nah you're wrong OP. Great film. Maybe try not being a pretentious douche.

Yes, I also was shocked in what a bad movie Christopher would act.
Not one second I was afraid of the childs life (neither, that Depp would not rescue his child or he would really kill the Gouverneur).
There was no suspense at all. For the first half, I thought, this was something like a test from a university, how far someone would go to rescue a beloved one, but when I realized, that this SHOULD be a real intrigue (when the secretary woman was shot), I couldnt help loving (although I understand the plan: They certainly wantet to kill Depp after his work, something, that wouldnt work with a hired gun). But: They plan this for months, and then they look for their killer 20 (sorry: 80!) minutes before at the station? How could they know, that their "killer" wont shoot 6 times without hitting the governeur? What motive to kill the Governeur (for Depp) would they present in the investigation? How did he get the gun? How did he go with it through the security control? A man, that comes with his 6 year old daughter from the grave of his wife has nothing better to do, than to shoot the Governeur and leave his child as an orphan (after he went into the death chamber)? Out of a sudden all the little employees of the hotel are willing to risk their lifes for a complete stranger with SUCH a story? Christopher reveals the whole intrigue, only when he is told, that the shoe cleaner might be deaf? Come on!

Terrible. But what can you expect from a guy who is actually named Bad ham?

This message has been deleted.

I don't think believability or plausibility is the key here. The film is merely posing the question of "what if?" it is a question people here have been attempting to answer with neither right nor wrong answers.
It's not a great film by any means. But it is a fun film that forces people to look inside themselves and examine their morality and pit it against their heroism to determine what kind of person they are - or would be in the same situation.
"De gustibus non disputandum est"
#3

The very proposition of what Deep is suppose to do, borders with idiocy.
Walken obviously has time and resources to expedite his scheme, without finding an "average" Joe, and then, steering this person, simply for sake of his own masochism, to deliver ridiculous plan, while walking and talking every second around Deep. Even for the most inefficient psychopath, such methodology of execution is idiotic.
Then Senator himself and his conspirators would, while diabolically preparing delivery of his wifes demise, gladly rely on faith of choosing an accidental tourist. But it gets better, much better. Walkens character is actually from the long line of Sigmund Freud family, and he was granted with such analytical mind, that he can pick someone at any spot, and be 100% sure he is the man for the task.
Yes, truly a reflection of remarkable plot.
To say this is realistic - even when such movies really require no great lengths of analysis - really makes me question aptitude of such targeted admirers. If someone likes this movie, for sake of movie, that is perfectly fine, but to say the plot of Nick of Time is plausible, well, you really lost me there!
I can almost see their faces, when tailoring this script, and carried away thinking this be a very creative plot. When you say bad movie, it is not a bad movie making or acting that bothers me, but the very premise on which everything else is built

This message has been deleted.

A great cast, good ideaand a crap script. John Badham isn't the strongest director in the world - definitely one of those "journeyman" types with no signature or vision. Let's face it, Badham's best film was Saturday Night Fever (not to be confused with Cowbell Fever), and that was back in '77.

Yup, was a bad movie.
What hump?

I am also shocked at how many people don't like this film. When I rented it I was under the impression it was to be a direct-to-video kind of film, so I didn't expect a hell of a lot. But what a knockout! After this movie I became a fan of John Badham films (WarGames, The Hard Way, Stakeout etc etc). This is an awesome piece of filmmaking I think.

I have high respect for this movie. Im very picky with movies but this movie just made me sit on my seat and never move away from it cause i'm afraid I'd miss something. Im quite surprise someone would find this movie all that bad. The movie was clever in so many aspects and pierced much on government conpiracy in using ordinary random people as assasins, I even recall John Lennon's assasination with this movie with the using of Mark Chapman.

I have to agree COMPLETELY with 'alibastard'. I judge a movie on all aspects (script, cine, music, etc) and as much as I LOVE Johnny (and have for 15yrs) I was VERY disappointed in this movie. I rented it because once he left Jump Street I never saw any of his movies. So earlier this year I started renting them, most of which I'm glad I waited because I would not have been mature enough to appreciate them. So far, this is the first one to disappoint. I'd rather watch Secret Window again, even though I was disappointed in the end. At least the rest was good.

Yes! YES! Nick of Time is absolutely horrible, even a trained monkey could write a better script. First of all, the acting is horrible. But I don't think the actors should be blamed for it, since all the characters are thinner than my toenails. Walken was trying to be such a badass that I laughed everytime I saw him.
The biggest flaw is that this movie doesn't make any sense. So there is a conspiracy that pretty much has everyone involved, but they still can't hire a hitman? Or why can't any of the bodyguards do the job, THEY ARE CLOSE AND HAVE GUNS! I can just imagine it. "Hey, there is some wuss, let's give him a gun and hope he does it instead of killing us since he has many chances for it. AND I KNOW! Let's make it even better by exposing the whole conspiracy for him, I'm sure he won't tell anyone, such a nice guy and all."
Suspense? What suspense? I hoped that stupid ever-smiling bitch would have been killed. But noooo. The best part of the movie was "the mexican stand-off" but it's ruined aswell. Watson should have shot Jones, it had the best chances for saving himself and his daughter. Did he think they were going to let him live with all the information anyways? Well, okay, since the grand conspiracy hasn't proven to be one of the sanest, we can expect they actually would have left Watson and his daughter alive.
I could go on and on. One of the worst movies EVER!

This message has been deleted.

Did anyone besides me think that Walken's monologue to Depp was awesome (where he's talking about some friend he killed, and that he'd do the same to his daughter?) I can't remember every word, but it's one of my favorite Walken monologues, probably second to the "pantamine" speech in True Romance.
Jeff

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

i liked it, it isnt a great movie, but it kept me entertained. johnny was good, and Christopher Walken was incredible as usual. The only thing i didnt like was that, i dont know, it kinda seemed like a made for tv movie, maybe it was the directing or something, maybe it was cus i DID watch it on tv, but i cant picture seeing it in a theater, but for a made for tv movie, it was pretty good

ok, i am sorry, but this was NOT a bad movie. Ok i admit, the music was a little cheesy, but the plot was good. Picture a normal dad, whos wife just died, and his daughetr is kidnapped, HELLO PEOPLE HE IS FREKIN SCARED! he dont want his daughter to die. johnny depp whom plays Gene has great face expressions, and whom ever says this movie is bad well, maybe you should try to re watch it!

I saw it in the cinema and haven't seen it since. From what I remember it's pretty good though.

This message has been deleted.

No kidding! I would think that with Depp and Chris Walken, that this would be the best movie ever made. Good thing I didn't bet the farm on it.

I totally agree with what tcoffman just said. I thought it was a really entertaining movie.

I am open-mouthed that so many people think this was a bad movie! And this has nothing to do with Johnny Depp - I thought this movie was fantastic!
Bad script? Why? Did the characters behave in unbelievable ways? Was the dialogue cheesy or forced? Did the events not build properly from what came before? Could you tell what was going to happen next? (Not just the final outcome- anyone could guess at a happy ending.) Did things happen later in the film that weren't properly set up earlier? What? I thought it was an excellent script.
Bad directing? Okay, I don't know how to judge directing. But bad directing usually results in a movie I don't like, and this I loved.
Bad acting? Where? Walken wasn't hamming; he had to pose a real and intimidating threat. Depp? I totally believed in his shock and terror, and then his gradually recovering enough to start trying to get out of it.
Someone didn't like the music. What music? I've seen this three times now, and the music was so non-intrusive that I can't even remember any of it.
My only criticism of the movie is the silly dream-sequence in the middle where it looks like Walken throws Depp over the railing. That was unnecessary, but :: not enough to make it a bad movie.