
Claire Bronson
- Helen
- (non crédité)
Derek Ryan Duke
- Resident
- (non crédité)
Andrew Shelton
- Jim Beale 2
- (non crédité)
Elle Sunkara
- Waitress
- (non crédité)
Erik Thirsk
- Limo Driver
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
Reading some of the other reviews, mostly focusing on the fact that the movie seems to be almost Bladerunnerish, they do not actually address what the movie is. So what that it has a musical and emotive reflection in a style that reminds one of a silver screen masterpiece? Many rappers have best-sellers based on the borrowed riff or refrain from an eighties classic. And they pull it off. The question is - did this movie get a fair shake in being rated as average? This simply means that some liked it and some did not. But slashing it for merely what it reflects is like smashing the mirror on a bad hair day. The movie is a love story. It's a simple plot, and when one sits back and reflects on it, it pulls off the simple plot. It is low budget, yes, but in a good way. Bad CGI and silly effects would not have added to the love story, but to the SciFi wrapper. And who eats the wrapper and writes a review on it? Quite a few people, if I read through them. I enjoyed the movie and the story and the way it unfolds. Perhaps it will not be memorable, but at least it was filling. Worth a seven, I say.
This movie boasts a "sci fi noir" tag and I gotta say, it's a cop out. It's more of a b grade movie than a noir film of any kind.
The soundtrack was repetitive cut and pastes of 80s "sounds" which were super cheesy and just gross. Look back to The Machine for an example of a decent sound track, this sounds like the version done by an inexperienced composer.
The plot it's self is basically what Primer did much better but it had a romance that was essential for the plot to work and unfortunately this writer and the lead actress cannot pull off romance. Don't make a romantic relationship the key to your plot unless you're as good at romance writing as you are science fiction writing. The other aspect of the film, which many unfairly compare to Dark City, is that they use an endless amount of gloss and dark lighting to try to make everything seem dark and gritty. Combined with the music it was just tedious to take in.
Don't get suckered in by the comparisons made to better movies or the "noir" tags.
The soundtrack was repetitive cut and pastes of 80s "sounds" which were super cheesy and just gross. Look back to The Machine for an example of a decent sound track, this sounds like the version done by an inexperienced composer.
The plot it's self is basically what Primer did much better but it had a romance that was essential for the plot to work and unfortunately this writer and the lead actress cannot pull off romance. Don't make a romantic relationship the key to your plot unless you're as good at romance writing as you are science fiction writing. The other aspect of the film, which many unfairly compare to Dark City, is that they use an endless amount of gloss and dark lighting to try to make everything seem dark and gritty. Combined with the music it was just tedious to take in.
Don't get suckered in by the comparisons made to better movies or the "noir" tags.
I won't rant about this movie being terrible since I was at least able to get through it completely without turning it off, so that's a start! What I meant in my title of it being 20 years late is that the acting and music was all too reminiscent of a 90's movie, or better yet for those who remember the TV series "The Outer Limits" this is exactly how it is structured. The acting is so so, and the special effects are lack luster, especially considering what is available nowadays. The story had so much potential and really is an interesting idea, however i feel it's sort of been done with movies like Momento, or Paycheck, but just wasn't a great delivery to feel original. For scifi peeps like me it is worth a watch on a rainy day when there is nothing else on.
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.
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesWhen Jim goes to Abby's apartment for the first time, you can read on the intercom :"Sebastian, J.F. #2019". J.F. Sebastian is a character from Blade Runner (1982), set in 2019, and directed by Ridley Scott. Just above is "Scott, Anthony #2012". Anthony Scott, aka Tony Scott, director known for Top Gun (1986), Spy game - Jeu d'espions (2001) and USS Alabama (1995), among others, died in 2012 and was Ridley's younger brother.
- GaffesAt the beginning when Matty is putting the MRD inside the 'holder' to insert it into the machine, Jim says "Hold exposure to no more than ten seconds" and starts counting down from ten. Jim's warning is not very clear, as it takes at least twenty seconds from the time the MRD is exposed to when it is put into the machine, exposing Matty and Chuck to its lethal radiation. Before Jim issued the warning, it had already taken Matty about five seconds to pick it up and put it into the 'MRD holder.' The time from when Matty actually picks it up and puts it into the machine is about fifteen seconds. It would have made more sense if Jim had started his warning with "Remaining hold exposure..."
Also, exposure to radiation has a gradual effect. It's not something that is perfectly safe at 10 seconds, and then deadly at 10.1 seconds.
- ConnexionsReferenced in Film Junk Podcast: Episode 550: Synchronicity (2016)
- Bandes originalesOver the Bridge
Performed by Ori Vidislavski
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Synchronicity?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 4 505 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 2 859 $US
- 24 janv. 2016
- Montant brut mondial
- 4 505 $US
- Durée1 heure 41 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant