Absolutely loved this. Now I can't pretend that I followed all the science here but it is possible that with as little understanding as I of Quantum Mechanics and the theory of Schrodinger's Cat, actually helps. It was certainly goosebumps and shivers down the spine for me throughout this as a seemingly ordinary set of well off folks try to settle into a dinner party, as a comet passes by. No major stars here and apparently much improvised dialogue within what is essentially a single set and yet this is so involving and scary. Hard to say too much without it spoiling the experience for others but, as far as I am concerned, something really different and stimulating that has you thinking and worrying all the time.

Eight friends get together for dinner while a comet is passing overhead. After a power blackout across the neighbourhood strange events start occurring.

A clever drama, with an interesting anchoring in scientific theory. Very intriguing, as the events unfold, especially as you don't know where this could or will lead. Due to the originality of the concept and plot, the options are almost endless.

Unfortunately, that's where the movie falls short of greatness. Having presented this wonderfully original idea and developed the plot quite well around it, writer-director James Ward Byrkit doesn't quite know where to go with it. The ending is very disappointing, especially after all the potential the movie had for something profound or impactful.

When "Coherence" debuted this summer, it earned very, very little money. So far, since its release in June, this independent film has earned less than $69,000. So it's very, very likely a film you haven't yet seen. As for me, I am actually very thankful I didn't see it in the theater-- and it's for a reason you might not anticipate. It's not because the plot is bad (it's kind of interesting actually) but because the film has horrendous camera-work. I assume that the camera-work is supposed to be hip or exciting--but to me it is nausea-evoking and if I'd seen it on the big screen, I probably would have gotten a headache or begun vomiting. This is because the entire movie has a hand-held camera look and the picture almost never stays still. It almost always bounces around and won't stay on any one object. Now this might work for a very limited number of films--such as a 'found footage' film like The Blair Witch Project. So why, then, does the camera keep moving with a film like Coherence? And, why are some of the edits (particularly early in the film) so seemingly random and some shots out of focus? If you see it, you might just want to take a few Dramamine in order to cope with the camera's movement--which I expect with home movies but not with a film lasting nearly 90 minutes. Can the movie itself manage to overcome this annoying camera-work and make it all worthwhile?

"Coherence" is set during a dinner party where lots of disparate friends have come together for a nice evening of food and conversation. This occurs during a time when a comet has come very close to the Earth. Inexplicably, it seems to be causing some strange phenomena--such as cell phones which shatter and an internet which no longer functions during the course of their evening. However, the weird happenings get far weirder and the film begins to look a lot like The Twilight Zone-- especially like one of my very favorite episodes, The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street. Not surprisingly, the guests all begin to freak out and paranoia and fear begin to grip them. What, exactly, do they experience? See the movie if you want to know.

The film turns out to have some positive things going for it. The story is quite creepy and its creepiness is heightened by the music and mood-- and it gets creepier as the film progresses. With better camera-work, it really would have had a lot more chance to work. Now this isn't saying that the script is perfect. A few of the friends at the party are a bit broadly written and annoying--and you question why the other people would associate with them (such as the lady who is into mysticism and the 'funny guy'). But the story is a good example of making the most of a simple idea and setting.

For me, the camera-work was unfortunately a deal-breaker. In other words, it was so bad that it really ruined the film. However, I should point out that if you read the reviews on IMDb, you'll find the film has two extreme reactions for the viewers--they either really liked it a lot and didn't seem bothered by the awful technical aspects of the film or they hated it. There really aren't too many reviewers with neutral views on the film--it has a truly bi-modal distribution for all you statistics freaks out there. You'll apparently love it or hate it. With better and more professional looking camera-work, I might have been in the former group. But, as it is, I just cannot recommend it. I should point out, however, that there are parts of the film that show the filmmakers have promise and I would like to see more of their work in the future provided they do something about the film technique they use---please, no more camera-work that looks like it was done by attaching a mini-cam to a dog or cat!