What makes it different from others?

It is a performances centric movie

Good concept, poorly executed.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

This movie reminds me of a mentally retarded athlete trying to compete with the "real" athletes on the Olympics (not the Paralympics, though! The real ones) in 1500-metre-run: while everyone his job, he is running in circles, but at least 50 times or so, and everyone is "proud" of him, that he at least did not fall.I don't really want to vote for it, because it is clear that the producers had no money, but I also suspect, that who ever wrote the script, must have been as high as the protagonist: totally dumb protagonist(s), over-simplified motives (like anyone would kill him-self for getting a boner in school) and a total lack of logic; you name it, the movie has it. The part with the tampons is something that speaks for itself (and that is imbecility). But I will vote it, since I don't understand how the majority could give this "special" movie such an extraordinary good rating.I really don't feel like it, but I guess I have to go into the time-travel part of this. First of all: I am not quite sure if there was any "actuall" time travel "really" happening in this movie. It all could have been a bad trip (since the protagonist often affirms to be high, when asked about it, which would at least explain, his narrow-mindedness). He even is telling the homeless guy (which really is the best "thing"/actor in the movie; I gotta admit that with some other reviewers, that mentioned it. He seems like an inscrutable, crazy-genius professor from the future.) that the chair is not an actual time-machine after and even just before traveling through time again. Seriously: WTF? Is he really just that high that he doesn't know anymore what's real or not? Now to the part with time-travel logic: jeez, that one really is landmark, when it comes to lack of logic for time-travel stuff. First of all: how come that he is opening the window for his past-self (therefore interacting with his self past) but is never seeing his time-traveling self when he travels back just minutes to undo the mistakes he made (which is, by the way impossible, for nearly all time-travel theories, except the spread-sheet one, but we don't talk about that one since it is used for mainstream-flicks mostly: yes I am looking at you, Back to the future...) And why doesn't any action he made in the past has any consequences at all in the present? And why is the homeless guy telling Art one time, that changing stuff in the past is harder than changing them in them in the present, but some time later he tells him, that is he changes minor things, the outcome could be unpredictable (the so called butterfly effect)? And why is the homeless guy remembering Cody but not Art; or is he just pretending? And was that Gothic-girl on the bus, supposed to be Jody? Questions upon questions, which will not be answered, I guess, because I actually believe that the director did not ask them for himself (or was not capable of doing so...)So why 2 Stars than, you ask? I do appreciate cinematography (that was the only thing that did not look completely cheap), as well as the basic statement, that you gotta let your loved ones go, in case you are really loving them (should this be the message, the director wanted us to know, which I am not quite convinced, he was).

I'm giving this one notch short of a 10, simply so I can protest that the film wasn't another 30 minutes longer, I didn't want it to end. Jay Baruchel, As Art really makes impossible scene after impossible scene believable. You get to care as much as he does as the film goes on, about Cody. At lunch I explained it to a friend today who said it "sounds like The Time Traveler's Wife".While there are certain premise similarities, Time Traveler, is like-for your grandmother, Cody is for the rest of us. An all too real world, mixed with a surreal trip (through time?). Watch the film and find out, it's definitely worth it.

Major movie studios should take some notes here; although this movie looks like it was shot on a minimal budget, the originality of the concept and the continued surprises make it very watchable.Our protagonist, a drug dealer and male prostitute, tries to make his girlfriend's rotten life better. He repeatedly makes the effort, sometimes not achieving the results he was expecting. The cast of characters, the script and the acting were all well done and believable.The action all takes place among street people, prostitutes and drug dealers, an unlikely venue for romance. However, it works and kept me interested throughout, wanting to see how it would end up.

I loved this movie great characters and great cinematography i suggest seeing this movie! good job Mr ray. I love Jay in this movie. He was very funny with his comedic takes. Sarah was also very good. I loved the scene at Christmas it was very well down. Kudos to the writer. This movie did pretty well in Vancouver. I saw it twice and every time i liked it more and more. It wasn't what i thought it would be though. I expected it to be just a movie. But its more then that. It shows the dark side of the beautiful Vancouver. There wasn't any over the top stuff it was all very realistic. The part where she is talking with Jay and she then walks away and gets in a car with a guy is very powerful. I love this movie!