In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Saw this at the Leiden Film Festival 2014 (LIFF). What will you do when given the chance to "repair" a failed romantic weekend by changing the past and reliving those days again in a new setup?? Though I found the end result disappointing, there were several positive elements in this film. Firstly, it did not waste resources in the making: 3 actors in total, a single location, and without a gadget overload. Secondly, the deserted sea resort offered an excellent décor with ample opportunities for seeing things from different angles, running parallel scenes in various rooms, and letting variants from the protagonists meet, or even see one copy meeting another. Thirdly, the successive chapters were clearly labeled "xx years later", a great help while trying to follow the story line while it developed in (for me) mysterious ways.On the negative side, I found the movie mildly interesting overall, not thought provoking in any way, no mind bending time paradoxes, at least none that I felt as challenging. The role of the gadgets (looked like EEG headsets, as used in hospital) was poorly explained, and I saw no one actually wearing them, so it is not clear what their purpose was in the proceedings. Devices and schematics might have looked highly technical for the average layman, but were in fact outdated for at least 30 years. The protagonists did not interest me at all, so I was not pulled in by the turn of events that this movie presented to us. It merely looked a bit unnatural, like finding a way to turn a basically good idea into a feature length movie without having enough material to fill the allotted time.All in all, I got less than what I had expected. (And I had serious problems to stay awake. It may not be completely the film's fault, but anyway it was a fact.) My fault may be that I've read too many SF books in my life, and usually observe that movies, within their limited time frame, cannot present a consistent plot without loop holes in the time travel section. For some reason, books prove to be a better place to design a believable setup with richer details. Anyway, the idea behind this film was fresh, the décor was very well chosen, the actors were casted well, and all did their best to cope with the script. Yet, I'm still surprised about the many good things other reviewers found in this film, all of which I regrettably overlooked (so it seems).

Now this here is one a trip of a movie. Made locally in my home state of South Australia, it does a fantastic job of managing a meager budget, using basically one or two sets, and only three actors. And that is all that is needed. I had read about this making the round at festivals and getting almost universal praise, and I can certainly see why. This is definitely not your average time travel movie, nor is it very sappy or sentimental at all, despite the romantic reasons driving the film.This romantic basis becomes not so romantic as the main character, a fantastic Josh McConville (Dean), plays an obsessive control freak, intent on recreating a perfect holiday from a year previous for his partner Lana. Lana scoffs at the idea and comments on Dean's obsessive and controlling nature, but seeing his invention, she becomes intrigued. From here, the story travels into unexplored territory regarding time-travel flicks, as when the characters begin to time-travel, they start to see.. versions of themselves, from the past.. or the future. The original couple witness themselves repeating the same dialogue from the start of the film, but here, they are watching nervously from a window in the abandoned hotel that serves as the film's main set. Once more and more versions of Dean start to appear, it reeeally starts to become a trip, and somewhat of a puzzle.Dean starts becomes jealous of… himself, albeit himself from the future, as each different Dean has his own traits, and each time he time-travels he becomes more confident, leading to more jealousy from the original Dean. The way McConville plays these parts is particularly noteworthy, as he essentially plays three or four characters.. as the same person. The jealously he shows towards other versions of himself is quite hilarious. In fact, there were many laughs along these lines.Dean is nerdy – he built this machine – and he is also prone to crying; fodder for more laughter. A sudden twist occurs with the sudden appearance of Dean's partner's ex-lover, who wants his girl back. This self-obsessed, brilliantly conceived character is yet more food for laughs. He is an Aussie Greek who is rather amusingly obsessed with his Olympic level javelin skills (a javelin he carries with him where ever he goes, it would seem), and of his proud Greek heritage. He considers himself a Greek god… despite the fact that he isn't actually Greek. Despite dressing, acting, and looking Greek. What makes his character really work is that he is essentially the polar opposite to Dean, leaving Lana unsure of the man she wants to be with.With unpredictable scenes following unpredictable scenes, this is really a movie that forces you to think, while laughing, and feeling for Dean's character. It also shows the consequences of trying to control everything, even to the point of time travel. It also subtly comments on two very different men, and how they interact with each other, as well as the love of both their lives. Lana is faced with a choice, but how can she know which Dean is the one she first arrived with at the abandoned hotel? And does she want her old spark's bravado, or Dean's brains? I really enjoyed this one, apart from the ending, which felt abrupt and had me thinking "nooo! this can't be it!". I thought they could have played the funny and intriguing concept a little further, but I can definitely see why this got the attention it did. It is a fascinating puzzle of a movie, one which I want to see again as soon as I can so I can piece it all together. It is certainly one of those movies that thoroughly deserves multiple viewings, despite its low-budget, a single set, and three actors. It is this economic filmmaking that makes the film a real treat, as the limited budget does not limit the movie at all, in fact, a limited budget almost always breeds creativity in my opinion. That is certainly the case here, as Hugh Sullivan has created a gem of a movie, intensely unique and praised around the world. If only it got more recognition in the state in was filmed in.4/5 – Filled with laughs and intrigue, but one can't help that the ending was lack-lustre and very abrupt. Apart from this minor gripe, this is a fantastic film. Highly recommended.

This is the second local production to feature time travel as a key narrative device. But unlike Predestination, the concept here is used as a plot device to kick start an enjoyable but unusual romantic comedy. Dean (Josh McConville, from The Turning, etc) is a nerdy engineer whose relationship with the more free spirited Lana ended a couple of years ago. Keen to try and make a new start Dean invites Lana back to the hotel where they once spent an idyllic holiday. But now the hotel is deserted, and the weekend begins to go badly. The unexpected arrival of the arrogant and sleazy Terry (Alex Dimitriades), Lana's former boyfriend, further ruins the mood. Dean spends the better part of the next year brooding over what went wrong. He constructs a time travel device hoping that he can revisit that weekend again and repair the relationship with Lana. But something goes awry and he finds himself trapped in a temporal loop. The presence of four other incarnations of himself, and a couple of other Lana's from the future, further complicate matters. There are only three actors on screen, playing multiple versions of themselves, and the action is confined to a single location, but somehow that doesn't seem to matter. McConville brings a nicely intense edge and a touch of self-deprecating humour to his performance as the nerdy and sad sack Dean desperate to restore his relationship with Lana. Hannah Marshall (from TV series Packed To The Rafters, etc)delivers a nicely nuanced performance as the patient Lana, while Dimitriades is wonderfully sleazy and cocky. First time filmmaker Hugh Sullivan makes the most of his limited budget, and stretches his meagre resources effectively. And I found The Infinite Man to be far more entertaining and enjoyable that Predestination, and when dealing with the paradoxes of time travel it seems to have an internal logic that works. It also seems to have more energy and humour, and likable characters.

The production was of a very high level, excellent sound and visuals- nice cinematography. Clearly a lot of thought went into the script, but in its quest to be intellectual, sacrificed some of the humanity of the characters. A lot of the quirks of the characters, the way the male lead ran, the vintage clothes, the references to Greek mythology and tantra all seemed very forced.Important philosophical questions about identity, why we love someone at different times in our lives and why/when we should give up on someone were partially raised but never really explored. By the end of it, I felt like a lot had happened, but I didn't care about the characters at all - I hardly got to know them. All in all, it felt like it was all style and little substance.