BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

bettycjung 6/30//18. A fantastic time travel movie that makes the most of the genre. McDowell does a great job of oozing wonderment when he finds himself 70 years into the future yet manages to finds the killer he is after as well as meet the love of his life. Since this came out in 1979 a lot of the technology is already outdated, but still futuristic for a man from the 1800s. Great movie worth catching!

qomqurk I remember seeing this movie a couple times in 1979. Thought it was pretty cool. But I was living in San Francisco at the time (hopefully that's not a spoiler...), and quite honestly, re-watching it lately, the San Francisco of 1979 is really what shines in the movie to me. In one sense that's probably an unanticipated but real time travel element in this movie, at least for me. The streets, the people, the clubs all look slightly familiar, though I don't remember that many pretty blonde girls working at Mickey-D's.Nevertheless, that's really not why I decided I needed to review this movie. Mainly, re-watching the movie brought a terrible question to mind, and asking that question also may be something of a spoiler... Mainly, the question is, if you have a time machine, why in the world would you need to be in a hurry? I mean if you were going to be late for an appointment, and I mean late, like that appointment was supposed to have taken place a week ago, or maybe last year, couldn't you just hop in your time machine whenever you want, whenever you're ready for the appointment, and arrive on time? I mean the only hindrance would be death, in which case the appointment wouldn't be that important, or maybe the people at the appointment might think you're older than you're supposed to be, but really... time machine means no hurry. Unfortunately asking that question sort of makes Time After Time a little stupid. But then time travel is always full of holes. I think they're called time holes.I'm pretty sure in 1979, that 'no hurry' question never popped into my head. I was dazzled by the idea, and the performances of Malcolm and Mary and David, and also N. Meyer, and San Francisco, and thought it was a very good movie. Jiminy Crickets, almost 40 years in the future, the performances still dazzle, but for some reason I can't help asking, instead of jumping ahead a century, why didn't HG just go back a day. Things would've been much simpler, but then, of course, there'd be no movie.

vincentlynch-moonoi I was one of those people who, though fairly young at the time (30) did not like "A Clockwork Orange". As a result, for years I dismissed anything with Malcolm McDowell. In recent years I began to rethink my avoidance of McDowell, particularly as he grew older...I like him more. Now, after finally watching this film, I'm really going to have to rethink McDowell. This is a great film, and McDowell's performance is superb. And I say that as one who believes that time-travel films rarely work.Strong point #1: The producers and director paid attention to detail, not simply advancing the plot. How would a time traveler act and think in a totally new environment? Well done.Strong point #2: The acting. As I indicated, Malcolm McDowell is excellent here; very believable. David Warner is very good as Jack the Ripper. This was only Mary Steenburgen's second film. At first she comes on as playing dumb, but as the plot moves forward she seems more believable.Strong point #3: There is sentimentality, not just brutality. There is love, not just murder. This is occasional humor amidst all the drama. There is wonder and amazement.This does not mean that all is well. I guess I can't blame the producers for the special effects...after all, it was only 1979. But they are a bit primitive compared to what we have today. And. once the film begins to build toward a climax, it seems as if things get a bit more mundane (I mean really...why would the cops believe someone who identified himself as both H.G. Wells and Sherlock Holmes?).But aside from that, there is little to criticize here, and it's nice to get a glimpse back of modern culture almost 40 years ago.I'm overall impressed and highly recommend the film...and I give it something rare for me -- an "8".

SnoopyStyle It's 1893 London. Jack the Ripper is on the loose. Futurist H.G. Wells (Malcolm McDowell) reveals his time machine invention to his friends. Dr. John Leslie Stevenson (David Warner) disputes his happy Utopian vision of the future. Scotland Yard tracks the Ripper to his home pointing to Stevenson. However Stevenson is gone and Wells realizes that he took his time machine. The machine returns to Wells because he has the "non-return key". He travels to 1979 to track down Stevenson and stop him from infecting his presumed Utopian future. He finds himself in San Francisco but the future is not as peaceful as he expected. He is helped by Amy Robbins (Mary Steenburgen) who works at the bank.I'm not sure all the time travel makes sense. Why does his machine travel to an exhibit of him landing right at his machine? It's questionable how the machine works once they let it travel from London to San Francisco. It's also silly that Wells just walks into Ripper's room. He's not simply naive but really the quintessential clueless egghead. However I do like his unbridled optimism being supplanted as he tries to adjust to the modern world. The romance with Steenburgen is really cute. She's great. Nicholas Meyer's directions are functional but nothing spectacular. It is also questionable that the police would let Wells go even if they don't think he committed the murders. This would be a great movie to remake. It has great potential for an intense thriller.