Time After Time

I love good sci-fi adventures and enjoyed watching Time after time. For one reason or another the networks keep canceling sci-fi series after only a few episodes have been aired. This one lasted 5 episodes in the States.

Spain and Portugal's networks thought differently and aired all 12 episodes made. I was fortunately able to see the remaining episodes too. I consider this series above average of its genre and thank these European networks for airing them. The producers of the series also had more than one season in mind and the final episode ended with a cliffhanger.

Which network has the heart to take up the gap and have more seasons made? Sci-fi supporters will thank them from the bottom of their hearts!

If your someone who appreciates Jack the Ripper shows/movies; but also someone for who, the thought of time travel isn't so far fetched; I have a hard time imagining you wouldn't like this show. Those are no spoilers, it's legit the point of the show to it's very core without specifics.

As far as these low reviews? I mean I wouldn't watch a werewolf movie and give it a 1 because I don't like werewolves. We have to have a clue about these things and what we are going to watch. Otherwise someone should include in their review about maybe an old western that they hate old westerns before handing out a 1. I've seen some bad shows, for people to give this show such a poor rating is sad and I'm curious what makes their brain tick. I'm wondering if they know it's a show about time travel to a point with character we know about, what could the problem with plot be? Ok Hitchcock, your so much more qualified than a department at a major studio lmao who've had success at supreme level. Does that mean you have to like everything, no. But cmon, don't complain about the plot of this show when anyone with a clue understands the made complete and total sense. Don't psycho-analyze everything Freud. Or you will never be able to sit back and enjoy any show

Yes we are all different, but the show proved fantastic for what it was intended to be. It's a shame it never got a chance to get to far in depth or allow plot to develop but the show itself was great and the plot was so incredible it's unbelievable.

First let me say that yes I did see the film version back in 1979 and yes it was very enjoyable and it still holds up well some 28 years later. As for this new television series that took 28 years for a brave producer to stick their neck out and have faith that there will be an audience for it, well I say congratulations to you!

What I fail to understand by the previous reviewers is why there is so much hate in their reviews? I just watched the two hour pilot and I found this series to contain adventure, romance, mystery, danger and a darn good cast of characters. I can only surmise that some of the other reviewers are either professional saboteurs working for competing broadcast stations who wish to retain their share of the Nielsen ratings, or they are less than impressive actors who did not make the cut and lost the part to some of this casts current performers who in my opinion succeeded where they failed and there is a hate on for them which is totally undeserved.

Freddie Stroma plays H.G. Wells and his nemesis Jack the Ripper is played by Josh Bowman. H.G. Wells unplanned travel to the year 2017 in pursuit of Dr. John Stevenson finds him falling head over heels for a Miss Jane Parker played by Genesis Rodriguez who is the assistant curator of the New York museum which has Mr. Wells time machine on exhibit.

During the second hour of the pilot H.G. Wells is introduced to his great, great grand daughter Vanessa Anders (played by Nicole Ari Parker). What was interesting about this particular reveal was how Vanessa explained to H.G. Wells how they first met several years earlier and how she convinced H.G. Wells that they did in fact meet previously, albeit several years ago which was the reason Vanessa kept waiting for Mr. Wells to re-enter not only into her life, but re- enter into her world over 100 years later.

I noticed in the series credits that none of the aforementioned characters appear in any more than 3 episodes so I can only surmise that the series will take some unsuspected twists and turns and maybe the spoils are rewarded to whom holds the key to the time machine? I quite enjoyed this television version which also included a cameo appearance by the great English actress Juliet Mills.

So to all you naysayers, I say try and close your eyes and consider that maybe this team of writers have a much more developed creative genius than the negative comments you attributed to the pilot episode. I for one will keep my eyes opened and I look forward to where this time machine will next takes us....time after time.

I give the series a perfect 10 out of 10 rating. Bravo!

I loved the 1979 movie of the same name. It was the definition of charming. This series began here with the first two episodes and I was impressed favourably. The three leads are as charming as can be with John performed brilliantly with an oozing, psychopathic, warped evil that begins with his eyes and inhabits the actor's whole being. I find it hard to believe that he was recently the weak Daniel in Revenge. The other two are new to me. I beg to differ with some others here who seem to find Jane unattractive; I find her cute and beautiful and a fine wee actress. Wells also seemed more than competent in such a strange role. I had hoped for the time machine from the Rod Taylor movie but this one, especially with the ice on the windows, seems quite fine. I have enjoyed Timeless for the most part though its egregious historical errors exceeded anything on this show. I give this a weak 8 in hopes of a surer hand in writing and direction as the series gets its feet under it. I certainly would recommend it to friends.

Sorry to hear about it's demise. Refreshing and informative. Good acting, well rounded cast and the writing is very good. Want it to stay on the air. Can't finally watch something entertaining rather than controversial? For a change - give us something rather than quickly taking it away.