Frequency (2000) Reviews

• Good idea, great execution

  TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews2004-02-22

  The idea of this film is pretty original; I don't think I've ever heard of a story so well-thought out about time-travel/alternate time-lines before. The idea is based on the main character being able to communicate with his father, who's been dead for 30 years. His father hears it then, 30 years earlier. They quickly do some things that shouldn't have happened back then, which then changes the future(or present). The movie deals very well with how they change the future back and forth. The plot is very good, the acting is superb and the characters are all believable. The special effects are very good. The very idea behind the film is very good, but the way it develops so much further is amazing. The ending, while it may seem corny too some, and is, by all means, a bit of a typical Hollywood ending(some might even call it a cop-out), but personally I just think it worked better than anything else could have. I'd recommend this to pretty much anyone who can watch a movie where they have to suspend disbelief, but especially anyone into time-travel or alternate time-lines, as this is, in my opinion, one of the best movies made, concerning this subject. 8/10

• Unique and interesting premise

  rickwiese2000-04-18

  This unique and interesting film is actually more of a suspense thriller than a science fiction, although I think fans of both genres will be pleased. Dennis Quaid plays a heroic firefighter who was killed trying to rescue a runaway from a burning warehouse during the days of the Amazing Mets' World Series victory in October 1969. Jim Caviezel ("The Thin Red Line") plays his son, now a cop, thirty years later. Through some quirk of physics involving abnormal solar activity and the Aurora Borealis, the two make contact with each other across the 30-year span over a ham radio. The son is able to prevent his father's death, but changing the past also turns out to have unexpected consequences with which the two must deal. The film really works on all levels with good action sequences and suspense, a nice dose of humor and some very touching exchanges between father and son. It explores the "what if" scenario of one's being presented with the opportunity to change an event in the past and the way in which those affected must deal with the consequences in a very intelligent and thought-provoking manner. The acting is uniformly strong, with Quaid very appealing as the courageous firefighter and loving father who has an almost-childlike love for baseball (he even pulls off a Brooklyn accent nicely!); Caviezel is equally good as the present day version of Quaid's character's son. Caviezel brings a subtle sadness to the character, a quality one might expect from someone whose life hasn't quite worked out quite as well as it might have, possibly due to a void created by the absence of his father. One of the strongest aspects of Caviezel's performance was a subtle shift in personality following the changing of events in the past (a change which left him with memories both of his father's death and of time spent with his father in the intervening years). I have a good feeling about this film and think it has a chance to be a real surprise hit. It's certainly one of the best films of the year thus far.

• A movie that strikes deep and stays with you

  Tabby-62000-05-16

  Changing the past to affect the future may not be a new concept in film, but "Frequency" handles it deftly and with heart. The acting is superb, and as far as I can tell the plot is nearly airtight. It keeps you on your toes as the story twists in what feels like six directions at once and keeps you in emotional sync with the characters. The past/present connections are stirring and intriguing, especially the single-flash cuts at pivotal moments. This is one of the few movies about which I can honestly say, "I laughed, I cried, I was scared stupid." Truly the only good movie so far this year.

• Frequency is the first good movie of the year.

  dribe2000-04-30

  The plot in Frequency is hard to believe, but the movie's twists, action, and dramatic moments cover up its uncertainties. The idea of how the past affects the future is not original, but the rest of the film is. When I first saw the preview for Frequency, I thought that the idea of a son talking to a his deceased father over a radio was original and interesting. I didn't think, however, that the film would be very good. I was wrong though. The movie is packed with action, mystery, twists, and emotion. The love between the father and son is so real, as are the characters themselves. Frequency uses remarkable use of film's ability to stretch out moments of time and intercut between different events. And as far as timing goes, this movie has stopwatch-precision. As a result, it can produce tears, outbursts of laughter, or dropping jaws in the audience. I think the ending of the movie could be improved, but I still highly recommend seeing this film. As long as you don't worry too much about the plausibility of the time-lapse details, you'll enjoy it. After all, it's entertainment in its finest form.

• the characters make the difference in surprising "Frequency"

  UnclePaul2000-05-01

  Several films have deal with changing the past and the ensuing effects on the future. "Back to the Future", "Timecop", and "The Final Countdown" come immediately to mind. Director Gregory Hoblit (his "Fallen" (1998)and "Primal Fear" (1996) were both excellent) explores that theme again in "Frequency". But writer Toby Emmerich (in his first writing credit), puts a different spin on the theme. In most 'changing the past' films, a character goes back in time. In "Frequency", one main character lives in 1999 while another lives in 1969--and you see the actions in 1969 immediately affecting 1999. Sounds confusing, huh? Well, it is. But it works. The movie opens with the introduction of the Sullivan family. Frank (Dennis Quaid) is a heroic New York firefighter, and escapes a harrowing situation to return home to his wife and his 6-year-old son John. It's an exciting time in New York, as the 'Miracle Mets' have made the World Series. Frank is a ham radio user, and a strange disturbance in the sky (solar flares, I believe. I never took astronomy) in the sky has really increased the range of his radio. "I'm reaching people I've never reached before", he says. Flash forward to 1999, when young John has grown up into a 36-year-old NY homicide detective (James Caviezel) with relational problems (and possibly a drinking problem as well). We learn his father died several years earlier in a warehouse fire, and it's obvious that John has never really gotten over it. He ends up setting up the old ham radio (did I mention that the solar flares are back?), and contacts a fellow New Yorker named Frank. It certainly won't ruin any big surprise when I tell you that it's his father Frank--in 1969. After recovering from his astonishment and convincing his father who he really is (his knowledge of the 1969 World Series proves quite helpful), they begin a series of nightly conversations. Unfortunately, their conversations change the past--and the future--in very dangerous ways. A serial killer who should only have 3 victims suddenly has more, and John must use his knowledge of the crimes (30 years old to him) to guide his dad in a 1969 pursuit of the killer. And the chase is on. Will they stop the killer? Will the solar flares last long enough for them to finish their plan? Will anyone in 1999 or 1969 believe them? That lengthy 'plot summary' really didn't ruin any of the suspense--or come close to explaining the whole story. So, it goes without saying that the story is pretty convoluted and involved. But it's not hard to follow, and the movie grabbed me and kept me interested throughout. Granted, you will need to use a serious amount of 'suspension of disbelief'. If you get hung up on "there's no way they could be talking to each other" or "changes in the past wouldn't immediately appear in the future--they would have already happened and would have been there all along", you'll do 2 things: (1) you'll give yourself a headache, and (2) you'll miss out on a very entertaining film. The reason I gave this more stars than last week's "U-571"? I cared about the characters, and I found "Frequency" much more entertaining. Also, the story was quite original--with great use of the Miracle Mets and the 1969 World Series throughout. Speaking of the characters--Quaid and Caviezel both do great work. Their conversations via radio are very touching and authentic (once you accept the general premise, of course). Although Quaid is a 'movie star', don't let that fool you--he's a very good (and probably underrated) actor. Just watch him as Doc Holliday in "Wyatt Earp" (1994), Remy McSwain in "The Big Easy" (1987), or Gordo Cooper in "The Right Stuff" (1983) if you don't believe me. And Caviezel's a real up-and-comer (1998's "The Thin Red Line"). He does a great job as a grieving son who is reunited (in a way) with his father, but watches his joy dissipate in the face of the mess he's created. He also believably portrays a character who has memories of the way things were, but is now bombarded with 'new' memories of the way things have become. The other characters are definitely secondary, but Elizabeth Mitchell as wife/mom Julia, and Andre Braugher (TV's "Homicide", 1998's "City of Angels", and 1989's "Glory") as Frank's policeman friend Satch are both solid. This film has some decent action/suspense scenes, and 1999 John's radio conversation with his buddy Gordo (in 1969) is very funny. There have certainly been better action/suspense/serial killer movies (the action scenes weren't amazing, the story has some holes, and I thought the ending was a little cheesy), but the heart of the film is the relationship between Frank and John. I bought into that relationship fully, and that's why I liked this film as much as I did. And that's why I definitely recommend seeing "Frequency".