5/5 "To what might have been, and what still may be."
  by Karen Shaub (the inner reaches of the outer limits)
Can a science fiction film exist without the science? I feel it can, but there are many who do not share that sentiment and those are the people who tend to dislike TIMEQUEST intensely because this is a film about time travel that has the audacity to mention not a single word about the technology that makes its story possible--it simply IS. It is hardly the first film to do this. TIME AFTER TIME hardly gives a logical explanation nor for that matter does the early film version of H.G. Wells' TIME MACHINE, but that didn't prevent us from being able to enjoy them. In TIMEQUEST we are simply asked to presume that it has been developed by a single man acting alone. It is the REASONS behind his need/desire to invent this device and what he intends to do with it as well as the repercussions of his actions on history that are the focus of this story--not a lot of pseudo-scientific babble and sleek shiny computer banks.

As I said, I feel a science fiction film CAN exist as more than a mere showcase for its technology, and the reason is because SF merely asks the question "What if?" In this case the entire question is; What if a time traveler went back to November 22, 1963 with the intention of stopping the assasination of John F. Kennedy, and by extension that of his brother Robert 5 years later? Why would he do it? The answer appears simple on the surface because a great many of us would give anything to be able to go back to that horrible day and stop it all from happening if we only could...but our time traveler is motivated by something beyond wanting to set history right and change the world for what he is certain will be the better. Why does he wait until almost the last moment--why not pop in a couple of weeks before hand? How on earth does he manage to convince anyone that he's anything more than a nutcase when he shows up in the Presidential Suite of the hotel in what looks like a deep sea diver's outfit? And what is the message that he won't let Jackie hear--only Jack and Bobby are privy to it? Lots of questions.

All of this could get terribly serious very quickly if it weren't for the film's sense of humor--which a few seem to have missed. The best part goes to Bruce Campbell playing against type as a futuristic maverick Hollywood director (read= Oliver Stone) who is firmly convinced that the Kennedy family has been involved in a cover-up for the last 37 years which he intends to reveal in his next film entitled NOVEMBER 22, 1963.
He's right, of course, although he could never begin to guess what it was that really happened on that date--much less what was supposed to have happened! Bruce's scenes also give us some funny examples of how stopping the assasination changed popular culture--for one thing John Lennon is still alive and still married to his first wife Cynthia, and the Beatles never really made it big in the states although they were fairly popular in Europe for awhile. As Bruce says, "kids just couldn't relate to them." I found the bombing of the Beatles to be an interesting sidelight in the film since many psychologists at the time theorized that their extreme popularity was a direct reaction to the truma kids suffered as a result of JFK's death.

For a low budget film everything looks pretty slick and polished. Some have objected to the the film's decidedly nonlinear approach, but to me it seems the perfect way to tackle a story about time travel and the fact that almost every scene carries a date at the bottom made it very easy for me to follow. None of the actors resemble their real life counterparts physically, but most of the voices and accents are good matches. Luckily Caprice Benedetti in the critical role of Jacqueline Kennedy did not try mimic her voice--it wouldn't have worked at all and might have sounded a bit silly. JFK isn't portrayed as a saint. His womanizing is brought out, and comes back to haunt him in a later scene when J. Edgar Hoover (nicely played by Larry Drake) tries to uses some evidence of his infidelity as blackmail against him. Robert Kennedy is portrayed as almost ruthless in his determination to protect his brother from any and all dangers, and is more than a match for Hoover in the blackmail department when he has adequate warning.

Have you ever wondered how your own life might have been different if you had done this or that, gone here or there, went right or left? Even the slightest change in the most insignificant of lives can have a ripple effect that goes outward and touches others, and so must their death. Who then is to say that the future shown in this silly little movie with its rose colored glasses might not actually occur if the leader of a powerful nation were to be spared assassination--especially if that man was aware that he was being given a second chance at life? It has been suggested that this film is only for die hard Kennedy fans. That might be true (its defintely NOT for die hard right wingers who kneel down in the direction of Bill O'Reilly every night to say their prayers) but with the rebirth of hope that Obama is supposed to have brought to our nation maybe this film will serve as a delicate warning of the day an earlier generation saw the first of three death blows dealt to its own dreams and naievete and innocence, and remind them that such history is only set right in science fiction movies. Bummer, huh?

4/5 An Interesting Answer To One Of The Most Profound "What-Ifs" Of The Last Century
  by Matthew Kresal (USA)
As anyone who makes the mistake of watching the Sci-Fi Channel on weekends can tell you the term "low-budget science fiction movie" is almost an oxymoron. Here though is a film that proves to be far from it. In fact Timequest is a good exercise in how to make a movie on a low budget without looking (entirely) like it is low budget.

Timequest has a pretty good cast. True some of them may not be greatest physical look-a-likes in the world but they manage to catch the spirit of the real-life people they portray. This is true of the three leads (Victor Slezak as JFK, Caprice Benedetti as Jackie, Vince Grant as RFK) and especially of Slezak. Slezak makes you believe he is JFK in his appearances especially with his speech at Rice University and the sequence that follows it (which sells this film the best in my opinion). Then there's Bruce Campbell as Oliver Stone like director William Roberts. Now I'm not a Bruce Campbell fan by any means (far from it in fact) but I found his short appearances to be enjoyable none the less. While it is true the cast has a few misfires (Jeffery Steiger as Oswald and Dan Miller as Dan Rather both come to mind instantly) but for the most part it is a fine cast all things considered.

The main selling point of this film isn't the cast though but the story. Writer / director Robert Dyke has crafted a good alternate history film based around one of the most profound "what-ifs" of the last century: what if JFK had lived past November 22nd, 1963? The world that Dyke and the film shows us is perhaps a bit too optimistic for some but it seriously makes one wonder. The film also finds time to poke fun at some of the conspiracy theories regarding the JFK assassination in some of the most unexpected places which is fun for anyone who has a good knowledge of the subject.

That said the film does have some problems. The first of such is the time-travelers' motive for his journey (which is the one cringe-worthy moment of the film to say the least). But perhaps the biggest problem is the fact that the film viewpoint of the world is perhaps too optimistic (yes that is both a plus and minus sadly). There is also the matter of the jumping around in time which I've had people I've shown the film to tell me is confusing (especially in the first third or so of the film). For once though as the production values are excellent for the most part. The low budget nature of the film isn't an issue in a science-fiction film.

Yet outside of these problems there is a rather good film sitting here. From a fine cast to a well crafted "what-if" story, Timequest shows that that the term "low-budget science fiction movie" is not an oxymoron when done right. Here is an intelligent, well thought out, and well produced film that gives an interesting answer to one of the most profound "what-ifs" of the last century: what if JFK had lived? Here is a (perhaps too optimistic) answer and a good one at that.

5/5 Flash forward and backward, you need to see it the 2nd time to see what's happening.
  by CT Huang (Queens, New York)
This isn't a fancy typical hollywood movie but it keeps me very much engaged. The bits and pieces of the short segments make absolute no sense until the very last. I like it how the movie is pulling different events from different times and weaved them into a chronological logical time line in order to preserved the mysteries and tell the stories in a very intriguing fashion.

5/5 This movie just blew me away!
  by Thomas Graziano (Cincinnati)
I just want to say that this movie is so good that it stayed with me for a few days afterwards. Its main pluses are that it is very realistic about what may have happened if JFK lived-it shows the power exerted by major players and doesn't present any sugar-coated hollywood fantasy. It does have some drawbacks to some people in that it skips around in time a bit, and is not very action-driven, but is rather plot-driven and character-driven, but i view this as a big plus.
It is one of the best and most grittily realistic time travel movies that I have seen. Very recommended for fans of the genre.

2/5 Great idea, bad movie
  by Brian T. Colton (Pomona, NY)
man oh man. what a great premise, been done by some others too, but this one had such great potential... too bad it was very poorly executed. but, at least it was free - library borrow. i'd never pay to watch it!