Coherence

It's hard not to talk about this movie without giving absolutely everything away, and it has some definite merits and creative thinking that I don't want to ruin, so I'll do my best.The Style: The first thing that stuck out to me for the worse was the filmography. Immediately we are introduced to another low-budget, gritty realism attained by camera-phone film quality. I'm really tired of camera operators trying to go for realism by acting like they don't know how to use a camera. It's shaky, with poor quality, awkward zooms in and out, and it all around looks like it was made by a kid playing with his first video camera. Part of this is probably an aesthetic choice, and part of it due to the staggeringly low budget of $50,000. The movie takes place over the course of one night, so there are only two lighting options, harsh internal lamp light, and a dark exterior. At times I think they are switching to a different camera when outside because the indoor camera probably won't work in the dark. However the outdoor camera they use seems to be better quality, which begs the question, why not just use that camera? I'm not knowledgeable about camera work, but it was jarring. The aforementioned shaky phone camera quality was almost enough to get me to bail after two minutes, but I decided give it a second chance by fast forwarding five minutes to see Nicholas Brendon, who I haven't seen act since "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". I haven't seen him enough to revere his acting, but this little oddity was enough to keep my interest going, and I'm glad I did.The Premise: It's wonderfully simple and rhetorical: college friends are having a little reunion--incidentally--on the same night that a comet is passing overhead. The characters have been warned through various media that the comet might have weird affects on phones and the Earth etc., and we see how extremely that pans out. There's no overly complex technobabble to make it seem more plausible. The cause isn't important. The effects are. Moving on. On a personal note, I enjoyed the basic but specific catalyst. It reminded me of early science fiction that was based on a simple idea, and of course it reminded me of the cult classic, Night of the Comet. They don't pad their opening with needless myths or explanation. Suspend your belief. Find out what happens.The Characters, Actors, and Dialog: This is an area where the movie excels and flops in different places. The writers more often succeeded with dialog that was organic and believable, but purposeful. I believed these were real people based on how the actors delivered their lines without being too dramatic or stylistic. It's not Quintin Tarantino, but it's executed well. There were however a few areas where the film got bogged down with terribly formulaic exposition. I can see how the material might be difficult to grasp for people who aren't big on science fiction, but when it comes to explaining what's happening, lines fall terribly flat and unrealistic. The means by which the audience/characters figure out what's going on is "cringingly" convenient and the subsequent discussion feels obligatory rather than fluid. In summary, when they're acting as characters, I think the cast excels. When they're filling in the plot, it reads like a first-year film student's work.The Plot and Pacing: Again this is an area where there are successes and--for lack of a better word--failures. "Coherence" is a slow burn until it turns into a full on wildfire. This is generally what one would expect from a movie. We introduce our characters and they all have little subtitles that show you who they are without flatly telling you. Nicholas Brendon's character is a reformed alcoholic and you can tell that in his behavior before it's ever verbally stated. The film gives you the time to get to know the characters, something I think mainstream, plot-heavy works do less and less. When things start to go awry, it doesn't all fall apart at once; it slowly ramps up the tension, the stakes, the danger. Through most of the movie, this is handled expertly. It's not until the last act where things accelerate at lightspeed. I have faith in the first two-thirds that everything that happens is thought out and correct, but the last act moves so quickly with so many characters to keep track of, it ostensibly confirms that I'll be watching it again A) because I liked it enough to do so, but B) because there are definitely things I missed, even while paying attention. I suppose this gives them a point for "re-watchabiliy", but it ends up feeling a little like Inception: if you're not completely devoted to what's going on, you'll miss things.The Ending: In short, I wasn't crazy about it. It didn't put a bad taste in my mouth, and it definitely speaks to some of the ideas foreshadowed earlier quite effectively. Let's just say it's sudden, and a little off-putting. I'm fairly confident that I don't like it, but it doesn't stop me from appreciating the events leading up to it. Others may love the ending, and I'm of a mind to say that if you're interested in "the journey" the ending doesn't ruin it for you.Limitations Beget Creativity: This movie had a low budget and not a lot to work with. To it's credit, there are a lot of little beats and threads that are introduced, that I don't think would have been present if the creators had had more to work with. For instance, the glow sticks were a cheap but effective plot device that might not have been addressed if there was more money in the bank. I would love to see what the creators do with a bigger budget, but only after writing a story while thinking they have a modest one. It's not a perfect movie, but there's some real creative thinking there that only comes from having nothing to work with.Conclusion: I liked watching "Coherence" a lot, but I can't decide if I think it's actually good. I watched it about a month ago and it's the kind of movie that keeps tugging at me. There are definite faults and weak points, but the overall concept is solid. I'm sure to watch it again with a friend and revisit what I think and see what they think. It's hard science fiction but it's also grounded in a way that I think is accessible to those who don't usually care for the genre but appreciate drama and thrillers. I can't recommend it enough if you want something to talk about and can completely understand any reception--positive or negative--it might have with viewers.

Suppose you're brought to a theater and given the option to see multiple versions of you and the life you could be leading. It's all you--all those versions are inside you somewhere but in one version, the people you're with, the job you chose, the decisions you've made bring out the best version of who you are and you're able to see what living life as that person could be. Now suppose you have the option of replacing the you on the stage with the you in the cheap seats so you actually could live the best version of you. Coherence tries its hand as a study in this scenario using theoretical physics and a near-earth comet fly-by to do it.Miller's Comet is making a pass by the earth and long-time friends are having a dinner party on just that evening. One member of the party, Em, has done some reading on the phenomenon and sprinkles facts about the event--and past events like it--into the dinner conversation. In two past incidences strange things happened to the residents of the small towns over which the comets passed and these stores are just enough to put the party goers on edge. The lights go out in all houses in the neighborhood except one two blocks down. Two members of the party decide to investigate and strange things start happening. All the cell phones in the house stop working and two guests find their screens cracked for no apparent reason. They find pictures of themselves in a lockbox outside the neighbor's house--one which appears to have been taken in the house on that very night even though no one ever produced a camera. One guest writes a note that he intends to tape to the neighbor's front door only to have that same note appear on the door of the house they're in.I've seen a few indie films like this one that attempt to play with physics in odd ways and either they go too deep and lose the storyline or stay too much on the surface and end up being campy. James Ward Byrkit does a fine job of avoiding either pitfall. His direction along with decent "script," keep the story interesting and the viewer engaged in the puzzle without losing the narrative. This is not a movie that rewards a distracted viewer but it's also not so cerebral that you'll lose the thread of the story if you turn to your fellow movie watcher and chat for a few seconds about what thought you just saw. And just in case you think you have things figured out too early, one party goer brings a ketamine-laced drug that might make you second-guess your conclusions. The unknown actors and actresses in this film are fun to watch and seem perfectly selected for their roles. The players are energetic, typical of unknowns but also mature which is certainly atypical. While some of the characters would no doubt be annoying if played by others I found none of the characters grating which is a tricky thing given the setup (for example, Laurie, played spot on by Lauren Maher, reminded me of a young Angelica Huston who most certainly would have taken the character well over the irritating line).Overall this was a fun, intriguing story that's thrilling but also entertaining--a hard combination to find these days. There are a couple of gotchas to watch out for. To add to the other-worldly nature of the film (though the IMDB liner notes give a different explanation), most of the movie is shot with a "shaky cam" which can be difficult to watch for some viewers. The movie also consists of a lot of ad-libbed party banter with occassional outbursts, love triangles, and other 30-something plagues. While this never got even close to unwatchable territory for me, this is not a movie with a solid script expertly memorized. It's a bit in the "Manhattan Murder Mystery" style which appeals to me but is not to everyone's tastes.While the movie is set up as a sci-fi thriller, the film does foster some interesting scientific, philosophical and moral questions which are neither heavy-handed or trivial. It's solid, engaging entertainment.

It's definitely fast and loose with the "explanation" as to why anything in the movie is happening but it's pretty clear that the movie isn't really trying to toe the line of what is actual possible. It's a good character piece with good acting, and some fun twists and turns. It could stand to have a little bit more substance to Em's story early on, and maybe resolve a little bit more about what is happening at the end. I definitely appreciate that it's deliberately vague and doesn't want to give everything away....Spoilers from here on out to detail my thoughts here...But it would be nice to know if the group we see at the end had any experience at all of the strange events. It seems somewhat implied that they did not and that's reinforced by Mike's comments about "what if we're the bad ones? we _are_ stuck here." That sort of thing. I think ultimately the story and concept are compelling and deserving of multiple views because there's definitely more here than what's apparent at first pass.Certainly however; you have to suspend belief about the mechanism of the comet... its a plot device to create the story around and they throw the words like "quantum" and "divergence" around with a poor interpretation of Schrodinger's cat to help make it stick. You kind of just have to let it be and go with it.

Made for the astonishingly low sum of fifty thousand dollars this film is choc full of surprises. The synopsis is that on a night when eight friends get together for a dinner party, a comet is about to pass over. As the event gets closer and closer strange things start to happen and what at first looks like coincidences soon becomes something altogether more sinister.Now this was shot over five nights with dialogue that was mostly improvised. Some of the camera work is a bit shaky but is done to affect immediacy and also give that `fly on the wall' feeling that does add to the intimacy of the film. Those who are fond of theoretical physics will be pleased at the references to Schrödinger's cat. Those that like a good ghost story should be pleased also.This is one of those films that will annoy some, bewilder a few and hopefully reward the many that stick with it. At a two hour run time, it could have been shorter, but I would have been a bit hard pressed to work out where to cut. A very original film, with some great ideas and some very good performances - a recommended watch.

Incoherence is a better word for this film. The decision to allow the actors to improvise their dialogue diluted dramatic tension and exposition far too much -- it didn't let you into the film. The science wasn't justified by the setting. As a sociological experiment it might have had some slight merit. As an entertainment it was disastrous. I'll never trust another hyperbolic blurb again. Where is the Trades' Descriptions Act when you need it?

No spaceships. No SFX. No aliens. No monsters. But a brilliant exploration of metaphysical possibilities, and a collection of compelling performances from the cast.This is a tiny film which delivers thought-provoking entertainment way beyond the scope of its resources. It's original, daring and deftly edited.The downside? It starts slow, with an excruciating 'old mates' dinner party and then veers dangerously close to slasher B-movie 'boo!' territory when the comet blazes overhead and the lights go out.But after a couple of cheap shocks the storyline takes over. For the following hour, 'Coherence' plays with the possibilities of infinite universes, of infinite selves, of the differences small decisions can make, and of how they affect lifelong relationships between friends, rivals and lovers.The result is astonishing - especially so when you consider that the majority of the movie takes place in the claustrophobic confines of a single room. It's intellectually challenging, emotionally involving and extremely tense.A real triumph for small-scale film-making. A speculative thriller, if you must try to pin it down to a genre. Must-see if you liked Memento.8/10

You must watch this film twice (after reading an explanation of what the film is about) to fully appreciate its low-budget brilliance. Once you’ve grasped the meaning of each “blackout” edit, it comes together and I was then dazzled by what it was actually up to. You really must watch the scenes really carefully to spot the “differences” between each sequence. Convergence is A philosophical sci-fi thriller like none you’ve ever seen before - but beware, it’s NOT for everyone.

An amazingly low budget and intelligent take on alternative universes and morality when faced with impossible circumstances, the dialogue is well structured and the entire film is an intricately plotted tale, with some very good performances (Nicholas Brendan) as a former actor dealing with drink issues being so close to his own problems that it brings out a brave but nuanced character, but it is really Emily Baldoni who surpasses all expectations as she goes from one extreme to the other all in the cause of finding a better life.When a group of friends attend a dinner party a passing comet causes the door to alternate realities to swing open and leaves them all with difficult choices and decisions to make, what would you do?