Read Mixed User Reviews for Predestination

6

ClariseSamuelsMar 11, 2015

This film seeks to explore, reductio ad absurdum, the difficulties imposed on the time-travel genre by a phenomenon generally known as “the grandfather paradox.” This is the problem that arises if one goes back into time and commits an actionThis film seeks to explore, reductio ad absurdum, the difficulties imposed on the time-travel genre by a phenomenon generally known as “the grandfather paradox.” This is the problem that arises if one goes back into time and commits an action that prevents one’s own birth, such as killing one’s own grandfather, but it can also be more liberally applied to any action committed after traveling back into time that may affect the initial action that was taken to go back into time. So, if I travel back before my birth and kill my grandfather before my mother is conceived, I won’t be born; therefore I was not present to make the decision to go back into time to kill my grandfather. Not being there to commit that crime means my mother was born, after all, which means I was born and the loop starts all over again.

Many scientists, novelists, and filmmakers have sought to work around and somehow resolve the grandfather paradox. The only explanations that make sense are the ones that claim we can only back into time to a parallel universe, where we change history in the parallel universe, but the universe we live in stays the same. However, the Spierig Brothers, who wrote and directed the film, have decided to go to Hades in a handbasket and to fly in the face of everyone whoever had a logical thought about cause and effect. Their hero, the bartender played by Ethan Hawke, works for a company that sends him into the past at regular intervals to prevent heinous crimes. They can only make short time jumps, because long jumps damage the mind and cause insanity. Hawke’s character has already made one jump too many, and has taken an unauthorized jump outside the allotted zone, so his mind is warped by time, so to speak, and he is trying to find out the identity of a man called the Fizzle Bomber, who in 1975 kills 10,000 people in New York City with one bomb.

I would yell spoiler alert, but the spoiler is so bizarre, that as one critic put it, you’re left at the end yelling, WTF??? So here’s the spoiler—the bartender/time agent is awaiting the entrance of someone he knows is coming in for a drink, because it’s John, his younger self. John is a transsexual, who was once a girl named Jane who was a baby left on the doorstep of an orphanage. She was born with weird internal wiring, both male and female, but was only aware of her female parts. Then Jane met a stranger one night, who was John traveling in time, lost her virginity, and had the baby alone because John suddenly left her sitting forever on a park bench. After a C-section, complications demanded that the female parts be taken out and the male parts extended. Jane became John. And John comes in the bar telling Ethan Hawke (who is John’s older self looking much different because of facial reconstruction after almost being burned to death) about how the mysterious male left him to have a baby that was later stolen from the hospital. That same baby was delivered to the orphanage, and was named Jane. Yes, that’s right, John, Jane, the baby and the bartender are all the same person, traveling through time, meeting up with each other, and having unorthodox relationships with themselves.

I know you’re asking why didn’t Jane recognize herself after she became John as her own lover who deserted her? There she was, clearly looking at John in the mirror after her sex conversion, but he/she is sitting in the bar telling Ethan Hawke she never saw John again after he left her on the park bench. Her transsexual conversion turned her into John, and she didn’t notice? She apparently had no recollection of what time-traveling John, her future self and past lover, looked like. Maybe memory loss occurs after gender conversion. Anyway, Ethan Hawke’s bartender keeps reliving this scenario because he’s continually going back into time to find the Fizzle Bomber. Finally, he retires from the firm to the year 1975 in NYC, just before the Fizzle Bomber pulls off his major coup, and he finds the Fizzle Bomber, looking very aged and very crazy, sitting in a laundry mat. And guess who it is?

I think the Spierig Brothers are poking fun at the grandfather paradox. At one point, Ethan Hawke’s character bounds down the stairs to the bar’s basement, and he sings a line from a rather tuneless song: “I’m my own grandfather...” That was a clue. Instead of being his own grandfather, he’s actually his own mother, father, and grandfather. Who spawned the first version of Ethan Hawke’s character? No one knows. They’re stuck in an endless loop like “a snake eating its own tail.”

Ethan Hawke does a remarkable job at making this senseless scenario interesting, and Sarah Snook is equally brilliant at playing both Jane and John. And all those physicists out there who are working hard to resolve the grandfather paradox can clearly stick it in their ear, courtesy of the Spierig Brothers.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

5

DukeJonFeb 22, 2015

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Really disappointed with this film, in fact I haven't felt so cheated since I saw "Prometheus". There were so many WTF moments and suspensions of disbelief that it all became ridiculous way before the "twist" at the end. First off, Sarah Snook has to be the least convincing "man" I have seen in a movie. Putting on a jacket and trousers and applying a bit of stubble then saying "Hey! I'm a guy!" just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. Remember Robin Williams in Mrs Doubtfire? Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie? Both far more convincing as women than Sarah Snook is as a guy. The film started off in a really boring way with "John" telling his random life story to a bartender (as you would). Of course the bartender was able to sit and listen for what seemed like 45 minutes (obviously a very slow day at work). Then all of a sudden it's "Hey, you know what? As it happens I can travel through time, here's a gun to murder someone in the past! Come with me!". So then the story actually begins and we find that "John" is actually "Jane" in the future and instead of killing the person who broke "Janes" heart (as of course it someone lets you down in live it's acceptable to murder them) we find that John falls in love with himself as Jane (as you would). Of course you would do that, wouldn't you? All in the space on an hour as well. Of and John makes love to Jane (calling Dr Freud!) and they have a baby who is actually baby Jane who is taken to the past by Ethan Hawke (who, you guessed it, is John and Jane as well) for the circle to be complete. The smoking man who runs everything also pops up quite a lot as well, but mainly to explain the difficult bits for the audience. The whole thing about Jane/John having two sets of internal organs (and not knowing) and sitting up in bed, fresh faced, after the birth having been completely rewired was ridiculous. She kept saying she couldn't look at herself for a long time was also stupid, as people look at themselves dozens of times every day. You just can't avoid it.

What was a shame about this film was that there seemed to be a couple of much better films trying to get out. The whole "training Jane" sequence at Space Corps was intriguing and visually striking, reminding me of Gattaca. Out of interest, why did she go from being top of her class, incredibly physically tough, chosen for an elite government agency, top 1%, etc, to doing menial work such flipping burgers and becoming a live in nanny afterwards? Another part of the film that just didn't make any sense. I was intrigued by the fizzle bomber but this was never explored. Out of interest, how can someone who makes their own bombs in 1975 make something with enough explosive power to obliterate 10 city blocks and kill 10,000 people?

The idea of going back in time to prevent crimes before they happen and eliminate criminals has been done much better than this (Looper). Overall there was far too much suspension of disbelief and unplausible coincidences to make this film work for me. And please, if you have a character who is a guy have a guy actor play actually them.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

psyberdelicFeb 12, 2015

This is based on a short story and there just wasn't enough to justify a full-length film. To get to 90 minutes the script filled up the first 45 minutes with an awful lot of back story that got really boring. And then it just gotThis is based on a short story and there just wasn't enough to justify a full-length film. To get to 90 minutes the script filled up the first 45 minutes with an awful lot of back story that got really boring. And then it just got nonsensical. Production values were OK. Weird story.… Expand

0 of 7 users found this helpful07

All this user's reviews

5

manofthemoonJan 30, 2015

A mixture of every sci-fi time travel film you've seen before. You've been there, seen it, done it already. That's the audience's predestination. Well-acted, but empty. Easy viewing.

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

moviescriticnetJan 16, 2016

That's yet another stylish new age time travel movie based on Robert Heinlein's 1958 short story "All you zombies". The movie is awarded with several Australian awards but tries to be too clever for it's own good.
First of all, while theThat's yet another stylish new age time travel movie based on Robert Heinlein's 1958 short story "All you zombies". The movie is awarded with several Australian awards but tries to be too clever for it's own good.
First of all, while the title of the short story actually makes sense in a clever way, the title of the movie is plain and stupid, as it reveals the plot of the film, which is largely based on the predestination time travel paradox. The big twist of the ending is easily foreseen and is moronic and disturbing (I'm keeping myself from revealing it right now so that you don't have to watch the film at all). I'm rating this film with C- only because it's (too) ambitious and well directed, easily watchable and cause I like Ethan Hawke's tendency to participate in B movies. It's fun to watch but disappointing in the end, so if you are picky with your films avoid it.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

RealMuthaFMay 10, 2015

Putting things simple, this movie is an adaptation of Robert Heinlein's (pretty amazing) short story "All you zombies". I mean literally, the 1,5-hour long movie's plot dedicates around an hour to meticulous depiction of the events of thePutting things simple, this movie is an adaptation of Robert Heinlein's (pretty amazing) short story "All you zombies". I mean literally, the 1,5-hour long movie's plot dedicates around an hour to meticulous depiction of the events of the short story and then proceeds with around half an hour of original script with a VERY predictable plot twist. Now I have to admit, the scriptwriters did a fairly good job adapting a story that's only 10 or so pages long into a full length feature film, but the original story's impact solely depends on the final twist, and the movie merely copies it, so reading the original prior to watching the adaptation eliminates a great deal of positive impression.
In other words: if you have not read "All you zombies", you will probably enjoy this movie and it will bend your mind quite a bit. (Although you can save yourself an hour of time and possibly some money by reading the original story. It's really short, but is as impressive.) If you have, however, you will find almost nothing new here, and you might as well start watching this film from around an hour in. Since I did read the story, I give it only a 6. If I hadn't done this, my score would've been higher, around 8 I suppose.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

DRauchDoes2015Apr 5, 2015

Another success in the recent surge of critically acclaimed Australian genre films (The Babadook, Tracks, to name a few), Predestination combines the narrative ball-of-yarn complexity of Looper and The Terminator with the race/genderAnother success in the recent surge of critically acclaimed Australian genre films (The Babadook, Tracks, to name a few), Predestination combines the narrative ball-of-yarn complexity of Looper and The Terminator with the race/gender transgressing themes of Cloud Atlas to make for a fairly distinctive, if a bit slight and thematically-absent time-travel film.

In execution, Predestination has many of the qualities of the films of Christopher Nolan, both good and bad. On one hand, it is stylishly presented and sets its sights, at least somewhat, on the human element behind sci-fi genre-films. On the other hand, it can also feel needlessly complex, silly, and self important (at times).

If you are like me, someone who takes time-travel films as an intricate puzzle meant to be dissected from the first frame that hits the screen, Predestination will unravel, sadly, much sooner than you may hope, considering all the good will and attention to detail paid to making sure the paradoxes don't collide.

Spoilers for this next section. Where Predestination engages you most is in the portion of the story devoted to John/Jane making sure that John/Jane 'exists', simultaneously becoming his own mother, father, daughter, and son, as well as teacher, guardian, and saboteur. The concept checks out upon retrospection in a 'The Terminator" style paradox and is decently surprising, though I saw all of this coming fairly early on.

One of the errs that ails Predestination from the very start is how the expositional dialogue and often blunt explanation of events doesn't make us work hard enough to make completing 'the puzzle' much more than satisfyingly engaging, when it could have been head-scratchingly abstract and required more retrospection, or even repeated viewings, which I don't feel the desire to make.

Predestination's use of transgender dysphoria melodrama as the pivotal driving narrative involves a plotline that is fairly cliched and contians no new insight into what it means to be someone of intersex orientation, though it does provide the quality that currently sets it apart from other time-travel yarns. Where I take up issue with Predestination is how little the mind-boggling story really touches on any important undercurrent of emotion that other sci-fi head-strainers like Looper manage to without losing narrative propulsion.

John's mission is to stop disasters from occurring through the use of time travel. However, the primary job at hand (preventing a massive detonation in New York, killing 10,000+ civilians) is the only one that Predestination sets its sights on. We have no background as to his past accomplishments as a temporal agent, making his character's importance unnecessarily limited in scope, even though we are convinced that he is this savior of mankind.

In a final minute (supposed) mindfuq, John is forced to play the role of both hero and villain, an ambition intended to fry the brain and maybe distort the audience's sense of sympathy, but instead leaves a feeling of indifference, as it comes across solely as a final act of needless complication, an aspect the filmmakers may feel obligatory for time-travel films at this point in the genre. The more complex, the better right? Yes, but only when it coheres on, not only a plot-driven, but also a character-motivation, level. John's final justification for the bombing could be explained due to the debilitating effects of time-travel on the brain, but is executed in a way that feels cursory at best (and frustratingly brief at worst).

Until that unsatisfying denouement, however, the character's motivations feel realistic enough and the narrative is, though a bit obvious at times, quite engaging. Also, something I haven't touched on at all up until this point (but demands to be lauded) is Sarah Snook's fantastic gender-transgressing performance as the young Jane/John. Her display of both male and female characteristics is in equal measure quite remarkable. Though her voice doesn't quite register as completely masculine, there is a scene where she acknowledges that she never quite learned how to speak like a man, an element of self-awareness that recognizes that the only aspects limiting her from portraying a man more realistically are simply because she is, well, a woman.

On the whole, I have gone more in depth for this review than I intended and, without overwhelming with any further text, Predestination is a solid time travel film and makes an even more enticing case for the continued production of genre movies in Australia.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

BITESCREENJun 22, 2017

m gemächlichen Zeitreise-Krimi Predestination springt ein Zeitagent (Ethan Hawke) zur Terror-Prophylaxe durch die Dekaden. Auf der Spur des Sprengstoff-Attentäters “Fizzle Bomber” trifft er 1975 in Barmann-Tarnung auf John (Sarah Snook), derm gemächlichen Zeitreise-Krimi Predestination springt ein Zeitagent (Ethan Hawke) zur Terror-Prophylaxe durch die Dekaden. Auf der Spur des Sprengstoff-Attentäters “Fizzle Bomber” trifft er 1975 in Barmann-Tarnung auf John (Sarah Snook), der ihm über sein Leben als Frau, Geheimagent sowie seine verschwundene Liebe erzählt. Doch was hat das alles mit dem Barkeeper zu tun? Predestination kommt nur langsam in die Gänge und schreckt mit einer wirren, etwas hanebüchenen Geschichte ab. Die fasziniert jedoch im Filmverlauf und mündet in einem Finale, das Fans von 12 Monkeys und unglaublichen Twists mit der Zunge schnalzen lässt. Obendrein untermalt eine stilvolle Film-noir-Optik das Geschehen passend – im Gegensatz zum übertrieben dramatischen Score.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

amheretojudgeMar 31, 2019

A Guy Walks Into A Bar.

Predestination Spierig Brothers are creating havoc on screen as far as they are teasing us with the romance. And there is a whole lot of electric charge between Ethan Hawke and Sarah Snook. So innocently sinister isA Guy Walks Into A Bar.

Predestination

Spierig Brothers are creating havoc on screen as far as they are teasing us with the romance. And there is a whole lot of electric charge between Ethan Hawke and Sarah Snook. So innocently sinister is their love, that it describes the entire film within that one conversation. To be fair that one conversation takes most of the time, in fact the first half, but this has always been Hawke's forte. There is no one that can talk like him on screen. He looks at her with an attractive fire in his eyes and you sink deep in the film. The Spierig Brother, screenwriters and directors, are playing a safe game by doing so, since the rest of the film is a basic time jump from one place to another, the first half is soothingly calm and harrowing equally.

Sarah Snook that goes through a physical transformation is exceptionally good in her portrayal to a degree that she challenges Hawke blatantly when they go head to head in a bar. There aren't any big themes explored in here, just so that if you are expecting, which works surprisingly in its favor. As we have experienced before too, in order to do so, it can come off as a big misconstrued hotchpotch that dulls our palette.

It promises an engaging time travelling adventure and that's what this thrilling ride offers, strong in its believable mythology, it hits hard and fast. This loopity-loop screenplay obviously comes handy with a hindrance in the structure that is ironically its most valuable asset in order to reboot one's mindset, a refreshing take on the whole time travelling religioso. Predestination is destined to stay within its barred sharp vision that may fail to cut across the genre, but the room has enough energy to feed on textbook thrills.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

TheCritic404Jul 4, 2021

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This brilliant piece of Art reflects the choice we make throughout our life, how our past can effect our present and future, or at least this is the way i look at it. It also indicates how we humans can be totally different people in different stages of our life's… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

DunkaccinoMay 25, 2022

Predestination uses its shock value in the last half to trick the audience into thinking we saw an intelligent, mind-bending thriller. Truth is, the plot is beyond ridiculous and I did not buy a second of it.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews