ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
The place to “find your people”.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Time After Time (1979)

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies from 1970 to 2000
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
The Spike
Astral Engineer


Joined: 23 Sep 2014
Posts: 266
Location: Birmingham. Great Britain.

PostPosted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:53 pm    Post subject: Time After Time (1979) Reply with quote



"Ninety years ago I was a freak. Today I'm an amateur."

Time After Time is directed by Nicholas Meyer who also adapts the screenplay from a story written by Karl Alexander and Steve Hayes. It stars Malcolm McDowell, David Warner and Mary Steenburgen. Music is by Miklos Rozsa and cinematography is by Paul Lohmann.

How delightful, a wonderful idea is given an equally wonderful presentation. The makers have come up with the idea of pitching Jack the Ripper against H.G. Wells, in the present day of 1979. This after the Ripper (Warner) used Wells' (McDowell) time machine to escape the Whitechapel police back in 1891, thus forcing Wells to track the infamous killer to San Francisco in the future.

There have been so many fish-out-of-water based movies over the years, it's so refreshing to find one that has a genuinely original premise to work from. In the Ripper's case he sees all the violence around the streets of San Fran and believes it's his calling to be in this company.

On the flip-side, Wells is perturbed to find that this is not the Utopia he had envisaged, but yet the science lover in him is fascinated by what he finds. Helps, too, that he has caught the attention of a very horny Amy Robbins (Steenburgen), who is equally fascinated by his genteel mannerisms.

Naturally the fun has to stop at some point to let the suspense and darker aspects of the story come to the surface.

Meyer gets the blend right, dropping in little snippets of evil as Jolly Jack, resplendent with waistcoat and money belt, goes about his bloody business, and then switches to the Wells/Amy axis as they try to build a relationship whilst trying to convince the authorities that a nutter is very much in their midst. It builds nicely, ramping up the tension considerably, and there's always the pertinent question hanging in the air of if there is any hope for H.G. and Amy?

Such is the rich characterizations and quality of story telling, we most assuredly care about the outcome to this splendid piece of time travelling cake. 8.5/10

_________________
The quality of mercy is not strnen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robert (Butch) Day
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1437
Location: Arlington, WA USA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It was on the strength of this film that Nick Meyers was chosen to direct STAR TREK II The Wrath of Khan.
_________________
Common Sense ISN'T Common
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

_______________________________________

Although this movie looks badly dated today in many ways (mostly the special effects), I enjoyed it very much when it came out. And I love the fact that Mary Steenburgen falls in love with a time traveler and then does the same thing in Back to the Future III! Very Happy


______________________
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Fri May 14, 2021 5:02 pm; edited 5 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rick
Space Ranger


Joined: 25 Feb 2016
Posts: 106
Location: New York City

PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I love this movie and have since seeing it on the day it opened. It's smart and clever and funny and romantic and creepy and all good things.

Back in the days when I was — or seemed to be — the only person in the world who actually owned his own VCR, this was one of the movies I taped off HBO or Showtime or The Movie Channel or something and watched over and over. And I showed it over and over to crowds of folks I was working with. It ALWAYS played like gangbusters. I must have shown it to at least 100 people back in '80-'81 and nobody disliked it. Most loved it.

And, if there was ever a "star-making" performance it's certainly Mary Steenburgen's here. She is charming, cute, funny, touching, and just so different from everyone else. As for her dual time-travel romances, I believe I read somewhere long ago that Robert Zemeckis wanted her for BACK TO THE FUTURE 3 at least partly because of her role in TIME AFTER TIME. And why not?

"Pomme frites! Fries are pomme frites!"

_________________
Man need not kneel before the angels,
Nor lie in death forever,
But for the weakness of his feeble will.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

I sure miss the old days when trailers used to pitch the movie by telling us what the story was about and by showing scenes that made us want to see it.

Here's a fine example. Enjoy.
________________________________


____________________ Time After Time - trailer


___________

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bogmeister
Galactic Fleet Vice Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 574

PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

____________
_______________

______________ Time After Time movie trailer


__________


Here's a very entertaining tale on time travel, almost like a modern fable. The director, Nic Meyer, was kind of old school, sort of old fashioned, and he seems almost like a fan of old Victorian England. He wrote The Seven Percent Solution (which featured Sherlock Holmes & Sigmund Freud) right before this and afterward he directed Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), which emulated adventure on the high seas transplanted to outer space.



I first saw this under the best of circumstances, in a big theater in my old hometown of San Francisco, where most of this takes place.

But the story begins in London, England, late 19th century, at the time when Jack the Ripper was committing his heinous murders. Herbert G. Wells (McDowell), the famous science fiction author, is hosting a dinner for a group of friends when Scotland Yard arrives, on the trail of the notorious killer.

It turns out that one of Wells' guests, a physician (David Warner), is indeed the killer. But the madman is quite clever and escapes in the time machine which Wells had just completed.

Sound crazy? Well, that's time travel movies for you.



Some of this obviously recalls the most famous time travel tale, The Time Machine (1960), based on Wells' novel, but Time After Time has its own charms, unique to its flavor and wild "what if" scenario.

It's fantasy that Wells could actually be such a great inventor, but the whole concept is tantalizing, almost needing to be told at least once. Thanks to the well-drawn characters, the story becomes both a tense sci-fi thriller and a love story.



Because of a fail-safe feature, a key installed in the time machine, the machine returns to Wells' basement after his ex-friend uses it. Wells then follows the killer to 1979, San Francisco (why Frisco? I forget — but it made it more interesting for me, even if there's not much sense to this, unless it involves Earth's rotation somehow).

As we expect, Wells' introduction to the social environment of '79 San Francisco is full of amusing moments and even some poignancy. Meyer & McDowell make the most of it — it's culture shock piled onto culture shock.

The confrontation between Wells & the Ripper is exciting and very well done, but the story really takes off when Wells meets a girl (Mary Steenburgen). This may be the film that shows that love is truly timeless (a year later, Somewhere in Time made a similar attempt, but was a bit too sugary by comparison).



All the actors are close to perfect in their roles here: McDowell manages to be naive and idealistic (in stark contrast to his roles in A Clockwork Orange and Caligula), yet obviously very intelligent.

Warner is superb as the insane doctor who, despite his violent tendencies, has the mental attributes of a chess master. And Steenburgen, though close to being overly quirky & eccentric, is quite beguiling as the lady whom a time traveler might fall for.

She sort of repeated her role much later in another time travel tale, Back to the Future III (1990).

Some of the decisions Wells makes are not very bright, such as telling the police that he's a detective named Sherlock Homes, branding himself a kook, but I suppose it delineates how far from home Wells really is, never considering, for example, that Holmes would be still well known so far in the future.

BoG's Score: 8.5 out of 10


___________ New Interview: Malcolm McDowell


__________




BoG
Galaxy Overlord Galactus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2020 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

IMDB has 39 trivia items for this movie. Here’s a few of the ones I found the most interesting, in the blue text. Very Happy
________________________________

~ Malcolm McDowell and Mary Steenburgen met and fell in love while shooting this picture. They were married from September 29, 1980, to October 1, 1990. Director Nicholas Meyer chose to not let them meet before the scene was filmed, to keep their reactions fresh for the scene. He had no idea they would actually fall in love.

Note from me: I wonder if Robert Zemickus cast Mary Steenburgen in Back to the Future III because he wanted her character fall in love with yet another time travler! Very Happy

~ All four of the real H.G. Wells' children were still alive at the time of this film's release.

Note from me: Imagine going to see this movie with Wells' family! That would be awesome indeed.

~ Malcolm McDowell listened to recordings of H.G. Wells to prepare for the role. According to him, Wells' voice was high-pitched and Cockney-accented, so he decided not to imitate his voice.

Note from me: I can just imagine Malcolm hearing those recordings for the first time and thinking, "Hey, I'm not going to talk like that!" Shocked

~ A deleted scene featured Wells meeting a punk who was playing extremely loud boom-box music on a bus in San Francisco. Nicholas Meyer later reused this idea in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986).

Note from me: Forgive me, but I've always thought that scene in Star Trek IV was kinda silly. The obnoxious man on the bus is rendered unconscious by a nerve pinch, and all the passengers applaud. No one cared what the strange man in the white robe DID to the punk did to knock him out instantly?

I know, I know . . . it was just a silly gag. And that fact bothers me too. Rolling Eyes

~ ABC produced a Time After Time (2017) TV series based on this film. ABC removed the series from its schedule due to low ratings after broadcasting five episodes. However, all 12 episodes have been broadcast in Spain and Portugal.

Note from me: Wow! This trailer is very impressive, and the time machine itself is SO much better than that silly thing in the movie, which looks like something from the Beatles' Yellow Submarine animated feature!


________ Time After Time | official trailer (2017)


__________






~ Both this film and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) were written by Nicholas Meyer. This film features a time traveler from the past who arrives in modern day San Francisco, while The Voyage Home features time travelers from the future who arrive in modern day San Francisco.

Both films feature the time travelers experiencing several instances of fish-out-of-water scenarios for comedic effect as well as selling antique items they have in their possession in order to raise money. In both films, a modern day woman decides to join the time travelers as they return to their own time periods.


Note from me: The humor in Time After Time works better, probably because it's easy to accept that a man from the 1800's would do something funny like knock on a Formica table in McDonald's and say, "I've never seen wood like this."

But Kirk and Spock being put off a bus by the driving and then saying to each other, "What did he mean by 'exact change'?" sounds more like stupidity than culture shock. Rolling Eyes

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Thu Mar 21, 2024 6:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2021 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

I watched a recent DVR of this movie from TCM, and I was prepared to endured the many things about I despise and just enjoy the many things about it I appreciate.

I'll talk about the good aspects first so that anyone who doesn't want to listen to me rundown this enjoy movie because of it's puzzling and unforgivable flaws can can skip the rest of the post. Very Happy
________________________________

First and foremost, the cast is pure gold!

Malcolm McDowell nails the role of H.G. Wells, partly because he succeeds in portraying the confusion which Wells felt at being at being in a totally alien world, and partly because he frequently demonstrates how well he's using his intelligence to adapt to this strange and challenging new environment.

Mary Steenburgen's character is lovely, childlike, and yet wise and sensitive. She has no idea why Malcolm's character is so ignorant about common things in modern day San Francisco. But she never assumes it's because Malcolm is just plane stupid!

She always gives him the benefit of the doubt and treats with complete respect. That's what makes her character so lovable. Very Happy

As for David Warner, I'm not aware of role he played which seemed so right for him. The early scenes in London with him and Malcolm at the chess board were excellent,. And their later scenes in San Francisco included dialog which referred to those moments.

Their relationship was a two-sided coin in which they both possessed a high order of intelligence, but their basic nature was as different as night and day! Shocked

The scene in the Hyatt Regency Hotel room with the two characters was powerful.

Warner showed Malcolm shocking TV images of the 20th Century and the cruel nature of our world — which Malcolm's character had previously assumed would be a utopia, free from war and crime. In that scene we, the audience, realize that our society is as corrupt and cruel as Jack the Ripper himself. Sad

This revelation actually makes us glad that Malcolm's and Mary's characters return to the 19th century in the final scene. By doing so they might succeed in steering mankind in the right direction.

And by gum, that might be true concerning the finally scene in Back to the Future III. Doc says he and Clara aren't going to the future in his time-traveling flying train because, "I've been there already!"

So, are the happy could and his two sons going to dedicate their efforst to changing the fate of mankind by intervening at various points in history — carefully selected to influence events in ways that will benefit mankind?

By God . . . that's what I'D do!! Shocked
________________________________

As for the bad parts of this movie . . . the design of the time machine is ridiculous! It looks remarkably like something from a Dr. Seuss children's book! Rolling Eyes

And the FX during the journey through time are amatuerish. Flashing colored lights, superimposed in front of the filmed elements on the set. No attempt is made to integrate the two.

And then, of course, there's the stupid idea that Malcolm ends up calmly sitting inside a museum display when he finally arrives in San Franciso!

How did Malcolm suddenly appear inside a museum display which was "on loan from the British Museum", when he'd just arrived in this same machine to travel through time so he could get here from his London home?

Dammit, how the hell could the machine in the museum have been "unearth in London recently" (accord to the plaque) when Malcolm arrived in it just moments ago? Rolling Eyes

Then again, we all wonder just where David Warner left the machine when HE arrive in San Francisco, just before it returned automatically to Malcolm's basement lab?

Did it too miraculously appear in the museum display? And then disappear? And the come back with Malcolm inside?

And . . . . nobody noticed as all this? :roll"

Really? Shocked

Folks, the producers of a so-called "science fiction" movie which inflicts crap like this on the audience obviously has no respect for the intelligence of the people watching their movie!

In short, the science fiction elements of this enjoyable-but-flawed movie are riddled with illogical elements which ruin it for serious science fiction fans. Sad

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Thu Mar 21, 2024 6:30 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Maurice
Mission Specialist


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 460
Location: 3rd Rock

PostPosted: Fri Aug 27, 2021 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Time travel stories are inherently illogical because nothing in space is stationary. The Earth rotates, it circles the Sun (at ~65,000 mph, so if you moved one hour in time you wouldn't even be anywhere near the planet), which circles the center of the galaxy, which likewise moves through space. So how does a machine that moves through time somehow keep its position relative to spinning, orbiting, moving objects in space unless it is fixed in same spot on the Earth for the entire "time" of its travels?

Face it, the whole idea is ludicrous on the face of it, far beyond Wells materializing where the machine ends up in 1980.

_________________
* * *
"The absence of limitations is the enemy of art."
― Orson Welles


Last edited by Maurice on Sat Aug 28, 2021 11:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2021 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Well shucks, Maurice, ya got me cold on that one. Very Happy

I guess my objections to certain illogical aspects of time travel (but not to others) is based on what Larry Niven refers to as "internal consistency".

In other words, a good story follows most of the laws of the universe, even though it breaks a few. The ones it breaks are given a fictional "exception" of some kind, which the reader is asked to accept for the sake of the story.

Example: Normally, matter cannot travel faster than light, regardless of how energetically it is propelled.

But . . . if we discover a new mechanism which doesn't propel matter in the normal manner, then — Bingo! We can go like a bat outta hell!

The need for "internal consistency" in a story which proposes this exception means the author has to set up certain rules the reader is made aware of. For example, a starship has to have a working hyperdrive to go faster than light. If the hyperdrive runs out of fuel or breaks down, the ship can't go faster than light anymore.

If could end up stuck and might be far from home. Sad






Ditto for time travel. The author has to convince the reader that certain counter-intuitive things are true for some fictional reason, but also that certain logical limitations still apply.

As you pointed out, if a time machine is fixed to a point in space with regard to the universe as a whole, then the moment it begins to travel through time, all those things you mentioned make it tough for the traveler to survive when he stops traveling! Shocked

I mean, damn . . . something like this would be the least of his worries.






In Time After Time, the movie almost explains why the machine went from London to San Francisco. It suggests that the Earth rotated under the Machine a certain number of times, and when it stopped, the new location was 'Friso! Very Happy

Unfortunately, that only addresses one aspect of all the concerns you described . . . and calling attention to the problem with a partial explanation is worse than ignoring it all together, the way most time travel movies do.






My point here is that you're dead right when you pointed out that there's really no way to portray time travel in a "totally logical" way. Every version of time travel makes several illogical assumptions which don't bear close examination.

So, one man's "good" time travel story is another man's "flawed" one — depending on what each man can accept, and what he can't. Very Happy

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies from 1970 to 2000 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group