MovieChat Forums > Frequency (2000) Discussion > Sure, it got a little loose with the tim...

Sure, it got a little loose with the time difference play

posted 12 years ago by Hanz-Willhelm
12 replies | jump to latest

but I still think it was an awesome movie and everytime it comes on tv I tend to find myself watching it. There is just something about the aspect of getting to reach through time and talk to the dad you barely remember and help save his life and reunite with the father you never had that just hooks you.

Of course the way they brought the "time travel" events together wasn't as believable but I still loved it. If he blew Sheperd's hand off in 1969 why would it wither in 2000? It would have never been there to begin with. If Frank can hear his son being attacked in the future and knows it's going to happen for 20 years or so why wouldn't he be there waiting for the bad guy, why would he show up so late. Some of that stuff was a little iffy but I didn't care, it was a fun movie.

It was on last night and watched it again.

[–] boatlandmore 12 years ago

I agree. Since my dad died last year I have dreams about talking to him again, the good kind of dreams that you don't want to end, but always do just at that moment when you're about to reach out to touch him. This movie is sort of like those dreams a little.

[–] eqgmrdbz 11 years ago

Those things didnt bother me, I always thought it was because up until that point, things hadnt changed, and then you had like a time ripple, where time was setting itself strait.

You have to think about it like this, In the past he shoots his hand, but in the future its like it never happened up until the future time and past time crossed. I do agree it should of been done better, instead of him feeling his hand wither away, it should of been instantly gone, without him noticing, and they continue fighting.

About the Dad not being there, well i have to disagree, he did get there and saved him. Again i go my premis that its like a time ripple, up until the point when they are fighting, the dad is not aware of whats going to happen, until the times crossed. He was probably doing something, and suddenly had the knowledge, and drove over.

This is a great film, me and my brother love it, recommend for anyone that loves Sci-Fi, and a nice love story.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 10 years ago

The movie does have plot holes, but I don't mind. I still love this film.

One plot hole I picked up on tonight after watching the movie (first time in about 10 years) is that his mother showed up in the pictures right after his dad didn't die in the fire. Since the future events were altered, his mom would have vanished from the pics right away, not a day later.

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

[–] Doc80 10 years ago

You're right, that should have happened but the magic in this movie works differently. Remember later in the film, the radio gets busted in the past and it sparks and all that in the present day. Then, his dad uses a wood burner to write a message in the table and we see it appearing in the present day as he is writing it in the past. Then there is when his dad fixes the radio in the past and we see it magically transform back into working condition in the present. Well that just shows that things that are changed in the past that affect the present day, happen in real time.

The same thing happens when the killer gets his hand blown off in the past. It doesn't just disappear all at once in the present. I thought it was a element for storytelling purposed.

[–] mymoviemind 10 years ago

Yes, this movie does have plot holes but... The way I see it, she would still be in the picture that evening, but would be gone right before midnight when Frank comes to visit her at the hospital. That's actually when she saves the killer and changes both their futures. That's why he dreams it that night. At least that's how I saw it.

Love this movie, too.

[–] Hanz-Willhelm 10 years ago

It's been a year and I caught this on TV again (I started the OP a year ago) and now I may see things differently. I think things were happening at the same time (he burns the desk in 1969 but little chief sees it in 2000 or he blows his hand off in 1969 but it doesn't disappear from the killer until 2000) because they were linked by the radio. If the radio "frequency" wasn't open between the two time periods than things happening in 1969 would be history by the time 2000 rolls around but since that line is open and both "times" occur together that is why it happens. The dad is speaking in 1969 but it is heard in "real-time" in 2000, I think the physical things like that are also joined. Only when the radio had them connected.

Deutschland hat die Weltmeisterschaft zum vierten Mal gewonnen! 🇩🇪🇺🇸

[–] Mellow-Fellow 10 years ago

The most unrealistic thing about this movie was the idea that a citizen could own a shotgun in present day New York, nevermind driving over to his son's house with it in the car to save his life, bazinga!

[–] darkpassenger888 10 years ago

The scene where Frank shoots Jack in 1999 makes no sense, yet it totally works. A realistic ending would have been very dull. After Satch and his partner find all the evidence at Jack's place, and Frank blasts Jack's hand, do you really think Jack would be capable of attacking John in 1999?

I'm not crazy, my mother had me tested

[–] HellboundHero 10 years ago

Maybe not as easily, but I could still see him trying to break in and shoot him.

[–] vyperman7 9 years ago

** Look closely. The guy in the hospital bed that Julia saves is Jack Shepard. I'm guessing some people probably didn't recognize him. This is why it seems like there is a discrepancy on how long Julia is alive after Frank survives. So here is a breakdown :

Timeline 1 - Frank dies in the Buxton fire. Julia leaves her shift early and isn't there to prevent Jack Shepard's lethal allergic reaction. He dies in the hospital and the Nightengale death count stops at three.

Timeline 2 - Frank survives. Julia stays on for her whole shift. Initially her timeline was intact after Frank survived. Why? She didn't save Jack Shepard's life until hours and hours later heading into the next day. But once she prevented him from having an allergic reaction, Jack decides to kill her and remains alive to keep taking victims.

[–] JestersDead (485) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JestersDead (485) 7 years ago

Ripple effect dude. He still did have the hand when he started attacking John in 1999.