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.

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.

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.

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.