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.
rosencharlie935
Note: This review contains mild spoilers - but nothing that would affect your enjoyment of the film.I saw Dimensions at the Cambridge Film Festival and ended up going to see it twice. It is a beautiful, thoughtful and interesting piece of work and evidently shot on a micro-budget. At the Q&A afterwards the filmmakers mentioned someone had said it is as if 'Merchant Ivory had made Primer'. I think that is a fair description.The acting is superb throughout, with some extremely emotional scenes and I found myself quickly falling into this strange little world 'Cambridge, 1921 - one of many'.On first viewing, I primarily watched the story unfold without really exploring the concepts that are woven into the film. As the film progresses (mild spoiler alert) it is unveiled that it is set in a parallel universe, that is almost identical to ours, save a few differences. This doesn't change the plot - it is almost as if it is just a bit of background information, another layer. I like that.This is definitely the sort of film that you need to engage with, and the group I was with discussed it in length after the first screening. One of my friends mentioned that (spoiler alert) she thought that the events in the film were all the product of the lead characters imagination. On second viewing, I must admit I think she has a point - but I like that the filmmakers leave it up to the audience to decide!The key is Stephen's (the lead characters) conversation with Dr Schmidt (a University lecturer). Throughout the film the two characters discuss 'reality'. Is it possible that we imagine our own reality, to fit with what surrounds us?I don't want to give the impression that the film is overly philosophical. I think it perfectly possible to ignore all the parallel universe / reality questions and just watch the characters interact and the plot develop in beautiful surroundings. The film is at heart a love story, albeit it one set in a sci-fi environment.Highly recommended.
anthonydavis26
This review - and the comment - was written at Cambridge Film Festival (15 to 25 September 2011), where the film had its UK premiere* Contains spoilers *Although it is received wisdom that 'I can't be in two places at once (or at the same time, in a variant)', not only is that usually just an excuse, but it is affected by developments in cloning.All that apart, the immense popularity of Dimensions, now (after screenings in Screens 2 and then 1) shown again, meant that I could go through the wormhole of watching again: the phrase does not sound favourable, but it is not intended unfavourably, as I was viewing twice to see what happened to something that I thought fine the first time.Why was it fine? It is an extremely intelligent film that uses the concept and theory of time-travel to say something about what I described in my blog as longing. I still think that it is longing, not just obsession – one can be obsessed about something (e.g. Jackie Chan cutting my head off) that (without being psychoanalytical), on the face of it (pun intended!), one does not long for, and long for something that does not obsess one.I said longing for something that one cannot have or that may not do one any good. In this film, that turns out not to be true on either count, and also involves a paradox. The events are separated by fifteen years, but, in some respects, the characters seem unchanged, seem stuck in some childish ways (as we all probably are – now who wants to play the psychology card, after all!), seem full of what I want to call longing. (I call it longing not only because I can't use the German word Sehnsucht, and, because of the connotations, I don't want to use yearning.) I asked a question about that at the premiere – the younger actors had had a chance to speak to their counterparts (and vice versa). What I find myself thinking, this time around, is that there is a generational as well as a dimensional character to all that we see, a temporal distortion that, as much as Alice's worlds reinterpret the present from which she enters Wonderland or the other Looking-Glass House, ripples (a key word in the script) as water, particles or time do with their differing wave-fronts. Which is why Ant Neely's brother's house on the river at Cambridge is such a benefit to and feature of this film.This Cambridge-driven film – Ernest Rutherford split the atom here in 1917, which was then done under both his direction and controlled conditions in 1932 - buzzes with that innovation, but buzzes in the direction of feelings, and Olivia Llewellyn's acting beautifully embodies the spirit of a bright and clear academic mind, seeking to help Henry-Lloyd-Hughes (as Stephen) achieve his brilliant aims.* * * * *To say a little more, enough to tease (as the film often does), about mirror-images, there is a scene that shows Stephen and his friend Victoria after they have tumbled to the ground in a sort of chase of and with themselves.As with something that happens later, which may (as Stephen's cousin Conrad first claims, and later appears unsure about it) - or may not - have been an accident, and which literally ties in with this moment, there is an embodiment of a skein, of the film's title's 'tangle of threads' (or the potential for it). It's a game, but there's bondage, the shackling that Joyce McKinney asserts was a sort of chosen cure, a sort of healing, in Tabloid, and with it there's the breathlessness associated with the other activity, there's the arbitrary rule-making that the game has to be played one way (counter-clockwise), an approach that can form rigid habits and stronger disciplines, not always for one's - or anyone else's - good in life (as with Stephen's father's former friend Richard?).So the mirror-image, of the game being played clockwise, can be imagined - as can any other action involving Victoria and Stephen - happening, but it offends against the street being declared to be one way. (Not too far off from thinking again of Rutherford, of thinking how the characters in Michael Frayn's Copenhagen revolve, dance, around each other like particles in a simple atom...) And the transposed image, the left / right flip? Set aside whether the falling down together, linked, was (as with Conrad's accident) deliberate - although it had to seem so, or not ambiguously so, for us: when we see Stephen and Victoria on the ground, from the waist up, side by side, they are, first of all, in that order, left to right. The picture (taken by the cinematographer, but not one that otherwise existed for Stephen to see (directly)), when he calls it to mind later, becomes Victoria and Stephen, she now on the left. (It is nearly summoned again, but we do not actually see it, are just so reminded of it that, as a ghost of a view, we could almost swear that its image is on our retina at that point, because we know it - or think that we know it - by then.) So these are the hints of Alice, these are the suggestions that, in a world as like ours as the one that she first sees in Looking-Glass House, things may be subtly different, actually harmful: as The Annotated Alice observes, with Martin Gardner talking about left- and right-handed molecules (which are identical but for being mirror-images of each other), milk would not be safe for Alice or her cat to drink in the world beyond the looking-glass. Matter and anti-matter? It goes on...Where would we be without the imagination of Ant Neely (the film's writer) or of Lewis Carroll? The poorer for it, I think.
