Plantiana Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

baphinda-43751 Definitely a good movie with a 80s/comic feeling. Dark corners, smokey ambient and big empty spaces gives this movie the right ecosystem for a sci fi based on 80-s thesis of future, all held together by a passion story. It doesn't fail at the end. Your need to like sci fi thematic before liking this movie.

Guilherme Soares Zahn (GZahn) Let's start the review backwards: the acting is, indeed, awful - I mean, there's not a single decent actor in the whole film, and this sure makes the film a lot harder to connect to.On the other hand, the plot is really fresh and well worth the troubles - even if at some points you may get a bit too puzzled about what's really going on.Bottom line: if you like sci-fi, watch it. And be nice to it - it will reward you for that.

MaximumMadness Time travel has long been a fascinating and wild subject in the world of science fiction. It's a concept that has near limitless potential, and is so undefined in any sort-of "real world" manner that it's a creative goldmine. Many films, television series, stories and novels have revolved around this topic. Including many high-profile releases, including the recent gems of "Looper", "Predestination" and "Primer." And you get the feeling while watching writer/director Jacob Gentry's 2015 release "Synchronicity" that the film is aiming for the stars and striving to be another classic tale through time. Unfortunately, it misses the mark completely with an aggressively dull and sometimes infuriating sense of pace and a bizarre and distracting aimlessness that is more likely to inspire groans of frustration and dissatisfaction than to inspire the inquisitive thoughts its striving for.It's actually pretty hard to describe the story of the film despite having viewed it within the past week. It's essentially the tale of physicist Jim Beale (Chad McKnigh), who is working on a breakthrough in time-travel. However, his breakthrough is threatened by an opportunistic capitalist who is seeking to gain control over the project (Michael Ironside) and his own conflicted feelings towards a young woman he meets and feels attracted to (Brianne Davis)... but also concerned about because she seems to know too much. As the plot progresses and his life and science begin to collapse around him and fall out of his control, Jim will need to use his discovery of time travel in order to navigate a web of deception and try to put right what is seemingly destined to go wrong.The most striking thing about the film is honestly the fairly strong visual palette and nuanced direction thanks to Gentry's guidance. If nothing else, it's a very well-shot and competently crafted work. The sense of flow in each individual scene, keen use of image composition and intriguing style is usually stirring, and often key sequences are fascinating to behold on an aesthetic level if nothing else. It's a very pretty looking film and the aesthetic is well-utilized to convey the goings on and happenings. There's also the kernel of a good story beneath the surface, and there is a degree of potential as the film develops and elaborates on the characters and situation. The real tragedy is that it took what might have made for a good hour-long television episode and stretched it more than twice the length it needed to be.Yes, unfortunately the film's undoing is frankly a horrendous sense of pacing and a really troubling aimlessness that makes it difficult to watch... and even more difficult to glean any real point out of as a result. I can already hear trembling fingertips on keyboards from people who disagree, but I'm sorry- this is an infuriating and completely monotonous experience. It feels empty and pointless because so much of the story is so drawn out that it loses any impact. And I get the feeling its because not only is Gentry the director, but he's also the editor. And he didn't observe a really important part of what editing entails. That you have to be willing to "kill your babies" and cut out anything that isn't necessary for the film to function and excel. Too much time is spent on padding and sub- plots and needlessly prolonged sequences that it comes at the expense of the audience's attention and devotion to the story. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that it needs to move at a lightning fast pace. Deliberation is important. (Observe any of Paul Thomas Anderson's films for prime examples of deliberate but still completely enthralling and engaging works.) But too much deliberation is a very bad thing, and can start to feel like insecurity.Even as the film is drawing to the climax (which I will not spoil), I was gritting my teeth as it meandered on awkward pauses in the dialog... needlessly drawn out establishing shots... Twists and turns that lose any shock value because we've figured them out through visual cues long before the film pauses to very gradually explain them in clunky exposition dumps. I probably counted about a dozen or so scenes that could easily have been chopped in half with clever editing and a vast amount of needless shots and reactions in my viewing of the film, and the more I think about it... the more and more so much of it seems trivial. The fact is, the film feels like an early assembly cut. A rough version that was meant to be cut down more and more until it flowed well and functioned. Only it never went back into editing. There's a pretty decent 80-minute feature here, and a darned good 42-minute "Twilight Zone" episode... Only bloated beyond comprehension by padding it out into a 100 minute feature with side-excursions that add little to the proceedings and plenty of needless additions to the story. The focus and pace is simply dreadful and it robs what could have been. Add to that flat and stagnate performances from the bulk of the cast (sans the excellent Ironside), and it's a wholly frustrating work.I'm sure it will have its fans. But I can't help but suggest that you spend your time elsewhere. There's some interesting nuggets of story here and there peppered throughout, but it's a complete chore to slog through and feels superfluous by the time the credits roll. I wish I had a time machine so I could have stopped myself from wasting 100 minutes watching it. "Synchronicity" gets a poor 3 out of 10 from me.

J. Olson (olsona-23319) Director Jacob Gentry reunites, in "Synchronicity"(2015), his "Last Goodbye"(2004) and "The Signal"(2007) cast members Chad McKnight, AJ Bowan, Scott Poythress, and Poythress' wife Claire Bronson("The Signal" only); along with Brianne Davis ("True Blood") and Michael Ironside.For the first 20 to 30 minutes, "Synchronicity" may appear to be less than it is because of fairly weak script writing (too much dialogue; not enough acting), high expectations, and quick judgments by most (re-)viewers. Don't give up on it. It gets better (and the "Blade Runner"(1982)-esque soundtrack less noticeably annoying) as the movie progresses and better, still, in hindsight.I've watched the film three times and, after the first viewing, it's easy to see "Synchronicity" doesn't treat time travel the way the "Back to the Future"(1985-'89-'90) franchise, "Timecop"(1994), "Timeline"(2003), or most stories in the "Star Trek" universe do.Only after my second viewing did I better follow the somewhat confusing last 30 minutes. The ending, however, is neither predictable or difficult to understand.If one doesn't grasp the brief explanation given toward the end, or the implications of it, then one may, unfortunately, under-appreciate the story. It's not exactly what you may first think it is.