Synchronicity

A team of scientist is frantically pursuing a breakthrough in their work. They are developing a kind of black hole back-door to communicate through time and space.

As in most time travel stories, the plot twists and turns and multiple perspectives on the same scene from different angles make up a lot of the fun in these kind of movies. And Synchronicity does this well given the available resources. To be honest, this is not the most sophisticated time travel movie, but it has character and is well-made. It kept me hooked and interested.

Michael Ironside probably is the most appealing name of the cast, he has a minor role as an investor/shareholder in the project. Main characters McKnight and Davis have a nice chemistry together and carry the movie with their performances.

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.

This "aint" Blade Runner. Sorry Jim Beam but I could not help myself. I hope you don't mind.

Synchronicity tries very, very hard to recapture the music, sets and overall "feel" of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. Sad fact is, the latter film is a masterpiece, in a league of its own and any pretenders, are going to come across as Asian flea market renderings of the Mona Lisa.

That said, to be fair, this film is not awful. Its a modest affair and yes, it does do a reasonable job of recapturing the 80's feel found in Scott's film. I'll even admit I had a few "deja-vu", sentimental moments, that took me back to my teenage years. The music and dusky, smoky sets, in particular, were very emotive.

Its also worth remembering too that this film is not Blade Runner. Indeed, the film it most reminds me of is Videodrome, with James Woods. Not because of the storyline but more its slower pace and "surreal" feel. This film is best suited to a thoughtful, patient viewer, who is willing to spend the time and effort needed to understand its various complex, time travel based, paradoxes.

In summary, a reasonable if not exceptional film that, in one way or other pays homage to 80's sci fi classics. Six out of ten from me.

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.