I finally watched this movie after seeing what a small but rabid fanbase it has.
Anyhoo, this is the film where Christopher Reeve notices a old picture of a woman in a motel and decides to travel back in time so he can stalk Jane Seymour.
Wow, I really hated this movie. Truly. Madly. Deeply.
Christopher Reeve behaves like a utter lunatic through most of the film. I said to myself more than once, “This man is seriously disturbed.”
Jane is pretty but dull. And what qualities does Chris possess that would make a woman like her fall for him? He’s polite, awkward and obviously pussywhipped. Weren’t old-timey stage actresses having affairs with rake-ish racecar drivers and impossibly wealthy barons and counts and whatnot?
I think Ebert was right when he said that this whole movie is just so goddamn irritatingly solemn. Probably would’ve worked better as a comedy. Slightly better, anyway.
Oh, and that tragic ending. I never knew the best laid plans of mice and men could go awry because of A PENNY FROM THE FUTURE, ZOMG!!!11 Chris’s reaction to this reminded me of Donald Sutherland’s last scene in Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
And did you catch the titles of Chris’s “award-winning” plays? Passionate Apathies? Oh, fuck you.
I want to punch this movie in the cock. That being said, does this thing have any defenders on the Dope?
I liked it a lot. This is a movie for people who have a big, blowsy streak of schmaltzy romanticism in their souls, not a movie for people who say things like “I want to punch this movie in the cock.” You want Fight Club? This ain’t it.
If you look closely at the beginning, you’ll notice a really young William H Macy. Then you can turn it off.
My favorite part: she gives him the pocketwatch in the future, then he gives it to her in the past. Ergo, the pocketwatch was never created. I can’t remember the term for this, but it’s pretty insulting to use it to score a cheap point.
And Christopher Plummer has never had a more thankless role.
Christopher Reeve gets knocked over the head with a two-by-four – and he fall unconscious??? The guy can withstand a rain of bullets, yet he gets taken out by a piece of wood? Hah!
And if he wanted to travel back in time, why didn’t he just fly around the world like he used to? None of this stupid, schmaltzy self-hypnosis crap.
And when Jane Seymour was taking his clothes off, why didn’t she notice his colorful tights? What was she, blind?
I saw it at choir camp when I was about 13. I didn’t hate the film, and I didn’t like it. I wasn’t interested in punching it in the cock but it’s nothing I ever have to see again.
I kind of liked it when I first saw it; but then again, I was probably 13 years old and fascinated by time travel. And I had the hots for Jane Seymour. Now I’m pushing 40, recognize the plot holes, and have the hots for Jane Seymour. So everything is different.
This movie’s popularization of Rachmaninoff’s musical glurge-fest, “Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini” is enough to make me want to punch it in the cock.
I haven’t seen the movie, but anything that can spawn a catchphrase like “punch it in the cock”, it OK by me.
That one line has me in tears and I don’t know why.
It’s kind of enjoyable just for the scenery (the old-fashioned resort and Jane Seymour). But I’d really prefer to see a good movie version of Jack Finney’s Time and Again.
Yes. That book is probably my favorite.
But they’d probably screw it up.
I am already worried about the film version of The Time Traveler’s Wife.
I liked Somewhere In Time okay. I really like Jane Seymour.
But as sappy as I can be, that film was a bit on the shmaltzy side even for me.
I wouldn’t call it a great movie, but it was a pleasant way to while away a couple of hours. I watched it a couple of years ago, for the first, and probably only time. I think I found it a little unsatisfying, and I’m not real keen on time travel stories in general, but not a horrible movie.