Watch Somewhere in Time For Free

Crappy film

Admirable film.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

This is one of those time travel anomaly stories that's bound to make your head hurt if you think about it too much. There are a number of circumstances revealed to the viewer that ought to take on significance but are rendered meaningless over the course of the story. The biggest one perhaps has to do with the pocket watch that the eighty five year old Elise McKenna presents to Richard Collier (Christopher Reeve) at the beginning of the picture, along with the enigmatic plea - "Come back to me". During Richard's rendezvous with Elise (Jane Seymour) in 1912, she doesn't recognize the watch as her gift to him in the future. Is that because she hadn't acquired the watch yet at the time she spent a couple of days with Richard in 1912? Similarly, when the older Elise approaches Richard in 1980, how does she recognize him as someone she knew in the past if Richard's trip to the past hadn't happened yet? In fact, it occurred after she died. So perhaps the better explanation of the events that occurred in the movie had more to do with Richard having a realistic feeling dream sequence, or maybe even experiencing a genuine, self imposed hypnotic event. So maybe the best thing to do is simply sit back and enjoy the film for it's treatment of an unfulfilled and tragic love story. Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour certainly make for a handsomely attractive couple, with the period clothing and appointments adding to the charm and romance of the picture. My favorite scene had to do with the spontaneous dialog Miss McKenna injected into the play that was meant to express her love for Richard. The name of the play was 'Wisdom of the Heart', and Elise's monologue captured the essence and beauty of her brief relationship with Collier, with no one in the audience any the wiser that she was speaking extemporaneously. I thought that was a cleverly done scene that only added further resonance to the mystery of the story.

What a film the concept perfect The theme l can't say anymore perfect

Before I say anything about the SIT let me briefly explain myself. For decades my preferred genre were War, Drama-Crime-Thriller, SF, Real-Life stories, History ... with love thematic more or less present as collateral. Substantial degree of authenticity and likelihood with real life has been my standard for a movie to enter my personal "Hall of Fame". AFAICS, perfect story and script are keys to the good movie while the rest depends on director, cast, camera, tech-support, budget and other "trivia". First time I saw this movie in 2014 as a 67 year old (definitely straight and already happily divorced) guy on DVD, handed over by a friend with some other movies. Word TIME from title somehow insinuated SF movie and I just inserted DVD without even knowing what would come out of this "box of chocolate".Christopher Reeve name appeared first and my immediate reaction was - Oh no, not Superman, because I am absolutely not fond of that genre and never were, not even as a kid. Than followed names of Jane Seymour and Christopher Plummer, and they were the decisive go. Other commenters here, some with very well written comments, already said everything about the SIT, far better than I would be able. So the next is mostly for people that are contemplating to watch this movie. 1. FIRST - Buy or get DVD and disconnect from outer world2. SECOND - First time is just PREPARATION to watch it NEXT time, the best immediately after the first time3. THIRD - WARNING! - If you are YOUNGER and slightly frivolous, trifling, supercilious, priggish, etc.... watch it rather alone, as it might be risky to watch it with your current love-partner, unless it's deep, sincere and at least in the range of up to 10% of unattainable perfection from the movie, because your partner's "accidental review" of your love-strength with SIT might "complicate" actual relation... in short - get you "fired" (dumped) - irrevocable! 4. Do NOT pay ANY ATTENTION to scientific inconsistencies, logic, flaws or whatever might cross your complicated demands, FOCUS ONLY on the MAGIC of PURE LOVE between two main protagonists and forget the rest. Huh almost forgot ... if you will watch with some others, don't be embarrassed of sudden chokes here and there, and of occasionally blared sight from "unexplainably" watering eyes... just let it go...Beginning of the movie is nothing special until the first intriguing moment with old lady, the pocket-watch, and her mystic - "Come back to me". Next 20 minutes or so still are not dramatically captivating ... then Richard and his ex-professor talk about Time Traveling which was just ridiculous ... however, don't eject disc yet ... wait next 15 min when the next curtain starts lifting ... we are in the 1912 ... and from here your "sentimental adrenalin" is just preparing to kick in. At 45th min heavenly scene would finally open ... and there she is, in her Godlike perfect and ultimate beauty - Elise McKenna ... she took my breath in a nanosecond, and from there starts my addiction with gorgeous Elise up to this day, and to eternity (I intently say Elise, NOT real Jane, although supremely beautiful Jane Seymour is exceedingly loving actress)... hence no wonders why Richard became obsessed with her much earlier. This movie is NOT SF, not even close to that, as its ridiculous time traveling here is just a container in which this SURREALLY PURE Love Story is packed. Some "gently" overbearing commentators say chick-flick ... NO it's NOT ... it's the most beautiful love story filmed ever, and to my criteria even AMAZINGLY well done Titanic remains a bit behind with its sort of conceptual Love-Load copycat taken from SIT. I think that I can say with absolute certainty that divinest illusion of Elise McKenna portrayed by gorgeous Jane Seymour is 95% of the SIT. I used word "illusion" because woman like Elise is objectively non-existent in real life, searching or longing for such woman would be like searching for the Holy Grail, which is why she is the movie itself. Take Jane Seymour out and movie would never become what it became to millions of worshipers worldwide. Even her replacement with some other actress wouldn't have such tectonic effect as it persistently maintains thanks to her divine image. In spite of above panegyric, I can expose two SERIOUS cons for this movie - TOO SHORT - they could have had prolong it with some extra loving moments in addition to the carpet picnic, at least for a half of an hour. DEVASTATING END - I PRIMORDIALLY HATE its end, as there were countless variations and any would do better than the one. In movies with such ends they should offer alternative ends, at least on DVDs, and leave to us choosing a preferable option.PS-1 Whoever might contemplate some remake - FORGET IT - NONE would work! - It would only spoil existing and everlasting magic of the ONE and ONLY ONE - Somewhere in Time PS-2 Addressing God directly - Dear God, after I kick the bucket and if I would go up, please RESERVE one cloned-copy of Elise for me, as Richard already got his...

It's hard to watch this movie without tears. It's also hard to think of a love story that requires you to travel through time to reunite with your loved one. In my opinion, that may be the biggest test of love.I also think that's the true test of an older film. I watched this movie when I was a child, and it affected me then. I re-watched this film tonight and it affected me now.This movie is timeless (no pun intended).If you've ever lost a loved one, regardless of the circumstance, prepare for a trip down memory lane if you watch this, as you struggle to realize your best chance to reunite with this person is in the afterlife.