This movie was better when it originally aired in 1966 as Star Trek - The City On The Edge Of Forever. Regret is a powerful thing. We want to change the past. We wish desperately to change the pivotal events in our lives. But our simplistic mortal brains can't even comprehend the consequences of changing the flap of a butterfly's wings on the other side of the world.

Surprisingly watchable due to the performances and the idea that by using their miraculous machine they can kill someone in the past and thereby save others lives as a result. The science gets a little murky but the human emotions are genuine and the cast does a great job. I’ve seen lots worse sci-fi.

I wanted to like this film, but it gets super corny and ridiculous at times. Great concept, but just didn't hit home for me.

Terrible sci-fi writing that fails to be convincing. Also why is Judy Greer crying in every scene.

A solid piece of sci-fi drama, "Aporia" uses something of curveball on the time machine concept to change the past, only to have those changes influence the present in ways they could not foresee. Of course, this leads to the main themes/ideas of the movie. There's moral condundrums and the emotional toll their actions have on the main characters. If you could stop s/one in the past to prevent a tragic outcome, would you do it, and how far would you go? Then, how would you deal w/ unforeseen ramifications that could also be traumatic? The acting if strong in general, lead by Judy Greer as a grieving widow who is trying to maintain a semblance of normalcy and a happy family life. Also good are Gathegi and Maadi as the husband/father Mal to Greer's mother role, and their friend who works with Mal to create the machine which is largely a Macguffin for the plot. Nice work by director/writer Jared Moshé and the movie's crew. 3.2 stars

A surprising good time travel type movie, more based around the consequences than the science. Light but well made.

Time travel’s always a cautious risk, and this seems to be more strictive in the approach than most as thoroughly discussed with care whilst the usage remains constant on differential maturity, stirred and coasted on the emotional performances to captivate ambiguous satisfaction that feels more polished regarding the subject. (B)

As Judy Greer has established herself as the queen of Indie films, she lives up to the title in this quasi-science fiction project. It was a near perfect Kafkaesque little film shot in a part of Los Angeles that is rarely exploited as a film location in and around Los Angeles. It was a treat to see a different view of the greater L.A. area. The thesis and results hold up to most space time continuum speculation. My only problem with it was the scientists didn't do enough research on the characters they were affecting and how many people and events their attempt to right past wrongs would be changed by their actions. "It's A Wonderful Life" paved the way for speculative sci-fi and how a single person missing from a timeline could affect so many others. In spite of the magic wand waving this film handled the issue, it was still very good. As a family melodrama it worked. As a light-weight science photoplay it worked. The cliff hanger at the end also worked. I would recommend it to date night-ers and sci-fi lovers. This film serves it up with just desserts. Sorry for the dad pun.

Pretty simple, kind of like a one trick pony. Not a bad way to spend a couple of hours.

If you’re feeling “multiverse” fatigue, take heart, for this is a fresh, soft-SciFi film that puts Judy Greer in the lead of a story concerning grief, unimaginable choices, and the effects of interfering with time. Jabir (Payman Maadi), a friend of Sophie’s (Greer) late husband, Mal (Edi Gathegi) contrives to create a past-assassination machine while attempting to make a time machine. The “how, exactly?” is fuzzy and never actually shown — one of my few gripes with the movie — but the effects are monumental; with Jabir’s machine, which is a tangled, cyber-punk morass of wires and screens residing in a spare bedroom, Sophie can shoot a bullet-like force of energy into the past and kill the drunk-driver (Adam O’Byrne) before he gets behind the wheel of the car and hits her husband. This decision is far from the crux of the movie, which is much more concerned with the ever-expanding ripple effects of these decisions. Unsurprisingly, this is a power that is too tempting to shelve after only being used once. Jabir’s claim that there just aren’t people to like… discuss science with him is ludicrous. Any city and many, many towns have universities with plenty of scientists and I also discern that this movie takes place in Los Angeles, the second largest city in the country. We don’t learn where Jabir is from, but I can’t imagine that his Middle Eastern homeland has men just pondering the laws of quantum physics over their morning tea. Also, this is the third movie from 2023 that contains a plot point concerning children with seizures. The final shot on the corner is excellent, even if I had to mull it over for a few to really drink it in. Judy Greer was great in a lead role. There’s just something attractive about the crude science and grounded storytelling. Aporia knew what it wanted to be and executed. Right now, my biggest surprise of 2023 with The Artifice Girl.

The biggest problem in such films—the issue of cause and effect, specifically why the characters remember the timeline from before the changes they make—is cleverly resolved here. It holds together thanks to a reference to an authentic theory in physics: the observer effect, where the very act of observation influences changes in the observed system. A famous example is the experiment where light changes from a wave to a photon when an attempt is made to determine whether it is a wave or a photon, as seen in quantum mechanics in the double-slit experiment. Physicists have discovered that observing quantum phenomena with a detector or instrument can alter the measured results of this experiment. While the observer effect in the double-slit experiment is caused by the presence of an electronic detector, some interpret the results as suggesting that a conscious mind can directly influence reality. Schrödinger's famous thought experiment with the cat explains this further. The scriptwriters referenced both examples. This is a low-budget production, which forced the creators to make some significant simplifications -things that would be completely impossible to achieve in reality in the way they are portrayed in the film. First of all, the era of lone inventors has long passed. The level of complexity in modern science requires years of collaboration among large teams. Secondly you can't build a particle accelerator in a bedroom -all existing particle accelerators have diameters measured in kilometers, require enormous amounts of power, and need strong shielding, which is why they are buried deep underground! We have an unintended comedic effect in the scene where one of the characters tries to expands power of the device, and we see the parts he's ordered - a trailer full of old home appliances, like old washing machines and dishwashers. If a breakthrough in physics could be achieved using a pile of junk, we'd be flying to other galaxies on parts from old refrigerators! But of course, this movie isn't about scientific realism; it's a story of difficult moral choices and the consequences of those tough decisions. It's about whether the greater good can ever justify killing an individual, about how greatly we can misjudge another person, and how easily we oversimplify our perception of others when it suits us. The writers ask whether our own personal well-being gives us the right to pass judgment on others. They question how much we truly need to know about someone in order to judge them fairly. This film is an excellent candidate for a higher-budget production. It features several plot twists that are genuinely surprising, which is rare these days! Additionally, it's not based on a superhero comic, which is a refreshing break from the colorful pulp, all those sequels and prequels produced by Marvel and similar studios.

This movie has a definitive existential aspect to it. If we created a device to transcend time, should we actually use it? If we choose to do so, what is the detriments that could arise from it? For there is no doubt of a cause and effect. Does the evitable effect outweigh the initial cause? We all want to change the world in some way but, should what is and was, be just that? I just want to add, yes there are some holes and there is the mellow drama but, it still asks those hypotheticals.

I enjoyed it. Some choices could have been made once they knew the concept of who stayed in became the observers would have saved their main problem. The ending left me annoyed. Overall a good watch.

Waw.... Awesome feeling good afternoon watching this.

A deeply silly time-travel weepie buoyed solely by the soapy warmth of its performances

Super movie Super movie

Very nice movie. I like it

You'll feel sorry for the star actress who is forced to smile or cry in nearly every scene she's in. ... And she's in a lot of them. I started to block her face with my hand to allay the distraction. The imaginary science of plot is plausible. Unfortunately the humans are not.

Pretty bad movie. One dimensional people in a 4th dimensional world. I thought at one point they would go back in time to change their bowling scores.

This is groundbreaking!