AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
5,4/10
11 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
O cientista Jim busca abrir uma fenda na Terra para criar a viagem no tempo. No entanto, tudo fica ainda mais complexo quando ele conhece a bela Abby e se torna cobaia de seu próprio experim... Ler tudoO cientista Jim busca abrir uma fenda na Terra para criar a viagem no tempo. No entanto, tudo fica ainda mais complexo quando ele conhece a bela Abby e se torna cobaia de seu próprio experimento.O cientista Jim busca abrir uma fenda na Terra para criar a viagem no tempo. No entanto, tudo fica ainda mais complexo quando ele conhece a bela Abby e se torna cobaia de seu próprio experimento.
- Prêmios
- 1 vitória e 1 indicação
Chad McKnight
- Jim Beale
- (as Chadrian McKnight)
Claire Bronson
- Helen
- (não creditado)
Derek Ryan Duke
- Resident
- (não creditado)
Andrew Shelton
- Jim Beale 2
- (não creditado)
Elle Sunkara
- Waitress
- (não creditado)
Erik Thirsk
- Limo Driver
- (não creditado)
Enredo
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesWhen Jim goes to Abby's apartment for the first time, you can read on the intercom :"Sebastian, J.F. #2019". J.F. Sebastian is a character from Blade Runner - O Caçador de Androides (1982), set in 2019, and directed by Ridley Scott. Just above is "Scott, Anthony #2012". Anthony Scott, aka Tony Scott, director known for Top Gun: Ases Indomáveis (1986), Jogo de Espiões (2001) and Maré Vermelha (1995), among others, died in 2012 and was Ridley's younger brother.
- Erros de gravaçãoAt the beginning when Matty is putting the MRD inside the 'holder' to insert it into the machine, Jim says "Hold exposure to no more than ten seconds" and starts counting down from ten. Jim's warning is not very clear, as it takes at least twenty seconds from the time the MRD is exposed to when it is put into the machine, exposing Matty and Chuck to its lethal radiation. Before Jim issued the warning, it had already taken Matty about five seconds to pick it up and put it into the 'MRD holder.' The time from when Matty actually picks it up and puts it into the machine is about fifteen seconds. It would have made more sense if Jim had started his warning with "Remaining hold exposure..."
Also, exposure to radiation has a gradual effect. It's not something that is perfectly safe at 10 seconds, and then deadly at 10.1 seconds.
- ConexõesReferenced in Film Junk Podcast: Episode 550: Synchronicity (2016)
- Trilhas sonorasOver the Bridge
Performed by Ori Vidislavski
Avaliação em destaque
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.
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.
- siderite
- 12 de jul. de 2017
- Link permanente
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Synchronicity?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Central de atendimento oficial
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Eşzamanlılık
- Locações de filme
- Atlanta Georgia, EUA(location)
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 4.505
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 2.859
- 24 de jan. de 2016
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 4.505
- Tempo de duração1 hora 41 minutos
- Cor
- Proporção
- 2.35 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente
Principal brecha
By what name was Synchronicity (2015) officially released in India in English?
Responda