If you have a short attention span, or don't like thinking when "netflixing" I can understand you won't like this movie. However, if you like the mystery of Time Travel and other Sci-Fi, go watch this, you won't be dissapointed!

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.

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 is a low-budget tech-noir or sci-fi noir style movie. If you're expecting Hollywood glitz, you will be disappointed. It's been compared to Blade Runner, but that's really only the feel of the cinematography, not the plot or dialogue. It does look a lot like it was made in the 1980s, including a very old-school synthesiser sound track and pixellated computer graphics in the opening sequence. This is deliberate - embrace it and enjoy it, or don't watch the movie.As for the film itself, it's a "thinking" time travel movie in a similar vein to Primer, perhaps not quite so convoluted, more passionate and less ponderous. It's well-acted and carefully paced, there are the odd boring moments but there's generally enough going on to keep it interesting. It's hard to say much more without a spoiler. My advice is: if you're a real sci-fi fan and can overlook the low budget effects and quirky approach then go for it. I loved it.