Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

DamonLewis92 You have HG Wells who is famous for his books The Time Machine and Thr Invisible Man. He creates a time machine in Victorian England in the late 19th Century. Jack the Ripper stills it and goes to 1979 San Francisco. Seems good on paper but when it played out it was not good at all. Why San Francisco? In most stories the time traveling stories it's the time that changes, not the time and place! David Warner is the fantastic John louis Stevenson aka Jack the Ripper and Malcolm McDowell is HG Wells. And Mary Steenburgen is the lady is distress. She was complete monotone and never showed any feelings. That was the main thing for me. I don't see how this lady gets an acting jobs. What you see is what you get in this case? A malcontent in at the time present day San Francisco chasing Jack the Ripper....

vincentlynch-moonoi I was one of those people who, though fairly young at the time (30) did not like "A Clockwork Orange". As a result, for years I dismissed anything with Malcolm McDowell. In recent years I began to rethink my avoidance of McDowell, particularly as he grew older...I like him more. Now, after finally watching this film, I'm really going to have to rethink McDowell. This is a great film, and McDowell's performance is superb. And I say that as one who believes that time-travel films rarely work.Strong point #1: The producers and director paid attention to detail, not simply advancing the plot. How would a time traveler act and think in a totally new environment? Well done.Strong point #2: The acting. As I indicated, Malcolm McDowell is excellent here; very believable. David Warner is very good as Jack the Ripper. This was only Mary Steenburgen's second film. At first she comes on as playing dumb, but as the plot moves forward she seems more believable.Strong point #3: There is sentimentality, not just brutality. There is love, not just murder. This is occasional humor amidst all the drama. There is wonder and amazement.This does not mean that all is well. I guess I can't blame the producers for the special effects...after all, it was only 1979. But they are a bit primitive compared to what we have today. And. once the film begins to build toward a climax, it seems as if things get a bit more mundane (I mean really...why would the cops believe someone who identified himself as both H.G. Wells and Sherlock Holmes?).But aside from that, there is little to criticize here, and it's nice to get a glimpse back of modern culture almost 40 years ago.I'm overall impressed and highly recommend the film...and I give it something rare for me -- an "8".

Leofwine_draca 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.

Spikeopath Time After Time is directed by Nicholas Meyer who also adapts the screenplay from a story written by Karl Alexander and Steve Hayes. It stars Malcolm McDowell, David Warner and Mary Steenburgen. Music is by Miklos Rozsa and cinematography is by Paul Lohmann.How delightful, a wonderful idea is given an equally wonderful presentation. The makers have come up with the idea of pitching Jack the Ripper against H.G. Wells, in the present day of 1979. This after the Ripper (Warner) used Wells' (McDowell) time machine to escape the Whitechapel police back in 1891, thus forcing Wells to track the infamous killer to San Francisco in the future.There have been so many fish-out-of-water based movies over the years, it's so refreshing to find one that has a genuinely original premise to work from. In the Ripper's case he sees all the violence around the streets of San Fran and believes it's his calling to be in this company. On the flip-side, Wells is perturbed to find that this is not the Utopia he had envisaged, but yet the science lover in him is fascinated by what he finds. Helps, too, that he has caught the attention of a very horny Amy Robbins (Steenburgen), who is equally fascinated by his genteel mannerisms.Naturally the fun has to stop at some point to let the suspense and darker aspects of the story come to the surface. Meyer gets the blend right, dropping in little snippets of evil as Jolly Jack, resplendent with waistcoat and money belt, goes about his bloody business, and then switching to the Wells/Amy axis as they try to build a relationship whilst trying to convince the authorities that a nutter is very much in their midst. It builds nicely, ramping up the tension considerably, and there's always the pertinent question hanging in the air of if there is any hope for H.G. and Amy?Such is the rich characterisations and quality of story telling, we most assuredly care about the outcome to this splendid piece of time travelling cake. 8.5/10