Neive Bellamy
Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.
Ariella Broughton
It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.
Delight
Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.
theoctoberlight
WARNING!!!! SPOILERS AHEAD!!!! Set in the near future of the year 2022, humanity's last hope lies with Captain Michael Raynor (Mark Hamill, the man who played Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars series) who is hurled through a time warp back to the year 1992. Scientists send Raynor back in time after the satellite he occupies is damaged and the woman he loves is killed in the alien attack. He ends up in the past, less than a day before he is born and learns that he has a chance to prevent the alien invasion from happening. Ruthlessly pursued by an agent belonging to a super-secret government organization, Raynor learns he can affect the future and, with the help of scientist Karen McDonald(Rae Dawn Chong), attempts to alert authorities to the upcoming alien threat.Time Runner is in my opinion an unappreciated movie. It is true, I originally hunted down this movie because it had Mark Hamill in it. I am not saying that this film deserved an academy award, I won't even go so far as to say that it was Mark Hamill's best work. I will say that it is memorable, Mark Hamill kicks serious tale in this show, his deals with the trauma of time travel as only a disciplined and trained soldier of a terrible conflict can: he picks himself up and charges back into the fray to get the mission done. Not every sci-fi film will set a new standard like the "Robocop" series, and they do not have to, they just need to be entertaining, and this film really is.It has a lot going for it. For starters there is a great soundtrack to the film, classic low budget 90's music that takes you to a war torn future. There is a great supporting cast. Mark Hamill is a believable lead, the rest of the cast are also realistic for the parts they play. I can see the humor in casting Brion James as the future president of the United States! I love Mark Hamill, in fact he's one of my all time favorite actors, sadly it did nothing to help his career. True, going back in time to save humanity has been done before. Still, this film does say that for what it had to work with it did the job nicely.I will say that there are a few down points on the film. It is low budget, you can tell by the quality of the special effects that were used in the opening scenes. The lack of funding shows in other areas as well. The shootout scenes are not the best I have ever seen, but it beats the hell out of equally low budget action films like "The Substitute" series. Though the part about Michael Raynor trying to save himself as a baby has been done before, it was still done well. This film did not really do anything to forward Mark Hamill's, or the rest of the casts careers. Realistically, not every film will make a high mark on a performers resume. That does not mean that it did not have merit or that it was not worth mentioning or seeing. It is a "B" movie. But I give it a "B+".There are better movies out there, this is true. However, as a dyed in the wool movie buff, I can also tell you there are a whole lot worse. This is one of those movies that you will remember seeing years from now, and though it may not land on your list of all time favorites, it will register as being a memorable film that you did not regret seeing. Anyone can say the film could have been better, lets see those people, what are they doing with their lives? Are they writing budget films in Hollywood too, or just posting inane blogs and waxing about what they could do if only they had the chance, or the courage, to try their own hand at writing.
jnov82-1
Considering past comments I expected this movie to be terrible, but I'm a huge Mark Hamill fan, so I just couldn't resist. Now, first looking at the box I was a little skeptical, but I found myself actually getting into it. I actually really liked it, but I think I know a few way where it could have been better. For one they should have explained the aliens a little more. Important things about them weren't reveled until halfway through the movie, and even after that we still don't know why they invaded earth. Not to mention for about the first 15-20 minutes you feel a little rushed in, they took it to fast. Not until about the middle of the movie did you actually feel comfortable. They also should have made it PG-13, it hits a wider audience and they wouldn't have lost that much anyway. Also, people just kept popping up out of nowhere to save him, half the time you were like "How did they even know he was there?!". And as for the acting, well I only thought Mark did good. All the other characters were too cartoonish and it effected the movie in a bad way. But what I was mostly expecting out of this movie was bad special effects, and I actually wrong about that. They were actually good, considering the time period. Most people would say it was bad, but that's only because they live in a time where special effects have really gone far, just look at LOTR, Star Wars, or Fantastic 4. So... all in all I gave the movie a 7 out of 10. Probably its best rating yet.
coverme6
Mark Hamill tried hard to prove himself as a rising actor afterRETURN OF THE JEDI back in '83, but alas, the poor dope couldn't find anything that would bring him back to the same superstardom hereceived as Luke Skywalker. With the exception of his truly excellent voice-over talent as the Joker in BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES, Hamill had to work in low-budget flix, like TIME RUNNER. In what looks like another TERMINATOR-style sci-fi flick, Hamill plays a soldier from (where else?) the future, who was sent back in time to the early90's in order to prevent a disaster from skewering the timeline. As tired as the storyline sounds, TIME RUNNER is actually an enjoyablepiece of work. Hamill plays a less-restrained performance, going gonzo on the baddies with guns instead of using the Force or light sabers. The late, great Brion James also shines, as the head honcho of the villains that Hamill's character so truly desired to eliminate.
trlyons
Strange that Mark Hamill could go from having one of the most enviable looking careers (in 1977) to being cast in low-budget junk like this. This movie would *still* have been bad if it was released in 1977. The effects are embarrassing and the script is lame. Who'd have guessed that Harrison Ford was the real future star in Star Wars?
