brianberns-1 I'm usually a sucker for science fiction, and time travel in particular, but this movie was underwhelming. The characters are severely under-developed and uninteresting. One of the main characters is so empty that at one point the protagonist suggests that she might not be real, and she has no response.The time-travel elements of the movie are similarly devoid of interest, and the supposed plot is elementary. I think most of the effort on this movie went into period sets, costumes and haircuts. It certainly doesn't show up in the writing, acting, or directing.

bjon1452 I came upon this film by accident. I thought I'd chosen something else on Amazon Prime, but I must have clicked this movie by mistake. The music reeled me in first. Then the time frame reeled me in; I love re-creations of the 1920's. After that, the subject matter piqued my interest. For once there was a screenplay that was cleverly written, without robots, blood, gore and violence.(Well, there was a touch.)The music had a haunting quality that I loved. It was a smattering of classical pieces, especially by Fredrick Chopin, done in modern fashion, interspersed with the Gramophone effect. I then was wondering how they'd pull off the time travel, and that's where it gets interesting: The mechanism consisted of some steam-punk props, electrical gadgets and an old upright piano. The story line was more or less a romantic novel, but it didn't go too overboard. It's a picture that was a bit difficult to understand, yet very clever. Coming from a family whose father figure was an engineer, it made me think, and I'm still thinking about it. No special effects were necessary. I added my own imagination to it, and there you have it, a very entertaining movie-but you had to work your brain for it!Very refreshing indeed!

Eric M. Van MILD SPOILERS MARKED BELOW.This movie's strengths are many. The premise, although ultimately science fantasy, is immediately engaging: what if someone had devised the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics (all possible realities, deriving from every possible choice, exist in parallel worlds) back in the 1920's, and then gone on from there to invent a time machine? The would-be time traveler who wants to undo an event in their own past is a story we've seen before, but the essentials of this version are quite well done.The film is beautifully designed and shot (arthouse fans will not find it too slow) and very well acted. The screenplay is full of quality moments.So why is this only a 6? Well, to begin with, the screenplay is also full of clichés. But it has a much bigger problem than that: the main character's behavior and motivation, which are the sole engine of the plot, are somewhat unconvincing for an ordinary person, and entirely unconvincing for a scientist.VERY BROAD SPOILERS FOLLOWIf you advise someone not to do something rash or dangerous or wisely decline to do it yourself), and they do it anyway, and it indeed ends badly ... most people will feel remorse -- remorse that they did not do a better job of explaining their concerns. What rarely happens is that they *entirely blame themselves*, to the point of obsession. It stretches all credulity (at least for me) that a brilliant scientist (hence, by nature, an unusually rational thinker) would do so. You don't really want your genius character being told by friends that "it wasn't your fault" when that is in fact INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS.This movie does this twice; one is the engine of the plot, and the other creates a plot pivot.Note that this might have worked if our hero had been portrayed as a general emotional wreck who just happened to be a physics whiz. But he's not: he goes about pursuing his obsession in a cool, rational way that is entirely believable for a brilliant scientist. It's only the source of that obsession that is out of character, fatally so.The pity is, it's easy to imagine how the plot could have been kept intact by giving our hero more complex, more interesting, and much more believable motivations.Oh, and the movie also ends up incorporating a classic time-travel paradox without seeming to address it at all. And there's a huge loose end in the plot that, I think, cries out for more closure.END SPOILERSThe first thing I did after watching this film is check to see who the producers were. My suspicions were correct: the screenwriter, and the director. IOW, no one with an objective take on the film. If I had a time machine, I'd go back a few years and give them a whole set of notes on the screenplay. That's what a good producer does. The creative team here is clearly quite talented; if they find someone who really knows film (and especially knows the genre they're working in) to produce their next effort, it will be one to watch for.

Rabh17 It's a Time Travel Story. And it's listed as Science Fiction, thereby.But Be Advised: It's NOT 'The Time Machine'. Nor is it your standard Hollywood Special Effects wagon-train.No Splashy special Effects. No Journeys to the end of Time. No Monsters. No Weird Paradoxes. No Dinosaurs either.It DOES has an element of Time Travel...but that's all. The rest of the Movie is a distillation of a very nice work of emotional Fiction. It's a Love story about Three Childhood friends in 1920's era England. Once you settle into the measured, dialogue driven pace of the story. I found it elegant, touching and memorable.Totally Girlfriend Friendly, BTW.