Zak Gibbs (Jesse Bradford) is a teenager, son of Dr. Gibbs (Robin Thomas), a brilliant scientist. He wants to buy a car, but the attention of his father is to his own research work. Zak likes Francesca (Paula Graces), a new student from Venezuela. One day, Zak finds by accident a watch developed by Earl Dopler (French Stewart), a former student of Dr. Gibbs, with capability of accelerating time. Henry Gates (Michael Biehn), the villain of the story, stole this research and wants to make lots of money with this device. Zak and Francesca will face lots of adventures due to this finding. The screenplay of this film has lots of flaw, but anyway it entertains. There are lots of inconsistency in the story, but if the viewer do not pay attention to these details, may have some fun. The special effects are very reasonable. Teenagers are certainly the public-target of this movie. My vote is six.
103 Reviews
a fun family movie that despite being a little corny is still fun
LetsReviewThat262 July 2022
And I don't mean corny in a bad way really. This movie was fun all the way though. Some good casting choice. Sure time machine types of films have been done before. But not that many that actually stop time. That's what teenage zak gibbs finds out after accidentally taking his fathers invention and what insures is a fun ride of those that want to get him while trying to win over the heart of Francesca. Altogether it was a nice family comedy/action movie that also had some important lessons to learn.
Embarassing.
PatrynXX20 March 2003
Warning: Spoilers
(spoilers?)
This is just a really stupid movie. Little to no plot line. Ending is horribly confusing. There is one bright spot, the actress playing the love interest seems to be pretty good, but I knew, the moment the hero started acting like a jerk, that he wasn't up to par.\
4/10
Quality: 3/10 Entertainment: 5/10 Replayable: 5/10
This is just a really stupid movie. Little to no plot line. Ending is horribly confusing. There is one bright spot, the actress playing the love interest seems to be pretty good, but I knew, the moment the hero started acting like a jerk, that he wasn't up to par.\
4/10
Quality: 3/10 Entertainment: 5/10 Replayable: 5/10
Good fun, nice effects, decent plot
void-731 March 2002
This film is a very loose remake of the 1980 TV movie, "The Girl, The Gold Watch, and Everything".
A young boy accidentally finds a watch built by his estranged father that accellerates whoever is wearing it, and whatever (or whoever) they're touching into "hypertime", which makes the rest of the world move at a snail's pace, comparitively.
Michael Biehn plays a decent villian, although he is not allowed much developement, which is a bit sad, after his excellent work in Terminator, Navy Seals, Abyss, and The Rock.
French Stewart (Harry from "3rd Rock from the Sun") provides the comic aspect, and was pretty much my favorite character.
Jesse Bradford & Paula Garces do a good job, too.
Remember, this is a kid's movie, done by Nickelodeon, so it's on a kid's level, which explains some plot holes.
A young boy accidentally finds a watch built by his estranged father that accellerates whoever is wearing it, and whatever (or whoever) they're touching into "hypertime", which makes the rest of the world move at a snail's pace, comparitively.
Michael Biehn plays a decent villian, although he is not allowed much developement, which is a bit sad, after his excellent work in Terminator, Navy Seals, Abyss, and The Rock.
French Stewart (Harry from "3rd Rock from the Sun") provides the comic aspect, and was pretty much my favorite character.
Jesse Bradford & Paula Garces do a good job, too.
Remember, this is a kid's movie, done by Nickelodeon, so it's on a kid's level, which explains some plot holes.
Very weak plot..
trumpman3017 April 2002
Warning: Spoilers
This review contains minor plot spoilers. This movie started out alright...maybe a 6 out of 10, then got progressively worse as it went along. About halfway through the movie it seemed like they started making stuff up on the spot; like they threw away (or never had) the script. The whole idea of using frozen hydrogen to put hyper accelerated people back into real time, and when the kid accelerated while he was already in time, he was able to go through stuff and fly?????? With all these moronic things just kind of happening, it turned what might have been an "ok" movie into a "bad" movie. 3/10
A few flaws. But not a bad movie.
oakley126131 March 2002
This movie was entertaining, Givin I was driving around looking for a parking spot for about 10 minutes after the movie started so I missed about the first 5-10 minutes. So anyway, basic story goes. He finds a watch that can "stop" time. It dosn't really stop time, it speeds you up so it seems to stop time, but time is just moving at a slower rate then you are. There was one sceen that was a little unbeliveable. One of his friends is on stage spinning, and he's trying to dance. so he hits the button and the start to move him around to make him dance. Now, for me.. its like, uhm, how is that possible without sitting there doing it for hours and hours when time is moving so slow. Anyway. bleh. yeah. That was really the only part that bothered me, otherwise it wasn't too bad of a movie. But they could have done a lot better with it.
Great movie, if your 8 years old.
emccoy7124 June 2003
I watched this movie last night with my soon to be nine year old son. He seemed to enjoy it. I, on the other hand, think I would have gotten more enjoyment from watching snow melt in the winter.
The acting is horrible. The science fiction is lame. The only near redeeming quality is the special effects.
If you want to watch a great sci-fi movie about time, watch "Time After Time".
The acting is horrible. The science fiction is lame. The only near redeeming quality is the special effects.
If you want to watch a great sci-fi movie about time, watch "Time After Time".
I'm an oldie but I had fun...
MuggySphere30 October 2003
I remember seeing the TV ads for this when it was at the movies, though here in Australia we never had all the TV spots with Zak and Francessca.
I'm an oldie, yet I had a lot of fun watching this.
I thought the special effects, were indeed special and they did quite a competent job of the slow time effects. Favourite effect was the water from the hose Francessca had. That was great.
I wanna be a teenager again. She was quite adorable and even cute...
If you have kids this is a great movie for them as it's fun and non offensive. You can sit your whole family in front of the TV and not find anything offensive in this movie unless you're a total sour puss.
I enjoyed it 6/10
I'm an oldie, yet I had a lot of fun watching this.
I thought the special effects, were indeed special and they did quite a competent job of the slow time effects. Favourite effect was the water from the hose Francessca had. That was great.
I wanna be a teenager again. She was quite adorable and even cute...
If you have kids this is a great movie for them as it's fun and non offensive. You can sit your whole family in front of the TV and not find anything offensive in this movie unless you're a total sour puss.
I enjoyed it 6/10
WoW, This movie is for dummies!!!
Mulee31 July 2002
First of all, almost entire movie is one big plot hole. I don't understand how the filmmakers can think that audience could be stupid enough to not notice how impossible this whole movie is. This movie has a story that gives rules but don't play by the rules, and I can tell you, I HATE THAT!
Acting, directing etc... are in basic collage movie level.
If you are 12 years old, and guys in school tells you every week that you are genius or clever (and you don't know why they call you that), this might be your movie! Otherwise avoid at any cost!
Acting, directing etc... are in basic collage movie level.
If you are 12 years old, and guys in school tells you every week that you are genius or clever (and you don't know why they call you that), this might be your movie! Otherwise avoid at any cost!
Frakes - did you just dupe me?
film-critic27 August 2007
"Clockstoppers" is one of those simple PG plots which involves a boy, a watch, and no need to corrupt the system. A kid, unlike you or I, finds a watch from his super-genius father that can literally slow down time (actually, speed up his molecules so that time seems to be going slower). Instead of stay in that time forever, growing old and experiencing the powers of "invisibility", he uses it to win over the heart of an unknown girl and stop the world from catapulting into utter annihilation. Yep, something I would do if I could stop time. Like any other film of this nature, I am sure you know what ultimately happens in the end. Helmed by "Star Trek's" very own Jonathan Frakes, "Clockstoppers" boasts the talents of Jesse Bradford, Michael Biehn, and French Stewart with a cast like this, who needs enemies. Using amazing CGI to bring this story from the page, where Frakes falls short are the characters and his inability to grapple with the technology he is filming. I am not going to cover my issues with the molecular speed-up, because I am sure they have been nauseatingly been said before, but they did force you to consider the unmentioned possibilities. Why wasn't this whole film done with slowed time? How could some inanimate objects fly through the air in slow time, while others fit into the pattern of going slow? Why didn't Bradford fall through the floor? Age issues don't make me go there! Again, this could be a whole topic of conversation, but instead, lets talk about the other pivotal downfalls of this film, and how they related to me feeling decent after watching this.
I must admit, Frakes does a decent job behind the camera. He has learned from his acting lessons and can tell a complete story. Without the science fiction plot holes, the story itself for "Clockstoppers" was pretty cliché, yet straight forward. He didn't try to overdo it, while his actors might have attempted to gobble every line they could, Frakes kept the story simple and the CGI impressive. I have to applaud him for his work here, he could have made this a very dark story, but instead kept it suitable for a teen audience. This wasn't the original "Agent Cody Banks" in any way, but it did attempt to stand on its own, and I must applaud Frakes for his attempt. The acting, as mentioned before, was horrid. French Stewart was possibly at the lowest point of his career with this film. His attempt to be a honest scientist was goofy at best. He was never mad, just loony with his approach to this character. Jesse Bradford was middle of the road. Consistent with the standards of this film, he never went above where we wanted him to be. Oddly, his Ebay selling reminded me of another character from "Transformers", but I don't want to think the two films plagiarized. Julia Sweeny, well, just don't make me go down that tunnel. Paula Garces was middle of the road as well, she played off Bradford with ease because there was nothing they needed to attach themselves to. Could I be any more vague? When I finished watching this movie, I wasn't feeling upset or happy about the results this was a mediocre film, and I can applaud it for staying within that genre.
Sometimes I listen to music half my age this film is a prime example of music that is half my age. There was an attempt to take it even further up the tween channel by employing the music of Blink 182 to heavily dominate the scenes of joy, empowerment, or victory. There was the overuse of Smash Mouth, which seems to plague every tween movie today but oddly, that was allowed this time. Typically, I find myself yelling about how one-sided these releases tend to be. Focusing their marking towards a singular audience instead of just pushing the boundaries, but with "Clockstoppers" I felt their average outing calmed me. It worked I shouldn't have worked, but it did. Frakes subdued me, and I cannot argue with him. The special features surrounding this film were pathetic as well, staged "behind the scenes" which only showed how "fun" a film like this could be it was disgusting. The music videos didn't fit, and the Saturday Morning interruptions also included were vile as well. See this language, yet I am going to give this film at least three stars. See, Frakes did dupe me.
Overall, I gotta stop this review before I stick myself in a deeper hole. Agents with no names, bad villains bent on total domination using everything in their arsenal outside of the weapon of choice, a cool watch that may have sold well over the holidays, and plot holes the size of Miami. I hate these features on a film, but again, "Clockstoppers" filled a hour and a half of couch time well for me. I never laughed, but I never got bored with this story. Call me a quitter or a lackey to the cause, but "Clockstoppers" never came out of its shell, and I am happy for that. It was pathetic, but delightful in the same sense. I cannot suggest this movie to friends, but if it rained one afternoon and we needed something to kill the time I think "Clockstoppers" would find its way back to the DVD player!
Thank you Frakes you duped me again!
Grade: *** out of *****
I must admit, Frakes does a decent job behind the camera. He has learned from his acting lessons and can tell a complete story. Without the science fiction plot holes, the story itself for "Clockstoppers" was pretty cliché, yet straight forward. He didn't try to overdo it, while his actors might have attempted to gobble every line they could, Frakes kept the story simple and the CGI impressive. I have to applaud him for his work here, he could have made this a very dark story, but instead kept it suitable for a teen audience. This wasn't the original "Agent Cody Banks" in any way, but it did attempt to stand on its own, and I must applaud Frakes for his attempt. The acting, as mentioned before, was horrid. French Stewart was possibly at the lowest point of his career with this film. His attempt to be a honest scientist was goofy at best. He was never mad, just loony with his approach to this character. Jesse Bradford was middle of the road. Consistent with the standards of this film, he never went above where we wanted him to be. Oddly, his Ebay selling reminded me of another character from "Transformers", but I don't want to think the two films plagiarized. Julia Sweeny, well, just don't make me go down that tunnel. Paula Garces was middle of the road as well, she played off Bradford with ease because there was nothing they needed to attach themselves to. Could I be any more vague? When I finished watching this movie, I wasn't feeling upset or happy about the results this was a mediocre film, and I can applaud it for staying within that genre.
Sometimes I listen to music half my age this film is a prime example of music that is half my age. There was an attempt to take it even further up the tween channel by employing the music of Blink 182 to heavily dominate the scenes of joy, empowerment, or victory. There was the overuse of Smash Mouth, which seems to plague every tween movie today but oddly, that was allowed this time. Typically, I find myself yelling about how one-sided these releases tend to be. Focusing their marking towards a singular audience instead of just pushing the boundaries, but with "Clockstoppers" I felt their average outing calmed me. It worked I shouldn't have worked, but it did. Frakes subdued me, and I cannot argue with him. The special features surrounding this film were pathetic as well, staged "behind the scenes" which only showed how "fun" a film like this could be it was disgusting. The music videos didn't fit, and the Saturday Morning interruptions also included were vile as well. See this language, yet I am going to give this film at least three stars. See, Frakes did dupe me.
Overall, I gotta stop this review before I stick myself in a deeper hole. Agents with no names, bad villains bent on total domination using everything in their arsenal outside of the weapon of choice, a cool watch that may have sold well over the holidays, and plot holes the size of Miami. I hate these features on a film, but again, "Clockstoppers" filled a hour and a half of couch time well for me. I never laughed, but I never got bored with this story. Call me a quitter or a lackey to the cause, but "Clockstoppers" never came out of its shell, and I am happy for that. It was pathetic, but delightful in the same sense. I cannot suggest this movie to friends, but if it rained one afternoon and we needed something to kill the time I think "Clockstoppers" would find its way back to the DVD player!
Thank you Frakes you duped me again!
Grade: *** out of *****
Difficult to Watch (Possible spoilers)
Falkyn6 February 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Not an impossibly bad movie, I didn't stop watching before the end, but I was wincing through most of it. I didn't notice the dialogue so much, I was mostly distracted by the totally unlikely physics.
Normally I consider myself to be quite good at suspending disbelief. The thing is, I could conceive of something like a cyborg coming from the future to change the past. What I can't conceive of is the science posited in this movie.
Fine, you can be accelerated so fast that everything else seems to be standing still. Wouldn't it be difficult to draw unaccelerated air into your lungs? Wouldn't your shoes melt just from the friction of walking? Why do the leaf-filled garbage bags fall at accelerated speed? Why are the vehicles they drive able to run at accelerated speed? When they move the DJs, the movements happen in realtime. The lead characters are accelerated, not invisible. That process would have been more like stop motion animation, ie. very tedious.
I guess I just couldn't get past those inconsistencies. For a better timepiece-stops-time movie, find the TV movie from 1980; "The Girl, The Gold Watch, and Everything".
Normally I consider myself to be quite good at suspending disbelief. The thing is, I could conceive of something like a cyborg coming from the future to change the past. What I can't conceive of is the science posited in this movie.
Fine, you can be accelerated so fast that everything else seems to be standing still. Wouldn't it be difficult to draw unaccelerated air into your lungs? Wouldn't your shoes melt just from the friction of walking? Why do the leaf-filled garbage bags fall at accelerated speed? Why are the vehicles they drive able to run at accelerated speed? When they move the DJs, the movements happen in realtime. The lead characters are accelerated, not invisible. That process would have been more like stop motion animation, ie. very tedious.
I guess I just couldn't get past those inconsistencies. For a better timepiece-stops-time movie, find the TV movie from 1980; "The Girl, The Gold Watch, and Everything".
Made for children, but still a fun movie.
LebowskiT100028 April 2002
I've always been fascinated with the idea of stopping time, so when I saw the trailer, I was really interested in seeing the movie. Anyhow, the movie was actually really cool and had some REALLY cool ideas. I really liked the idea that they weren't actually stopping time, they were just slowing it down REALLY slow.
The main reason I wanted to see the movie was for the special effects and I wasn't let down, the special effects were spectacular and lots of fun.
As far as acting goes, I thought all the actors did a find job. I liked Jesse Bradford, French Stewart, Michael Biehn and last but certainly not least, Paula Garces. I was really impressed with Paula's beauty, she is a quite a beautiful woman and predict a great future for her. I can't wait to see her next project.
As far as story-line goes, I thought it was pretty darn good and rather smart. There were a few things that I could have done without, but I can deal. One part that really struck me as odd was when he (Jess Bradford) was in the bathroom at the hospital and he was trying to get the watch (time-stopper) to work. While he was in the bathroom the bad guys slow down time and come walking into the hospital and suddenly you see Jesse disguised as a cop and then as soon as the baddies walk by Jesse takes off running. I assume he got the watch to work momentarily, but that doesn't really make sense because later in the movie he gives it to French Stewart so he can repair it and get it working again. I just think that one scene could have been explained better and it would have been quite easy to do.
One little movie trivia tid-bit that I noticed in the film was when Francesca and Zak are having fun with the watch and she says "Make it so Number One". That is a reference to Star Trek: The Next Generation. Captain Picard always said that to Commander Riker (aka Number One). This is interesting, because "Clockstoppers" is directed by Jonathan Frakes, who plays Commander Riker in Star Trek.
I hope you enjoyed the movie as much as I did. It's not a superb sci-fi movie, but it's fun and it's got lots of cool things to look at and some fun ideas. Thanks for reading,
-Chris
The main reason I wanted to see the movie was for the special effects and I wasn't let down, the special effects were spectacular and lots of fun.
As far as acting goes, I thought all the actors did a find job. I liked Jesse Bradford, French Stewart, Michael Biehn and last but certainly not least, Paula Garces. I was really impressed with Paula's beauty, she is a quite a beautiful woman and predict a great future for her. I can't wait to see her next project.
As far as story-line goes, I thought it was pretty darn good and rather smart. There were a few things that I could have done without, but I can deal. One part that really struck me as odd was when he (Jess Bradford) was in the bathroom at the hospital and he was trying to get the watch (time-stopper) to work. While he was in the bathroom the bad guys slow down time and come walking into the hospital and suddenly you see Jesse disguised as a cop and then as soon as the baddies walk by Jesse takes off running. I assume he got the watch to work momentarily, but that doesn't really make sense because later in the movie he gives it to French Stewart so he can repair it and get it working again. I just think that one scene could have been explained better and it would have been quite easy to do.
One little movie trivia tid-bit that I noticed in the film was when Francesca and Zak are having fun with the watch and she says "Make it so Number One". That is a reference to Star Trek: The Next Generation. Captain Picard always said that to Commander Riker (aka Number One). This is interesting, because "Clockstoppers" is directed by Jonathan Frakes, who plays Commander Riker in Star Trek.
I hope you enjoyed the movie as much as I did. It's not a superb sci-fi movie, but it's fun and it's got lots of cool things to look at and some fun ideas. Thanks for reading,
-Chris
"Speed Speed Revolution"
Kamurai2517 August 2020
Decent watch, could watch again, and can recommend, probably more for a younger audience.
For a movie about technology that would make you into a speedster, you'd think this would be phenomenal. The "hyperspeed" effect itself and it's presentation in the movie is amazing, even with the "mad scientist" trope accompanying it.
The cast isn't bad by far, but, for this, they could have been quite better to really sell the effects and create a better atmosphere for the story.
The story itself is good, it makes a lot of sense, the character interaction is pretty good, and it actually structures a compelling narrative.
It's not like the production value is bad either; this is a good example of being able to tick all the boxes and still falling short without actually failing.
For a movie about technology that would make you into a speedster, you'd think this would be phenomenal. The "hyperspeed" effect itself and it's presentation in the movie is amazing, even with the "mad scientist" trope accompanying it.
The cast isn't bad by far, but, for this, they could have been quite better to really sell the effects and create a better atmosphere for the story.
The story itself is good, it makes a lot of sense, the character interaction is pretty good, and it actually structures a compelling narrative.
It's not like the production value is bad either; this is a good example of being able to tick all the boxes and still falling short without actually failing.
Bad film
Spanner-21 April 2002
This film is from the Nickelodean Movies branch of Paramount and is aimed squarely at young boys... the tale has Jesse Bradford (much more effective as Kirsten Dunst's love interest in "Bring It On") as a teenager who finds this watch that his scientist dad is working on... of course the watch sends him into "hypertime" which enables him to move really fast.. or in our case, make it seem like everyone else is either frozen or moving incredibly slow. While the visual effects team did a rather good job with the look of the "hypertime" sequences, the storyline (involving evil government agents and a "battle of the DJs" (!)) is just plain stupid with some of the most inane dialouge ever heard in a major motion picture. Bradford is terrible as well in this film, though I think it is primarily because he was made to say such awful dialouge. Paula Garces plays his love interest, a role which involves wearing skimpy outfits and speaking in a fake foreign accent. The "teenagers" in this film all appear to be in their late twenties.. further hampering the believability quotia. A misfire that only the young ones will like. GRADE: D
For kids
JB-699 April 2002
This is a fun movie for kids, I went with 7 - 8 year old kids, they loved it : with them around, it interesting, otherwise, don't go with adults, they'll find it kinda stupid.
By the way, it's paradoxal to see a movie based on a plot very close to an old Star Trek episode ("Wink of an eye") directed by Jonathan Frakes...!
By the way, it's paradoxal to see a movie based on a plot very close to an old Star Trek episode ("Wink of an eye") directed by Jonathan Frakes...!
some people said it was sad.... the saddest part was the six bucks I threw away
turtleranger13 July 2006
Since I just read I cant curse, I will keep this as nice as possible. If somebody were to give this DVD to me as a present, I would just as soon use it as toilet paper as I would a movie. It made horrible attempted jokes like when whats-her-face goes "you wish" to the main dude. It was like a train with no..... um.... train. The previews were misleading by making you think that it was funny. In the commercials, it made it look like the friend had a good part... but when you saw it, you realized that he had 9-10 lines max.
If they took out the pointless, useless, horrible scenes, the movie would not be a movie at all, and just one of those five-minute specials in between mediocre TV shows. To avoid this, the director (who is hopefully out of a job) added stupid pointless scenes like the dance scene. 100% pointless. You might say it was "to show you what the watch could do." but we know what it can do!You don't need to put retarded scenes in to lengthen the movie and make the actors feel that they have a good part. So, in conclusion (much rejoicing that its over) I spent 6.50 on some comfy seats that were good for naps.
If they took out the pointless, useless, horrible scenes, the movie would not be a movie at all, and just one of those five-minute specials in between mediocre TV shows. To avoid this, the director (who is hopefully out of a job) added stupid pointless scenes like the dance scene. 100% pointless. You might say it was "to show you what the watch could do." but we know what it can do!You don't need to put retarded scenes in to lengthen the movie and make the actors feel that they have a good part. So, in conclusion (much rejoicing that its over) I spent 6.50 on some comfy seats that were good for naps.
This is a cheesy PG film, but Jesse Bradford makes it ride.
Emma Woodhouse2 April 2002
You can't expect much from a movie aimed at children if you are over the age of 12, and that's the only way to really enjoy this movie. It has one story line and truly underdeveloped characters, besides an unbelievable plot. In addition, they never really use the watch to the full extent. In the beginning they do some interesting stunts, but the watch seems to disappear from the plot and hypertime becomes normal time since everyone seems to have a watch.
Also, Paula Garces (born in 1974)is sometimes hard to imagine as a teenager. However, Jesse Bradford is the shining star who is completely believable as a teenager and the role seems to fit him. Yet, he seems bogged down by the other character and could really do a lot more challenging roles.
This movie also drags on for awhile. It is fun at first, but then the plot seems to try to go to deep and be more than it is suppose to be. The child-parent-problem-relationship is truly overdone. (See how it ruined The Babysitters' Club?)
Yet, I will re-emphasize how truly amazing Jesse Bradford was (definitely seeHackers and Bring It On). The reason I went to see this movie was for him, and for that it was worth my $7. Otherwise, this movie would have been a total mess. But, as I said before, you can't expect much from a PG movie aimed at pleasing children who want to be adults. For that reason, young children and most adults might get bored with this movie. It drags and has little redeeming qualities like special effects or a lot of humor. But, I assume, that is not what this movie is about.
My overall opinion, is that it is cheesy but enjoyable, especially, if like me, you are a huge fan of Jesse Bradford. But do not expect too much or you will be let down. It is enjoyable if you let it be. Don't over analyze it and, most of all, don't think like an adult. I, myself, will most likely go see this again in theaters and buy it when it comes out on VHS.
Also, Paula Garces (born in 1974)is sometimes hard to imagine as a teenager. However, Jesse Bradford is the shining star who is completely believable as a teenager and the role seems to fit him. Yet, he seems bogged down by the other character and could really do a lot more challenging roles.
This movie also drags on for awhile. It is fun at first, but then the plot seems to try to go to deep and be more than it is suppose to be. The child-parent-problem-relationship is truly overdone. (See how it ruined The Babysitters' Club?)
Yet, I will re-emphasize how truly amazing Jesse Bradford was (definitely seeHackers and Bring It On). The reason I went to see this movie was for him, and for that it was worth my $7. Otherwise, this movie would have been a total mess. But, as I said before, you can't expect much from a PG movie aimed at pleasing children who want to be adults. For that reason, young children and most adults might get bored with this movie. It drags and has little redeeming qualities like special effects or a lot of humor. But, I assume, that is not what this movie is about.
My overall opinion, is that it is cheesy but enjoyable, especially, if like me, you are a huge fan of Jesse Bradford. But do not expect too much or you will be let down. It is enjoyable if you let it be. Don't over analyze it and, most of all, don't think like an adult. I, myself, will most likely go see this again in theaters and buy it when it comes out on VHS.
So much potential, wasted
zapdude1 September 2002
Warning: Spoilers
You know, this could have been a pretty good movie. Really! The concept is kinda cool, and the casting was pretty good.
Too bad Number One failed to materialize a good movie out of all the potential.
Look, the whole geeky-guy gets cute-chick thing worked fine in all the other thousand movies it was used in, like say War Games. But hey, there are geeky girls out there too, and if they don't look like fashion models, at least they're real.
Spoilers ahead, beware.
What are the odds that our hero will be in hyper-time at the exact moment as the villains? Oh... they switch from hyper time to real time during a car chase, but the bad guys can't just switch back into hyper time to catch them? Sigh.
That's what everyone else here was commenting on... plot holes big enough to plant corn in. But hey, somehow it just doesn't matter, because it's only fantasy aimed at kids, right?
Wrong. Moviemakers need to pay attention to these kinds of details. Details are the difference between a mildly amusing movie like this, and a truly awesome movie like the original 3 Star Wars, or War Games, or Star Trek II.
Fix the details, at least try to explain it to us. This could have been a great movie. Instead it was mediocre. I rated it a 5.
Frakes, you were a mediocre director during your Star Trek days, and you're a mediocre director now. Why not buy some skills with the money you're making?
Too bad Number One failed to materialize a good movie out of all the potential.
Look, the whole geeky-guy gets cute-chick thing worked fine in all the other thousand movies it was used in, like say War Games. But hey, there are geeky girls out there too, and if they don't look like fashion models, at least they're real.
Spoilers ahead, beware.
What are the odds that our hero will be in hyper-time at the exact moment as the villains? Oh... they switch from hyper time to real time during a car chase, but the bad guys can't just switch back into hyper time to catch them? Sigh.
That's what everyone else here was commenting on... plot holes big enough to plant corn in. But hey, somehow it just doesn't matter, because it's only fantasy aimed at kids, right?
Wrong. Moviemakers need to pay attention to these kinds of details. Details are the difference between a mildly amusing movie like this, and a truly awesome movie like the original 3 Star Wars, or War Games, or Star Trek II.
Fix the details, at least try to explain it to us. This could have been a great movie. Instead it was mediocre. I rated it a 5.
Frakes, you were a mediocre director during your Star Trek days, and you're a mediocre director now. Why not buy some skills with the money you're making?
Good simple fun, not for the prudish.
Cedri6 November 2002
I love physics and I'm a self-admitted - and usually self-effacing - geek. I keep up on every scrap of news I can about nanotubules, quantum entanglement and whatever else about physics I can lay my hands on. With this in mind, I always have to check my logical thought at the door for most science fiction regardless of how close the writers are to existing theory or application. The thing to keep in mind with Clockstoppers is that it's a bit like a live-action cartoon - as most light-hearted scifi is.
Regardless of the hefty amount of cliche and cartoon physics, Clockstoppers is an enjoyable spin on an old science fiction concept. There are no pretentious Speilbergian epiphanies or insights on a grand quantum design - just some simple adventurous fun, enjoyably above par special effects and several genuinely funny moments. Even the few spotty-acting moments are passable.
I'm not usually one to go for cute movies, but Clockstoppers has me. After enduring 'A.I.' and a string of badly executed, over-serious adaptations of several of my favorite Philip K. Dick stories, seeing something that's just fun was extremely refreshing.
Regardless of the hefty amount of cliche and cartoon physics, Clockstoppers is an enjoyable spin on an old science fiction concept. There are no pretentious Speilbergian epiphanies or insights on a grand quantum design - just some simple adventurous fun, enjoyably above par special effects and several genuinely funny moments. Even the few spotty-acting moments are passable.
I'm not usually one to go for cute movies, but Clockstoppers has me. After enduring 'A.I.' and a string of badly executed, over-serious adaptations of several of my favorite Philip K. Dick stories, seeing something that's just fun was extremely refreshing.
Poor adaptation of weak idea
nedron5 July 2002
Jonathan Frakes once again demonstrates why he shouldn't be directing any film, let alone one that's supposed to keep you awake for an hour and a half.
Even ignoring the obvious scientific issues surrounding hypertime, this film makes no attempt to be of interest to anyone other the most juvenile of 13 year olds, and even they were pretty restless judging by the audience in the theatre I saw this in. By the time fifteen minutes had passed, I wished I had a hypertime device to make the film pass more quickly.
If you're after an entertaining family film, watch the little seen "Meteor Man" and give this one a pass.
Even ignoring the obvious scientific issues surrounding hypertime, this film makes no attempt to be of interest to anyone other the most juvenile of 13 year olds, and even they were pretty restless judging by the audience in the theatre I saw this in. By the time fifteen minutes had passed, I wished I had a hypertime device to make the film pass more quickly.
If you're after an entertaining family film, watch the little seen "Meteor Man" and give this one a pass.
. As a child, like any child
ridsidorova19 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
. As a child, like any child, I loved children's family films with a pretentious plot and bright visuals: "Spy Kids", "The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lava", "Agent Cody Banks", "Ritchie Rich's Strange Christmas", but "Time Stoppers "Somehow passed me by, and it's more bad than vice versa. Because as a child, I probably would have liked it. And now it's more like a cheap cheap episode of a series like Hannah Montana, except that it looks more expensive. But the general level of staging, acting, plot is the same. Humor is sorely lacking, the dialogues seem to be written by a couple of schoolchildren left after school, and in general the film looks like a caricature of the films listed at the beginning. The only advantages of the picture are visual solutions that are not bad for 2002, related to the stoppage of time, and a relatively small running time of one hour twenty. If the movie had gone longer, I would probably have broken the laptop screen, unable to continue watching the antics on the screen and the incredible absurdity of what is happening. In general, I expressed my opinion, but it's up to you to decide whether to watch this picture or, after reading the reviews, never think about it again (in the name of good films and bright childhood memories). Do not flatter yourself at the expense of the plot, trying to talk about the benefits or perniciousness of games over time. Youth fiction / comedy chose this topic only for games ... with special effects (2002 - the time when the Matrix trilogy had not yet ended and the creators, of course, were eager to repeat the famous "bullet time"). In general, I don't want to make claims that this is a superficial and clumsy teenage film, completely devoid of real irony and satire, because time does not spare such tapes anyway (for that year it was edible, albeit optional nonsense, from which the target audience could get some pleasure).
A prime example of fast food filmmaking
StevePulaski13 March 2016
Clockstoppers begins by introducing us to Quantum Tech Corporation (QT Corporation), which has developed a new project called "Hypertime," allowing a user's molecules to reach lightning speeds, giving the appearance that everything around him or her is standing still. "Hypertime" can be activated by wearing a particular wristwatch, and despite the NSA stopping the project before it is fully completed, QT's CEO Henry Gates (Michael Biehn) still wants the watch for his own power.
Unbeknownst to Gates, one of the leading scientists behind the project sent the watch to Dr. George Gibbs (Robin Thomas), a teacher at his son Zak's (Jesse Bradford) school. Zak, who keeps pining his father for a hot new Ford Mustang, winds up getting his hands on the watch, and, upon discovering its true powers, uses it to impress Francesca (Paula Garcés), the new girl at school from Venezuela. It doesn't take long for the two of them and their other friend Meeker (Garikayi Mutambirwa) to abuse the watch's power and cross paths with Gates, who desperately wants that watch back.
Clockstoppers is simple entertainment; precisely the kind of medium-budget production you could envision Nickelodeon Movies putting out in the early 2000s. It takes a lot of similar vibes from Back to the Future, and it focuses on familiar teen tropes in order to momentarily capture the attention of pre-teens. It has an attractive lead actor with a rebellious swagger, a beautiful foreign exchange girl who sticks closely by his side after initially showing her claws, and the rowdy sidekick, who adds a more comedic spin on his buddy's serious perils.
Throw that all in a blender and you get Clockstoppers, basic cable's best friend. A film good enough to take up a two hour time-slot with commercials, but not good enough to have any retaining or lasting value outside of basic cable entertainment. Despite both Bradford and Garcés boasting enough charisma to make them worthy of the two leading roles, it's largely the way the film surprisingly handles the material in an unexciting way, right down to crafting a boring villain who feels about as uninspired and as cookie-cutter as they come. For a film about stopping time and momentarily stunning and transforming the space-time continuum, it's a film with shockingly low energy.
Bradford and Garcés do manage to be pretty charismatic screen presences throughout the film, making you wish they did more of these tween adventure films for the sake of their appealing nature. This was a time when Disney and Nickelodeon films based around brand new, live-action properties were being churned out and nearly every young, white actor was getting their shot at centerstage for whatever project the studios wanted to concoct. Clockstoppers isn't uniquely bad, which in itself is a bit of a disappointment because at least it would provide me with something noteworthy to say. Unfortunately, the film is just a simple case of fast food filmmaking, movies you can quickly watch and just as quickly forget.
Starring: Jesse Bradford, Paula Garcés, Garikayi Mutambirwa, Robin Thomas, and Michael Biehn. Directed by: Johnathan Frakes.
Unbeknownst to Gates, one of the leading scientists behind the project sent the watch to Dr. George Gibbs (Robin Thomas), a teacher at his son Zak's (Jesse Bradford) school. Zak, who keeps pining his father for a hot new Ford Mustang, winds up getting his hands on the watch, and, upon discovering its true powers, uses it to impress Francesca (Paula Garcés), the new girl at school from Venezuela. It doesn't take long for the two of them and their other friend Meeker (Garikayi Mutambirwa) to abuse the watch's power and cross paths with Gates, who desperately wants that watch back.
Clockstoppers is simple entertainment; precisely the kind of medium-budget production you could envision Nickelodeon Movies putting out in the early 2000s. It takes a lot of similar vibes from Back to the Future, and it focuses on familiar teen tropes in order to momentarily capture the attention of pre-teens. It has an attractive lead actor with a rebellious swagger, a beautiful foreign exchange girl who sticks closely by his side after initially showing her claws, and the rowdy sidekick, who adds a more comedic spin on his buddy's serious perils.
Throw that all in a blender and you get Clockstoppers, basic cable's best friend. A film good enough to take up a two hour time-slot with commercials, but not good enough to have any retaining or lasting value outside of basic cable entertainment. Despite both Bradford and Garcés boasting enough charisma to make them worthy of the two leading roles, it's largely the way the film surprisingly handles the material in an unexciting way, right down to crafting a boring villain who feels about as uninspired and as cookie-cutter as they come. For a film about stopping time and momentarily stunning and transforming the space-time continuum, it's a film with shockingly low energy.
Bradford and Garcés do manage to be pretty charismatic screen presences throughout the film, making you wish they did more of these tween adventure films for the sake of their appealing nature. This was a time when Disney and Nickelodeon films based around brand new, live-action properties were being churned out and nearly every young, white actor was getting their shot at centerstage for whatever project the studios wanted to concoct. Clockstoppers isn't uniquely bad, which in itself is a bit of a disappointment because at least it would provide me with something noteworthy to say. Unfortunately, the film is just a simple case of fast food filmmaking, movies you can quickly watch and just as quickly forget.
Starring: Jesse Bradford, Paula Garcés, Garikayi Mutambirwa, Robin Thomas, and Michael Biehn. Directed by: Johnathan Frakes.
Excellent Family Movie
LVWolfman12 June 2003
Clockstoppers is everything I'd hoped for... Action, some comedic moments, good SciFi, great special effects and very decent acting.
A lot of money was spent on this movie for the effects and crew and it shows.
There's been a few negative comments from folks who seem to forget that it is a SciFi movie made for kids and families, intended to be a good story with good effects and offend no one.
Looking at Clockstoppers in that light, it is a big success. Compare it to The Matrix or 2001, and it falls short. No surprise, they weren't meant to compete.
All in all, a formularic "boy meets girl/father and son resolve differences" family movie, combined with state of the art special effects make for a great family movie night.
A lot of money was spent on this movie for the effects and crew and it shows.
There's been a few negative comments from folks who seem to forget that it is a SciFi movie made for kids and families, intended to be a good story with good effects and offend no one.
Looking at Clockstoppers in that light, it is a big success. Compare it to The Matrix or 2001, and it falls short. No surprise, they weren't meant to compete.
All in all, a formularic "boy meets girl/father and son resolve differences" family movie, combined with state of the art special effects make for a great family movie night.
Family fun flick - good rental
carlabrams9 September 2002
I had not taken my teenage children to see this in the theatres because it sounded too much like a remake of "The Girl, The Gold Watch, and Everything" from the previews. Why spend the big bucks when it'll be in Blockbuster in a few months? I was right about that part.
So we rented it recently. It really is a good movie for the whole family to watch. My kids really liked it, and it gave us something to talk about in our family discussions - especially the relationship between Zak and his father.
Several of the comments posted here rave about the physics of the situation, and how unreal it is. Guys, it's a movie. "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" is just another way of saying "Once upon a time". Commenting that air friction would burn up anyone in hypertime would make for a really short movie. And how do you know that QT labs didn't generate a force field with the watch to prevent friction?
If you want to nit-pick the physics, then avoid the movie. If you want to spend some fun time with your teenage children, then watch the movie.
So we rented it recently. It really is a good movie for the whole family to watch. My kids really liked it, and it gave us something to talk about in our family discussions - especially the relationship between Zak and his father.
Several of the comments posted here rave about the physics of the situation, and how unreal it is. Guys, it's a movie. "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" is just another way of saying "Once upon a time". Commenting that air friction would burn up anyone in hypertime would make for a really short movie. And how do you know that QT labs didn't generate a force field with the watch to prevent friction?
If you want to nit-pick the physics, then avoid the movie. If you want to spend some fun time with your teenage children, then watch the movie.
The Good & Bad Of 'Clockstoppers'
ccthemovieman-110 March 2007
GOOD NEWS - This had a very interesting premise: having time stopped, except for one person wearing a special watch enabling he or she to move around and do anything while everyone else was frozen in time. There were fun special-effects in here, too.
BAD NEWS - The dialog and the humor in here was so stupid, so California-like teeny- bopperish that it was almost impossible to watch the entire film....if you are past the age of 18 or have a brain. It was filled with annoying no-name teen actors and filled with plugs for scuzzy magazines like "Cosmopolitan" and other assorted other soft-sleaze stuff.
OVERALL - An extremely unlikeable, overrated movie unless you from the age of 11-14 and have poor parents as role models.
BAD NEWS - The dialog and the humor in here was so stupid, so California-like teeny- bopperish that it was almost impossible to watch the entire film....if you are past the age of 18 or have a brain. It was filled with annoying no-name teen actors and filled with plugs for scuzzy magazines like "Cosmopolitan" and other assorted other soft-sleaze stuff.
OVERALL - An extremely unlikeable, overrated movie unless you from the age of 11-14 and have poor parents as role models.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
