MovieChat Forums > Synchronicity (2016) Discussion > Mmm, Blade Runner-y. (spoilers)

Mmm, Blade Runner-y. (spoilers)

posted 8 years ago by budarc
4 replies | jump to latest

So the comparisons to Blade Runner are pretty prevalent from the start: lingering shots of night skylines, the synthesizer score that clearly emulates Vangelis, and dark lofty rooms with light shining in through the windows. It pretty much ends there, though.

The movie itself is kind of confusing and slow-going. Eventually time starts to repeat itself and the main character ends up having to dodge his past self while basically re-enacting everything that came before from a different point of view. I was pretty much lost at the end though...they didn't do a great job of wrapping everything up. My guess is that he eventually found another wormhole (through time repeating itself over and over in that sequence, until he finally catches up with one of those "alternate" dimensions) and then he meets up with the girl in the end (at some indeterminate time in the future). But all the stuff she was writing in her notebook, her "novella" or whatever, was very confusing. It almost makes it seem like the whole movie was basically just the story she was writing. What are other people's thoughts?

[–] radb707 8 years ago

You have it pretty much figured out.

Jim Prime travels to the next universe, and he's pumped about preventing everyone from stealing his machine, only to find in this reality, Mattie (because he keeps switching up the sequence and they said it could cause it to explode) or someone messed up and they all died. Since there's no Jim here, he can exist. Her novel was originally just based on an article she read, and then she started using Meisner to get information. Then when she met Jim, she recorded their whole experience together. That's why it seems like it's dictating what's happening when really it's just a record of what already happened. The importance of the novel is that Jim reads it and now knows the truth about her feelings, motivations, and the outcome of his time traveling endeavor.

[–] RiNSpy 8 years ago

But how did the novel with the whole story get from that parallel universe back to the original (or one of the parallel universes we see throughout the movie)?

Why are the parallel universes nearly identical to each other and behave pretty much like the same universe?

Why did the "original" Jim know what the novel was, or that he should trust it? How did he even find it in his pocket and have the time to read, when he would've been rushing to talk to the girl (as he did when he traveled back first time - and would do now, as it's the "original" that traveled back, not the "sick" Jim that had already traveled back once before)?

It seems like at the end there the introduction of parallel universes is a needless "happy ending" cop-out. I think the ending I described here would've made a lot more sense: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2049543/board/thread/252971353?d=252973177#252973177

[–] imdb-16754 8 years ago

Yes, this movie quotes a lot of visuals from Blade Runner, using it (partly) as a language to tell a different story. Along with the Vangelis-esque music and venetian blind patterns, there are also large, slow-moving fans, the closeups of the eye, and the way Jim was standing with his arms folded looking through a window at one point is a total match for Blade Runner's VK interrogator. I think it's fun enough. I mean, Blade Runner itself is quoting a lot of conventions from film noir, and Synchronicity also fits that genre.

This kind of convoluted plot always requires a second viewing to make full sense of the story, especially because the film's better off leaving it understated. People have explained the plot in other threads. I won't complain about the story editing, but I'm still not inspired to re-watch it to get it for myself, as I usually do. I guess that means I don't like this film as much, which I think boils down to a tepid love story. If you don't care about the human story, all the cool sci-fi angles won't save it. For example, in Inception, you want to see Cobb get back to his children, Blade Runner's love story works when they leave in the part that makes Deckard a replicant, and Mulholland Drive may be over-the-top weird, but there's the convoluted love story holding it together. But Synchronicity love story just seems warmed over. The sci-fi is good material to tell the simple love story, but perhaps something's lacking in the performance the director got out of his actors, or maybe the actors' less than overpowering charisma--I don't know--I usually like this kind of thing more than I liked Synchronicity.

I'd give it a max of 6.5: solidly mediocre, visually fun but somehow cliche by 2016 standards. Not a total p.o.s., but I don't see how this could make any money at all without major stars playing the boy and girl and especially the villain: this trio lacked edge in all three roles: competent, but mediocre.

[–] henrimaine 8 years ago

As far as copying Blade Runner style goes, the movie is rather successful. But as for presenting at least modestly intelligible plot or creating more than one-dimensional characters, the movie fails quite miserably.