Time Runner (1993) User Reviews

Mediocre sci-fi with good performance from Hamill

[funkyfry · 5/10 · 4 May 2008]

Mark Hamill -- a pretty good actor who appeared in a lot of really bad movies and never was able to escape the typecasting of "Luke Skywalker" until he got into voice work. Quite a few of his movies I skipped back in the day, and I don't mind picking one of them up like this one just in hopes that it might end up being fun. This one was a bit better than I might have expected it to be, but nothing too remarkable.

Hamill plays a guy from the future, sent back in time through a wormhole in the midst of an alien invasion to try to stop the invasion from happening. He meets up with scientist Rae Dawn Chong, who turns out to be one of the aliens herself but helps him anyway because apparently the aliens who are actually planning to invade Earth are some kind of renegades of her planet. One of them is the guy who will be the future President of the World. These are really only minor spoilers actually because the movie is so completely predictable. Brion James and Mark Baur hold down the villain roles, with James in particular being very underwhelming with his one note performance. Gordon Tipple plays the strange character Arnie, who's airplane is hijacked by Hamill and Chong but who ends up joining them for the whole rest of the adventure apparently out of sheer boredom with his regular life.

Everything in this movie we've seen before. Who out there is going to be surprised when the villains decide to kill Hamill's character's mother to avoid him being born? Obviously the whole thing is a rip on "Terminator", except that in this case the aliens don't have to travel back in time to hunt Hamill, they're already in 1992 when he gets there. The name of the film and the presence of James in the cast might remind one of "Blade Runner", which would be an extremely unfortunate comparison to make. All of this being said, I didn't find the movie excruciatingly boring. Mark Hamill is a good actor and I think he did good work in the movie, as did Chong, despite the limitations of the script. The effects are surprisingly well done, although nothing really spectacular happens. And it has a nice sort of downbeat ending, plus it avoid the romantic distractions of "Terminator" -- not that they didn't make "Terminator" a better film, but it's just that almost every other imitation I've seen has imitated the romance to much lesser effect so I was glad they didn't attempt that here with Chong and Hamill.

Basically a mediocre film, but it won't be a waste of time for sci-fi fans.

Such a fun, so bad it's good, kind of flick.

[demonllama42 · 5/10 · 24 March 2021]

Do you like time travel paradoxes that really don't make sense? Alien invasions with gun fights & blue screen special effects? How about a slow mo shot that leads to no where? Or even Mark Hamill hamming it up like no other?

Then this is the movie for you!

A low-low-low-rent "Terminator".

[gridoon · 3/10 · 26 August 2003]

You don't expect every time-travel sci-fi movie to be as exciting as "The Terminator", of course, but you don't expect it to be a cure for insomnia either, and that's exactly what "Time Runner" is. Mark Hamill is extremely boring as the lead, but then again so is the rest of the cast, though I can at least see the humor in casting Brion James as the future president of the United States! The effects are decent but the shootouts are lame (the "hero" always has to be rescued at the last moment by his unidentified sidekick). Possibly one of the least interesting films ever made on the subject of time traveling. (*)

How the mighty have fallen...

[trlyons · 2/10 · 19 December 1998]

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?

Bad acting, but I'm a Mark Hamill fan so hey!

[DeckardB2364 · 2/10 · 18 August 2002]

Time Runner looks like it has been done in someones garage. The special effects are extremlel bad as is the wooden acting, with the exception of Mark Hamill and maybe Brion James. I'd recommend this to someone who wants to see a bad cheasy sci-fi film.

A lesser effort for Hamill that proves otherwise decent

[coverme6 · 20 July 2001]

Mark Hamill tried hard to prove himself as a rising actor after

RETURN OF THE JEDI back in '83, but alas, the poor dope couldn't find anything that would bring him back to the same superstardom he

received 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 early

90's in order to prevent a disaster from skewering the timeline. As tired as the storyline sounds, TIME RUNNER is actually an enjoyable

piece 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.

ripoff of The Terminator

[punctate · 3/10 · 17 April 2000]

Time Runner is nothing more then a low budget ripoff of James Cameron's The Terminator. Mark Hamill hasn't had much of a film career after Star Wars well at least he did better then Carrie Fisher. Mark Hamill plays Michael Raynor a guy that has ended up in the past because of a worm hole. Michael Raynor must warn somebody about what is going to happen in the future. In the future people to launch a bomb that will destroy the aliens. A bunch of dumb events leads to Micheal trying to save his baby self. Low budget special effects, poor acting and badly put together plot kept this film from going anywhere. Sadly this film was made in Canada for the most part.

William H. Macy wants his moustache back.

[DonWanton · 2/10 · 3 October 2023]

Time Runner is absolute sin, the film's paradoxical forces so strong they seep through the fourth wall and manage to manipulate real life. How else do you explain the film's theatrical poster, in which Mark Hamill sports a healthy-looking moustache yet on-screen looks like a stubbled Willem Dafoe? Sadly for our star, this Terminator-in-space bootleg is one deep trough after the next as he loses his lines in a void of Gouraud-rendered pointlessness. Like most inanimate pieces of meat, Hamill and his co-stars show us (with metabolic efficiency) just how spoiled something can become in 90 minutes.

How the Story Goes

[refinedsugar · 5/10 · 9 April 2024]

In the 90's, I'd pick up a dtv title for rental if it starred the right name and well ... you know where this is going. The likable Mark Hamill was probably the only reason anyone found themselves giving 'Time Runner' a go. A not particularly good opening with cheesy special FX, bad acting cut up by overlong and drawn out credits that has six people credited with the story wasn't a good sign. It's not the worst - some parts look like they're legitimately trying - but the end sci-fi action result is weak.

In 2022, Cpt. Raynor (Hamill) escapes a space station hovering above Earth just before it's destroyed while an Alien race is in the final stages of conquering the planet. Entering a wormhole, he ends up in the past crash landing on the planet in the year 1992. He doesn't have much time to get his barring or make sense of what's going on because bad MiB - alien sleeper agents - are already on his trail to make sure he can't change the future and stop the invasion.

In a plot that jumps between timelines, b-movie regular Brion James puts in a bit part of the president elect slash real deal. Rae Dawn Chong is a government scientist in the present day who as part of a team finds Raynor's escape pod, personally gets involved and helps. There's a standard bit of run 'n gun action, escape sequences and of course conspiracy - who can you trust element - but much of it isn't done with much in the way of excitement. It's 'Terminator' mixed with 'Blade Runner' on a low scale.

'Time Runner' is the type of generic movie that was pumped out by the dozen back in the day. At no point did it become a painful watch, but without Mark Hamill involved, I wouldn't have given it the time. 90 minutes moves quickly enough and there's some decent moments. Hamill can see into the future, realize he can alter events, but the flick is also on the low budget side and only written knee deep. Fans of his might want to give it a watch for curiosity sake, but it ain't no Wing Commander or Star Wars.

A low budget thrill ride with familiar faces. I liked it, not a bad way to pass the afternoon.

[theoctoberlight · 10/10 · 11 September 2008]

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.

Pretty good B-movie

[cammie · 7/10 · 28 June 2003]

Let's be honest, just by looking at the cast, you can tell that this is another cheesy science fiction B-movie. The special effects won't exactly knock your socks off, but they are not detrimental to the movie, an enjoyable one for a straight to video title.

The storyline is a just a new spin on the often used time travel story. Mark Hamill plays a soldier (Raynor) from the future. He is involved in a rebellion against aliens who have taken over earth. Of course, they look just like us, but don't feel pain, and are harder to kill. Just as his future earth is about to be doomed, Raynor travels back 30 years to prevent the aliens from ever coming to power. One major complication is the fact that he is to be born in just a few days, which leads to two problems.

1) If the aliens find out about him, the baby Raynor/his mother could easily be killed, hence, causing the 30 yr. old Raynor to cease to exist.

2) Only one Raynor can exist in any timeline.

Perhaps a little formulaic, and not an Academy Award candidate, this movie is good for some mindless fun. It's a must-see for any Mark Hamill fan, as Mr. Hamill played a character more than 10 years his junior admirably.

Front Cover Image & Not Terminator Rip-off

[nickknightforever · 10/10 · 10 May 2020]

To me the image of Mark Hamill on the front cover seems to be from Guyver (aka Mutronics) which was released a year or two before this movie. I've read some of the other reviews saying this film is a Terminator rip-off, how can that be in Terminator the good guy and bad guy are chosen to back in time with the mission to protect/kill someone in their history, while in Time Runner Mark Hamill is escaping the space station that is being attacked when he travels through a wormhole that sends him back in time 30 years. He is the only person from his time that travels back, the villains of the movie discovering he is from the future decide to eliminate him before he becomes a threat. There is no villain from the future only the hero who eventually discovers unknown truths about his own time that he has to change now he is in the past.

IF I CAN LIVE IN THE PAST MAYBE I CAN CHANGE THE FUTURE

Its quite watchable!

[hdavidgottliebdpm · 7/10 · 8 November 2020]

Its a SciFi fiiler, not Star Wars. Take it for what it is, get your favorite liquid imbidement and enjoy.

Only for sci-fi fans

[SaintNinja · 10/10 · 1 April 2022]

Many people say it's low budget Terminator rip-off. I don't think so. It's quite original, but kind of raw and unfinished movie. I don't know if they had to cut some important scenes. I mean the story has big potential, I like it a lot, but it's hard to follow the plot when you have so little explanation. It's not bad. What is bad? There are parts that really work and there are bland Copy/Paste scenes that don't work at all. And it's realy sad. Mark Hamill is fantastic in ambulance scene. Brion James is very good, Rae Dawn Chong is.beautiful and highly.suitable for sci-fi genre. It could have been great TV show. It could have been better movie. I collect sci-fi, so I don't complain much about art quality.

Not prefect, but not horrific

[jnov82-1 · 7/10 · 9 July 2005]

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.

Who let the Dog schitt out?...whoo who who

[avant-artiste · 10/10 · 31 August 2010]

if your a brain dead vegetable you will still hate this film but at least you wont know why, in fact the only people i would recommend this movie to is brain dead people who at least will not compute what i am saying and are therefore extremely unlikely to watch this film based on a one to one recommendation from moi without any intermediary there to amend the task-bridge for said brain deader. In fact the very thought of some creepy guy going around hospitals where brain dead people exist to recommend movies and tell them about my day because 'its good when you have someone to listen to you' makes your skin crawl and im sure you would like me to be publicly outed so you could throw rotten diarrhea at me - but that pleasure still pales in comparison to the satisfaction you get from the knowledge that you have managed to avoid watching the worst piece of crap ever to be schitt out of a elephants ass known by few (the few that were unfortunate enough to see it) as Time Runner

We all have a soft spot for Mark Hamill but come on

[Angel-Ireul · 17 July 2004]

Okay, I admit it, I like Mark Hamill, he's Luke Freaking Skywalker for cryin out loud, but that said COME ON!. Granted the premise for this flick is undeniably clever. Another case of sneaky alien scum duping the human race, the aliens in this case appear human at first and the only way to tell them apart from humans is that they don't feel pain. The film starts out in the future where our hero is bravely battling the alien menace (and so totally losing) he then gets sent back in time by some desperate scientists to avert the original alien take over. Okay fairly predictable. This is the sort of flick that at best is a guilty pleasure, so bad its hysterically funny. The 'scientific base' of the plot is ridiculous. The effects are 'good enough' -remember it was 1992- so considering the times no real complaints there. The actors are less than good but slightly above god awful. All in all I'd say rent it with a grin, don't expect any awards and its running time may seem like a prison sentence at times but remember, you're name isn't attached to this lovable junker so feel free to turn it off and catch your breath, you're going to be laughing, A LOT.

Filmed in Kelowna, British Columbia (among others)!!!

[Greydog · 5 December 1998]

Well, it was filmed in Kelowna, BC. As a result, it deserves at least 5/10, because it shows the beauty of the Okanagan Valley. Apart from that though...