95ers: Echoes (2013) User Reviews

Worth a watch I believe...

[transientdreams · 5/10 · 10 November 2012]

This is an energetic, ambitious and reasonably well-acted yarn about time and space. The main problem is the lack of character development and preamble to a cohesive plot line. The slightly amateurish nature of this film won't necessarily deter you from watching, as it IS quite good overall, but it BEGS for better directing and character embellishment. I watched it twice before I wrote this review. It's one those movies that is both easy and sometimes hard to watch as the acting and continuity keeps changing almost by scene. It works for the most part yet leaves too many questions unanswered simply by being so disjointed as a whole.

I would recommend it to all who appreciate this genre as bare minimum fare. I would also recommend it to film students as to what NOT to do as far as under-developing a story and its characters and leaving too many possible sub-plots unexplained.

Not bad, not great, but an awesome and sincere attempt to create some fine film art. 4.8 overall.

Certainly a Low Budget Indie Flick but Interesting

[The-Ambassador · 5/10 · 18 January 2015]

So let's get one thing clear and set the record straight right from the get-go: all the reviews here on IMDb that are 9s or 10s are clearly not real, but rather faked reviews by people who worked on this low budget flick or are friends or family -- for this is surely NOT a 9 or a 10, Hell, it's not even a 6 7 or 8. I LOVED the idea of the plot/storyline; time travel is my thing. So seeing that it was free due to Prime, I figured "why not? It's Sunday morning and I'm not even awake yet." Within a minute or two I heard what could possibly be the worst, and most unprofessional and amateurish dialog by a male actor being delivered that I've ever heard in my life -- seriously. And I work IN the entertainment business (obviously), so I've seen and heard it all. But this was just AWFUL. BUT I hung on simply due to the fact that I was intrigued by the alleged storyline. Honestly glad I did. Though this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen -- in terms of the art craft and science of movie-making -- clearly a very low budget indie film made by amateurs, it also has had me thinking about it and it's ramifications non-stop since I watched it. It IS a good story. Interesting, well thought out, intriguing. It's just not a "professional" movie. That's all. If you can accept that from the start, AND you dig sci-fi and/or time travel movies, then you just may enjoy this indie movie. Everyone has to start somewhere... And this is where this crew happened to start. Frankly, for the alleged $750k budget they had to work with, one could almost applaud their effort. So 5 out of 10 is a fair assessment.

Intriguing time travel premise, shabby TV movie style execution

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 30 April 2015]

Apparently, TIME RUNNERS took many years to get made. You wonder why all the effort, because this turns out to be a very ordinary movie, one whose admittedly interesting premise is ruined by a dreadful, TV movie-style execution which makes the whole thing look and feel cheesy. It feels like a rip-off of TIMECOP, except with the action heroes of that film replaced by a pregnant housewife trying to solve the mystery of her husband's death.

This housewife has a special ability, which is to rewind time by five seconds, something that comes in very handy during some fun fight scenes that are interspersed throughout. Sadly, the interest level remains low, thanks to some VERY cheesy performances, particularly the guy with the exaggerated British accent who made me cringe every time he spoke. The special effects are on par with your average SyFy Channel movie, leaving this a disappointing "could have been" viewing experience.

dreadful slime

[kimmix-7-328045 · 1/10 · 24 February 2015]

Not sure who paid for the budget on this incoherent sludge of a "film". Likely the lead actress's rich husband or lover or whatever. Then when this thing parading as film tanked. all of her buddies had a sleep over at her LA pad and wrote all the fake reviews on here, Some quote the exact description verbatim. Not obvious? This "flick" really needs to be stricken from all records and burned. Internet and all physical copies. The scenes are non cohesive in any way shape or form. actors would be better off doing hemorrhoid cream commercials than what apparently passes for acting and the CGI, a 3rd grader could put together more convincing FX. Sad and pathetic all around, Btw baby bump not one iota real. Whole thing a massive waste of time and space. Trash it!

Don't waste your time

[rnixon1974 · 1/10 · 16 January 2015]

Every so often, a film is made that is so bad, it makes me cringe while I watch. Not laugh (my reaction to Plan Nine from Outer Space, for instance), but shake my head and wonder who could have foisted 90 minutes of such unutterable, irredeemable dreck on an unsuspecting world.

This is one of those movies.

I sat through it for as long as I could, hoping it would improve. It did not. The script, the direction, the performances, the editing. All uniformly abysmal.

As well, a decent high school play has better production values; one can't blame that fault on the lack of decent budget.

What makes me a bit angry are so many of these reviews. Seven or eight of the reviewers of this film have ONLY reviewed this film. If I were a suspicious sort, I'd think these folks were working with the filmmakers, trying to use the anonymity of the internet to turn this sow's ear into something vaguely resembling a silk purse.

Save your time, and money. There are many shows and films that depict time travel that are actually decent works. The Terminator series, the Sarah Connor Chronicles, Continuum, the 2014 X-Men flick and Deja Vu (Denzel Washington) are all watchable to verging on excellent. Almost all of these examples have a strong female lead, as the 95ers purports to have.

I will go so far as to say this: the first three seasons of Star Trek Enterprise have some time travel based episodes; as uneven and spotty as that show was, it's Citizen Kane compared to the 95ers.

I love stories and movies about time travel and I desperately wanted to like this, but...

[iantrader · 2/10 · 19 April 2018]

It starts like it's recapping the previous episode in a crazy sci fi series, trying to bring you up to speed. It actually highlights some of the events in the movie itself. Really??

Usual problem here - writer/director. No one to question or query his grand vision. Desperately needed in such a potentially complex story.

Initially, some of the voices sound like they've been dubbed. And there are some brilliant(!) shots of actors talking with their mouths covered by various objects. One can only assume the writer/director was trying to plug holes in the plot by explanations. Maybe he was listening to someone. Unfortunately, not enough.

The direction/editing is poor in many places and really flags it as amateur/low budget. And there are some poor casting choices.

Some of the dialogue is just off plot and character. At one point it descends into totally incongruous family argument.

The whole plot is very convoluted, confused and unclear. You could be half way through the movie before you understand who everyone is and what's going on. And even 2/3rds of the way through, it's still confusing.

Of course, being a time travel movie, there are the inevitable anomalies. Unfortunately, there are a few glaring ones. It's not a suspension of disbelief thing, but the way time and time travel is supposed to work in the movie - it varies to support the plot.

There is a sort of twist or two but by this time you're probably not bothered and the attempt at the twisty reveal thing at the end was so predictable.

And the music jars terribly. Some of it's just really annoying but most of the time it's waaaaaay over the top. Oh, writer/director and composer have the same surname. Nepotism, perhaps?

The result is a bitty, scrappy, movie that does no favours for anyone, especially time travel fans. The subject matter alone gives it a second star but time travel fans will miss nothing (but a poor movie) by giving this a miss.

Oh Dear..........

[freezageeza1966 · 3/10 · 18 August 2015]

For me,in general,a movie has to be pretty awful to merit anything less than 3 stars.........and this one came pretty close.

I don't expect a lot from low budget affairs. As long as a decent effort has been made to entertain the viewer,then much can be overlooked or forgiven.This movie however, (and I use the word "movie" in the loosest term) has probably some of THE worst acting I have ever the misfortune to witness. The performances from all concerned are so stiff and wooden,that you could turn the awful script into a baseball bat and hit a home run!! Particularly annoying is Joel Bishops narration throughout this mess.It really does sound like a 5 year old reading from a school play script and is pretty soulless in it's delivery.In fact a 5 year old could have done a better job. The rest of the cast really don't fare much better either.Nobody puts in a decent enough performance to make their characters convincing and look like they'd really rather be somewhere else. It really was unforgivable.I'm sorry.........if you want to put yourself in front of a camera and entertain,then you really should at least try to do better than this!!.

I did,however,note that "some" effort was made in the special effects department,and given the budget,they weren't bad at all.

Oh sorry......the plot.

Forget it.......

It's something to do with time travel but really,please don't waste your time.It's so confusing that I really cannot explain exactly what the hell was going on.

I dare say that with a bigger budget,script writer and cast,this could be made into something better.

Apparently this was based on a book.I wish I had read that instead.

3 out of ten and that's only because I've seen worse........

No really I have!!

Watch at your peril

boring

[empressshan2002 · 1/10 · 4 May 2015]

this is the most boring and cheapest friend boring ,boring, boring ,as hell why would people give this a 10,9,8, or even a 5 this is the worst and plus this was made in 2014 which is a good year they could of at least tried to make this more real it looks fake as hell fake,fake,fake the people who liked this or give it hight ratings or ratings over 5 or stupid and foolish this movie was a waste of my time other people time and the producer time they need to stop making movies and try to watch there own and see how horrible , fake , and boring this foolish this movie really is waste of money , they mean they could not even get a little more money to get it to look real and interesting

As a child, the lead character found out she could rewind "her own time". Now she must prevent it from unwinding entirely.

[vidocq-4 · 7/10 · 11 November 2012]

Well, I can honestly say I was very surprised. Many will complain it's slow, I will agree that it is, indeed. If you like "Timecop" type flicks you'll be better off skipping this one. I like the approach it takes on the meddling with time lines and I love the aesthetics of the "science" and machinery in it. I thought that maybe, from the critics I had heard, I would be bored of watching it after as little as 15mn but here's the thing, I didn't. It's one of these movies you have to try for yourself. If you start it, do finish it. In the end, I feel it's worth it once you go beyond its pacing. Even that improves dramatically in the end. Not a popcorn flick, rather a brainy type of time paradox movie.

What?

[DrTeeth707 · 3/10 · 17 October 2016]

Nearly everything about this film was very good indeed, well above what one would expect for the small budget. I was not impressed with the bad wig that the main character was wearing when she was first seen in the carol singing group.

The only bad thing about it was that other than the main character being able to rewind time, the main story line ended nowhere and I was left at the end feeling betrayed.

I use that word as I really expected better and really wanted to find out what the heck was going on. Nothing about what the people in the future were trying to do and why and what happened to her husband.

There was a plot hole that was not explained...how could her boss at the FBI tell she was rewinding time as he would have no memory of it?

I highly enjoyed this.

[kcarey-193-311087 · 8/10 · 31 May 2015]

I don't review movies often, mostly because I'm lazy and don't want to take the time.

However, after reading so many negative and almost hateful reviews, I wanted to leave something else.

This isn't a 'great' film, but I found it intriguing and even a little emotional.

A few keys to remember as you watch:

1: Its a LOW BUDGET film. I'd be willing to bet, it was a labor of love for those involved.

2: Its an art film of sorts. What does this mean? That its ending is sort of open.

3: Some people aren't making the big bucks as actors for a reason, but it doesn't mean they're bad.

There is a story that slowly unfolds before you. A person who changes and fights against everything to change her future, anyway she can.

If you can't get past the budget and lower grade actors, then stop watching and give up. You've set higher standards than this film can live up too.

Personally, I've always had the ability to look past actors I don't like, to enjoy a movie. Sometimes, I just want to get lost in a story and I did with this one.

Kristy C

Punches above it's weight

[Sergiodave · 6/10 · 1 September 2021]

A very small budget Science fiction movie, possibly made for TV that kept me entertained throughout. I am a sucker for time travel, but it had some original ideas that impressed me. The effects are really not that important, use your imagination, the plot kept me interested and the acting was reasonable. Special note for the character called Brego, a person from the distant future with a wonderfully camp South West English accent, put a smile on my face every time he opened his mouth. Anyone who is a lover of Sci-fi should give this movie a try, far better than some of the Hollywood rubbish.

Some fun ideas, subpar execution.

[LumosX · 4/10 · 23 April 2018]

Sally Biggs has the mysterious power of "rewinding" up to nine seconds of her life. She marries a guy who creates a mysterious time machine, and now, ten(?) years later, after her husband's mysterious death, mysterious forces are at work to destroy her life.

Why is it all so mysterious, you may ask? Well, because nothing gets explained properly. Can Sally rewind a "rewound" time segment? Who are the baddies and what are their goals? A lot of other questions? Who knows. There's also something about some motorway in the US, though this film is apparently called "Time Runners", at least on the UK Amazon.

We cut back and forth between Sally's issues, and a pair of guys in the future who are attempting to "lock on" to her timeline, so as to send someone to her before "the bogeys" do it. Alas, we have no real idea of what's going on in the future, as the only development there comes in the third act (when the "sending" of a guy over actually happens for a total of two minutes or so), and features a predictable, yet still slightly entertaining twist. Oh, and also some fighter vehicles shooting at the base of the good guys with CGI that would make the SyFy channel blush in embarrassment. Again, we get no explanations as to the nature of "the enemy", why the world is permanently on fire now, and so on.

We do get some pseudoscientific technobabble that vaguely explains how time travel works, and I was amused enough to consider this of moderate interest; unfortunately, we get no proper explanation of the rules of time travel, and things remain odd throughout.

In the present day, Sally is pregnant and has apparently separated from her husband before his death, due to his slowly-increasing pride and egotism. Her time-rewinding skills come in handy for her job at the FBI, where she helps her colleagues hack into some guy's dedicated Counter-Strike server (the film, unashamed of its sins, gives us gratuitous shots of the monitor during this "hacking" scene). Then her new boss figures her powers out, and begins hampering her on-the-side investigations into the paranormal.

Apparently, if you have a number of positions on a map, and they sort of look like being spaced on concentric circles (that you've actually outlined on said map) according to "a blast pattern", you need a top-secret classified FBI program to tell you where the origin of this "explosion" was. I'm a simple engineer; I'd've thought some simple geometry may've been useful.

Nothing proceeds to happen for the most part of the film, and we are left to revel in the stilted acting, the "A Christmas Carol" play some uninteresting supporting characters are rehearsing for at her house, and the oddly-lit scenes. Every shot of this film screams "shot on a digital camera" -- not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

Credit where credit is due, there are a couple of clever "rewinding 'till you get the desired outcome" scenes in this film, and they were neat. The rest of the editing, however, is full of cuts. Hard cuts not between scenes, but within the same scene. Unfortunately, whilst the resulting effect sometimes ends up interesting, most of the time it feels like someone's been cutting up the footage by accident.

At the end of the film. Sally is taken by her boss to the time machine, so that she may return to the "tipping point", the moment when she decided to marry her scientist husband, and undo it. She does so; but fortunately manages to return to her timeline, read her late husband's diaries, and manage to fix reality and somehow permanently damage "the enemy"'s positions before fading out of existence (that she doesn't end up doing, considering she wins).

The ending features an obvious sequel set-up. Honestly, I'd probably watch the sequel. If I'm really bored and have nothing to do.

Also, the description on Amazon Prime, as well as the poster they had there, made it sound like this'd be a lot more interesting than it actually was.

**TL;DR:** Almost nothing happens for the whole film. Wooden acting. Looks like a soap opera. Some good bits. Not terrible, but far from good. Setting up for a sequel.

Unwatchable Garbage

[bosporan · 3/10 · 20 March 2022]

Most time-based plotlines require a big dose of disbelief suspension, but often they make good viewing once that pill is swallowed. Not this though - it is all over the place in story, has no significant character elements and there is a lot of incidental filler dialogue. I liked the look of this, but now I see why IMDB are giving it for free.

Avoid

[treborbasset · 1/10 · 5 September 2021]

Right from the start this movie is terrible. It has a kind of "previously on" voiceover at the start along with some 90s-style graphics, so you know you are in for something bad. And then it fills you in with backstory over the space of 10-15 minutes, which is possibly the worst and most hard to believe love stories ever. This is done via a man giving a monologue in his own head, interspersed with scenes of him being happy with his girlfriend.

Every now and again, there is a scene obviously set in the future, with some guy with a very out of place accent who seems like he's out of a comedic parody. They must have had a casting call for a British person to make him seem evil or enigmatic, but ended up with one of the funniest accents of a farmer. He keeps trying to "lock in" on something. It's not explained. And then suddenly the female protagonist has different hair and the husband is gone. No idea why. I assumed her timeline had been changed, but over the next 20 minutes it became apparent that her husband had died somehow.

The acting is unbelievably bad. Some of the worst acting I have ever seen in my entire life. Not a single member of the cast looks comfortable on camera. Even making basic movements such as putting an object on a table look so unnatural and as if they are using every brain cell to concentrate on doing it.

The dialogue is stilted and wooden and like something from a school play. Most of the cast are also guilty of over-exaggerated facial expressions. In other words, imagine the worst acting you've ever seen, and then imagine it's worse. The cast are unable to show realistic emotions, and in some scenes they even break character, accidentally smirking in a scene where they're supposed to be sad.

For some reason there is a play being rehearsed in the protagonist's house, so we are treated to even worse over-acting. I don't know why they did this, perhaps to make the rest of the acting look less bad?

There is one scene set in the future where two men are having an argument, and their faces are so close together that it looks strange, but they are just reading lines in a loud voice and waiting for their turn to speak, so it doesn't seem like an argument at all. Then after a disjointed pause where one of the men remembers what he's meant to do, he grabs the other man by the shirt in a way that looks like amateur dramatics practising without taking it seriously. When asked "why", he again pauses, remembers how he's supposed to respond, points at a window and says "that's why". Another awkward pause, and then we see the desolate CGI planet outside.

That scene illustrates how bad everything about this movie is. The director has no idea what he's doing, and no idea how to tell a story. The cinematography is non-existent (it essentially feels like someone's home movie a lot of the time) and the dialogue is like something from a 14 year old's creating writing class.

The clothing that the cast wear varies from looking like their own clothes to looking like cheap outfits purchased from a Halloween store. This is especially noticeable any time they are "dressed up", such as wearing a scientist's white lab coat. A lot of sets are very sparse and obviously just filmed in an empty room that they have put a table in.

The scenes are disjointed and don't fit well together. Things which are meant to happen in real time feel like they are hours or days apart, such as moving from a room to a corridor. A scene will start with characters not in the correct place and you see them walking into position with unnatural movements and then all simultaneously coming to a stop and reading their lines. It's not like people interacting at all. Everybody looks so uncomfortable on camera; they can't even walk around without looking self-conscious.

I only watched this "movie" because I couldn't initially find it on IMDb to check the rating. It turns out it's because they changed the name, perhaps to distance themselves from bad publicity. It is listed on Amazon Prime as "Time Runners (2014)" but on IMDb as "95ers: Echoes (2013)".

I notice that there are many 8,9 and 10/10 reviews on here, all of which appear to be fake reviews, possibly written by the movie creators or their friends. They claim it has the best acting and special effects and thank the unknown director by name, and ask for prequels and sequels... ridiculous. There is no way that anybody could rate this above a 5. How can it be above average? This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. In fact, I am struggling to think of a worse one, and I regularly watch low budget movies.

I'm almost tempted to say it's worth watching just because of how laughable the acting and fight scenes are, but there is no point because the story is so bad. It's a waste of time to ever watch this. I don't normally give out 1/10s but this movie had no redeeming qualities.

Terrible, but couldn't stop watching

[g_deform · 7/10 · 22 September 2019]

My goodness, what an aweful film. But I couldn't stop watching it. When is the sequel out?

A great little indie sci-fi

[supergomez-577-2968 · 8/10 · 9 January 2013]

95ers: ECHOES is an ambitious, ultra low budget sci-fi flick. (I think some of the reviewers out there might be expecting a big budget epic or something, and are disappointed when they see how indie it is.) It's an extremely original time travel tale... with an interesting Christmassy ghost story thread. The acting is decent, and the effects are surprisingly good for an indie movie. The only complaint one might have is the pacing. It's a bit slow here and there, but after a second viewing you realize how much detail is packed into the scenes. There are plenty of cool payoffs if you stick around until the end. It's different approach to time travel--lots of quantum physics stuff for science geeks. If you liked Memento and Frequency, and especially if you have a penchant for X-Files, you'll like 95ers. You can tell it's set the stage for future movies, with lots of unanswered questions and interesting characters that are part of the back story. Despite the pacing, I have to give it a ten for good writing and for what they achieved on such a tiny budget. Very much worth a patient watch.

Not so bad after all

[dionisie-straticiuc · 6/10 · 11 April 2016]

As a fan of SciFi I have to admit a real good movie of the genre is so rare that I feel the urge to raise a bit the average for this one. Not to the extent to give it a 10 for this purpose. It's a low budget film, so actors are not top-notch, quite the opposite. And Time Travel a worn out theme. But there is certain skill in it. A good pace of the action and a natural dialogue. Human emotion well driven in the twisted love story between a scientist and a police officer. The story is not explanatory, so many found it confusing, although there are some elements of guessing like the link between the title and short sequences where 95 appears to be a road. I give credit to the Director to be a woman obsessed with the genre, and not without talent. Maybe next time she will find the Finance to make a good one.

Cheesy, Low Budget, but Very Interesting!

[dopeydinosaur · 7/10 · 22 November 2022]

Like my title says, this movie was a cheesy, low budget, but very interesting little adventure! It reminded me of the Nicholas Cage movie "Next", and and that is definitely not a bad thing. What they did with the main character's potential was thoroughly enjoyable, and that in itself would have been enough to drive the whole movie I think. But as it was, the time related graphics were interesting, the future scenes were obviously CGI but did raise questions like how the future got like that, what clues might lie in the past, so much good stuff. I enjoyed the movie. It kept my interest up most of the time, and when it was over I did not feel disappointed - although I still had questions. If you enjoy cerebral time travel stuff you'll quite likely enjoy this despite all the cheesy acting and that Christmas play they're working on. What was up with that?

intelligent, well executed SF indie

[beef-638-121436 · 9/10 · 30 September 2013]

The story is catching, smart and doesn't spill any clues prematurely. A clever twist of the old time travel theme. I liked it. Acting is very good, the SFX are pretty good but could have been conceived better. The timeline visualization with the ID popping up and bleeping, seemed a little weak to me. Otherwise, the screenplay is very well done - the "rewinds" visualized very nicely. The audio is not as clean as a Hollywood production, but closer to reality. In a server room for example, we hear the hardware whizzing. Though the complex plot should give rise to plenty inconsistencies, I saw none. Surely, if I would search for those, I would find some. To me, this level of attention for detail is the mark of a genius. Very much worth to watch!

I have noticed that this movie is called "95ers: Echoes" (2012) as well as "Time Runners" or "95ers: Time Runners" (2013). This is a bit confusing, but all refer to the same movie.

A labour of love

[Adrian Sweeney · 8/10 · 12 May 2016]

This is a hard review to write - I don't want to oversell this film or sell it short. I caught it while idly flicking round British TV one afternoon. I had better things to do but minute by minute it managed to keep me away from them and I didn't regret it.

At first I thought 'Cheap afternoon TV movie'. A few minutes later I added the rider, 'with solid production values and an above-average level of effort and energy.' A while later again: 'And an astonishing amount of care and ingenuity over detail. Did you see what just happened in the mirror? And did they hire a troupe of boisterous improv actors as extras? I need to find out who wrote and directed this.' Then: 'The special effects are too good for a TV film, especially the excellent time-line display gizmo. It must be a bigger-budget studio number. Why haven't I heard of it? Probably one of those things that came out in the wrong week or something and slipped under everyone's radar.' And soon: 'There is so damn much in this film in the way of backstory and world-building and little loving doodles in the margins, too much for a normal film. It must be an extraordinarily faithful adaptation of a book - not just a book, but the first in a whole series of books. They must be big in America. So well-loved that the fans would lynch people if they left anything out, so they've put it all in and are making quite a good job of explaining it to the rest of us.' And eventually: 'Who cares what it is or where it comes from? I'm still watching and it's getting even better.' By the end I was not only completely gripped and invested but so moved I had to stifle a little manly tear at one point.

Bear in mind: it IS low budget, albeit usually very well disguised. And you've seen most of the things in it before, but they're done with slightly new spins and so much verve in execution they come to seem fresh.

The first half of the film is - not exactly slow, but stays mysterious for an unusually long time. This can be a bonus if you enjoy making guesses. If you're impatient or are used to being spoonfed, forget it. (I think a lot of the people who've given absurdly negative reviews must fall into this category. Although I suspect those who've been over-critical of the acting of malicious trollery - the acting was either perfectly good or quite perfect.)

The best thing in the film, and the best example of the care and inventiveness that's gone into it, is the main gimmick (there are several). One of the characters in effect has a sort of superpower. This is very well handled. We are gradually shown rather than told and I was deep into the film before I fully grasped it. All the implications of it were thoroughly worked out - including the ingenious ways that enemies could counteract it. Most importantly, it was handled in such a way that, rather than becoming the equivalent of a Get Out Of Jail Free card, it actually had the effect of doubling or tripling the tension.

All in all I enjoyed it a lot. I would like there to be a sequel (for one thing I would love to see what happens when one '95er' fights another) or, perhaps better, a TV series. Most of all I would like the director and his collaborators to be given a bigger budget to play with. Congratulations to all involved on some remarkable work.

Original and intriguing.

[livingstoneruth · 9/10 · 1 March 2015]

A great sci-fi movie and one that should be acknowledged as a true gem.

The script treats its audience as intelligent adults. It's a difficult story to follow in the early stages and that may account for some of the poor reviews on this site. (In fact, I created an account specifically to write this review as the bad review do not do justice to the film, but this is not a fake review and I am unconnected to the movie in any way.) The film demands some concentration - but there is nothing wrong with that!

Time travel has been done so many times in movies that it is hard to find a fresh angle, but this film really succeeded in being original and intriguing.

Entertaining and thought provoking

[kseable · 9/10 · 22 January 2013]

This somewhat cerebral film contains an intriguing and sweeping story done adequately well on a low, indie budget. The plot raises many questions which leads one to look forward from this prequel to future films which more fully spell out the whole 95er universe. Sally's progression from a selfish, controlling person to a more insightful, likable one is good character development. The interweaving of the Dickens Christmas Carol story themes with those of the movie plot is brilliant. By the way, did anyone notice that the chess scene game duplicates a famous chess game from real life? Several little touches like this add to the richness of the fabric of this jewel of a film.

You won't be disappointed

[ddburg · 9/10 · 28 July 2013]

I recently attended Fandom Fest at the Louisville Comic Con where I was privileged to sit in on a screening of 95ers: Echoes. An independent made sci-fi film dealing with time travel, paradoxes and the really brain twisting stuff of human relationships, and I'm happy to say that I think it is one of if not the best examples of the genre. I must say the cast has absolutely nothing to be ashamed about their acting abilities. I've seen a lot worse in big budget main stream Hollywood productions. The story line is meaningful and exciting, which kept me on the edge of my seat. The special effects were fantastic and added real depth to the story and did not detract from the movie. All in all, this film was made at a level of professionalism that belies its' Indie film status. The cast and crew have a project they can be extremely proud of. They have produced a labor of love, and it shows in every frame. For anyone thinking of watching this movie, do so, you won't be disappointed.

A reason to enjoy the drive on I-95

[DolimiteFilms · 9/10 · 21 November 2012]

Very refreshing and unique. Not your typical science-fiction with a lack of story hidden by special effects and girls in space age bikinis. 95ers' story appeals to the deep science-fiction nerd and those of us that just want a great plot, likable characters and intense moments that suck you in. I especially like the approach to time travel. It seams to be very feasible and references current studies in particle acceleration. I've read articles on this stuff so it gives it a spooky realism. This film has got everything. It's set in my favorite time of year, the locations are interesting, the characters are very three dimensional, the use of practical effects makes it feel real, the music is spectacular and the story line keeps my attention throughout. A top-notch production by what is sure to be an up and coming talented director.