Timequest (2000) Poster

(2000)

User Reviews

Review this title
33 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
A thoughtful film - particularly for those who are old enough to know something about the Kennedys
j_kurjian2 January 2005
I will watch just about any movie that has some element of time travel in it. However, when I saw the cover art work for the Time Quest video I was pretty sure this was not going to be a very good pic. Cheeeeezy. That was maybe a year ago, and this evening was the 3rd or 4th time I have watched Time Quest. So, first thought I have is don't judge this film by its cover.

Time Quest leaves me with a feeling of melancholy for the opportunities lost. This is the film's finest quality. History is changed not only by the fact that the Kennedy's are not assassinated but by John and Bobby's knowledge of future events and their desire to use that knowledge to make a difference. No Vietnam and a space race that actually results in something.

The movie has several other qualities I should mention. It has a sense of humor; it is sensitive; it moves back and forth over time so that the watcher is kept guessing; and most of the acting seems reasonable. I particularly liked the detail given to the time traveler's suit and to the screen he projects his images on, and there is a gripping slow-mo shot of LH Oswald not being assassinated.

In a market where so few good sci-fi, let alone time travel, movies are made it seems a shame that more people aren't seeing this one.
21 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The BEST Alternate History for the Money!
hegan19568 March 2007
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is one of the sleepers that I never heard of that just blew me away. I absolutely loved this movie. I am a huge sci-fi, alternate history fan and the fact that I had never heard of this one is unbelievable. The what if scenario and the way it takes the characters from today and brings them into that time-line is so remarkable. It used a lot of thought about how certain actual events influenced particular people to strive for a different place in world events. It shows how a single incident can change a whole time line and how different it could have been. The Kennedy assassination is the one event in American history that has had such a fragmenting effect within this nation. The Vietnam War, LBJ, the space program, Nixon, civil rights, discontent and the huge gap between the parties all can be traced to that era. If your a history fan and love sci-fi, this is a must see. If you like, a great movie that takes you on a great journey then watch this movie. If you hated hi-budget movies like "Time Line" that don't come across, then watch this movie. It will take you on a real adventure and they spent only a fraction of the budget to get you there.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Great Concept, Needs Work
filter8125 December 2003
This film is based on a great idea, but could have been done much better, perhaps with a larger budget. It is worth watching, and hopefully will open the door for other films to take on this subject.

The issues dealing with the Kennedy's were a bit generalized and stereotypical and could have been developed more. To compete with other time travel films, I believe the technology could also be stepped up a notch.

While I enjoyed the film, it left me wanting to see a more detailed and better version of it.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Intriguing story needs more $ and time to tell the tale.
dan-rivers19 August 2003
I have know about this movie since it was in production several years ago, thanks to IMDB, and eagerly awaited it's release. Then I hear it was premiered near where it was filmed, then that it was going directly to video. I finally found a copy at Hollywood video and got to see it.

It is a really good story. A dreamers version of what might have been. I remember the day Kennedy was killed, saw Oswald killed live on TV that Sunday morning. I have visited the Sixth Floor and the grassy knoll and wonder that such a history turning event could have taken place in so small a place. This movie will strike a cord with those who think the world would be far better if JFK had survived. This movie should have had more $ and bigger stars but for what it had it did a REALLY good job of telling the story. I will not buy it, but I am going to watch it again before I take it back and dream of what might have been. It is a combination of the truth, the myth, and this story that will make you like this movie. Ralph Waite was so right for the part. So much more story could have been told, and should have been. Better than 13Days.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
better than i expected
knockturnalson3 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Being a big Bruce Campbell fan, i'm gonna get just about anything he appears in. After finding this tough to find gem i was pleasantly surprised to find this was way better than i expected.I especially liked the sci-fi time travel aspect with the well used past, present, future editing. I also thought it was cool how they weren't shy about exploring the alternate universe thing( avoiding vague suggestions and following through with the interpretations.) The story line was provocative and thought provoking and fairly well acted for a mostly unknown cast, except Larry Drake perfect for the J Edgar Hoover role, throw in Bruce's normal charm and you get a deep story with a new twist on a very old what if. mostly underrated and well worth your 90 mins. Good for the deep thinker, and great for the Bruce Campbell fan.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Better than you'd think!
brock515010 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I am not a JFK aficionado, but I do love time travel flicks and this one was definitely better than average. JFK-History fans will love this movie like it was their Bible! I especially love the way that the 'new and improved' JFK saw the vision of man moving out among the stars and invited Russia to join the US and do it together... A very Utopian view of the future.

Even if you aren't though, and you appreciate the accomplishments of JFK or the Kennedy family in General, you'll love this film as it pays homage to their lives and fixes all the wrongs in their history, showing us a perfect world later for the changes.

Strongly recommended, better than the box cover appears. It even had a pretty decent budget and a great cast!
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Low budget, but good
sleazydinosaur3 January 2004
I was pleasantly surprised by this movie, it was actually pretty entertaining. I confess that I rented it because of the picture of the beautiful Caprice Benedetti on the cover, usually when I rent a movie I haven't heard of because of a beautiful woman on the cover, it's not surprisingly, not very good. Parts of this were kind of cheesy, but it was made with a lot of heart, and had a good story, do yourself a favor, if you see this one at the video store, give it a look, you'll be glad you did.
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An Intriguing Alternate Universe Film!
cammie10 July 2003
As a fan of television shows and movies that deal with the "What if?"/Alternate Universe type storylines, I found this movie very entertaining. The general story is that a man from the short term future (who was born on Nov. 22, 1963) invents a time machine to stop the Kennedy assassinations. The interesting thing about this movie, as compared to the hundred other similar stories about stopping the assassination is, they let the time traveler succeed. This story is truly a speculation of what may have happened it the Kennedy's were still alive.

While, granted, this film does present a somewhat idealistic view of what might have been, I was just thrilled that half the movie wasn't spent trying to "repair the change in the timeline". Overall, I must say that I really enjoyed this film. It really reminded me of the videogame "Re-Elect JFK" The only real downfall to me was that it was just too short -- I would have liked further speculation. Also, the timeline in this story jumped around a bit, but that was just the style of the writer, and, by the end of the movie, everything made perfect sense.
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Very Good Sci-Fi movie that has not being publicized
Baldach3 July 2003
Sci-fi movies about time travel have always interested me and one about the JFK assination seem intriguing. The movie starts confusing in 1979 with mysterious government agents picking up a prisoner off a bus. Next is Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas,Tx with Jackie Kennedy startled by an unexpected vistor. I won't spoil the plot, but it is not firmly grounded in theortical physics. However it does makes you wonder what would happened if JFK surived to have a second term. The best quote is when Robert Kennedy shows J.Edgar Hoover a picture of the F.B.I. director in comprimising situation,saying, "Nice dress you are wearing (in the photo). My wife has the exact same one in her closet." Unfortunately this intriguing movie has received little publicity.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
What emotions this brought out about what might have been. . .
Steviereno6 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
(I am not sure if what I've said has spoilers or not, so I checked the box, just in case...)

Wow, this movie ended up getting to me.

First of all, I think the script writer and director did their homework. So many of the details of that day in Dallas, of Jack and Bobby and Jackie, they had SPOT ON. The Abraham Zapruder parts - as small as they were - were amazingly correct.

The idea of going back and stopping the JFK assassination has been around a good long while. It is probably THE moment millions of people would want to change. Me included.

So much changed that day in Dallas.

Even today, it seems like there was so much more that America could be, could do, and could inspire, in us and in the world. So much was cut short, and so many live with that loss.

This movie doesn't go into what JFK and RFK would have done (except for Viet Nam and the CIA). And I think leaving that open was the right decision. But even just a world without Richard Nixon as President would be a better world to have lived in. Without Reagan and his voodoo economics that have sold the USA to the highest bidders and the economic rapists - that would be a better world to not have gone through (and that rape isn't over yet). The turn to the right surely would have been forestalled, if not pushed back forever. America has been in demise since the end of the 1960s, and that did NOT have to happen. It's good that the rest of the world has increased in prosperity. It was NOT necessary that the USA slid so far.

I thought the cuts made in time were especially spot on.

I literally teared up near the end of the movie, just being reminded of what we lost that day, how horrible it was, and the pain that reached round the world.

For such an obviously low-budget movie, I thought this was terrifically well done. The atmosphere was terrific, and capturing the spirit of Jack and Jackie, plus Robert - it was really a trip down memory lane, and three such tragic figures on OUR history.

If there are parallel time lines - alternate histories - those with Jack and Bobby not getting murdered I think certainly have better histories for the USA from 1963 till now.

If I myself could go back and change that day, I would - in a heartbeat.

I hope that someday the director reads this review and realizes how much of a cord he struck with me - and I think with many others who will someday see this small but very wonderful movie.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Fine movie grammar & punctuation
nigel-35228 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I feel the scenes are presented in the optimal order, and appreciate the repeat of some scenes (with a different camera angle). This helps to intrigue the viewer, while also making digestible the complexity of the story. Four examples of repeated scenes are the removal of a young man from a prison bus, secretly to be greeted by Marine One, the US Presidential helicopter; the materialisation of a whitish-haired male time traveller in a protective suit into the Fort Worth hotel suite where Jackie Kennedy is preparing herself for a motorcade in Dallas; the mustering of Robert Kennedy into this hotel suite; and the cylindrical haze that envelops Robert & Jack Kennedy into a private audience with the time traveller. Each instance of such a scene, allows a chain of other related scenes to be introduced to the viewer.

The ephemeral popping into existence of the time traveller in that hotel suite conveys information into the minds of those there present, while leaving no material trace. Robert is shown carefully handing to him a glass of orange juice for a toast, clearly intending to identify the man from his fingerprints. The dance scene is important, to demonstrate hand to hand touch with Jackie, who transfers oil and sweat from her own hands, which allows for a fingerprint upon the glass that persists beyond the forewarned dematerialisation of the man. The man's boyhood crayon drawing of her seems out of Jack's hands to have dematerialised by the end of the dance, shortly preceding the vanishing of the time traveller himself.

The information conveyed is what we recognise as history in our own timeline - that without the evanescent encounter, Jack was fated to have been shot dead at 12:30 p.m. that day in Dallas, and Robert to be shot dead five years later in Los Angeles - and the conspirators to these crimes. However, the time traveller also privately shares misgivings about Jack's infidelities' leaving him and his brother open to blackmail, and about the Vietnam War that his successor was to have escalated. He also reveals his own (possibly premature) birth was fated to occur upon this day of national anguish, but declines to identify himself further.

The result is a changed timeline between 1963 & 2002, which indeed seems superior to our own, in which Jack expands his 1962 vision of a man on the Moon, with an overture to the Soviet Union to join the Americans in founding a lunar colony and exploring space as a united humanity, setting aside the nuclear arms race and the Cold War. In 1979, the boy who was to have invented time travel in later life, is recognised by his fingerprints, his age & an identical crayon drawing of Jackie from his boyhood, and diverted into a patronised career as a painter. In 2002, with Jack's death in old age, a son James, whom he was set never to have conceived, invites the painter, now in his late thirties, to view a portrait painted by Jackie of the old time traveller with whom she danced. The painter sees his own eyes as if in a mirror!
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A fine alternate history idea
george-redcat20 November 2006
Direct and writer Robert Dyke shows us a possible world in which John F. Kennedy did not die by an assassin's bullet, but lived to finish his presidency and his natural life. A scientist from (perhaps) our future, in which Kennedy died that day in Dallas, perfects time travel and returns to the Fort Worth, Texas of 1963. His arrival is timed to warn Jacqueline, John and Robert Kennedy of what awaited them in Dallas, and the effect that event would have on our country and the Kennedys. Using an intriguing and effective non-linear story telling technique, Dyke tells the story of that time-traveling scientist, played effectively by Ralph Waite, the Kennedys and a possible—and more promising—future.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Super Interesting Sci-Fi Puzzler.
meddlecore5 October 2013
"Timequest" is a film for Sci-Fi fans, Conspiracy Buffs, Bruce Campbell fans, and anyone who wants to enjoy an all around intellectually stimulating and entertaining film.

Robert Dyke's (who also made Moontrap) "Timequest" is both imaginative, intellectual, and advanced in it's formal composition.

It investigates the question: "What would our world have become if JFK had survived that day in Dallas?" The story begins in the Presidential Suite of Fort Worth, Texas where JFK and his wife Jacquie are being housed- the day before JFK would be shot in Dallas. The plot centers around a man who has discovered time travel, and- motivated by his obsession for Jacquie after seeing her mourn her husbands death- he decides to go back and warn the President of the impending attack, and subsequent effect it would have on history and, in turn, the reality of the future (which he didn't think was too sh*t hot).

Appearing from nowhere, having infiltrated the Presidential suite with the President inside unbeknownst to the Secret Service, sh*t starts to hit the fan. But the mystery man succeeds in settling everyone down by showing them a holographic video of JFK and his brother RFK's assassination. The President- considering the circumstances- heeds the threat seriously, and has his brother flown in to witness it all for himself. Robert is skeptical of the whole situation, but when he sees himself lying dead only 5 months later, he opens an ear.

They ask the man why he is doing all of this. He tells them how he was born on the day that JFK died; and how, growing up, he fell in love with Jacquie as she stood strong in wake of her husbands violent death. He also mentions that he hated the state of the world in his time, and thus sought to change it, even if it meant his demise (well....his demise in THAT (his future) form, as he would possibly not be born, if he is successful).

The Time Traveler warns the two men, not only about their future assassinations, but also of the second assassination attempt that would follow- the attempted assassination of JFK's character (in Clinton-esque fashion). Taking the warnings to heart the group waits for the exact moment of JFK's original assassination to occur- the moment history will change- denoted by the Traveler ceasing to exist.

As they wait for this moment to pass, the traveller asks only one thing- to dance with Jacquie. This moves her and she becomes obsessed with the man, as he disappears from their lives...in one sense anyways.

With history changed, the attempted assassins are caught (on the grassy knoll); JFK leads a long and fulfilling life; the CIA is dismantled; RFK continues his fight against organized crime; JFK forms and alliance with the Soviets to travel to the moon together; we see where people like J. Edgar Hoover, George Bush, Bill Clinton and Arthur Zapruder end up; John and Jacquie have another child; and Jacquie takes up art, painting the man- the traveller- whom she longs to meet (the her time version of, at least).

The Kennedy's always pay back those who help them. Considering this, John and Robert make all efforts to find the man in his younger form. All they have to go on is a fingerprint the man left on a glass.

Robert is a little more paranoid, though. He feels it may be necessary to find and kill the child, as he may go on to invent time travel, which would-be assassins could use to go back in time and kill JFK- again (kinda).

They look at all baby's born Nov 22, 1963, but then realize that his labour could have been brought on by the trauma of JFK's death and thus widen the range of their search. Eventually they do track him down. He's a petty criminal and artist.

JFK's son (who was born only as a result of his future self's intervention) takes him under their wing and provides him with a place, and the supplies he needs to thrive as an artist. The young man get's to meet the people his non-existent future self saved, and sees the wonderful portrait Jacquie painted of the man.

There is also a tangent(and I believe this element of the story is thrown in SOLELY to include BRUCE CAMPBELL- because it seemed relatively irrelevant to the whole story) in which Bruce Campbell plays an Oliver Stone-esque conspiracy theorist/ filmmaker who catches a whiff of what happened that November 21st at Fort Worth- but draws the most ridiculous conclusions from it, and ends up making a film that is more erotica than it is a conspiracy film.

I suppose this was meant to act as the character assassination attempt prophesized by the Traveler before he disappeared. But it doesn't really work effectively like that. It doesn't really hinder the flow of the story either, though. In fact, it is really quite funny in it's reflexivity- and Campbell is always golden.

The structure of this film is really quite complex. It plays with time and space in a way that is by no means subtle. They are constantly interweaving different spaces and times together. The "based on a true story" past with the imagined past, flashbacks and flashforwards. Different realities- real and imagined- are all knotted together into a complex puzzle (compositionally speaking). It does take a little bit of labour to understand, and for this reason I think it has been overlooked by many viewers and thus relegated to the realm of sci-fi obscurity.

It really is an incredible film- both story and plot-wise. I urge you all to check it out, it deserves to be watched.

Remember... "The futures last hope is the past." 8 out of 10.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
SECOND CHANCE...what if????
jinniann14 April 2002
The world premier showing of this film, made here in Michigan, was truly a very entertaining experience. The plot took us into a world that might have been if the assasination of John Kennedy was foiled by information given to Jackie that morning in November, 1962 by the appearance of a time traveler from the future. His motives as you would believe would be to better the world with the Kennedy leadership, when in fact,he had a very different and personal reason. This film kept me glued into every twist of the story which went from the past, to the present with JFK and the present without him. It was Larry Fox (Evil Dead) beautiful, sensual yet eerie sets to director Robert Dykes visual direction and creative imagination ( he also wrote the script) that kept me pulled in and totaly fascinated. I don't know how or when this film will be distributed but I am hoping it will be given a excellent chance to be viewed and enjoyed by all who love science fiction with both romantic and historic interest.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The nightmare images of a generation transfigured
jmica27 January 2004
Every generation has its "I remember exactly where I was" experience. For the living the list of these events runs from the sinking of the Titanic to the destruction of the World Trade Center. For my generation it is a cascade of events that begins with JFK's assassination. Nov 22, 1963 we were in school, heard the news and rushed home to watch events unfold on television.

In this time travel story JFK doesn't die, he learns that his philandering will ruin his image and stops, he turns the Cold War driven space race into an international project and stops the escalation of US involvement in Viet Nam --thus saving 57,000 lives.

I'd have to agree with others that the story telling here needs work. The order in which we see events doesn't convey the story arc all that well. Production values are low, there's gratuitous use of course language which, while all too common now, was alien then. As for the nudity: well, it was something to see Marilyn Monroe reproduce one of her most famous poses for JFK. I won't quibble about that.

My generation has the images of that weekend burned into our consciousness. In this story the Zapruder film, taken on the "Grassy Knoll," doesn't show the top of JFK's head being blown off. In this story Walter Cronkite's first announcement of something going in the President's motorcade doesn't end with him saying that JFK is dead. (Note: those of us in school didn't see it live, but we've lived with the taped images ever since.) And, finally, the event that takes place in Parkland Hospital (just outside Dallas) is joyous. It's not the end of a Presidency that had begun to capture the enthusiasm of a generation with it's New Frontier and Peace Corps, but a celebration of something new.

For it's many flaws this film shows some beautiful healing images.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Cheese on a stick -- with mold.
dataphasia4 September 2003
A writer should never direct his own movie................................................ Unless the script is actually good........This one is not.

I won't give you an overview of the storyline, since that's been covered in this database entry.

I'll start by saying that I know all too well that writing a good time travel story is not an easy task. "Time Quest: What if JFK had lived?" which also goes by the name "Second Chance" is a blend of melodrama, mixed with cliché and a touch of the occasional "HUH?!". My first reaction to the dual title was that this writer is so self absorbed that he couldn't decide on ONE movie title, because he simply admires every idea he has, so he simply *had* to call it both! If you see this, you'll know what I mean. A lot of story elements were put into this movie that I'm sure the writer thought would be "heart warming", but ended up being a moment to sit back and groan. Without spoiling anything, look for these wishy-washy moments in the movie if you decide to watch it:

1) The time traveler dancing with Jacqueline. Uhm..... was this really necessary? As this unfolds, JFK looks as baffled as we viewers ARE.

2) Robert Kennedy finding the fingerprint on the glass. Would there even BE a fingerprint if time had been altered and the traveler had `never been there'? hmmmm... Granted this movie is about as scientifically accurate as the anatomy of a Barbie doll....but come on!

3) The nifty "elementary school artwork" scene. Wow! The government really DOES keep track of everything! Including those lousy pictures you colored in grade 3!! Wow! How powerful! How deep! How STUPID!

And how about that line "Oh my sweet Jesus, we are at a crossroads here!" as he looks at the newly discovered picture! UGH! Cornball!!

Ok, perhaps I'm being a bit harsh. But the fact remains that this movie was often comical in places that the writer never intended it to be -- taking away from any dramatic drive that even existed in this insipid flick. See this movie ONLY if you are like me, have a love of corny sci-fi and a maniacal need to pick them apart as you watch. Oh, and BELIEVE me, there is so much to pick apart in this movie that it would take me about 10 pages.

My take on this movie is like this: It could have been better if the director would have taken more outside criticism and opinions from other people. Any person (other than the director I would think) could have pointed out the hokey moments, therefore allowing them to be removed and avoiding an embarrassment of a film such as this one.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the sad fact is that this movie had potential --had it been done properly.

2 of out 10 stars.
7 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An Interesting Answer To One Of The Most Profound "What-Ifs" Of The Last Century
timdalton00722 October 2008
As anyone who makes the mistake of watching the Sci-Fi Channel here in the U.S. on weekends can tell you the term "low-budget science fiction movie" is almost an oxymoron. Here though is a film that proves to be far from it. In fact Timequest is a good exercise in how to make a movie on a low budget without looking (entirely) like it is low budget.

Timequest has a pretty good cast. True some of them may not be greatest physical look-a-likes in the world but they manage to catch the spirit of the real-life people they portray. This is true of the three leads (Victor Slezak as JFK, Caprice Benedetti as Jackie, Vince Grant as RFK) and especially of Slezak. Slezak makes you believe he is JFK in his appearances especially with his speech at Rice University and the sequence that follows it (which sells this film the best in my opinion). Then there's Bruce Campbell as Oliver Stone like director William Roberts. Now I'm not a Bruce Campbell fan by any means (far from it in fact) but I found his short appearances to be enjoyable none the less. While it is true the cast has a few misfires (Jeffery Steiger as Oswald and Dan Miller as Dan Rather both come to mind instantly) but for the most part it is a fine cast all things considered.

The main selling point of this film isn't the cast though but the story. Writer / director Robert Dyke has crafted a good alternate history film based around one of the most profound "what-ifs" of the last century: what if JFK had lived? The world that Dyke and the film shows us is perhaps a bit too optimistic for some but one has to consider all the events that never take place in the film that happened in real-life and it seriously makes one wonder. The film also finds time to poke fun at some of the conspiracy theories regarding the JFK assassination in some of the most unexpected places which is fun for anyone who has a good knowledge of the subject.

That said the film does have some problems. The first of such is the time-travelers' motive for his journey (which is the one cringe-worthy moment of the film to say the least). But perhaps the biggest problem is the fact that the film viewpoint of the world is perhaps too optimistic (yes that is both a plus and minus sadly). There is also the matter of the jumping around in time which I've had people I've shown the film to tell me is confusing (especially in the first third or so of the film). For once though as the production values are excellent for the most part. The low budget nature of the film isn't an issue in a science-fiction film.

Yet outside of these problems there is a rather good film sitting here. From a fine cast to a well crafted "what-if" story, Timequest shows that that the term "low-budget science fiction movie" is at times not an oxymoron. Here is an intelligent, well thought out, and well produced film that gives an interesting answer to one of the most profound "what-ifs" of the last century: what if JFK had lived? Here is a (perhaps too optimistic) answer and a good one at that.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Unique Angle on a Turning Point in History
texrags14 May 2019
Much more than just a time-travel story dealing with JFK's assassination, this thought-provoking film stretches the boundaries of alternative history. Plus excellent performances throughout.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Intriguing Sci-Fi
alanjunior25 August 2003
An interesting "what-if" story: a man from the future goes back in time and prevents JFK's assassination. This movie presents an optimistic view of how history turned out. The narration follows three threads; our time, following the death of JFK at 84; the presidency of JFK after Nov 22, 1963; and the Kennedy's involvement in the life of a young artist. Bruce Campbell does parody again, it's nice to see Ralph Waite, and Larry Drake looks like he may explode soon. Like any good time-travel story it leaves you bewildered at the end. It's a bad political history, though, and I found much of it unbelievable. The conservative Republican revolution would have happened anyway. The oil shocks of the 1970s would have happened anyway. Sure, Dan Rather stays in Dallas and the Beatles never break up, but whatever happened to Nixon? What happened to Barry Goldwater? What would have happened to Vietnam?
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I wish I could go back into time and avoid renting this movie
TiminPhoenix29 September 2004
What a horrible movie. It was just above a community college level film. The acting was horrible. Why can't Bruce Campbell get some projects worthy of him?

As to the premise that had JFK lived, things would have been wonderful, I simply had to gag. Kennedy is perhaps the most overrated person in history.

Only Lady Diana approaches the level of a person being elevated to veneration when in real life they were next to worthless.

The old slur against Hoover is brought out again. There is nothing aside from the last minute allegation of a convicted felon against Hoover to support the contention he was a transvestite. But the liberal community in Hollywood as agreed to run it again and again until it becomes accepted as truth. When you see any film doing this, it lets you know what a joke it is.

Additionally the acting here was sad. Ralph Waite's performance as the time traveler bordered on being so saccharine that I had to check my blood sugar.

Jackie Kennedy is shown as this wonderful paragon of virtue when most comment now on her actual vapidness. I wonder what trophy wife Onassis picked up in the alternate timeline.

This movie was terrible.
7 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
MOVIE NEEDS POLISH
nogodnomasters23 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The movie asks the question, "What would of happened if the Kennedy brothers didn't get assassinated?" It then answers it in the most hokey and corny fashion. Now I am a big Kennedy lover, but it was really ignorant to believe the whole world would be coming up roses. The plot includes a private chat to the Kennedy men about their affairs. The man who time travels to save their lives has to sacrifice his, so the Kennedy boys makes sure they figure out who this guy was (as he was a child at this time in history) and he gets rewarded, because those Kenndys always look after their own and those who help them.

The movie is amusing and somewhat enjoyable even though it had my stomach churning at times. The plot premise is interesting which is why the movie is popular in a sub-culture way. The actual plot, acting, and dialouge is of the bad indie variety which is why the movie is less popular than what you would expect.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A time-travel cliche!
macgyver-529 June 2003
A few good ideas can't save this uneven TV-quality movie about preventing the assassination of JFK. It skipped around in time (hah!) too much, the tone varied from sentimental to unintentionally funny, and the nudity & swearing felt shoehorned in for no good reason.

I think there was a half-hour episode of the 80's "Twilight Zone" that dealt with this exact idea, but the best take that I've seen was the "Red Dwarf" episode 'Tikka To Ride', in which the crew accidentally saves JFK and botches things up in trying to ensure that the assassination occurs. It was a lot more entertaining (and an hour shorter) than this cheesy movie!
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sloooooooooooooooooow
ripleys17 August 2003
This movie is sloooooow and really drags on. It tries to tell a time travel story that is truly unbelievable. The story jumps from one time to another without allowing the viewer to understand why the events are happening.

The story jumps around from 1979 to 1963 to 198something to 1992 or some year that I can't remember since the jumping around continues throughout the film. And, the time traveler is a painter. This movie never explains itself.

This is one of the most awful films I have ever sat through to the end. There is no smooth storyline. A better interpretation would have been in a comic book.

In a rating of 1 to 10, I give this movie a -1.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This was a free rental at Blockbuster and I still feel ripped off
mcbryant23 February 2005
What a mess! Tim in Pheonix is right- this is like a community college film project, but by someone who flunked out of community college. My only favorable comment is to the publicist who created the misleading VHS box to make this sound like an intriguing "alternate history" exploration. My hats off to you, buddy - you sure duped me! What I expected to be Oliver Stone meets Jules Verne was more like Oliver Hardy meets the "Hey, Vern!" guy. Too bad all the loose ends in this film weren't a little longer- I could have fashioned a noose and hung myself.

Also includes the worst Kennedy impersonations you will ever hear, and actors supposedly portraying Lyndon Johnson, J Edgar Hoover, Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather who look and sound absolutely nothing like them. Didn't even try. To call the characters two-dimensional is to add a dimension.
2 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Just OK
TimothyP10 April 2004
This was neither appallingly bad or terrifically good. The premise isn't bad (changing history), but the idea that the future would be incredibly rosy if JFK had not been shot is politically naive at best, and interfered with my enjoyment of the film.

Barry Corbin is woefully miscast as Lyndon Johnson, and Bruce Campbell is shoehorned in as a director who gives us some framework for how the world has changed.

Final analysis: good concept, ok script, ok direction, ok acting, politically a head scratcher. Rent it on a slow night and then forget about it.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed