What a waste of my time!!!

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

I have mixed feelings about TIME AFTER TIME. On the face of it, it's the kind of film I really should enjoy. A fish-out-of-water adventure in which H.G. Wells pursues Jack the Ripper to the then-present day via his real-life time machine, what could possibly go wrong with that? Well, the answer is plenty, and all of it is down to the script, which goes down the clichéd romantic route rather than the thriller route.So what we get is a long, slow-paced romantic comedy in which Wells takes time out to pursue the youthful Mary Steenburgen and almost seems to forget that he's supposed to be hunting a killer. The romantic scenes are quite sweet but I avoid the genre like the plague where possible and I just wanted them to get back to the action.Malcolm McDowell is a fine choice to play Wells and he reminds us that he's far more than the stock villain that he's usually stuck playing in Hollywood. Poor old David Warner has a great part but is barely utilised here. The dated special effects scenes are fun but there's far too much romance and too little in the way of genuine science fiction; the film as a result plods when it should zing.

I really wasn't expecting very much out of this, but after having watched "The Time Machine" I stumbled upon this movie and decided that I had to give it a try. It had a decent enough cast - Malcolm McDowell, David Warner and Mary Steenburgen being the stars (along with a very small part that lasts no more than a few seconds for a very young Corey Feldman), and while it seemed a bit (OK, a lot) silly, the basic story was at least a little bit intriguing. It has early sci-fi author H.G. Wells (author of "The Time Machine," played by McDowell) actually inventing a time machine. At a dinner party with some of his friends (similar to inventor George Wells in "The Time Machine") he reveals the existence of the machine, only to see it used by Dr. Stevenson (Warner) to escape into the future, because the police had discovered that he was Jack the Ripper. With the machine returning to Wells' lab after Stevenson had left it, Wells follows him into the future to prevent him from continuing his murderous spree in another time.Some things about the machine made little sense to me. Like in the original story, the machine doesn't move through space - only through time. That was established. But then Wells makes the comment that moving forward or backward in time depends on whether the machine is travelling eastward or westward. How can it be travelling in either direction if it doesn't move through space? And how, if it doesn't move through space, did the machine take both Wells and Stevenson to San Francisco in 1979? Just because it had been found and put on display in a San Francisco museum? Wouldn't where it ended up in the future be dependent on where it started? I was confused by all that to be honest. But, getting over that confusion, I found a story that was actually quite entertaining.It's exciting enough. Not edge of your seat stuff, but you do find yourself rooting for Wells as he tries to track down Stevenson, knowing that if the Ripper is left loose there's going to be a blood bath in San Francisco, which has already started by the time Wells arrives, two prostitutes having been murdered. The movie has an amusing "fish out of water" aspect to it as we watch Wells try to come to terms with this very new and different environment - 1979 San Francisco being much different than 1893 London, where he began. There was also a really nice chemistry between McDowell and Steenburgen, who meet as Wells exchanges some 19th century English pounds for American dollars. There's an attempt at linking the story to Wells' real life through Steenburgen. She plays Amy Robbins - and Wells really did marry a woman who was one of his students named Amy Robbins in 1895. So the story, which has them falling in love in 1979 in San Francisco and then returning to London in 1893 offers a sci-fi version of how the two met.I also found myself thinking about Nicholas Meyer, who directed this. Meyer is probably best known for his involvement with some of the Star Trek movies - and he helped write the screenplay for "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home." It was also a time travel movie, with the crew of the Enterprise facing the same fish out of water experience in San Francisco. I wondered how much that screenplay might have been influenced by Meyer's work with "Time After Time." On the surface, this movie does sound silly. But it turns out to be a pretty well done and entertaining movie. (8/10)

Time After Time has Malcolm McDowell cast as the famous H.G. Wells who hasn't turned to writing yet, but is quite the scientist and has built the famous time machine he wrote about. It's peer into the future maybe see if and when the Utopia he thinks humankind is destined for comes about. It certainly hasn't in 1979 the year Wells travels to the future in San Francisco of that year. But Wells is on a more important mission. Using the machine before him was David Warner, a doctor friend of Wells and a convivial dining companion who happens to be the infamous Jack the Ripper. Wells means to bring him back to face British justice.Warner of course continues the activities which made him infamous. The challenge for Wells who represents the ultimate in civilization is does he have the right stuff to bring down a man who has become known in history as the incarnation of pure evil. Along the way we learn that Wells snatched his second wife from the future one Amy Robbins played by Mary Steenburgen. That was the maiden name of Wells's second wife, not that he was the most faithful of husbands. But she put up with his infidelities in real life and had a few of her own.Time After Time is based on an interesting notion produced well for the big screen. All three of the leads give great performances.As for Wells he remains optimistic though far more realistic.

In 1893, HG Wells (Malcolm McDowell) manages to create a time machine. When a friend (David Warner), who turns out to be Jack the Ripper, uses the machine to escape into the future, Wells follows after him to 1979, where he must stop the murderer while also having to come to terms with the shocking future, which is far from the utopia he expected it to be...A very interesting and surprisingly lighthearted thriller/adventure, with quite a bit of comedy thrown in, 'Time After Time' has a silly and fantastic feel to it that kinda reminds me of the more young audience aimed films of the 70's and 80's.The actors are very good. Malcolm McDowell's HG Wells is a nice counter to his usually darker roles (like in 'A Clockwork Orange' or 'Caligula'); he pulls off a brilliantly convincing and even comedic performance as the naive futurist. Likewise, David Warner is also very good as the villain; rather than making the Ripper a psychotic monster he makes for a more sophisticated, almost gentlemanly antagonist that is no less of a menace. Mary Streenburgen is charming and cute, and has great chemistry with McDowell, making their characters' romance convincing and entertaining to watch; however I didn't like her character too much and something in her delivery felt a bit... off sometimes. For example, when she is being threatened by the Ripper her lips curl a bit, as if trying not to smile/laugh.The plot has quite a few problems, both story-wise (the usual thriller clichés and nonsense, like the police not questioning Mary's character to check Wells' claims) and concept-wise (it is time travel based after all, though the movie smartly does not delve too much on the implications it carries); it develops quite predictably too, and sometimes far too silly at that. On the other hands, the movie does have an excellent visual quality and an excellent soundtrack, which helps bring a certain charm to the story.Overall, 'Time After Time' is a charming and fun film with a rather good cast. Despite its nice concept, it ends up as little more than a lighthearted variation of your run-of-the-mill thriller; not so much, however, as to take away from the overall entertainment, and in the end there is more than enough of it in here.