"Running Against Time" is an enjoyable film that I happened to stumble upon early one morning. Time travel films have always fascinated me starting with "The Time Machine" with Rod Taylor, which won an Oscar for special effects way back in the '60s.

This film doesn't pussyfoot around with 20 minutes of build-up, they get straight to the meat of the plot relatively fast. You have a physics professor, Dr. Koopman (Sam Wanamaker) who is working on the time travel concept, secretly, with obviously, some success. His "clandestine" experiments are accidentally discovered by another professor (history), David (Robert Hays) who volunteers his help with the research. You see, he lost his big brother in the Viet Nam war and he'd like to go back and prevent the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, thus saving his brother's life.

David's girlfriend (Catherine Hicks) is a TV reporter who is trying to get an interview with Dr. Koopman and is drawn into the overall intrigue.

Koopman, is outraged about the revelation of his work, but does not want the research made public. He's almost "blackmailed" into allowing David and his girlfriend to participate in his work.

He sends David back in time (1963) to stop the President's murder by Lee Harvey Oswald. What they did consider, but ignored, was that David's going back would effect his own presence on our planet in 1963: two life forces in one space.

Can you really go back and change history? It's fascinating to think that everything that has ever happened is still happening IN TIME. Just think, "Gone With the Wind" is still, and will forever be, in production in 1938! With time travel, we could go back and watch the filming of the burning of Atlanta, or any event in history. Going back, you could even see your own mother playing in the backyard in 1925.

When David gets back to 1963 at the book storehouse, Oswald is loading his rifle, but our time traveler is unable to stop the killing. Instead, he shoots Oswald and the police arrive with Oswald claiming that David was the shooter. The plot gets interesting at this point with Hicks having to travel back EARLIER than David to help him out of the jam.

When Hick's "travel plans" don't work out (upon arriving, she's hit by a car and taken to the hospital), Dr. Koopman decides to go back to rescue them. While back at his old house in 1963, Koopman decides to visit President Lyndon Johnson to convince him to get out of Viet Nam before it's too late. He warns him of what will happen if the war is esculated. Johnson is shocked by what he hears and SEES in a filmed documentary from THE FUTURE in which he sees himself deciding not to run for a second term.

I won't tell everything, but it gets exciting and also very sad, especially when Hays sees his older brother, aged 16, at a hospital where he (Hays) is dying of an unknown ailment (remember, two life forces sharing the same time in space?)

Tears well up in my eyes every time I see this film. I thought that the performances were wonderful and I wouldn't want to see any other actors playing these roles, this casting was perfect.

I wouldn't mind having this on DVD, even though the VHS copy I have is just fine.

***** SPOILER ALERT ******* This made for TV movie, while modestly produced, was well executed. Robert Hays suffers over the death of his brother in Viet Nam. He meets up with Sam Wanamaker, the inventor of a time machine. (I guess you have to suspend your disbelief over time travel, but then again over a professor in the basement of a university science building concocting a working time machine.) Hays goes back to 1963 to stop Lee Harvey Oswald from assassinating JFK. I suppose this is based on the Oliver Stone premise that Kennedy would not have escalated the war in Viet Nam. A very debatable point. It is a good dramatic point;however, just as good the one used in the Time Tunnel Titanic episode. If only a few things had changed to prevent each tragedy. Gene Roddenberry had unsuccessfully tried to advance such an idea for the Star Trek movie series. He envisioned the Enterprise going back to 1963 as well. After several unsuccessful trips back to 1963, Hayes finds that history unfolded correctly in the first place. Except he managed to change just enough to save his brother's life.

It comes as no surprise to me this film was never big (25 votes) or a success, as it was good and written not with the intention of winning Oscars but of entertaining.

Almost from outset, it odes what any good film does & has the viewers mind wandering, you never know exactly where it is going, and you're hooked with interest. You even feel like you're in the film & start applying the concept to yourself.

Robert Hays is surprisingly very good, and it's a good family movie, not too far at all behind standard of Back to the Future and certainly alongisde any other good time travel movies ie Deja-Vu, The Final Countdown.

TV companies should show this more. You can't help thinking if only DeNiro, Pacino or Spacey had the lead, or a few exploding cars or some unnecessary violence cropped up, it would've had twice the acclaim.

It also gives some good insights into the Kennedy assassination, which I found fascinating.

But if you watch it in a light hearted manner, don't take it to seriously or be too critical, then it's great & explores one or two ideas.

As impossible as this plot actually is, the performances by Catherine Hicks, Robert Hays, Sam Wanamaker and the supporting cast, and the taut compelling script by Robert Glass, make every minute believable -- at least, while you're watching it.

The film, it turns out, is completely different from the novel.

Instead of veering into pseudo-profound "what-if?" political ruminations of a martial-law takeover of the U.S., as does the novel, the film prefers to hew to the intense emotional arcs of the characters, beneath the time-travel mumbo-jumbo (which is admittedly exciting and thought-provoking).

Thus, the concluding scenes offer an unexpectedly powerful heart-rending jolt that deepens everything that's gone before and makes the story wholly worthwhile. Your tears are earned.

Beautifully acted and directed (Bruce Seth Green), "Running Against Time" is one of those rare gems few know about. Though it's a TV movie, it holds its own against any theatrical release based on the time-travel theme.

'Running Against Time' didn't have a big Hollywood budget to blow on special effects and an A-list cast but that didn't stop it being an interesting little film that does leave you with a few questions.

The storyline revolves around David Rhodes, a university history lecturer still haunted by the death of his elder brother who was killed in Vietnam. When he discovers scientist Dr Koopman had invented a time machine, David convinces him to send him back to 1963 in an attempt to save JKF and, in turn, prevent the Vietnam war from ever taking place. However, things turn sour when instead of preventing the assassination, David is accused of being the assassin, his girlfriend Laura Whittaker returns to 1963 to help.

Robert Hays plays a convincing and amiable David, a man driven by the loss of his brother and determined to do anything to 'fix' the past while Catherine Hicks is equally as likable in the role of Laura, a woman initially torn between helping David and washing her hands of him and his obsession with his brother. And Sam Wanamaker, who plays Dr Koopman, portrays a balance between being solemn and being eccentric and dotty.

Like the various time-travelling episodes of 'Star Trek', 'Running Against Time' depicts how detrimental the effects could be if we were to ever discover a way of travelling back in time. That while it would be nice to reminisce with dead loved ones and late historical figures, altering history may not achieve the results we want. It also portrays some genuinely heart-warming scenes between a young David and his brother, conveying how devastating it must be for children to lose elder siblings in war and how such losses could effect them for life.

This film does have a number of time-travelling paradoxes that are not addressed (such as if David changed history then the timeline would have been altered so why were Koopman and Laura not affected, etc) but, ultimately, it's important to remember that it is just a film, not a Stephen Hawking documentary. Almost all films that feature time-travel in the plot will create the problem of paradoxes, which viewer just have to over-look. When watching 'Running Against Time', just involve yourself in the storyline instead of worrying over the science and you'll find it to be an enjoyable film.

Time travel movies always assume that if we could travel in time, we could make the future better. Is that necessarily true? In this film, a history teacher travels back to Dallas in 1963, with full knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald's whereabouts and intent. If he can stop the murder of JFK, he believes, he can prevent the war in Vietnam

A so-so movie. A couple goes back in time to stop the assassination of President John Kennedy. This time travel tale becomes all too predictable once you know that they will fail. The movie is adequately engaging to keep you in your seat, with a nice twist at the end. But once you've watched it, you kinda get the familiar feeling that you've seen it before. If you want a good time travel plot, watch the Back To The Future series. They're definitely more original and enjoyable. I'd give Running Against Time a 5/10.

I watched this strictly for the sci-fi premise and fortunatly the cast art direction were very good. There's an obvious attention to detail in the sets and locations, but the story is rather bland. The script could've been pulled from any episode of "The Time Tunnel", where the time travelers land on an historic date and try to avert a tragedy. Usually trapped in a situation, where they are faced with the need to change history. "Running Against Time" had great potential The possibilities are endless and ripe for plot twists, but instead it's a very simplistic plot which ovoids the ironies and dangers inherent with time-travel.

Heres a few titles to look for, if you like this kind of film. "The Final Countdown", "Philadelphia Experiment", "Time After Time", "Twelve Monkeys", "Primer", "Happy Accidents", "The Time Travelers"(1964), "Planet of the Apes"(1968), "The Time Machine"(1960)

Time travel. Man's greatest wish seems to be to go back and change the past.

Is time a straight-line, or a circle? Is it relative? Does changing the past create different, parallel universes?

For this TV movie, I took the view that most movies gave which is to assume time is a straight line. Unfortuently it makes the movie a lot more confusing and hard to follow.

This TV movie is much like the 'The Butterfly Effect'. Our hero wants to go back into time and stop the war in vietnam so that his brother can live. To this end, he believes stopping the JFK assassination will stop the vietnam war ever being conducted (as well as concluding the cold war 30 years early!).

But as ever, if you change the past something will happen to make things worse for the future. For some reason, Lyndon Johnson decides to nuke Vietnam as well as send in more troops. Heck, why don't you just use the fabled 'neutron bomb' whilst your at it.

Anyhow, everything cocks up and the time-travellers are left wondering if they can ever change the past. Our hero goes to a local hospital where he finds his younger brother and tells him to stay out of Vietnam.

But if he went in the past to prevent his brother going to vietnam, this means the hero would have no recollection of his brother ever going and dying in vietnam - thus he would have no reason to go back in time.

This is one of many time-paraodoxes that can hurt your head if you try to think about it.

What happens at the end? Well, lets just say time, it appears, has a concious.

Overall: 5/10.

Professor David Rhodes (Robert Hays) lost his older brother to the Vietnam War in 1966. When he hears that a famous professor is working on a time machine, he persuades the scientist to allow him to travel back in time and correct history, by saving the life of President Kennedy and therefore (somehow) preventing the war in Vietnam.

I'm not sure any scientist would allow a man to try to do something like this -- as we learned in BACK TO THE FUTURE it can create confusin' paradoxes. But he does. Hays ("Airplane!") looks bored most of the time; "7th Heaven's" Catherine Hicks plays giddy love interest. She's bubbly and annoying.

Overall this is an intriguing idea but poor, poor execution -- typical made-for-TV-movie junk.