Curvature

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).

This is more cerebral than your average time travel movie, which is saying a lot because most time travel movies are messing with your head from the start. This one has an interesting premise, that is hard to describe without spoilers, but in general terms it is looking at the grandparent paradox and one way the universe might force consistency out of it. There is a recent time travel book called Version Control that does much the same thing, choosing to create paradoxes in the universe in order to avoid other ones. That means viewers that prefer obvious, explainable loops like Back to the Future will be disappointed by what seem to be inconsistencies in the plot, but those viewers who want to take their time travel game up a notch will have a lot to chew on here, If you pay attention, this one will have you mulling over things for days. The story is helped along by poignant reflections on grief and human connections. In some ways the grief aspect of the story could have been more developed, but on the other hand it was given more serious screen time than what you would normally see in a movie like this. Pulling in Linda Hamilton for a cameo was inspired; she really underplayed it.

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.

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.

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

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.

Let me get one thing out of the way, any plot involving characters going back in time to change the past WILL be paradoxical. Most movies work very hard to keep that paradox in the background and keep the audience happy. What I liked most about this movie was that it did not follow that impulse. As time tales go, this movie provides a fresh take on the old narrative. Instead of following the character that goes back and changes the past, this movie instead follows the character whose life got changed instead. Yes the plot IS hard to follow and at the end it leaves a lot for the audience to figure out for themselves but THAT'S THE FREAKING POINT!!

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

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.

Nothing about this film is game-changing, but it does so much right that i hope more people appreciate. First, the science behind the time travel device at the heart of the government conspiracy- based on a real covert R&D operation! - all checks out. Yeah, not as fun as the DeLorean but more interesting in my opinion. Second, and i think other people have said this already , this is really a movie about grief. After her husband's mysterious death, Helen - still processing all the anger and confusion associated with the death of a loved one - desperately searches for answers. And when she realizes that the same people who killed her future self (who's moved past the anger and onto complacency/ acceptance), she's able to help that future self (and be honest, with most time-travel movies its the other way around). And lastly, three words Linda. F***ing. Hamilton.