Enrique Sanchez
OK this was not a big production...but heck, it was fun to watch. The ideas of time travel are all engraved into our brains. The ins and outs and the possibilities and the paradoxes.This movie handled it well...and it did NOT take itself seriously it even had a comic touches, though slight enough not to be painful...just enjoyable.Sure, many things could have been done - with a budget. And even with this qualm, the result had nuances and a good storyline that did not cause half the population to tear down the plausibility factor in the time continuum that is usually laid down as the test in these types of movies.I thought the ensemble was good and there were few clichés that stuck out in my mind. Those who would say this is a bad movie or a B-movie are missing out on one thing which I repeat: FUN.This movie was fun and it was fun to watch it unfold. Even with the predictability of the whole thing, at least we weren't asked to challenge our understanding of science fiction and the time travel genre.
runner-15
Not bad as time travel movies go. But the sets were atrocious and the acting was weak. As with many time travel movies the plot was predictable. Probably the most disappointing prop was the time machine itself. It looked like they went down to the local hardware store and picked up a load of plywood and a few cans of spray paint. In fact the time machine prop resembled a backyard storage shed you can buy at your local Home depot. The actors appeared to be sleepwalking through most of their scenes. Ned Beatty did his best to provide us with a good performance, but he was unable to carry the movie by himself.That being said, the movie deals with time travel as well, if not better, than most time travel movies. The fact the the writer at least tried to provide us with a reasonable flow of events and seemed to have more than a passing interest in providing us with a logical time travel tale increases my appreciation for this little low budget flick.
cheshire551225800
This is a really bad cheesy movie but it was made with some heart and I liked it. It hasn't got the best production values and the story is predictable, but still I liked it.Weird, but true. I think that some of the actors really tried to make something of this fairly bad move, most notably Alex Hyde-White and Kathleen Beller. Ned Beatty knew he was the comic relief and did what he could with the role.Kathleen Beller wasn't having much luck getting out of her "Sword and the Sorcerer" type casting but she gamely took it seriously and tried to make it better.Maybe the true test of an actor is not what they do with great material but what they do when they are in some real piece of crap, do they keep on trying to raise the material as far as possible?
DonnaJo
For anyone looking for some unintentional humor, this movie would not be a bad choice. The premise itself is pretty interesting: in the future, scientists are battling for control of the planet and one of them goes into the past to kill off his rivals. It could have benefitted from a better script and a bigger budget. The sets were very fake-looking and the costumes looked like something out of a high shcool production. One of the funnier moments actually comes when Shriner goes to open a door and almost knocks it down. The design team also apparently had some trouble finding up-to-date cars for the present-day New York sequence. The whole production had a 1980s air about it, typified by the brightly-colored tie-dyes that the cast dons at one point. The movie is actually a lot funnier in hindsight. Back when I saw it, I was disappointed and embarrassed for the filmmakers. Knowing who Roger Corman is actually makes me smile when I think of it.
AD
