A complex picture, trying to play on the field of an exciting thriller and at the same time, flirt with an abstruse arthouse, thereby pursuing goals that she clearly can not afford. Obviously, like a white day, that the creators wanted to please us and you, and in the worst case, get praise from high-brow critics, but in the end ... they got into the muzzle.
The film has positive features and qualities, but for the most part, The Uncertainty Principle is a slurred drama that lends itself to logic. In the center of the story, a young couple in love Bobby and Kate, who one day finds someone’s mobile phone in a taxi. Deciding to return it to the owner, Bobby leaves several subscribers from the contact list, his data to return the find. From this moment, the heroes begin to pursue, some dangerous people, constantly demanding to give them this mysterious phone. But don’t be so naive, counting on the fact that other viewers simply did not understand or underestimated the interpretation of this non-standard film. No truth, do not even dare to roll your lips in the hope of something wonderful, because the plot, in fact, does not play a role. He is here, purely symbolic, and we can even safely say that for decency. Basically, this movie, with grief in half, can be called a movie, since it consists of a set of shots, somehow knitting together. Hence take their roots, audience discontent and disappointment, pushing aside, not the best conclusions, regarding the film.
What is left in the memory after watching this picture, besides the fact that it is just a raw cut of frames? The answer is simple, just two things: The first is the boring, tiring running of the main characters from a mysterious killer. And the second – long conversations Kate and Bobby about their feelings and their indecision to become parents, the future baby. Agree for such an odious project, these topics are somehow not enough to impress the “not yesterday’s” viewer. And besides, there is always an unpleasant feeling that the creators, at every step, make themselves great smart people, although they do not fully understand what they are talking about. With all these “jumps” of the narrative, from one point to another, the characters will make some quantum leap in time, going to another dimension.
To God, I do not approve of such flirting with timekeeping, to put it mildly, and, as in the case of the “Uncertainty Principle”, I simply do not understand. It’s one thing if such “badies” really benefit the film or without such things, well, it’s unreal to tell a story. And it is quite another thing when a nondescript plot that does not require any tears is cut into separate parts, and then at random they are glued together, mounted and tried to pass off as an original innovation. It is such a thorny path, and passed this tape, created according to the recipe “How to mow under a smart movie?”. So, to the detriment of the integrity of the plot, but with subtle hints of ghostly depth, such experiments appear.
Often, such a movie is saved by talented actors / actresses, pulling out incomprehensible material, on their fragile shoulders. In this case, this difficult task fell on Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Lynn Collins – young, but already such interesting performers who managed to decorate their duet, even such a “muddling”. In this abyss of nothingness, languishing in its fictional world of significance, in their game, you find some comforting outlet. Around these soothing moments, comes the hope that this film was not watched in vain. Still, it starred good actors, albeit in a sense, and on an empty background.
About directors, I will not say anything. Everyone already knows that such methods and imitative lotions are addressed mainly by inexperienced directors, or at all, who have not yet sniffed film, pathetic debutants. In any case, this work is template, tasteless, little remarkable and almost nothing, leaving behind. She is not able to give anything to her viewer, since in the script it is a solid porridge, and from the point of view of the cinema it is everything, just moving there here, a running line of pictures, the meaning of which is more difficult to recognize than the ink blots on the Rorschach Tests. So arm yourself with patience and stock up on Coke chips so that you can sit out a session of this overly abstruse picture more slowly.
6 out of 10
The Uncertainty Principle is a movie for gourmets!
I came to this movie by accident. In an Eastern market, a young man gave me one local coin (approximately 2.5 euros). When I finally realized from other merchants that the coin was fake and no one would take it from me, I went to the counter where they gave me the fake coin and asked me to weigh the grapes. When I paid the same coin, the merchant (the father of that young man) scornfully and evilly threw it back on the counter. I objected that I had received this coin 10 minutes ago from his son standing next to me. The son, since there was nothing to cover, had to say that the coin was not fake, but slightly wounded. The coin was taken away and even given another change in normal coins. In the morning, eating grapes, I remembered the expression “wounded coin” and decided to Google what it means in Russian, worn or damaged coin? I never found a translation of the “wounded coin,” but I happened to find a picture from the beginning of the film in which Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s character flips a coin. I liked his companion so much that I found out that the title of the film Uncertainty is not Russian "The Uncertainty Principle" and can be seen. I was looking forward to an interesting movie starring the charming Lynn Collins. The beginning was intriguing. I thought I was watching a Zen movie, like The Butterfly Effect, where the slightest event like a butterfly flight changes the whole future. In such films, they show options for the development of events, starting from "fork". But no, in our case it is not clear why there was a fork (the meeting of our heroes on the bridge), it is not clear how both variants of events ended.
Going back to acting, I can’t throw a hairpin at them. Their play is wonderful. I can’t say the same about the director and the writer. More precisely, the work of the writer remains completely hidden from the viewer, because what the viewer sees does not carry any logical message. The viewer painfully begins to search for the second and third, hidden meanings, but they also do not exist.
The actors convey the feelings of a happy couple on an affectionate summer day. You forget that you are outside the scope of events, but the script does not allow the talent of young actors to manifest.
In conclusion, turning to everyday language, I want to note that the delusional story throughout the film naturally and logically ends in nonsense, or rather nothing.
Perhaps the writer and the director can explain what is happening on the screen, but throughout the film they failed.
You know, a very strange and peculiar movie. Nope. Of course, I understand that the writers (they are also part-time directors) tried to portray something there. But this is what they did?
A young couple finds a lost phone in a taxi. The guys take it for themselves, in order to return the thing to the owner. And the owner, like this, comes out on them. Now, the heroes are forced to flee from a dangerous pursuer. By the way, they, the pursuers, seem to be two. But, violent youth, apparently, having watched the movies, decides to cook on the find. They demand a tidy sum from the pursuers. Not a penny, but five hundred thousand dollars. I must say that all this is ridiculous, in general, that. Oh, come on. Why not? It's a painting, it's all right. In movies, as we know, that doesn’t happen. The saddest thing is that in this show, very often, interesting plot notes slip. It felt like the writers simply couldn’t put everything together properly. So, in my opinion, we got a crude and slurred project, which, despite this, is not without glimpses of high-quality execution. What kind? Well, first of all, it's not a bad idea. There are analogues, but there are no visible patterns. You can think of Cellular. But, no. Cellular is another case. It's full of dynamics, it's tightening, and it looks easy and confident. Which, of course, cannot be said about this film. Well, overall, it's not a bad idea. The second plus the tape is a good acting duo Lynn Collins and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. You did well. Lynn Collins is a damn attractive girl who, moreover, is not deprived of talent. And Joseph, in such roles, looks at the place. Among the actors, unfortunately, there is no one to mention. The rest are here for the furniture. No more. Well, the camera work is satisfactory. I have no information about the money spent. However, it is not difficult to notice that the painting took little money. At least for the filming process itself. So, any dynamic chases, shootouts and fights, you should not wait. But there's plenty of talk. No offense to romance. In love, the carrots of the main characters, I believed. It is not known how things were with acting fees. But I don't think they made much money.
What else can I say? The film left different impressions. But mostly clouding and entanglement. And, well, that entanglement was due to the genius and complexity of the plot. Ah, no. It's just a porridge. I won't recommend it. You may decide to take this step yourself. I'll rate the picture fifty by fifty. I'll probably score for Lynn Collins. You could, too, put green on it. First of all, the objectivity and honesty of the reviewer. Well, the girls, and the girls, later. That's the case.
A fascinating thriller. Two developments of the same story. Double storytelling - and the main mystery from beginning to end.
1) A young couple of lovers find a phone in a Manhattan taxi, and after going through a little friction, decide to call the owner. I didn’t mention the “frictions” for nothing, since the viewers are only told that the main characters had a choice – to call or not. This attitude will appear more than once in the plot, reminding that no one was forced to do anything. A choice is a conscious decision.
2) A young couple in love in Brooklyn is going to a family dinner, arranged by relatives of the girl. It feels like the family is simple, but Kate is always uncomfortable. Their evening with Bobby goes quite calmly, and it seems that everyone already considers him his own, but something alarms her. The girl is quite careful to communicate with her mother, and it is clear that their relationship leaves something to be desired. In addition, Kate and Bobby take care of the dog, and try to find its owners.
The action of the picture develops during the day and the next morning. You get used to them quickly, as if you were living with them. It would seem that two parallel stories are connected with the same characters. It's not unequivocally stated in the film, it's only suggestive, but I think the only thing that unites both stories is that very sign of uncertainty.
In the first case, the characters experience “external” changes – they embarked on an adventure to find the owner of the phone. Like a shake-up designed to show how they'll get out of this situation. Development reaches its climax when good money and your own life are at stake. Where will Kate and Bobby end up choosing? This choice will allow them to assess what is more expensive for them at the moment.
In the second case, everything is much calmer, here the “internal” experiences are evaluated, which make up the core of the fact that it is at the family table that Kate is thinking about the future with Bobby, about their child and what life awaits next. I believe that in two stories – the phone found and the dog found – there is a parallel with the same message – the search and the subsequent choice.
And although the first one is a bit more action, the whole movie is boring. Heroes are too simple, weak character, pay much attention to family and surrounding opinion. Notice how visually the authors play with the colors – if you look closely, we all see yellow and green shades. I was constantly waiting for some kind of trick or setup, waiting for both parallels to find common ground somewhere (for example, a familiar bridge), but they remained themselves - in each of the stories their development and ending. And the choices that Kate and Bobby make.
What happens if the filmmakers want to combine two different genres and two completely different films in one movie? There's going to be some uncertainty. Oh, wait a minute, that's the name of the movie.
The idea was how much the fate of a person can depend on the choice. You either sit, tormented in doubt and wait for the problem to resolve itself, or act immediately.
We see two stories about a couple of young people, but these stories are not much combined, at first glance. The first is a simple low-budget action movie about a guy and a girl who run into trouble, and then make plans how to get benefit from these troubles. In the end, they get nothing and the movie ends.
The second story is about the same girl who doubts everything and doesn’t know what she wants, and about her boyfriend who kind of wants her. That's all - meeting with relatives, everyday problems, boring dialogues, sometimes taken out of context.
And the whole film consists of excerpts of these plots, shown one by one. You have to sit and watch two movies at once and wait for them to come together. But this does not happen, and the connection between them has to be thought out. There is no development of characters, dramatic and emotional collisions too, one uncertainty.
Technically speaking, the film is not so bad. Good camera work, good sound, nice picture. But if the theater begins with a hanger, then the film begins with a script. In the case of the “Uncertainty Principle”, it was the script that blew up, spoiling a good idea.
6 out of 10
It’s one of the worst movies I’ve seen (if not the worst). I am so sorry for the wasted time. In both lines of this “masterpiece” there is absolutely no meaning. The first non-thriller is generally absurd, some ridiculous phone was found, some people chase it, kill everyone in the way, and they snatch away. Then suddenly decide to convert your adrenaline into hard currency. But they turn to their trouble not to the nice guy Peretz, who gave money without question, but to the terrible Russian Dmitry. They shouldn't be. As a result, even a little running, they decide to wash their hands of the phone and this happy end the line. Some kind of nonsense is not interesting and unnecessary to anyone. They didn’t know what they were doing, they were shocked. It was not necessary to turn all this and disturb naive moviegoers.
Better line two. But also without beginning, without end, and of course without meaning. The directors are not familiar with this word at all. It's clearly not VGIK. Just a big Mexican (or Spanish) family gathering out. He found Tiger's dog, she told her sister she was pregnant, Uncle Jose forgot Hector had died a long time ago. All this brings little joy from watching. Although the GG actress played well, it will probably go far. Well, good luck with her life and all the good. The other actors and directors were not impressed. The film deserves
The movie. A bit of an unusual movie. The main thing: the idea of the film itself is interesting. It turns out that the heroes of the film began the New Day, and they do not know what to do with it, where to go, what to do. They ask each other about it. - What do we do today? - Where do you want to go? These are two young people who don't know what to do yet, who have free time, who can spend essentially anything. But one thing gets in the way. Indecision, Doubt, Reluctance to make a choice. Very interesting words of the hero Levit, who says: I am not afraid of change, it is better to do something than do nothing. It seems to me that this is very close to many young people who have reached the age of majority and are left to themselves, who are now free to manage their time. But they do not know what exactly they would like to do today, although in general, they know in which direction they should go.
So they make a choice. Yes, indeed, very different things happen to them - having made one choice, they are in mortal danger, the other way gives them a completely different, but I think the main idea of the film is that after this day (or two different days of the same day) nothing radically changes in their lives, the days flow in parallel, and if in one day the heat and fear, then in another our characters feel about the same, then everything calms down, evening, night comes. And in the morning everything falls into place again and again it is time to ask each other.
- What are we gonna do today?? ?
If you ask yourself this question, then you have a chance to live the day very interesting.
It is a pity that not everyone has a choice and many people simply do not have to ask themselves this question.
There are no hopeless situations. There are situations out of which you are not satisfied.
Here is another film from the series "Big Meaning in Simple Truth". To understand the essence of this film and its idea, you need to look without interruption and delve into every action of the characters. At first, nothing is clear. Everything seems like an empty run that makes no sense. In fact, it's not. We are shown the same characters in different situations. The picture switches from one life to another, leading a parallel plot - and these are not different people, but different lives. The director sort of shows us an alternative to this couple -- what would have happened if they lived that way, and what would have happened if they lived a completely different life. The fact is that the meaning of this film is in its title and in the two main scenes that take place on bridges. The first scene is where the film begins and the second scene is where the film ends.
In the first scene, the girl and the guy can not decide on something. As a result, they run in different directions. They run fast and fast. As they run, either away from each other or towards each other, we are shown a view from above, and we see that they were on the bridge. This is a very important point that should not be missed, because the purpose of the director breeding this couple on the bridge will be revealed at the very end of the film and thereby logically conclude it.
The second scene, , is divided into two parts. We were shown the lives of two couples, and to be more precise, cases from their lives. Moments when they are driven into a dead end and the decision does not come to mind. They all ended up on the bridge again. Alone, running away from their problems. Others, walking around with their problems. The culminating moment when everyone suddenly realizes that if there is no way out, then there is still a way out (a little tautology turned out). And in two lives, the same dialogue is heard: What are we going to do now? - Nothing, just keep going. Perfect ending. Deserving of all praise.
“The Uncertainty Principle” is when you stand on a bridge that you built yourself, and you don’t know what to do, but it’s your bridge and there’s definitely an exit on it, so why not walk this long pavement together, rather than running on different sides, pretending that everyone has to decide which way to go. Most importantly, it’s not about the situation that hangs over you. If it wasn’t, there would be something else where it would be the same. It's always about us. If something has already been done, it cannot be avoided, it remains only to move on, because life is far from over.
It's a great movie. A little loaded, but very instructive. If you want to understand or understand what the Uncertainty Principle is, then you need to watch this film very carefully. Good impressions, everyone.
Bobby and Katie find the phone in the taxi, report it to the communications service and after a couple of minutes there is the owner who called himself Dmitry, they agreed to meet, but then the phone rang again. So what is this phone? Should I just give it away? Katie and Bobby try their luck. But not every Dmitri who called himself. .
“I’m not afraid to change anything, I just think it’s better to do something than do nothing.”
I came across the film because of the participation in it in the leading role of Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Scrolling through the description, reviews and assessments, the above I was not particularly impressed and I was encouraged only by the fact that this film starred my favorite actor. But I must admit, the film impressed not only the magnificent game of Gordon-Levitt, but absolutely everyone. Great story, exciting story. I approve the idea of a double plot, it's like 2 films in one, drags you with your head, the film drags you from one story to another, only you have time to realize the complexity of life choices, thereby it justifies its name "The Uncertainty Principle" or simply "Indecision".
Very, very, very pleased with his acting talent Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who played Bobby. An unparalleled game, once again the actor admires me, and I look forward to his further paintings, because he clearly has talent! BRAVO!
Also liked Lynn Collins in the role of Katie, her charming game and naively cute simplicity. They looked very good together.
What now? I don't know. Maybe we should just go ahead.
Once again, I want to praise the excellent idea of the directorial duo. In one life, in one destiny, there is always a choice. A choice between two days. To say that this is a great movie is to say nothing. Bravo! It was a wonderful movie.
PS: Nothing will change if you doubt it. Until a choice is made. The choice is always yours.