Escape 2120

There are big-budget sci-fi films, and there are low-budget sci-fi films, and then there are no-budget sci-fi films, like this one. A big budget won't make a sci-fi movie good (plenty of examples of that), and good writing, acting and imagination can make a low-budget sci-fi film good or even great, but with no budget at all, even great writing and acting won't get you very far past the starting line. Add time travel into that and things get worse. Young orphan Dave helps a genially crazy scientist and his wife travel 100 years into the future, but eventually becomes obsessed with the idea of time travel itself and uses their equipment to travel 100 years into the future; except he accidentally travels 700 years into the future. Nevertheless, the people he meets speak perfect 21st-century English. If someone traveled back from 2020 to 1320's England, the language would be all but incomprehensible. And if you learned one 14-century dialect and then traveled to another part of England 100 miles away, THEIR dialect would be incomprehensible all over again. Furthermore, the micro-organisms - bacteria, fungi and viruses - will have had 700 years to evolve, and most likely Dave would not have immunity to the future strains. He'd get deathly ill. Then there's the disappointing fact that all we see of the future is a small patch of woodland and a hill nearby with a system of caves, with people living in houses fitted with very 21st-century door and table hardware. There is very little action and the dialogue slows to a crawl in places. If you feel like your time on this Earth is limited, and you want to spend it enriching yourself, skip this flick.

This movie is awful. Mostly because of bad acting. Not the young female actor but basically everyone else. I almost wish I would have read the book. The movie has great premise but needs most of the characters recast

I have three words for this movie: Terr-i-ble. It may have had a great story but I couldn't follow it. The acting; the acting. I normally would disregard bad acting if the story was intriguing. But I didn't pay great attention and wasn't worth it. Played in the background while I looked at stories on my phone 📱.

Apparently this was based on a book that was probably a pretty decent story but unfortunately it was not transferred to the screen. The acting is horrendous. It is so bad at points it completely takes one out of the story. Given the gaping plot holes and things that are simply never explained I can only assume entire chapters must have been skipped. As it is, it makes no sense at all. Sad to see someone else's creative vision reduced to a bad high school play.

The movie has a good storyline. Too bad it wasn't done with a higher budget. Edward Pritchard plays David, a real boring young man who travels to the future. There he meets Nalia, a cute girl from the future. Sounds interesting, right? Wrong.

I made it to the point where a character named Samuel appears. Samuel is played by David Afflick. After a few minutes of Samuel, I stopped watching. I could feel my brain cells dying, and I didn't want to risk my health any further. This character would have great in the movie "Troll 2."

There should be a documentary made about this character. I want to see the director actually say, "... and cut. Good job, David" after one of Samuel's scenes. Fascinating.