Search

» » Coherence (2013)

Short summary

Strange things begin to happen when a group of friends gather for a dinner party on an evening when a comet is passing overhead.
On the night of an astronomical anomaly, eight friends at a dinner party experience a troubling chain of reality bending events.

Trailers "Coherence (2013)"

Relying on a low budget of $50K, the movie was shot over five nights in a single location with dialogue that was largely improvised.

Instead of scripts, the actors would each receive only a small paragraph (that only they would see) as their 'goals' for the day. This allowed for the story to unfold naturally and create genuine reactions in the other actors.

The actor who plays Amir, Alex Manugian, is also the co-writer. He was essentially "the mole" who helped guide scenes if the actors went astray.

When Kevin (Maury Sterling) tries to leave the house by himself, Em (Emily Baldoni) was given a note to not let him leave and his note was to leave.

The story took a year to write.

The set only had 5 crew members: 2 sound guys, the director of photography, the director, and producer Lene Bausager.

Shot chronologically.

According to Emily Baldoni, after the first mysterious thumping on the "door to nowhere", the actors were both scared and very excited about the story that was unfolding. "Of course we knew we were in good hands, but this is when things got really exciting, because we could see how genius and well-planned everything was. We just didn't have any clue."

Lorene Scafaria (Lee) had the least idea of what movie was being filmed since the rest of the cast had done test footage before. She only knew it was going to be improvised. About the third day of filming, she realized it wasn't supposed to be a big, broad comedy.

The neighborhood was supposed to look completely dark when the first group visits the other house. It was the same night a Snickers commercial was being filmed in the neighborhood which used huge lights and hundreds of people.

Emily Baldoni wanted to immediately bust the box open when it was first discovered. The director, James Ward Byrkit, had to step in since the filmmakers only had one box.

Three rental cars were used for the breaking of the glass. The windows were replaced before the cars were returned.

The director, James Ward Byrkit, wanted to use his own house as the setting of the movie. Since his wife was 8-and-a-half months pregnant and wanted a homebirth, she agreed to let him so long as he could do it in 5 days.

The reason the cameras are so shaky was not so much a stylistic choice as it was giving the actors the freedom to go anywhere they wished to.

There were only two cameras used throughout the filming of the movie except during the dinner scene which had one additional camera.

The director, James Ward Byrkit, said the hardest part of directing was keeping everyone quiet since there were so many people who were compelled to speak a lot.

The filmmakers do not reveal how the comet was filmed other than to say it was a practical effect.

Both sides of the phone call at the beginning of the movie were recorded together, instead of the more common practice of adding in the other side later.

The idea for the story came from wanting to tell a story that takes place only in one room.

Maury Sterling was terrified about improvising.

The director, James Ward Byrkit, first met Lauren Maher (Laurie) while working on Pirates of the Caribbean: Svarta Pärlans förbannelse (2003). She played Scarlett, the wench who slaps Johnny Depp.

Test footage was filmed a year prior. The role of Mike's wife (played by Lorene Scafaria) was originally played by the director's wife. She chose not to be in the final film due to being 8-and-a-half months pregnant.

Elizabeth Gracen and Lauren Maher, while enemies in the movie, are great friends in real life.

Lorene Scafaria (Lee) was just finishing writing/directing Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012) before filming.

Emily Baldoni's hair at the end of the movie took a long time to appear messed up after sleeping, because it kept falling back into place.

Hugo Armstrong (Hugh) was the one to actually break the car windows.

The producer, Lene Bausager, flew out from England specifically to make sure the movie would happen.

Alex Manugian (Amir) & Lorene Scafaria (Lee) waited for 2hrs in 40 degree weather before the dinner scene awaiting their entrance. They huddled around the hot dinner they were bringing for warmth.

Emily Baldoni (Em) figured she was the lead of the film around the time that it's shown that she figures out what the numbers mean.

The car that Em (Emily Baldoni) knocks out her doppelganger in is her car in real life.

When the original Amir (Alex Manugian) & Hugh (Hugo Armstrong) finally return to the house, there was a 45min standoff from the others in the house who wouldn't let them in. The director had to step in and allow them in so that the story could progress.

Emily Baldoni & director James Ward Byrkit's favorite scene is when Em (Emily Baldoni) meets "other" Kevin (Maury Sterling) after checking on the car.

When Em (Emily Baldoni) leaves to find a new house, a deleted scene had her pass one where a seance is held over the dead body of Mike (Nicholas Brendon).

The flickering lights in the bathroom at the end are not an effect but actually an assistant turning the lights on and off.

(at around 32 mins) The director, James Ward Byrkit, says his favorite line is said by Alex Manugian (Amir): "We're not splitting up; we're just going into groups." Ward describes it as the skeleton key to the whole movie and also speaks to the subversion of movie tropes in the movie.

The night Em (Emily Baldoni) went searching for different houses was filmed was the same night the director's wife had their baby. It was homebirth held in the same house the movie was filmed in.

There is a deleted scene that explains that the photo of Amir (Alex Manugian) is printed from a battery powered printer of Kevin's (Maury Sterling) due to his profession as a photographer.

(at around 1h 6 mins) When Hugh is calculating the different outcomes on his iPhone, the number of different outcomes is 5,038,848 = (6^8)*3 meaning 6 numbers per person, with 8 people and 3 glow stick colors per house (though the usability of colors in the calculation is questionable).

The debate about what's happening shortly after the book is brought in went on for 45mins and included a speech from Kevin (Maury Sterling) where he talks about traveling through the Middle East.

The blackout cuts used as scene transitions are strategically placed. The filmmakers have implied it has something to do with the fracturing of realities and fit certain rules. Act 1 ends with Kevin (Maury Sterling) discovering the duplicate note, but the blackout cut is not used to transition into the beginning of Act 2, because it does not fit the rules.

In the beginning of the movie, Mike (Nicholas Brendon) says that he played a character on the TV show Roswell (1999-2002). This may be a reference to Brendon's real role on Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1996-2003). It could be an early hint, showing a different reality, in which he played a different character on a different 90s teen series.

User reviews


  • comment
    • Author: Mayno
    A mind-bending and very entertaining independent science-fiction film, Coherence takes place over a single night in which a group of old friends (an ex-lovers) gather for a party on a night when a comet is expected to pass unusually close to the Earth. One of which is played by Nicholas Brendon of Buffy the Vampire Slayer in a scene-stealing role. I missed him.

    At first, glasses start breaking and cellphones shatter. Then the power goes off, except at one house down the street. Then there are strange bangs on the door and bizarre notes left at the house. Things get stranger when two of them decide to go to the lit-up house to make a phone call.

    It's a good film to me because the science-fiction concept ends up reflecting the real-life conflicts between the characters in a very clever way. I'm still not sure how I feel about the ending, but the film is a wild and entertaining ride before it gets there. Scenes propel themselves to other scenes with fast and snappy dialogue. Though it will be compared to films like Primer and Timecrimes, it's a pretty original film overall.
  • comment
    • Author: happy light
    Although the trailer peeked my interest, I didn't go into this movie with high expectations, being that it is a low budget film with actors you don't see to much. But I couldn't have been more wrong.

    The movie has good writing, dialog, all around great acting, and keeps you interested with nice twists throughout the movie. Another thing I liked about it, was the fact that they don't spend unnecessary amounts of time getting into the actual story. Maybe 5 or 10 minutes tops. It also has a storyline that is pretty original in my opinion. Yea, certain little things could be associated with other movies, but overall its an original idea. Sci-Fi movies these days tend to have so many similarities, that when a movie like this comes along, its refreshing to see something new.
  • comment
    • Author: Iaiastta
    There's a lot to like about Coherence. It has an original premise. It's well acted and the dialogue has a nice naturalistic feel.

    Unfortunately, the conflict and paranoid atmosphere felt forced to me. It's all well and good to have one character, Mike, who has a drinking problem and such hostility toward himself that he assumes that his Doppelganger will try to kill him. But why are all the other characters in this film so paranoid and on edge from the beginning? They're a bunch of self-absorbed yuppies, not escaped murderers from a maximum-security prison.

    You're at a dinner party, there's a power outage so the lights go out, and then there's a knock at the door so. . . you startle as if they threw a rock through your window? And then grab a baseball bat before answering? This seems odd, especially when two members of your party have just left to go investigate the house up the street with the intention of asking to use the phone. If it were me, I'd just assume that someone was probably coming to my door to ask the very same thing.

    And once these characters figure out that reality has fractured and that there are duplicates of themselves from another reality running around--I still don't understand what they're so afraid of. I mean, obviously that would be a freaky and unsettling situation. But once your doppelganger has demonstrated, by leaving exactly the same note that you wrote on your front door, that he behaves exactly as you do, wouldn't you at least be somewhat curious to meet him or her? Most of these characters seemed reasonably intelligent and rational. Why should they be so automatically fearful of these alternative selves--even after they've accidentally spent time with them and found them to be benign.

    I think the writer needed a stronger trigger for all the fear and hostility.

    And as several commenters here have mentioned, the camera work is bad. I understand that hand-held is used to add energy and tension to a scene, but there's no excuse for things like that interminable opening shot in which no part of the frame is in focus. It's just annoying.
  • comment
    • Author: Dikus
    I haven't written a review in ages but I feel this deserves one.

    I like to take gambles on movies with promise and it usually pays off - this one certainly did!

    I'm no nerd but I like a bit of sci-fi. I also like movies with a small cast and a small set - maybe I am a nerd. ..or I just have good taste.

    If you have a bit of intelligence and 20 minutes patience - you will be rewarded. It takes that time to be introduced to the characters and the scenario - alright? Alright.

    The acting is pretty spot-on, considering I didn't recognize anyone. (Upon inspection this isn't a bunch of new actors, it has the dude from Homeland and a dude from Buffy.)

    Without spoiling much it ends up tapping in to the 'alternate reality' or 'multiple reality' game - which is cool. It starts off being quite amusing for the viewer but escalates nicely in to a dramatic conclusion.

    All I can say is watch it. I am looking forward to watching it again - it's gone straight in my 'watch again pile' which isn't very large.

    I wish more movies were like this. Well done everyone.

    (My honest review would be a 9, but it deserves a 10 here for the sake of it.)
  • comment
    • Author: JoJogar
    I was fortunate enough to catch this at a local screening in Los Angeles recently and I have to admit that this film took me completely by surprise!

    I knew some details before going into see this film: Low Budget, quick shooting schedule, etc. so I was preparing myself for a bit of a tough ride. I was sooooo happy to see that this was not the case AT ALL! Smart dialogue, fluid and intimate use of the camera, great characters and a storyline... it all comes together to really surprise you!

    Being a bit of a science nut, I also loved the fact that this storyline was ahead of the curve on a newly introduced theory making the rounds in Physics. I won't say anymore for fear of spoiling the ride, but trust me... this is a very well done film!

    If you still hold onto your sense of imagination... if you still believe that anything is possible... if you still love going to movies for a sense a magic and love a good story... this film will not disappoint!
  • comment
    • Author: Purebinder
    I don't like to write reviews,also not much fan of sci-fi (but like thrillers). Before watching the movie I read the user reviews on IMDb. They amazed me and so did the movie! Its simply brilliant! No one can imagine that superb thriller can be made in such a low budget. Great concept, great storyline, great script, great execution. As many are not happy with camera work (as its like found footage type), it wont bother you as movie progresses,in fact it increases curiosity. Movie keeps you guessing and predicting but does not allow you to win. Not much twists, but last few twists are really good. Please watch for off the road concept. It will surely amaze you. Hats off!!!
  • comment
    • Author: Quphagie
    • and so would my rating, if possible, break out the limits of 1-10 What is most funny is that we cannot be sure of absolutely anything depicted, because it is likely this movie is only limited period of a story far beyond it's frame.


    It is clearly shown that Laurie and Mike have no recollection of each other, as if they haven't met before. A director's clue is almost explicit in line "I guess it must be another girl that Kevin dated and Amir is hooking up with". Besides, it is stated the technology failures occurred during the day of the dinner party, the comet was affecting the world throughout some time.

    The whole "original house" may not even be as original, because the group goes outside to watch the comet, and when they return in, one glass on the table is broken. It seems the have changed the entire setting (the house itself) as a unit.

    Bonus clue for the never-ending ending debate: there are two rings after the comet falling apart. If material objects are preserved, so may be are people as well.. Especially if we consider another line told by Lee (or someone else), how the house is the box and they are the Schroedinger's cat. Therefore anyone in the house is not affected by outside turmoils. Original Emily has left her double in the bathtub, in the house. She simply.. cannot be dead or evaporated. Besides, if the strange effects started before the nighttime of previous day, why would they end with the sunrise? Another interesting phenomenon is the last house itself. It seems not to have been impacted at all, by the comet. No note, no one knocking, no interferences according to their behavior.

    The other interesting phenomenon are the electric blackouts, happening for unknown reason. In one interview the director clued on following Emily at all times. However these blackouts are cutting us from her, and that may also be significant.

    The last thing I'd like to mention is the scene by the car, where Emily and Kevin meet, and realize they're not from the same realities. This scene is one of the most eerie scenes I have ever seen.

    Thank you for this movie, it is a treasure for humanity.
  • comment
    • Author: Dagdardana
    I generally like the science fiction films which are lacking of visual excesses, well produced, and specially, based on the exploration of interesting ideas, which don't betray (too much) the "scientific" part of science fiction. Coherence fits into that description, but it didn't leave me completely satisfied; its development is generally credible, but it occasionally makes too much of an effort to create conflict, when a more subtle and rational focus would have exploited its interesting premise better. Everything starts with the passage of the Williams Comet on a very short distance to the Earth... so short that its movement is clearly perceptible. So, its cosmic influence (or whatever it is) provokes a series of phenomenons which affects a group of friends during a pleasant reunion. Obviously, during the development of the night, the tension is incremented and secrets of the past come to light, something which complicates the bizarre circumstances they are suddenly facing. Those secrets and revelations are what I liked the least from the screenplay... the main event is interesting, and I don't think it was necessary to exaggerate the drama with fights lacking of any sense and childish attitudes from characters who seemed sensible some minutes before. Sure, it could be taken as a commentary of the frailty of civilized society, always ready to disappear in front of the slightest alteration of the "status quo", waking the aggression and low instincts from people who considered themselves above those reactions. But I couldn't swallow it. The fights and discussions feel like simple filler which inflates the film and obstructs the analysis of the situation. Fortunately, that is reduced during the last third of the film, letting the characters expose their theories and elaborate possible plans of action, while we witness the gradual dissolution of the reality around them. The actors make a good work in their roles and create a natural dynamic with each other which convinces us of the long friendship and occasional differences between their characters. In conclusion, despite some kinda boring and irritating moments, I can give a moderate recommendation to Coherence, mainly because of the interesting mystery it presents.
  • comment
    • Author: Pooker
    Great cerebral sci-fi. If you're looking for aliens and spaceships this ain't it but if you like the twilight zone kinda stuff this is a good one. Maybe I was in the right mood for it but I really enjoyed this one. The characters were believable and what I thought were holes in the plot turned out not to be. not sure I would have been thrilled to see it in a movie theater at present ticket and snack prices but a good rental. Gotta pay attention and don't worry if you can't catch everything being said in the first part as it's just party chatter.

    Not all questions answered and the premise is not, I think, meant to be exactly the Schrodinger cat thing but just something to motivate the action. Just because the characters discuss something doesn't mean they figured everything out right.
  • comment
    • Author: Rare
    Re-energizing the low budget scifi genre, this mind bender centers around a single dinner party on a night where a comet is passing over Earth, causing some strange occurrences. The film keeps you at the edge of your seat from the first frame to the last, primarily a result of the experimental production process by which director James Ward Byrkit only gave the actors notes about their goals for each scene (there was no script). This allowed the actors to fully improvise the moments when and how they'd attempt to achieve their goals. The tight setting and masterful editing keeps us super close to the action, sometimes purposefully uncomfortably close. The result is that 'Coherence' becomes an instant scifi crowd pleaser...and hopefully the start of a new filmmaking trend. The twists and turns kept me thinking for days, and I can't wait to watch it again. See it with friends -- I guarantee it'll spark some really fun debates.
  • comment
    • Author: Kegal
    One of the more creative movies I've ever seen. The premise showed great promise, and it's fleshed out about as far as you could take it. The problem is... things accelerate at such a high rate, that you quickly figure out that the details don't matter. If the movie had a smaller scale, or a more claustrophobic feel, I think it would have worked better. In a mind-bending movie like this, usually noticing details is what pieces everything together. But here, most of what happens turns out to not be of any consequence. The ending only serves to ram this point home - it seems like they just ran out of ideas and wrapped it up as quickly as possible.

    I think this was a good film... but with a steadier pace, a tighter narrative, and a stronger finish, it could have been great.
  • comment
    • Author: BeatHoWin
    This is a belated review, I missed the film on first release but am overjoyed a friend tipped me to it.

    This review done in 2017. The reason that is important is because I recently did a review of ARRIVAL in which I reviewed the history of the so-called "smart" sci-fi arcs (essentially, movies that make you really really THINK to enjoy them) and concluded that, of the bunch, ARRIVAL was the best.

    Had I seen coherence, however, my vote would have been different. It is hands down the "smartest" of the "smart arcs" I have ever seen and likely may ever see.

    Extraordinary.

    First, this film was produced on a shoestring, with an ensemble cast, and a lot of ad-libbed dialog. Extraordinary.

    Second, the editing is as tight as anything I have ever seen. The more attention you pay to what is happening, the more nervous you get. Extraordinary.

    Third (and pardon me for bringing in this topic) the science is far from crazy. The so-called "Mandela Effect" phenomenon happened in 2015 to 2016 (dozens of Youtube videos) and the attempts to explain it using quantum physics are very close to the explanations in this film. (In some of the Youtube videos, sufferers of the ME are crying into their webcams because their world has been turned upside down and they do not know why.) Finally, the acting is excellent, especially the lead, Emily Baldoni, who shows that she can carry an entire film with facial expressions and empathy ... and deserves much stronger roles than she has been getting.

    Extraordinary in every sense.
  • comment
    • Author: Fiarynara
    interesting and entertaining for me. have to admit that did not understand certain things, however, I had no desire to watch it again to find the answers.

    please see the movie first, as I doubt that comments would make sense....

    1. I think there was no enough motivation to resort to violence.

    2. also, if the characters found out that interfering with another reality would destabilise the balance why would they carry on interfering, why they think that it would solve the problem, besides there is no real problem or threat, everything is based on theoretical propositions. In other words, I did not see enough evidence or necessity (even in their proposed theories) for them to think about threat or violence.

    In the end one of the characters tries to knock/pass out herself from another reality, which was at the initial phase, so I thought she wanted to guide others not to interfere or give some clues but later she resorts to even more violence, which does not make sense to me, as they did not have any realistic theory, which would imply that somehow the other selves from another realities would cause trouble. anyway how hurting/harming themselves would solve the "problem", not demonstrated.

    3. probably most of us would freak out in these kind of conditions but at least one of them should have been interested just to make a contact with him/herself - non of them was holding a gun or knife and non of them seemed a violent person, normal intelligent people, who I am sure would have acted differently in reality as there was no immediate or visible threat to their lives.

    4. maybe there were all hallucinated by that drug, also I am sure there are more clues in the film than I noticed, especially about that drug near the end but as mentioned earlier could not watch second time. furthermore, there was a strange call right at the end, which suggests that it was not a hallucination.

    it is good that the story is open to interpretations but for me the actions pursued by the characters require more motivation and reasoning than shown in the movie....
  • comment
    • Author: JUST DO IT
    The weirdest thing about this movie is that so many people review it favorably. What I saw was a bunch of actors trying to improvise a movie, stringing together supermarket-magazine physics with time-warp and doppelganger clichés, incessantly talking and cross-talking like college students on a high, from time to time coming out with embarrassingly unconvincing bursts of outrage. Never in the history of film, drama, or fiction have characters in a crisis come up with so many half-baked theories and plans at so dizzying a pace. Sex and fisticuffs, as well as "just-normal-life" subplots, are injected with an incoherence that the film's title must be referring to. Maybe the explanation for the rave reviews is that there are actually two or more of Incoherence, and the one I saw was the bad one.
  • comment
    • Author: Lonesome Orange Kid
    There are 2 large flaws in Coherence.

    The main one is being written by a geek instead of a writer. A writer can very well choose the passing of a comet as a source of strange events, but a geek won't resist showing off that he read, and thought he understood, about quantum physics and Schrodinger's cats. A writer would have concentrated on the human story, and left the pseudo-science to our discretion.

    The second flaw is that the thing is filmed like a US TV sitcom, from the selection of camera to the flow of dialogue and the direction of actors. If you're addicted to TV, you may ignore this comment, but to me Coherence offers the same soulless feeling than the post 1980s programs. I don't believe budget restrictions are a cause for such atmospheric platitude.

    The movie does get better towards the end, although that's too late. It gets better when a character finally realises what's happening and decides to act. So far, a bunch of idiots were talking and behaving randomly and uninterestingly. Finally, someone gets us interested in finding out her purpose and her personality. The story would have greatly benefited had that understanding been shared early, with more characters fleshing out from there. Less of the so-called mystery and more of the human motives.

    Small spoiler: The simple fact that none of the (more than) many people involved try to meet their match is an aberration and a missed opportunity.
  • comment
    • Author: Nothing personal
    I love this movie. I have watched it approximately 7 times and I still learn something new each time. A comet passes over and causes a blackout. One house appears to have power in the distance. That's when the confusion starts. Follow closely, especially the photos. Who is meant to be in the house? The acting is great, considering they were given a premise and not a script.
  • comment
    • Author: Samut
    When "Coherence" debuted this summer, it earned very, very little money. So far, since its release in June, this independent film has earned less than $69,000. So it's very, very likely a film you haven't yet seen. As for me, I am actually very thankful I didn't see it in the theater-- and it's for a reason you might not anticipate. It's not because the plot is bad (it's kind of interesting actually) but because the film has horrendous camera-work. I assume that the camera-work is supposed to be hip or exciting--but to me it is nausea-evoking and if I'd seen it on the big screen, I probably would have gotten a headache or begun vomiting. This is because the entire movie has a hand-held camera look and the picture almost never stays still. It almost always bounces around and won't stay on any one object. Now this might work for a very limited number of films--such as a 'found footage' film like The Blair Witch Project. So why, then, does the camera keep moving with a film like Coherence? And, why are some of the edits (particularly early in the film) so seemingly random and some shots out of focus? If you see it, you might just want to take a few Dramamine in order to cope with the camera's movement--which I expect with home movies but not with a film lasting nearly 90 minutes. Can the movie itself manage to overcome this annoying camera-work and make it all worthwhile?

    "Coherence" is set during a dinner party where lots of disparate friends have come together for a nice evening of food and conversation. This occurs during a time when a comet has come very close to the Earth. Inexplicably, it seems to be causing some strange phenomena--such as cell phones which shatter and an internet which no longer functions during the course of their evening. However, the weird happenings get far weirder and the film begins to look a lot like The Twilight Zone-- especially like one of my very favorite episodes, The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street. Not surprisingly, the guests all begin to freak out and paranoia and fear begin to grip them. What, exactly, do they experience? See the movie if you want to know.

    The film turns out to have some positive things going for it. The story is quite creepy and its creepiness is heightened by the music and mood-- and it gets creepier as the film progresses. With better camera-work, it really would have had a lot more chance to work. Now this isn't saying that the script is perfect. A few of the friends at the party are a bit broadly written and annoying--and you question why the other people would associate with them (such as the lady who is into mysticism and the 'funny guy'). But the story is a good example of making the most of a simple idea and setting.

    For me, the camera-work was unfortunately a deal-breaker. In other words, it was so bad that it really ruined the film. However, I should point out that if you read the reviews on IMDb, you'll find the film has two extreme reactions for the viewers--they either really liked it a lot and didn't seem bothered by the awful technical aspects of the film or they hated it. There really aren't too many reviewers with neutral views on the film--it has a truly bi-modal distribution for all you statistics freaks out there. You'll apparently love it or hate it. With better and more professional looking camera-work, I might have been in the former group. But, as it is, I just cannot recommend it. I should point out, however, that there are parts of the film that show the filmmakers have promise and I would like to see more of their work in the future provided they do something about the film technique they use---please, no more camera-work that looks like it was done by attaching a mini-cam to a dog or cat!
  • comment
    • Author: Quttaro
    boo! it's boring and cheaply done. not yet another cheap schrödinger's cat, quantum entanglement thing. not good scifi here. it's funny in the beginning but then it drops to not being very entertaining. thin writing and thin suspense. any elegance is missing from the movie, the only thing i liked was the roswell-reference in the beginning.

    big fan of good scifi but this was just nothing i would call scifi. it has the feel of a mystery TV movie and lacks any cinematic quality. taste is subjective but for me this is very clear. and it has nothing to do with being independently produced. if you really want to see a good indie flick that has a nice touch to it, try "the east". not really science fiction but it has all the important elements.
  • comment
    • Author: Ucantia
    The premise is quite clever and though the explanation for that premise is laughable it still stands as a good idea for a movie. Unfortunately the way it is played out is incoherent, The script is very weak and the characters behave irrationally even though they are mostly idiotic to begin with. The characters they are probably the most annoyingly pretentious and unrealistic group of of 'friends' thrown together in a movie. Everything about them and the way this film plays out is unbelievable as the characterisations and script just don't make sense a whole. Great idea but terribly scripted and ruined by unbelievable and unsympathetic characters behaving irrationally even in an irrational situation.
  • comment
    • Author: Fearlessrunner
    I admit that the premise was pretty cool, but the way the characters act in this film defies any and all credible explanation.

    When some strange things begin to occur the characters immediately jump to the most outrageous conclusions without a hint of hesitation. For example, after a neighborhood blackout a couple of guys return from an outing with a metal case containing pictures of everyone in the group. A real person would assume a joke is being played on them or that someone is having a little fun at their expense. Not this group of people. They immediately assume some unexplainable event must be occurring. Why? Because the plot needs them to. They make absolutely no attempt to find a logical explanation for the events that are going on. To the contrary, based on a single paragraph out of a random quantum mechanics book they all assume that what is happening must be supernatural. From there the movie continues to devolve into a series of ridiculous character actions and motivations that defy any semblance of human nature. In fact, it was beyond ridiculous, I would go so far as to say it was unwatchable.

    If you don't require believable explanations for character motivations then you might be able to enjoy this movie. Otherwise, I'd say skip it.
  • comment
    • Author: Mr.mclav
    If I was a budding film-maker and had a really low budget, this is the type of movie to make like Open Water. Heavy dialogue with a "monster" of some sort to add the element of, "Wow, this is a really low budget movie."

    The transitional editing was annoying and unnecessary. Don't overcompensate for your budget. A movie like this is ALL about confidence.

    This movie was a long episode of; The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street...but not done as well. Makes the original Twilight Zone all the more brilliant proving nothing has developed since because this movie did not capture the essence of terror that episode did. Do your homework Mr Film-maker...if you're going to copy the 50 year old idea, make it MUCH better.

    The acting was good, but the idea needed more depth over improv dialogue. Too much rambling like a modern 30-Something episode which is OK for TV on cable.

    Imagine how different this would be if it was set in the south with truckers or farmers? This is too cliché for the yuppie crowd that has never mowed his lawn and lives in the business world, left helpless without a gardener, auto mechanic, or accountant.

    Overall, boring movie and wonder what the director and writer and producer were thinking. They were not on the same page and did not listen to each other or told the other what they wanted to hear or they just lack talent. This needed much more work.
  • comment
    • Author: Anardred
    SPOILER: A near copy of a movie made a couple of years ago in which a group of people at a party see duplicate copies of themselves and are trapped in this suddenly appearing parallel dimension.

    Besides being so low budget that 99% of the movie is people in a room (a few times venturing outside but mostly not shown - that's real low budget) and talking or for excitement they might argue. A lot of high school drama class acting (stand and stare and limit dialogue to 10 small words or less). Script consists of usual party chit chat with usual infidelity to spice it up. Clichéd.

    Another middle school science level intelligent treatment of the myth about comets somehow connected to Schrödinger's Cat paradox which if you really want to understand it then study your math and physics - don't watch dumbed down interpretations even below Popular Science.

    No ending because it might require some thought (and money).
  • comment
    • Author: Felhalar
    I didn't know what to expect from it, but I am glad I checked this movie out.

    Without giving too much, story is quite witty and entertaining, it will keep you interested in what's going on, even when most of the plot points are relieved. Characters were descent, most of them acted like people would in extraordinary situation that happens in the movie (with few instances where I thought it went into overacting territory). Confused, dazed and paranoid, yet characters always seem to find a way to keep things going.

    Camera work is the movie's biggest problem. I am not sure if it's a trend for new filmmakers, but why they keep using dancing stadycam when movie clearly doesn't need one. It should have been shot as traditional movie. I've seen this in lot of new movies. It kinda adds to intimacy of the movie, but it felt distracting. Still camera didn't go berserk like in most stadycam movies, at least they tried to keep it "tame".

    If you're not easily bothered by "dancing" camera, then this movie might be for you. You should check it out anyway, it's a good example how indi movies can be done and done well. All you need is a good idea and good story and not get lost into pretty CGI and lot of special effects.

    It should be noted that it's refreshing to see group of actors in new horror movies that don't consist of Supermodels-only club. There's variety of actors and actress looks, some better looking then others, so it adds some realism that this could be legit group of friends. Even Emily Baldoni, who is rather beautiful doesn't fall into "supermodel-only" category.
  • comment
    • Author: Gietadia
    Im freaking out right now. I came on here to write a review for this film but when I went to click the usual 'add a review' button it said, 'add another review.' I was like, did someone hack my IMDb account? So I looked around and found this review below. Carville is my hairless cat which anyone can find out but I WAS eating an English muffin while reading the review. wtf is going on?

    If you're reading this Leif. Don't give Carville a bite of your English Muffin or I'll tell Emily about the goat. Go to bed right now and pretend you didn't see that Coherence film and everything will remain normal. In case you don't believe me...7th Grade Chapstick.
  • comment
    • Author: Kulabandis
    Story was quite enjoyable, it kept viewer's attention. Shame that it was filmed with a potato with auto-focus set at "ADD" mode held by a cameraman with Parkinson's. It ruined the experience for otherwise an 8 movie.
  • Cast overview:
    Emily Baldoni Emily Baldoni - Em (as Emily Foxler)
    Maury Sterling Maury Sterling - Kevin
    Nicholas Brendon Nicholas Brendon - Mike
    Lorene Scafaria Lorene Scafaria - Lee
    Elizabeth Gracen Elizabeth Gracen - Beth
    Hugo Armstrong Hugo Armstrong - Hugh
    Alex Manugian Alex Manugian - Amir
    Lauren Maher Lauren Maher - Laurie
    Aqueela Zoll Aqueela Zoll - Extra
    Carrie Patterson Carrie Patterson - Extra
    Kelly Donovan Kelly Donovan - Extra
    Alexis Boozer Sterling Alexis Boozer Sterling - Extra (as Alexis Boozer)
    Mark Ballou Mark Ballou - Extra
    All rights reserved © 2017-2024 hd.thomson-multimedia.com