Take a low budget, inexperienced actors doubling as production staff as well as limited facilitiesand you can't expect much more than "Time Chasers" gives you, but you can absolutely expect a lot less. This film represents a bunch of good natured friends and neighbors coming together to collaborate on an interesting project. If your cousin had been one of those involved, you would probably think to yourself, "ok, this movie is terrible... but a really good effort." For all the poorly delivered dialog and ham-fisted editing, "Time Chasers" has great scope and ambition... and one can imagine it was necessary to shoot every scene in only one or two takes. So, I'm suggesting people cut "Time Chasers" some slack before they cut in the jugular. That said, I'm not sure I can ever forgive the pseudo-old lady from the grocery store for the worst delivery every wrenched from the jaws of a problematic script.
91 Reviews
If your cousin made this you would pat him on the back and give him an "A" for effort.
matthewmeans24 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Whatever, I suppose
rockfan12 August 2000
That's what the director of this film had to be saying throughout it's making The story is set around Nick, a geeky teacher at Castleton college who invents a time machine using eight commador floppy disks and his plane. After Superdweeb sells his time machine to Bob Evil he discovers the FUTURE has been harmed. Will he be able to prevent the future for being ruined? Will he end up with Lisa? Will anyone really care?
The answer to the third question is...NO!! This film is horrid and so many flaws I'm lost. How in the world to the past self who is the present self know his future self who was really the present self know JK took him to 1777? With all the deaths they caused to the minutemen, shouldn't that have caused a time rip or something? Where did that gun come from on the fishing boat? What about the flying grandma? Shouldn't pilots pay attention to the sky? What was the point of making this film? And if it was for college, did they fail?
1/10 Why no zero available???
The answer to the third question is...NO!! This film is horrid and so many flaws I'm lost. How in the world to the past self who is the present self know his future self who was really the present self know JK took him to 1777? With all the deaths they caused to the minutemen, shouldn't that have caused a time rip or something? Where did that gun come from on the fishing boat? What about the flying grandma? Shouldn't pilots pay attention to the sky? What was the point of making this film? And if it was for college, did they fail?
1/10 Why no zero available???
It could be worse, but not much.
ptrschckl16 April 2005
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.
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.
Thank God for MST!
GeneralB10 November 1999
This is another cinematic failure that would be stealing our time if it weren't for those wonderful, talented people at MST3K. This movie is about a physics professor(yeah right!) who invents a time machine(a plane which flies through really bad computer graphics). He is supposed to go visit other time periods with it, but it seems the past and future look a lot like today except with very slight, cheap modifications. The villain is a CEO who wants to use the machine for evil purposes. The movie makes little hint that he is a evil character from the beginning. He also talks funny. MST made great fun of this movie, and their episode featuring it is one of my favorites.
Actually not bad, for a low-budget film.
Movie Steve30 March 2002
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.
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.
Hugely problematic, though not that awful
TheLittleSongbird14 August 2013
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
Oh man, that was bad.
bat-531 July 1999
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?
Castleton Rocks !!!
CelluloidRehab1 November 2004
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.
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.
Time Chasers: One of the best and best-known bad movies out there.
Idiot-Deluxe16 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
FOR CASTLETON!!!
Time Chasers is the grand vision of a certain aspiring, young, film-maker from Vermont, by the name of David Giancola. In his film debut he ventured into the realm science fiction, this effort ultimately spawned the time travel "epic" Time Chasers. As one views this film you'll find yourself immersed in a world were scientific breakthroughs are on a collision course with corporate greed and ambition - and since this movie is from 1991 it's also a world that's full of mullets and acid-wash jeans, to go one further you could say the screen is ALIVE with acid-wash action!
As mentioned above this is a movie that's based around the well-worn topic of time travel and the many complicated facets or "ripples in time" that such a journey might create - be them good or bad. Maybe it's in part due to my over-familiarity with this movie, but one cant't help but notice the inspiration that Back To The Future holds over this film. One can safely assume that it was the G-Man's intent to use that brilliant film as a template for his own -brilliantly bad- movie. Time Chasers was filmed on a budget of around $150,000 by a small crew of amateurs and semi-pros, with evidently more enthusiasm then talent. Because if there's one thing Time Chasers doesn't lack is enthusiasm, plus this feather-weight film possess a certain "youthful nativity" and huge charm, which helps account for it's enduring longevity. But, as evidenced in this film, enthusiasm can only take you so far and on most fronts (casting, acting, dialog, FX, soundtrack, wardrobe, art direction, etc.) Time Chasers is an embarrassingly bad movie. But on the plus-side I must say for a B-movie that was helmed by a very young, first-time director, the photography of this film is surprisingly good, even engrossing at times and it's easily the strongest aspect of Time Chasers.
The star of the film is a big-chined, bemulleted, blowhard, by the name of Nick Miller a college professor, amateur pilot and full-time computer-nerd, who with a hilariously dated Commodore 64 home computer, a mess of wire's and a batch of 5-inch floppy disk's, has miraculously turned his single-engine, light plane, into a "Time Transport" - and whammo, history is made! Not to give away too much of the plot, but once all four of the films main characters are introduced and in light of Nick Miller's astonishing levels of stupidity and nativity, the circumstances surrounding the Time Transport get complicated in a hurry. As you'll see it's used with evil intent, by an ego-centric, corporate scoundrel and it's all up to Nick Miller and his pretty blonde girlfriend, Lisa Henson, to right the wrong's of those who would seek to use it for world domination. The future of the world is at stake and it's due to the evil intentions of J.K. Robertson, as he fly's through the fabric of time and space - in the hilariously cheap and unconvincing "Time Transport". Let's put it this way, if a true marvel of science, such as a time machine existed, one would hope for something a lot more impressive looking. But hey, that's the low-budget charm of Time Chasers working it's magic on us - now isn't it.
Earlier I mentioned Time Chasers surprisingly good photography, which as I see it, is this films one and only -legitimate- attribute, BUT, where Time Chaser really excels at is it's ability to entertain people who adore amateur films. In that sense Time Chasers is an absolute tour-de-force, with all the mullets, dated clothes, the lameness of the Time Transport and it's painfully underwhelming depictions of "the future", combined with lots of over-the-top dialog, that's spouted by one amateur actor after another - several of which sport some pretty spectacular mullets. Yes this movies a lot of fun, but probably not exactly in the way that David Giancola had intended or envisioned, but he refreshingly seems to have a good sense of humor about it and I'm proud to say I have his auto-graph, scrawled on the VHS box-art of this film. Time Chasers was not only featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000, but was also years later, given a second ripping as the main feature of a "Rifftrax Live" theatrical release. An old friend revisited (in unedited form at last) and with that, the flowing bemulleted locks and iconic Castleton T-shirt of Nick Miller fly's into action once again! Mirthful and high-spirited Time Chasers shines brightly, with it's timeless ability to entertain.
For the past 25 years Time Chasers, in it's many different guises (original/MST3K/Rifftrax) has built up it's reputation as one of the best bad movies and I find it to be a marvelous thing to spend the next 90 odd minutes of my time in the presence of Nick Miller, Lisa Henderson and J.K. Robertson, a "dream cast" if ever there was one. David Giancola, I salute you.
Time Chasers is the grand vision of a certain aspiring, young, film-maker from Vermont, by the name of David Giancola. In his film debut he ventured into the realm science fiction, this effort ultimately spawned the time travel "epic" Time Chasers. As one views this film you'll find yourself immersed in a world were scientific breakthroughs are on a collision course with corporate greed and ambition - and since this movie is from 1991 it's also a world that's full of mullets and acid-wash jeans, to go one further you could say the screen is ALIVE with acid-wash action!
As mentioned above this is a movie that's based around the well-worn topic of time travel and the many complicated facets or "ripples in time" that such a journey might create - be them good or bad. Maybe it's in part due to my over-familiarity with this movie, but one cant't help but notice the inspiration that Back To The Future holds over this film. One can safely assume that it was the G-Man's intent to use that brilliant film as a template for his own -brilliantly bad- movie. Time Chasers was filmed on a budget of around $150,000 by a small crew of amateurs and semi-pros, with evidently more enthusiasm then talent. Because if there's one thing Time Chasers doesn't lack is enthusiasm, plus this feather-weight film possess a certain "youthful nativity" and huge charm, which helps account for it's enduring longevity. But, as evidenced in this film, enthusiasm can only take you so far and on most fronts (casting, acting, dialog, FX, soundtrack, wardrobe, art direction, etc.) Time Chasers is an embarrassingly bad movie. But on the plus-side I must say for a B-movie that was helmed by a very young, first-time director, the photography of this film is surprisingly good, even engrossing at times and it's easily the strongest aspect of Time Chasers.
The star of the film is a big-chined, bemulleted, blowhard, by the name of Nick Miller a college professor, amateur pilot and full-time computer-nerd, who with a hilariously dated Commodore 64 home computer, a mess of wire's and a batch of 5-inch floppy disk's, has miraculously turned his single-engine, light plane, into a "Time Transport" - and whammo, history is made! Not to give away too much of the plot, but once all four of the films main characters are introduced and in light of Nick Miller's astonishing levels of stupidity and nativity, the circumstances surrounding the Time Transport get complicated in a hurry. As you'll see it's used with evil intent, by an ego-centric, corporate scoundrel and it's all up to Nick Miller and his pretty blonde girlfriend, Lisa Henson, to right the wrong's of those who would seek to use it for world domination. The future of the world is at stake and it's due to the evil intentions of J.K. Robertson, as he fly's through the fabric of time and space - in the hilariously cheap and unconvincing "Time Transport". Let's put it this way, if a true marvel of science, such as a time machine existed, one would hope for something a lot more impressive looking. But hey, that's the low-budget charm of Time Chasers working it's magic on us - now isn't it.
Earlier I mentioned Time Chasers surprisingly good photography, which as I see it, is this films one and only -legitimate- attribute, BUT, where Time Chaser really excels at is it's ability to entertain people who adore amateur films. In that sense Time Chasers is an absolute tour-de-force, with all the mullets, dated clothes, the lameness of the Time Transport and it's painfully underwhelming depictions of "the future", combined with lots of over-the-top dialog, that's spouted by one amateur actor after another - several of which sport some pretty spectacular mullets. Yes this movies a lot of fun, but probably not exactly in the way that David Giancola had intended or envisioned, but he refreshingly seems to have a good sense of humor about it and I'm proud to say I have his auto-graph, scrawled on the VHS box-art of this film. Time Chasers was not only featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000, but was also years later, given a second ripping as the main feature of a "Rifftrax Live" theatrical release. An old friend revisited (in unedited form at last) and with that, the flowing bemulleted locks and iconic Castleton T-shirt of Nick Miller fly's into action once again! Mirthful and high-spirited Time Chasers shines brightly, with it's timeless ability to entertain.
For the past 25 years Time Chasers, in it's many different guises (original/MST3K/Rifftrax) has built up it's reputation as one of the best bad movies and I find it to be a marvelous thing to spend the next 90 odd minutes of my time in the presence of Nick Miller, Lisa Henderson and J.K. Robertson, a "dream cast" if ever there was one. David Giancola, I salute you.
Very funny
MundaneNoodle4 October 1999
One of the funnier MST3K experiments. This was an ambitious film, light years ahead of Manos and Hobgoblins. they simply couldn't afford the talent or special effects for it. In terms of effort they get a 7/10. Almost as funny as Space Mutiny. I give this one a 3/10 because there was a passable plot, and some half-decent acting. The funniest part for me is when the wormy fat guy is in the plane with his evil boss and Crow cracks: "Sir, I'm getting a little worried about lunch, it's almost 12:30" or something like that. This one was fun to watch, even though it is strictly fodder for the folks at Best Brains.
"The Adventures of the Average People"
thenintengenius12 April 2004
Tangents (better known to MST3K watchers as Time Chasers) is a prime example of pure MST3K fodder. Made on a shoestring budget by a small production company, it's a by-the-numbers example of a small-budget film with big-budget aspirations.
The plot itself is a fairly interesting take on well-treaded territory: the hero, Nick, invents a way to make his ultra-light plane travel through time and sells the idea to a CEO, only to later discover that the CEO is going to use it for, you guessed it, evil.
The excecution of the plot, however, suffers from a number of handicaps. The portrayal of the future (both the utopian and apocalyptic ones) is laughable at best with the former looking like an 80s shopping mall and the latter a bad Warriors knockoff. The main characters are all boringly average (causing Crow to dub the film "The Adventures of the Average People" in the MST3K episode), the only one having anything identifiably unique about them being the main character, Nick, whose only unique traits are "building a time machine" and "not being able to drive a car" (setting the stage for an absolutely ridiculous bicycle chase scene). If anything, the film reminds us that probably the only Vermont export of note is Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream (who, coincidentally, provided ice cream for the filming of this movie).
All in all, Tangents falls in the same general category of MST3Ked films as Overdrawn at the Memory Bank; a small budget film that is ridiculous enough on its own merits to make it a decent watch for lovers of pure cheese (though, as always, I recommend watching the MST3K version instead).
The plot itself is a fairly interesting take on well-treaded territory: the hero, Nick, invents a way to make his ultra-light plane travel through time and sells the idea to a CEO, only to later discover that the CEO is going to use it for, you guessed it, evil.
The excecution of the plot, however, suffers from a number of handicaps. The portrayal of the future (both the utopian and apocalyptic ones) is laughable at best with the former looking like an 80s shopping mall and the latter a bad Warriors knockoff. The main characters are all boringly average (causing Crow to dub the film "The Adventures of the Average People" in the MST3K episode), the only one having anything identifiably unique about them being the main character, Nick, whose only unique traits are "building a time machine" and "not being able to drive a car" (setting the stage for an absolutely ridiculous bicycle chase scene). If anything, the film reminds us that probably the only Vermont export of note is Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream (who, coincidentally, provided ice cream for the filming of this movie).
All in all, Tangents falls in the same general category of MST3Ked films as Overdrawn at the Memory Bank; a small budget film that is ridiculous enough on its own merits to make it a decent watch for lovers of pure cheese (though, as always, I recommend watching the MST3K version instead).
Immensely entertaining, very fun
mightymothra16 August 2015
A lot people get down on this film because it's so goofy, but it is very, very entertaining. The plot moves from location to location at good clip with a lot of energy from the actors, and as such, never gets dull. The villain is so weirdly delightful you can't help but love him, and the same goes for the hero.
I honestly really appreciated how earnest this film was, and how it set its ambitions high, even if it couldn't always deliver on the premise of a time traveling pilot inventor who destroys the future.
It's the quintessential MST3K film, there's no getting around that, but it's so because it's so very enjoyable to watch. Perfect for viewing with friends.
I honestly really appreciated how earnest this film was, and how it set its ambitions high, even if it couldn't always deliver on the premise of a time traveling pilot inventor who destroys the future.
It's the quintessential MST3K film, there's no getting around that, but it's so because it's so very enjoyable to watch. Perfect for viewing with friends.
The little Vermont movie that could
Agaric22 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
All right, enough with the MST3K-ing, people. I of course saw this movie through the show, and I thought their treatment of it was hilarious. It's one of my favorite episodes. Surprisingly enough though, unlike many other movies ridiculed by Mike and the bots, this one is far from bad. Maybe it's just the sheer number of times that I've seen it that has made it grow on me like some kind of low-budget lichen.
Of course the acting is sub-par and at times could wilt flowers on the side of the road. I wouldn't expect stellar performances from a collection of actors coming out of rural Vermont. The whole time travel concept involving a small engine aircraft is laughable I'll admit. The portrayal of the future is hardly better than a shot of a present day main-street strip. There are a number of minor holes in the plot, one of which involves how Nick managed to get a gun after falling into a lake out of the plane. Another would be the way that the future was unaltered even though automatic weapons and the wreckage of a plane/time machine were left in Revolutionary War-era America.
Honestly though, I believe that these shortcomings were inevitable given the budgetary constraints of the film. The film was cut and edited well, which are aspects I believe to be important in a film of any budget. Take a look at the shoddy editing in some films with budgets over 100 million dollars and it's almost shameful by comparison. Corny by mainstream Hollywood standards, I believe that this film should be viewed for what it is: an impressive achievement by an unknown low-budget filmmaker. I think we should be asking ourselves, given a camera and a few thousand dollars to make a movie about time travel, "could we have done better?"
Of course the acting is sub-par and at times could wilt flowers on the side of the road. I wouldn't expect stellar performances from a collection of actors coming out of rural Vermont. The whole time travel concept involving a small engine aircraft is laughable I'll admit. The portrayal of the future is hardly better than a shot of a present day main-street strip. There are a number of minor holes in the plot, one of which involves how Nick managed to get a gun after falling into a lake out of the plane. Another would be the way that the future was unaltered even though automatic weapons and the wreckage of a plane/time machine were left in Revolutionary War-era America.
Honestly though, I believe that these shortcomings were inevitable given the budgetary constraints of the film. The film was cut and edited well, which are aspects I believe to be important in a film of any budget. Take a look at the shoddy editing in some films with budgets over 100 million dollars and it's almost shameful by comparison. Corny by mainstream Hollywood standards, I believe that this film should be viewed for what it is: an impressive achievement by an unknown low-budget filmmaker. I think we should be asking ourselves, given a camera and a few thousand dollars to make a movie about time travel, "could we have done better?"
"Time Chasers"
alleged24 June 2005
Delightfully awful! Made by David Giancola, a guy who I've long forgiven for this travesty. The man "gets it", and he has the humility and humor to laugh at a very early effort.
Most filmmakers might have the good sense to forget about their early work. Not David, on the contrary he celebrates this movie. What is really needed here is a 'special edition' DVD, with outtakes and commentary.
Seriously, it's amazing what can be made with a little imagination, a lot of 'can do' spirit, an investment in your own community and your good friends. Giancola was in his teens/early 20's; how many people can watch and laugh with a film they made themselves at an age before most of us moved out of the house?
Bravo,David and Edgewood Studios.
Most filmmakers might have the good sense to forget about their early work. Not David, on the contrary he celebrates this movie. What is really needed here is a 'special edition' DVD, with outtakes and commentary.
Seriously, it's amazing what can be made with a little imagination, a lot of 'can do' spirit, an investment in your own community and your good friends. Giancola was in his teens/early 20's; how many people can watch and laugh with a film they made themselves at an age before most of us moved out of the house?
Bravo,David and Edgewood Studios.
Well, that was...random
sngbrd3925 August 2000
Warning: Spoilers
Possible Spoilers (as if you cared)
The movie's worst problem wasn't the low budget "technology" or the acting. The absolute worst problem would have to be how random and badly constructed the plot seemed to be. It seemed as if they wrote down all possible plot points and drew them out of a hat. The order that they pulled them out dictated the order they were shown in the movie. Then they threw in a little "Back to the Future" on the side by going to the '50s, and, of course, every single time travel movie has to go to the future at some point. When they got to the end, they asked themselves what time period they hadn't done yet, so they decided, "What the heck, let's do the Revolutionary War. And, oh yeah, let's throw in a twin for Castleton Man." This is, of course, only how I imagined they did it, but it's plausible.
The movie's worst problem wasn't the low budget "technology" or the acting. The absolute worst problem would have to be how random and badly constructed the plot seemed to be. It seemed as if they wrote down all possible plot points and drew them out of a hat. The order that they pulled them out dictated the order they were shown in the movie. Then they threw in a little "Back to the Future" on the side by going to the '50s, and, of course, every single time travel movie has to go to the future at some point. When they got to the end, they asked themselves what time period they hadn't done yet, so they decided, "What the heck, let's do the Revolutionary War. And, oh yeah, let's throw in a twin for Castleton Man." This is, of course, only how I imagined they did it, but it's plausible.
More obtuse than tangent
InzyWimzy24 October 2002
Think of this one as Back to the Future...except not very good.
The use of time travel and possible timelines gone askew does nothing to add to the film. Our lead guy is a David Koresh look-alike, but a lot less evil. I think he was trying to do justice to physics teachers who do aviation on the side, but have no time for grocery shopping. There's a romance angle here, but it's not really important. Characters meet themselves in other times and it gets really confusing like where did he get that gun after he jumped from the plane into the lake?? You have incompetent security guards and a CEO with a really funny accent (even funnier acting). There's a lot of running, biking, flying, and a really cool car stunt that took 4 takes. Due to limited budget, the future, past, and present look pretty bad which makes it more funny. Hey, if Lisa Kudrow is in this (even for a few milliseconds), it's worth checking out for kicks.
"Food courts of the future!"
The use of time travel and possible timelines gone askew does nothing to add to the film. Our lead guy is a David Koresh look-alike, but a lot less evil. I think he was trying to do justice to physics teachers who do aviation on the side, but have no time for grocery shopping. There's a romance angle here, but it's not really important. Characters meet themselves in other times and it gets really confusing like where did he get that gun after he jumped from the plane into the lake?? You have incompetent security guards and a CEO with a really funny accent (even funnier acting). There's a lot of running, biking, flying, and a really cool car stunt that took 4 takes. Due to limited budget, the future, past, and present look pretty bad which makes it more funny. Hey, if Lisa Kudrow is in this (even for a few milliseconds), it's worth checking out for kicks.
"Food courts of the future!"
I thought it was pretty good, for what it was...
Pythe9 October 2007
I think the only reason this movie has such a low rating is because it was featured on MST3K. Its has its share of cheesy performances and inexplicably ridiculous moments (as when the bad guys ditch their cars to chase after the hero on bicycles), but its main flaw is that its way too ambitious for its budget. I feel confident in asserting that, in spite of my never having been to the future, it will turn out much better than the one portrayed in this movie. But at least the trips to the past are bearable. The humor, if not laugh out loud hilarious, at least isn't embarrassing to watch for everyone involved. Time Chasers, aka Tangents, is probably the only MSTied movie I would ever consider watching without commentary by Mike and the bots. I mean, really, how can you say it's any worse than cringe-fest Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle? Heck, even the banal Roadhouse has a higher rating than this movie! I'm not saying it's a masterpiece, but come on, is there anything near as profoundly lame as the line, "Pain don't hurt" in this movie? No? Well, I rest my case.
Beige, is a good word to describe this thing.
a-twetman22 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I expected this to be bad, which in a warped way would make it worth watching. However, it is really just mediocre, which in an equally warped way makes it less watchable than a truly bad movie.
Let me explain. Tangets has a plot, all be it a very simple one, essentially an inventor makes a time machine, sells the concept to a greedy business man who uses it to change the future. The inventor then has to stop himself from showing the concept to the business man. It's a pretty reasonable plot for a time travel movie, it has a clear direction with beginning, middle and end, and it deals with basic time travel concepts. You also have a bunch of characters, the "hero", the villain, the girl etc. and they are all stereotypes. The film is set in suburban USA, they never actually show the future and the past is represented by a bunch of civil war reenactors. It has all the hallmarks of a low quality, low budget, direct to video movie.
However, nothing stands out as being particularly bad, it's really just bland, like beige on beige, and that, is this films biggest crime. It's not bad enough, or good enough, to invoke any emotion. It does not deserve such a low grade that it gets noticed, it needs to be forgotten.
Let me explain. Tangets has a plot, all be it a very simple one, essentially an inventor makes a time machine, sells the concept to a greedy business man who uses it to change the future. The inventor then has to stop himself from showing the concept to the business man. It's a pretty reasonable plot for a time travel movie, it has a clear direction with beginning, middle and end, and it deals with basic time travel concepts. You also have a bunch of characters, the "hero", the villain, the girl etc. and they are all stereotypes. The film is set in suburban USA, they never actually show the future and the past is represented by a bunch of civil war reenactors. It has all the hallmarks of a low quality, low budget, direct to video movie.
However, nothing stands out as being particularly bad, it's really just bland, like beige on beige, and that, is this films biggest crime. It's not bad enough, or good enough, to invoke any emotion. It does not deserve such a low grade that it gets noticed, it needs to be forgotten.
Granted, it is not a great film, but ...
JD-2917 June 1999
The comments already posted for this film do not do it justice. It is a very low budget sci-fi film made by lesser known people and should be judged that way. To say the film shouldn't be made is plain wrong. How do people learn without doing? Small pictures should be encouraged, not made fun of just because they are not of the highest quality.
Pain On A Plane!
TacoBob9 December 1998
It was a true labor to sit through this "movie". I believe after the MST3K folks scraped the bottom of the barrel to find films like "Manos: The Hands Of Fate", and "Mitchell", they took a peek under the barrel to find this piece of drivel lurking underneath. Basically a hair-helmeted, bespectacled nerd builds a time machine out of his airplane and old Commodore computer, and decides to sell it to some evil guy of some evil company. Wackiness and pain ensue. View at your own risk.
terrible movie, but also a hoot in any time you watch it!
Quinoa19845 May 2016
It should go without saying that it's almost, just almost, not fair to judge a movie when you're seeing it in the context of an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 - or, more recently, when the group did a redux with Rifftrax live (with the complete cut of the film, featuring the deleted scenes with the cab driver which, oh, I'll get to in a moment) - since you may think you're missing something vital to the story or not getting the full picture. But on the other hand, the *almost* part means that no it IS fair to see it in this context because you can still see what the filmmakers were trying to do, which is a mess of a time travel movie, and a cheap one at that.
It's half sincere, which makes it the fun-bad variety of movie, and half cynical ripping-off-Back-to-the-Future (there's a poster for it in the background of the post-apocalypse future in 2041). And yet the filmmakers don't even get this right; there's a whole thing that the main character, who makes time travel possible out of his little "Transport" plane and a Commodore 64 (and who is like discount 80's/90's Bill Maher with the charisma of discount Ted Cruz, and think about what that means for a moment!) seem very important as far as how things we do, whether we know it or not, will affect the future. This has come up in other time travel movies, but here's where the movie screws up: the dorky Nick Miller finds out the future has been compromised due to the deal he made with the "Gen Corp" or whatever the hell it's called, and decides instead of going back before he went ahead and showed the company the time travel plane to the *exact same time* that he made it(!) Did he not see what Marty and Doc did?
There's even a side-kick (briefly) in the film named Marty! This is pretty stupid all around, and everything is painfully and obviously dubbed over. It's this in mind that scenes where Nick and Lisa need to anscray out of New York up to Vermont get uproariously funny as a cab driver who has such a terribly bad NY accent (is it EVEN an accent, has this guy heard of a New Yorker or what a vocal chord is) that the only thing that makes it more glorious are the lines he has been given and the moment when he makes a diversion by getting into a kung-fu pose! There's other bad acting too, but what's incredible is that they had the means to at least, if they were going to dub over people, get better actors.
But I guess they worked with who they could get, and likewise the technology they have - which seems to be enough to rub two quarters together - also allows the greatest display of time travel in a movie: squggly blue lines. Oh, and there's a sequence where they go back to 1777 (and of all things, according to IMDb, a *period correct battle scene*), and it's all obviously people from a Revolutionary war reenactment camp. All of this in a way is admirable in an abstract way, as some people took a few thousand bucks and used a couple of airplanes and made a movie. But at the same time there's a relentlessly inept quality to the dialog, to character motivations, to the silly scenes involving getting out of trees and for Nick's mullet, that it's amazing that it even got finished at all.
PS: Is it the *worst* movie that Mike/Kevin/Bill have skewered? No, not by a long shot. But do they get a lot of mileage out of their riffs? Also without a doubt, and I'd be hard-pressed to wonder if I could watch it sans riffs without taking the p*** out of it myself.
It's half sincere, which makes it the fun-bad variety of movie, and half cynical ripping-off-Back-to-the-Future (there's a poster for it in the background of the post-apocalypse future in 2041). And yet the filmmakers don't even get this right; there's a whole thing that the main character, who makes time travel possible out of his little "Transport" plane and a Commodore 64 (and who is like discount 80's/90's Bill Maher with the charisma of discount Ted Cruz, and think about what that means for a moment!) seem very important as far as how things we do, whether we know it or not, will affect the future. This has come up in other time travel movies, but here's where the movie screws up: the dorky Nick Miller finds out the future has been compromised due to the deal he made with the "Gen Corp" or whatever the hell it's called, and decides instead of going back before he went ahead and showed the company the time travel plane to the *exact same time* that he made it(!) Did he not see what Marty and Doc did?
There's even a side-kick (briefly) in the film named Marty! This is pretty stupid all around, and everything is painfully and obviously dubbed over. It's this in mind that scenes where Nick and Lisa need to anscray out of New York up to Vermont get uproariously funny as a cab driver who has such a terribly bad NY accent (is it EVEN an accent, has this guy heard of a New Yorker or what a vocal chord is) that the only thing that makes it more glorious are the lines he has been given and the moment when he makes a diversion by getting into a kung-fu pose! There's other bad acting too, but what's incredible is that they had the means to at least, if they were going to dub over people, get better actors.
But I guess they worked with who they could get, and likewise the technology they have - which seems to be enough to rub two quarters together - also allows the greatest display of time travel in a movie: squggly blue lines. Oh, and there's a sequence where they go back to 1777 (and of all things, according to IMDb, a *period correct battle scene*), and it's all obviously people from a Revolutionary war reenactment camp. All of this in a way is admirable in an abstract way, as some people took a few thousand bucks and used a couple of airplanes and made a movie. But at the same time there's a relentlessly inept quality to the dialog, to character motivations, to the silly scenes involving getting out of trees and for Nick's mullet, that it's amazing that it even got finished at all.
PS: Is it the *worst* movie that Mike/Kevin/Bill have skewered? No, not by a long shot. But do they get a lot of mileage out of their riffs? Also without a doubt, and I'd be hard-pressed to wonder if I could watch it sans riffs without taking the p*** out of it myself.
Cheesy fun fest!
afgncaap58 July 2005
I love this movie.
I mean, I know I only gave it a 1, but I love this movie.
I gave it a "1" because I don't think that if you follow the textbook example of movies, this doesn't really work out. However, I think that if we consider different alternatives to what movies can be, then this is definitely something worth watching.
It's kinda like a snapshot of the "old future", if you know what I mean. Well....no, you don't....but the thing is just filled with fun nostalgia and enjoyable situations. I'd love to see a sequel to this thing (and I hear one's in the works).
I mean, I know I only gave it a 1, but I love this movie.
I gave it a "1" because I don't think that if you follow the textbook example of movies, this doesn't really work out. However, I think that if we consider different alternatives to what movies can be, then this is definitely something worth watching.
It's kinda like a snapshot of the "old future", if you know what I mean. Well....no, you don't....but the thing is just filled with fun nostalgia and enjoyable situations. I'd love to see a sequel to this thing (and I hear one's in the works).
I didn't think it was THAT bad...
Thanos630 July 2000
Yes, I saw this on MST3K just like the rest of you. And I laughed. Those guys can make anything funny.
But reviewing from an objective point of view, it is far better than the vast majority of movies shown on that beloved program. I would even say it's the "best" of those movies (with the possible exception of Jack Frost).
Script: Not Back to the Future, but still surprisingly good. There are lots of little subtleties you have to be watching for. Example: Lisa (that her name?) was first called out by a promise of a "flying grandma." When she is rerouted to the plane crash, she asks, "What about the flying grandma?"
Actors: The lead did a decent job, as did the villainous CEO. Lisa(?) wasn't that good. I did, however, enjoy "Pink Boy" and the mechanic. Those were two actually good performances.
I give this 6/10.
But reviewing from an objective point of view, it is far better than the vast majority of movies shown on that beloved program. I would even say it's the "best" of those movies (with the possible exception of Jack Frost).
Script: Not Back to the Future, but still surprisingly good. There are lots of little subtleties you have to be watching for. Example: Lisa (that her name?) was first called out by a promise of a "flying grandma." When she is rerouted to the plane crash, she asks, "What about the flying grandma?"
Actors: The lead did a decent job, as did the villainous CEO. Lisa(?) wasn't that good. I did, however, enjoy "Pink Boy" and the mechanic. Those were two actually good performances.
I give this 6/10.
Spoof Of Back To The Future ?
aesgaard4129 March 2001
I think its a great concept when you can put a time travel device in a car or a plane, but unless the script is easy to follow, or you already have a basic grasp of quantum realities, the movie is likely not going to make sense. The sequencing on this movie is a bit off and awkward to follow as our hero, skinny and geeky as he is, he's still the hero, tries to commercialize his time machine only to have the future later when an opportunist destroys the future. An interesting movie, even as an early vehicle for Lisa Kudrow, the script runs roughly and well in places, but bogs down mostly in the area of credibility, likeability and in the field of quantum mechanic. I'd explain what I mean, but that would give away the ending. Overall, I rate this movie a seven.
Yikes!
Sterno-216 September 1999
A good premise is wasted with bad dialog, wooden characters, and a hero that can't drive a car! It's true -- he commutes everywhere by bicycle. Our loser, err hero comes up with a time machine that runs off an old Apple IIe. He has to be fairly brilliant to have a time travelling program that can be condensed onto a couple of old 5 inch floppies!
Our heroine is a newspaper reporter tricked into seeing the loser's invention with a story about a parachuting grandma. Later, when she discovers her own dead body, her reaction is as wooden as that of a cigar store Indian (or Al Gore, take your pick).
The movie was shot in and around Rutland, Vermont. The local mall was used as the offices of the evil CEO, as well as the town's airport. At least the beautiful surroundings to take your mind off the bad movie. The Revolutionary War reenactors give the best performance.
If you're an Alpha Geek who wants to find a way to get a woman, use this movie as your guide. Otherwise, forget it.
Our heroine is a newspaper reporter tricked into seeing the loser's invention with a story about a parachuting grandma. Later, when she discovers her own dead body, her reaction is as wooden as that of a cigar store Indian (or Al Gore, take your pick).
The movie was shot in and around Rutland, Vermont. The local mall was used as the offices of the evil CEO, as well as the town's airport. At least the beautiful surroundings to take your mind off the bad movie. The Revolutionary War reenactors give the best performance.
If you're an Alpha Geek who wants to find a way to get a woman, use this movie as your guide. Otherwise, forget it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
