Lollivan 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.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

MartinHafer This is a cheapo sci-fi movie that just seems to go on and on and on and on. Now if that isn't bad enough, the eventual payoff isn't very good. Which, when it occurs, makes me wonder why the heck I bothered watching it in the first place.The film begins with a bit of missing context--and much of the film is that way. You are unsure what has happened and you only get bits and pieces. Could it be some deliberately odd way of telling the story or could it just be a disjoint film that really wasn't quite finished--I suspect the latter.The movie is about a group of college-age adults. They all use this weird machine to time travel and they MUST take off most of their clothes to use it. Interestingly, they only show ladies doing this!! What the rest of the film is all about isn't all that important...or interesting.Dull acting, a ponderous plot and glacial pacing. Uggh.

SATerp I ran across this version, titled 'Idaho Transfer', in a pack of films titled 'Nightmare Worlds', (mentioned by another commenter), expecting something useful to put me to sleep at night. The movie is indeed spare, low budget and not the best acted I've ever seen, but it is haunting, perhaps because of the many unanswered questions the plot raises and never answers (not necessarily a bad thing), or maybe because of the shocking ending.The female lead is attractive, and it's not a hardship to watch her 'time travel' scenes, but her acting is pretty amateurish, though not out of line with other 70s grade B movie actresses, and perhaps explainable by the considerable shocks she experiences throughout the film, including her sister's death, and a revelation of a physical effect the time travel has had on all the travelers.The concept of a team of naive young researchers trying to save what they can of mankind, and coming to a bad end, kind of makes this movie a 70s cinematic version of the medieval 'Children's Crusades', which had equally poor results for the participants.There DOES seem to be confusion here as to what role, exactly, the female protagonist 'Karen' is to play at the end, though - fossil fuel, or dinner?

wes-connors "A group of research scientists based at an Idaho facility discovers a means to travel forward in time, whilst remaining at the same locale. When one of the group's trips reveals a bleak future for the human race, the government steps in to shut down their research. The researchers decide to travel forward in time to find the cause of the horrible accident that apparently will ruin the ecology and threaten the very existence of man," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.Actually, the research scientists send young people to the future, to study the discovered ecological crisis; and, the young men and women contemplate starting a futuristic civilization there. Watch for the lead actress Kelly Bohanan (as Karen) visit the dentist early in the running time; she emerges as the film's main character. Without her metallic dental braces, Ms. Bohanan is able to join sister Caroline Hildebrand (as Isa) in time traveling exploration.Ms. Hildebrand and sister Bohanan nonchalantly take off their pants for the camera; because, anything with metal (like zippers or buttons) must be put in the "Material Projection Department" for time travel. The women are very attractive, but nothing is gratuitous. The first scene with Hildebrand explains the rules of time travel to Bohanan is where the film first grabs you. It is absolutely ludicrous: two hippie-type women explaining time trip rules, in their underwear; but, it is also absolutely believable."Idaho Transfer" succeeds, at this "guidelines for travel" moment, because you are (or should be) putting your trust in the young travelers. It's obviously going to be a very unusual movie. Most of the characters' dialogue helps explain events; still, it's not always clear what is happening, or where. And, yet, the movie is never dishonest. Director Peter Fonda and writer Thomas Matthiesen create a very captivating, thought-provoking world, with its own rules. Mr. Fonda should consider directing more often; and, with the so often neglected type of performances from this cast. Kevin Hearst (as Ronald) emerges as Bohanan's "leading man"; and, Keith Carradine is most notable among the other players. Although Fonda undoubtedly guided them, it's surprising so few in the cast achieved later fame, especially Bohanan.The character "Karen" is where you will find the real story; it's in her almost constant longing for a child. Bohanan's face, and Fonda's camera, capture the desire frequently. And, of course, it is not an easy prospect. "Ronald" may be homosexual and/or asexual, along with others. Although it is discussed, you won't see sex. The desire for children symbolizes hope for the future, which may not be likely, in this world. Instead, industry eats up, and ruins things, like the derelict car "Karen" and "Ronald" find. And, literally, the train Mr. Hearst discovers has "eaten" its skeletal passengers. The ending is a perfect culmination of events.The ecological and environmental issues addressed in "Idaho Transfer" were certainly ahead of the curve. ********* Idaho Transfer (6/15/73) Peter Fonda ~ Kelly Bohanan, Kevin Hearst, Keith Carradine, Caroline Hildebrand

Nicholas Rhodes I am always interested in a time-travel film though often disappointed by the result or the logic. On the plus side, this film has beautiful sets, with particular attention paid to the position of the sun by the cameraman, always appreciated. The music is not bad too, neither is the time transfer machine. On the negative side, the first thing is the lack of sharpness. THe whole picture appears slightly blurred, except in the panoramic shots of the scenery. The dialogues are out of synchronisation with the lips of the actors, in addition, many are in unintelligible English ( given the age of the film, this is partly understandeable - there was presumably a desire to be "hip" at the time ). There are also some boring passages, seeing people take off their trousers and shoes and then put them back on is not really my cup of tea. OK, some of the young ladies are pretty and they strip off to take the machine but those moments are short-lived. As to the story, it's slow and uninteresting, and you can see that the actors are mechanically repeating the lines rather than spouting natural dialogues. The long hair of the boys is now completely out of date. I am aware that the film was made on a small budget, and if anything remains in one's mind, it will the the beautfiful countrysides - I have no idea where the film was made !!