Just saw this movie yesterday. I tackles the always tricky time travel question. Did they get it right? Naaah. They sort of come close- but the final scene (which I won't give away) set up a line of reasoning that can only be explained by a really really big stretch of the imagination.

As to the movie's theory of time travel in general- it's one where you CAN alter the past- and then everyone in the new timeline EXCEPT the one guy who caused it all doesn't know that a change has been made (with one notable exception at the end of this movie). The sort of interesting aspect of this is that the changer remembers MULTIPLE timelines (or at least 2- the very orginal one and the latest one - the movie is a little unclear on this point). A similar theory was used in a clasic New Outer Limits episode called A Stitch in Time (I think that was it) wiht Amanda Plummer and Michele Forbes).

Comments?

geez!! Didn't ANYONE else see/not this movie??? :^(

oops...make that nIt this movie!!

I saw the movie, and it was entertaining enough. My main problem with it is that it abandons its own time travel theories.

Since time travel (at this point in our history) is all conjecture anyway, I can accept any time travel theories a movie proposes to be factual. But then it should be consistent and obey its rules throughout.

In the movie, we learn that it's possible for someone in the future to see the changes as they occur in the past. It's almost like there are two presents the present present and the past present. And events in the past present alter the present present. So when Dennis Quaid sears letters on the desk, they appear in the present as though they were being written at that moment.

But then if that were the case, then doesn't it follow that the mother shouldn't be dead until she dies in the past?

no- I actually didn't have a problem with the Letters apearing. I think what we're really seeing when it happens is the past altering and then the effects showing up in the present. It's not REALLY showing up in the future. Each letter is really there all 30 years. And the Son's memory of that desk is changing with each letter being written. After letter 1 is written, the Son has a memory that that desk has had that letter for the past 30 years. When the 2nd letter is written, his memory is altered, and he rmembers it as always having 2 letters for the past 30 yrs, etc. Since the camera is showing the present, it appears as iff the letters are slowly appearing 1 by 1 - but in "Reality" they've been there for the last 30 years.

Smae hting with the mother. Once the alter the past, his mother has been dead 30 years. And that's the way the Son remembers it. HOWEVER, since he's at the center of it all- and remembers BOTH timelines, he's a bit mixed up about it and not sure which is which.

The REAL problem occurs in the final scene- but I won't go into that right now.

You mean that Dennis Quaid's character hung around for 30 years waiting for the right moment to do away with the killer?

Anyway, what you're saying makes sense. It's how the temporal displacement occurs, according to the movie. The memory doesn't change until the event happens in the past. The scars don't appear on the killer in the future until the mother scratches him in the past. So the mother should not be dead in the future until she's killed in the past. The memory shouldn't change until the event occurs... according to everything else about this movie.

Yes- THAT's part of the screw up ending...SPOLIER WARNING!!!!!!!!!

The only way to make sense of the ending is that Dad waits 30 years to get rif of the killer. Of course you MIGHT argue that he couldn't FIND the killer who may have gone into hiding after their living room right in 1969. However, then it's a little silly for the Dad to assume that he will be in that apartment 30 years later. ALSO, the film vilates one of its own tents when it allows the Killer to be aware of the change in the timeline- i.e. he watchs in amazement as his hand disappears! He's been living with that hand for 30 years- it shouldn't be a shock to him in 1999. However, perhaps you can argue that whatever temporal force allowed the Son to be cognizant of changes in the timeline covered anyone else who was in direct contact with him when the change happened. I dunno- it's a little screwy. But until this last scene, the movie sort of was getting it all right.

It remind me of one of my favorit time travel movies: Bill & Ted's excellent Adventure. A rEALLY silly movie that, amazingly, had some pretty sophisticatedm consistent, and correct time travel moves. (one of my favorite scenes, as best I can remember it, is where in order to get away from someone, 1 says to the other: "Remember to put a bucket of water on top of that door when we go back in time" - and then seconds later the person chasing them is stopped by the bucket of water! Excellent!

Response to Len:

Dad knew the killer would be in the room in 1999 because he heard the scuffle over the radio 30 years earlier.

Of course, he couldn't shot the guy until time was changed so that he was still alive AND had memory of the past event.

Well actually, I was more curious about that final scene with the vanishing hand. The killer's hand is shot off 30 years earlier. As we see, the present timeline then goes through all kinds of changes, thanks to the changes in the past. This is all well and good, but why is the hand-to-hand battle that was going on before still at status quo after the changes are effected? Am I to believe that the killer achieves the same results with one hand as he would with two?? I guess he could have been practicing one handed fighting for 30 years .... I still don't think that the killer a hand down would get the same results.

I'm watching the movie right now, actually.

Well, it seems to be the timeline in this movie is really, really adaptable. It seems like something is controlling just how these changes work out. The one-handed killer could have changed his method of attack when he attacks John (the son) in the future. He could have hit him really hard with something and the stunned John would have had a rough time fighting off the killer, even if he was one-handed.

Len:=it shouldn't be a shock to him in 1999. However, perhaps you can argue that whatever temporal force allowed the Son to be cognizant of changes in the timeline covered anyone else who was in direct contact with him when the change happened. I dunno- it's a little screwy.

I was a bit unnerved with how the killer would see this. Even more, that how would he show up, now with only one hand, and still try to do away with the son. Though, fact he's on top of the son, touching him, might have him experience the same thing as the son was, almost like Picard and crew followering the Borg Tail in i{First Contact}, if anyone is getting my meaning on
this.

It remind me of one of my favorit time travel movies: Bill & Ted's excellent Adventure. A rEALLY silly movie that, amazingly, had some pretty sophisticatedm consistent, and correct time travel moves. (one of my favorite scenes, as best I can remember it, is where in order to get away from someone, 1 says to the other: "Remember to put a bucket of water on top of that door when we go back in time" - and then seconds later the person chasing them is stopped by the bucket of water! Excellent! I was immediately thinking of this movie, when it came to hiding the wallet under the loose board scene.

What you proposed JD sounds plausible to me.
Though, I must admit, even though I thought the movie went kind of slow a little towards the end, I loved the part, as the killer watch his disappear, everything in the house started changing.

Does anyone have the DVD version?
Spoilers for the DVD version


There was an omitted scene in the police station when Shep goes to confront Frank in the room Frank was kept in, and when the other cop opened the door and surprized Shep, who to me, was just pointing a gun, and that is else toward Frank. I thought he was going to threatnend Frank and that is else. When the cop opens the door, Frank started shouting that Shep was just trying to kill him, and I'm thinking 'when?'. The omitted scene has Shep telling Frank to put on a noose to hang himself, or he knew were his family lived. That explained why Frank shouted later that Shep just tried to kill him.

Len: The only way to make sense of the ending is that Dad waits 30 years to get rif of the killer. Of course you MIGHT argue that he couldn't FIND the killer who may have gone into hiding after their living room right in 1969. However, then it's a little silly for the Dad to assume that he will be in that apartment 30 years later.

Actually, every time there's a change, this happens. The first big change is when Frank doesn't die in the fire. Now, this change propogates forward in time and reaches 1999 (pardon my choice of phrases here, but I'm working w/in the movie's postulated rules) as John, Satch, and Gordo are in the bar. After the timeline changes to have Frank survive the Bruxton fire, John, Satch, and Gordo are STILL in the bar.

Same thing when Mom dies. John goes to bed with a mom and wakes up in the same bed, the same house, without one.

AND the same thing occurs with the fight: the dirty cop enters the house with a hand and Frank is dead; he then loses a hand and Frank is alive.

The interesting thing is that there IS some consistency. It's as if there is some bridge or link between Frank and John. Frank's changes in the past radically affect the future, yet the events IMMEDIATELY surrounding John cannot radically change. Therefore, even though John gets 10 more years with Dad, he still winds up in the bar on the same night.

It might almost be logical. If we assume that John has the power to alter the past, we run into the classic temporal paradox. That is, John alters the past by giving Frank information. However, once Frank uses the information to change the past (or his own future), he destroys the future in which John gives him (Frank) the information. The question of how to deal with temporal paradoxes has plagued writers for decades.

Some movies, such as The Time Machine, take the approach that it is not possible to materially alter the past. This ironclad rule prevents paradoxes. However, it would destroy the premise of Frequency. Therefore, its authors take a different stance. In their temporal mechanics, a discontinuity is created. Frank is able to alter the future, yet "old John" and "new John" both exist within one person. The new memories show the past has been changed, but by retaining memories of the old way, the paradox is arguably prevented.

One could extrapolate this interpretation further, saying that the minute that time seems to change for John is the minute that two "timelines" converge. A new timeline is "spliced" in between the moment that Frank makes the change and John first registers it. Since both timelines have to integrate seamlessly, it is necessary that the new timeline terminate in the same manner as the old; namely, that in the altered future the three guys are in the bar just as they were in the old.

"What's the Frequency, Kenneth???

Some detail nits-As a fire truck is pulling out of the firehouse, we see a Checker taxi with a five mph "crash" bumper. That part of the movie is set in 1969. Crash bumpers were not put on cars until 1973. Also, New York drivers licenses of that era had last names first; Frank's license had his first name first. But, the style is correct. Or, as correct as I can remember.