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.

With the financial aide of capitalist Klaus Meisner (Michael Ironside) Jim Beale (Chad McKnight) manages to create a wormhole. A rare flower comes through from the other side which sets off a chain of events dealing with the paradox of time travel...or is it a parallel universe?

The film is built upon an idea that an infinite number of universes exist which includes all different possibilities. What happens is that we have to sit through that oh so clever watching the same scene again from a different viewpoint with words taking on a different meaning. Unfortunately it was long and drawn out and not exciting the first time through. The leading lady is Brianne Davis who is made up to look like J-Law.

This is low intensity science fiction and should appeal to fans of "Primer." Personally I would have loved to have seen an adaptation of "What Mad Universe" instead...that is if you insist on going down that route. For low budget science fiction I prefer "Listening" or "Time Lapse."

Guide: F-bomb. Brief sex. No nudity. For hardcore Science Fiction fans.

Or does it? That's up to the viewer to decide. If you actually watch it and think it's worth your time. It mostly is pretty self explanatory and while I read a lot of Blade Runner comparisons this is closer to 12 Monkeys spiritually (no pun intended). Of course any movie attempting something in that vain will not be able to come on top of that comparison at the end.

Speaking of the end: Does it save the movie from being too predictable? Does it make sense? Do people understand it? The filmmakers thought of something and it is being discussed thoroughly, what the meaning is. Which makes this either more or less intriguing for some. It's up to you to decide if this is a movie you want to watch. For fans of the previous effort (The Signal),that's a no-Brainer of course