Aporia

IN A NUTSHELL: Since losing her husband, Sophie has struggled to manage grief, a full-time job, and parenting her devastated daughter, but when a former physicist reveals a secret time-bending machine, Sophie will be faced with an impossible choice for a chance at happiness again.

The film was directed and written by Jared Moshe. Well done, Jared! Already, the film has been nominated for "Best Film" at the Fantasia Film Festival.

It's helpful to know that the word "aporia" means an irresolvable, internal contradiction or logical disjunction in an argument or theory (Oxford Dictionary). It's the perfect title for this film.

THINGS I LIKED: I've been a fan of Judy Greer for decades. She always gets roles as the best friend or some supporting character, so I'm happy to see her as the lead in this movie. She absolutely crushes it.

All of the cast members did a great job and include Edi Gathegi, Peyman Moaadi, and Faithe Herman.

Like a lot of films these days, this one tackles the human perspective of the multiverse. I love time travel movies and loops.

I love twists, and this movie forces you to think deeply about choices and consequences.

Most movies lately tell audiences to just do whatever makes YOU happy, with no regard for responsibility or consequences. I really like that this film explores those ideas deeper.

The color palette looked muted, which I thought was a great choice because the story takes a look at reality and alternate realities. The choices weren't always clear either.

THINGS I DIDN'T LIKE: The mechanical contraption that the former physicists built looks ridiculous.

The film completely glosses over the daughter's reaction to how her father is now alive. How is it determined who will have memories and who will not? There are some plot holes like that, so try not to overthink the story too much.

The film moves quite slowly.

I didn't feel a lot of chemistry between the leading couple.

There was a rumor that this film is related to the Cloverfield franchise, but it's not.

TIPS FOR PARENTS: Young kids will be very bored.

Profanity and F-bombs Talk of a drunk driver who killed a man Some alcohol and cigarettes People talk about killing other people.

Whoever reviewed this and called it "repetitive" does a disservice to the movie.. I personally would call it anything but!

You have a simple structure that expectedly raises the stakes of using a "time machine" for personal purposes, specially when the effects are as impactful. There's no buildup, but it is more "revelative" as it develops. It does become predictable, though. It's also a tad too long, the pacing is somewhat slow in many parts, and lacks in engagement. But I can't see it ending in any other way, as it accomplishes what it sets out to do.

If it raises any questions, they are for the viewer to ponder, as the movie isn't interested in saying anything else nor has the room for it. And if the film's budget is preventing you from enjoying the story, then you probably shouldn't be looking at low-budget sci-fi.

I would compare this to a Black Mirror episode, and was enjoyable as such.

The idea and twist on the conventional time travel genre was what interested me and ultimately kept me watching, but sadly, this film missed on a huge opportunity to capitalize on the concept. What follows is a meek, dull, repetitive - albeit though provoking story, that I felt was too aloof, riddled with plot holes, that asks too many unanswered questions.

The narrative kept spinning itself in circles but lacked finding more engaging material aside from the expected results. Plus I only found Greer's performance being the most nuanced, and not sure how or why Maadi was cast, as he was unconvincing, and I was constantly annoyed between trying to decipher his accent and seeing his backwards bowl short hairline-cut.

Additionally, the so called time machine wasn't convincing, and felt like an Inspector Gadget cartoon concoction put together from spare parts from a wrecking yard. So I'm not sure what film the critics saw that rated this so high, but I wasn't buying what the filmmaker was selling, and I surely didn't enjoy spending a slowly paced underwhelming 104 minutes to get such a lazy ending.

I have the impression that this film wouldn't have the same charm if it wasn't super indie like it is. The story is about someone who invents a time machine and I imagine if there was money, this prop would be terribly sophisticated, the soundtrack would be present from beginning to end (something that really irritates me in Hollywood cinema) and there would be an all-star cast.

So, we have a well-known actress and others a little less so, but they don't do a bad job. I watched the film from beginning to end without getting bored at all, the story is well told and there are moments of tension and mystery. I would like to not reveal anything that would spoil the experience for those who haven't seen the film yet, but I repeat that it's not bad at all and I don't think anyone will regret watching it. It's a relief to watch a film that doesn't need the usual Hollywood gimmicks.

I'll save you the time: it has no resolution. I hate non-endings, open endings or whatever it is called when writers/directors can't commit to an ending. Don't know what to write as an ending? Let's make it super cool and make the audience figure it out!!! Argh. I am very much annoyed by these "endings", so I wanted to warn you so that you can skip it or at least have realistic expectations.

Imagine the ending of "The Good Son" where you don't know which kid the mom decides to drop at the cliff scene. That they just cut to her pondering her choices (unknown to you) at the end. Lame, right? Anti-climatic.

Pros: I really enjoyed seeing Judy Greer as the main character because I love her acting, but other than that, meh.

I love time-travel stories and I'll suspend belief in whatever you tell me the workings of the machine/ mind time travel entail. I did like the premise of it and found it interesting but with no ending, all the build up comes to nothing :(