MovieChat Forums > Time After Time (1979) Discussion > lot of problems-- not that good

lot of problems-- not that good


i agree with colbau, it was sloppy

liked the first ten minutes, and this concept had SOOOO much potential. it just got lame as it went on. lazy writing. it could have been a lot more

on sloppiness-- they pointed a lot of things in the other post. but, i agree dropping in san francisco was cheese. (WTF?)


i started out intrigued as hell at the premise, and had a lot of expectations putting in the dvd. they just dropped the ball. it had a tv movie feel to it, and not a good one.

boring, really.

the suspense was lame, built around hg running here and there huunting the ripper, but the RIPPER WAS MORE INTERESTING so they shoulda shown more of him, more killing scenes, and done them more graphically.

okay, this next comment will only be understood by real film fans:

CAN YOU IMAGINE HOW GOOD IT WOULD'VE BEEN IF MICHAEL MANN HAD DIRECTED THIS IN THE MANNER OF MANHUNTER? OR FRIEDKIN DIRECTING IT?


yeah, great idea. it coulda been awesome.


reply

Don't get me wrong. I love Manhunter and Thief but I think Michael Mann's signature style would have royally f'd up this film.

reply

L-------------O--------------L


as if, as in.... that it's NOT ALREADY ef'ed up?


ha HA-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh

whew, new levels here, for me anyway.

you and me are on diff planets, if you think this film could have been *worsened* by michael mann.


woah nelly. thats funny.




-----------------------------------
"Where.... can I put my ash?"

reply


[ but the RIPPER WAS MORE INTERESTING so they shoulda shown more of him, more killing scenes, and done them more graphically. ]

Typical kid of today. Maybe they should have just replaced Jack the Ripper with Freddy Kruger, Jason Vorhees or Michael Meyers and had the girls falling out of their clothes while running from them and tripping over nothing so that they get caught. After that we can watch them very graphically get gutted and see lots of blood. Sorry, but a movie doesn't have to have what you want to be a good movie. That just makes it a lousy movie.

reply

who is a typical kid. i am a 56 year old black man.

second, so let me get this straight. you 'LIKED' this movie?

wow. hard to believe. was your daddy the key grip or something?

-----------------------------------
"Where.... can I put my ash?"

reply

LTUM,

It might have been your

L-------------O--------------L


as if, as in.... that it's NOT ALREADY ef'ed up?


ha HA-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh
that led him to believe you were a kid.

A perfectly understandable mistake.

As for the film, the scene in the hotel room where Jack is changing TV channels, commenting on who is more at home in this age, is the type of scene that would not appear in a film today.
It's too poignant, and even worse (by today's standards) they weren't jiggling a hand-held camera, playing an obnoxious soundtrack over the dialog (doing everything possible to mask the lack of talent today), or test-marketing the dialog ahead of time.
So by today's dreadful talentless standards, I agree it just wouldn't cut it.

reply

pygmal, i dont quite get your post. is it a veiled dig, or nebulous praise?

i dont know what you mean about shaky cams and soundtracks, and even by 'today's style'. i say i dont know what you mean, because, i made no reference to any of those things, so i dont get who you are responding to.

i cited mann and friedkin, neither of which are:

a--of today's current lame ass crop

2--shaky cam guys

3--pull the soundtrack gymnastics you mentioned


so, i guess what i am saying is, i cant respond b/c i dont know what you ar etalking about.

but i will say i agree with you that a lot of the movies now are junk, and i HATE shaky cams.



-----------------------------------
"Where.... can I put my ash?"

reply


[ who is a typical kid. i am a 56 year old black man. ]

That's even sadder then. A mature person who wants more gore..sad.

[ second, so let me get this straight. you 'LIKED' this movie? ]

You bet your big ass I did. It wasn't perfect but it was a perfectly enjoyable movie.

[ wow. hard to believe. was your daddy the key grip or something? ]

Unless he took time out from his job at the prison he worked at, I'd have to say no.

reply


skater, WHO (TF) SAID ANYTHING ABOUT GORE????????????????????

you are telling on yourself, young lady; that you are not familiar with michael mann's work. it's suspense, mood, austerity... NOT gore. (jerkweed)

i hate gratuitous gore; haven't seen saw, don't plan too, nor devil's rejects, texas chain, etc


and.... if you liked this movie, that is what is just sad. sad.

(got a thing for malcom mcdowell?)




(if so, why? sad... sad....)


-----------------------------------
"Where.... can I put my ash?"

reply

Hey there LTUM I think the poster before was referring to your remark as follows
"they shoulda shown more of him, more killing scenes, and done them more graphically."
And your right you didnt say anything about gore but thats probably what they thought you meant by "more graphically." I bet you prolly like From Hell a lot better than this cause that is darker, more graphic and a decent film in its own right.

Anyways I am very fond of this film and I think it has everything to do with me seeing this in the theaters when I was 12 yo. I can tell you it was the bees knees for a kid that age to see this film. I remember thinking how cool the effects were, the time travel and I found David Warners' Jack to be very scary and menacing. But Im not surprised you and others dont like it. When I watch it now its not as good as I remembered it being but that still hasnt changed my fondness for it. As it stands its basically a movie for young boys so I think a lot of the fans who are vehemently defending the film are prolly like me and saw it in their youth and retain fond memories of it.

As for A William Friedkin or Michael Mann remake I would love to see that! They are 2 of my favorite directors. Actually they wouldnt even have to do a remake of this how about they just do a ripper film? That would be sweet.

Have you seen Friedkins Sorcerer? Thats a masterpiece. Its a remake of The Wages of Fear.


There is NO Gene for the Human Spirit.

reply


from hell... with johnny depp? yeah i did like that one. good comment

i will check out the sorcerer. thanks!!

-----------------------------------
"Where.... can I put my ash?"

reply

Yeah definitely check Sorcerer out especially if your a Friedkin fan like me. Its gritty, adult fare for sure. Friedkin made Sorcerer at the height of his directorial career after the French Connection and The Exorcist. It was a passion project for him and he leveraged a lot of his film-making success to make the film and unfortunately it didnt hit with audiences or critics. It is said that was because it was released the same year as Star Wars (1977) and thats all audiences went to see. And it never stood a chance with critics because he was re-envisioning a film roundly considered to be a masterpiece, The Wages of Fear.

Frankly Friedkin was never as edgy, gritty or good after Sorcerer. It would seem as if the films so called failure affected him in a way that caused him to become more mainstream and commercially viable as a filmmaker.

Anyway heres the link to it;

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076740/

Theres a lot of passionate fans of this film, just read the comments.

There is NO Gene for the Human Spirit.

reply


i appreciate this more than you know, seriously. i always love finding a tip on a new gem. i will move it to the top of my que.

btw, i wonder your opinion of live and die in la. i like that one, but is it too commercial for you?

thanks a bunch, again. :)

-----------------------------------
"Where.... can I put my ash?"

reply

Oh no not at all, To Live and Die in LA is a very good film. And I love, love, love that the main character takes a shotgun blast to the face and dies at the end. Definitely one of Friedkins best films.

You know Michael Mann sued him over that? Claimed it was a Miami Vice ripoff but Mann lost. They are still friends both being directors and being from Chicago.

There is NO Gene for the Human Spirit.

reply


( i hate gratuitous gore; )

In your oriinal post you wrote this.. (more killing scenes, and done them more graphically. ). To me more killing and done more graphically translates to..gore. As for gore in films, the original Saw has next to none. That's why people liked it so much. Lots of implied and unseen violence but little showed. Unfortunately the producers screwed up on the sequals and went for blood and guts but the original was excellent.


I really like this statement of yours too..(got a thing for malcom mcdowell?)

So you thought a homophobic post implying I'm gay would help your case? Wrong kiddo. It just makes you look immature with no intelligent answers.

( "Where.... can I put my ash?" )

I could answer that but then I'd be lowering myself to your standards.

reply


gaytor dave, go suck an egg or fly a kite or both.

(since you endeavor to differ, i refuse to reply to your comments)

:) have a nice day


-----------------------------------
"Where.... can I put my ash?"

reply


(since you endeavor to differ, i refuse to reply to your comments)

What a sad loser.

reply