Pluses- the mystery and suspense, the sound effects and sound tracking, the camera work, some good thoughtful dialogue and the leads acting which holds together the movie
Minuses- some wooden support acting, and the plot doesn't entirely make sense how it ends.
Overall, work a watch if you don't mind more amateur indie sci-fi and don't expect too much, but if you expect something Hollywood polished, action driven, special fx driven or mindbendingly crafted, give it a miss.
43 Reviews
flawed, but on the whole, enjoyable
wcb-755829 August 2018
Seems a bit of snobbery in the reviews here about how much they understand the ins and ours of time travel, therefore it's an Amazing film.
well, you don't, you would understand the paradoxical levels in this film are implausible.
That aside, it IS a movie, it's there to be enjoyed and not scrutinised for everything that is fact, not fiction.
personally I enjoyed the film, though there are loopholes and giant cracks of sci fact, not sci fi, the premise is quite original. I would watch again, it won't win any Oscars or pull up any trees in the advancement of cinema, but it's an enjoyable and thought provoking piece
Promising Premise, Reasonable Development, Terrible Conclusion
claudio_carvalho4 March 2018
While grieving the death of her husband Wells (Noah Bean), who committed suicide, Helen (Lyndsy Fonseca) meets his partner Tomas (Glenn Morshower) that asks her blessing to proceed running their company. Helen returns to her work and out of the blue, she has a blackout for several days. She wakes up at home and receives a phone call from herself warning that a man is coming in a BMW to kill her. She flees and goes to the house of her friend Alex (Zach Avery) to ask for help. They head to an isolated cabin that belonged to Helen´s father and soon Helen learns that she had sent herself to the past using a time machine invented by Wells to stop herself from committing a murder.
"Curvature" is a low-budget sci-fi film with a promising premise, reasonable development and a senseless commercial conclusion. The screenplay is intriguing but could have been better written since there are scenes absolutely ridiculous that should have been improved. Helen overturns Alex´s truck on the road and nobody comes to see or help. Helen, Alex and Kravitz fight in a hotel room and nobody comes to investigate what is happening. The cameo of Linda Hamilton is deceptive for her fans. The senseless conclusion with Helen receiving a correspondence with a flash memory is terrible. But in general the film is not bad and works on the video. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): Not Available
"Curvature" is a low-budget sci-fi film with a promising premise, reasonable development and a senseless commercial conclusion. The screenplay is intriguing but could have been better written since there are scenes absolutely ridiculous that should have been improved. Helen overturns Alex´s truck on the road and nobody comes to see or help. Helen, Alex and Kravitz fight in a hotel room and nobody comes to investigate what is happening. The cameo of Linda Hamilton is deceptive for her fans. The senseless conclusion with Helen receiving a correspondence with a flash memory is terrible. But in general the film is not bad and works on the video. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): Not Available
It just takes one bad actor...
matbrady1-125 February 2018
Zach Avery's acting was like a cancer to this movie. Every time he was on screen it died a little more. Good god, how did he make it past the auditions?
Lyndsy Fonseca did a fine job with the sub-par lines and direction, so it may have been an fun, but throw-away average movie if it wasn't for Zach Screen Cancer Avery who did his best version of Lenny von Dohlen's "Miles" from Electric Dreams (circa 1984).
It's so bad, in fact, that it has prompted this, my first IMDB review.
Avoid.
Lyndsy Fonseca did a fine job with the sub-par lines and direction, so it may have been an fun, but throw-away average movie if it wasn't for Zach Screen Cancer Avery who did his best version of Lenny von Dohlen's "Miles" from Electric Dreams (circa 1984).
It's so bad, in fact, that it has prompted this, my first IMDB review.
Avoid.
Slow burner - falls short
demaym1 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
As a fan of the genre, I'm starting to believe that I've probably seen the majority of time travel/time loop movies that are worth watching. I stumbled across this one from an IMDB list and observed the mixed reviews but decided to give it a go and make up my own mind.
The first 30 minutes were utterly boring and I was close to switching off, but brief moments of potentially interesting activity just about kept me in. There's lots of long and dragged out 'dialogue free' scenes of the lead gormlessly walking about, which fail to build any sort of tension - this kind of thing only works in a film that is actually good. I also wondered if one of the crew had some kind of 'foot fetish' as there seems to be lots of unneccesary focus and shots on the leads bare feet, over and over again. Weird.
Once you're passed the halfway mark there's some mild plot advancements and just about enough suspense to spark ones interest, but there's no denying that the whole thing is just rather flat and mundane. The lack of budget and poor script shows as no actual time travel with the character you are following occurs, nor is there any significant insight in to her 'future self'. We follow the same character, on the same timline and nothing else from the 'other side' is fully explored - just infrequent reminders that some sort of time travel has accured in the background..
The ending is just as flat as the rest of the film and although I didn't find the plot overly complex or hard to fiollow (due to the amount of these type of films I've seen) I cetainly couldn't be bothered to give it any after thought or even try and figure out anything that I might have missed.
A low impact, mediocre film that falls short. Just about worth a watch for time travel fanatics but will leave many underwhlemed. The five stars is generous, only based on the fact that there's a lot worse out there.
The first 30 minutes were utterly boring and I was close to switching off, but brief moments of potentially interesting activity just about kept me in. There's lots of long and dragged out 'dialogue free' scenes of the lead gormlessly walking about, which fail to build any sort of tension - this kind of thing only works in a film that is actually good. I also wondered if one of the crew had some kind of 'foot fetish' as there seems to be lots of unneccesary focus and shots on the leads bare feet, over and over again. Weird.
Once you're passed the halfway mark there's some mild plot advancements and just about enough suspense to spark ones interest, but there's no denying that the whole thing is just rather flat and mundane. The lack of budget and poor script shows as no actual time travel with the character you are following occurs, nor is there any significant insight in to her 'future self'. We follow the same character, on the same timline and nothing else from the 'other side' is fully explored - just infrequent reminders that some sort of time travel has accured in the background..
The ending is just as flat as the rest of the film and although I didn't find the plot overly complex or hard to fiollow (due to the amount of these type of films I've seen) I cetainly couldn't be bothered to give it any after thought or even try and figure out anything that I might have missed.
A low impact, mediocre film that falls short. Just about worth a watch for time travel fanatics but will leave many underwhlemed. The five stars is generous, only based on the fact that there's a lot worse out there.
Just dreadful
angusking-3999824 February 2018
Time travel films always pique my interest and the premis of this new film looked intriguing. As you'll soon become aware modernity does not guarantee quality. I began to lose interest about 10 to 15 minutes into the film. It is dreadful B-movie rubbish. The plot is hard to follow - if you can be bothered - the dialogue is cheesy and action sequences are cliched.
A lot of the acting is wooden and unengaging. I suppose the blame must lie as much with the film maker/director as with than the actors.
It should be noted that well known actress and Terminator star, Linda Hamilton has a very small part in the film.. Oh dear I hope the paycheck was worth it and in the future she finds better vehicles than this.
I don't understand why the reviews are not much better!
andrisdenergy26 February 2018
It was great to see a time travel movie with no idiotic special effects or implausible parallel universes. If we spend our time regretting the past and worrying about the future we can forget the paramount significance of now, the only time in which anything can be achieved. Fonseca is a brilliant actress and her character was consistent and convincing.
good god!
fixedfrequencies24 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
First of all; what a criminal waste of Linda Hamilton! she is in about 2 scenes totaling about 3 minutes or so (I could be off on that by a few minutes but point is, she may aswell have not been in it).
that out of the way, do you know how they say that when an actor is so bad that you just know they've screwed their way into the role? well that's exactly the vibe I get from the lead in this - she nailed the "looking miserable" part but delivered her lines so unconvincingly that I honestly think I could have done a better job at it and I am neither female nor an actor.
basically it's a timeloop film, it doesn't really explain that the version of her that started the loop and is using the version of her with no memory (symptom of time travel) spent a week planning and leaving clues for herself before hand.
one of the other massive annoyances in this film is that the reason the husband is murdered is because his partner wants to use the machine they've spent billions working on and the husband doesn't want to (yeah, why make a time machine if you don't want to use it right?!) at no point in the film did they demonstrate that the machine would be detrimental to anyone, yet the stupid woman blows it up because her idiot of a husband didn't want to use something he spent years of his life working on, frankly he deserved to get murdered for being a colossal idiot.
when a film makes you sympathize with the "bad guy" and the lead characters are all upstaged by 3 minutes of someone who has criminally been made an extra (Linda Hamilton) you know you're in for a bad ride.
that out of the way, do you know how they say that when an actor is so bad that you just know they've screwed their way into the role? well that's exactly the vibe I get from the lead in this - she nailed the "looking miserable" part but delivered her lines so unconvincingly that I honestly think I could have done a better job at it and I am neither female nor an actor.
basically it's a timeloop film, it doesn't really explain that the version of her that started the loop and is using the version of her with no memory (symptom of time travel) spent a week planning and leaving clues for herself before hand.
one of the other massive annoyances in this film is that the reason the husband is murdered is because his partner wants to use the machine they've spent billions working on and the husband doesn't want to (yeah, why make a time machine if you don't want to use it right?!) at no point in the film did they demonstrate that the machine would be detrimental to anyone, yet the stupid woman blows it up because her idiot of a husband didn't want to use something he spent years of his life working on, frankly he deserved to get murdered for being a colossal idiot.
when a film makes you sympathize with the "bad guy" and the lead characters are all upstaged by 3 minutes of someone who has criminally been made an extra (Linda Hamilton) you know you're in for a bad ride.
Not executed the best but a cool concept and it was ok.
numbahunna8 May 2020
A lot of questions not really answered well, but the movie is ok. But I gotta comment on this since I am a watch guy. That watch she puts in the drawer at the end is an automatic self winding watch which means it's a mechanical watch, not a quartz watch, soooooo what's with the ticking hand? The second hand should be sweeping and their shouldn't be a tick. This detail really annoys me. Because the watch face literally says auto-self winding. So why did you know that and go out of the way to make it tick? Wouldn't you just get another watch or at least take the auto-self winding label off in post production? I may sound like I am nit picking but it's this lack of attention to obvious details that ruins this movie. This is just a glaring example.
Borinnnnng
brunette_blueye10 April 2018
This movie is basically just 2 people talking the whole way through about what 'is happening to me' and nothing ever really gets done. It lacks action, intelligence and any kind of real story line. and the acting is TERRIBLE
Worth a view
normanlawmarr23 July 2018
Being into time travel movies I decided to give this one a go despite the number of bad reviews here.
I was not disappointed.
Yes, it's a low budget movie, there are no fantastic special effects and some of the acting is below par - but once the story grabs you it doesn't let go til the end credits roll.
Not the best film I have seen this year but interesting enough to make me want to watch it to the end.
And despite what other reviewers have said, the ending does make sense but only if you use your brain.
Do let me get me (possible spoiler in final paragraph)
jimbo-53-18651115 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Whilst mourning the death of her husband Wells, engineer Helen Phillips (Lyndsey Fonseca) discusses the future of his company with Wells business partner Tomas (Glen Morshower) and gives her blessing for him to carry on with her late husband's research. Shortly after speaking to Tomas, Helen blacks out for 7 days and gets a warning from herself that someone is arriving to kill her. Slowly but surely Helen starts to unravel what has been going on and discovers that she has sent herself back to prevent a murder...
We've seen variations of this sort of time travelling concept time and time again, but when done right this sort of unoriginality can still provide some entertainment and in this respect Curvature sort of succeeds...
Curvature has a sense of urgency and despite being relatively inexperienced director Diego Hallivas does a commendable job; the film has some pretty decent chase sequences as well as a few tense stand-offs. Granted there's nothing that will have you on the edge of your seat and it's fair to say that not a lot here is particularly memorable, but for what it is it is fairly good.
In the lead role, Fonseca puts in a good turn (particularly when she's conveying fear - her eyes dart all over the place). Everyone else is so-so, but don't be fooled by Linda Hamilton's top billing - she's only in about 2 scenes lasting a couple of minutes each and contributes little to the film.
Overall the Curvature isn't a bad film, but it's a little too derivative and also doesn't have any really big Wow moments to set it apart from the rest of the field. That being said, it's fairly well-paced meaning that if you do watch it you're not likely to be bored for its 90 minute duration.
SIDE NOTE; I found it impressive how Tomas and his mate managed to get their BMW back on the road so quickly when the tyre had been shot out? Considering it will have likely had run-flat tyres where did they get their replacement tyre from when they were in the middle of nowhere?
We've seen variations of this sort of time travelling concept time and time again, but when done right this sort of unoriginality can still provide some entertainment and in this respect Curvature sort of succeeds...
Curvature has a sense of urgency and despite being relatively inexperienced director Diego Hallivas does a commendable job; the film has some pretty decent chase sequences as well as a few tense stand-offs. Granted there's nothing that will have you on the edge of your seat and it's fair to say that not a lot here is particularly memorable, but for what it is it is fairly good.
In the lead role, Fonseca puts in a good turn (particularly when she's conveying fear - her eyes dart all over the place). Everyone else is so-so, but don't be fooled by Linda Hamilton's top billing - she's only in about 2 scenes lasting a couple of minutes each and contributes little to the film.
Overall the Curvature isn't a bad film, but it's a little too derivative and also doesn't have any really big Wow moments to set it apart from the rest of the field. That being said, it's fairly well-paced meaning that if you do watch it you're not likely to be bored for its 90 minute duration.
SIDE NOTE; I found it impressive how Tomas and his mate managed to get their BMW back on the road so quickly when the tyre had been shot out? Considering it will have likely had run-flat tyres where did they get their replacement tyre from when they were in the middle of nowhere?
If you love time travel movies skip this one.
plotkinsj8 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The entire movie makes absolutely no sense. This isn't a "you just don't get it" kind of complaint. I get it too well. If the whole point is she is her future self, then how does her past self (the one she thinks is her future for a good portion of the movie) know the entire future? Her past self's entire plan revolves around her future self acting in a certain manner... and she knows exactly when different things will happen which are unrelated to her. It's just such sloppy writing. Time paradoxes are one thing, but this can't even get a singular timeline correct! That's saying nothing about the acting. The male lead needs to be in a Disney channel original movie.
The time traveller's curve
TheLittleSongbird28 June 2018
Was drawn into seeing 'Curvature' with a cool poster/cover, a very intriguing if not creative premise and as someone with a general appreciation for the genre as said many times. That it was low-budget, which from frequent personal experience is rarely a good sign due to that there are so many poor ones out there, made me though apprehensive.
'Curvature' is a film it doesn't do enough with its potential (although there are far bigger wastes of potential in film) and could have been much better. 'Curvature' is very weak with a lot of big problems. It certainly could have been far worse, considering the large number of films seen recently being mediocre at best and terrible at worst. There is very little to recommend here but it's not completely irredeemable.
The best thing about 'Curvature' is the sets/scenery, that look like a lot of care and time went into constructing them. Rather than limited and drab, they have elaborate atmosphere.
Music is similarly atmospheric, and avoids being over-bearing or too much of one mood, the sound isn't too cheap either. Despite being criminally underused, considering she is the most well-known cast member, Linda Hamilton tries her best.
Rest of the acting however is pretty negligible, with a particularly lifeless performance from Zach Avery while Lynsey Fonesca came over as one note and ill at ease. The whole cast are ill served though by very clichéd and sketchy characterisation and a script that felt incomplete and with a lot of ramble and cheese.
Despite the sets impressing, much of the filming doesn't with it being far too obvious that there were budget limitations and that it was made in haste. The editing is sloppy and the camera work didn't seem particularly focused too often, although there are moments of slickness. The story doesn't really get off the ground (the direction likewise) and clarity is not a strong suit, it is not easy to follow at times and it is rife with ridiculousness and implausibility too glaring to ignore. Do have to agree too that the ending is terrible and doesn't make sense.
In conclusion, weak. 3/10 Bethany Cox
'Curvature' is a film it doesn't do enough with its potential (although there are far bigger wastes of potential in film) and could have been much better. 'Curvature' is very weak with a lot of big problems. It certainly could have been far worse, considering the large number of films seen recently being mediocre at best and terrible at worst. There is very little to recommend here but it's not completely irredeemable.
The best thing about 'Curvature' is the sets/scenery, that look like a lot of care and time went into constructing them. Rather than limited and drab, they have elaborate atmosphere.
Music is similarly atmospheric, and avoids being over-bearing or too much of one mood, the sound isn't too cheap either. Despite being criminally underused, considering she is the most well-known cast member, Linda Hamilton tries her best.
Rest of the acting however is pretty negligible, with a particularly lifeless performance from Zach Avery while Lynsey Fonesca came over as one note and ill at ease. The whole cast are ill served though by very clichéd and sketchy characterisation and a script that felt incomplete and with a lot of ramble and cheese.
Despite the sets impressing, much of the filming doesn't with it being far too obvious that there were budget limitations and that it was made in haste. The editing is sloppy and the camera work didn't seem particularly focused too often, although there are moments of slickness. The story doesn't really get off the ground (the direction likewise) and clarity is not a strong suit, it is not easy to follow at times and it is rife with ridiculousness and implausibility too glaring to ignore. Do have to agree too that the ending is terrible and doesn't make sense.
In conclusion, weak. 3/10 Bethany Cox
Not good enough for me.
deloudelouvain22 July 2020
If you're planning watching this one you can't be too picky. Linda Hamilton "the big name of this movie" is just poster filling and only appears a couple minutes, Zach Avery on the other hand has a bigger role and is annoying to watch. To me he's basically a mediocre actor, at least in this movie where his bad acting shows. Not the whole cast is bad but there are for sure no future Oscar winners here. The story itself is a bit complicated to follow and is a bit far fetched even for a sci-fi. I can't say I really enjoyed this one, just sat through the story waiting for it to end.
Such a disappointment
vrrooomm-238-34356412 May 2018
I should have read more of the reviews. The acting and script we so bad it was painful. They spent a lot of money, had elaborate sets that all didn't mean a thing. Great concept. The writing was amateurish. Even Linda Hamilton was stiff, as though she along with the others had never acted before. Can't believe someone gave this a 10.
Interesting mystery, TV-movie quality
vchimpanzee25 February 2020
It's an exciting mystery where there's always something we don't know. At the end, I'm not even sure we got all the answers.
There is one scene that is too long and too depressing, complete with terrible new age music. I was worried the whole movie would be like this because I didn't bother to read the summary.
But then things change drastically, and for the better. First there is more new age music with what I would describe as footage from those science movies we watched in school.
Helen is on the run, and the movie just got more fun. The new age music has changed to what was probably called "space music" in the 60s.
During an exciting car chase, someone got really creative with camera work when a vehicle rolled over. But it's like that Schwarznegger movie where he somehow ended up in the real world and discovered pain for the first time. The characters don't seem to feel pain or get hurt.
Speaking of Schwarznegger, one of his best-known co-stars, Linda Hamilton, plays a college professor. Yes, Helen's a science and math nerd. Too pretty to be one, but when she and Alex start doing complicated math puzzles she gets so excited. Lyndsy Fonseca gives a good performance, going from depressed to frightened to excited. And she shows a lot of determination.
There are serious moral questions. Someone wants revenge and we have an explosion, but I'm not sure why.
There are flashbacks and scenes involving science experiments that I didn't quite understand.
Other than her, I don't know that there's anything special with the acting.
Is it family friendly? As usual for movies like this, the sound goes out and a character's mouth is blurry in many cases. Other than that, I don't know that there's anything to be too concerned about.
I would compare this to a TV-movie or an episode of a TV series, but it's entertaining enough.
There is one scene that is too long and too depressing, complete with terrible new age music. I was worried the whole movie would be like this because I didn't bother to read the summary.
But then things change drastically, and for the better. First there is more new age music with what I would describe as footage from those science movies we watched in school.
Helen is on the run, and the movie just got more fun. The new age music has changed to what was probably called "space music" in the 60s.
During an exciting car chase, someone got really creative with camera work when a vehicle rolled over. But it's like that Schwarznegger movie where he somehow ended up in the real world and discovered pain for the first time. The characters don't seem to feel pain or get hurt.
Speaking of Schwarznegger, one of his best-known co-stars, Linda Hamilton, plays a college professor. Yes, Helen's a science and math nerd. Too pretty to be one, but when she and Alex start doing complicated math puzzles she gets so excited. Lyndsy Fonseca gives a good performance, going from depressed to frightened to excited. And she shows a lot of determination.
There are serious moral questions. Someone wants revenge and we have an explosion, but I'm not sure why.
There are flashbacks and scenes involving science experiments that I didn't quite understand.
Other than her, I don't know that there's anything special with the acting.
Is it family friendly? As usual for movies like this, the sound goes out and a character's mouth is blurry in many cases. Other than that, I don't know that there's anything to be too concerned about.
I would compare this to a TV-movie or an episode of a TV series, but it's entertaining enough.
All in all I had a fine time
r96sk22 April 2020
Not as intriguing as it perhaps could've been, but 'Curvature' is a decent sci-fi drama.
Top marks go to Noah Rosenthal for the cinematography, which is very good - the film looks lovely. Lyndsy Fonseca does well in the lead role, while Glenn Morshower and Zach Avery support adequately.
There are, of course, issues with the plot and the legitimacy of it all, but that's what you tend to get with productions regarding time travel. More could have definitely been done with the story, though all in all I had a fine time watching this.
Top marks go to Noah Rosenthal for the cinematography, which is very good - the film looks lovely. Lyndsy Fonseca does well in the lead role, while Glenn Morshower and Zach Avery support adequately.
There are, of course, issues with the plot and the legitimacy of it all, but that's what you tend to get with productions regarding time travel. More could have definitely been done with the story, though all in all I had a fine time watching this.
The Worst Time Traveler Movie
hopeseekr25 February 2018
Without giving away any real spoilers, this is the worst time traveler movie I have ever seen (which is probably the vast majority of them). Even the time-traveling building miniseries was so so much better than this. If this is all they could do with time travel, well, then they definitely do not deserve the tech at all. And good riddance! Do you really want these same folks mucking with the timeline?!
Disappointing Time travel Film
agro_sydney12 April 2019
I love Time Travel movies but this film was a disappointing let down. I was amazed at the good actors( with the exception of Zach Avery), good camera work, good atmosphere and special effects which were wasted on this poor script and poorly paced film. Lyndsy Fonseca, Glenn Morshower, Noah Bean and Alex Lanipekun did the best with what they had to work with. For the life of me I can't see how Zach Avery got an "And Zach Avery" billing in the credits.
Everybody's a critic
wlfithen28 July 2018
Warning: Spoilers
As a rule, critics hate everything. And the few exceptions that prove that rule, show conclusively that art's general audience and the art critics are rarely on the same page. This movie is a good case in point. The critics categorically hated it. And lots of viewers who either never knew or forgot the point of what the general public calls sci-fi hated it, too. Unfortunate.
It's of note, that within the writing community (and I means books, not screenplays) sci-fi is usually regarded as an insult. For them, it evokes trite stories of little thought, frequently involving large lizards stomping on cardboard towns in Japan. Among serious writers, the term sci-fi has been replaced with s.f., and it's not just a rebranding. s.f., almost always lower case, stands for speculative fiction. The use of the term is intended to remind writers that if a story isn't genuinely speculative, it's probably just sci-fi (meaning crap, usually). s.f. is fundamentally about speculation, not about sets, actors, directors, budgets, or any of the other things that "critics" like to harp on, perhaps just to sound smart. To be sure, those things do matter, just like the production quality of any art does. Just not as much as the speculation.
This movie contains two core aspects of speculation, one well-known and frequently used, and the other fairly original. The first, of course, is time travel. And it's used in this story in the usual way, to travel back and change the past. Arguments abound in s.f. and in science about that possibility, as well as the practicality. The second is the use of nested time travel. Though it's appeared in a few stories over the years, it's not common. It's very difficult to plan and plot. Planning is the process of designing what happens and why. Plotting is how you tell the audience what happened and through which character's eyes. One of the interesting things here, though not explained, is the amnesia in the subjects. Without that apparently trivial thing, there would have been no story because she would have known everything in the moment she woke.
Think through the plan with me. Wells dies, she finds him. A month later she goes back, as Alex said, and this time, decodes his clue and watch's the video. What's unclear is that if she decides to kill Thomas, why did she need to travel back in time? She could have just killed him in the present. Instead, she protects the video, puts the camera back, buys a rifle and leaves it under her bed. Then she waits several days and sneaks in (somehow) and jumps back a few days, never intending to come back. So did she ever intend to kill Thomas, or just to make her other self *think* she had? Then she hides out giving her other self warnings and clues. What "other self" you ask? You'll see shortly. She waits for her other self to go to Thomas and get taken into the lab. In the confusion she sneaks in again with her bomb to blow up the time machine while her other self watches her from Thomas's office. She jumps back, the machine blows up, and she *becomes* her other self with amnesia in the June 2 wake up scene. A straightforward plan.
But the *story* is only of her other self. And it all works, not because of time travel as much as the amnesia. No, wait. The amnesia, as far as we know, happens after you come back. And she never did come back. Or, did she do another jump, in between, *just* to come back and cause the amnesia. Or, perhaps she ...
See? Isn't that fun? And speculative, even a bit of science (sort of) thrown in. The real measure of s.f. is how long you keep speculating after you finish the story. And, contrary to the critics, this movie delivers. Are there paradoxes? You bet. Are there mistakes? Yes. And finding those inconsistencies is the other half of the fun.
There's plenty here to speculate on here.
It's of note, that within the writing community (and I means books, not screenplays) sci-fi is usually regarded as an insult. For them, it evokes trite stories of little thought, frequently involving large lizards stomping on cardboard towns in Japan. Among serious writers, the term sci-fi has been replaced with s.f., and it's not just a rebranding. s.f., almost always lower case, stands for speculative fiction. The use of the term is intended to remind writers that if a story isn't genuinely speculative, it's probably just sci-fi (meaning crap, usually). s.f. is fundamentally about speculation, not about sets, actors, directors, budgets, or any of the other things that "critics" like to harp on, perhaps just to sound smart. To be sure, those things do matter, just like the production quality of any art does. Just not as much as the speculation.
This movie contains two core aspects of speculation, one well-known and frequently used, and the other fairly original. The first, of course, is time travel. And it's used in this story in the usual way, to travel back and change the past. Arguments abound in s.f. and in science about that possibility, as well as the practicality. The second is the use of nested time travel. Though it's appeared in a few stories over the years, it's not common. It's very difficult to plan and plot. Planning is the process of designing what happens and why. Plotting is how you tell the audience what happened and through which character's eyes. One of the interesting things here, though not explained, is the amnesia in the subjects. Without that apparently trivial thing, there would have been no story because she would have known everything in the moment she woke.
Think through the plan with me. Wells dies, she finds him. A month later she goes back, as Alex said, and this time, decodes his clue and watch's the video. What's unclear is that if she decides to kill Thomas, why did she need to travel back in time? She could have just killed him in the present. Instead, she protects the video, puts the camera back, buys a rifle and leaves it under her bed. Then she waits several days and sneaks in (somehow) and jumps back a few days, never intending to come back. So did she ever intend to kill Thomas, or just to make her other self *think* she had? Then she hides out giving her other self warnings and clues. What "other self" you ask? You'll see shortly. She waits for her other self to go to Thomas and get taken into the lab. In the confusion she sneaks in again with her bomb to blow up the time machine while her other self watches her from Thomas's office. She jumps back, the machine blows up, and she *becomes* her other self with amnesia in the June 2 wake up scene. A straightforward plan.
But the *story* is only of her other self. And it all works, not because of time travel as much as the amnesia. No, wait. The amnesia, as far as we know, happens after you come back. And she never did come back. Or, did she do another jump, in between, *just* to come back and cause the amnesia. Or, perhaps she ...
See? Isn't that fun? And speculative, even a bit of science (sort of) thrown in. The real measure of s.f. is how long you keep speculating after you finish the story. And, contrary to the critics, this movie delivers. Are there paradoxes? You bet. Are there mistakes? Yes. And finding those inconsistencies is the other half of the fun.
There's plenty here to speculate on here.
Takes an hour to reveal the plot.
fluffchop19 August 2021
Before then you're just wondering what is going on. You see what is going on, but it has no context. The description says goes back to stop herself doing a murder. But there was no murder. Who, what, when, what's going on. After an hour we see what is happening. This doesn't happen eventually anyway. She's one cute chick though.
Certainly not a 1, but far from a 10...
tankfreak30 April 2021
Honestly, I don't understand the 1s (or the 10s), but it certainly wasn't as bad as the average reviews here insinuate. At the same time, it's far from a 10, and definitely a one and done kind of flick.
It's absolutely more thriller than sci-fi and relies heavily on the "mystery" of what's going on, which means nobody can just talk straight about anything. As a result, Fonseca is just frog-hopping from pad to pad, clue by clue, until she gets to one big reveal, which at least solves enough mystery to know who she can/can't trust and where to go next which ultimately leads her to the final reveal, which of course is not entirely what she had predicted. The problem with that method of storytelling is the supporting characters start to get frustrating fast. You'd think at least "government agent guy" would be a little more straightforward and less lackey villain in a suit, but unfortunately he comes across as the latter for a good 90% of the film. Also as others have pointed out in their reviews, the token ally character is both written as rather bland and definitely portrayed that way. However, the overall mystery is decent and does wrap up in the end, although yes, it does leave you with questions assuming you were engaged in the first place. Overall, not bad, just doesn't really add anything new in terms of story mechanics/plot formula for the genre(s). Lyndsy Fonseca was great in the lead though, it's just a shame she has to carry most of the other cast too. And Linda Hamilton's role is tragically short and almost pointless except to put her name in the credits.
It's absolutely more thriller than sci-fi and relies heavily on the "mystery" of what's going on, which means nobody can just talk straight about anything. As a result, Fonseca is just frog-hopping from pad to pad, clue by clue, until she gets to one big reveal, which at least solves enough mystery to know who she can/can't trust and where to go next which ultimately leads her to the final reveal, which of course is not entirely what she had predicted. The problem with that method of storytelling is the supporting characters start to get frustrating fast. You'd think at least "government agent guy" would be a little more straightforward and less lackey villain in a suit, but unfortunately he comes across as the latter for a good 90% of the film. Also as others have pointed out in their reviews, the token ally character is both written as rather bland and definitely portrayed that way. However, the overall mystery is decent and does wrap up in the end, although yes, it does leave you with questions assuming you were engaged in the first place. Overall, not bad, just doesn't really add anything new in terms of story mechanics/plot formula for the genre(s). Lyndsy Fonseca was great in the lead though, it's just a shame she has to carry most of the other cast too. And Linda Hamilton's role is tragically short and almost pointless except to put her name in the credits.
How bad IS this movie.......
sevenhorseshoes24 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I had to wash out the bad taste in my eyeballs by watching Terminator again. That's okay to a certain extent as I was about due for another viewing of said masterpiece.
Although, I like how much the lead actress looked like a younger Linda Hamilton, seeing them act together(though briefly) and the Terminator like music (which was actually better than this movie deserved).
Interestingly enough, the fact that Linda was so phenomenal as Sarah and the lead actress in Curvature was so bad shows (to a certain extent) how much good acting has gone downhill in 30 years. If Samuel L Jackson can consistently act great in many bad movies, the lead actress in this can too. And this I found more interesting than the storyline of this movie. I'm surprised this got made at all and attracted the talent that it did.
Best acting goes to the dead guy in flashback, followed closely by the ladybug (yes the insect kind).
Although, I like how much the lead actress looked like a younger Linda Hamilton, seeing them act together(though briefly) and the Terminator like music (which was actually better than this movie deserved).
Interestingly enough, the fact that Linda was so phenomenal as Sarah and the lead actress in Curvature was so bad shows (to a certain extent) how much good acting has gone downhill in 30 years. If Samuel L Jackson can consistently act great in many bad movies, the lead actress in this can too. And this I found more interesting than the storyline of this movie. I'm surprised this got made at all and attracted the talent that it did.
Best acting goes to the dead guy in flashback, followed closely by the ladybug (yes the insect kind).
Terrible!
claudiaconcienne7 January 2022
Writer doesn't understand time travel, and director doesn't understand suspense. Stupidest movie I've tolerated in a long time! Woman is sent FORWARD a week to stop a murder, but her future self is still there, in the future, both in the same time zone. Her future self wouldn't be there too, because she never went back to move forward naturally. Plot makes NO SENSE!!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
