Time After Time (2017) User Reviews (70)

Sad to see sci-fi often pulled

[pietclausen · 7/10 · 29 August 2017]

I love good sci-fi adventures and enjoyed watching Time after time. For one reason or another the networks keep canceling sci-fi series after only a few episodes have been aired. This one lasted 5 episodes in the States.

Spain and Portugal's networks thought differently and aired all 12 episodes made. I was fortunately able to see the remaining episodes too. I consider this series above average of its genre and thank these European networks for airing them. The producers of the series also had more than one season in mind and the final episode ended with a cliffhanger.

Which network has the heart to take up the gap and have more seasons made? Sci-fi supporters will thank them from the bottom of their hearts!

Oh my god I hate it when a good show gets such bad reviews

[chrisdye-21481 · 8/10 · 14 March 2017]

I will say that I am not usually one to appreciate the shows about history or really anything to do with history for that matter but I have to say that I have been watching this show and loving it just seems like it is more fun than learning yes I know that.jack. was a terrible terrible man who is now dead but he makes a hell of a villain for this type of thing I think people can do much worse than watching this show it is a good time and super fun and exciting that is why I tune in to it every week and enjoy it more as it goes on Sunday is now funday and after going to church I catch up on my guilty pleasure which is this I say watch it

Early Episodes Shortchange The Characters

[atlasmb · 7/10 · 19 March 2017]

This television series is an adaptation of the very enjoyable film from 1979. I don't think it is appropriate to judge a work by comparing it to another version, but I do think such a comparison can be useful in identifying ways it could be better.

The film starred Malcolm McDowell and Mary Steenburgen. McDowell was very successful in conveying the Victorian manners that one would expect from H. G. Wells--the British author who wrote science fiction classics and championed science as the key to a Utopian society. He also was very convincing in his portrayal of a nineteenth century man confronting the technological advances of the late twentieth century. While Freddie Stroma brings a certain charm to the television role, he comes up short in these two areas.

Genesis Rodriguez plays the role of Jane Walker, the modern American woman whose life is disrupted by Wells. She fits the role fairly well. But her characterization (as well as Stroma's) is handcuffed by the script.

As is common these days, the pilot launches pall mall into the story with barely a moment of character development, hoping to hook viewers on the action. This shortchanges the story and the viewers' understanding of the characters. Also, the writing advances the plot so quickly that it fails to establish the authenticity of the characters' motivations or emotions. The viewer is asked to bounce form one action scene to the next without time to consider or feel.

The way that Wells--and the man he chases--so quickly adapt to the surroundings of 21st century New York City with barely a question strains credulity. Modern Americans are incredulous at Wells' invention, despite the fact that modern technology advances so quickly, but Wells supposedly accepts and understands the modern miracles around him like someone who had already read books from 2017.

Despite the fact that the sci-fi aspects of the story have been minimized, the romance and suspense aspects of the story may suffice to make this an interesting show. Hopefully, the script's pace will slow enough for the characters to become more than names or titles, allowing the audience to become more emotionally invested.

Time Travelers Heading Back (Permanently) to 1893.

[LiquidPoetry1921 · 7/10 · 5 March 2017]

Jumping on the success of NBC's 'Timeless', ABC has developed the period/science fiction drama, 'Time After Time'. The major difference between the two is 'Timeless' has its travelers journeying to different past historical events each week, whereas 'Time After Time' focused solely on H.G. Wells (Freddie Stroma) and Dr. John Stevenson/Jack the Ripper (Josh Bowman) traveling from 1893 England to present day Manhattan. And...this where I started having issues with the show.

Although the two men both seemed puzzled and perplexed seeing the inventions of the modern world, it was almost comical at the ease they adapted to present day life within a matter of minutes. For example, Stevenson readily finds a pawn shop where the proprietor is happy to give him $15K in cash for his 'antique' gold watch, which he immediately uses to buy designer clothes, expensive sunglasses, and check into a luxury hotel (without ID or credit card). Without lessons, neither man has a problem using a cell phone, an elevator, or even navigating the complex Manhattan streets. I think the plot would have been a little more intriguing had the men dealt with the awkwardness of modern day New York vs. Victorian England.

Whereas 'Timeless' could jump all over history due to its premise, 'Time After Time' locked itself into the Jack the Ripper storyline. I wasn't completely impressed with the first episode, but I did find Wells (Stroma) quite charming and more 'plausible' as a time traveler than Stevenson (Bowman) ~ perhaps because I can still picture him in another ABC show, 'Revenge'.

And who knows if the show would have gotten better, as it's been officially canceled by ABC. I guess it's time to return to 1893.

Thoroughly enjoyed!!

[infatoneated · 9/10 · 8 March 2017]

I've not seen the original movie, but with my love of history I really enjoyed the two hour premiere. Of course, that generally means (and judging by all of the horrible reviews here) that it will be another short lived show. Like many others, I've held a fascination with Jack the Ripper and am interested to see the story line. H G Wells, was clearly a man ahead of his time, and I think that they will do well with this character. Please give it a chance and stop being so negative all at once. Its refreshing to see something other than a political or hospital drama!!

Enjoyable, creative and above all else....FUN......

[s3276169 · 7/10 · 6 March 2017]

I'm left scratching my head at the negative reviews this series has attracted. Maybe its mostly H.G. Wells purists, who don't like adaptations of his work?

Indeed, to be fair, there have been some horrible adaptations, of Wells stories. Thankfully, this is not one of them. Certainly, it by no means adhere's to the facts of Well's life or strictly speaking his stories as written but so what?

The fact is this is a well made series that's a mix of thriller and sci fi action. Viewed from this perspective its extremely enjoyable. The characterizations have depth, the sci fi elements meld into a Wells- ian centric universe and the action is well paced and enjoyable. I especially like how the series writers have creatively blended elements of H.G. Wells life and literature and the Jack The Ripper murder mystery.

Sure its a far fetched yarn but its still engaging stuff.I really like this series and plan to keep watching. Seven out of ten from me.

It's bad

[heatsink98 · 2/10 · 5 March 2017]

This series about Jack the Ripper escaping with H.G. Wells' time machine to 2017 is ABC's, ahem, stab at a time travel show. It's clearly aimed to compete with Legends of Tomorrow and Timeless.

Sadly, the pilot I just watched was awful. The dialog was horrible and wooden. The plot frequently flew off the rails into strangely placed romantic exchanges between the two leads. Logic in the writing was lacking. H.G. Wells' time machine had been sitting around in a museum in the modern era. It had also gone through extensive technical restorations, and nobody noticed it worked? The time travel rules were also somewhat murky. Why did the machine disappear in the past, only to reappear and yet still remain fixed in the future? I thought the writers were trying to setup the machine as a door that connects two time periods, but if it disappeared due to time travel in the past, that still doesn't make sense.

Moving on, then there was the standard question that shows like this have to work around: why not just call the cops? Answer: they'll never believe us. Ugh. I think I'm giving up on the rest of the episodes unless something drastically changes to make the show watchable.

Life's greatest mystery...what does the future and/or the past hold for us?

[Ed-Shullivan · 10/10 · 7 March 2017]

First let me say that yes I did see the film version back in 1979 and yes it was very enjoyable and it still holds up well some 28 years later. As for this new television series that took 28 years for a brave producer to stick their neck out and have faith that there will be an audience for it, well I say congratulations to you!

What I fail to understand by the previous reviewers is why there is so much hate in their reviews? I just watched the two hour pilot and I found this series to contain adventure, romance, mystery, danger and a darn good cast of characters. I can only surmise that some of the other reviewers are either professional saboteurs working for competing broadcast stations who wish to retain their share of the Nielsen ratings, or they are less than impressive actors who did not make the cut and lost the part to some of this casts current performers who in my opinion succeeded where they failed and there is a hate on for them which is totally undeserved.

Freddie Stroma plays H.G. Wells and his nemesis Jack the Ripper is played by Josh Bowman. H.G. Wells unplanned travel to the year 2017 in pursuit of Dr. John Stevenson finds him falling head over heels for a Miss Jane Parker played by Genesis Rodriguez who is the assistant curator of the New York museum which has Mr. Wells time machine on exhibit.

During the second hour of the pilot H.G. Wells is introduced to his great, great grand daughter Vanessa Anders (played by Nicole Ari Parker). What was interesting about this particular reveal was how Vanessa explained to H.G. Wells how they first met several years earlier and how she convinced H.G. Wells that they did in fact meet previously, albeit several years ago which was the reason Vanessa kept waiting for Mr. Wells to re-enter not only into her life, but re- enter into her world over 100 years later.

I noticed in the series credits that none of the aforementioned characters appear in any more than 3 episodes so I can only surmise that the series will take some unsuspected twists and turns and maybe the spoils are rewarded to whom holds the key to the time machine? I quite enjoyed this television version which also included a cameo appearance by the great English actress Juliet Mills.

So to all you naysayers, I say try and close your eyes and consider that maybe this team of writers have a much more developed creative genius than the negative comments you attributed to the pilot episode. I for one will keep my eyes opened and I look forward to where this time machine will next takes us....time after time.

I give the series a perfect 10 out of 10 rating. Bravo!

Spoilers about problems

[silverwolf_wwf · 7 March 2017]

There are some really big holes in this show. Even though it should be an adaption from The Timer Traveler, it's poorly changed in this show. 1. Jack the Ripper = 1888, not 1893. The Ripper mutilated his victims, not just stabbing them like in the show. 2. If H.G. time travels to the future, shouldn't the time line change? How could he have written all those books? 3. If H.G. & Jane travel to the future, how could she be killed if she wasn't there? 4. They adapt too quick to the modern world. 5. etc ... etc ...

It's good and I think it will get even better!

[chazantonelli · 7/10 · 22 March 2017]

I just binge-watched the first four episodes, and as a fan of the 1979 film of the same title, I think it was very well done.

Yes, there are issues with some things (which, mind you were also prevalent in the film version!), so to the nay-sayers I say wait and allow this series to grow and explain them! Of course, with some of the new characters introduced in the series verses the film, there is a whole new layer of intrigue! I for one am a fan of time-travel films and shows from the 40+ year old "Dr Who" to the new show "Timeless", "12 Monkeys", "Making History" and others.

Sit back, watch and enjoy -- I think it's going to be a fun ride!

2 Stars for reasonably good acting but that's it

[Martypies · 2/10 · 6 March 2017]

One of the other reviews I read pretty much said most things I wanted to say but this is another bad time travel show, even worse than Timeless. Science Fiction writers need to understand that they're not writing a sitcom and that we the viewers are quite intelligent and see all the plot holes. Like Timeless, Time After Time is another "chase" time travel show. In this one, HG Wells is chasing Jack the Ripper and even though Doctor Jack is leaving a pile of dead women in his wake, nobody seems to want to kill him. In the single most pathetic scene in the pilot, our 2017 heroine disables Jack by hitting him over the head with what looks like a heavy ceramic candy bowl. Jack is down for the count and does she go over to him and bash his skull in with the bowl? No, she races to the bedroom to get the other girl Jack has tied up and gagged in there, then she carefully grabs Jack by his legs and drags him out of the doorway so they can make a run for it. Of course he soon wakes up and catches up to them before they even make it to the stairs. This could very well be the most insulting piece of story writing I have ever seen in my 57 years. This is Jack the Ripper, she knows who he is and she is happy to run away when she has him unconscious! Anyway, I fast forwarded after that just in case they kill him in the end but he manages to escape after getting tasered by a security guard. He then calls HG and tells him he is going to kill one woman every day until he gives him the key to the time machine, blah blah blah, let's watch another 9 episodes chasing Jack and just missing him at the end. He will probably have killed 50 women by then and all because our dumb heroine didn't hit him harder with the candy bowl. The acting is quite good, it's not their fault they're working with a woeful script. If you want to watch a good time travel show, take a look at the first season of Travelers. It's excellent with strong characters and very good story telling.

I enjoyed it

[ctcnov9 · 10/10 · 13 March 2017]

OK, so the show is a bit cheesy at times but I really enjoyed it. I watch a lot of crime shows so it's nice to find a show like this. It is not dark like many of them are. I like the idea of love at first sight so that is a draw for me. I enjoy science fiction and mystery. This show seems to have it and I'd like to see where they take it. I think it has potential and I want to see what they do with it. I've seen the movie and while it was a decent I like the show far better.

Not the worst show ..... its watchable

[wasimchocolate7 · 7/10 · 13 March 2017]

well this show is not that bad yes the actors are cliché , the plot is bad , the events are illogical but the show is not that bad this spring we don't have much options like flash is airing but it's so bad now I hate it same goes for super girl , arrow ,agents is shield etc. This is far better that those as it has jack the ripper in it the actor playing him is the worst but no matter who plays jack they can't bore us enough so watch it unless something good comes along

Avoid this mess at all costs. Watch the 1979 original movie instead.

[peteamend-01037 · 1/10 · 5 March 2017]

I really wanted to like this since the original movie is one of my favorite movies ever.

Horrible writing, bad character development and nothing positive. I finally had to turn it off for good when (SPOILER) Jane had knocked THE Jack the Ripper unconscious and helpless at her feet... so she takes another possible victim and carefully steps over one of the first and greatest serial killers of all time.

Even if I was not the intended victim of Jack the Ripper, which she was, I am betting I would do better than carefully stepping over him so he could continue his murder spree for at least another 11 episodes.

Jane sees a newspaper showing she was the latest victim of Jack the Ripper BUT when given the chance to kill, or at least capture him, she carefully steps over him (instead of smashing his head in with her shoes or anything in the room). If I know someone intends to kill me, I fight for my life... not just leave him alone to make sure he can kill me and others. Once I see a movie or TV where the intended victim lets the murderer go free to kill again and again and again and again, I turn if off and never look back.

Save time you will never get back and be sure to carefully step over this "poop". It will hopefully be canceled soon anyway. I need to go back in time and make sure to warn myself to avoid this mess. Go back and watch/re-watch the incredible 1979 movie.

Whilst the series maybe loyal to its namesake predecessor that starred Roddy Mcdowall it fades rapidly to keep an interest

[jamesagacannalynch · 30 May 2017]

The producers forget that it is the whole Victorian era that holds the interest for Jack not the murders themselves, there have been more numerous and grisly killings in our own time, so it was never just that which fascinated people.This series took the wrong course from the beginning not enough footage of Victorian England it could have been so much better if it were not for the sentimentality to run like a typical soap, and on that level it even fails, there is more conjuring of visual, drama and historical accuracy presented in my own work here - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dichotomy-Two-Jacks-tale-Ripper- ebook/dp/B00PHM2VN0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496135182&sr=8- 1&keywords=the+dichotomy+of+two+jacks if the producers have ambition for doing something better on this subject.

Well, it's moving a little too fast

[rander3127 · 7/10 · 6 March 2017]

I had hoped it would start out with a preamble, a build-up set in 1893 London, but they spend next to no time on it. Also, there are no special effects to impress like in the movie this is based-on. Perhaps they didn't have much money? The premise is that his friend John is Jack the Ripper. He takes the time machine to our time and begins killing in 2017. There is a creepy undertone that a guy who has killed a dozen women might possibly be "redeemed." But what the real problem is that these people pick-up on the technology all too quickly. We are (because of the pace of the show) deprived of seeing them experience things for the first time, which was part of the charm of the movie and the movies about the Time Machine that preceded this series. For example, the girl Wells meets in the museum is convinced the whole thing is real too quickly, in real-life, she'd look for more evidence than a museum exhibit opening "3 days early." I'm hoping it gets a bit more interesting and doesn't end up as just another cop chase story.

Sad news

[jayddw · 10/10 · 29 March 2017]

Sorry to hear about it's demise. Refreshing and informative. Good acting, well rounded cast and the writing is very good. Want it to stay on the air. Can't finally watch something entertaining rather than controversial? For a change - give us something rather than quickly taking it away.

Convoluted, poorly written and drawn out.

[Elewis1195 · 7/10 · 12 March 2019]

I liked the movie with Malcolm McDowell and David Warner as a teenager when I saw it. It had charm. It's, perhaps, not aged that well, but it was a well done movie for it's time.

This "re-imagining", which interestingly, begins like a remake until it brings in other elements, is much more complex, more thought provoking, with some uncertainty as to what people's motivations are and what really happened in the past. It's a nice enough spin on the time travel paradox.

There is some bad writing though, some cheats like a photograph that was a little too convenient and too many conversations about "You're not going to shoot me, you don't have it in you" and rescues at just the right moment. Bits written in just to keep the plot moving along, but if you can forgive the rushed writing, it's a fun little yarn about who gets the time machine and what do they do with it.

I liked it perhaps more than I should have. 7.5 stars.

Why do contemporary script writers make characters so stupid?

[puzzledresearcher · 5/10 · 6 March 2017]

Yes, H.G. Wells as a plot line is overdone. But classics are not bad, if done well.

Yes, Jack the Ripper is a plot that is overused, but again, a classic is fine if well done.

Time travel - is popular these days as TV genre. Again, not a problem if well done.

Here's one of the really big problems with Time After Time: the writers have made time travel very central to the whole story line. It's not just a device to set up a comedy (as in the also-new series Making History), but is part of the discussion within the dialogue. This means time travel is important to the ongoing story.

Yet the script writers have made, in episodes 1 and 2 of Time After Time, the character of H.G. Wells, who wrote the cornerstone work of fiction in the genre, and in this story also the inventor of a time machine, into a rather stupid character. And by that I mean he's not very bright. He has a time machine. He has the key. He already demonstrated that he could take the assistant curator 3 days into the future.

So why, upon discovering this same curator is kidnapped, does he not just go back a bit in time and set out warnings for her, or himself, or somebody, to prevent the kidnapping/killings in the first place?

Herein is the problem with writing time travel stories - it takes some thought to keep it from being silly.

And the scriptwriters here just didn't bother.

Regarding the movie by the same name - it was long ago and I don't mind if ideas and titles are reused, as there aren't really very many novel ideas in plots or characters in all of television.

After the first two episodes, my recommendation is to watch this only if you have some spare time and are not too picky about time travel stories. There are plenty of better works in the genre if you're interested.

Really upset it got pulled

[jgkelley-48797 · 8/10 · 23 June 2020]

If your someone who appreciates Jack the Ripper shows/movies; but also someone for who, the thought of time travel isn't so far fetched; I have a hard time imagining you wouldn't like this show. Those are no spoilers, it's legit the point of the show to it's very core without specifics.

As far as these low reviews? I mean I wouldn't watch a werewolf movie and give it a 1 because I don't like werewolves. We have to have a clue about these things and what we are going to watch. Otherwise someone should include in their review about maybe an old western that they hate old westerns before handing out a 1. I've seen some bad shows, for people to give this show such a poor rating is sad and I'm curious what makes their brain tick. I'm wondering if they know it's a show about time travel to a point with character we know about, what could the problem with plot be? Ok Hitchcock, your so much more qualified than a department at a major studio lmao who've had success at supreme level. Does that mean you have to like everything, no. But cmon, don't complain about the plot of this show when anyone with a clue understands the made complete and total sense. Don't psycho-analyze everything Freud. Or you will never be able to sit back and enjoy any show

Yes we are all different, but the show proved fantastic for what it was intended to be. It's a shame it never got a chance to get to far in depth or allow plot to develop but the show itself was great and the plot was so incredible it's unbelievable.

Actually OK but writing is stupid

[steve_r-1 · 7/10 · 25 March 2017]

I actually quite like this program- it's entertaining enough, the acting is surprisingly good and the premise isn't bad (the movie is excellent). There is some massive flaws though H.G and the Ripper have both adapted to the twenty first century as if they've only jumped 5-10 years not 129!!!! In the first episode John went to the pawn shop as if he'd been at one many times before and seemed to already know what his pawn was worth in the 21st century. They had no problems with mobile phones, laptops etc and worst of all recognised round security cameras that were designed to look like lights!! Hmmm is all this stuff standard in 1888?? The guys also seem a little too clean cut for 19th century men looking like they've just finished surfing at the beach. If you want to turn off your brain and not think too much about these things then you'll enjoy yourself otherwise it'll set your OCD into overdrive oh and did I mention that the woman who plays Jane just happens to be the most gorgeous woman on TV?? No?? Well she is!!!

Taking the charm and brilliance out of a great movie.....

[ralphiea · 3/10 · 6 March 2017]

"Time After Time" (1979) is one of my all time favorite movies. Malcolm McDowell and Mary Steenburgen first met making this piece. The chemistry between them helped give that movie its charisma and innocence. Of course innocence was something that McDowell was a master at portraying in that period of his life.

Now I don't know if this is an actual fact, but I certainly think it is completely plausible that if Jack The Ripper was a surgeon, he killed in a surgical manner. The movie without being graphic, shows David Warner committing one of his murders. He lures a streetwalker into an alley. We watch as he quickly sexually pleases the tawdry woman. The camera focuses on her face. We see pleasure turn to horror as we hear the sound of the labia being sliced open. Then we watch as she slumps to the ground and blood is saturating her dress. I always thought this was one of the most horrific murders on film that I have ever seen and set up the tone of the movie beautifully. In the TV show, the ripper merely stabs the stomach of the girl and flees. I am not surprised that it being on ABC, and owned by Disney they could not show the order as the movie did. But it really takes the horror and charm out of the story.

The movie gave tribute to the original "Time Machine" with Rod Taylor. There was the initial time travel scene when Welles takes the Machine to the future for the first time. We see the world change outside his window as Rod Taylor did int he original. In this TV show, we see none of that.

The characters in the TV show have none of the chemistry the actors in the movie had. I had low expectations when I started watching this disappointment and they were rewarded with a sloppy, uninspired show.

It is a shame.

Competent, enjoyable and full of promise

[skoyles · 8/10 · 6 March 2017]

I loved the 1979 movie of the same name. It was the definition of charming. This series began here with the first two episodes and I was impressed favourably. The three leads are as charming as can be with John performed brilliantly with an oozing, psychopathic, warped evil that begins with his eyes and inhabits the actor's whole being. I find it hard to believe that he was recently the weak Daniel in Revenge. The other two are new to me. I beg to differ with some others here who seem to find Jane unattractive; I find her cute and beautiful and a fine wee actress. Wells also seemed more than competent in such a strange role. I had hoped for the time machine from the Rod Taylor movie but this one, especially with the ice on the windows, seems quite fine. I have enjoyed Timeless for the most part though its egregious historical errors exceeded anything on this show. I give this a weak 8 in hopes of a surer hand in writing and direction as the series gets its feet under it. I certainly would recommend it to friends.

Getting a bit stupid

[att_cda · 7/10 · 5 March 2017]

Freddie Stroma was saying it will change something but how does he know all that? just theory? and looked like he had problem believing what he was saying. It wasn't convincing. And then the story got really stupid.. I was like oh OK so you just did that to try to help the girl? Just cant believe that he made the time machine.

Silly, made without logic and research.

[Undutchable1939 · 1/10 · 6 March 2017]

I kind of knew this would "ruin my childhood" (I think that is what people say these days about remakes that are awful), but I watched it anyway. From the very first seconds you know the show has not spend much (if any) budget on historical research. Literally nothing about Victorian London is actually accurate. Besides a few minutes on the internet clearly nobody researched Jack the Ripper or how Victorian people behaved. Sure, I don't expect perfect authentic Victorian language but is it that much effort to at least avoid a frightfully modern conversation about dating, being single and divorced? Did anyone realise that when you said "Hello gents" back then it meant you were calling your friends toilets? And there is a maid/housekeeper who is blonde but should be grey and thus dyed her hair blonde, wears makeup and doesn't know her place? Even the shipwreck Downton Abbey did that better. Besides that our Victorians are impressed and in shock with modern society for a few minutes and then quickly fit in. Sure. On top of that we have a bunch of dumb women. OH we get kidnapped by Jack the Ripper, yay I wacked him over the head with a bowl. Let's make a run for it in stead of you know, wack him again or at least tie him up...

I know the original 1970s movie was a bit of fun and not too serious, I know it had plenty of mistakes in it. But this is 2017, thanks to CGI and computers there is so much we can do when it comes to bringing the past to life, authentically. Would it really have been that much effort to get a few proper researchers involved?

And yes, I know, many people will think historical details don't matter, that nobody will know the mistakes. But in the end when you spot historical mistakes, especially obvious ones, they are simply an example of somebody in the production team not doing their work properly. Some people notice bad lighting, some bad camera work, I notice lack of research.

Anyway, I managed to finish the first episode, but it was quite an effort. I hear that in other episodes they'll go and visit other eras. Oh dear.