NOTE IMDb
5,3/10
3,2 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA Bible professor from 1890 comes forward in time to the present via a time machine and cannot believe the things that he sees.A Bible professor from 1890 comes forward in time to the present via a time machine and cannot believe the things that he sees.A Bible professor from 1890 comes forward in time to the present via a time machine and cannot believe the things that he sees.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Patti MacLeod
- Norris' Wife
- (as Patty MacLeod)
Avis à la une
I caught this movie on Sky Movies early one morning. When I was 12, I remember watching scary Christian films in the 70's about the last days, the rapture and who gets left behind.
I'm 38 now and I felt that this movie delivered a better message. I have personally witnessed the decline of values in the last ten to fifteen years. No-one respects anyone else and so much is simply accepted rather than questioned or denounced. Very young children use profanities as punctuation. They have no shame.
This movie is a wake up call to the world.
It's not about how good it was to live in the 19th century - it's about how bad it is to live today without spiritual guidance from a Christian point of view. Other major religions will have their own methods of delivering their values to believers and non-believers alike.
I know of some Christians who will not like this movie and many non-Christians too. They are likely to criticise the acting, plot or script but that's because it's bringing the Truth home to them and they do not want to hear the REAL Truth. They do not want to be labelled as being weak while they enjoy their lives.
There is a strong message. It needs to be strong and it needs to be in your face so you get the message. There are no gratuitous scenes that glorify Satan.
A Very Good Movie. One for the family.
I'm 38 now and I felt that this movie delivered a better message. I have personally witnessed the decline of values in the last ten to fifteen years. No-one respects anyone else and so much is simply accepted rather than questioned or denounced. Very young children use profanities as punctuation. They have no shame.
This movie is a wake up call to the world.
It's not about how good it was to live in the 19th century - it's about how bad it is to live today without spiritual guidance from a Christian point of view. Other major religions will have their own methods of delivering their values to believers and non-believers alike.
I know of some Christians who will not like this movie and many non-Christians too. They are likely to criticise the acting, plot or script but that's because it's bringing the Truth home to them and they do not want to hear the REAL Truth. They do not want to be labelled as being weak while they enjoy their lives.
There is a strong message. It needs to be strong and it needs to be in your face so you get the message. There are no gratuitous scenes that glorify Satan.
A Very Good Movie. One for the family.
It wasn't the best movie I've ever seen but the message of what a 19th century theologian professor would see if he travels to the future is very thought provoking. If your judging this movie by the message then that just lets people know your beliefs if your judging the movie on how well it was done then that's a different story. If you don't believe that there are an overwhelming increase of foul language and sexuality in the media over the years then oh well. My dad who might not have been a Christian even saw the changes in the media. The message is important. Christians too often accept things that they shouldn't.
AFter reading the comments of viewers, I came to the realization that one thing is certain: No matter what one thinks or how one feels about this film, it's premise is absolutely true. Narrow is the road that leads to life and many will miss it.
A lot of the reviews here condemn Time Changer for being "Fundamentalist propaganda" or some such words. Yes, it is absolutely true that this movie has a point of view that it pushes. So do lots of movies. When you agree with the point of view, it's "an intelligent movie with profound insights on our times". When you disagree it's "propaganda". Do I need to rattle off a list of movies that clearly are intended to be condemnations of the Iraq war? Of racism? Of big business? Or for that matter, of Fundamentalist Chrsitianity? But anyway ...
The gist of the plot is that two college professors from 1890 have a disagreement about the nature of morality. Dr Andersone says that a moral code that is not ultimately based on the authority of God is inherently without foundation and doomed to failure. Dr Carlisle agrees that people should have faith in God but believes morality can be founded on non-religious, pragmatic grounds. Furthermore, Anderson argues that it is more important that people be saved and spend eternity with God than that they live good lives; Carlisle agrees but insists that right living is still a good thing of itself. (Just reading that should make it apparent that this movie is much deeper and more philosophical than 99% of the movies made today.) Anderson then reveals that he came to his conclusions because he has invented a time machine and seen the future, and he knows how things turn out. He ultimately convinces Carlisle to travel to the future (our present) himself to see. The rest of the movie is about Carlisle's encounter with 21st century culture and morals.
Biggest weak point to me: There's a sub-plot where Carlisle meets two men who become suspicious of his "cover story" and take steps to investigate him. I found this sub-plot very hard to believe. If I met someone at a party who casually said that he worked at a college in my city that I never heard of, I can't imagine that I'd immediately conclude that he was a fraud. Much more likely I'd say, "Huh, I never heard of that college. Maybe it's some tiny little school behind the mall." They investigate and find that this college used to be in this city but moved decades ago and that there was a professor there in the 1800's named Carlisle. They ponder how this man could be alive today if he was teaching college in 1890. They apparently never consider obvious, mundane explanations like, "maybe he has the same name as his grandfather who also taught at this school". Etc. Frankly, I think this whole plot-line was stuck in just to add some conflict and suspense.
Overall, I think this movie presented a serious philosophical question in an entertaining way. It mostly avoided adding nonsense action and chase scenes to make the story more "exciting" and kept the conflict serious and intellectual. It did add some amusing scenes to lighten the mood here and there. I thought the acting and cinematography were good, and the couple of special effects scenes were quite professional.
If you're looking for an exciting action movie, this isn't it. If you're looking for an hour or two of light, mindless entertainment, this isn't it. But if you're looking for a serious, thoughtful movie, you might consider Time Changer.
The gist of the plot is that two college professors from 1890 have a disagreement about the nature of morality. Dr Andersone says that a moral code that is not ultimately based on the authority of God is inherently without foundation and doomed to failure. Dr Carlisle agrees that people should have faith in God but believes morality can be founded on non-religious, pragmatic grounds. Furthermore, Anderson argues that it is more important that people be saved and spend eternity with God than that they live good lives; Carlisle agrees but insists that right living is still a good thing of itself. (Just reading that should make it apparent that this movie is much deeper and more philosophical than 99% of the movies made today.) Anderson then reveals that he came to his conclusions because he has invented a time machine and seen the future, and he knows how things turn out. He ultimately convinces Carlisle to travel to the future (our present) himself to see. The rest of the movie is about Carlisle's encounter with 21st century culture and morals.
Biggest weak point to me: There's a sub-plot where Carlisle meets two men who become suspicious of his "cover story" and take steps to investigate him. I found this sub-plot very hard to believe. If I met someone at a party who casually said that he worked at a college in my city that I never heard of, I can't imagine that I'd immediately conclude that he was a fraud. Much more likely I'd say, "Huh, I never heard of that college. Maybe it's some tiny little school behind the mall." They investigate and find that this college used to be in this city but moved decades ago and that there was a professor there in the 1800's named Carlisle. They ponder how this man could be alive today if he was teaching college in 1890. They apparently never consider obvious, mundane explanations like, "maybe he has the same name as his grandfather who also taught at this school". Etc. Frankly, I think this whole plot-line was stuck in just to add some conflict and suspense.
Overall, I think this movie presented a serious philosophical question in an entertaining way. It mostly avoided adding nonsense action and chase scenes to make the story more "exciting" and kept the conflict serious and intellectual. It did add some amusing scenes to lighten the mood here and there. I thought the acting and cinematography were good, and the couple of special effects scenes were quite professional.
If you're looking for an exciting action movie, this isn't it. If you're looking for an hour or two of light, mindless entertainment, this isn't it. But if you're looking for a serious, thoughtful movie, you might consider Time Changer.
Unlike most Hollywood films, which often have a budget of well over 100 million dollars, this film was financed by people who are passionate about their faith. I am sure that the catering account for most feature film sets would tower over the entire cost of this picture. This film was a labor of love in all respects and its purpose was to help the viewer identify with the reason for our existence. This film portrays the flawed human character with great accuracy and then speaks to us in a language that Hollywood can't quite understand. That language is forgiveness. If you truly care about your family and what they watch, this is the movie for you.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesRussell's timeline given the data in the film: 1847= Born 1865= 18 1890= 43 1936= 89
Had he still been alive in 2002, he would have been 155 years old.
- GaffesAt the beginning, the committee meet to endorse the book to be shown on "the back cover". In 1890, a book would be printed in hardback, and a dust jacket, of present, would be likely plain, especially on a religious book.
- Citations
Norris Anderson: Without the authority of Christ, mankind is merely left to compare ideas. A morality becomes a matter of opinion. One person says it is wrong to steal, the next person says it is not. No standard is set.
- ConnexionsFeatured in The Making of 'Time Changer' (2003)
- Bandes originalesIt's About Time
Written and Performed by Brian Steckler
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Time Changer?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- El que cambia los tiempos
- Lieux de tournage
- Société de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 825 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 1 305 964 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 300 103 $US
- 27 oct. 2002
- Montant brut mondial
- 1 305 964 $US
- Durée1 heure 35 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Time Changer (2002) officially released in India in English?
Répondre