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...

When describing some as not that awful, that doesn't make things immediately good. Time Chasers is still a very bad movie, what is meant by not that awful is that it is far from one of the worst movies ever and there have been far worse movies featured on MST3K(though they did a good job riffing Time Chasers). Matthew Brunch is at least okay in the lead, there is some amusing humour, a reasonably cool car stunt and some good ideas. It is also at least not dull, which is more than can be said for the likes of Manos, Monster A-Go Go, Beast of Yucca Flats and The Creeping Terror. The rest of Time Chasers is sloppily executed, it shows more ambition than most other movies riffed on MST3K but it does come across as too ambitious especially for the budget. The special effects are poor, having a rather outdated look, and there is nothing remarkable about the way it is shot either, while the settings are simplistic and don't look anything like they should(the office of the CEO for example looks like a library). Most of the dialogue is clunky at best, while the story gets increasingly ridiculous and predictable with the future scenes particularly embarrassing. The characters have very transparent personalities and are rather annoying in a way, especially one of the most laughable excuses for a villain, don't get me started on his accent and voice. For featured MST3K movies, the villain is quite possibly the lamest and most embarrassing villain since that for Space Mutiny. The acting is very wooden, George Woodard's acting is notable in this regard, only Brunch shows any glimpses of talent. Overall, not as awful as some have said but a movie with a lot of problems. 3.5/10 Bethany Cox

Whether or not you're a fan of 'Back to the Future', it's hard to argue against it being a good movie; it's a perfect example of how a time-travel movie can work. A torn-up poster for 'Back To The Future' shows up in this movie, representing -- probably unintentionally -- what the makers of 'Tangents' (aka 'Time Chasers') did to the time-travel formula. Then again, the movie was made in 1994, but it looks -- and sounds -- like it was actually shot at least ten years earlier, so maybe they achieved some sort of time-travel after all.

Start with an aggressively unappealing leading man. I mean, what woman doesn't love gangly, whiny, lantern-jawed, butt-chinned, mullet-men with giant Coke-bottle glasses? Well, prepare to tough it out, ladies, cuz that's our hero ("Hey, movie? I wanna see your supervisor, movie; this will NOT stand!").

Second, add a leading lady who -- while not entirely unattractive -- personally embodies many '80s clichés: big hair, too much makeup, two different plaids ("Oh, man! I'm a naked robot and even I know that's a fashion no-no."), shoulder pads, acid-washed mom-jeans, etc.

Throw in a Michael Medved look-alike who wears pink blazers and white pants, a painfully transparent villain who talks like Mortimer Snerd and has an office that looks like a circus-themed library, and evil henchmen who seem to have nothing better to do than direct air traffic ("Oh, so they're the really NICE evil guys!"). That's our cast, folks.

I don't want to spoil the plot, but since I've yet to figure out exactly what the plot IS, I'm not too worried about it. In fact, it would probably be less time-consuming for you to just track down a copy of this movie and watch it yourself. If YOU figure out the plot, please contact me; I'm curious.

I would strongly advise watching this movie with the help of the folks at Mystery Science Theater 3000; I don't think it could stand on its own... beer would probably help, too.

The film, 'Tangents': 3 stars -- they tried.

MST3K's 'Time Chasers' episode: 8 stars -- they succeeded.

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?

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.