This is the kind of movie that could be decent, but becomes unwatchable because the director's so in love with his/her techniques. The plot's not groundbreaking, but it is different from most time travel movies where you keep going back in time. Unfortunately, the director likes the soundtrack and sloooooow motion so much he keeps using it over and over, resulting in something you may enjoy if you love meaningless pontification on our existence or what-not. That is, the film doesn't provide for it but David what's-his-name probably wants you to ponder and reminisce during the frequent slooow-motion rewinding of history. The premise is hard to believe already. It's a shame he decides to be clever with techniques. Over and over and over again.
Add a Review
-
ArthurDental13 February 2005
-
jheisel11 September 2005There are a lot of things that are wrong with Slipstream, a time travel movie with a cool enough concept. But its faults are forgivable til about 78 minutes in (I checked), when it all goes to hell. You know, the cliché scene where the computer geek's gear is totally broken but he somehow makes it work. The babe says "you need firewire?" (does anyone really use a phrase like that) then KISSES THE GEEK and it's been seen so many times before it is just a laugh. Anyway, it's watchable to this point and a complete joke beyond it. Sean Astin and Vinnie Jones in a bizarre space time continuum flux! How can you not watch? 5.0, above IMDb's 4.1.
-
A world away from the 1989 sci-fi faux pas starring Mark Hamill and Bill Paxton that carried this movie title, this a low-budget film with an interesting cast. Most notably last seen in The Lord of the Rings, Sean Astin, Bosnian beauty Ivana Milicevic and Hertfordshire hardman Vinnie Jones.
However, despite being produced on a very limited budget, and in a remarkably short period of time (27 days according to van Eyssen), this film still remains watchable.
The script is good and delivery from Astin is excellent. Vinnie Jones plays well, Vinnie Jones and Milicevic has her moments; only plot holes in the screenplay itself, written by Louis Morneau and Phillip Badger, let the actors down in important scenes of interaction.
This film doesn't have the same seamless flow that other time-playback movies like the fantastic Run Lola Run or even Groundhog Day or Sliding Doors has. Consequently you're never quite sure whether you actually give a damn about the characters or not.
It becomes apparent as the film unfolds that the director had to cut corners (the budget was repeatedly slashed according to van Eyssen) and gaping wide plot holes are hurriedly painted over with techno-babble and the extremely convenient occurrence of events.
However, despite these issues, the cinematography in places is excellent and van Eyssen uses inexpensive camera techniques very well demonstrating that stunning big screen effects can be achieved without a Battlestar-sized budget.
A little bit of background info putting this movie into context will make it much more interesting and it's an enjoyable example of the potential of director David van Eyssen. -
spammehard19 February 2005Where do these good reviews come from? With words and phrases like "accomplished," "mesmerizing," "visually stunning," "reminds me of the best moments from Blade runner and 2001," "Astin acts his heart out." Sounds to me like some PR people are doing damage control on the old IMDb in the hopes they can salvage some kind of life for this film on DVD. "I can't believe it wasn't theatrically released." Well, I can, and we should thank the studio execs who decided to give this movie a basic cable burial. They did so to preserve social harmony. If the general public had paid box office price to watch Slipstream, riots would have surely ensued.
Make no mistake, people, this movie is BAD. The amazing directorial technique some seem to be so inexplicably impressed by is nothing but hack. Slow motion is used to signal the slowing down of time before a backwards trip, but it's also just used any old time to signify nothing other than the total running time needed to be longer to qualify as a feature-length film. Then there's the rotating camera. Why use the technique so much? Well they bought the rig, and darn it, they were going to use it. Stupid, horribly staged bank shootout? No worries, we've got a rotating camera. Stupid, horribly written and acted bus bathroom scene? No worries, we've got a rotating camera. And here's a dilemma, we've got two versions of a scene, one with the actors inside a car and one where they're outside, both are horribly written and acted, but we forgot to use the rotating camera. What do we do? No worries, we'll just inter-cut the two separate takes, and the lack of continuity will jar the stupider viewers into thinking that we "have a visual style." Yeah, that's right, I've been saying horribly acted. No one, in this movie is a great actor, by which I mean, has a great range. To the Astinites out there, sorry, but your boy is a serviceable actor at best. Without an extraordinary director and extraordinary writing, the mediocrity of Astin's performance is an unbearable distraction. He's had the good fortune to be in a few good movies in his career, but, left to his own devices, he will pick insipid little things like Slipstream simply because the script uses the phrase, "String Theory." This is a dangerous trait for a less-than amazing actor to possess. If he wises up, he will accept the role of supporting, character actor with grace. He cannot and should not attempt to carry a film.
To give a little credit to the actors, including Astin, there's not much you can do with writing as terrible as this. There are no character arcs to speak of, just starting points and end points. How did they get there? What's the motivation? Who could be that stupid? Who cares! Have you seen our rotating camera? And, to all you aspiring directors, when faced with a script with no feeling and actors phoning it in, don't forget to use slow-motion. It saves the writer from having to write something compelling and the actor from having to emote. The slower you get it, the more emotional weight a scene can carry. And if you manage to have a rotating camera with slow-motion, whoa boy! Oscar can't be far behind. Or at the very least, a BAFTA.
I've never, before watching Slipstream, felt it my duty to so harshly trash a film on the internet. I registered with IMDb because of it. Believe it or not, this is me at my most humanistic. Mankind should not have to watch this movie. If I can prevent one person, then I've done my part to make a better world.
For the love of all that is good, go rent Donny Darko and stay far away from the abomination known as Slipstream. -
smash01616 May 2005Slipstream obviously is a bad movie. Now there are two types of bad movies. The first is of the Steven Seagal-category: meant to be cheap fun, and that's what it is. Poor film-making, but somehow fun to watch. The second category is where Slipstream fits into: meant to be original, innovative and artful yet all you get is mere pretentious junk. A Steven Seagal-picture knows it's terrible but doesn't want to be any more than terrible. Slipstream tries to be terrific but is actually the opposite, so in the end it's annoying as hell. The whole movie you're thinking: whoever made this should be sent to prison for insulting the intelligence of man. To sum up some of the things that went wrong with this flick: 1) the director uses all kinds of advanced techniques, mostly derived from The Matrix, for no purpose at all (a little like Swordfish but a thousand times worse), 2) the acting is totally unconvincing, people dying everywhere and the protagonists behaving like nothing is the matter, 3) huge plot holes everywhere, 4) an incredible load of editing errors, 5) everything is ripped from other movies, 6) this is the worst thing I've ever seen, 7) you shouldn't watch it, 8) forget all the positive comments around here. Thank you.
-
mike-mikeinbox17 September 2005As i am alway interested in a sf movie, i picked this one up at the local video rental store. Never heard of slipstream but the 10 minute time travel plot seemed interesting.
This movie however fits straight into the top 10 worst movies ever. It really got it all : Very bad acting, small budget, horrible plot and the worst directing ever.
The director seems to be in love with guns and slow motion, in this movie you get to see more close-ups of guns than of the actors. Enormous amounts of bullets are shot at each other while standing up and with the actors looking like they are watching TV. No worries however, almost all shots miss completely.
Then there is the bus scene where the bad guys take hostages. The bus is supposed to be on a highway. Due to budget restrictions the highway has about 5 other cars on it instead of 500. Furthermore the police action is totally unbelievable.
The FBI agent runs around with the main character she just arrested without any regard for his safety. The rest of the police is checking out their guns while the director zooms in on the guns triggers, red dots and what not.
The rest of the movie is equally bad and unintentionally funny. The director is only good for making gun commercials.
Waste of 80 minutes and 1,60 euro. -
goanna_3816 May 2006Just watched this on DVD. Potentially a good idea, spoiled by woeful direction and some of the worst acting I have seen outside of a school play. Sean Astin puts in a reasonable performance and Vinnie Jones tries hard, but the rest of the cast was appalling. It's almost as if the principal cast was signed up, locations scouted, and then they knocked on doors at their locations and asked people if they wanted to be in a movie. The story had promise but it all fell in a heap. Awful. Time travel movies can tend to be disjointed, but if it's done well it all makes sense in the end. This makes sense it just doesn't seem worth the effort of watching. I ended up sticking with it till the end and was not rewarded for my efforts.
-
atkins-m25 November 2005I really believe a fourth grader could have written better dialog and plot. The idea for this movie creates tremendous potential which is totally wasted on sheer stupidity of conversation and illogical plot. Movies involving time travel can be tricky but if done right, can also be very thought provoking. This movie doesn't even try to go there. This movie, like so many scifi's today, is overly focused on special effects with the plot and dialog treated as an afterthought. I'll have to remember the name, David Van Eyssen, and make concerted efforts NOT to watch anything directed by him. Foolish waste of time. I really have nothing more to say about this movie but the submission filter wants more lines. So here they are.
-
The first 10 minutes had me thinking this was one of the worst movies ever produced. As it went on it became more watchable and evolved into a quirky sort of interesting movie. There were some seemingly pointless scenes and some artsy for artsy sake bits, but the plot itself as well as some of the effects were actually pretty decent.
As for the acting, Sean Astin was as good as Sean Astin gets, take that for what it's worth and the seemingly unknown cast was fair with only a few who were brutal actors.
Overall, this was an interesting free watch, I might have walked away from a theater scratching my head mind you :-) -
kypdurron_3 February 2006I cannot believe that anybody would rate this movie as even watchable, as I found it unbearably annoying and felt like jumping out a window 20 minutes in. It stars 2 actors whom I've thoroughly enjoyed in previous movies, Sean Astin (lotr fame, Rudy, Harrison Bergeron) and Vinnie Jones (of the guy Richie films lock stock and two smoking barrels and snatch), but they are put to utter waste. First and foremost the dialogue is horrendous. I found myself rolling my eyes at at every line coming out of more than a few characters, and the impossible stubbornness of a character towards certain situations was likable to them needing a person to fly by way of flapping their arms, and not taking no as an answer. The most idiotic and annoying aspect of the film is something that happens all throughout, making it consistently stupid. imagine a gunfight with 2 people standing 6 feet apart, firing away at each other in slow motion, and both missing. stupid right? imagine another 2 people to whom self-preservation is obviously #1, running out of a pair of doors, guns blazing into a sea of armed individuals, with big grins on their faces. All throughout this movie any scene in which a gun is fired is filmed in the stupidest most unrealistic way. everybody opens fire standing right out in the open with no cover, not flinching in the least as bullets fly by their heads. The most disturbing scene I found was one in which a group of 5 armed individuals are on a stationary bus in which they have taken many hostages, open up fire on the police, and the police return fire with no regard whatsoever for the hostages! Like I said, stupid movie, I feel stupider after watching it, and I would recommend it to nobody.
-
davidcox19607 February 2005I saw Slipstream at its World Premiere in London a few days ago and I'm quite surprised it didn't get a general release. The film has its faults but it maintained my interest to the end and was both well acted and stylishly directed. The time travel concept doesn't altogether add up and there is one sequence which still doesn't make any sense to me but this is science fiction and how many action films make much sense anyway? The important thing is it's good entertainment and thought provoking to boot. I would have preferred less shooting and exploding, especially in slow motion which makes for some confusion with the time travel sequences, and less bad language but these are minor complaints.
The best thing about Slipstream is its strong performances. Sean Astin can always be relied upon to put in a great characterisation and he makes the scientist hero Stuart likable and funny despite being dishonest, cowardly and nerdy. A very pleasant surprise given the film's violence is how funny it is, and Sean Astin is the main reason for this. His subtlety ensures that for the most part there isn't too much of a clash of tone between the action and the comedy and the movie's generous use of close-ups takes full advantage of his facial expressiveness. Indeed the film is a real treat for Sean's many female admirers; he cuts a fine dash in pilot's uniform, not to mention some impressively tight jeans! He dominates the film with his charisma and charm, giving it most of its heart, proving once again his ability to carry a film despite so rarely being given the chance to do so. Nor is he let down by the rest of the cast. Ivana Milicevic (from Paycheck) does a good job as Sarah the tough FBI officer, interacting effectively with Astin. Most surprising was how good Vinnie Jones was as the villain, making an entertaining combination of malice and humour. This was the only aspect where the different tones of the drama sat together awkwardly however; the crooks are a seriously vicious bunch (I could have done without the exploding bus driver; I hope this wasn't meant to be funny) but humour is used to make them at least a little bit sympathetic. Nevertheless in retrospect this doesn't turn out to be too much of a problem because of how the film ends.
One of the best features of Slipstream is its strong visual imagery. Sometimes it overreaches itself and becomes a little self-indulgent and disorienting but sometimes it is so striking it's almost poetic, especially a truly remarkable shot of a plane paused in motion as it crashes vertically into a mountain offset by a full moon. The script is serviceable and frequently witty. There is plenty of action and some genuine suspense. The ending remains in doubt until the final denouement. This isn't quite convincing but it doesn't really matter. Unusually for an action film you do care about the characters, especially Stuart, even though they themselves seem to care little about the carnage around them, and want them to survive. The final shot is enigmatic but very satisfying both dramatically and visually (especially for the aforementioned Astin admirers) and sends you out on a high. I would certainly want to see this film again, and soon. -
Dizzy_Steinway4 February 2005I managed to get a free ticket last night (it was screened at the cinema I used to run) I had mixed opinions on it. The opening scene and credits were lovely, some nice shots and really nice ambient music. After that it got strange.
Not strange good. i think the Director was more concerned with how good it looked and completely forgot about the script - people die and the characters don't seem to care but that didn't matter (apparently) as it would look good!!!! I liked to call it Matrix Reloaded Syndrome. Don't get me wrong it was a nice but the little technique the Director used got completely OVER used and in the bank scene (the most important scene) it just didn't look real.
Sean Astin was of course the highlight. He was great as the geeky science boy but Vinnie Jones, why he felt he needed to put on an English accent when he already has one (you'll know what i mean when you see it) I'll never understand. This includes all the other bad guys.
I did enjoy it though and the last 20 minutes or so were really good. i just wish that if there was a different Director (who wouldn't cast Vinnie Jones) as maybe that way the characters would have been a little better though out. -
klercker2 November 2005The relatively bad rating didn't stop me from watching this movie. I like sci-fi movies and time travelling is also compelling! As many people have stated here, the movie was off to a good start and all was well. However, this ended when with the spinning camera scene inside the bank. Totally ridiculous and uncalled for.
After that the story never really evolved and instead all we saw was a bad action movie without a shred of tension... I agree - they totally wasted a good idea for a movie! As one guy said before me, I too would like to travel back to before I watched this movie.
There are a lot of good comments about this movie, most of which are suspiciously positive about things in this movie that there really cannot be any discussion about whether they're good or not... I believe these people are giving us their subjective thoughts derived from their involvement in this project and therefore they are not to be trusted.
If you're interested in irritating flaws in this movie, you should read some of the other negative reviews really. It's all been said before. However, there is one thing I was wondering about. I'm far from an airplane expert, but would a plane really crash if someone fired a shout through one of the windows? Sure, it might be a bit windy in the cabin, but even that shouldn't be a problem due to the low altitude at which they were flying at the time. No air masks would be necessary anyway. As I said, i'm no expert, but this just seems wrong.
Finally, I'd just like to say that when Astin's character managed to drop the time travel PDA thingumajig for like the eleventh time, I really started to hate him...
3/10 -
razman0012 February 2005I like Sean Astin and Vinnie Jones but they could not save this film. There is little if any explanation as to how the Time Travel device works, the actors just throw out the terms String theory and worm holes. Astin says he shaved a rat and sent it back and it came back harry... Who the hell did he send it back to, himself who didn't know the rats was shaved? The dialog is written for a comic book and there are so many small logic mistakes it really distracted from the story. There is also this spinning camera effect used during the gun fight and in the bus bathroom which is nothing more than distracting. I hope Sean Astin doesn't become the next star to finish one of the best movies of all time (LOTR) only to end up making crappy B movies like this one.
-
njames-513 February 2005I can't understand how anyone can actually like this movie and think the directing was good.
To start, the story is full of hole and plot points that make no sense. Did anyone notice at one commercial break the bad guys were running out of a bus shooting, but when the commercial was over they were sitting on the bus talking. Worse then the plot holes is the directing.
The director seems to feel the need to spin the camera around the actors at all times, and films possibly the worst shootout seen ever created. It just makes you motion sick at time when both the actors and the camera are spinning at different speeds for no reason.
More odd perhaps is that in one seen when a linear dialog is occurring the sense is taking place while they are sitting in a car and while they are walking, the words match up to if they were in the car the whole time but the director keeps jumping to them in transit having the same conversation and it makes no sense.
The saddest part of the whole movie is that nothing bad would have happened had the female FBI agent just kept her gun at her side and not randomly shot people. She does it on no less then 3 occasions and had she not at any of those points things would have worked out much better and you wouldn't have thought she was a moron.
And on one other note, the lines "I'll always be with you" and "You can't or you won't" should be put into a movie if you can help it, especially if they make absolutely no sense with the scene or if there is no background for them to be said.
My recommendation, sit down with a bunch of friends and watch this for a good laugh.
Oh and just so you don't think I don't like Sci-Fi movies, I'm usually a big fan of movies about anything sci-fi, especially involving time travel and such, but this movie is just plain bad, and the science behind it makes no sense and isn't explained at all so it just amounts to a stupid slug fest. -
Rob_Taylor28 June 2005Poor old Sean Astin. Hot off the success of LOTR he ends up doing this dull excuse for an action sci-fi movie.
Slipstream is dull. Not boring, just dull. I had hoped for more seeing as how Vinnie Jones was in it. But he is horribly hamstrung by not being able to swear properly. Substitutions for the F-Word such as "flaming" just aren't funny when they come out of his mouth. Reminded me all to much of a network version of Aliens I saw some years ago, where Hudson kept saying "Frickin'-A!" in a completely different voice than Bill Paxton's. At least here they got Vinnie to do the words. But it still sounds just wrong! Because of this, Vinnie isn't remotely funny in this film. Sean seems terribly ill at ease and the rest of the cast do nothing spectacular. In short, the movie is just dull.
I don't mind the silly physics of time travel, but I do dislike lack of common sense when movies are made. Here, we are told that the time-travel window to the past is just ten minutes long - something to do, we find out later, with not having enough power. But dear old Sam - sorry, Sean - has no problem using his device several times over in those ten minutes, effectively going back over the same ten minutes again and again. So it begs the question....if you can use the device repeatedly, why not go back 10 minutes, then another 10 minutes.... and so on? All in all, poorly thought out and badly executed. Let's hope this film drops into obscurity and does no harm either to Astin's or Jones's careers. -
jack-722315 May 2006This could have been a good film. The whole paradox thing of time travel's always interesting, and so often it's possible to get a bit more mileage out of an idea, and if this had been written properly it could have done that. But what we have is a very badly written, abysmally acted and terribly directed film.
The camera tricks, for starters, are just so overdone it's silly. This director's never heard the expression "less is more", obviously. Silly, silly camera angles and corny slow motion.
Then there's Vinnie Jones, who just comes across as an ignorant buffoon, not because the character is one, but because his acting skills are less than non existent. Then there's the bad accents. Where are some of them supposed to be from? The plot itself is utterly, utterly ridiculous. Accepting the actual plot of time travel, the central plot, and what the characters do, is impossible. The characterisations themselves are just absurd, too. One minute Jones is a psychopath, murdering in cold blood with no remorse, then next he's almost some jovial hero. But it's all done with a shocking lack of consistency, wit, and intelligence.
A truly bad film. Use your two hours more constructively: have a nice nap. -
sammon-129 January 2006When I saw this film, i couldn't believe what I saw, whoever backed this film with money and finance needs shooting, its just awful, utter dire. The ex hobbit's acting is like something out of an Australian sitcom you see at 2pm in the afternoon!, He must have been desperate to shed his "Mr. Frodo" Role to take this. Vinny Jones??? Well after the performance he put in this, he doesn't deserve to act ever again, the over use of the obviously "Tring too hard" cockney accent was an embarrassment to watch, as was the bit where each bank robber says his "I'm hard" sentence. The girl who played the FBI agent's acting was a laugh, when she walled up the hobbit after her partner was shot, that was hilarious. seriously though there should be a agency or watchdog kind of thing, that prevents movies as bad as this being allowed to be sold / distributed to the public. I don't care what Market or territory this film is aimed at it's so bad it's a rip off to rent it on DVD or see it at the cinema.
-
thtmsk2 May 2005This is the first movie for up and coming director David Van Eyssen and he knows what to do when he is on a tight budget; he concentrates on story and characters rather than eye-candy FX. He won a SCI Fi London Award for Best New Director to SCI-FI genre and Vinny Jones won one for Best New Actor to the genre. Unlike so many of today's top-heavy CGI extravaganzas, this film is well written, well acted, well directed, and with a haunting score by Lord this film is a must-see. I would have love to see what David van Eyssen could do with a big film with loads of cash to do more thing with. Maybe we could do with a new Die Hard film made by a new young team of actors with David as Director.
-
Horrible. One of the worst movies I have ever watched. Actually I only watched half, I couldn't take anymore than that. Nothing was good about this "film" apart from the plot which sounded great on the DVD jacket. The Director needs to learn how to do his job. The writers of the dialogue need to be banned from ever putting word to paper again. The actors could have ruined their careers with this. I like Sean Astin for his roles in films like LotR and Rudy. So I know he's better than this. At the time of my writing this review the "film" is 12 years old. Even though most people who would have watched it have done so, I feel an obligation to society to try and make sure nobody else wastes time and money, even if you find it for a buck like I did, on this garbage.
-
davidchurchillny13 February 2005You know it's a funny place the internet. All kinds of people, all kinds of opinions, some useful some not. Reading through a few of the reviews here I had to ask myself had we seen the same film as some of the reviewers? Take it from me this is a great film. It takes you on a roller coaster ride through time, forwards backwards sideways - sideways? Well OK sometimes you have to follow the plot closely but the people who got confused might be better off watching a straight space blaster. This is clever film making no mistake. And what's with the crazy criticism of the director Davis van Eyssen? This guy obviously has talent in spades and manages to create something that is visually stunning and exciting but that also carefully defines real characters and emotion. Finally I'm shocked to hear somebody having a go at Sean Astin. He acts his heart out in this film and shows real comic genius in the way he plays the main character. A class act. Let's get real here.
-
imdb128 November 2006I've read so many bad reviews about this movie that it's a wonder I still went to see it. But in the end, I just had to, because I'm an absolute science fiction lover- so I took the risk.
When the movie starts you immediately see that this is no B-movie. The special effects are of a high standard, the acting is like you may expect from Hollywood actors and the music is damn good. This movie could very well have played in theaters, in my humble opinion.
So, why do I give it a 7 and not an 8? I give an 8 only to movies that still make me think about them the next day; and when I feel that I have to recommend them to others in the confidence that they will like it too. The only reason, therefore, that this movie isn't an 8 is because I LIKED the movie - but I'll probably have forgotten about it tomorrow. The idea behind the movie: someone has a small device that can take them back in time a few minutes-- could have served for some master plot that gets more and more complex, with twists and Ooohs and Aaahs-- making you laugh out loud, thinking "Why didn't I think about that?" and "Can it get ANY more complex/genius?"... But instead, that doesn't happen. The movie doesn't really explore a new level of story line, only possible with time travel. Afterwards you have the satisfaction that you have when you just saw another good bank robbery movie, or a hijack movie. Fun, but no more than that. Still, I wish the reviews had been better; they might have made a TV series of this and I would have definitely enjoyed that. -
somedude0418 February 2005OK, this movie was just thrown together, poorly thought out, and well just lazy.
1. Why not keep jumping back in 10 minute intervals? Why not make 2 devices with two slipstream radio towers or whatever the hell that was that was reversing the entire world from a radio tower????
2. Anything you touch goes with you? OK morons, you're touching the ground which touches the person next to you which touches EVERYTHING.
3. At the very last scene when it reverses you see him get shot outside of the bus and also the shake is thrown on his clothes at the bank from the girl. OK, that was in the original time line that he ERASED!! The shake was the only decent special effects they even had in it so they just HAD to show it again even though the completely ignored that it doesn't make sense. Just lazy LAZY LAZY!
4. THE SPECIAL EFFECTS SUCKED!!!! Oh, look at me, I can push rewind. Let's pause it for 20 seconds and waste time then rewind, wow we're such geniuses.
5. Can't all these government officials tell that he is activating the device? It sits there forever warming up and is controlled from a radio tower. Can't they simply shut it down???
6. How does flying in high elevation make it possible to bypass the 10 minute mark? He said it was impossible, but all of a sudden realizes it's not because they're 10,000 feet in the air? Excuse me?
I could go on and on and on and on about the holes in this story but I've already spent enough time and my blood pressure is rising.
This is the crap that I would expect from someone trying to milk lotr for every penny. They advertised the hell out of having Sean Aston in the film, that's the only reason it was even on the air. I would give anything to have that 2 hours of my life back and I feel stupider for watching it. The story is just completely full of holes. It's all based on time travel but is poorly thought out and just does not make sense at all.
If you're going to make a time travel movie, at least put SOME thought into it. They basically decided "push a button, go back in time. Who cares if it doesn't make sense, it's so k-rad cool doood!". LAME -
Token_B_Girl12 February 2005I had to register with IMDb in order to voice my absolute disgust at this horrible movie. Besides the awful, ill placed music, ridiculous film technique and plain awful American impersonations, the movie took what I considered a very good actor (Sean Astin) and cast him as an idiot - in addition to making Vinnie Jones the worst bad guy in the history of cheesy scifi movies.
I am a big fan of scifi movies, especially seeing how movies differ in approach to time travel. I will admit, their approach was decent, but apparently the director focused all of the money budgeted for this movie in a few cg shots and none on the actual plot.
The ending had some redeeming qualities, but still left me utterly disappointed.
I want my 2 hours back! -
john in missouri2 August 2006It's not as awful as some people think, or as good as a few think.
In fact, the average rating of 4.6 is about right. I'd give it perhaps a little lower, about a 4.
It never ceases to amaze me how a Hollywood director will spend millions, even tens of millions of dollars or more to produce a film, and try to create an illusion, and then shoot it all to heck by getting sloppy and sticking an obvious wrench into the believability. Without giving any spoilers, I spotted two very obvious believability wrenches.
This is a film with quirky direction. I guess they tried to make it different. Well, I guess they succeeded.
I call it a "minor" time travel tale because that's simply how it feels.