Some movies are made by brain, some by heart, some by money.
SF, as a genre, doesn't exclude automatically heart, but it usually isn't in the first place. So, brain and money are there to decide what will the movie look like.
Movies made without a lot of money need brain or otherwise there would be no movie. These movies have to contain wise plot, intelligent dialogs, interesting characters, and more than everything: a story. As there is not much money invested, special effects are poor or absent, and the story must refund this shortage; if the story is good, it isn't a failure at all.
Movies made by money have a lot of visual effects, and as they are expensive, the producers like to see them as much as possible, so they replace a story in certain footage; if not so, the producers would ask what did they give money for. Certainly, a good director can use this effects as a part of a movie, emphasizing the story, and not only as a decoration, or even the only purpose of the movie. If they succeed, a movie becomes a legend like "Raiders of Lost Arc", "Armageddon", "Star Wars". Otherwise the movie will return and earn some money (depending on the quality of effects), but will be forgotten as soon as some new effects appear on market and screen.
Having special effects in mind, "Timescape" is as poor as average Bergmann, Hitchcock, Visconti or Wilder movie. Comparing this movie with such names doesn't make it fit in their class, but the story was a bit old-fashioned, like SF novels from 50's or 60's... and that means good, intelligent, far from usual brain-insulting activities that can't even be called stories in many modern SF works (I can't force myself to say they are films). The authors don't offer us space battles or the end of Universe. They tell us a simple story about a very ordinary man in very unusual circumstances. (Has someone mentioned Hitchcock...?) They are also brave enough to go on thin ice of some difficult SF paradoxes (like meeting yourself in different time), and manage to do it with logic (but this is the only moment when dialogs don't look so persuasive).
Daniels is perfect for a role of loser that can hardly cope with everyday life, can't respond to troubled situations (like traffic accident and death of his wife), and now he has a destiny of his own city in his hands. The rest of the cast doesn't seem so well casted. Some of the characters (judge, sheriff, deputy, doctor) look as if they were dragged from some forgotten versions of O.K.Corral and repeated in movies like "Red Rock West" or "Hard Rain". Marilyn Lightstone tries to look more SF-ish, but her role would also be applied better in 60's B-production (including outlook and acting style). Jim Haynie is suppressed, as he is supposed to be in his role. However, Ariana Richards is far ahead from average American child star (almost close to Scandinavian kids).
This is a story which would probably make bigger pleasure if read, but watching the movie - if this is a sort for you - won't leave you crying for wasted time.
SF, as a genre, doesn't exclude automatically heart, but it usually isn't in the first place. So, brain and money are there to decide what will the movie look like.
Movies made without a lot of money need brain or otherwise there would be no movie. These movies have to contain wise plot, intelligent dialogs, interesting characters, and more than everything: a story. As there is not much money invested, special effects are poor or absent, and the story must refund this shortage; if the story is good, it isn't a failure at all.
Movies made by money have a lot of visual effects, and as they are expensive, the producers like to see them as much as possible, so they replace a story in certain footage; if not so, the producers would ask what did they give money for. Certainly, a good director can use this effects as a part of a movie, emphasizing the story, and not only as a decoration, or even the only purpose of the movie. If they succeed, a movie becomes a legend like "Raiders of Lost Arc", "Armageddon", "Star Wars". Otherwise the movie will return and earn some money (depending on the quality of effects), but will be forgotten as soon as some new effects appear on market and screen.
Having special effects in mind, "Timescape" is as poor as average Bergmann, Hitchcock, Visconti or Wilder movie. Comparing this movie with such names doesn't make it fit in their class, but the story was a bit old-fashioned, like SF novels from 50's or 60's... and that means good, intelligent, far from usual brain-insulting activities that can't even be called stories in many modern SF works (I can't force myself to say they are films). The authors don't offer us space battles or the end of Universe. They tell us a simple story about a very ordinary man in very unusual circumstances. (Has someone mentioned Hitchcock...?) They are also brave enough to go on thin ice of some difficult SF paradoxes (like meeting yourself in different time), and manage to do it with logic (but this is the only moment when dialogs don't look so persuasive).
Daniels is perfect for a role of loser that can hardly cope with everyday life, can't respond to troubled situations (like traffic accident and death of his wife), and now he has a destiny of his own city in his hands. The rest of the cast doesn't seem so well casted. Some of the characters (judge, sheriff, deputy, doctor) look as if they were dragged from some forgotten versions of O.K.Corral and repeated in movies like "Red Rock West" or "Hard Rain". Marilyn Lightstone tries to look more SF-ish, but her role would also be applied better in 60's B-production (including outlook and acting style). Jim Haynie is suppressed, as he is supposed to be in his role. However, Ariana Richards is far ahead from average American child star (almost close to Scandinavian kids).
This is a story which would probably make bigger pleasure if read, but watching the movie - if this is a sort for you - won't leave you crying for wasted time.