So heres my best attempt to explain this film. I think of it as if the makers of The Matrix did a remake of Groundhogs Day, but very poorly. In this world there are 3 types of people: "humans", sleepwalkers, and a ripped off version of the Agents. They are the ones who "report" on everyones lives and keep them in the same dream over and over, as well as erase memories of unintended events not in place by "them".

Some people are able to break from their dream state and dont know it until they run into someone who can "see" them. But what seems to be the problem about this dynamic is that if a "human" breaks from their dream state and become a sleepwalker, it interrupts the programmed dream of other "humans" in which they interact with.

The protagonist Daniel learns how he's been living this way and wants to take his wife out of her dream cycle like him, and tries by taking on roles of others that she encounters in her dreams, but thereby forces "them" to replace her husband role by someone else for consistency. But of course his attempts dont matter at the end when he finally does break her from her cycle, cuz they just reprogrammed everything back to before the start of the movie.

And that is why this movie is bad.

About THEM: I hate to dismiss films out of hand but, as an educated viewer, I need more for a satisfying movie experience. I'm a big believer in the notion that in the dramatic arts, showing is better than telling. THEM neither shows nor tells. Note to the filmmakers: A little bit of exposition is not only OK, it's practically required if your business is storytelling.

That sums up my chief complaint with this entire effort: There's no story. I'm not opposed to the occasional foray into Absurdism, but that's not what this is. WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF has a story. A DOLL'S HOUSE has a story. Even WAITING FOR GODOT has more of a story than this, and if not a lot more story then certainly a lot more purpose. Everything-is-meaningless-nothing-is-real-life-is-but-a-dream surrealist drivel isn't enough. Simply put, there's just no takeaway here.

The most basic expectation people have when they invest their time in any creative endeavor is that the creators will make some kind of a coherent, discernable point. One gets the feeling the makers are trying, hence two stars. But if there's a point here, I've missed it, and as one not given to missing the point, I'm left to conclude that it's either absent or the filmmakers aren't capable of communicating it.

Like most are saying, it's pretty poor. However, its inability to explain what it is about is its biggest, to put it mildly, flaw, though it has many others. The cinematography is interesting now and then and I thought the somewhat odd performance by Sindri Swan sort of worked. A sci-fi film about some sort of alternate universe (I think) with humans and other humans who used to be humans, though I don't have a clue what they would be called, but "real" humans can't see them. Got that?! I'm not sure I did and I'm also not sure what I just wrote is correct. It has scenes of interest, but only because you don't know what they mean. I don't suggest you watch this.