"Both versions I think avoid the plot holes / cop-outs like "those were actually different planes of existence". If they were different parallel universes, then why were they nearly identical, and why did they have numerous Jims running around?"
Well, I suppose the movie's logic would explain that by the different parallel realities being so simular that Jim did the same experience in his own, respective continuum, too. After all, even the reality Jim jumps to in the end is one, where he conducted the same experience. There is a sci-fi theory about small and unimportant events happening differently in all timelines, but big things - like the big bang - would be the same in all universes.
Still, the movie's logic is pretty flawed and I'm relieved to see other people are having the same difficulties with it.
One question to me also was, why the hell he assumed, going back through the wormhole would solve his problem. It would have not actually taken him back to being himself, he would have just shifted his problem to the past. (Hmm, hang on - that might actually explain why there was the dead body in the hotel, since he clearly arrived in a worse state than our Jim; gonna have to think about this again.)
Also, they could have really called it something else than "Wormhole". If a wormhole appeared in your laboratoty, you, the lab and in fact the whole Earth and most of the galaxy woud be drawn into it; even if it is a "little" one. But I get, how physical accuracy isn't the point of the story. I just don't get why it is compared to Blade Runner. It has neither the wits, nor the style or the capable actors and in the end it isn't convincing enough to be good, because when something is so complex, it often hides that the message behind it is completely flat. What is the message? Love for random hot women exists?
I'm really puzzled by this one. Not the usual crap, but still a far cry from being great. I had zero emotions for any of the actors, because the movie was too short to give a good characterization of its protatgonists/antagonist. And what they revealed about them was actually just sad and ridiculous. Who wouldn't bang a billionaire, in order to get close to one of the scientists he secretly supports to build a time-machine? Real writers do that, too! It's not fiction at all. When they write about a time machine, they actually have to wait, until it's invented to come up with the story about it...not
reply
share
RiNSpy
8 years ago
I think people are being too harsh on this movie though. I enjoyed watching it overall, and I wouldn't mind watching it again with someone else (it has some rewatch potential too, as a lot of things you'd see differently if you already know what's going on). Some of the shots were quite beautiful, the atmosphere was nice, the soundtrack was good (although the homage to Vangelis and neo noir/blade runner aesthetic was a bit overdone). I loved the retrofuturism (e.g. using 80s technology like CRT screens), I'd love to see more movies employing it. I didn't think the acting was too bad, the Jim character was quite convincing I thought; Abby was a bit out of place, but overall there was great sexual tension between the two and it's convincing that Jim would find it hard to resist her.
It's natural that the plot was making less and less sense as the movie went on, as it had to fit more and more constraints established in prior scenes which is difficult. Basically, the events in the movie needed to have at least 3 completely different interpretations, which is a tricky exercise. Let's not forget, the original Blade Runner ending was also very very weak, and it was only fixed years later in a re-release. I thought it was interesting trying to figure out what's going on while you're watching the movie and trying to stay ahead of the game, which helps you stay together with Jim and relate to what he's going through. But yeah, it's a bit frustrating when the plot actually has holes so there's no satisfaction in "figuring it out". I think at the ending they tried to get some "deep" philosophical message about how everything's possible and we decide our own future, but it didn't really work.
Overall I'd give it a solid 6-7, and would certainly like to see more of this art style/aesthetic in future movies.
reply
share
eljefemartin
8 years ago
I just think the main problem with movies like this is you create too many strings of parallel events and actions to keep track of them as a director. This leads to omission of things that would have made the story more interesting and shift all the focus to the pardoxical situation caused by time travel itself (and away from character development).
The revelation of the movie about parallel universes (while also time travelling for inexplicably a few minutes too) was random and weak. The antagonist story and the importance of the flower (daliah) didn't come across to me. The idea alone that you could somehow fund a laboratory experiment that uses nuclear components rich enough to go critical - in an urban environment - is stupid.
Then what is left is the metaphor: the story beyond the images and what everything stands for. And there simply isn't anything more than "love will transcend universes and find its way". That's basically the meaning of the movie to me and that's terrible, generic *beep*
They have characters that don't change throughout the movie. Their only change comes from a shift in perspective that is revealed through time-travel itself and Jim messing things up. I felt like everybody had more reason to survive this whole ordeal than Jim himself. He wasn't a good hero, he wasn't even a bad one. When he took the initiative he failed. And the only way for him out of it was a constructed happy ending, which rather reduced than improved the movie for me, because it fell back to a formulaic: all ends well! solution. I would not rate this above a 4 or 5. It doesn't completely fall flat, but it's not a good movie to me. It's not subtle, it's not clever, it's not impressive other than in a few frames where it looks good; most of the time it doesn't even look good.
I'm sure the movie's creators had a hard time putting it all together and getting it financed, but that's not a reason to change my honest opinion about giving them a hard time for not being more creative about it. I could disregard everything else, if this had a brilliant story. But to be fair here - I didn't like Interstellar either, because it has that same cheesy vibe. Have people lost the ability to tell stories that don't pull the rabbit out of a hat in the end to make everything end well?
reply
share
Dejay
8 years ago
The movie is certainly heavily flawed like you said. Especially the irrational actions from Jim are silly. Like not sleeping or letting his coworkers deal with dangerous equipment while being sleep deprived. Or him pursuing Abby and not being suspicious or cautious. Or why Meisner having the IP on the flower would warrant him having to fork over another 50% just to prove time travel works. A lot of the storytelling is flawed.
But I still liked it anyways simply because it is sci-fi movie and deals with time travel and there are a LOT of much worse movies being made.
reply
share
slartibartfast-62706
8 years ago
Or why Meisner having the IP on the flower would warrant him having to fork over another 50% just to prove time travel works.
The flower is what came through. So in order for it to work, he needed to send it. He couldn't use it without Klaus's permission. Klaus wouldn't give permission.
reply
share