sashairk Oh boy, oh boy! I should have been more careful when choosing what movie to watch. Truth to be said, I 'fell' for some excellent reviews of this film, and only 'post-factum' while trying to understand why I disliked it so much I discovered that all the people who on the Message Board who wrote rapturous messages of how great that film was wrote only one post each throughout all their membership 'carrier' at the IMDb and, besides, there's a suspiciously large amount of '10' votes which is very rare even for Oscar-awarded masterpieces that even though usually have the majority of good votes spread in the 8 to 10 range, but almost never only '10s'. Which inevitably lead me to the conclusion that most of the good votes for that film were fake. I believe that any film-maker should have enough self-respect rather than ask from his friends, colleagues, etc. and even voting by himself under different user names for the movie that he himself considers to be bad, otherwise, why should he bother to making such charade?Me and my wife were expecting some 'brainy' movie with interesting ideas, since we both love science fiction and interesting non- standard approach. That's why we also love David Lynch. It seems to me that the film maker tried to emulate David Lynch, but failed miserably, since despite good camera work the script was pretty amateurish and convoluted. Even two attractive lead actresses could not save the film, even though, as some consolation for the wasted time, it was pleasant to watch them. Some of the background music was clearly 'borrowed' from Pink Floyd's Shine on You Crazy Diamond. This being said, I want to wish James Kerwin success in his future endeavors. He haven't done any serious work so far so any beginning is not easy. Along with that I have just one request: please, no more fake reviews, OK? Have some self-respect, man!

msgrim-40175 This film falls short to deliver a Twilight Zoneesque feel. Unless you're a Jungian or are familiar with Fred Hoyle and anything psychological or science for that matter, then this film will pass over your head. Love the noir atmosphere but the characters aren't believable in telling a noir style story. Chase Masterson is incredibly talented and gorgeous,and makes an attempt to be Virgil and walk Kipleigh Brown through a scientific Dante's Inferno. If this film were a student project for an astrophysics class, then it would have succeeded. Unfortunately it was presented as an actual film at Cannes. As a lover of science fiction, especially Twilight Zone and Star Trek I delve into this film expecting for a great deal of human factor drama and a blend of 1950's murder mystery and suspense. Instead I received a puzzle with pieces that are missing. If you watch this film research Fred Hoyle or read October First Is Too Late or keep the Sixth Sense and Dante's Inferno in mind.

Nick Damian the plot seemed to be a mess.Somewhere the story was lost - and the movie relied solely on trying to be a film-noir 0 which it couldn't and trying to rely on it's characters or actors to bring out the interest - which it lacks.The two female leads didn't initiate any real chemistry and if it was to be a lesbian love story, there was none.While the singer looked great and performed great on-stage - the rest of her presence didn't offer anything.The other characters pop in and out for no reason that is memorable.In fact the entire story is far from memorable.The only thing that I did like was the lighting and camera work and music.Plot, acting and story failed for trying to be too much and offering too little.

tedg I saw this together with "Conversation(s) with other women." Both try something ambitious with narrative structure, extending notions I call folding.Here we have something that starts with noir — and by that I mean noir in the popular sense: black and white photography, a hard-boiled detective, some voice-over and seedy settings. These are only accidentally associated with noir in my mind; the real core of noir is the creation of a world that has features we as viewers expect and to some extent control. This filmmaker understands this, so has used noir for his narrative experiment.The experiment revolves around a science fiction device: a notebook with some secrets of Quantum Interaction. The backstory has experiments that use repetitive number patterns to allow a researcher to start to bend time. Two lovers have faded in their love. She is a detective put on a case that leads them to this notebook. He engages in the experiment to recapture their love at the cost of his soul. The story is told from her POV, which involves non-linearity in three respects: what we see and understand, what she sees and understands, what is understandable (in the sense of the physics changing). This last is to the heart of noir, where the act of seeing changes the cosmos.Her cat is named Schrödinger. She has a doppelganger (her sexy female anima), played by a woman who dominates: she is a muse/teacher. She literally is the producer of the film, and she provides some competent moody songs. All of the actors are people we should know from various, mostly bad TeeVee, science fiction. It is all rather brilliant in the way it is conceived and worth seeing because of the ambition.The problems are many though. The actual narrative, those threads you weave out of the fragments you are given? It just is poorly done. This needs more power in the actors, the lines and the cinema. It references urges that can bend the world. Polanski does this and delivers. "Ninth Gate." There is no there here. You may not notice this because it is easy enough to supply that romantic urge: we all have it and have nurtured it in our movie experiences. We carry it into this project and can plug in, indirectly increasing the narrative effect.So that is not a lethal problem. The other problem may not bother you, but it worries me greatly.This experiment relies on some detailed explanations of the "science" involved. As with many popular-level notions, we have selections from the most accessible and attractive features of Jungian cosmology mixed in with common misconceptions of quantum physics. It plays the same role in this story that mentioning a recent meteorite has in zombie movies. You nod, agree that the explanation is plausible and move on to consume the narrative.The problem is both Jung and QI have possibilities that are much more powerful than those appropriated here. You can't start fire with water just because on screen it looks like gasoline. And you don't need all that folderol (good word) anyway. "Conversation(s) with other women" does much the same thing as here, but without the guff. Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.