Time Chasers

This movie could only have been shot in Vermont. The scenery is Vermont, the town where our hero (!) lives is a Vermont town (Rutland, as it turns out), and the evil CEO speaks with a pronounced Vermont-hick accent. Not to mention the Castleton State t-shirt our hero (!) wears. Yep, if you like Vermont, you may like this movie.

The premise is interesting, and the writers make an honest attempt to keep the audience guessing with the many plot twists. And given an obviously low budget, the film is very well made.

And the use of "average" looking people as opposed to Hollywood glamour boys (and girls) is commendable, I suppose (but see above note on the ultra-low budget). But, really! The hero (!) looks like the product of a gene-splicing experiment involving Richard Dreyfuss and Nomar Garciaparra! Is that the best they could do? Was he the handsomest most charismatic most everyman actor in the whole of Vermont?

Overall, the movie is OK, but the low budget means cheesy special effects, amateurish acting, a so-so script, and a geeky lantern-jawed hero (!). Still, it beats "Manos" by light years...

Time Chasers joins various films that have been given the razzing they deserve on MST. A little more competent than most films that are shown, it's still pretty bad. A bike riding scientist invents a time travel device and puts it in his Cessna. Why not a car? Well, he can't drive and I doubt he can get going fast enough on his ten speed. Like the lunkhead he is, he tells an evil corporation (is there any other kind?) about his invention and they take over the project. There's also some kind of lovestory too and our butt chinned hero takes his plaid clashing girlfriend to shopping malls of the future and to the fifties! Pretty soon there's two lunk heads running around and they go back to 1777. Why? I just don't know and I really don't care. The question that still bugs me is, where did that gun come from?

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.

I feel badly for the actors and directors of this film who may come across this site's comments about it, which was fairly well done - for a low-budget film.

All the criticisms about the film are true: The evil CEO's office in an apparent library, the antique computer with outdated floppy disks, and the fairly wooden acting are all valid criticisms. But what do we expect, Spielberg? Lucas? I'm sure they could have taken this film to greater heights, but let's give it its due.

Think about it. The plot line was clever. How many ways can you go into the past? Car, stationary machine, plane? But the "future" portrayed here was embarrassing. Frankly, I thought they had gone BACK in time to 1984! Surely, they could have done better than that. Even in 1994, people knew what types of technologies to expect in the near future. Why not portray even one laptop?

I enjoyed the revolutionary war reenactors, but I think a "twist" of an ending would have been cute, and could have salvaged some of the film. What if, when they returned, everyone had British accents, including the evil CEO of a now-British conglomerate. Think about it.

So, here's my "director's cut" of this film: 1. Allow the lead actor to drive a car (better chase scenes) 2. Use a real computer - at least use the right sized disks 3. Cut the "ditching bicycles" scene (it's only 3 seconds long) 4. Show a better, more plausible future 5. Shorten the "bad future" scene, and shoot it at night, or in the fog, to make it look REALLY ominous, and 6. Make the final scene important (as I said above).

Until then, my rating is 4.

Unlike a lot of movies made today, this one was a labor of love, not a high pressure money making endeavor. Shortcomings aside, any movie could be great-- but shortcomings cannot be set aside. The movie was made, and it does have problems, but it was made-- something a lot of detractors have never done. HWS