SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

This movie sounds like it has potential. Don't be deceived, any potential it actually had on paper was tragically destroyed by the weak plot, horrible acting, and the overly dramatic cinematography. The first hour of the movie was a collage of me thinking "wtf!?" and cringing at the awkward acting.By the middle of the movie, I would have decidedly rather be spending my evening in a fist fight with an angry bear, or at least a bear cub, while listening to a song by Paris Hilton, on a malfunctioning CD player with earbuds that are far too big for my ears. The story was written around very few plot points, that are simple, unimaginative, and not intellectually stimulating. Not to mention the physics are complete BS in this movie. I understand it's science fiction but they could have at least tried.The only reason this movie is getting a 1/10 rating from me is because 0 is not a valid option. When I say it's the worst movie I've ever seen, I've seen some pretty bad movies. The worst one before this one was the One Warrior. Man, that was bad.Don't waste your time with this. The ending sucks. The beginning sucks. And everything in between sucks.

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.

Synchronicity (2016) is a forgettable science-fiction film that is not as thought-provoking as it wants to be. The amount of low-budget science-fiction films that have been coming out seems to be increasing at a rapid rate every year. With more and more being released, how many of them are actually quality films? How many of them are actually unique and memorable? To be frank, the answer is very few. There have been some pretty interesting ones, but most of them are unimpressive and lackluster. As for 'Synchronicity', it's not boring, but it's really nothing extraordinary. The plot is pretty interesting at first but slowly grows to be boring over time. The characters are solid, with some being more thought-out than others. The acting is decent, as it really didn't benefit or hurt the film as a whole. As for the direction, it's actually really good. The visual style really pops out, and the sets used help to create a very futuristic but believable environment. Also, I absolutely loved the score for the movie. I found it to be the thing I most enjoyed throughout the entirety of the movie. The problems lie in the script. I found myself struggling to pay attention after the 30-minute mark. This film is nothing I'll remember anytime soon, but it wasn't a terrible watch.

Well, first, I was clearly biased when I watched this. This movie just happened to perfectly fit the location, mood, and life situation I was in at the time when I saw it.Nevertheless, I actually consider this movie to be more of a cinematographic state of mind more then a story line. And I think it's a success.The imagery, camera work, and the music, clearly pays its dues to movies such as Blade Runner and TRON: Legacy. I even believe (haven't checked it up though) the story takes place in the same universe as Blade Runner.I also found it to be well casted, smart, and well acted. I'm guessing it's made on a very limited budget but I think the money was very well spent. The CGI aren't in your face and I even found it hard to spot when it was actually used. That is possibly due to very wise choice of locations - we see many fastidious futuristic building buildings (the whole story takes place within dense urban areas) and concrete jungles.I found the music to be extremely fitting and after the end credits I directly started looking up the composer(s) of the motion picture soundtrack (Lovett), as well as the songs played during the end credits (Watch It - Space Art, Over the bridge - Ori Vidislavski, Mama - Ghostland Observatory, and Time Travel - Ben Lovett)The only negative I have to say about it is that I anted a bit more background and introduction to the min character (but now I'm really picky) and I think the atmosphere of the movie was lost right at the beginning of the end credits during the intro of the song "Watch It" by Space Art (bu, again, being picky here)So, for me:In the right mood, 9/10 Any given day, 7/10