Predestination

It's driving me crazy. This whole film is a paradox, its plot was probably never written... And yet it was filmed... Or wasn't it? Wow... The first fifty minutes are a great spectacle and so much emotion is hard to see in science fiction (I remembered Gattaca), but the rest, which gradually leads to the long-awaited and very blatantly hinted at point, unfortunately has to layer one "shocking" paradox on top of another in order to cover it up. The result is a time-traveling science fiction stew that leaves you with a great desire to see it again and a great fear that it will be even worse the second time around. Three and a half. (09/28/2015)

The timing remains on a minimalist plane for an incredibly long time. It plays on dialogues, the power of the gaze, and Sarah Snook's fascinating performance. And given how Ethan Hawke revels in conversations, the rest of the running time logically begins to flag despite its unrelenting tension. Which doesn't matter as much as it might seem – of course, only if the viewer is able to engage in the game the screenplay presents. Many betrayals can be sensed from the opening scene, but the barrage of twists that Michael and Peter Spierig start throwing in towards the end truly takes your breath away. Perhaps the next viewing will reveal if this predestined violin case is really an all-encompassing appetizer that pleasantly unsettles with its blend of unconventional romance, uncompromising sci-fi, and unusual editing – or if it gets tangled up in the constantly escalating series of plot twists. (01/06/2015)

Here even the word “paradox” falls short… In other time-travel films, time paradoxes are obstacles that the filmmakers try to overcome to no avail, and which fully manifest once the viewer begins to question the logic of the story, but in Predestination, the paradox is the alpha and the omega of the story. The creators carefully build it, almost trying to make it as paradoxical as possible. (11/25/2014)

A sci-fi story full of temporal paradoxes, whose highlight is the first half marked by a retrospective narrative of an extraordinary human destiny. If the whole film were as gripping and atmospheric as this opening passage, which gave me pleasant chills just by the beautifully matched shots of the faces of the two discussing characters, it would be an absolute and unprecedented hit. But the last thirty minutes not only made my head too muddled with all the time shifts, but also completely disrupted the existing harmony of the narrative, which up until then had made me purr with unconcealed bliss. It's as if the Spierigs wanted to convey an awful lot, but while I bought and believed it at the beginning, by the end I was barely listening. Great shame. 70% (07/08/2015)

What came first; eggs, chicken or rooster? School through play or in other words an introduction to the world of time paradoxes in illustrative practice, in which the creators do not make the viewer feel like an idiot and very soon leave the game to present a big point, because they know that you know anyway; after all... You have seen the name, right? The only problem is that the whole smartly well-thought and described "circle paradox" (or Novik's principle of self-consistency, if you want) denies itself (!mild spoilers follow!) by those stupid newspaper clippings. Because if in the past, there will be newspaper articles from the future that never happened, then all the unchanging predestination of the above paradoxes in the personal line is kind of upside down, right? (11/24/2014)