IMDb > Time Chasers (1994) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Time Chasers
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Time Chasers More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 4 of 9: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [Next]
Index 86 reviews in total 

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Only good as MST3K fodder

1/10
Author: Greg Eichelberger from San Diego
18 June 2006

As putrid a piece of slop ever released, this Edgewood Entertainment crapper (aslo known as "Time Chasers") was filmed entirely in the state of Vermont, the least-visited and cared-about of all 50, and tells the ridiculous tale of Nick Miller (Matthew Bruch-one of the single ugliest leading men in cinematic history, in fact, he makes Rowsdower from "The Final Sacrifice," look like Brad Pitt), who invents a time-traveling device that is powered by a Wang computer and a Piper Cub.

He jumps (or flies) ahead to 2041, sees some "futuristic" stuff, then comes back and sells the invention to a huge corporation. Later, after a lame trip to the "1950s," he goes back to the future, where a cheap matte painting shows that a war took place and the (unnamed) city is in ruins.

He fights off a bunch of rejects from 2041, comes back to the present, hijacks his own plane, crashes it and kills his girlfriend, Lisa (Bonnie Pritchard), and then travels to the Revolutionary War, where he dies, but his double and his girlfriend's doppelganger are still alive, so they go back to the present just before he was to sell the invention, and stops himself from doing it.

Wow. Not only confusing, but boring and ridiculous (although it's a much better time-travel film than "The Lake House").

Here are some more specific "highlights" of just how amazingly bad this movie is: During a chase scene where Nick is trying to escape on a ten-speed bicycle, the bad guys actually get out of a truck they were in and pursue him - on BIKES.

Scenes in the future depict "actors" walking around in loud, garish, baggy clothing and talking on cell phones, much like they do today. There is also a sign that reads, "This building is constructed of recycled material, 2021." The voyage to the 1950s shows a few classic cars and a malt shop. The bad guys were not counting on being outwitted by an airport hangar custodian.

As bad as the two leads are, the corporate clowns (Peter Harrington and George Woodard-J.K. Robertson) are just plain awful. The Revolutionary War scenes are included for no other reason than to show off a bunch of fat re-en-actors, and during these sequences, the single dumbest lines ever written for a "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" episode is uttered: Speaking of some fleeing American colonists, running from machine gun fire, Nick says, "I don't think they've ever seen an Uzi before." Duh! No kidding.

Terrible from every vantage point, the movie is nonetheless perfect fodder for the satirical minds at "MST3K," if nothing else.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

The little Vermont movie that could

7/10
Author: Agaric from Pomfret, CT
22 September 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

All right, enough with the MST3K-ing, people. I of course saw this movie through the show, and I thought their treatment of it was hilarious. It's one of my favorite episodes. Surprisingly enough though, unlike many other movies ridiculed by Mike and the bots, this one is far from bad. Maybe it's just the sheer number of times that I've seen it that has made it grow on me like some kind of low-budget lichen.

Of course the acting is sub-par and at times could wilt flowers on the side of the road. I wouldn't expect stellar performances from a collection of actors coming out of rural Vermont. The whole time travel concept involving a small engine aircraft is laughable I'll admit. The portrayal of the future is hardly better than a shot of a present day main-street strip. There are a number of minor holes in the plot, one of which involves how Nick managed to get a gun after falling into a lake out of the plane. Another would be the way that the future was unaltered even though automatic weapons and the wreckage of a plane/time machine were left in Revolutionary War-era America.

Honestly though, I believe that these shortcomings were inevitable given the budgetary constraints of the film. The film was cut and edited well, which are aspects I believe to be important in a film of any budget. Take a look at the shoddy editing in some films with budgets over 100 million dollars and it's almost shameful by comparison. Corny by mainstream Hollywood standards, I believe that this film should be viewed for what it is: an impressive achievement by an unknown low-budget filmmaker. I think we should be asking ourselves, given a camera and a few thousand dollars to make a movie about time travel, "could we have done better?"

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Castleton Rocks !!!

1/10
Author: CelluloidRehab (lelnu@yahoo.com) from Hell's Kitchen, NYC
1 November 2004

Nick, a scientist and hero of the movie, develops a time traveling Cessna and sells his idea to an evil company (is there any other kind ??) that exploits it and destroys the future. Can our moon-faced, giant-chin, mullet hero save the day ??

This movie is terrible and pointless. It seems to be a cheap rip-off of Back to the Future. Logic and science play absolute no part of the storyline. This movie seems to have been made with the scientific knowledge of pre-relativity physics (circa 1900). The dialog is painfully dull and incoherent. The special effects (time traveling effect) looks like a crappy screen saver from 1987. Even the costumes suck. Did I mention it is a coma-inducing bore ?? The future is consistent with the fashion and hairstyles of the 80's, complete with spandex, neon colors and bad haircuts. My favorite scene of the movie would have to be the fight scene that occurs on the wing and the inside of a time traveling, airborne Cessna, with the slowest timed countdown in history. Do not see this movie un-MST3k and never, ever alone.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Raise your hand if eww...

1/10
Author: ratgirl
17 April 1999

This is without a doubt the worst movie I have EVER seen (accept, I have yet to see Manos).Could the plot (if any) be any worse? They should have the scale be a zero on this movie, because I would rather put that instead of a one (because it doesn't even amount to a one).

I think I probably have made my point pretty clear by now.

Thank you.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Cheesy fun fest!

1/10
Author: afgncaap5 from Indiana
8 July 2005

I love this movie.

I mean, I know I only gave it a 1, but I love this movie.

I gave it a "1" because I don't think that if you follow the textbook example of movies, this doesn't really work out. However, I think that if we consider different alternatives to what movies can be, then this is definitely something worth watching.

It's kinda like a snapshot of the "old future", if you know what I mean. Well....no, you don't....but the thing is just filled with fun nostalgia and enjoyable situations. I'd love to see a sequel to this thing (and I hear one's in the works).

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

That's o.k...they have a spare.

Author: Diana from United States
18 May 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

(spoilers)I recently watched the non-MST3K version of this film, and it's almost as funny to watch just by itself. They cut out alot of the physics explanations for MST3K, which I can't blame them for. Also, they lopped off the stupid and unnecessary bike chase, and the scenes with the grating and annoying cab driver. What is left is a movie that is hilarious for the pure cheese of the low budget special effects, wardrobe and locations. What WAS with the goofy clown mirror in the 'office' of the bad guy CEO? And why does everything seem stuck in an 80's time warp? The 'future' is just a laugh and a half. There's a kid riding a SKATEBOARD in 2041! And another talking on an old/bulky cell phone. As Tom Servo comments "So fifty years from now it will be THREE years from now?" So, our big chinned hero(who should have known better than to sell an idea for time travel to ANYONE, let alone an evil corporation!) creates a way to travel through time and installs it in his plane. Then he sells it to GenCorp, who's CEO promptly developes it to be a weapon(what a major surprise!) The future is thrown into anarchy because of our idiot hero, and he and his bland reporter girlfriend have to try to go back in the past and fix everything. Which they wouldn't have had to at all if he hadn't been so dumb. End of story.

Was the above review useful to you?

Time Chasers! One of the best and best-known, bad movies.

2/10
Author: Idiot-Deluxe from United States
16 February 2017

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

FOR CASTLETON!!!

Time Chasers is the grand vision of a certain aspiring, young, film-maker from Vermont, by the name of David Giancola. In his film debut he ventured into the realm science fiction, this effort ultimately spawned the time travel "epic" Time Chasers. As one views this film you'll find yourself immersed in a world were scientific breakthroughs are on a collision course with corporate greed and ambition - and since this movie is from 1991 it's also a world that's full of mullets and acid-wash jeans, to go one further you could say the screen is ALIVE with acid-wash action!

As mentioned above this is a movie that's based around the well-worn topic of time travel and the many complicated facets or "ripples in time" that such a journey might create - be them good or bad. Maybe it's in part due to my over-familiarity with this movie, but one cant't help but notice the inspiration that Back To The Future holds over this film. One can safely assume that it was the G-Man's intent to use that brilliant film as a template for his own -brilliantly bad- movie. Time Chasers was filmed on a budget of around $150,000 by a small crew of amateurs and semi-pros, with evidently more enthusiasm then talent. Because if there's one thing Time Chasers doesn't lack is enthusiasm, plus this feather-weight film possess a certain "youthful nativity" and huge charm, which helps account for it's enduring longevity. But, as evidenced in this film, enthusiasm can only take you so far and on most fronts (casting, acting, dialog, FX, soundtrack, wardrobe, art direction, etc.) Time Chasers is an embarrassingly bad movie. But on the plus-side I must say for a B-movie that was helmed by a very young, first-time director, the photography of this film is surprisingly good, even engrossing at times and it's easily the strongest aspect of Time Chasers.

The star of the film is a big-chined, bemulleted, blowhard, by the name of Nick Miller a college professor, amateur pilot and full-time computer-nerd, who with a hilariously dated Commodore 64 home computer, a mess of wire's and a batch of 5-inch floppy disk's, has miraculously turned his single-engine, light plane, into a "Time Transport" - and whammo, history is made! Not to give away too much of the plot, but once all four of the films main characters are introduced and in light of Nick Miller's astonishing levels of stupidity and nativity, the circumstances surrounding the Time Transport get complicated in a hurry. As you'll see it's used with evil intent, by an ego-centric, corporate scoundrel and it's all up to Nick Miller and his pretty blonde girlfriend, Lisa Henson, to right the wrong's of those who would seek to use it for world domination. The future of the world is at stake and it's due to the evil intentions of J.K. Robertson, as he fly's through the fabric of time and space - in the hilariously cheap and unconvincing "Time Transport". Let's put it this way, if a true marvel of science, such as a time machine existed, one would hope for something a lot more impressive looking. But hey, that's the low-budget charm of Time Chasers working it's magic on us - now isn't it.

Earlier I mentioned Time Chasers surprisingly good photography, which as I see it, is this films one and only -legitimate- attribute, BUT, where Time Chaser really excels at is it's ability to entertain people who adore amateur films. In that sense Time Chasers is an absolute tour-de-force, with all the mullets, dated clothes, the lameness of the Time Transport and it's painfully underwhelming depictions of "the future", combined with lots of over-the-top dialog, that's spouted by one amateur actor after another - several of which sport some pretty spectacular mullets. Yes this movies a lot of fun, but probably not exactly in the way that David Giancola had intended or envisioned, but he refreshingly seems to have a good sense of humor about it and I'm proud to say I have his auto-graph, scrawled on the VHS box-art of this film. Time Chasers was not only featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000, but was also years later, given a second ripping as the main feature of a "Rifftrax Live" theatrical release. An old friend revisited (in unedited form at last) and with that, the flowing bemulleted locks and iconic Castleton T-shirt of Nick Miller fly's into action once again! Mirthful and high-spirited Time Chasers shines brightly, with it's timeless ability to entertain.

For the past 25 years Time Chasers, in it's many different guises (original/MST3K/Rifftrax) has built up it's reputation as one of the best bad movies and I find it to be a marvelous thing to spend the next 90 odd minutes of my time in the presence of Nick Miller, Lisa Henderson and J.K. Robertson, a "dream cast" if ever there was one. David Giancola, I salute you.

Was the above review useful to you?

Hugely problematic, though not that awful

4/10
Author: TheLittleSongbird from United Kingdom
14 August 2013

When describing some as not that awful, that doesn't make things immediately good. Time Chasers is still a very bad movie, what is meant by not that awful is that it is far from one of the worst movies ever and there have been far worse movies featured on MST3K(though they did a good job riffing Time Chasers). Matthew Brunch is at least okay in the lead, there is some amusing humour, a reasonably cool car stunt and some good ideas. It is also at least not dull, which is more than can be said for the likes of Manos, Monster A-Go Go, Beast of Yucca Flats and The Creeping Terror. The rest of Time Chasers is sloppily executed, it shows more ambition than most other movies riffed on MST3K but it does come across as too ambitious especially for the budget. The special effects are poor, having a rather outdated look, and there is nothing remarkable about the way it is shot either, while the settings are simplistic and don't look anything like they should(the office of the CEO for example looks like a library). Most of the dialogue is clunky at best, while the story gets increasingly ridiculous and predictable with the future scenes particularly embarrassing. The characters have very transparent personalities and are rather annoying in a way, especially one of the most laughable excuses for a villain, don't get me started on his accent and voice. For featured MST3K movies, the villain is quite possibly the lamest and most embarrassing villain since that for Space Mutiny. The acting is very wooden, George Woodard's acting is notable in this regard, only Brunch shows any glimpses of talent. Overall, not as awful as some have said but a movie with a lot of problems. 3.5/10 Bethany Cox

Was the above review useful to you?

Beige, is a good word to describe this thing.

4/10
Author: Anders Twetman
22 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I expected this to be bad, which in a warped way would make it worth watching. However, it is really just mediocre, which in an equally warped way makes it less watchable than a truly bad movie.

Let me explain. Tangets has a plot, all be it a very simple one, essentially an inventor makes a time machine, sells the concept to a greedy business man who uses it to change the future. The inventor then has to stop himself from showing the concept to the business man. It's a pretty reasonable plot for a time travel movie, it has a clear direction with beginning, middle and end, and it deals with basic time travel concepts. You also have a bunch of characters, the "hero", the villain, the girl etc. and they are all stereotypes. The film is set in suburban USA, they never actually show the future and the past is represented by a bunch of civil war reenactors. It has all the hallmarks of a low quality, low budget, direct to video movie.

However, nothing stands out as being particularly bad, it's really just bland, like beige on beige, and that, is this films biggest crime. It's not bad enough, or good enough, to invoke any emotion. It does not deserve such a low grade that it gets noticed, it needs to be forgotten.

Was the above review useful to you?

On retrospect, it's not that bad

4/10
Author: Rebochan from Orange County, CA
18 December 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

So when I was in high school, I wrote a review of this film for this site when I was well into my die-hard MSTie phase and like many people, just bagged on the film as the worst movie ever made because that would make me "cool." Well, that was a good twelve years ago folks, and really? I've seen a lot of movies since then, and this movie just isn't going to crack the bottom 100 worst movies I've ever sat through. It's not even close to the worst MST3K features ever.

Oh, it's still BAD. Don't get me wrong. It's cheaply made, the plot gets rather silly and filled with holes, and the performances of the principal cast are pretty lousy. The only one approaching actual acting talent is our lead, Matthew Bruch of the Butt Chin, and it's all downhill from there.

But let's be honest guys. For a low-budget sci-fi film, this is practically Shakespeare. David Giancola was clearly aware of how to frame most of his shots, how to hide his low budget wherever possible, and how to string together a screenplay with coherent dialog and a plot you can actually follow.

Can any of us honestly say the same about Monster-A-Go-Go? Red Zone Cuba? Castle of Fu Manchu? Or how about the more recent The Room or Birdemic? Seriously, the hammy, lisping J.K. Robertson is still FAR less painful to watch than Tommy Wisseau.

I can't really hate this movie any more. Sure I can have fun mocking its short-comings and lovingly enjoy Mike and the Bots shredding it into fine confetti. But especially stacked up against other Bottom 100 films here (Daniel der Zauberer? LOOKING AT YOU), it's really got no right to be here. And honestly, I think the fact it's coherent yet silly is part of why the MST3K episode is so memorable.

Oh, 10/10 on the MST3K version and I highly recommend that as well...but I think a lot of folks that watched the MST3K version should watch the full cut of the film as well.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 4 of 9: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history