Good day! ‎📲 Earn daily income using just your smartphone & Whats App no pay ments, no hidden charges. ‎👉 Join @dominusupdates on Tele gram for the link, guide & more free updates!

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.

This movie began with what appeared to be filler content, but this content eventually set the stage for what was captivating to say the least. The film took me on a ride about a third of the way through. In no other movie have I gotten to see the main character die twice and it still turn out to be somewhat of a happy ending. I applaud the writers. The acting was what you would come to expect from years of film production. The star and co-star certainly provided the audience with superb performances. The special effects weren't among the focus and I wasn't expecting much considering that this was not put out by a major production company. However, it was enough to do the trick. I would definitely watch this again with friends.

I needed real patience to get through this one. The whole thing felt immature. The acting, some of the dialogue, some of the script. Someone is about to embark on the biggest discovery in history. He's popping pills and drinking coffee just to stay awake because it's all he can do. Then for the rest of the movie all he's wanting to do is have sex with one particular woman. I did find this a little annoying. They were trying to give it that eighties scifi look, synthesizers all over the place, bladerunner style. Even down to the opening font and concrete architectural landscapes. I quite liked the charm that it lent itself to. But it also lent itself to eighties boring. Long, over stylized, drawn out conversations, completely unnecessary unless there was a serious intention to make me turn it off. And I nearly turned it off, many many times. But there was a sense that maybe, just maybe the movie would get better. There would be a great ending, or something. Over time it did get a little better and the main reason I did not turn it off was I wanted to see the end. There was a sense of deliberate creation here by someone who had it in him to make a great movie. Not this movie though, He missed the target on this movie. You could see where he was aiming for. With the substance and style it could have been a great movie. But when you miss the mark, you miss the mark.

source: Synchronicity

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.

I tried, I really did. I got three quarters of the way through this thing and finally gave up. I couldn't figure out what was going on, and then decided that I really didn't care. It would have helped had they explained how their machine worked in simpler terms. Instead, they did something with a flower which I never understood. Then there were the strange noises and headaches the main character was having. Again, no clue? It had potential, but it failed to live up to it. Avoid this one.

"In the tradition of...Blade Runner..." If you fell for that, you will be disappointed. OK, it was a story of world-changing, or potentially world-changing technology, which would be controlled by a super-villain who treats people like pawns in a chess game, the plot turned around a mysterious and rather silly object, and the visual tones set with dim light through overhead fans was directly lifted from Blade Runner. However, the Blade Runner cinematography was professionally done, if not high-budget, while this movie showed ridiculously amateurish effects and the shooting was dirt cheap. The music score was probably done on the director's own keyboard, what annoyingly cheesy crap! Therefore, you really won't feel like you are watching Blade Runner, and it may take a patient 20 minutes before you feel the hook set to keep you watching it through the end. Where this movie made up for all it's directorial and executive awfulness was a surprisingly interesting, twisting plot, and acting talent which deserves to outlive the stink of such no-talent directing - these kids kept me from walking away, and the villain did his job well too. The humor, the romance, the hope, and the despair is strong enough that you can feel it. Don't watch this movie to be wowed by sci-fi effects, nor even the ideas which it spins around, but it's well-worth the time to see an interesting story.

I love Sci-fi. I am OK with bad acting and even bad dialog if it's a cool story. This movie drops the ball entirely with the story. It's shockingly unimaginative. It all boils down to one idea -- the idea of time travel/universe jumping -- which has been done and done before. The story is boring, predictable, and creates an absurdity out of human nature and behavior. It got so boring that I ended up skipping through the last 20 minutes of the film to discover that it ends exactly as one would assume. Don't waste your time with this film. You could probably come up with a better story right now if you gave it a try.

A time travel story is judged by how well it lives within its own created paradox. If you want to see that done well, choose "Predestination" over "Synchronisity". There are two ways a story can deal with the paradox: one is to allow it to exist and the other is to threaten destruction, of the subject, of the universe, or both. This movie sadly chose the latter course and that is very hard to get out of. If you travel back in time, say five days, you will have a five day long paradox. But that paradox both begins and ends when your primary self takes the trip back; a temporal loop has been formed where only for that five day period do you find yourself and your secondary self sharing the world. At the moment the primary makes the jump, at that instant the secondary becomes the one and only in the present, and the paradox ends. Almost a Hegelian Dialectic in its elegance. The clever writer can create loop over loop over loop with still a satisfying explanation and ending. Then there is the writer who paints himself into that corner of destruction and must find a way out. Some Deus ex Machina. I cannot detail how the god appears to rescue the character/universe from destruction in "Synchronisity" without spoiling the end. I do hate spoilers, but I walked away thinking I had my choice of endings. My advice to you is to first watch "Predestination" and then go to this movie. Oh, and some likable characters might have helped just a bit. I might have given a 3 out of 10.