Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, predestination.

ethan hawke movie time travel

Now streaming on:

The mind reels at the thought of trying to review "Predestination." Not that it is bad, mind you—in fact, it is really, really impressive and well worth venturing out to find despite the crummy January weather (those in especially intemperate areas will be relieved to find that it is on VOD as well)—but because this is one of those films that is so filled with twists, turns and unexpected developments that even the most oblique plot discussion threatens to wander into dreaded spoiler territory. Then again, I admit that I knew pretty much everything that was going to happen going in thanks to my familiarity with the source material, Robert Heinlein's celebrated 1959 short story "—All You Zombies—," and still found myself knocked out by its startlingly effective translation from the page to the screen. I will try to keep the details to a minimum, but, trust me, the less you know going in, the better, especially considering the fact that the story deals in no small part with time travel (and all of the attending paradoxes) and that is not even close to being its most unusual aspect.

As it turns out, there are such things as Temporal Agents, an elite group of people charged with traveling through time in order to prevent horrible crimes before they occur. As the film opens, one such agent is trying to disarm the latest deadly explosive set by the Fizzle Bomber, a terrorist wreaking havoc on Seventies-era New York when it goes off in his face, burning him badly in the process. He manages to return to headquarters and after massive plastic surgery and a long recuperation process, he recovers and now looks like Ethan Hawke in the bargain. Returning to New York in the hopes of catching the Fizzle Bomber, he is working as a bartender when he strikes up a conversation with a slightly androgynous-looking guy who calls himself "The Unmarried Mother"—he makes his living writing fake tales of woe for so-called "confession" magazines—and who promises to tell "the best story that you ever heard," a saga that begins in 1945 when she was left on the steps of an orphanage as an infant.

Yes, "she" for, as it turns out, he started life as a girl named Jane. Growing up in the orphanage, Jane (eventually played as an adult by Sarah Snook) was relentlessly picked on by her peers for being different but proved to be smart as a whip, surprisingly strong and filled with determination. These qualities, not to mention the retention of her virginity, prove to be of interest to SpaceCorp, a Sixties-era government agency charged with recruiting women to go into space to provide relief, as it were, for astronauts on long missions. Alas, after a fight, she is kicked out of SpaceCorp, but one of the people in charge, the enigmatic Mr. Robertson ( Noah Taylor ), continues to find her of interest. Around this time, though, Jane meets a mysterious man and falls in love but is crushed when he vanishes, leaving her pregnant and alone. While delivering her child, another unanticipated discovery is made that will change her life forever, among other things. But I have already divulged far more than I probably should have, even though I have not even come close to getting to the truly wild stuff yet.

So what can I talk about? For starters, there is the impressive job that the Australian writing-directing team of brothers Peter and Michael Spierig have done in bringing Heinlein's story, which he claimed to have written in a day, to life. Sticking fairly close to the source material for the most part, they have figured out a way of recounting it in a way that is straightforward enough for most attentive viewers to follow and yet complex enough to inspire them to want to go back and watch it again. (Here is where the VOD option might be helpful.) As for the time travel aspect, "Predestination" follows the lead of some of the best films of its type (a short list including the likes of "Time After Time," "Back to the Future II," "Primer" and "Looper") by embracing the potential paradoxes rather than trying to ignore or explain them away—the results are utterly preposterous, of course, but in a manner more entertaining than annoying. (The only time the narrative steps wrong is towards the end, mostly involving material invented solely for the film, and even then, these are flaws born of ambition rather than laziness.) From a stylistic standpoint, it also impresses in the way that it evokes the look and feel of the various eras that it touches on via clever costumes, production design and cinematography rather than through lavish special effects.

At the heart of "Predestination," however, are the two central performances by Ethan Hawke and Sarah Snook that bring genuine emotional weight to a storyline that could have easily plunged into utter nonsense. Hawke, for example, is an actor who in recent years has more often than not been gravitating towards material that is off-beat and original—at this point, his name on a marquee pretty much guarantees that the film in question will at least be somewhat interesting. Even though he is more or less playing the straight man this time around, he still clearly recognizes a juicy story when he sees it (as he did with his previous collaboration with the Spierigs, the better-than-average vampire saga " Daybreakers ") and gives real life to a character that could have easily blended into the woodwork in other hands.

As the heart of the story, however, Sarah Snook delivers a knockout performance that calls on her to perform the kind of tricky scenes that could have resulted in bad laughs throughout if handled incorrectly. Not only does she pull off her performance brilliantly throughout—there is not one moment in which she is anything less that utterly convincing and believable—I would go so far as to put her work here up against any of the current front-runners for the Best Actress Oscar. If you have never heard of her before, it probably means that you are one of the many who didn't see her in " Jessabelle ," a dopey horror movie that came and went last fall. In that film, she was by far the best thing on display in a very bad movie. Here, she is the best thing on display in a very good one. It's about time.

Peter Sobczynski

Peter Sobczynski

A moderately insightful critic, full-on Swiftie and all-around  bon vivant , Peter Sobczynski, in addition to his work at this site, is also a contributor to The Spool and can be heard weekly discussing new Blu-Ray releases on the Movie Madness podcast on the Now Playing network.

Now playing

ethan hawke movie time travel

Ricky Stanicky

Monica castillo.

ethan hawke movie time travel

The Peasants

Tomris laffly.

ethan hawke movie time travel

Kiss the Future

Collin souter.

ethan hawke movie time travel

Peyton Robinson

ethan hawke movie time travel

Problemista

Film credits.

Predestination movie poster

Predestination (2015)

Rated R violence, some sexuality, nudity and language

Ethan Hawke as The Bartender

Sarah Snook as The Unmarried Mother

Noah Taylor as Mr. Robertson

Christopher Kirby as Agent Miles

Madeleine West as Mrs. Stapleton

  • Michael Spierig
  • Peter Spierig

Director of Photography

Original music composer, latest blog posts.

ethan hawke movie time travel

She Knew: The Women of Science Fiction Who Predicted the Future

ethan hawke movie time travel

Brit Marling on A Murder at the End of the World and Finding Her Rhythm as a Writer

ethan hawke movie time travel

Rage and Feminism in Poor Things and Lisa Frankenstein

ethan hawke movie time travel

You're Naked Without Us: A Report from the Costume Designers Guild

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Rotten Tomatoes Newsletter

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

  • Upcoming Movies and TV shows
  • Trivia & Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
  • Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

Movies / TV

No results found.

  • What's the Tomatometer®?
  • Login/signup

ethan hawke movie time travel

Movies in theaters

  • Opening this week
  • Top box office
  • Coming soon to theaters
  • Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

  • Netflix streaming
  • Amazon prime
  • Most popular streaming movies
  • What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

  • Dune: Part Two Link to Dune: Part Two
  • Ordinary Angels Link to Ordinary Angels
  • Orion and the Dark Link to Orion and the Dark

New TV Tonight

  • The Regime: Season 1
  • The Gentlemen: Season 1
  • The Reluctant Traveler With Eugene Levy: Season 2
  • Queens: Season 1
  • Blown Away: Season 4
  • Animal Control: Season 2
  • The Cleaning Lady: Season 3
  • Alert: Missing Persons Unit: Season 2
  • Hot Wheels: Let's Race: Season 1

Most Popular TV on RT

  • Shōgun: Season 1
  • Avatar: The Last Airbender: Season 1
  • The Tourist: Season 2
  • One Day: Season 1
  • Constellation: Season 1
  • House of Ninjas: Season 1
  • Mary & George: Season 1
  • American Conspiracy: The Octopus Murders: Season 1
  • Best TV Shows
  • Most Popular TV
  • TV & Streaming News
  • Prime Video

Certified fresh pick

  • Elsbeth: Season 1 Link to Elsbeth: Season 1
  • All-Time Lists
  • Binge Guide
  • Comics on TV
  • Five Favorite Films
  • Video Interviews
  • Weekend Box Office
  • Weekly Ketchup
  • What to Watch

100 Best Movies on Tubi (March 2024)

Oscars 2024 Best Picture Nominees Ranked by Tomatometer

Women’s History

Awards Tour

22 Films We Can’t Wait to See at SXSW 2024

TV Premiere Dates 2024

  • Trending on RT
  • Play Movie Trivia
  • Dune: Part Two
  • Kung Fu Panda 4
  • Ricky Stanicky

Predestination

2014, Sci-fi/Action, 1h 37m

What to know

Critics Consensus

Fun genre fare with uncommon intelligence, Predestination serves as a better-than-average sci-fi adventure -- and offers a starmaking turn from Sarah Snook. Read critic reviews

You might also like

Where to watch predestination.

Rent Predestination on Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV, or buy it on Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV, Vudu.

Rate And Review

Super Reviewer

Rate this movie

Oof, that was Rotten.

Meh, it passed the time.

It’s good – I’d recommend it.

So Fresh: Absolute Must See!

What did you think of the movie? (optional)

You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.

Step 2 of 2

How did you buy your ticket?

Let's get your review verified..

AMCTheatres.com or AMC App New

Cinemark Coming Soon

We won’t be able to verify your ticket today, but it’s great to know for the future.

Regal Coming Soon

Theater box office or somewhere else

By opting to have your ticket verified for this movie, you are allowing us to check the email address associated with your Rotten Tomatoes account against an email address associated with a Fandango ticket purchase for the same movie.

You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.

Predestination   photos.

A temporal agent (Ethan Hawke) embarks on a final time-traveling assignment to prevent an elusive criminal from launching an attack that kills thousands of people.

Rating: R (Nudity|Language|Some Sexuality|Violence)

Genre: Sci-fi, Action, Mystery & thriller

Original Language: English (Australia)

Director: Michael Spierig , Peter Spierig

Writer: Michael Spierig , Peter Spierig

Release Date (Theaters): Jan 9, 2015  limited

Release Date (Streaming): Jan 2, 2016

Runtime: 1h 37m

Distributor: Vertical Entertainment, Stage 6

Production Co: Screen Australia

Cast & Crew

Ethan Hawke

Sarah Snook

Noah Taylor

Christopher Kirby

Christopher Sommers

Alexis Fernandez

Rob Jenkins

Madeleine West

Mrs. Stapleton

Michael Spierig

Peter Spierig

Screenwriter

Michael Burton

Executive Producer

Gary Hamilton

Matt Kennedy

James M. Vernon

Film Editor

Leigh Pickford

Matthew Putland

Production Design

Vanessa Cerne

Set Decoration

Costume Design

News & Interviews for Predestination

Watch Online: The Professional , Charlotte’s Web , Raw , and More on Netflix and Amazon Prime

Best Movies Off the Radar 2015

New on DVD & Blu-Ray: Nightcrawler , Rosewater , Predestination , and More

Critic Reviews for Predestination

Audience reviews for predestination.

Predestination is one of those science fiction films that perfectly exemplifies everything that confuses and fascinates me about time travel. It's both brilliantly cerebral and mind bogglingly complex. But the movie tightly tells the complex story in 90 minutes, without sacrificing any nuance. It's one of the few movies that I can say I instantly knew I was going to buy the blu-ray right after the credits rolled. Among the many impressive aspects to the story, is the story-telling structure. It feels equally part Nolan and Kubrickian, with a bit of a David Lynch/David Fincher vibe mixed in. However most importantly, Predestination feels like an original film bolstered by performances from the always great Ethan Hawke, as well as the career making turn from Sarah Snook. The depths both of them take their roles, but particularly Snook, is fascinating. And surprisingly neither of them were considered for Oscar noms in 2015. In short, Predestination is one of the best sci-fi's of the last decade. 10/10

ethan hawke movie time travel

Time travel films are normally bizarre and intriguing, but Predestination takes things a step beyond. Sarah Snook makes for a sympathetic lead. The time travel special effect has a great visceral feeling to it. All-in-all, Predestination is a compelling watch and a must-see for fans of intelligent sci-fi.

A very good film. Well-written and acted, and I love the twist ending. This is a thoroughly entertaining and mind-blowing film. I would highly recommend it.

"You know who she is. And you understand who you are. And now maybe you're ready to understand who I am." Absolutely mind-blowing, Predestination is a fascinating high-concept science fiction thriller. Based on a short story, a temporal agent recruits a protégé and gives him a chance to avenge a wrong from his past. The writing is especially clever, and explores issues of free will, time paradoxes, identity, and fate. And, Ethan Hawke gives an incredibly performance that's quite powerful. However, the plot gets a little convoluted at times, and it doesn't really come into focus until the end. Still, Predestination is a compelling and provocative film that's incredibly daring.

Movie & TV guides

Play Daily Tomato Movie Trivia

Discover What to Watch

Rotten Tomatoes Podcasts

The Cinemaholic

Predestination Ending, Explained

Anmol Ahuja of Predestination Ending, Explained

It all started in the year 1895, when H.G. Wells’ carefully woven story around Time Travel encapsulated the combined geniuses of the likes of Newton and Einstein in the form of an art, a novel. ‘The Time Machine’ is a continued, timeless splendor that has given birth to the cult behind Time Travel. The concepts of Time Travel, Temporal Loops, Discontinuities and Paradoxes have, till now, caught the fancy of physicists, mathematicians, story tellers and film makers for close to a century now, and the reason behind it doesn’t take a lot of head scratching.

In all its being constant and unchangeable, time is the one thing the trivial man wishes he could change, or even affect indirectly. Give it a thought, who hasn’t thought of going back in time and fixing a few wrongs, or traveling to the future to catch a short glimpse of it? Yet, a lot of these stories end digressing upon the inevitability of it all, how it is all predestined, and man is but a tool in the works. That inevitability is what has piqued man’s interest in time as a physical object, measurable yet unfathomable in its extent, constantly changing yet repeating itself.

‘Predestination’ is a film that toys with a lot of these ideas and experiments with a narrative that boldly emphasizes on the pun, ‘time travel never gets old’. Adapted from the 1959 short novel by Robert Heinlein, the film bears impeding resemblance to Spielberg’s Minority Report, based on a 1956 Philip Dick story. It’s venerably interesting to note how both movies drew their timelines from the 1960’s.

Characters and Jargons

ethan hawke movie time travel

It is safe to assume that if you clicked the link, you have watched the film. So, without further ado, before getting on to dabble with complexities including recurring time loops and voids, let’s get to know our main players, and how I’ll be referring to them in the explanation, per my understanding.

Baby Jane: The orphan with an unknown ancestry that is dropped off at the door of an orphanage in the beginning of the film. Jane: The girl and woman baby Jane grows up into, detached and estranged from her peers, due to her being seemingly ‘different’ from them. John: The guy she is transformed Into following Jane’s delivery and subsequent sex change operation. The Barkeep/John Doe: The bartender at the bar John goes to drink, and is interested in listening to John’s story. The Fizzle Bomber: A notorious bomber on the loose, responsible for the loss of lives in the thousands.

This is until only some time passes in the film. All of them assume dual roles to play in the film’s complex narrative as it develops further, becoming paradoxes in themselves in the time loops that form. This will be better understood when we establish what time loops actually are, and the ones this film employs.

Baby Jane: The baby that Jane from the first part of the narrative gives birth to, who is kidnapped days later and taken away from her, later dropped at the orphanage. Jane: She is surprisingly the only main character whose story doesn’t completely change form and shape post major revelations. John: The guy Jane falls in love with and has baby Jane with. Essentially the same guy who travels to the past with the Barkeep in the hope of killing the man who left Jane, and then becomes a temporal agent, abandoning Jane. The Barkeep/John Doe: The time travelling secret agent from the temporal bureau hell bent on stopping the fizzle bomber. The same guy responsible for kidnapping baby Jane, taking her back in time and dropping her off at the orphanage. Also, the guy who takes John back in time to kill Jane’s lover (himself). The Fizzle Bomber: The future self of agent John Doe, driven to his present condition as a result of psychosis from excessive time travel. But, more on this later.

If you still haven’t understood, I’m going to say it without twisting any words: The five of them were the same person. Read on to find how an insanely impossible idea like that was made possible.

The Plot, Linearly Deconstructed

Image result for predestination case

Before attempting to understand the plot any further, it would do us a world of good if we understood the world that this story is set in, and then proceed to deconstruct the plot linearly. Time travel has been invented in the year 1981, allowing travelling between 53 years into the future or the past. In the wake of said discovery, an organisation known as the Temporal Bureau exists and functions in the guise of SpaceCorp. The Temporal Bureau seems to regulate time travel and while its main agenda or purpose of existence seems unclear, it is hinted that the purpose of the Temporal Bureau was all the more reinforced by the bombings masterminded by the Fizzle Bomber. The organisation sends agents across into the future or the past, to (again possibly) stop crimes from ever happening in the first place.

The first event in the chronology of the film is John Doe from the future dropping off Baby Jane at the Cleveland orphanage, where she grows up to be an exceptional student and learner, although alienated from the rest of the girls there due to her indifference and being ‘different’ from her peers. She eventually enrols herself for an R&R program with SpaceCorp, where after months of training, she is rejected due to a report that states her condition of having both fully developed male and female genital organs, which is unknown to her at the time. Her performance and unfair dismissal catch the eye of one Mr. Robertson.

ethan hawke movie time travel

Jane falls in love with a man, whose name and appearance is initially unknown. The man later abandons Jane, and Jane is left to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, and the removal of her female reproductive organs due to some complications in her Caesarean delivery. Her baby (also named Jane) is fatefully kidnapped one day from the hospital, and Jane is now left to live as a man, John, following eleven months of surgery.

John continues living his life as a cynical, bitter man, now sexually capable as well, publishing confession articles under the pen name ‘The Unmarried Mother’, owing to his history. At a New York bar, he encounters the barkeep (agent John Doe) and indulges him with his story and ordeal. The Barkeep then offers John an opportunity to travel back in time and kill the man (Jane’s lover) who destroyed his life, also ensuring him that he would get away with it. In return, John promises that he’ll replace the Barkeep in the bureau as a temporal agent. Back in time in 1963, to the day Jane meets her lover, John realises he himself IS that man he sought to kill, Jane’s lover, and the father of baby Jane, as the three of them are revealed to be essentially the same person. John abandons Jane to become a temporal agent, jumping forward 22 years now, and the cycle repeats when Jane literally becomes John following her delivery and sex-change operation.

Related image

This is a predestination paradox, an infinitely repeating loop (and the first complete one in the film), and Jane/John/Baby Jane is the element that drives the loop. Think of it as a self-sustaining, continuously occurring chemical reaction, with John Doe/The Barkeep acting as a catalyst. The paradox here then would be that the reaction occurs, changes form, deconstructs and reconstructs in the same time frame, every time, self sustains and repeats.

The next event in the timeline is a crucial one, marking the convergence of three simultaneous timelines in 1975 wherein the same individual from the past, present and future encounter each other: The Fizzle Bomber (present), John Doe (travelling forward from the past), and the now temporal agent John (travelling backward from the future). John from the future tries disarming the bomb placed by the fizzle bomber by placing it in a containment device, but his attempt is thwarted by an unknown assailant (most probably the fizzle bomber himself), who until now was involved in a duel with John Doe from the past, easily overpowering him.

In the events that ensue, agent John from the future is unable to contain the bomb which explodes, burning his face and greatly damaging his body, while the Fizzle bomber escapes. It is here when John Doe from the past realises who the burnt agent is, and passes him his time travelling case to allow him to escape.

Agent John from the future jumps forward in time to return to the bureau, where he undergoes surgery and facial reconstruction, significantly altering his appearance, which is finally similar to the barkeep/ John Doe. After recovering, he is briefed about his final mission, which is becoming the barkeep, travelling back in time to that night in 1970 when he met John in the bar. This is the second predestination paradox in the film, another self-repeating, complete loop. The fizzle bomber continues operating in the same timeline while the actual agent John Doe who had travelled from the past to 1975, returns back to 1963 and convinces John to abandon Jane, following which the two travel to 1985 where John replaces the barkeep as a temporal agent, and the barkeep/agent John Doe retire to New York in 1975.

At this point of time in the film, the third predestination paradox, or the third time loop comes into play. The retired agent John Doe is now in 1975, New York, close to a big attack by the fizzle bomber, a major one that the agent wishes/wished to stop. However, his time travelling kit fails to decommission per protocol, and he follows a few leads related to an electronic display and a few sightings of the suspect that lead him to the fizzle bomber. The agent/barkeep is startled to find that the bomber is his own future self, demented and psychotic due to exceeding the time jump limit continuously, and ignoring the disorientations after each jump.

ethan hawke movie time travel

The fizzle bomber is convinced that what he does saves more lives than the number of innocent civilians he ends up killing. He even shows John some newspaper clippings from the future of major events, wherein according to his twisted logic, major tragedies were averted because he bombed those places first and killed a lesser number of people. He tells John Doe that “Robertson set the whole thing up”, and tries to talk him into not killing him and co-existing with him, lest the agent become the fizzle bomber in the future, as he did himself, repeating the cycle. The agent is dissuaded, and shoots the bomber multiple times, vowing he’ll never become like him, killing his own future self.

Needless to say, he does become the future fizzle bomber as the psychosis and dementia set in. This also corroborates the lack of any evidence whatsoever against the fizzle bomber and the extended number of years of activity for an attacker of this sort. Makes sense if this assailant is a time traveller born of his own and whose current appearance has no records of existence, right?

In conclusion to the plot, it is now clear that the five distinct individuals in the plot are essentially the same person, tied together by three simultaneously occurring time loops.

Let me try to theorise this, in terms of physics, some mathematics and some basic geometry. One can argue that the three loops operate independently of each other in time, and yet when they converge, a major shifting of events takes place. The convergences are bridges to the other loop, all linearly moving, yet continuously repeating. Before I confuse things for you further, consider this sequence of events as three intersecting circles, like in a Venn diagram, with one convergence each between two loops adding up to three in total, and only one between all three of them.

The circle formed by joining the three points of intersection between the individual circles is the path wherein the film takes place, the path traversed by Baby Jane/Jane/John/The Barkeep/The Fizzle Bomber. The individual happenings as to what happened to them and their backstory is what constitutes the spaces in and between these circles. The agent can then be considered, quite simply, as someone continuously traversing all three loops simultaneously as different versions of himself in different timelines, and the transformations take place at every ‘convergence’.

ethan hawke movie time travel

This further emphasises the theory advocated by the equally fascinating German Netflix original ‘Dark’ (2016), about the cyclical nature of the past, present and future, as opposed to the widely normalised and accepted linear nature. Fortunately enough, any such theory is only mandated, or is even plausible enough only if its existence is accompanied by an aberration in time, a fracture, or an anomaly. That could be a cave, a time traveling device, or quite directly, a wormhole, like in Nolan’s space drama ‘Interstellar’.

‘Predestination’

Let’s begin this section with a rather interesting piece of dialogue from the film.

“Our first mission is just as important as our last. Each one getting us closer to our final destination . See, you’ll find out that time has a very different meaning to people like us. Time catches up with us all even those in our line of work. I guess you could say we’re gifted. God, Jesus, that sounds arrogant saying it out loud. All right, I’ll put it a better way. I guess you could say, we were born into this job.”

The set of dialogues here is part of a set of instructions the barkeep keeps aside for his past self, John, for when he takes up the mantle as the time travelling agent, to better accustom him to his role. Here is another one in a similar vein, albeit from the end of the film, where the big reveal takes place.

“Here you are at the beginning of your new life. It can be overwhelming knowing the future you’re about to create. Knowing the purpose of that life. You know who she is. And you understand who you are. And now maybe you’re ready to understand who I am. You see, I love her too.”

ethan hawke movie time travel

It may sound almost biblical, but the film’s title, ‘Predestination’ then refers to this timeless agent, existing in time as a detached entity, and his quest to push the ‘paradox that can’t be paradoctored’ to its limit, which he fulfils by travelling back and forth in time, establishing links and connections that tie back to him on ‘convergences’ explained previously. This is what John Doe meant when he described ‘purpose’ in life, and that they were ‘born into the job’. They (John/Jane/Barkeep/Fizzle Bomber), being the same person, had an essential mission that was more than just stopping an unstoppable assailant. It was to introduce an entity within the confines of time, yet free from them, existing independently and mobile between the past, present and future.

The whole series of predestination paradoxes was, de facto, carefully engineered by Robertson to create the ‘perfect time-travelling agent’. An agent with no actual ties in time, whatsoever, an agent that could disappear in time if needed, with no ancestry, roots, records or relatives to account for. An agent, quite literally responsible for his own birth and death, his own creation and dissociation.

The snake that eats its own tail, forever and ever?

ethan hawke movie time travel

With all explanations offered and plot twists accounted for, we find ourselves wondering at the age old anachronism, the pining question: which came first, the chicken or the egg? What is the cause, and what is the effect? Scientists and researchers may have a definite answer now, philosophers still don’t. The film dabbles with these questions, with that philosophy, and more. It questions what true ‘purpose’ is, at the same time contemplating if the future is truly set, if the past is truly unchangeable, if the present is as ‘predestined’ as it is made out to be, and whether what happens actually does in that exact manner for a reason.

All of them, daunting questions, and worse still, with no simple answers. While I certainly cannot say that the film answers them all, it does get you thinking, as I said earlier. How many recent films can you think of that made you think about all these questions, while also ensuring that the sci-fi nerd in you had a field day deciphering the tiny details that populate this already heavy film? Yet still, ‘Predestination’ does it close to four years since it first released.

‘Predestination’ may not end up satisfactorily answering a lot of the questions it raises, but it is bound to raise a brow or two with the flawed genius behind the big idea of it all. For those who like to think and prefer their films with a side of thought-fodder, this film is a haven among the woods. For those who don’t, it will either blow up your brains, or you will when it ends.

Read More in Explainers: Primer | Upstream Color | 2001: A Space Odyssey

SPONSORED LINKS

The Cinemaholic Sidebar

  • Movie Explainers
  • TV Explainers
  • About The Cinemaholic

Things you buy through our links may earn  Vox Media  a commission.

If You Love Time-Travel Movies, You’ll Love the Ethan Hawke–Starring Predestination

Portrait of David Edelstein

If you’re a twisty-time-travel-movie junkie like me, you’ll turn loop-de-loops over the Spierig Brothers’ Predestination , in which “temporal agent” Ethan Hawke jumps among different periods doing … something … It’s not clear until the last minute of the film, and “clear” in this context is still a trifle murky. But if time-travel is your thing, you learn to shrug off inconsistencies. You debate chicken-egg questions over drinks or dope and mull over all the permutations. You graph it. You wish like hell you had a time machine. You savor every discombobulating, ludicrous, thrilling second of Predestination .

Orienting you at all would constitute a spoiler, but it can be said that there’s a semi-coherent first scene in which Hawke shoots at someone or gets shot at by someone and appears to be partially incinerated in an explosion; that he undergoes futuristic plastic surgery; and that he wants to jump back in time — risking his sanity, which bends under the stress of too many temporal jumps — to capture a mad bomber dubbed “the Fizzler” before 1975, when he or she is destined to kill thousands of people. It can be said that he comes into contact with a mordant, rather pretty young man at a bar who tells him a long, long story (with flashbacks) involving an orphanage, a top-secret intelligence agency partly overseen by cryptic Noah Taylor, a broken heart, and a sex change. Hawke asks him if he has a purpose in life, and he says, “I’m workin’ on it.”

It can also be said that to solve the mystery of how these events all began would require a thorough understanding of Einstein, Hawking, and the Big Bang. I’m guessing even Robert Heinlein — whose story All You Zombies this is based on — had trouble grokking everything. Thank heaven he never let that stop him from writing a good yarn.

Hawke plays it low-key, solemn, enigmatic, his emotions kept in check for a Reason to Be Named Later. He throws the movie to his principal co-star, a mesmerizing, redheaded Aussie actress named Sarah Snook whom I didn’t know before but sure do now — and will know, I trust, until the end of time. She’s playing a thoroughly out-of-sync, alienated person. Her rhythms are slow, wobbly. She barely makes eye contact with her co-stars. Those eyes are in any case encased behind a pair of cheekbones that seem to be putting out a force field of grief. What’s eating her?

Don’t expect car chases or crowd scenes. The Spierigs — German boys, Michael and Peter (they made Daybreakers ) — keep things moody and intimate. This is a deeply solipsistic movie, but how deep is something you’ll need to find out for yourself.

  • predestination
  • movie review
  • ethan hawke
  • spierig brothers

Most Viewed Stories

  • Cinematrix No. 9: March 7, 2024
  • The Love Is Blind Season-6 Power Rankings
  • Clay’s Parents Are Love Is Blind at Its Best
  • The Action Sofia Boutella Wants to See
  • The Empty Impact of Dune: Part Two ’s Villain Turn
  • Love Is Blind Season-Finale Recap: A Family Affair

Editor’s Picks

ethan hawke movie time travel

Most Popular

What is your email.

This email will be used to sign into all New York sites. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy and to receive email correspondence from us.

Sign In To Continue Reading

Create your free account.

Password must be at least 8 characters and contain:

  • Lower case letters (a-z)
  • Upper case letters (A-Z)
  • Numbers (0-9)
  • Special Characters (!@#$%^&*)

As part of your account, you’ll receive occasional updates and offers from New York , which you can opt out of anytime.

  • Skip to main content
  • Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Movie Reviews

'predestination': a complex protagonist walks into a bar.

Andrew Lapin

ethan hawke movie time travel

Ethan Hawke in Predestination . Ben King/Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions hide caption

Ethan Hawke in Predestination .

The sci-fi thriller Predestination is pretty intriguing when it's not being a sci-fi thriller. A twisty time-paradox movie in the vein of Minority Report or Primer , the film is certainly one of the biggest ever to feature an intersex protagonist. The unnamed character is played as both a man (in the present) and woman (in flashbacks) by the versatile actress Sarah Snook ( Jessabelle ), who anchors the story's choppy rhythms with touching clarity. In the movie's long middle stretch, in-between some overfamiliar time travel business, the character's tragic life story unfolds: an intermittently fascinating look at a perpetual outcast who can't fit in on either side of the gender gap.

Not only is the hero nameless; so is the man played by Snook's co-lead, Ethan Hawke, a time-traveling crimestopper whose job is to make sure that people don't forget this is supposed to be a hokey sci-fi movie. Hawke's agent works for one of those paradox-flaunting government agencies that sends people back in time to stop crimes that have already occurred, never mind what new crimes might arise as a result. His target is the Fizzle Bomber, whose projectiles have killed—or will kill, or might kill—thousands of New Yorkers in this movie's version of 1975. The stakes would seem higher if not for the apparent fact that the government can just send another agent should Hawke screw up.

Hawke packs his violin-shaped time machine and jumps to 1975 New York to pose as a bartender, which gives the low-budget film a lot of mileage from one basement bar set. The bartender's purpose involves Snook's androgynous depressive, who stops in for a drink and unwinds the dense (too dense, given this movie's small scope) tale of his past life: assigned female at birth, abandoned at an orphanage as a baby, unaware of her intersex nature, teased in etiquette class, impregnated by a charming stranger, and forced out of the female sex by surgeons after a botched C-section, now self-identifying as a man. And there's more. If this sounds like excessive plot recap, know that plot is pretty much all the movie has.

Predestination is disorienting, but in a way that suggests narrative chaos rather than narrative control. The film's mysteries hinge on who Hawke is and who Snook is—information its makers must deliberately withhold by obscuring faces, illustrating only partial flashbacks, that sort of thing. This is the kind of structure that works better in a short story, where authors can skim over visual tells that would bring a film to a halt, and indeed Predestination is based on one by sci-fi legend Robert Heinlein. The idea was adapted and directed by Australian brothers Michael and Peter Spierig, who previously made the alien/zombie mashup Undead and Daybreakers , an uncommonly stylish vampire flick that turned the formula on its head by making human blood a vanishing resource. Predestination is a much flatter film than Daybreakers , but has a distinctive enough concept to be worth a look from genre aficionados. The Spierigs should be commended for continuing to show ambition in their speculative fiction while too many of their peers settle for stagnancy.

Snook's character is simultaneously the film's biggest asset and its most frustrating demerit. The overwritten voiceover and clunky editing of his backstory undermine the subtleties of the actress's performance—what's the point of disguising several layers of grief if they're about to be spelled out anyway? It's not surprising the character ghost-writes a newspaper column (ridiculous penname: "The Unmarried Mother"), because his narration is flowery and needlessly expository in the manner of the profession's worst columnists. His noir-lite banter with Hawke grows old fast, and distracts not only from the story's emotional core but also from the film's economy of production design: the orphanage's rusty period look, the white porcelain gleam of a top-secret space program. When the Spierigs do get around to the sci-fi stuff, they must drastically speed up the film's pacing and tone in order to squeeze it in. Unfortunate that a movie about time machines has such poor time management skills.

an image, when javascript is unavailable

SXSW Film Review: ‘Predestination’

A breakout performance by Sarah Snook distinguishes this entrancingly strange science-fiction drama.

By Justin Chang

Justin Chang

  • Film Review: ‘A Hologram for the King’ 8 years ago
  • Cannes: A Look at the Official Selection, by the Numbers 8 years ago
  • Film Review: ‘Captain America: Civil War’ 8 years ago

Predestination Review

An entrancingly strange time-travel saga that suggests a Philip K. Dick yarn by way of Jeffrey Eugenides’ “Middlesex,” or perhaps a feature-length mash-up of “Looper” and “Cloud Atlas,” “Predestination” succeeds in teasing the brain and touching the heart even when its twists and turns keep multiplying well past the point of narrative sustainability. Playfully and portentously examining themes of destiny, mutability and identity through the story of two strangers whose lives turn out to be intricately linked, sibling filmmakers Peter and Michael Spierig offer a skillful and atmospheric adaptation of Robert A. Heinlein’s 1960 short story ” — All You Zombies — ,” and if it’s better in the intimate early stages than in the more grandiose later passages, all in all it’s the sort of boldly illogical head trip that gives preposterousness a good name. Graced by an extraordinary breakout performance from Aussie newcomer Sarah Snook , “Predestination” is likely fated for a minor arthouse reception at best, but there will be plenty of cultists willing to indulge its heady and rarefied approach.

A taut but richly expansive fantasia on some of the knottier paradoxes of time travel, Heinlein’s 13-page yarn naturally lends itself to the sort of visual elaboration it receives here. In perhaps their most significant alteration, the Spierig Brothers have fleshed out the role of the story’s narrator, a Temporal Agent tasked with bending the laws of time in order to ensure the success of his cryptic mission — and, it eventually becomes clear, his own continued survival. When we first meet this man, hidden beneath a trenchcoat and fedora, he’s trying to disarm the latest explosive rigged by the oddly named “Fizzle” Bomber, an elusive terrorist at work in 1970s New York. But it literally blows up in his face, requiring a massive feat of reconstructive surgery that leaves him with the handsome visage of Ethan Hawke — the first but not the last of the story’s many crucial transformations.

Having kicked off with a nod to classic noir and crime fiction, the story settles into a nicely mellow, almost Bukowskian two-hander vein. Now working as a bartender, Hawke’s agent strikes up a conversation with a tough-talking, androgynous-looking male patron (Snook) who identifies himself as “the Unmarried Mother,” the byline he uses when writing popular “confessional” stories for magazines. As the agent notes, the writer’s work displays a remarkable insight into the female mind, prompting the Unmarried Mother to describe how he came to acquire such intuition, in what he promises will be “the best story you ever heard.” While that might be going a bit far, the illustrated life history that follows is as engrossing as it is peculiar, as the Unmarried Mother flashes back to the moment of his birth — or her birth, rather, as he begins life as an infant girl named Jane, left on the doorstep of a Cleveland orphanage in 1945.

Acutely aware of something unmistakably different between herself and her peers, young Jane is picked on relentlessly by her peers but fights back with a vengeance, developing unusual physical toughness, excelling in her studies (particularly science and math), and retaining her virginity — all of which make her a surprisingly ideal candidate for Space Corp., a ’60s-era government program designed to put women in outer space, although its true purpose, to provide comfort women as a service for male astronauts, is alluded to more vaguely here than in Heinlein’s story. In another key deviation from the source material, it’s here that the filmmakers introduce the character of Mr. Robertson (Noah Taylor), an enigmatic figure, at once kind and unnervingly hard to read, who will become a guiding influence in Jane’s life.

There is much more: Jane’s seduction and abandonment by a young man (his face pointedly hidden from view) and her unexpected pregnancy, which leads to a medical discovery that would seem to explain a great deal about her past: She is, in fact, an intersex being, born with male and female internal reproductive capacities, and complications stemming from her birth will require her to transition fully to a 100% male identity. Yet this development turns out to be one of many surprises in store, as the Temporal Agent offers the Unmarried Mother the opportunity to go back in time and alter his/her past, at which point “Predestination,” jumping back as early as 1945 and as late as 1993, takes on the narrative circularity of its defining metaphor: a snake biting its own tail.

Deciphering who’s who, and who did what to whom, will be easy enough for attentive viewers, particularly those watching at home who, rather than throwing up their hands in frustration, will be inclined to hit the rewind button. Figuring out what it all means, or is trying to mean — a meditation on the elasticity of human identity? An extreme argument for the power of self-reliance in a repressive society? A statement about the unalterable nature of past, present and future? — will require somewhat lengthier discussion. On the basis of a single viewing, it’s fair to say that the pleasure lies more in the buildup, with its careful establishment of ground rules and subtly immersive storytelling, than in the climactic detonation of ever bigger and bigger revelations. Not least among the film’s paradoxes is that in reaching for some grand summation, “Predestination” feels somewhat diminished.

Faced with the challenge of such out-there material, the Spierig Brothers and their talented crew have set about realizing it with a meticulous level of craft that, in and of itself, compels a certain suspension of disbelief: From costume designer Wendy Cork’s period-specific creations and production designer Matthew Putland’s versatile array of sets to the subtle differences in color and lighting favored by d.p. Ben Nott, nearly every aspect of this decades-spanning saga has its own distinct feel even as the whole retains a strong sense of artistic unity. Particular visual standouts include the 1960s Space Corp. training facility, with its cool whites and blues, its retro-futuristic stylings and cloche hats, as well as the 1970s bar, a warmly lit vision that provides a strong visual and dramatic anchor for the otherwise mercurial proceedings. Peter Spierig’s score adds lovely notes of churning melancholy throughout.

In the end, though, whatever success “Predestination” achieves rests almost entirely on the shoulders of its central performer. Over the years, Hawke (who also starred in the Spierig Brothers’ “Daybreakers”) has become the sort of actor whose adventurous choice of material inspires confidence more often than not, and he makes an ideal guide to the mysteries on offer here. But he’s playing the foil this time, and it’s Snook, an actress in her 20s with an ethereal resemblance to Jodie Foster, who stays with you. The exceptional work of special makeup effects designer Steve Boyle aside, the lingering resonance of Snook’s performance transcends mere gender-bender gimmickry; whether she’s speaking in a man’s gruff lower register or gazing, transfixed, at the first boy who’s ever shown her any attention, it’s her poignant embodiment of the desire for acceptance and self-fulfillment that lends this singularly weird experience a universal dimension.

Reviewed at SXSW Film Festival (Headliners), March 8, 2014. Running time: 97 MIN.

  • Production: (Australia) A Screen Australia presentation in association with Screen Queensland of a Blacklab Entertainment/Wolfhound Pictures production. (International sales: Arclight Films, Beverly Hills/Sydney.) Produced by Paddy McDonald, Tim McGahan, Peter Spierig, Michael Spierig. Executive producers, Michael Burton, Gary Hamilton, Matt Kennedy, James M. Vernon.
  • Crew: Directed, written by the Spierig Brothers, based on the short story " — All You Zombies — " by Robert A. Heinlein. Camera (Technicolor, widescreen), Ben Nott; editor, Matt Villa; music, Peter Spierig; production designer, Matthew Putland; art director, Janie Parker; set decorator, Vanessa Cerne; set designer, James Parker; costume designer, Wendy Cork; sound (Dolby Digital/Datasat/SDDS), Gretchen Thornburn; sound designer/supervising sound editor/re-recording mixer, Chris Goodes; special makeup effects designer, Steve Boyle; special effects supervisor, Brian Pearce; visual effects supervisors, Rangi Sutton, Jeff Gaunt; visual effects producer, Flavia Riley; visual effects, the Spierig Brothers, Cutting Edge; stunt coordinator, Mitch Dean; fight choreographer, Marky Lee Campbell; assistant director, Jamie Leslie; casting, Maura Fay Casting, Leigh Pickford.
  • With: Ethan Hawke, Sarah Snook, Noah Taylor.

More From Our Brands

How did bruno mars beat celebrity booze burnout by opening a destination rum bar, the rock’s new men’s skin care line aims to keep your tattoos looking fresh, phoenix lands nba all-star game as ishbia’s suns revamp proceeds, the best mattress protectors, according to sleep experts, the traitors finale recap: did kate come out on top or did the faithful secure the cash, verify it's you, please log in.

Quantcast

The Ending Of Predestination Explained

John looks concerned in close-up

What could be one of the most under-appreciated science fiction movies of the 2010s — mostly because it went largely unseen at the time — the time travel drama "Predestination" has one of the most complex stories in the genre. Starring Ethan Hawke ( "Moon Knight" ) and Sarah Snook ( "Steve Jobs" ), it tells the story of a time traveling investigator on the hunt for a deadly bomber who has been terrorizing the past. But while tracking him down, the agent meets a mysterious stranger, a man who tells him his astonishing life story, which hits far closer to home than anyone could expect.

By the end of the tale, viewers will either be left with their jaws on the floor in sheer disbelief, or scratching their heads in confusion. The film's narrative weaves through different time periods, with multiple characters at different parts of their lives. It also explores meaningful themes that might not be so readily apparent on a first watch, but if understood could leave you with something more to ponder than a mere sci-fi romp. 

If you're one of those who was left a little confused, we're here to clear things up. We'll explain the plot, run through the story's convoluted timeline, and examine the many themes and messages the filmmakers explore. Or even if you ever just wondered how deep the rabbit hole goes in this underrated sci-fi gem, then keep reading — this is the ending of "Predestination" explained.

Note: The following article includes frank discussion of child abuse and violence against queer, transgender, and intersex persons.

An adventure through time

In the film's opening we meet two shadowy figures — one a deranged bomber, the other his time-traveling pursuer. In a violent confrontation, the time cop's body is mutilated by flames, and when he's returned to his own time, surgeons warn him that his face will never be the same. With that, we meet Ethan Hawke's  character, who we will call The Bartender. Because after he heals, we meet him next tending bar in 1970s New York, where he has time traveled in search of the notorious Fizzle Bomber. There he meets a young writer of women's confessional stories, who we will call by their pen name, The Unmarried Mother.

The Unmarried Mother tells The Bartender their life story, beginning with their birth as Jane, left as a baby on the steps of an orphanage. A brilliant mind, Jane was always an outcast, enduring hardships all throughout youth. As an adult, Jane was recruited by a government stooge named Robertson to join an elite space program. But after being disqualified, Jane falls in love with a mysterious man who vanishes, leaving Jane pregnant with their child. 

After giving birth, doctors made the discovery that Jane was actually intersex, and forced a gender reassignment surgery without consent. Jane now lives as The Unmarried Mother we met in the bar. But to make matters worse, the baby was abducted shortly after birth, and Jane blames their mysterious former lover for destroying their life.

The Unmarried Mother's revenge

With the background out of the way, let's begin to unfurl the confusing conclusion. After hearing The Unmarried Mother's remarkable life story, The Bartender makes an offer: he knows the man who ruined Janes life, and can offer the chance for revenge. The Bartender reveals that he's a time traveling agent who has tracked The Fizzle Bomber to a point in the past, and he believes that this villain is the same man from The Unmarried Mother's story. Handing The Unmarried Mother a gun, The Bartender uses what appears to be an old violin case to travel back in time to the 1960s, where he claims they will find The Fizzle Bomber and stop his rampage, and The Unmarried Mother can get payback at the same time.

But while standing in a college courtyard waiting for The Fizzle Bomber, The Unmarried Mother is confronted by their younger self, Jane. It's then that they — and we — realize that The Unmarried Mother is the actually mysterious man who Jane fell in love with. Some of the dominoes begin to fall now as we understand the shocking truth: that Jane is their own husband and lover. The two fall in love all over again, with the older Unmarried Mother leaving their younger self pregnant.

But does this mean that The Unmarried Mother is also The Fizzle Bomber, as The Bartender suggested? Just wait, because it gets even more confusing than that.

The Truth Revealed

While The Unmarried Mother is off meeting their younger self Jane, The Bartender travels back again, this time to 1964, where he dons a coat and hat and goes to a local hospital where it just so happens that the younger Jane is giving birth. The Bartender was the man responsible for stealing Jane's bab,  and he's about send the little tyke back in time to an orphanage in 1945, meaning that not only is Jane the Unmarried mother, but they're also their own mother and father. But there are still more secrets to be uncovered — The Bartender's time traveling supervisor, a man named Robertson, is the same man who had attempted to recruit Jane in the '60s for a top secret government program.

Robertson then warns The Bartender that the jumps he's been making through time have been illegal, and could lead to serious psychosis. The Bartender, though, seems to be well aware, and he's recruiting Jane — now The Unmarried Mother — to be his replacement. But the next twist comes when Robertson reveals the truth that The Bartender already knows: he too is Jane, a future version of The Unmarried Mother.

Robertson says this is why the Bartender has always made a good agent: he's a man with no past and no future, his existence a predestination paradox. It's even hinted that Robertson himself may have somehow engineered his creation. But what about the bomber? Well, there's one more piece to this colorful jigsaw puzzle.

The Timeline Explained

The timeline of "Predestination" is more than just a straight line or even a loop — it's a pretzel of mind-bending illusiveness, and you'll have to pay careful attention to keep it straight.

Jane is born in 1964, kidnapped by The Bartender as a newborn and taken back in time and delivered to an orphanage in 1945. There, baby Jane endures a troubled childhood as an outcast and pariah, eventually attempting to enlist in an elite government space program. After being disqualified, Jane meets a mysterious man and gets pregnant. After the birth, doctors forcibly transition Jane's sex, and Jane takes the new name John, becoming a writer with the alias of The Unmarried Mother. Years later, John meets The Bartender, who sends John back in time to 1963, where John and Jane fall in love and conceive a child.

After abandoning Jane, John then becomes a time travel agent, and is eventually burned in a confrontation with the bomber. John goes on to become The Bartender and meet The Unmarried Mother, whom The Bartender sends back in time to 1963. John the Bartender then steals his own baby and delivers it to 1945 to be raised in the orphanage. But when all is said and done, John the Bartender finally finds The Fizzle Bomber, and discovers the final piece to the puzzle: he is also The Fizzle Bomber, driven mad by time travel psychosis.

But the mere timeline doesn't begin to describe just what "Predestination" is really all about.

It's about letting go of the past

It's easy to think that a science fiction movie like "Predestination" would use time travel as little more than a device to shock the audience with clever twists and stunning revelations in a fast-paced, dramatic adventure like "Back to the Future" or "The Terminator." But directors Peter Spierig and Michael Spierig have done more than just craft an entertaining story — they've used sci-fi tropes to explore some serious themes. Jane's story, from troubled childhood to life as a time-traveling detective, examines how the past shapes who we are.

A central theme of the film, letting go of the past and moving beyond regret, can be seen throughout. Though the repeated mentions of inevitability can be seen as clever winks at the time travel paradox, they can also be seen through another lens: that the past is immutable, and to grow we must accept what cannot be changed and move beyond it. This is echoed in the final scenes, when John the Bartender confronts his future self, The Fizzle Bomber. The bomber tells him that in his past, when he was The Bartender, he killed his older self the bomber, which is what led him to become a villain in the first place. Thus, the only way grow into something different – and stop the bomber — is to change the future, and let him live. If he can move beyond his regret, he can change his future.

A treatise on trauma & the cycle of abuse

Moving on from the past is linked to another theme that can be found in the Spierig Brothers' time-hopping adventure "Predestination" — the cycle of trauma that persists in the abused. While outside of science fiction in our very real world, experts in the fields of trauma have spent decades observing the cycles present, where those who suffer in childhood often manifest violent tendencies themselves as adults (via MEL Magazine ). Continuing the patterns of trauma and abuse by inflicting it on others, some are seemingly powerless to escape the cycle of violence.

"Predestination" uses science fiction to take this cycle to its furthest and most literal extreme. In the film the young, troubled Jane suffers abuse in youth that in some ways they're directly responsible for, in that their future self delivers them to an orphanage as a baby, knowing a traumatic childhood awaits. Jane's life is a repeating cycle of trauma from beginning to new beginning, never ending, like a snake eating its own tale. That final scene, in which The Bartender confronts his future self The Fizzle Bomber, once again reinforces this theme as well, as he finds himself unable to end the cycle of trauma, instead beginning a new loop.

If you or someone you know may be the victim of child abuse, please contact the Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline at 1-800-4-A-Child (1-800-422-4453) or contact their live chat services .

It's all about identity

At the heart of "Predestination" are questions that many ponder throughout their lives: "Who am I, and why am I here?" For Jane (and the many different versions of Jane we meet throughout the film), the question is a bit more literal. All Jane's youth, they struggled to understand who they were, feeling out of place amongst other girls, unable to accept the reality that they may not be definable by the masculine and feminine stereotypes of the era. In fact, in a key scene when Jane is being interviewed for recruitment by a government agency, they reveal what sits at the heart of this struggle for identity. "I feel like there's something out of balance," Jane says. "Like I'm living in somebody else's body." 

For Jane, it will take a pregnancy and a forced medical procedure before they understand the scientific and medical reasons for their own uniqueness, but decades more to understand their own identity within. Jane will struggle through three different lives — as Jane, as The Unmarried Mother, and as The Bartender — before they truly grasp the nature of their own identity. Rather deftly, the film once again uses science fiction and the paradox of time travel to take the question of the self further than a more grounded film might be able to.

The meaning of choice and the paradox of destiny

Beyond the themes of trauma and letting go, "Predestination" examines a classic philosophical question of whether choice and free will are but an illusion. More than once throughout the film, the subject of inevitability is brought up, and whether some things, some events, are simply unavoidable — destined, even — and impossible to change. For our protagonist, the answer is a fairly straightforward "no," as they remain unable to alter their own past, present, or future.

It's not for lack of trying, either, as at different points — as John the Unmarried Mother confronting younger self Jane for example — our protagonist contemplates, and even tries (to some degree) to change what they know has already happened. But no matter how much they might want to take control of their own fate, they cannot. As The Bartender later in life, it seems that John has become resigned to fate, having long accepted that the past is now a part of who he is, and to simply let thing play out as they will, which seemingly gives him a form of inner peace. 

In the end, though, John is confronted with one final choice to make a new future, and yet try as he might, and as compelled as he is, he does it all over again. In "Predestination," the message is clear: Some things truly are inevitable.

Why Predestination resonates with the LGBTQ community

Rare for its use of an intersex protagonist, "Predestination" has been seen by some in the LGBTQ community as an important moment for its representation of queer and trans people. The character of Jane has been seen by some — such as LGBTQ site Towleroad — as a powerful embodiment of queer identity, played with aplomb by versatile actor Sarah Snook. A woman of agency and strength, Jane stands up to both her peers and elders who see her as too different to fit in.

In a time before "Orange is the New Black" and "Sense8" had presented their own trans characters, "Predestination" was a film that presented a trans and intersex character who went through a gender transition in the film. Some have noted that the film is noteworthy for its realistic depiction of how society views and treats intersex individuals, in particular the violence done to them through hetero- and cis-normative medical practitioners. As such, "Predestination" was given high marks by some for its representation and frank depiction of such a character. 

That said, there were others in the community who weren't so easy on the film after a deeper dive into its characters and themes.

For some, it's not enough

While representation in media is surely important, it's just the start. Ultimately, it is not enough for characters of marginalized identities to simply exist, but for trans and intersex people to be portrayed with more nuance, and their issues explored fully. For some in the LGBTQ community, such as Australian film critic Hannah Schenkel, "Predestination" is seen as damaging to some degree. As discussed in her in-depth analysis , Schenkel notes its representation is undone by its on-screen portrayal and examination of trans, queer, and intersex issues — or in some cases, lack thereof. 

According to Schenkel, the film only serves to underscore how movies and television often confuse sex and gender and muddle the transgender experience. In fact, some have suggested that the character of Jane may not even be an example of a transgender person because her medical transition was enacted by force and violence, taking her agency from her, rather than by her own choice and desire. As Schenkel states, "If sex and gender transitions were as fictional as time travel, [the film] would have been an amazing story, but trans and intersex people really exist and are highly stigmatized." 

In the end, Schenkel pulled no punches when analyzing "Predestination," heavily criticizing the film for the way it often portrays Jane "as an inhuman, impossible and even monstrous being, morally ambiguous and sexually deviant." Of course, at the end of the day, every viewer's assessment of the issues explored in the film will be different, and can only truly be judged against truth of their own experience.

How Predestination differs from the original story

Based on a story by acclaimed science fiction author Robert Heinlein (author of "Starship Troopers" ), fans of "Predestination" might be surprised to learn the original is only about a dozen pages long. Titled "All You Zombies," the film adaptation has a couple of notable differences, but is otherwise a fairly faithful translation. 

Told via series of communiques or journal entries, the story tells only a dry description of The Bartender's conversation with The Unmarried Mother, who reveals their life story, before The Bartender sets out to complete the complicated time loop in a series of winding trips through the past. Most interesting, however, is that one prominent element is missing from the original, as there's no mention of The Fizzle Bomber. In fact, there's only a brief note about a "Fizzle War" that took place in another time. But in the original, there is no impending danger or villain at all — just The Bartender closing the loop of his life.

Likewise, the story is fairly one-note, with little emotion or drama, a simple telling of sequential events to get the reader to the shocking reveal that The Unmarried Mother, the mysterious lover, and The Bartender are all the same person. Though it may not have expanded much on the plot, "Predestination" takes a simple time travel paradox and turns it into a powerful story of identity and trauma.

We earn a commission for products purchased through some links in this article.

Predestination explained: Who is the Fizzle Bomber?

Get ready for some time-travelling madness...

preview for Predestination trailer

Since its release in 2014, the time-travel drama Predestination has earned a reputation for being one of the most head-scratching science fiction movies of recent years.

On the surface, the movie is about a special investigator (Ethan Hawke) who can travel back and forth through time to catch criminals, and his current case (and the last one before he retires) is to find a deadly bomber who has been killing people at different times in the past.

However, the story becomes much more than that when the investigator, working undercover in a bar, meets a mysterious man and hears his jaw-dropping life story – a tale that turns out to have ramifications for both of them.

And if you're still puzzling as the end credits roll, read on as we unravel the mysteries of Predestination – though, be warned, that means major spoilers lie ahead.

sarah snook, predestination

Predestination ending explained: Why is Jane's life story so important?

To understand the twists and turns of the time travel plot in Predestination , we need to go back to the beginning (except, of course, it isn't actually the beginning – but we'll get to that later).

The movie opens with a confrontation between the Fizzle Bomber and the time-travelling investigator, which ends with the investigator being engulfed by flames. He manages to return to his own time, where surgeons save him but warn him his face will be very different (and when the bandages are removed, he looks like Ethan Hawke).

We next meet him working in a bar – to avoid confusion, it's probably easiest to call him the Bartender – in 1970 New York, where the Fizzle Bomber is due to strike. Into the bar walks a man who promises to tell the Bartender a story that will amaze him.

The stranger reveals that he is a writer of confessional stories for a women's magazine who writes under the name The Unmarried Mother. He then tells the Bartender his life story – beginning with the revelation that he was assigned female at birth and named Jane at the orphanage where they were raised.

Jane (Sarah Snook) reveals she never fit in with the other children when she was growing up, and as an adult, she was selected to be part of a special space programme. However, after she was disqualified on medical grounds, she fell in love with a man who later vanished, leaving her pregnant with his baby.

space corps, predestination

To add to Jane's trauma, after she gives birth her baby is snatched from the hospital by a stranger, never to be seen again.

It is after the birth that Jane learns the medical reason she was disqualified from the space programme – she is intersex, and the hospital doctors force her to have gender reassignment surgery to make her male. Understandably, Jane blames her disappearing lover for all that has happened.

So far, so clear cut, but here is where it all gets confusing and very surprising. After hearing Jane's story – and learning Jane now goes by the name of John – the Bartender reveals he is a time traveller, and that he can help John get revenge on the man responsible. He believes that Jane's former lover is the man he has been tracking – The Fizzle Bomber – so gives John a gun and uses his time machine (it appears to be a violin case) to transport them back in time to the moment that Jane first met her lover.

Waiting for their former lover/the possible bomber, John instead meets their younger self, Jane, and it finally becomes clear that John is actually the man that Jane fell in love with.

Now stay with us here – that means that Jane is effectively their own lover as John is just a future version of Jane. The romance plays out all over again, with The Bartender watching, John eventually leaving their younger self, Jane, pregnant with their child.

But is John/Jane the Fizzle Bomber?

ethan hawke, predestination

Predestination ending explained: Who is the Fizzle Bomber?

That's the main story explained, but we still don't know the identity of the bomber. While John and Jane have their relationship, The Bartender does a bit more time-travelling, even though his boss, Mr Robertson (Noah Taylor) advises him that too many jumps can lead to dementia and psychosis.

The Bartender's journeys make the story even more complex – it turns out he is the stranger in 1964 who steals Jane's baby from the hospital… and delivers it to the orphanage in 1945. So that means Jane/John is their own mother and father.

Robertson has an important part to play in all this too – as well as delivering a warning that the Bartender's brain may be going as loopy as the plot, he is also the man who initially recruited Jane for the space programme in the 1960s, indicating that he may be the only one in all of this who knows what the hell is going on.

While the Bartender wants to recruit John as his time-travel replacement, Robertson has another revelation to drop on us – yes, the Bartender is the future version of John/Jane, following that fiery opening scene in which his face was changed (see, we told you we'd get back to that).

It all makes sense – sort of – the Bartender is the perfect time-travelling cop, as he genuinely has no future or past and is in one giant twisty time loop. So Jane is John and their baby is also Jane/John, and after John leaves Jane he becomes a time travel agent, tries to stop the bomber, and then turns into the Bartender we later meet.

Oh, and one other thing – in the future, John/Jane/The Bartender is the Fizzle Bomber too!

You see, when Robertson mentioned that too much time travel makes your brain go fluffy, that should have been a big red flag as to what was to come – driven bonkers by all this back and forth, the Bartender has become a bomber in the future. And when the Bartender finally confronts his older, mad self, the Fizzle Bomber reveals to him that "if you shoot me, you become me".

The Bartender ignores this and shoots him, setting the whole story in motion again.

sarah snook, predestination

Predestination explained: What does it all mean?

To understand the movie, and all the twists and time-travel turns, it helps to remember what it is all meant to be about.

The major theme of the film is about how our experiences make us who we are, and how letting go of the past and accepting what we cannot change is one way of moving beyond it.

For example, if the Bartender had listened to his older Fizzle Bomber self and not shot him, the future would be changed and the Bomber – having not committed the murder – would not go on to start his deadly campaign.

Of course, the movie also features other themes including identity, who we are and how people see us, and how choice and deciding our own fates is so important.

Writer/directors Peter and Michael Spierig have spoken about what they wanted people to think about while watching the movie.

"The film's called Predestination so that gives you some idea of what's going on there," said Peter (via Collider ). "But are the events in the film always going to occur that way? Are they meant to occur that way? That's up to the audience to decide. But having said that, I personally think, even if we had choice, how could you ever know?"

"It's definitely a tragedy. We always thought of it as a really tragic love story. That was our intention from the beginning. But you also have to look at the person's life in this film as a person who has accomplished great things at a great cost.

"We talk about purpose in the film quite a bit. What is the purpose of someone's life? It may end up being heartbreaking and tragic; but on the way you do wonderful and extraordinary things at the sacrifice of sanity or love or whatever it is…"

Predestination is available to rent on Prime Video now.

Best Entertainment and Tech Deals

Shop Sky deals across TV, broadband and mobile

Shop Sky deals across TV, broadband and mobile

Shop Google Pixel 7a phones

Shop Google Pixel 7a phones

Coronation Street X Joanie - Gilroy Retro Newton And Ridley Sweatshirt

Coronation Street X Joanie - Gilroy Retro Newton And Ridley Sweatshirt

LEGO Disney and Pixar ‘Up’ House

LEGO Disney and Pixar ‘Up’ House

LEGO 007 Aston Martin DB5 James Bond

LEGO 007 Aston Martin DB5 James Bond

Sign up for Apple TV+

Sign up for Apple TV+

Heartstopper Volume 5

Heartstopper Volume 5

Barbie The Movie doll

Barbie The Movie doll

Sign up for Disney+

Sign up for Disney+

Ted Lasso x Nike: AFC Richmond home kit

Ted Lasso x Nike: AFC Richmond home kit

The Woman in Me by Britney Spears

The Woman in Me by Britney Spears

Jojo: Finally Home by Johannes Radebe

Jojo: Finally Home by Johannes Radebe

The Witcher wolf pendant

The Witcher wolf pendant

Barbenheimer - Barbie v Oppenheimer T-shirt

Barbenheimer - Barbie v Oppenheimer T-shirt

Barbenheimer T-shirt

Barbenheimer T-shirt

Best PS5 deals - where to buy PS5 today?

Best PS5 deals - where to buy PS5 today?

Anker PowerCore Essential 20,000 PD Power Bank

Anker PowerCore Essential 20,000 PD Power Bank

Headshot of Jo Berry

Freelance film & TV writer, Digital Spy Critic and writer Jo Berry has been writing about TV and movies since she began her career at Time Out aged 18. A regular on BBC Radio, Jo has written for titles including Empire, Maxim, Radio Times , OK! , The Guardian and Grazia , is the author of books including Chick Flicks and The Parents’ Guide to Kids’ Movies . 

She is also the editor of website Movies4Kids . In her career, Jo has interviewed well-known names including Beyonce, Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, Kiefer Sutherland, Tom Cruise and all the Avengers, spent many an hour crushed in the press areas of award show red carpets. Jo is also a self-proclaimed expert on Outlander and Brassic , and completely agrees that Die Hard is a Christmas movie .

.css-15yqwdi:before{top:0;width:100%;height:0.25rem;content:'';position:absolute;background-image:linear-gradient(to right,#51B3E0,#51B3E0 2.5rem,#E5ADAE 2.5rem,#E5ADAE 5rem,#E5E54F 5rem,#E5E54F 7.5rem,black 7.5rem,black);} Digital Spy Features

millie bobby brown, damsel

Netflix's Damsel review

vinland saga season 2

Vinland Saga season 3: Everything you need to know

felix rodwell, nell rebecchi, toadie rebecchi, neighbours

9 huge Neighbours spoilers for next week

kaya scodelario as susie glass, the gentlemen

The Gentlemen is the best Guy Ritchie in years

margot robbie, ryan gosling, barbie

Is Barbie available to stream?

josh brolin, dune part two

Does Dune 2 have a post-credit scene?

emma stone, poor things

Poor Things' ending is positively triumphant

oscars statuette on red cushion

Who actually votes for the Oscars?

emma stone, mark ruffalo, poor things

Is Poor Things available to stream?

Frozen

The best shows and movies Disney+ UK has to offer

zac efron, john cena, ricky stanicky

How to watch Zac Efron new movie for free

Advertisement

Supported by

Movie Review

When Traveling Through Time, Pack a Change of Identities

  • Share full article

ethan hawke movie time travel

By Manohla Dargis

  • Jan. 8, 2015

Jumping across time and space is tough, thankless business in “Predestination,” a slab of science-fiction speculation draped in old-fashioned detective story crepe. The story centers on a temporal agent, a futuristic enforcer (he tries to right wrongs before they happen) nicely played by Ethan Hawke with a hungry, hangdog look that suggests that his character has spent long nights howling in the wasteland, often without either a scrap or a prayer. Whether slinking through 1985 or another vintage year (usually while chasing down a bomber), the temporal agent looks like a classic lone wolf.

He is and isn’t, as the story’s multiple twists gradually, if not altogether too clearly, reveal. The movie opens with a misterioso figure whose face is obscured by a fedora and some clever camera angles and editing. There’s a boom, a mess of melting flesh and, shortly thereafter, the temporal agent is in bed with his face wrapped in bandages, much like Humphrey Bogart’s in the 1947 noir “Dark Passage.” In that film (based on a David Goodis novel), Bogart’s character, wrongly accused of murder, undergoes plastic surgery to avoid recapture. “Predestination” similarly plays around with enduring topics like fate and imprisonment, metaphysical and otherwise, and pins them on a character forced to change identities. But it also tosses in a whole lot of time travel.

The noir atmospherics seem to have been included largely because the story jumps in and out of 1945, or perhaps because the writer-director brothers Peter and Michael Spierig like tipping their fedoras to film history. Whatever the case, after the bandages come off in one decade, the newly mustachioed temporal agent turns up tending bar in another, pouring shots for a man curiously known only as the Unmarried Mother (Sarah Snook, wearing a sneer and a sack suit). The Unmarried Mother writes confession stories from the women’s angle, one he knows intimately. He has a story to tell, which begins with “When I was a little girl” and leaps across the years and yawning gaps in logic.

The source for all this jumpy action is Robert A. Heinlein ’s “ All You Zombies ,” a mind-and-body-bending short-story classic that he wrote in 1958. From its many temporal and sexual kinks, the story suggests that Mr. Heinlein was looking to dust off H. G. Wells’s time-travel machinations with some 1950s-style transgender sizzle borrowed from one of the tale’s touchstones, Christine Jorgensen . This is a story that doesn’t just swallow its tail, it eats itself whole, but Mr. Heinlein’s narrative sleights of hand are very much of a piece with his playful take on identity. The Spierigs more or less untangle the proceedings enough so that you grasp how the Unmarried Woman became a he and — over time — the pivot and whatzit. Peter Spierig also wrote the music, though not the stealthily meaningful song “I’m My Own Grandpa.”

Ms. Snook looks remarkably like a Leonardo DiCaprio cousin when duded up, but is more persuasive when dolled up in period dresses with a slash of red lipstick. She smoothly maneuvers through the labyrinthine plot and in and out of his-and-her threads, but the character might have worked better, particularly for the would-be shocker ending, with someone with less natural va-va-voom appeal.

Although he disappears for large stretches, Mr. Hawke serves as both the narrator and the story’s ballast amid all the woo-woo interludes and disruptions, the puzzle piece you hold and worry about even as the scenery changes and identities shift. His temporal agent contains sly multitudes and could easily have become a gimmick, but Mr. Hawke brings enough pathos and soul to his performance that the conceit soon becomes a man — well, for starters.

“Predestination” is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). Science-fiction violence.

Explore More in TV and Movies

Not sure what to watch next we can help..

With the release of “Spaceman,” Adam Sandler’s odd and expensive new Netflix film, a writer takes a look at space movie misfires of the past .

The makers of the low-budget film “Hundreds of Beavers,” a mostly wordless indie comedy, are holding energetic screenings across the United States to sell their movie. The gamble is paying off .

As a young star, Kate Winslet endured Hollywood’s brutal treatment of women. Now she’s putting her resilience and grit  on full display in “ The Regime ,” a dark satirical show  on Max.

What is Mubi? Here’s what to know about one of the lesser-known places to discover great movies that has become a streaming alternative to Netflix, Hulu and others .

The Criterion Collection’s catalog has become so synonymous with cinematic achievement that it has come to function as a kind of film Hall of Fame. Here is how it gained that status .

If you are overwhelmed by the endless options, don’t despair — we put together the best offerings   on Netflix , Max , Disney+ , Amazon Prime  and Hulu  to make choosing your next binge a little easier.

Sign up for our Watching newsletter  to get recommendations on the best films and TV shows to stream and watch, delivered to your inbox.

This Underrated Sci-Fi Movie Has An Amazing Time Travel Twist

The Movie Predestination will break your brain and confuse you for days, which is what everyone wants from a Time Travel Movie

Time travel movies are a pretty popular sub-genre of the sci-fi world. Well-known films include The Terminator (1984), Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure (1989), the Back to the Future franchise, and most recently, Loki and within the MCU universe . One that is rarely brought up in discussion with these films is Michael and Peter Spierig’s 2014 film Predestination . Predestination may not be the best film, but it has a twisting story and one of the more cohesive time travel films out there.

Predestination is based on the 1958 short story “All You Zombies” by science-fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein. The film received mainly positive reviews, with New York Post critic Sara Stewart calling it a “stylish head trip.” The film ultimately garnered 84% on Rotten Tomatoes and was well-liked among audiences. 

RELATED: 10 Must-Try Time Travel Games For Sci-Fi Fans

Although receiving mainly positive reviews, the film didn’t seem to make the lasting impact that other time travel movies had prior. Predestination is extremely underrated and deserves recognition for being a film that makes a topic that is often perplexing much easier to understand. Also differing from other time travel films , Predestination delves into paradoxes that can occur during time traveling, as opposed to ignoring them completely. The film also focuses heavily on character arc and development, and has a beautiful mise-en-scène, with the various eras so perfectly depicted with the use of clothing, production design, and cinematography.

Predestination chronicles the life of a temporal agent (Ethan Hawke) who is sent on hundreds of time travel missions to ensure his career at law enforcement. Temporal agents' jobs involve having to stop horrific crimes before they happen, ultimately saving the lives of millions of people. For his final assignment, the agent must stop a criminal known as the Fizzle Bomber from instigating an attack that will kill thousands of people.

The film opens with Hawke’s character trying to break an explosive set by the Fizzle Bomber in New York. The bomb blows off in his face, burning him terribly. The film then goes to its first of many flashbacks, a scene in which Hawke is working as a New York bartender during the 1970s. On the job, he meets an androgynous man who goes by the name "The Unmarried Mother” (Sarah Snook).

After some small talk, the customer begins to tell Hawke his life story: He was actually born a girl named Jane who grew up in an orphanage, always getting bullied by the other girls. She was recruited to the SpaceCorp as a young woman, a government agency known for bringing women into space to have sex with astronauts. She eventually gets kicked off for an undisclosed medical reason, but one of the people in charge, Mr. Robertson (Noah Taylor), is still intrigued by her. He offers to recruit her for a different type of agency, but this is before Jane meets a man, falls in love, and gets pregnant, which doesn’t allow her to join.

The father of her child ends up mysteriously leaving her, competely vanishing from her life. After she gives birth, it is discovered that Jane is intersex , with internalized male and female sex organs. Complications during the birth forced doctors to remove her female sex organs, making her undergo a gender reassignment surgery , enforcing her into a world as a man named John. Furthermore, John’s life was thrown into another loop when his baby was stolen by a strange man, and since then, John has been living a sad life under the pseudonym "The Unmarried Mother", writing confession columns. Having characters part of the LGBTQ+ community   in this film is also what makes it a unique and intriguing film, being one of the first in this sub-genre to do it.

As John tells his story in a series of flashbacks, the movie always returns back to the scene between Hawke and John at the bar. That, among other elements, is what makes Predestination unique from other time travel films: its use of time. The film goes at a much slower pace compared to other movies of the genre. Many time travel movies are criticized for being extremely fast-paced and hard to follow, which makes an already unfathomable concept more complicated.

Although the plot may seem like a lot to take in, the pace of the film makes it easier for viewers to grasp. Being a little over an hour and a half, almost the entire first hour is the intimate scene between John and the temporal agent (Hawke) at the bar, as John is telling Hawke his life story. Most time travel films would’ve started delving into intense action sequences and the use of special effects, but Predestination doesn’t need to rely on these, as it is already an extremely captivating story and relies more on narrative and character develpment. 

Predestination also stands out due to the factual elements it contains and the lack of plotholes, which time travel movies are so famously known for . After John finishes telling Hawke his story, Hawke offers him the chance to go back in time and alter his past. As John is about to kill the man who impregnated him as Jane, it is shockingly revealed that he is actually the man, meaning he is a temporal agent as well. It is later revealed that Hawke’s character is the mysterious man who stole Jane’s baby. In fact, John, Jane, Hawke, and the baby are all the same person: revealing a predestination paradox.  

Along with the factual scientific elements, the Spierig Brothers and crew took their time to make every time era as factually correct as possible. Costume designer Wendy Cork does an amazing job with her clothing that was devade-specific and the production designer Matthew Putland uses different lighting techniques and colors to depict different decades. The 1960s Space Corp had cool whites and blues in the interior design; Jane's school uniform perfectly depicts the 1960s, with her white and blue uniform and bob cut.

Although Predestination didn’t get the attention it deserved, the knock-out performances from Ethan Hawke and Sarah Snook remain. Hawke was already a well-established actor , with huge roles in films such as the Before Sunset trilogy, Training Day (2001), and Daybreakers (2009), but it was Snook who really cemented her acting abilities in this film. Hawke delivered an amazing performance as a man who appears tough but is actually very lost, and Snook’s pulled off her performance of a tortured soul brilliantly.

MORE: Ryan Reynolds Shares New Look At His Time Travel Film The Adam Project

  • Latest Reviews
  • Behind The Scenes
  • Write For Us
  • Advertise With Us

Hollywood Insider - News Entertainment & Culture

Substance & Meaningful Entertainment

Against gossip & scandal, independent media network, global stories from local perspective, factual culture news, ‘predestination’: a time-travel hidden gem starring sarah snook and ethan hawke.

ethan hawke movie time travel

Jun 10, 2022

Table of Contents

The Hollywood Insider Predestination Review

Photo: ‘Predestination’

Doing the Impossible — in More Ways Than One

You may recall that not too long ago we celebrated the 25th anniversary of ‘ Starship Troopers ’, one of the goofiest (and yet most politically serious) movies of its time. The film was a very loose and irreverent adaptation of the Robert Heinlein novel of the same name, reviving interest in Heinlein a good decade after his death while also having the perverse effect of spawning misconceptions about his work. Despite being a massively important author in science fiction, Heinlein (along with fellow giant Isaac Asimov ) has rarely been translated to the screen — big or small. There was apparently a ‘ Starship Troopers ’ anime produced in the 1980s, and most recently a Japanese movie adaptation of The Door into Summer , but you can easily count the number of Heinlein adaptations on one hand.

Related Video: Full Commentary on ‘Top Gun: Maverick’: Tom Cruise, Val Kilmer, Jennifer Connelly, Miles Teller

Related video: ‘Top Gun: Maverick’ Full Premiere Reactions: Tom Cruise, Val Kilmer, Jennifer Connelly, Miles Teller

Related video: EVOLUTION: Every Tom Cruise Role From 1981 to 2021, All Performances Exceptionally Poignant

Enter ‘ Predestination ’, which stands as not only the strongest of the Heinlein adaptations, but also the most faithful. Written and directed by Michael and Peter Spierig , and based on Heinlein’s 1959 short story “‘—All You Zombies—’” , this is a time-travel movie that takes its subgenre to the logical extreme. The Spierig brothers are known mostly for directing horror movies, and not particularly good ones; while ‘ Daybreakers ’, their 2009 feature, is an interesting (if very flawed) vampire movie, ‘ Winchester ’ and ‘ Jigsaw ’ (the latter an entry in the ‘Saw’ series) were not received well at all. For reasons which elude me, the Spierig brothers managed to transcend themselves, and ditched the worst conventions of the horror genre by making pure science fiction; indeed, ‘Predestination’ remains their only non-horror movie. Sarah Snook stars as the Unmarried Mother, a man who makes money by selling confession pieces, and one night he strikes up a conversation with a bartender at a local bar — the bartender knowing a lot more about the Unmarried Mother’s situation than he lets on.

Related article: A Tribute to Johnny Depp: The Actor and Musician Who Defined Range

Related video: EVOLUTION: Every Johnny Depp Role From 1984 to 2020, All Performances Exceptionally Poignant

Related article: A Tribute to the Hero & President Volodymyr Zelenskyy: Comedian/Actor, Ukraine’s President and Heroic Leader

Unbeknownst to the Unmarried Mother, the bartender is actually a time-traveling secret agent who is out to prevent a series of terrorist attacks before they’re supposed to happen. The man responsible for the attacks, known only as the Fizzle Bomber, is only mentioned offhandedly in Heinlein’s short story, but plays a pivotal role in the film. As it turns out, the bartender, the Unmarried Mother, and the Fizzle Bomber are all entangled together in a sort of temporal tumbleweed — or a snake eating its own tail. Ethan Hawke turns in a sturdy performance as the bartender, proving once again that he’s one of the more consistent actors currently working; however, he pales utterly in comparison to Snook, whose performance is remarkably multifaceted, given how short the movie is.

A Surprisingly Heartfelt Tale of Queerness and Alienation

Sarah Snook has the unenviable task of playing a man, both before and after transition; the Unmarried Mother is a trans man, and a good chunk (I would say a third) of the movie is dedicated to telling his backstory, from his birth to the present. The Unmarried Mother was a foundling, left on an orphanage’s doorstep, presumably by his mother — hence his chosen pen name. Despite feeling uncomfortable in his own body all the time, and despite having no real friends growing up, the Unmarried Mother proves to be quite intelligent — intelligent enough to apply for a position in the then-newfangled space program.

Related video: Full Premiere Reactions ‘Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness’: Benedict Cumberbatch & Team

Related Video: OSCAR-NOMINATED – EXCLUSIVE: ‘Dune’ Full Commentary, Reactions, Making Of – Timothee Chalamet, Zendaya, Oscar Isaac

Related Video: OSCAR-NOMINATED – ‘House of Gucci’ Full Commentary & Behind the Scenes – Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Jared Leto, Al Pacino

However, tragedy strikes when he has a one-night stand with a mysterious gentleman, becoming pregnant, despite the promise he had made to himself to make sure any child he has will have both a mother and a father. The unexpected pregnancy throws a huge wrench into his plans for the space program, but that turns out to be only the first of his problems.

We start with what would be a pretty normal (if sad) tale of regret, a coming-of-age story about a man who was betrayed by both the person he came to love most and by his own body — if not for the time-travel hijinks. The importance of time travel in ‘Predestination’ is hard to articulate without giving away big spoilers, but I will say that if you think you know what the twist is, you’re almost certainly missing part of the picture. While the bartender is the one who kickstarts the plot (no bartender, no temporal agent, no story), it’s the Unmarried Mother who anchors the whole thing and gives it any sort of meaning; buried inside what seems to be a spy thriller is actually a character study, and a particularly tragic one. There aren’t many examples of trans representation in Cinema, and even fewer are convincing and/or sympathetic, but the Unmarried Mother sticks out as an exception. If I take any issue with the Unmarried Mother’s female-to-male transition, it’s that Heinlein and the filmmakers seemed to abide the outdated logic used in Virginia Woolf’s equally queer novel Orlando , wherein a change in sex leads to a change in gender. Nobody’s perfect.

Related article: EVOLUTION: Every Henry Cavill Role From 2001 to 2021, All Performances Exceptionally Poignant

Related article: EVOLUTION: Every Chris Evans Role From 1997 to 2020, All Performances Exceptionally Poignant

Related article: #metoo Revolution: Powerful Questions That Need Answers

Related article: FACT-CHECKED Series: Timothee Chalamet and 32 Facts about The Young Superstar

The fact that Heinlein’s short story happens to be about a trans man while having been published in 1959 is in itself remarkable, and the film doesn’t so much diverge from the source material as add meat to its bones. “‘—All You Zombies—’” is a blistering read at 10 or 11 pages that more focuses on the mechanics of a stable time loop than the inherent queerness of its content, whereas ‘Predestination’ (partly out of necessity, given it’s a feature-length adaptation of such a short story) leans more into the Unmarried Mother’s queerness. The result is a movie about someone who does not feel at home either with his own skin or with the world; the Unmarried Mother has no parents, no friends, and is abandoned by the one man he falls for, only taking refuge in his own past self. I don’t want to give away how exactly the Unmarried Mother is able to relate to himself, but ‘Predestination’ is a contender for the most solipsistic movie ever made — in no small part thanks to Sarah Snook playing essentially two roles for the price of one.

Related article: MUST WATCH – The Hollywood Insider’s CEO Pritan Ambroase’s Love Letter to Black Lives Matter – VIDEO

Subscribe to The Hollywood Insider’s YouTube Channel, by clicking here.

Related article: All Best Actor/Actress Speeches From The Beginning Of Oscars 1929-2019 | Hollywood Insider

Related article: The Hollywood Insider’s CEO Pritan Ambroase: “The Importance of Venice Film Festival as the Protector of Cinema”

Related article: The Masters of Cinema Archives: The Hollywood Insider Pays Tribute to ‘La Vie En Rose’, Exclusive Interview with Director Olivier Dahan

Related article: – Want GUARANTEED SUCCESS? Remove these ten words from your vocabulary| Transform your life INSTANTLY

‘Predestination’ – One of the Best Science Fiction Movies of the 2010s

As much as I love Denis Villeneuve’s rendition of ‘ Dune ’, not to mention more understated sci-fi blockbusters like ‘ Edge of Tomorrow ’, spectacle is a double-edged sword for science fiction; the genre, even at its best, is always associated with fancy special effects. The problem is that science fiction, being such a special genre, and being such a versatile genre, is not about special effects — it’s about ideas . ‘Predestination’ is a humble production, running 97 minutes long, featuring only a few prominent characters, and made on a puny budget of roughly $5 million; the effects are both sparse and unassuming. What makes both ‘Predestination’ and Heinlein’s short story great is that they use time travel to say something about the human condition, with the Unmarried Mother as a stand-in for all mankind. When Hamlet soliloquizes about whether or not he should kill himself, in the wake of his father’s murder, he is asking a universal question about the value of human life, and while ‘Predestination’ is by no means Shakespeare or Shakespearean, it too examines and empathizes with the totality of a single person’s life.

Related article: Why Queen Elizabeth II Is One Of The Greatest Monarchs | Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of United Queendom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland (Video Insight)

Limited Time Offer – FREE Subscription to The Hollywood Insider

Click here to read more on The Hollywood Insider’s vision, values and mission statement here – Media has the responsibility to better our world – The Hollywood Insider fully focuses on substance and meaningful entertainment, against gossip and scandal, by combining entertainment, education, and philanthropy.

Science fiction doesn’t always need to be about explosions and giant spaceships; it can be pretty much about anything, due to the simple fact that it is the ultimate genre. Movies and literature of any other genre, from drama to horror, are obligated to cover only a narrow spectrum of time and space — look at your hands, see how they’re positioned right now, maybe lift your index fingers, and the space between those fingers represents everything a non-science fiction story can cover. Now stretch out your arms, as widely as you can in opposite directions (I hope you have the room for this), and look at the distance between your hands: this is the space that science fiction can cover, and more . You don’t need a lot of money to make a sci-fi movie either; anyone can do it. Heck, if the Spierig brothers can do it with ‘Predestination’, then so can you — as long as you believe in yourself, and you have the imagination for it.

‘Predestination’ is currently available to stream on Tubi .

By Brian Collins

Click here to read The Hollywood Insider’s CEO Pritan Ambroase’s love letter to Cinema, TV and Media . An excerpt from the love letter: The Hollywood Insider’s CEO/editor-in-chief Pritan Ambroase affirms, “ We have the space and time for all your stories, no matter who/what/where you are. Media/Cinema/TV have a responsibility to better the world and The Hollywood Insider will continue to do so. Talent, diversity and authenticity matter in Cinema/TV, media and storytelling. In fact, I reckon that we should announce “talent-diversity-authenticity-storytelling-Cinema-Oscars-Academy-Awards” as synonyms of each other. We show respect to talent and stories regardless of their skin color, race, gender, sexuality, religion, nationality, etc., thus allowing authenticity into this system just by something as simple as accepting and showing respect to the human species’ factual diversity. We become greater just by respecting and appreciating talent in all its shapes, sizes, and forms. Award winners, which includes nominees, must be chosen on the greatness of their talent ALONE.

I am sure I am speaking for a multitude of Cinema lovers all over the world when I speak of the following sentiments that this medium of art has blessed me with. Cinema taught me about our world, at times in English and at times through the beautiful one-inch bar of subtitles. I learned from the stories in the global movies that we are all alike across all borders. Remember that one of the best symbols of many great civilizations and their prosperity has been the art they have left behind. This art can be in the form of paintings, sculptures, architecture, writings, inventions, etc. For our modern society, Cinema happens to be one of them. Cinema is more than just a form of entertainment, it is an integral part of society. I love the world uniting, be it for Cinema, TV. media, art, fashion, sport, etc. Please keep this going full speed. ”

More Interesting Stories From The Hollywood Insider

– Want GUARANTEED SUCCESS? Remove these ten words from your vocabulary| Transform your life INSTANTLY

– A Tribute to Martin Scorsese: A Complete Analysis of the Life and Career of the Man Who Lives and Breathes Cinema 

– Do you know the hidden messages in ‘Call Me By Your Name’? Find out behind the scenes facts in the full commentary and In-depth analysis of the cinematic masterpiece

– A Tribute To The Academy Awards: All Best Actor/Actress Speeches From The Beginning Of Oscars 1929-2019 | From Rami Malek, Leonardo DiCaprio To Denzel Washington, Halle Berry & Beyond | From Olivia Colman, Meryl Streep To Bette Davis & Beyond

– In the 32nd Year Of His Career, Keanu Reeves’ Face Continues To Reign After Launching Movies Earning Over $4.3 Billion In Total – “John Wick”, “Toy Story 4”, “Matrix”, And Many More

Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination, Predestination

Brian Collins

Brian Collins is a cinephile, an avid reader, and a writer at The Hollywood Insider . Brian is a firm believer that great Cinema can come from any genre and from any country. While he has a fine time with dramas that garner attention come awards season, Brian likes to analyze and celebrate genre filmmaking, such as science fiction, fantasy, horror, westerns, etc. With The Hollywood Insider as support, Brian hopes to bring light to genre films, both American and abroad. He is also a contributor to the blog series Young People Read Old SFF .

View all posts

You might also like…

The Hollywood Insider The Last Movie Stars Review

Newsletter Subscription

  • Enter Your Email *
  • Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Related Articles

Website It Up

ethan hawke movie time travel

  • [ November 30, 2022 ] The Night Sky This Month: December 2022 Night Sky
  • [ November 22, 2022 ] James Webb Telescope Turns Its Attention To The Kuiper Belt News & Events
  • [ November 1, 2022 ] The Night Sky This Month: November 2022 Night Sky
  • [ October 4, 2022 ] Are Wormholes Fact or Fiction? General Astronomy
  • [ October 1, 2022 ] The Night Sky This Month: October 2022 Night Sky

Predestination (2014) Explained

November 29, 2014 James Miller Sci-Film Reviews 500

Predestination (2014) Explained

Based upon a 1959 short story titled All You Zombies by sci-fi writer Robert A.Heinlein, Predestination (2014) is a stylish time-travel movie exploring the paradoxical nature of time and time travel. With its intricate chronology of events, this cerebral sci-fi thriller navigates through multiple twists of fate as the story’s tragic key character is gradually revealed to be a self-created entity trapped within a closed loop in time.

This excellent sci-fi thriller stars Ethan Hawke (“the Barkeep”) as a temporal agent who stops crimes before they happen, Sarah Snook (Jane/John) as an androgynous writer known as “The Unmarried Mother, and Noah Taylor as the Temporal Bureau’s mysterious boss Mr Robertson. It was written and directed by the Spierig brothers.

What is the Predestination Paradox in the movie?

The Predestination Paradox alluded to in the movie’s title indicates that any attempt by a time traveler to change events in the past would result in that person playing a role in creating the event they are trying to prevent. In other words, events are predestined to happen the same way over and over again.

One example of a predestination paradox in the movie is John wanting to save Jane from all the heartache caused by her mysterious lover leaving her, but instead falling in love with Jane and becoming the very mysterious stranger he was trying to save her from.

Another example is the Barkeep inadvertently causing the accident which leads to John being burnt and surgeons giving him the new face of the Barkeep. By the surprised look on the Barkeep’s face, he realizes it was he who causes the distraction which delays John from disarming the bomb in time, leading to John burning his face. Ironic, but that’s the concept behind a predestination paradox. However much you try to alter the past, the event has already taken place resulting in your current timeline, and is therefore predestined to happen.

This is all necessary because despite their sadness over the decisions they make, if either Jane/John/Barkeep/Bomber make any decisions other than the ones that they were predestined to make then their very existence would be nullified. In this way, they all depend on one another to make the same choices they make throughout the movie in order to exist, making the character a predestination paradox from beginning to end.

Is there a Bootstrap Paradox in Predestination?

The movie also presents an example of a Bootstrap Paradox , a temporal phenomenon in which a time traveler (person, object or information) is a self-created entity existing within a closed loop in time. In this movie, for example, John is the cause of his own birth and has to travel back in time and have sex with himself (Jane), who then gives birth to a child who subsequently travels back in time and grows up to become them.  The result is a bootstrap paradox that takes the ‘chicken or egg’ causality dilemma to a whole new level.

John’s his own Parents and Granda

As John is the source of his own birth, he is his own father, mother, and grandfather. In fact, John’s very future depends upon him traveling back to 1970 and persuading his 25-year-old self to travel back to 1963 and impregnate his 18-year-old female self (Jane). To complete the loop, he must then drop the 9-month-old child (granddaughter) off in 1945 at the orphanage, where she could grow up to become them.

John is forced to repeat the process over and over again inside an endless loop, or else cease to exist. This temporal loop is symbolized by the Ouroboros mentioned in the movie, an ancient Greek symbol of a snake eating its own tail, signifying infinity and the eternal cycle of birth and death. A brief outline of the dilemma facing Agent Doe can be found on wikipedia, which states:

“ He tells John that he needed John to meet with Jane in order for her to become pregnant and give birth to a child that would eventually grow up to be them and that he deceived John as he had no intention of getting him to kill the Fizzle Bomber. If the temporal agent had not kidnapped the child and transported her back to 1945, or had not set up John and Jane, all of them would not exist. John states that he doesn’t want to leave Jane, but the temporal agent insists it has to be .”

Who is the Fizzle Bomber?

Only after following a lead to the laundrette given to him by Robertson does The Barkeep discover that the elusive Fizzle Bomber was actually an older version of himself all along, driven psychotic and delusional in later life because of the temporal the Barkeep’s continued use of the time machine which failed to deactivate on his retirement to New York City in 1975.

Therefore, Jane, John, the Barkeep, and the Fizzle Bomber all turn out to be the same person caught inside a closed time loop, with the Barkeep becoming the Fizzle Bomber in the 1970’s part of that cycle. This all, of course, is facilitated by the invention of time travel in 1981.

The Fizzle bomber explains that by bombing the people who would have gone on to commit terrorist attacks he was preventing even more people from being killed, regardless of the collateral damage he incurs in the process. In other words, he was using a tragedy to stop countless other tragedies from happening, and it’s worth remembering here that to the Fizzle bomber’s warped way of thinking he is doing good. As an agent, after all, the Barkeep was originally tasked with stopping disasters from occurring by traveling through time.

By subsequently killing the Fizzle Bomber in the Laundromat, the Barkeep ensures he will continue the cycle by becoming him over time, and that his (now the Fizzle Bomber) actions will eventually give John the reason he needs to eventually travel back in time to halt the Fizzle Bomber. Thus, the loop sustains its succession of events and remains unbroken for the cycle to start over again.

Time Agent gets his Face Burnt

In the very first scene of the movie, we see our main character descend upon a New York building in 1970 from 3 different timelines (or different stages along the time loop). We see John from 1992 enter the building before trying to defuse the bomb, we see the Fizzle Bomber try to stop John, and while John manages to contain most of the blast within his field kit, his face is badly burnt. Struggling to survive, the Barkeep arrives on the scene in time to give John his time-travel violin box and return him to 1992 in for treatment and reconstructive surgery where he becomes the Ethan Hawke character. The Fizzle bomber escapes.

Meanwhile, near the end of the movie, we then see that the Barkeep’s presence was due to him making a jump to the same location in one last attempt to stop the Fizzle Bomber. The Barkeep’s decision seems based upon the advice of a recorded message left to him by his future self saying “if you ever want to stop the Fizzle Bomber you will never get another chance”.

The Barkeep then arrives on the scene before John and sees the Fizzle Bomber complete planting his bomb. The two of them then have a fight and the Barkeep is knocked unconscious in another part of the building. In the meantime, John arrives to defuse the bomb and after a shoot out is delayed from sufficiently diffusing the bomb in time, thus leading to his horrific burns. The Barkeep recovers in time to push John his time travel device.

The piece of the bomb John recovers from the scene and hands to Robertson provides information allowing the Barkeep to track the Fizzle Bomber to the laundrette and eventually kill him, thus assuming his part, and so on. Robertson’s decision to hand the Barkeep the information would seem to indicate he is ensuring that all events inside the loop continue to play out exactly as they already happened.

Time Loop vs. Split Timelines

At the movie’s end, we never find out if the time loop continues as a predestination paradox, or whether the Barkeep manages to break the loop and split it into alternative timelines (many worlds theory). In one version the Barkeep is stuck in a temporal causality loop after killing the Fizzle Bomber before succumbing to psychosis and then becoming him; while in another scenario, the paradox unravels and is split into two separate but concurrent timelines, with the Barkeep living the rest of his life out from 1975 on, while John is in 1992 and now moving forward with his life outside of the time loop.

Both theories can be supported. On the one hand, a predestination paradox states that if time travel were possible, it would be impossible to change the past, and any attempt to do so would become the precipitating event for the change we are trying to make. An example of which being a time traveler going back in time to save a friend from being hit by a car, only to discover he is the man driving the car that killed his friend. On the other hand, the “many worlds” theory would say that every time you travel back in time and actually manage to change events, you are only ever managing to create a new alternate timeline.

The Bureau’s Involvement and Mr. Robertson

Head of the Temporal Bureau, Mr. Robertson views Jane/John/Barkeep as a unique and unexpected gift to the world. He is also fully aware of his importance to the Bureau, as having no family ties makes him a perfect under-the-radar agent, while possessing two sets of sexual organs means he can procreate with himself, resulting in a self-sustaining agent with no historical ties.

It was likely Robertson’s intention to create a paradox involving the agent’s origin so as to have a temporal agent capable of operating from both inside and outside the loop at the same time, possibly needed to help the Bureau carry out its mission of preventing disasters from happening. While no further details are given as to how this may work, one imaginative speculation proposed by online poster Not-Now-John, is as follows:

“It seems to me that there is a single timeline that has been edited (perhaps we are seeing the “final” version) and they must be intentionally creating loops. Its the only way to prevent disasters in the future. Think about it, if you go back and kill Hitler, in the new timeline, there is no Hitler, so there’s no reason to go back and kill Hitler [ Let’s Kill Hitler Paradox ]. But if you create a loop where someone has knowledge of the alternate future, they can go back to kill Hitler, while being the only ones aware of the need for this to happen. What better way to do this, than to create someone that only exists within the edited timespace.”

While the Fizzle Bomber may have been an unintended consequence of the paradox, Robertson seems at ease with the situation, stating as he does that “we all learned things from him, he’s made us better at our jobs,”, explaining that the Fizzle Bomber has helped the organization grow.

Interestingly, Robertson even seems to give Barkeep all the encouragement he needs to carry on using his decommissioned time machine after his retirement to New York in 1975, stating how much more he believed the Bureau could accomplish if it had an agent working free from constant bureaucratic controls. Robertson gave this advice despite knowing how affected the agent had become from his numerous time jumps, indicating he most likely needed the Barkeep to become the Fizzle Bomber to continue the loop. As Robertson tells the agent before he is retired:

“You are here to create history and influence what is to come. Understand, you are more than an agent, you are a gift given to the world through a predestination paradox. You are the only one. Free from history, ancestry. You must complete your mission. You must lay your seeds for the future. We’re counting on you.”

How was the Paradox Created?

Predestination (2014) Explained

Even though there may be no explanation as to why such a phenomenon may have spontaneously occurred, just like we may never know what caused the Big Bang, for the sake of this movie we can still allow ourselves to speculate as to possible causes.

While there may be many ways in which the original loop may have been created, one possibility is that in the original timeline Jane was born in 1945, became pregnant by some other man (not John) leading to the operation in which she became a man.Or it may be that surgery became necessary at some stage in her life due to medical problems connected to her having both sets of reproductive organs. Either way, Robertson could have then recruited John for Space Corp, while planning to devise a plan in which he uses John’s “hermaphroditism” to create a predestination paradox in which John travels back in time and impregnates Jane.

The reason for Robertson wanting to create such a paradox is unclear, although he does seem to indicate having an agent freely operating outside of normal time inside a closed time loop represented a vital part of the Bureau’s operation.

“ The By-Laws of Time ” Quotes

“Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.” “If at Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.” “A Stitch in Time Saves Nine Billion.” “A Paradox May Be Paradoctored.” “It Is Earlier When You Think.” “Ancestors Are Just People.” “Even Jove Nods.”

The Timeline of Predestination

1970, John has face burnt whilst trying to stop the ‘Fizzle Bomber’ who manages to escape. The Barkeep appears and helps John activate his portable time machine.

1992 , John travels forward in time to the Temporal Bureau, an organization founded in 1985 after the invention of time travel, and has reconstructive facial surgery. We later find out that the Fizzle Bomber killed 11,000 people in New York in 1975.

1970 , The Barkeep goes back to New York posing as a bartender and seems keen to engage a man calling himself ‘Unmarried Mother’ in conversation. The man explains he was originally a girl called Jane who was left at an orphanage in 1945. In 1963 Jane fell in love with a mystery man, who then disappeared. Jane had a baby who 9 months later was stolen. She then had a sex change operation and became a writer called John.

The Barkeep says he suspects the mystery man was the Fizzle Bomber and offers John the chance to go back to 1963 and kill the man who ruined his life. In return, he insists John must then join the Temporal Bureau. They then travel back to 1963 together.

1963 , John accidentally meets his younger, female self Jane, falls in love, and impregnates her with a child that eventually would grow up to be them. Meanwhile, the Barkeep travels to 1970 to confront the Fizzle Bomber and help badly burnt John. The Barkeep then travels to 1964 and takes Jane’s baby and drops her off at an orphanage in 1945 . The Barkeep then drops John off in 1985 to enlist in the Temporal Bureau.

1975 , The Barkeep then retires to 1975 but he still retains the use of the time machine which fails to deactivate itself. The retired agent soon tracks down the Fizzle Bomber, who actually turns out to be himself in the future. He seems to have become insane from using the non-deactivated time machine too often as he sought to travel in time and avert disasters from occurring. However, his actions actually caused thousands of other untold deaths to happen in the process, and so disgusted with his future self, the Barkeep shoots and kills the Fizzle Bomber, thus ensuring he becomes him.

  • Entertainment

Related Posts

500 comments.

Thank you for this wonderful contribution to the topic. Your ability to explain complex ideas simply is admirable.

Why isn’t the title, “A One Man Show”?

because he is predestined to live his life like this forever to ensure his own survival

It was a joke 🙁

you know you love me for spoiling it for all!!!

The person below who questioned me. Not all opinions are equal dude…. So, you can have youe own opinion, but you can’t have your own facts. The truth is often annoying to those who do not grasp it. Now fuck off.

Harsh? I hate pseudo-know it alls under the age of 25 with no life epxerience. They irk me. Some opinions are facts, In fact, matching the two up is when an opinion becomes a fact.

As I read these explanations from those who try to define the paradox. It seems these explanations are a paradox. In which the movie itself, has given each of us who have written, the same paradox that we are each trying to explain.

it is a paradox because you can not recruit your younger self to join your time travel agency because if you did then you would never make it to the future and come back to recruit your younger self

That is true unless it is defined that you have to remember each time you reach that older age, that on that same day to go back at that specific time in your life and tell yourself. So you establish that the first time that you did time travel. Then each time in your life you must do the same thing. Remember you can not disrupt the past in time travel. So after your first time travel back to the past, the recruitment is just the action of doing so, not an actual recruitment.

They made a mistake, plastic surgery doesn’t change a person’s height. Hawke is taller than John.

thats because john is actually a woman underneath playing john

Now that this movie is on amazon prime there may be a few posts “from the future”. Anyway, I cannot get past the simple fact that even if a sex-changed version of Jane (John) impregnates Jane (and the zygote is viable and not horribly disfigured), there are now two distinct entities. Even Heinlein apparently would like to assume that if a person impregnates themself, they will give birth to themself. That’s obviously nonsense. Even if the genes were exactly the same, they would be a clone, and would not be bound to travel the same path in time.

they would follow the same path if yourself from the future came back in time to try to manipulate you to do things the way your future self would want you to

As far as I know, the original to the original has never been made into a movie, although there have been two audiodramas.

This is odd. “By His Bootstraps”, 1941, could be thought of as the Time-Travel equivalent of Einstein’s Relativity: a look at the central paradox of time-looping that came fully-formed and rationally argued out the mind of Heinlein, to the point that all further time-travel stories were nothing more than elaborations.

The movie is a well-done take on “All you Zombies”. All the core elements are present, the acting is good all round, and it’s a skillful mix of SF, drama, thriller, slasher, pathos, action genres, all of which aspects are good representations of their respective genre. In other words, it’s an A (or A-minus at worst) in all those categories, and altogether.

Claims the biology is impossible is overblown. First, the real situation is that super-secret science is at work, including access to super-secret medical breakthroughs not available to the hoi poloi science world. This is standard sci-fi fare, quite legitimate. Second, hermaphroditism is not a myth. The idea of potentially functioning genitalia could be brought out by advanced surgery and hormones is a trivial accomplishment in science fiction. After all, once you’ve made the jump to time-travel via violin-case portables, everything else pales. May as well diss TT itself. I mean realistically, does anyone think its possible. Or to conventionally invoke a temporal Fermi’s paradox: if time-travel is possible, where are the travelers? They haven’t appeared, so it don’t happen, quod erat demonstrandum.

if you took your younger male self back in time to have sex with an even younger self who is a female and they make a baby together who would that child you give birth to be?

It’s not a closed loop as after being shot he would then be conceived. It appears to be an infinite number of concurrent time segments which are out of phase with each other – thus in the laundrette the two Hawkes are present but in different parts of each of their segment.

I find the main puzzle being why John left Jane for her to go thru hell, just to have everything explained to him by Mr Robertson! Curiosity overcomes true love?

it is a closed loop because the bartender is his own mother his own father his own grandpa after being shot he is not then concieved he was concieved in the 1960’s then kidnapped and taken back to 1945 and dropped off at an orphanage. the two hawks in the laundry mat are the same person one that is younger than the other john left jane to go on to be a time travel agent that was the deal if the bartender let john shoot to kill the fizzle bomber jane had to go through hell to ensure the survival of the bartender because once the bartender killed the fizzle bomber the bartender had ended his own life and to ensure that the bartender would survive killing himself he spent the whole time through out the whole movie making sure the bartender would survive in the end by taking john back in time to screw himself when he was still a woman to make a baby and kidnap that baby of himself and drop it off at an orphanage in 1945 to make sure he survives killing himself the fizzle bomber

I just know one thing.. This one’s a crazy ass film and my wife wanted to kill me after me made her watch it thru..!

But what I don’t get is why the Bartender needed to place Jane’s and John’s daughter (a.k.a herself/himself) back to the orphanage. If he had already appointed the current John to be a part of the mission, why does he have to deliver the baby back if he knew it will restart a new loop?

he takes the baby that is himself back to 1945 to ensure his own survival after he kills himself the fizzle bomber

How did baby jane reach the orphanage at the first place I mean even for a time loop it has to start from somewhere if the baby would not have been dropped at orphanage there will be no jane ,John, fizzle bomber etc.

baby jane was kidnapped by the bartender and taken back in time to 1945 to be dropped off at the orphanage

What might really throw you for a loop is that the whole thing was a story from his book titled, “The Unmarried Mother.” And the whole time, he was a schizo/manic/ delusional guy trying to realize truth by means of thought that is time travel and a predestination paradox. I know this idea is far fetched and really not even relevant to the discussion of understanding the probabilities of the events taking place, but there is some evidence to support this theory. For instance, of one of the last scenes when he was typing on the type writer and kept typing over his name (the author) from “John” to “Jane” to “John Doe” wherein none of these things were real, just pschotic dilusions being written in a book titled “The Unmarried Mother.” And i know that name was only presented as his tag name for his writings in those magazines, but in a separate sense, this whole paradox was just a fabrication of his mind. I mean, at least in this way, we can come back to Earth and see the impossibility of one person (hermaphrodite) having sex with himself, to give birth with himself. Even in science fiction, and in well founded scientific theory, this type of reproduction could never happen, and even if it could biologically that child would look Chunk from the Goonies. Just sayin

your wrong its from a book called all you zombies written by robert a hienlien in the 1950’s

Sure, he was growing deranged, but that derangement was part of the book, as well as the movie. There is nothing in the book that suggests that idea. It was definitely and time-loop story, literally.

I understood almost the whole of the story except the last part. It shows the Bomber is an old Hawke. Having a time machine, he could travel to any point of time without getting old. Unless he has been doing it for decades and it turned out (as the movie director wants it) that he was going to bomb N.Y. at that old age. The movie fails to explain the reason of him bombing N.Y.(unlike other bomnbing events that he explained using the newspaper cutting).

Another loophole is that if the younger Hawke realises he would eventually becomes the bomber in future, wouldn’t he know that he would be eventually killled by himself in N.Y. and why did he choose to travel back in time (when he becomes the bomber at older age) only to be killed and allowing the loop to go on forever (when it’s evident that he didn’t want to be the bomber in the first place)?

As some may suggest, the plausible reason (which doesn’t make sense to me) is that the bomber is trying to convince Hawke not to kill him, likely so to stop the loop. But wasn’t it easier if the bomber just choose not appear there in the first place (because he knew he would die there).

Any taker on this?

you still get old as you live life traveling through time yes old hawke was going to bomb ny city old hawke explains to bartender when the dust settles bartender will understand. because bartender doesnt know that going insane later will change his mind bartender doesnt know that later he goes crazy and craziness makes him think that convinceing the bartender is just a crazy enough idea to try to stop the time loop

While it’s not explained in the movie, two motivations come to mind as to why he opted to show up: He was addled and psychotic and thought he could break the loop by arguing against his death. He had orders to show up and by this time had learned to acquiesce to the judgement of Robertson; perhaps he was told this was the point where the end-point (sub-)loop could or … would be broken by showing up and arguing. Being deranged, he probably wouldn’t have enough sense to see through the reasoning, and able to recall by his own memory Hawke’s determination, anger, and very cogent rationale as well, that the bomber had to be killed.

In other words, because the movie doesn’t employ one of the few theories that would make time travel to the past logically possible (such as parallel universes, etc.), it doesn’t make sense.

A self-sustaining time loop like the one shown in the movie cannot exist.

Not to mention that you can’t procreate yourself. You cannot carry the very sperm inside you that would create you.

it can if your a time traveler like mr robertson said he wants someone who lives outside of history that no one knows about you can procreate your self if your a time traveler

As the reviewer makes clear, the story makes no effort to resolve the paradox. On the contrary, Heinlein apparently wanted to elaborate the ‘impossible’ loop as fully as possible, taking his original (and rather compact but comprehensive) 1941 story By His Bootstraps to the limits, the very title of which short story slyly suggesting itself the impossibility.

“This is all necessary because despite their sadness over the decisions they make, if either Jane/John/Hawke/Fizzle make any decisions other than the ones that they were predestined to make then their very existence would be nullified” Can someone explain to me if john had not left jane how both of them would not exist in their time?Only thing is that the loop would be broken.But only barkeep cares about loop(because his agency wants the loop) So how could the barkeep convince john to leave jane and why john agreed to it?He was happy with her..

because as you seen john wanted to know if the life of a time traveler had meaning and hawk said you will have meaning as a time traveler if he had not left then he would not have tried to stop the fizzle bomber at the begining of the movie you see hawk was ensuring his own survival by doing everything he did through out the whole movie because if you shoot your future self then you will not survive

Great explanation though I didn’t understand two basic logic:

Fizzle bomber recognized Hawk, John recognized Jane, How could not Hawk remember his own past & face as John while pretending as bartender and keep listening john’s story with full curiosity like he’s an unknown person – there was no memory loss mentioned post face burn (I.e from becoming John to Hawk)? b). Why does Hawk thinks mistry man is actually Fizzle bomber? Where it came from?

Nonetheless movie was great.. just a thought.. wouldn’t one be curious to know their own future first while joining a time travel team rather than fixing past??

you have it all wrong hawk went back in time to his younger self john to recruit his younger self to join the time travel agency he recognized him but john did not recognize his future self hawk pretended to not know who john was hawk had no memory loss hawk does not think mystery man is fizzle bomber it came from hawk trying to ensure his own survival after he killed hawks future self the fizzle bomber he wasnt fixing the past he was ensureing his own survival after killing his future self but yeah sure john would like to know his future before joining the time travel agency but if john knows the future then that will mess up hawks plan to ensure his own survival

Ok Kirk, so Bartender recruited John by persuading him to take revenge from the one who sleep with herself (Jane), betrayed & ruined his life right? Don’t you think John would recall & recognise his own face in the mirror that he actually sleep with herself as Jane specially when her entire life she never found love/affection except this one?

yes now to answer the second question john tells the bartender his life story and tells the bartender that he stopped looking at her self in the mirror and that she hated herself then john tells the bartender he has no photos of himself as a young girl and john says he doesnt even remember what he looked like as a young girl he says its more of a feeling now and the bartender says you look better than i do then john says who cares how a bar keep looks and then john says boys want girls with powty lips and golden hair if you watch that seen you will see that john does not remember what he looked like as a young girl then it goes onto a seen were jane is going to join the space academy check it out you will see what i mean

I see. One more question: say, oldie BT appears atleast 10-15 years older than matured Bartender who retired in 1975 just before major 11k NY casualties where he faced & kill himself (oldie). Since both Bartenders couldn’t time travel anymore post retirement (fail-error-fail) since 1975, what was the duration mature BT spend years to become oldie assuming many bombs were exploded in 1970 as well (notice bomber news on TV while young John talk to BT in the bar) besides major incident bound to happen in 1975? Shall we assume a parallel timeline of bomber going on when John tells story to BT in 1970?

older bartender is fizzle bomber fizzle bomber and bartender can still travel through time because the bartenders time travel device said fail to decomission. i dont know how much older the fizzle bomber is compared to bartender. no there is no parralel time line john bartender and fizzle bomber are all three at the same place at the same time when the bomb blows johns face off. when john tells his life story to bartender john the bartender and fizzle bomber are all existing at the same time and same city together

I find it ironic that with all of that time travel the ONLY thing he managed to do was affect his own life! Didnt stop one crime, catch one bad guy! That was what she/he was commissioned for in the first place!

thats were part 2 of this movie will be very interesting to see what happens because at the end he was crazy in love with his younger female self and thats were part 2 will have to start off at

The only way to prevent him self becoming them fizzle bomber was to kill him self in the laundromat and not his older self. Because he killed his older self he can still become the fizzle bomber

or in part 2 maybe not

One of the flaw in logic that hawk and john are same that John/jane started writing articles under name ” Unmarried Mother” when she was working as maid after being his her baby was stolen and also being refused to be recruited in the agency. While hawk started writing after retiring as agent in 1975 after completing the mission.

How can they be same person then? Is that means a new timeline is created and loop is broken ?

thats because every person through out the movie is the same person but all at different stages of his life all dressed up to look like different people

I understood, well I like to think I did, can someone tell me who is the John that enters the bar and then goes to impregnate him/herself. That’s the only thing that didn’t make sense to me.

he starts to write because hes retired now looking for something to do while hes retired. no the john that enters the bar is not a millionaire but why would you ask that?

But the John that enters the bar identifies himself as a writer, with the nickname the “unmarried mother” or something before the face surgery. He tells him his story of how he started to write for women and how those were succesful because he was a woman himself.

well his succesful unmarried mother writings make him enough to make it through life like anyone else but the idea of a man writing as the unmarried mother is just suppose to trip you up because it would be unusual for a man to be writing as the unmarried mother its just suppose to make you think like hey whats going on here thats all. and the older ethan hawk the bar tender is writing again after he retires because hes looking for something to do in his retirement and that scene too is suppose to trip you up too because its suppose to make you think hey is the bartender the older version of john the unmarried mother and yes ethan hawk the bartender is the older version of john the unmarried mother heres the point your missing if you invent time travel and a time travel agency and you go on multiple missions through time your going to have mutiple yous all at the same time travel agency all at the same time so now your going to be talking to your future selves and one of your future selves is going to stray from the mission and try to save people through out past history and become the fizzle bomber but that future self is going to lie to the younger self and say no i have not strayed from the mission so the younger self has to make multiple jumps through time to try to figure out who the fizzle bomber is and stop the fizzle bomber you get it now?

…”and the older ethan hawk the bar tender is writing again after he retires because hes looking for something to do in his retirement” That’s it. that was the key word “again”. No need for the other arguments, but if they help to make the point clear, that’s fine too. Thank you very much.

no the key word was that you realize at that point that ethan hawk bartender is john the unmarried mother

not all successful writers turn into millionaires

Well, I got that impression from him. Point taken.

i figured out predestination if you just think it through you will figure it out he was born with a male and female parents he invents a time travel device in 1981 then opens a time travel agency in 1985 then when he goes on one mission through time say back in time then comes back to the same time and place as the time travel agency in 1985 now you will have two of the same person in 1985 at the time travel agency so now you would be talking to yourself at the time travel agency now after you go on multiple missions through time and come back to the same time and place as the time travel agency is in 1985 now you will have multiple yous all in the same place at the same time now if your at the library looking at history back in 1985 and you see history is showing 25000 people being killed in new york and your from the origonal time line that doesnt show 25000 people being killed in new york then that sends a red flag up in your own mind saying that your future time travel self is now killing 25000 people because you know when you first grew up you didnt hear of 25000 people being killed in 1975 in new york so ethan knew that his future time travel self was no longer following the mission so ethan travels back in time and first creates a baby of himself first then drops it off in a orphanage because ethan knew it was his future self after going on multiple time travel missions that was killing all those people back in 1975 so ethan knew ahead of time that he was going to have to kill his future self but he knew that if he kills his future self to stop the 25000 people from being killed he knew that he would first have to create a baby of himself with his two younger selfs getting together first to create a baby of himself to ensure his own survival after killing his future self

You can argue to the cows come home about the sense that’s been followed by the events, there’s only enough logic there to hang story lines on, The story about him trying to give himself the love he never had and how that lack of love made him the eventual fizzle bomber. All attempts to try and correct that himself, had by the end of the film just failed. So saw the whole film as lots of analogy’s to the relationships involved. Had to be that or a film about the cold logic of this sequence of time travel just wouldn’t be made for a broader audience and hence no decent funding. It was the writer playing with these structures to tell a human story in the end, so wouldn’t lose sleep trying to work out about his idea’s on time travel, they didn’t take it seriously enough themselves in the first place. A good watch though as it’s not too silly a theory and passes if you don’t think about it too much, just suspend belief for this theory and enjoy a GOOD STORY.

he was a time travel agent time travel agents know like police that they could die in the line of duty so as a time travel agent he knows that he could die chasing after the bad guys and so while he chases bad guys he takes advantage of time travel to ensure his own survival if the day ever comes when he dies in the line of duty and so uses time travel to create a baby of himself with his two younger selves and if he dies one day in the line of duty he wont be dead in the end because he created a baby of himself with his two youngers selves ensuring his own survival even if the bad guy in the end is his future self and he kills him and even if he shoots his future self to death he still wont be dead because of the baby he created of himself

it is possible to have more than oneself?

through time travel yes all your different selfs at different stages of the same life can all meet up at the same place and time

why john were sex with jane?

he was a time traveler that was trying to stop the fizzle bomber that was his future self but to save himself after killing himself at the end he had his younger self have sex with an even younger self without knowing it to ensure he survives at the end after killing his future self

why the fizzle bomber wants to kill innocent people?

to save many other people who previously died in past history so the janitor had to die to make sure 3000 other people would survive by blowing up the building to make sure 3000 people didnt show up to work the next day and get killed by those terrorists

why the temporal agent stole the baby and kept it under the doorstep of an orphanage and why temporal agent became the fizzle bomber

he stole the baby to ensure his own survival after killing his future fizzle bomber self. temporal agent became fizzle bomber to save thousands of peoples lives who had died already in past history

i wonder where does sarah hook come from?

she comes from herself

Source at Digestive Pyrotechnics

The story doesn’t work. Period. Under no conception of time travel can a person give birth to their own SELF. Everything else works, even mating with yourself, but not giving birth to your own self. I don’t understand why Hollywood always gets time travel wrong. They’ve never gotten it right, not once. Even though it’s easy as pie.

who told you this ? how can you prove it wrong ? why cant someone give birth to one self ..

Rishi, I’ll try to walk you through this. Hang with me here. If someone’s birth is defined as the first moment in time when they exist, then a person doesn’t exist prior to their own birth. If you don’t exist prior to your own birth, you don’t exist to give birth to yourself and your own birth never happens. Even if you throw time travel into the equation, you can’t travel back in time to give birth to yourself. Why? Because existence is a prerequisite to using time travel. You can’t travel back in time unless you already exist. We can use time travel to come up with all kinds of interesting plot lines, but about the ONLY thing you can’t do is go back in time and give birth to yourself.

I understood your point … but here we are talking about “time travel” .. you cannot restrict time travel to one`s existence … if machine permits – you might travel to ice-age and i can leave you there and come back … coming back to movie .. the birth took place when the mother existed … the child never took birth in past .. she was taken back in time … hence it is one of mind-bending paradoxes … 😉

No, I still disagree on that. I can go back in time and mate with myself. But I still can’t give birth to myself. It’s not a paradox at all. It’s just impossible.

you are not able to prove here … it is just that your brain don`t want to accept it … that it is possible .. 😉

Well, if you think it’s possible, then the burden is on you to go back in time and give birth to yourself. Don’t put the burden of proof on me here. I will concede when I see the birth certificate. Don’t be like Obama and hold back on the birth certificate. (Yep, I just made this political.)

it does work if you want no one knowing your a time traveler but yourself

the bartender could have came from another demension and cloned himself into a boy and then cloned himself into a girl had the cloned self of a boy and the cloned self of a girl make them have sex and now he has a baby girl all with the same dna as himself and then take the cloned self boy while sitting at a bar take him back in time to have him now have sex with the little girl that was born between the two clones and then take that new baby girl back in time to the orphanage

I tend to steer away from the “multiple timelines” theory because it just doesn’t fit with the overall idea of predestination. I think Robertson recruited Jane/John (“We were born into this job”), and created the closed loop in some manner that is not shown in the movie. The purpose of this, as Robertson himself alluded to, is to have someone operate from outside the boundaries of the bureau. Jane/John/Barkeep becomes the Fizzle bomber, and although crazy, he does actually save thousands of lives. So the Fizzle bomber does have a point when he mentions this in the laundromat scene. While not ethical, Robertson is actually using time travel for good.

The mention of how the initial loop began in theory I believe is this. The entire thing began when Robertson told her she would not be chosen to be an agent. When in fact aware of the ability to be an asexual being I believe they made her an “agent” without any consent. Making her predestination begin with the time travelling experiment. The mission was the purpose in which by human nature we need to thrive when really what was being executed was how many sequences of time can we control and not control and if it splits into other dimensions of time space; what loops would occur in that occurance with the subject being JaneJohn? This was the mission the entire time.

I think that the most important question to be answered is why Robertson begins to create such paradox. Robertson seems to know who the Fizzle Bomber is and he is the one who motivates Jane/John/Hawke in each timeline to take decisions that will ensure Jane’s/John’s/Hawke’s existence. So why to ensure the existence of the fizzle bomber in the first place if he want him to be killed? My understanding is that the existence of the ‘fizzle bomber’ was what inspired the agency to develop the program in the first place. They need the fizzle bomber in order to prevent other crimes and save many other lives. Hawke’s REAL mission is not to kill the bomber but to ensure his existence. And he will do that by killing the bomber-self and becoming the fizzle bomber leading to the agency’s existence. Brain-f*cking.

if the fizzel bomber doesnt exist no one will exist

Okay, since I don’t have to worry about spoilers, this seems like a good place to post this. There’s a glaring hole in the plot. When John goes back in time to kill the man who caused his problems, he runs into Jane and they hook up. Okay, so how is it that John doesn’t realize he was the guy who ruined his life before this? He knows what the guy who ruined his life looks like. He’s standing there looking for the guy who ruined his life in the exact spot where he met the guy who ruined his life wearing the same clothes with the same face, and somehow he has no idea he’s the guy? In the months leading up to that day, every time he looked in the mirror he’d see the face of the guy who ruined his life.

Also, Sara Snook is not a convincing man. She’s adorable, just not convincing. When she says, “When I was a little girl,” and we’re all supposed to think, “Holy sh*t, that’s a woman?” It was more like, “Holy sh*t, we were supposed to think that was a guy.”

Other than that, not a bad flick.

How does john release he is the barkeeper? I mean, he tell john something like “and I guess you should now guess who I am”. But how is that she can guess? or she release just after his face became barkeeper’s face?

They both have the same lighter in the bar!

This movie is so weird. I’m still not sure if I liked it or not.

The main question I was confused about you didn’t seem to answer at all.. Or maybe I misunderstood something. When he retires in 1975 and confronts himself.. He says to his older self ” your next attack will kill 11,000 people”. This implies the fizzle bomber didn’t bomb NY yet.. If he kills himself before he got to bomb NY.. than doesn’t that change everything? The whole movie was based on him stopping this one huge attack on ny.. and it seems like he did stop it.. So what does that mean? If he is still part of the loop than does it mean the fizzle bomber wasn’t the one to blow up ny in the first place? Or does it mean the fizzle bomber went back to 1975 using the time machine at some unknown point.. So killing the older version of himself wouldn’t matter because he already did the bombing because he used the time machine.. Or again.. Maybe the organization was doing the bombings and because the fizzle bomber was killed prematurely.. he couldn’t stop the larger attack on NY.. He did say that he saved lives from “terrorists”. ANyone following what I am saying?

Mr.Robertson was kind of G-Man of Half-Life series jumping between dimensions here timeline here.

Yes you can meet yourself in the same time, you just have to meet yourself of the future in your present, which means in the future you will be able to come back to the past and meet yourself in the past. But always the first thing that must happen is that you meet the you from the future.

“How was the paradox created” in order for Roberson to create the paradox on purpose, he had to already know that Ethan would fall in love with female younger self. good movie though.

John is taken from 1970 to 1963. Then, he is taken from 1963 to 1985. Then, he is sent from 1985 to 1964. Then, he takes himself from 1964 to 1992. When the barkeep says “seven years will have passed” in his 1964 recording, is he talking about John’s journey from 1985 to 1992? The reason I ask is that he leaves 1985 in August and travels to 1992 in February, a difference of about 6 and 1/2 months. Inquiring minds want to know!!

Regardless of time travel I don’t see how one could give birth to themselves. If you transport my child back in time that child doesn’t become me.

If you contributed both sets of chromosomes to the child, maybe it would be you. It would be like virtual cloning.

Sorry, but I just don’t understand how retired agent John killing Fizzle Bomber John in the laundromat sets in motion the events that determine the creation of the Fizzle Bomber. Of all events in the film (including John impregnating Jane, and John kidnapping baby Jane from the hospital and delivering her to the orphanage) the killing of the Fizzle Bomber in the laundromat seems to have the loosest link as a predetermining event. Can anyone explain this?

yes i can explain the fizzle bomber says if you shoot me you become me which is dead later in johns life. if you dont shoot me we survive what he means is the ethan hawk born with a male and female parents origonally would survive if john doesnt shoot the fizzle bomber. but if john shoots the fizzle bomber then ethan hawk born with male and female parents dies and the new baby john survives watch this is how predestination part 2 will turn out

Obviously Robertson is also Hawke…. Jane -> John -> Hawke -> Robertson -> Fizzle Bomber

Ok, so I understand the paradox, but what confuses me is that when young Hawke kills old Hawke, its BEFORE the 1975 bomb, but when male Snook gets his face burned off young Hawke is fighting the fizzle Bomber (old Hawke) even though he killed him in the past at the end. Therefore the paradox must be broken because there is no Fizzle Bomber to go set the 1975 bomb, right? Please comment on this.

your right the new baby hawk created gets to survive in predestination part 2

Good analysis! I understand all of this and agree with the paradox but there is one thing that I don’t see being discussed here and I think it’s a key point that could change the analysis.

At some part in the beginning of the movie, when they are introducing the Fizzle Bomber, Hawke says that they can’t catch him cause the attack occurs on May 1974 but “he keeps changing the date”.

That leads to two important conclusions:

1_ Somehow the loop is broken somewhere in the future allowing the Fizzle Bomber to elude Hawke and conclude the attack and producing the cascade of events that follows the attack. It hurts to think how this can happen, imagine a scenario where the attack occurs for example on may 3rd, then Hawke would come back to that date only to find out that the date changed, how is this possible? The predestination paradox says that this is not possible, that the events can’t change and if you go back you would only find out that somehow your visit and interaction was always part of that event. So this refutes the paradox theory. 2_ From what Hawke says I assume that he tried more than once to stop the attack from happening and every time he failed. This would mean that the past keeps changing every time he jumps or that the future self (FizzleB) after each Hawke jump would jump to a different date to do the attack (different on every loop).

So the only option to avoid the attack is to meet himself before Fizzle jumps back to do it and that was what he did on the laundry. That leads to think that that was the end of the loop and that this particular Hawke will not become FizzleB.

Don’t know if all of this make any sense, it’s hard to put on paper. Any thoughts?

yes once he kills himself the new baby hawk is the one that survives

The fizzle bomber says “We are Robertson”

Phew! Thanks for that! 🙂

The truth or nature of the movie is, ironically in such a complex film, a love story that is doomed. Rather than the drive to avert disaster and do good. Pointed dialogue about how Jane wants a “purpose” over love sets the hero arc up as plausible… But later we hear from Hawke how, and I am paraphrazing: “You say you don’t care for love, when it is all you ever think about.” Ethan Hawke reveals the emotional state that will undo him again and again and again. NOT the urge to stop the Fizzle Bomber – that is the desire of the Temporal Agency and even then that is a lie. The Fizzle bomber is their raison d’etre. He cannot love her (literally) and he cannot stop loving her. Ignore all the hard, cold science and look upon it as one who has been heartbroken and not moved on (only a few of you will know this state of mind) or as a writer… He travels to avert his brokenness, not to save lives or anything so noble. The deluded killing to save lives psychosis comes after repeated discovery of being without her every time. The last line is crucial and signposted as such with its dramatic cut to credits, “I miss you dreadfully.” Carefully chosen words for a reason. In the end, he will travel again, because he cannot be without her… himself. And dreadfully is a strong word.

Also, on another matter, I also wonder if the double sexual organs comes about from a person having sex with themself and the genetic mash-up. Rather than the repeated suggestion here that it just happens that she has this condition and therefore would be great for using to create a person with no ancestry / identity. I also believe the film has a plot hole or two… which can happen when a short story if stretched out and exposed so fully. The article glosses over this issue as if the film is watertight. It is not. Unless of course the original narrative has only John, but it cannot as John has come about from Jane… and so on and so forth. The endless plot hole that devours itself, forever and ever. Superb film regardless… keep making films for smart people? There’s enough crap for the masses… and then some.

Why did Hawke steal the baby from Jane?

Because that baby has to grow up to become Jane, so the baby has to travel back in time to 1949 and be left at the orphanage where Jane grew up.

he stole the baby to ensure his survival after hawk kills himself in the end

so the most obvious flaw with this whole movie would be this .. Unless he was a clone .. there would not be a way to replicate himself over and over again because of genetic mutation .. so for every time he was conceived and born the genetics would have to line up perfectly for things to be the same .. otherwise there would be enough genetic drift to make the 4th or 5 iteration of himself to be different

That being said .. the idea that there has to be a reference point (the bomb in 1975) that would enable the jumping back in forth in time.. otherwise chaos theory would negate the ability for time travel …. each time jump backwards would create enough possibilities to change the initial state and thereby negating your own initial existence unless of course you had a frame of reference to base the initial timeline from ..

So with that, the Initial state of the loop, would only have to be that once time travel was established.. Identifying a time in which was so unusually unique from such a unique person, that all you had to do was replicate that condition over again by sending that person back in time to impregnate himself .. so the first iteration of himself already had to have occurred .. and they replicated the process over and over again .. but like I said .. he would have to have been a clone for no genetic mutation to occur (and even then, the process would have to tightly controlled to eliminate any possibility of variance )

but if your your own mother and your your own father and your your own grandpa then no genetic mutation can occur

This is an utterly beguiling film that does exactly what any good time travel tale should do. Which is to make the mind wriggle trying to accommodate the strangeness when our conceptions of cause and effect get messed about.

The decision to set the story in its original 1950’s science fiction world view (women astronauts as concubines for the real heroes, how very Heinlein!) struck me as odd, but then when it became apparent that preventing terrorism was a major plot device I could see why they didn’t want to make it contemporary. Also, the anachronisms help create a sense of an alternate universe and lend weight to the idea that this might be some kind of loop [bubble?] that could be a resource for a time-manipulating organisation. Possibly only one of a number – 1 of 12?

So many possibilities. If they do a sequel I hope they avoid the traps the Matrix ran into. Maybe let a decent science fiction writer loose on the plot.

predestination part 2 will be the baby of himself hawk created surviving in the end

thanks for the explanation. it helps put things in perspective. the 1 thing i didn’t get though was: how can the fizzle bomber, who is an old version of ethan, exist in 1975, if ethan himself was created in 1992 after giving john reconstructive surgery?

Time travel?

his future self time travels too but his future self strayed from the mission

I always liked Heinlein’s provocative work but the movie failed me in one major way. Taking the physics aside I had a real issue with the physical presentation of the Jane/John/Ethan characters on screen. This has nothing to do with the actors; I thought Snook and Ethan were both fine but rather something much more superficial.

First, I never bought Jane becoming John, Snook always looked like a woman even at the bar. In fact the first second I saw her I said to myself that’s a woman pretending to be a man. So right there you have the seeds of disbelief planted within the viewer. Now keep in mind I never read this particular short story and when the director had the grand revelation of Hawke as Jane/John with the visible scars I had a real WTF moment. It had nothing to do with the story but everything to do with my eyes telling me Jane is not a real John and there is no way John could become Ethan over time even with a face transplant. Facially, Ethan has a typical male look and Sarah is a pretty woman, bones don’t change with a simple skin transplant. And never mind the sex change, the body types lack congruity because both actors have average heights and body types for their respective sexes. I know this sounds terribly superficial and this was a low budget movie but I wish the directors had did a better job of suspending my disbelief with the visible presentation of the characters.

As to the time paradox I didn’t get too perturbed about the supposed ramifications. I don’t see how a finite system such as a block universe, postulated as early by Olbers’ paradox and Edgar Allen Poe and to be explained with the Big Bang Theory, can spinoff an infinite, parallel universe with no beginning or end. The universe doesn’t hide the truth from us, we just choose not to see the truth. By the nature of our physicality we’re basically captives of entropy and we can only move forward with time in one direction. As to having sex with your future-self, I just write that off as an advanced masturbation technique.

The rooster part is actually very significant. In the bar, John tells Hawke that he had just found out that he ‘was no longer firing blanks’. Despite this information being fresh in his mind, and knowing that the cause of Jane’s ruined ambitions and the cause of the painful transformation into John, when John goes back to 1963, he still sleeps with Jane causing her pregnancy! Hawke states that ‘no-one is innocent’. Jane was. Hers was just a tragic story. As was John’s. Hawke creates the loop when he takes John back to 1963 and deceives him into meeting Jane (to kill the man who ruined her life). He further perpetuates the loop by taking the baby back to 1945. It is the Temporal Bureau and its agent who cause the problem.

John, Hawke and Fizzle each want to change events to make things better. John wants to stop the stranger ruining Jane’s life. Hawke wants to stop Fizzle and Fizzle wants to convince Hawke not to kill him. Each knows what not to do (don’t sleep with Jane, don’t exceed the safety limit on time jumps, don’t provoke Hawke into shooting) but does it anyway.

the way I see it and something that has not been addressed by this forum (maybe it has and I have not read all posts) is that the agency is keeping Hawke as an internal agent to exist by having him relive his past present and future over and over again while simultaneously using him as an external agent to prevent crime in the future. The fizzle bomber, despite his problems, is really a hero for the agency by having stopped multiple crimes that will come to exist. Hence, the agency keeps Hawke in the loop to use him to stop future crimes which is evidence by the fizzle bomber’s album. Thus there was a real purpose to his existence.

yeah so the time travel agency can learn how to run a time travel agency better

thank you for all the explanation!! great movie!! xoxo João from Brazil!

Ok so hear me out. The rooster could be a foreshadowing reference to a separate party from the chicken and egg (the rooster being Robertson). Robertson could have easily created the loop. Keep in mind the line “[Robertson] is setting up the dominos, we’re just watching them fall” or something like that. He goes back, steals Jane (born from a mom and dad) first from her crib, and carefully impacts her life to get the loop started. Kind of like how you have to very carefully place dominos before starting the reaction.

He also kept Hawkes time machine working and provided him information on the laundromat. Also stating many things like about how Hawkes a gift and how much the Fizzle Bomber has helped. I feel like there are more hints but I can’t list them all. I’m under the impression that Robertson is fully aware of all events and has planned them that way.

Hmmmm… Sigh…. That’s the difference between being smart and being a genius. A genius has a sense of humour. *-)

You can creat an army of yourself (who agrees with your present self) just by ploting it deep into the future and jump back together one more at a time

My problem with the whole thing is this: Sarah gets impregnated by this mystery man who seems to understand her inside and out. The man leaves, and she is stuck thinking about him for over a year while giving birth and having the surgery. She then looks up into the mirror and sees THAT MAN’S FACE!!! but somehow does not recognize it even though it is the biggest thing that has ever happened to her, and she has been dwelling on this mystery guy for over a year!!

How would she not recognize that face??

at the begining of the movie john says i dont have any pictures of my self when i was younger and john says he cant even remember what he looks like when he was younger

Oh…and great entry, by the way, Astronomy Trek!!!!! XD

Here are my two cents…I believe this movie to be very original and captivating in its designed and creation…but the Paradox has a flaw, in my view: I do concur that Mr. Robertson, in the original timeline, (or the powers that be, for that matter), could in fact manipulate John, to go back in time and impregnate her/himself…BUT there is NO reason to believe or postulate that that manipulation would, in any way, develope into a fetus of Him/Herself! The is no causality to hold that fact true, thus, i believe the moment John falls in love with Jane and impregnates her/himself, the actual child to come of that union would be a completely different entity, thus splitting the Paradox timeline into two very distinct ones. There are my thoughts, now, LMK what U think! 🙂

A clone is an exact replica created by removing the genetic material from an egg and implanting it with genetic material from only one parent. So the baby born of Jane (who is John) and John (who is Jane) would also have only one genetic donor.

If a time machine was ever built you couldn’t travel back in time before it was first created. Therefor there couldn’t be a predestination paradox. Fun concept though and very entertaining. I recommend this movie to anyone who liked watching Time Cop and Minority Report.

“If a time machine was ever built you couldn’t travel back in time before it was first created” why is that?

So there are 3 of him at the bombing. The old one with long hair. Ethan Hawke fighting himself with long hair and John who gets his face burned off. And all three of them are time jumpers.

Each jump to continue the loop would create more copies of himself. so conceivably there are a number more of him living normal lives? Or eventually there are dozens of himself at the bombing site all fighting each other?

When Robertson and Hawke are standing outside john/janes “hospital” room. They are two separate people? Further emphasized in the scene when the case malfunctions on Hawke in 1975 there is a shot of John looking at the clock reading 1985. So that John can’t become Hawke because Hawke already exists. When they both end up at the bombing it is Hawke handing himself, (John), the case, plus of course the long haired Hawke (fizzle bomber), is there also.

It seems to me he is creating another version of himself each time he goes back to put John in front of Jane. I guess there could be an incalculable number of John’s in the loop? Or the movie we see is the final version of the loop?

If it’s a loop how does jane/john not know she is talking to her/himself?

“If you kill me, you become me.” What? Why? …because this would be the first act of his intended altruistic crusade? If he didn’t kill him, why wouldn’t he become him, just the same? His brain would still have been affected by all the jumping (he’d be just as “paranoid,” etc.), he’d still know (believe, rather) that future events could be precluded by his actions, and the older, crazier version of himself would simply die–so what? Further, his convenient retirement date of *days before the 11,000 dead bombing* (what a coinkydink…) was *days before the bombing*. If he killed the older version of himself to prevent that action, he wouldn’t “become him.” He’d have headed off the 11,000 dead bombing, and therefore *not* become the man who caused said disaster (until later on…?). Allowing him to live, on the other hand, would have caused him to become him (if you allow 11,000 people to die, you obvious agree with the motive and the perpetrator). Logic, where are you?

Same as why john mate with jane (oneself) which is survival, if there is no fizzle bombing then jane, john, hawke in the movie may not exist. Thus, the fizzle bomber knows that hawke might want to ensure his existence so have to use time machine to make sure history is not changed

Male John (not Hawke John) doesn’t know that he needs to mate with himself to ensure his survival, *at the time of the copulation*. He knows only that he’s in love with the “girl” (who he clearly knows, but somehow discounts, is himself), then mates with her out of love. Not survival. You’re talking about Hawke, not Seducer.

Your second statement doesn’t address what I’ve written–we’re not talking about old Hawke (Fizzle). We’re talking about younger Hawke. No matter what, because he’s kept the time machine (as pointed out by older Hawke), he will become Fizzle, whether older Fizzle lives or dies. This is a logic error that could be remedied by simply removing the line “if you kill me, you become me.” If old Hawke lives, he keeps on committing acts while young Hawke presumably travels around in time, becoming crazier, *becoming older Hawke in the process*. If old Hawke dies, the same is true. It’s “predestined” that Hawke becomes old Hawke, no matter what.

Problem: he knows it’s “himself” he’s falling in love, and mating, with, correct? I hope I’m wrong–this is a logical dealbreaker, for me. Had he not known it was himself, and “accidentally” fallen in love with his earlier female version, then great–but isn’t it obvious that that is not the case?

The answer to why mate with one self is survival. If john does note mate with jane then he thinks he would not exist, remember john has jane as his history, if jane is not pregnant then john would cease to exist.

The problem is that he falls in love with himself. Further, he doesn’t yet know at that point that he needs to mate with her to ensure his own survival.

I have a pretty basic question here.. just because Sarah was a hermaphrodite, why does that mandate that her child would also be a hermaphrodite? there’s no genetic link for hermaphroditism, and the incidence of true hermaphroditism is super rare. So, aside from all the other paradoxes here, I actually think this is where the story line ceases to make sense.

I think you’re missing a point: it’s a cause-effect loop…nothing has an origin, everything is self-sustained and self-caused by necessity, contingency has little role (Robertson). If you ask “why does that mandate that her child would also be a hermaphrodite?”, you are implying there’s some sort of beginning somewhere, or a stochastic event which may or may not lead to the birth of a hermafrodite. Fact is, everything is repeated exactly the same by necessity. The birth of Jane as hermaphrodite is not the primordial cause, because, as I said, it’s a loop. Jane HAS TO be hermaphrodite, because the conditions and the events that lead to her birth are ALWAYS the same, repeated over and over again. In your question you are implying that the development of that foetus would be, each time, a stochastic event governed by probability. But it isn’t. It’s an event which is repeated as all the others within the loop timeline and will lead to the very same results. Each time.

I have a headache.

Can someone explain… How john didnt understand that the older man actualy hehimself ? I mean… He rememberd the way he looked, and now he looks the same(at the begining when he tells his story) . So thats kinda weird…

loved the movie, don’t know if it was discussed above, but I am theorizing that Mr. Robertson is another incarnation of Jane/John. lets say he is two parent Jane/John. Mr. Robertson ask John at one point in the movie how many unauthorized jump he has made to which John replies only 1. This means that all the other jumps by John/Jane made where he seduces himself, leaves himself on the orphanage door step, and recruits himself were all missions assigned to him by Mr. Robertson. The way I see it is Jane/Robertson is raised by a normal set of parents and is also a hermaphrodite. And at some point past 1985 Robertson travels back to the 60’s and starts manipulating Jane’s life. At some point Robertson recruits Jane (at this point John) to go back in time seduce himself and thus the loop starts.The only real evidence of this is when Mr. Robertson quasi praises the fizzle bomber saying that he makes the agents better. I believe this to be Robertson end game. The combination of the same DNA produced a physically superior being. Jane/John was stronger, had more stamina, and was smarter than normal people. I believe that Robertson was trying to produce a super agent by using himself as lab rat. Another factor that leads me to believe this is every time we see Robertson he is roughly the same age.

RE Mary: John Doesn’t Recognize himself

I believe John (unmarried mother) not recognizing himself as the man who seduced Jane can be explained by their presumably short encounter, not looking in the mirror, and memory’s fading over time. Also, John (seducer) would have been several years older than he was in the bar when he impregnated Jane.

RE King James: John/Jane/Mr. Robertson

Great thought there, King James. Mr.Robertson is so suspicious a character in Predestination that it would have been nice if more light could have been thrown on his role in the whole story. I enjoyed your speculation that Mr. Robertson could be another incarnation of the Jane/John character, and agree it’s entirely possible. After all, in the Laundromat at the end of the film The Fizzle Bomber does say:

“We are all puppets. We are Robertson. He is setting this all up. He is playing us for fools and laying us out like dominoes and watching us fall.”

Sure, but this doesn’t explain why pre-Hawke John suddenly can’t remember his former female self upon travelling back in time and making contact with her. He recounted his entire childhood in the bar, moments earlier–surely, he has some inkling of what he looked and acted like as a female (not to mention the fact that she is exactly where he was when he met his male lover). I mean, aren’t we supposed to believe that he doesn’t know who she is, and “accidentally” falls in love with *what he doesn’t know to be* his former self? If not, I’d say the film (and story) is pretty sick–falling in love with what you know to be yourself, sure, but copulating with yourself? Literally? 🙂

John DID recognize Jane as himself, whereas Jane DID NOT recognize John as it was their first encounter. Several years later, after Jane becomes John he does not recognize himself as the man who seduced Jane because of the reasons mentioned. i.e. brief encounter, aversion to mirrors, memory fading, and John (seducer) having been quite a few years older than he was in the bar when he met Jane for first time. Hope that helped..

When he’s talking to Hawke in the bar, he hasn’t yet seduced anyone. In Seducer’s timeline, those events haven’t happened yet. When he soon thereafter (not years–moments) travels back in time to (for reasons unknown and implausible, unless he’s a pure sadist) commit murder, he bumps into his former female self, *who he immediately recognizes to be his former female self*, right (“you’re more beautiful than I’d ever imagined you’d be,” or something to that effect…)? He then proceeds to fall in love with and copulate with himself, *knowing that it is his former female self*.

This kills the movie, for me, given how perverse (and convenient) it is–I mean, if you went back in time and met your female self, would you fall in love and copulate with her, knowing that it’s you? I didn’t think so. 🙂 (The intent, I believe, is simply to display the most perverse form of masturbation imaginable.) Anyway, he later claims to have been “set up,” but he wasn’t–this is a plot error. He knew what he was doing and who he was doing it with. There’s no logical explanation that would account for him not knowing who he was mating with, given that the events occurred mere moments after recounting his entire female life in the bar (he may not recall that he’s the man who impregnated his female self–not likely, but OK…fine…but he remembers what he looked like as a female, does he not?).

Great film, minus this one gaping plot error.

I do See a causality failure!?

How is it possible, that Jane is pregnant with herself, there can be same persons from different timelines at one Palace, but not the same person growing up in its own elder versions stomach, not the same Person in one timeline? The baby must be an other Person, cause its grow up from the womans egg to a whole New human, while Jane is the whole time with that baby!?

How Was The Paradox Created you ask?

“As far as Predestination is concerned, we do not see the original timeline which actually started the causality loop”

… because there is no original timeline. This IS the timeline. The loop always existed.

“While there may be many ways in which the original loop may have been created, one possibility is that in the original timeline Jane was born in 1945, became pregnant by some other man”

… No, because Jane/John cannot exist unless Jane and John exist to create Jane/John.

Other than that, your analysis was terrific.

Hi Tim, thanks for your comments and I’m glad you enjoyed the analysis. Without a doubt one aspect of the film which seem to have attracted the most attention is whether the time loop was created or whether it always existed. Just like the universe may have had an origin (Big Bang theory), or might simply have always existed in a state of “quantum potential” with no obvious beginning, similarly the time loop in Predestination needs no initial cause as inside the temporal loop both cause and effect precede and follow each other in a continous circle. As I mentioned in the article,

“Even though there may be no explanation as to why such a phenomena may have spontaneously occurred, just like we may never know what caused the Big Bang, for the sake of this movie we can still allow ourselves to speculate as to possible causes.”

In conclusion, just as physicists currently lack parameters in their model of the universe to fully comprehend how its initialization phase occurred or whether it always existed, so too are fans of Predestination divided as to how the phenomenon was created or whether it always existed. Like most paradoxes in fictitious time travel tales, however, its safe to say that they are usually initialized by the author of the story 🙂

What I don’t understand is if the concept behind the movie is that history cannot be altered and it is doomed to repeat itself than why does the fizzle bomber have newspaper clippings of events that he prevented therefore changing history. There was an alternate reality in which these events happened and he has the newspaper clippings to prove it so that means you can go back and change things?

In the movies time travel typically results in one of two paradoxes, either a grandfather paradox type situation where altering the past changes the future (Back To The Future), or secondly the variety where a time traveler intending to change history simply causes the events which cause it (Predestination).

In Predestination while The Bureau is apparently tasked with preventing crimes before they happen, there is no evidence that any change in the time loop actually occurs. Therefore, Mr. Robertson, who would already know everything, may simply be telling Hawke that he is altering the past, whilst in fact he is ensuring events play out exactly the way they are supposed to do, hence giving Hawke the location of the Fizzle Bombers whereabouts at the end of the movie.

Every decision The Bureau makes to send a temporal agent back in time must have come from information it received from the future telling them where their agents were sent and for what purpose. In this way The Bureau (not the agents) can be seen not so much as stopping a crime, but ensuring a crime continues not to happen in the first instance. Therefore, all the temporal agents may have been tricked into believing they were altering events that already happened, but the Bureau bosses who tasked them with those missions must know everything that they were sending to them to do had already taken place. In other words, The Bureau has a list of things they need to do so as to maintain history the way it is. Going by the “predestination” premise of the movie that events that have happened cannot be altered, while the Fizzle Bomber has his collection of newspaper clippings of events he claims to have prevented, the clippings could be fake and collected from the previous Fizzle Bomber by Hawke before then becoming him, much like we see Hawke do at the end of the movie.

Spoiler alert. You can’t make something from nothing (Big bang theory excluded) If you start from the beginning..there is a baby “Jane” that is left at an orphanage… If this baby is the product of Jane and John, a meeting that happens in the future….. but because the future hasn’t happened yet, the baby can never exist to start with…

To elaborate on this…Jane/John cannot exist in the first place…because….Jane can’t be handed in to the orphanage unless she is born….to be born she needs to be conceived…to be conceived Jane must meet John….to meet John she must become John by conceiving and giving birth (Therefore she can’t meet or become John if she doesn’t get pregnant first…because he can’t come back from the future if he/she hasn’t been pregnant and then become John first) And therefore Jane cannot be conceived which makes the whole story impossible……

Tried to read all comments and threads and not sure if this has already been covered but…what would have happened if younger john shot himself in the launderette instead of his older fizzle bomber self…if the loop continues because he does inf act shoot older then in shooting himself that would have broken the loop surely.

Mr. Robertson is part of the loop or he shows up just once to convince an hesitant Hawke to take the baby back to 1945? If he does every time, he is intricate part of the loop. Otherwise Hawke may have second thoughts and end everything. The other think is the fact that the doctor examines baby Jane and did not realize that she is an hermaphrodite. Unless he never did a thorough examination. What about the nurses bathing baby Jane? Would they realize that she was different? Well, she is a pseudo male with the external female genitalia, which allowed to sex change to happen. It is much easier to transform a penis into a vagina, but not so easy the other way around.

I think he had to shoot himself, not the older version of himself, to break the loop.

Not doing so, and continuing the loop however, is essentially immortality.

To break the loop he had to not shoot anyone in order to live on. I don’t understand how it can be immortality if he eventually becomes older version of Hawke and dies of old age later in his future life.

Beautiful movie.

Who noticed the first edition of ‘Stranger in a Strange Land’ on Johns desktop?

Well spotted, Raptor Jesus. The Spierig brothers sneaking in another homage to American author Robert A. Heinlein, who wrote the science fiction novel ‘Stranger in a Strange Land’ in 1961 telling the story of a human born and raised by Martians on the red planet before coming to Earth in early adulthood and having to adapt to terrestrial culture.

Does it even matter if John killed the Fizzle Bomber? It seems to me that the only thing he needs to do to continue existing is deliver himself to the orphanage. After that, his mission is complete and all he has to do is die and the baby he delivered to the orphanage will grow up to be him.

Thanks Keith M for your kind comment. I truly enjoyed every bit of this lovingly enhanced adaptation of the book. Confusing in places? Yes. Enjoyable? You Bet! One of the most thought-provoking and fascinating time travel movies ever made.

I loved the movie, which not only stayed incredibly faithful to the storyline, but a large portion of the dialog was taken directly from the original story, verbatim. It’s even more amazing when you consider that Heinlein wrote it in a single day, back in the late 1950s. It’s actually a very short story, which can be read right in-line, by googling the original title, “All You Zombies.”

I considered this movie to be the best movie adaptation of of Robert A. Heinlein’s writing, who, for those who aren’t familiar with his work, was known by the title, “The Dean of Science Fiction”.

Those who found the concepts presented in this movie bizarre are probably not familiar with some of his other work, such as “Stranger in a Strange Land”, which I doubt could ever be brought to film, mainly because, among other things, not only rationalizes, but actually goes so far as to romanticize cannibalism as a means of honoring your loved ones.

Something i don’t get having sex with yourself let you get a baby who looks exactly like you?

And what is the Term of having Sex with yourself Masturbating!?

There is one thing I don’t get: How come Hawke is not able to stop the Fizzle Bomber since he knows exactly when and where he is gonna set the bomb?! He has a time machine, he can jump at the exact location a few minutes before the Fizzle Bomber arrives and kills him! (I know the loop would then end, but Hawke doesn’t know that, he only wants to stop the bomber)

How come he never tried that?!

I really enjoyed this movie, it was a nice little treat. The entire thing was an allegory to “the chicken and the egg” and infinity theory. It’s a paradox orchestrated by those at the temporal bureau. The point was that John is set in his path and is predestined to follow the events that occur, all we’re seeing is that play out. The point is the original timeline doesn’t matter, only the events that occur. The break in the chain so to speak would be the decommissioned time machine that fails to decommission, ensuring John would travel too often, get lost in his dementia/psychosis as a side effect of too many jumps and thus in his own warped way fulfill his own destiny. It’s actually pretty well done, I liked it!

Ethan Hawke kills himself at the end and to me it is safe to assume he stops the NY massive bombing from taking place. It appears at this point the paradox has ended. The story can have multiple endings from this point. He can become the delusional Fizzle Bomber or he can can go back home and destroy the time travel kit and end the cycle. That is why the final scene he is sitting at the machine contemplating. He implies that he loves Jane and wants to see her/him again thus continuing the time travel and thus becoming the Fizzle Bomber.

Sidenote..for those saying that Jane was orphaned by someone else the first time need to remember the joke, which came first the chicken or the egg? Answer the rooster. You are basically asking the same question. Hence the paradox…. Great movie – thought provoking to say the least.

Online Movies

Hollywood Movies

Bollywood Movies

Online Friendships

Punjabi Movies Online

Softwares and Games

Tips N Tricks

Android Games

FB Tips n Tricks

What my partner and i are having trouble understanding is how he was created in the first place Anyone able to help explain how its possible or is this movie too impossible to ever actually happen/be real

Think about the genetics. If you fuck yourself will your child be exactly the same as you are. NO! So this paradox could never happen. This movie sucks.

Is there a precedent that proves you correct?

makes sense now. just watched it. greatmovie

If I recall correctly Hawke makes what was considered an “illegal jump” by Robertson, this event actually sets Hawke up to become who he is- John is burned and becomes Hawke, Hawke becomes the Fizzle bomber, The Fizzle bomber is the reason Hawke has to make an “Illegal jump”. This “Illegal jump” is itself part of the time loop. So when was the original “illegal jump” if the “Illegal jump” is the reason he even has to make an “Illegal jump”(Fizzle bomber would not exists if he doesn’t make an “Illegal jump”)? What would be the purpose of him ever having to make the unauthorized time travel? Also if “Space corp” wants events to play out the way they did, then why would an integral part of the “Time loop” be considered ‘Illegal” by them? I don’t believe this was an engineered time loop and Space Corp is working outside of the time loop since the loop only exists because Hawke does something considered illegal by “Them”- A loop in which Robertson and Space corp are a part of as well. My only explanation is the whole thing is the result of time travel experimentation and nothing we see really exists outside the time loop. No real “Space Corp” that time travel to prevent crimes. It would make sense that scientists experimented to try and study time travel paradox and this time loop is one great deviation from an original sequence of events with numerous alterations. If you think about it the whole story just seems “Loopy”(Bad joke?) with the whole “Space Corp” “Fizzle bomber” type notion’s it’s a fictitious fantastical evolved story altered over the course of time becoming more and more silly and seemingly expedient seeing it from our point of view for the first time.

I think illegal jumps makes it harder for the bureau to fix any mistakes. As how can you fix it when you dont know what/when/why the agent did it.

Thats what makes mr robertson think that an agent without ancestry, family is best. As hawke only have baby/jane/john/barkeeper/bomber, he only will prioritize his existance, his way of life, and his reason of existance. thus, if hawke is a decent guy, he should become the best agent as he could, knows that if his future self is not worthy the younger self will not approved.

Fizzle bombing is the reason of his existance. Jane/john/barkeeper exposure to the bomber are: 1. Several small casualties bombing b4 1975 bombing (from news & bureau) 2. Failed bombin where john got his face burned and barkeeper got whacked 3. Laundermat 1AM 4. 1975 bombing 10K casualties (newspaper & bureau)

Now in the end of movie hawke has to make sure those exposure keep happening or he might alter his own existance. ensuring your existance vs Stopping fizzle bomber, what to do? Hes stuck.

Okay…question: If it is all predestined the New York explosion that kill 10,000 must be predestined. Who did that? It happened on that day so who did it? And how is that bomb so much bigger than the others? And why would he blow up 10,000 people….to save who? Even as a crazy fizzle bomber he believes that killing is for the greater good, so he wouldn’t just kill 10,000 people just because. There is a reason that happens. To me that is the most important detail of the movie. I believe it has something to do with the zero point limit because that is the only thing still left hanging at the end. What happens when you go beyond the 106 year limit? Is it a large explosion. But what would motivate John Doe to go beyond that limit? What would he be looking for? A way to break the chain?

What would happened when you go over the limit? Your mind cant take it and u might change the history too much, at least thats what the movie try to say. I dont believe it cause a large explosion, it may make hawke dillusional and really bomb 10k. Never know.

the limit might be just a rule to make sure a temporal agent predestination loop does not collide with an important event that bureau need to maintain. Again no definite answer.

How can you create yourself? It is most idiotic thing in the movie. It just cant be done. Because the result having a baby with yourself will never be yourself it will be a diferent person.

Don’t be fooled like the bar keep in the movie!!! There’s a reason why this movie storyline made this way, its to fool us the viewer and rattling our brain. The explanation to the creation of THIS predestination loop may be simpler and it is possible.

One scenario explained before that DNA cloning might be one possible element

My scenario: Mr Robertson pulled a fast joke or twist on barkeep (of course this means the author tricks us also) to make him think he is his own creation thus the loop paradox

The movie does not explained many things for a reason and its beautifully done. If i am mr. Robertson and want an agent that think that he is his own creation and only can live for the beureu than i will do this: 0. Find the seed, must be double gender. Genetic altering can be one way, or as mr.robertson said a gift to the world as he find the seed. Not only it has to be double gender, it has to have the profile too (superiority complex, phisically and mentally capable). 0-1 “PUT” the seed in an “orphanage” who’s to say its not under government manipulation 0-2 Nurture and. Cultivate the seed to become better 1. Manipulate the seed life so sex change happens, impregnates oneself, birth of oneself 2. Manipulate the matured seed (agent) to be involve in his own creation 3. Finally pull a fast one. Swap the his REAL Daughter with step 0-1 thats why i use “PUT”

Thus the illusion of no origins created. No telling how many trials and errors are performed to create this “perfect” temporal agent or agents he may be the first, one of many, dont want to go deeper. He might also be the one to undone the loop thus breaking his invisible illusion chain created by his twisted and manipulative creator.

This movie has infinite or at least more than one explanation because of its genius design. Welldone.

Oh before i forget, my scenario can be contested and reanswered by focusing on mr.robertson as the evil manipulative mastermind.

For example, the offspring may be a boy or a girl (REAL offspring of barkeep) …… Okay then Jane did not know that her baby sex. Other temporal agents might have been sent to swap it with a fake JANE baby which later will be swapped again by Barkeep when she is still a seed (step 0-1) Find peace with an answer or ur mind will be stuck in a loop hehehehe cheers hope some people find closure in my explanation

*swapped again by agents with barkeep when she is still a baby seed (step 0-1)

Ok stop making your own stories and watch what movie tels us.

It is infinitive posibilities if you are thinkings what culd have hapened and wasnt shown in the movie. Try to make sence from the data that movie gives you. I also cant make sence from the fact movie clearly shows a person who create a baby with himself and brings that baby into past starting his own life. And then we know all the story what happens to his death. By his death i mean dying as a fizzle bomber by his own hand. All the movie has a perfect sence to me except he is his own creation i think this is kinda forced thing in the movie to fool us the viewer saying what the f…. it culd be done diferently and the movie wuld still be good.

Well jest, As you see Jure Slegel is thinking how can you create yourself. I offer a possible explanation that this might not be Predestination Paradox as Mr. Robertson wants you to believe. The question is how to create the ROOSTER? from chicken and egg. Well the movie is designed beautifully to allow infinite answer. My story is just ONE possible way to create ROOSTER. Try contradicting my story if you think its false. … remember its just ONE of many possible explanation

The whole point is think outside the box or you will be trap in a loop. John believes he is dropped in the orphanage, barkeep finally know that baby/jane/john/barkeep are the same person. Why? because he put the baby himself in the orphanage under order of Mr. Robertson. Is it really hard to believe that Mr. Robertson pulled a switcheroo of the baby without JANE/JOHN/BARKEEP knowing? I mean do you remember what u do when you are 0-2 years? Really??? Thus, only Mr. Robertson know the Rooster, JANE/JOHN/BARKEEPER still puzzles by which come first chicken or egg?

As to why jane/john/fizzler easy to manipulate? They think they superior right, the idea of some one smarter manipulating them does not even compute, their life is groomed to make them feel superior or even geneticly chosen.

lastly if u feel superior what better lover than yourself lols. Sick. The older self will feel pity to the younger one. Who is best at manipulating john? Well john himself as he knows the most about himself. Mr. Robertson just need to point john in the right direction, he will executes.

As for why barkeep kill his own older self well, the young one must be in awe with the old ones or will be dissapointed *HINT Who can deny this theory: is 11k casualties really true or manipulation tools to motivates john/barkeep/bomber, it might be false info to force barkeep be better than his future self. Maybe fizzler bomber only kills 12 in reality lols barkeep is the “perfect” slave for the beureu now. Fizzler bomber didnot confirm or deny he killed 11k

Finally the end of the movie might give birth to a sequel, he is in a loop and with the fizzler bomber fate. Will he be able to break free thus creating an alternate timeline(straight or different loop). The question is would u kill urself? Or keep trying?

So far we know fizzler bomber did manage to save 3700 ppl. If the 11k is false then what would u do? Does 1 life justifies for 3700 liives see thats the whole point of time travel u are playing god. But for Barkeep, even if in the end he knows he is being manipulated by robertson, he will keep going back saving people until he die. Because he too likes to play god + love self too much

Best ending in my opinion is that barkeep at the end of movie realize how to accept his fate or present “predicament” then strive to create his dastiny thus become a master of his own destiny.

What would. You do if u are barkeep in the end of the movie?

Me will be to stop the 1975 bombing if it infact happened, i still believe that some conspiracy can be made to preserve the loop, keep doing what i was born to do, fake the 1975 bombing (this need collaboration with the beureu mr robertson) and finally grow old to meet the barkeep in laundermat and make peace with ur death. Yikes in the end even though i was created by higher manipulation, i accept my destiny then finish it however i like. Maybe old fizzler is making peace with his death knowing this is how he chose to live his life and at peace

i dont know, since it was made by both a male and female version of themselves it might create a clone of some sort?

OK, take a step back. Go back to biology class. When the sperm meets the egg, the egg is fertilized with all the chromosomes from both parents and are picked out for the baby’s DNA. So, because not one person is different from another, then there will be a genetically unique baby. If two of the exactly the same people have a baby with all the same genetic DNA (real life example- clone mating with original person) you would get a baby with all the same DNA and chromosomes as the parents (example clone baby, lol). But if the baby was raised in a different environment (example, different caregivers and different teachers/schools) and not sent back to the orphanage by Hawke, then the baby will not necessarily be exactly the same as the parents because it will have a different personality. But since it was sent back to the orphanage by Hawke, therefore its life events will play out as they were “predestined” (example- having the same caregiver, same school/teachers and same jobs) and eventually leading to become the same person. THE END!

But I do agree, it is extremely unethical for someone to have sex with themselves and have a baby that becomes the same person. It could have maybe been played out better by not including that awkward part but all in all, the movie turned out to be a new and interesting type of movie. I liked it other than that part.

No, she was originally born normally but was taken advantage of by the bureau. Basically you need to reward the film, reread this article and maybe reread the bottom section of the article a few more times after that. She was born, then because it is possible for her as a male to impregnate herself as a female when she is younger the paradox begins, so in a sense she becomes her own father and mother after already being someone else’s child. Then because the new version of herself (cloned technically but from the same timeline meaning she is the same person, but her parents are different) is sent back to the beginning of her life she grows up to become her parents again.

What if we see them as different versions from.different time lines but ultimately with the same origin?

You do realize time travel doeant exist so the entire movie isn’t actually possible. The fact that this is where your disbelief becomes unsuspended is crazy.

It’d be you fertilising yourself…in other words, it’s called cloning…

You dont understand this article, it means there is already an original timeline but because an unknown temporal agent make a mistake, it affects the main character’s existence so which we do not know, John/Jane has to do something in order for him/her to exist and that is what we don’t know.. haha

I agree. No matter how cool and convoluted the plot is- Your own sperm cell would NEVER create YOU. It’s ridiculous.

Not really, no. If you mix your own gene pool with your own gene pool, you can only get the same gene pool. And this “could” happen, if you had the hermaphroditism condition from the beginning, changed sex and then you traveled back in time to impregnate yourself. Easy xD

But if you have sex with yourself you’ll be putting in two set of chromosomes that are actually both from you, thus you’re creating you because those two sets are the exact sams as your current chromosomes.

well i have to note that in the scene where jane and john are about to meet, they hint at the original timeline guy that knocked jane up, he is plane faced and pulling a book from his bag, and if john wasn’t there thats the guy i believe she was intended to meet originally.. but then according to genetic theory if john and jane have sex, same genetic material would either result in the same person being born, or a malformed kid, maybe hence the hermaphroditism. but thats just my best guess to be honest it hurts my brain.

hahahaha … and who told you this ? do you have any theory to prove your point –> ” the result having a baby with yourself will never be yourself it will be a diferent person because you created a new life get it.” ?

Yea i have a theory it is called my theory. Now we dont know how originaly he was created and how he or she come to that he had sex with himself the first time because what we see is a loop he creating himslef puting himslef in the past and the loop goes in a loop.My point is the first time he created himself that person was not him and that diferent person then again created himself and that is the loop we see in the movie.

Now imagine you go to the past create yorself with yourself put youself in the past again as a baby then this person is diferent because in the past there one of you already exist or will originaly be created so this shuld be diferent past so this diferent person shuld create himself again and put himself again at the right pleace in the past where he was puted originaly now 2 of him are at that place or this is again a diferent timeline now this kid of yourself of youself of yourself and the loop goes on so the kid you create with youself is always a diferent kid in a diferent timeline if you want this to become possible.

please watch the movie once again .. you seem to be confused .. with yout theory … “different past” “different person” “different kid” … on what basis you are saying the person is different in any given timeline …

For the sake of argument, I will propose that Hawke’s character at the end does in fact NOT become the fizzle bomber, and instead works to decommission the Space Agency and the invention of time travel in 1981. Because in our world, these things do not exist. Well done John, you saved us all!

What if Robertson just made up stories of the fizzle bomb to create this character?

Jane will remember the face of her mysterious lover. so when she become John.why didnt she/he recognize that he himself the lover of his past????

Came here with just one question: How did the “second” John get burned, why was he there? And I still don’t know the answer

John was trying to diffuse a bomb left in a building when he was discovered and shot at by the Fizzle Bomber, leading to him only partially containing the blast within his field kit before getting his face burnt. Towards the end of the movie, we discover that it was Hawke’s illegal jump whilst trying to track down the Fizzle Bomber which caused the delay which resulted in John not diffusing the bomb in time, being burnt, and needing constructive surgery to become Hawke. A classic example of a predestination paradox in which events inside the time loop are predestined to happen, and must happen.

Sweet post! nicely done, the years help.

Here’s an illustrated timeline with can further the understanding of the overall picture:

http://digestivepyrotechnics.blogspot.com/2014/12/predestination-plot-explained.html

Saw this movie last night, it’s amazing! Everything flows well… the only thing that bugs me is Mr. Robertson. So just to clarify…. Mr. Robertson IS part of the loop right? His own words and actions are “predestined”… just as Jane/John/Barkeep’s fates are inevitable?

Robertson is indeed a mysterious character, and as head of the Bureau most likely orchestrated the whole situation leading to the time loop. However, according to predestination paradox theory, a time loop exists outside of normal time, and so while a version of Robertson exists inside the loop, normal time is running outside the loop and the Robertson we see is probably one who only time travels to inside the loop on special occasions when he needs to communicate with John/Jane for some important reason. Because they technically do not exist in his timeline outside the loop, Robertson can communicate with her/him through time without worrying about causing paradoxes.

Made my head hurt … in this timeline.

Everything explained well, however I just wanted to elaborate a bit more on why Jane/John were able to give birth to Jane/John to clear up some confusion.

At some point, yes, originally Jane/John were born from another couple. The theory here goes that Robertson find’s John, and send’s him back in time to reproduce with Jane. Now why does that start creating more Jane/John’s? Because in theory, coming from 1 genome, you will create a clone of yourself.

This isn’t like identical twins being a bit different. An egg splitting and DNA combining always has minute alterations. In this movie, there is only 1 set of DNA reproducing with itself from its own singular set of reproductive organs at the exact same time, every time (the loop theory). Unless we had a time machine to test it, no hermaphrodite’s today can bang themselves to create a baby for any of us to see if that’s how it plays out. So since it can’t be disproved, the writers go with it.

That’s just my opinion, of course, but it worked for me.

I believe agent breaks the loop at the movie’s conclusion; here’s why. In 1992, agent has surgery and gets Hawke’s face. There is a note on the ceiling above his hospital bed that says “If at last you succeed, don’t try again.” We also learn in 1992 that 11,000 people were killed by fizzle bomber in 1975. But when agent “retires” to 1975 and kills fizzle bomber in the laundrymat, the 11,000 people have not yet been killed. And with fizzle bomber dead, they will not be killed. Agent is adamant that he will NOT become the fizzle bomber, and he’s a smart guy. If he heeds the advice from the note above his hospital bed, he has broken the loop. As further evidence for this conclusion, the other note on the hospital ceiling said “don’t do yesterday, what you can do today.” I understand this to mean don’t continue to time travel to try to kill fizzle bomber earlier, it will only make you more psychotic. Since agent is retiring to 1975, this is his final timeline, this is his today.

The entire premise of the movie is the loop is predestined, therefore killing the old fizzle bomber would not end the loop. Barkeep’s killing the Fizzle Bomber doesn’t necessarily mean that the bombing has been stopped. An older Fizzle bomber may have been killed by Barkeep. A younger Fizzle Bomber who is not as lost could be responsible for the New York event. After all the Fizzle Bomber also has the ability to travel through time as he pleases.

Also bear in mind that Barkeep does not report the time device he is unable to de-commission, this indicates he’s going to keep using the device. So it’s fair to say because of the effect the time device has on the user with continued use that Barkeep does indeed become the insane older Barkeep/Fizzle bomber we saw in the launderette

I just finished watching the movie and have been reading this thread. I think a lot of things clicked for me when you said how the Fizzle Bomber also has the ability to travel through time as he pleases and I will give it more thought. But for now, I was trying to come up with reasons why Barkeep would continue to use the time machine. I mean, logically, if he truly believes he’s killed the Fizzle Bomber then there’s no real reason for him to continue to travel. Except, like you said, killing old Fizzle Bomber doesn’t guarantee that the New York bomb won’t happen, so I was thinking, maybe Barkeep goes forward in time to 1992(the farthest he’s ever been into the future) to check whether it worked or not and discovers the bombing DID occur thus continues to travel back and forth to ensure it doesn’t, continues to fail, grows old, becomes the old Fizzle Bomber = NY bombs.

One thing I don’t understand is that so the whole time hawke knew that john would burn, so at the bar he knew the outcomes ???? Meaning that hawke let himself John get his face burnt so in reality hawkes knew what was going to happen up until john was burnt?

So does that mean as soon as john gets his fac e fixed after the burn she would know the exact future and that she has to talk with his olderself john???? Why would she do that??????? I DONT GET THAT POINT.. THIS MOVIE IS FRYONG MY BRAIN

The older one has the memory of what the younger one does, but the younger one doesn’t have the memories of what the older on does. I think?

I’m saying that if john and Ethan both knew that the face of john will be burnt why would they let it happen? Why do they have to comply with it… Because they know its going or happen then why do it????

I don’t think John knows yet because it didn’t happen to him yet. Ethan knows and went to try to stop it. That’s why he’s there to push the violin case/ time machine over to his burned self. He just didn’t make it in time.

Agreed, John didn’t know how his face would get burnt after being recruited by Hawke to the Temporal Bureau, although Hawke did. However, Hawke didn’t know it was he who caused the accident to happen just before retiring when he followed the recorded instructions left to him by his future self saying “if you ever want to stop the Fizzle Bomber you will never get another chance”. Hawke then tries to stop the Fizzle Bomer near the end of the movie, but only delays him, leading to the distraction which prevents John from disarming the bomb in time, and so burning his face. In other words, events are predestined to happen, and the predestination paradox continues.

I still maintain that the notes above the hospital bed are the most important plot device and the key to how the story concludes. The story goes out of its way to tell us Jane/John is exceptionally smart. He has decided at which point it is in his best interest to exit the loop. He puts the notes up there so next time he’ll know. There is no other reason for the camera to pan in to let us read these notes.

But the notes are taken straight from the original short story whic does not contain the burning episode.

What I don’t get is how could you be attracted and fall in love with yourself? knowing it was you pre op? Surely seeing yourself as you were wouldn’t be a major surprise considering you grew up seeing yourself?! and seeing the younger you as a woman would a disturbing experiencing? to contemplate having a sex with yourself, knowing it was a younger you is even more disturbing…

-Shouldn’t the fizzle bomber look like John since he was the original person to plant the bomb and wouldn’t have burnt his face……until the second version of the loop occurs. -Wouldn’t John remember meeting Hawke in the bar if this was the second version of the loop -Jane would never remember John because she is the origin of the loop. -Richardson must be the Old John in the 1st version of the loop (face is not burnt so he continues as old John.) He continues to guide the next versions of himself. Several cues from the way he smokes. His knowledge of Janes dual sex organs

Awesome movie. Only thing I don’t think is explained is why john doesnt realize that he looks exactly like the man that ruined his life when he was Jane. You could argue that it starts Over every time so he never knows until Ethan tells him but then he wouldnt remember what he was thinking at dinner as Jane. If he can remember what he was thinking as her at the table with him then he should remember what the guy looked like and realize it’s him.

If Sarah and Ethan are the same person, then why is Ethan taller than Sarah?

I don’t really think the film (or Heinlein’s tale) uses alternative realities. The key point is the ouroboros: you don’t have a beggining, you don’t have and end. The paradox exists because it exists. Of course, you can imagine what you want —

Yeah.. I’m done with this.

… so disgusted with his future self, the agent shoots and kills the Fizzle Bomber, thus ensuring he becomes him.

This statement is wrong sorry… the loop of this movie… it is not a loop. The movie follows a character, not an event. The bombing never took place because John took out his older self. For all we know he goes back to the apartment and destroys his time machine and really just retires after this, hence creating a new timeline where he does not go crazy anymore. If the movie had gone on 5 more minutes in where John returns to his apartment and makes a new jump THAT would have closed the loop.

It is also quite possible the Error Fail Error was a set-up… if you think beyond this you could even think Roberts made it so his time machine would not decomission. For this theory think of the part in the movie where Roberts said “If it wasn’t for the Fizzlebomber this agency would not have grown the way it is now”. Roberts also hardly ever makes jumps but does so to assist John and Jane.

Hi Nate, thanks for your comments. The Predestination (paradox) alluded to in the movie’s title refers to a “causal loop, causality loop, or closed time loop”, so I believe its fair to assume the story involves a time loop. Furthermore, Predestination is based upon the short story by Robert A. Heinlein called “All You Zombies”, and as an extract of an article by the heinleinsociety.org explains:

“This story along with “Bootstraps” and “The Door Into Summer” are examples of what are called “deterministic” or “unchangeable timeline” stories. In other words, All of the events take place on time loops, but there is no change in what happens each time through the loop. Events are “fixed” http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/works/shortstories/allyouzombies.html

I belive I deal with the possibility of a new timeline being created after Hawke kills the Fizzle Bomber in the section called ‘Causal Loop Or Split Timelines?, and the Fizzle Bomber could also have jumped to 1975 to plant the bomb before being killed by Hawke.

Finally, I agree when you say Robertson’s boss was possibly orchestrating the whole scenatio, and as I mention in the section ‘The Bureau’s Involvement’ : “Robertson even seems to give Hawke all the encouragement he needs to carry on using his decommissioned time machine after his retirement to New York, stating how much more he believed the Bureau could accomplish if it had an agent working free from constant bureaucratic controls.”

I agree. There was a loop. It may have repeated many times. But the movie shows the breaking of the loop. I believe Robertson created the loop and wants it to continue. That’s why the time machine doesn’t decommission.

can’t get it still now….

The first thing I thought of when I finished watching their movie: I see why they brought up the chicken and the egg. Time travel is fascinating but the loop. There must have been an AT (alternate timeline) created in order to even start the loop in the first place, considering Jane didn’t appear originally out of thin air. So saying this is only one loop is impossible because there must be a reality where Jane is actually just a normal orphaned child, who lives in a world where the fizzle bomber doesn’t exist. On the other hand, we have the looped world. So my main question is, how many worlds had to be created to make this loop? And where could it even start? Does Jane grow up to discover she’s a hermafidite, then create a time maciene, falls in love as John with Jane to make the basic first layer of the loop? Then another alternate timeline must be created where Jane doesn’t create the timeline, instead is hired to work with a time machine which has already been created, and so on until the loop keeps going. Or is the loop even done? When Hawke killed the Fizzle Bomber, was that part of the whole original plan to expand into many alternate timelines, maybe this loop hasn’t even fully cycled more than once without changing, so it’s not even a loop even though it appears to be.

it all depends on the interpretation of ‘time’ we perceive time as we go through our lives… but what if the world we know was like a book that has already been written with a beginning and an end. if this was case then everything exists simultaneously and ‘we’ just perceive the world relative to where we are in the book. the dilemma for the John/Hawke/Fizzle Bomber (Jane is never aware) its that he becomes aware of this scenario and realizes that all his actions have been predetermined and he has to do them hence.. he has to procreate with his younger self or he ceases to exist he has to carry to full term to become john he has to distract himself to become Hawke (illegal jump) he has to keep the time traveling kit to become Fizzle Bomber btw this would also answer the chicken and egg riddle… both — they came into existence at the same time on different pages

Here’s my two cents on a plausible beginning of this paradox and may i reiterate that this is just a theory that i came up with in order for my fickle mind to come into terms with the story (i may be wrong this and i gladly concur to that). Here it goes:

1. There is timeline where an original Jane/John/Barkeep/Fizzle has already existed.

– It could be that our protagonist was born but from different parents, having the same medical anomaly and then falling in love –whether it be through quoting Abram Lincoln or another way–, getting pregnant, discovering the uniqueness of her situation and losing her child (and in no way will I say that the child is our newborn protagonist; remember this is the origin). – The failures and loses, her metamorphosis and the feeling of having no sense of purpose would eventually drive her delusional and provoke her somewhere along the way into becoming a bomber. Which leads us to:

2. The creation of the Time Machine and the Agency.

– The time machine was purposely invented with the intention of preventing or correcting the events (bombings) that have already occurred in this timeline; this in turn births the establishing of the Agency that Mr. Robertson works for and eventually the Jane/John/Barkeep/Fizzle character we see in the movie.

– The Agency captures/kills the bomber and in order for them to correct what happened creates a baby from DNA samples they have of the bomber ( at this point I’m justifying this for myself lol! ) this prompts the origin of Jane in the orphanage.

– An agent goes back to 1945 bringing the seed for this paradox which is the baby and everything begins. – The agency created this paradox in order for the bombings and the Fizzle character to be “self-contained”.

This corrects the future, and contains the action of the Fizzle bomber in an never ending loop of events that has been “predestined”. – Mr. Robertson is the man assigned to oversee that this loop will never be broken thus ensuring the safety of the future.

(I know there are lots of plotholes here, but if anyone can add more to this that would be great!)

in my opinion… I believe John/Jane can only change events that don’t affect his loop He/She is required to travel his/her closed because his fate is predetermined (predestined) And nothing he/she does can change that furthermore there is nothing he (Hawke) can do prevent to prevent himself (Fizzle Bomber) this would be due to that all of his actions as Hawke would be memories for the Fizzle Bomber and as such could adjust accordingly (like in Looper) which would further support why the Fizzle Bomber constantly eludes himself (Hawke) while he (as fizzle bomber) does die prior to ’75 bombing he knows this will happen also which would indicate that his trip to the Laundry Mat is his last Time Travel event (hes dead) but two possibilities… 1. at some point in his personal timeline prior to traveling to the Laundry Mat he travels to ’75 slightly in the future and completes the bombing of NY meanwhile Hawke (retired) realizes is fate and takes the fizzle bombers scrapbook and eventually becomes the fizzle bomber 2. Hawke kills himself (fizzle bomber) takes scrap book and gleans some insight into the why and that is his 1st bombing (from his point of view… time traveling would place other bombings further in the past)

I’ve got a left-field theory that while John in two separate future timelines becomes both the bomber (which we see in the film) and possibly Robertson. (Which we don’t see, but is sort of almost hinted at.)

I only say this because it some of Robertson’s dialogue seems purposefully cryptic, and he also the only other character that helps to maintain the closed loop. That- and the film ends ambiguously. Just my two cents.

Thanks for your post..only after reading it did I give the Robertson theory much consideration. I’ve managed to read quite a bit of the discussion. for whatever reason your two cents very quickly made me realize that other than they cryptic dialogue, hawke does indeed rock some lovely lip fur for a decent amount of time in the film…just like ol’ Robertson.

I believe I understand why the Fizzle Bomber became this crazed person, just imagine being your own mom, your own dad, your own grandpa, and repeating that over and over, that can make you pull your hair out and everybody else’s hair too. Thanks for this site, as weird as it seem, I understood that John and Jane was the same person, and Hawke and the Fizzle bomber were the same person, but this site helped me see all four was actually the same including the baby. You have to be a genius to think up something like that. Like movies that gets me wondering, probably need to see it again since things are clearer now. Good movie!

Thank you Le for the quick explanation, and for your kind comments. Predestination is definitely one of those movie that seems to yield further insights after another viewing.

double post

I completely understand the idea behind the closed time loop etc, but the physics just doesn’t work. First off, there’s no way if you could travel back in time and have sex with yourself, that it would create you. Having a child with someone doesn’t change who their parents are. You might create a weird inbred freak of time and nature, but it wouldn’t magically erase history and make you your own parent. That just makes zero sense. Even in a time travel conversation. Basically what I’m saying is… Any theoretical time loop would have to begin at the end, as time moves in one direction. You couldn’t “change” things and be the cause of what already happened, because it already happened to begin with. In fact, any changes -at all- that you caused, could only make the timeline increasingly different than the original… totally contradicting this film’s entire idea. This movie tries to come off like it’s genius, but the theory behind it doesn’t work. You can’t create something that existed before you created it, even with time travel.

In the real world Jane would have had an abortion 😉

My thoughts exactly@ Dima

This is a movie about how you fuck yourself (like a boss).

thanks sire, that cleared some things up for me. Excellent movie!!!!

Glad you enjoyed this mind-bending time-travel thriller, which is one of those great movies that when you finish watching it, you want to watch it all over again.

agreed sire

I understand almost of the story but we know like what Ariana said, almost is never enough. So I get this the whole loop thing, so it’s about one person, meeting himself to fix the past and in the past meeting the person which is again, himself, having a baby, and the baby is taken to the past, to be this one person again and it will always be repeated.

I just dont get the purpose of finding and stopping fizzle bomber. I mean, if he knows that fizzle bomber is himself, why doesnt Hawke shoot the fizzle bomber and after that shoot himself so then he will not become the bomber in the future.

or, just let john stays with jane and let them taking care their baby so then John will not have a grudge to kill a man that caused him to change his gender, not meeting himself (Jane) in the past, then not be taken to the future to become an agent and doing all this repeated things. or why Hawke doesnt kill John if he knows that John is actually himself in the past and the one who will make Hawke become like he is right now? what’s the purpose of making another himself doing the same thing over and over again?

We should think logically, actually there is no time travel at all, it is only our illusion, past time now has dissapeared (it is become an illusion) , future time still not exist (it is still illusionary) , the only existence is thing (or something) at this present (now) time. Time cannot be travelled, because it is not exist (or not an existence) , it is only a way of communication to explain relative position or measurement of thing (or of the physical existence) , to explain how thing looks like 25 year ago (as a baby) , or as adult (today) , or as old man (in the next 25 year) , so just relax , do not take too much concern on it.

I agree, so does Julian Barbour, but this is a movie. lol

The crime for abusing the time machine was death, who knew it would be at his/her own hand

Great film and I figured it out as soon as they jumped and he handed John the gun, this was a great article!

GUYS …GUYS…EVERYONE JUST CHILLOUT AND STOP THINKING ABOUT THE MOVIE…JUST ENJOY ITS STORY LINE THAT’S ALL NO NEED TO UNDERSTAND IT AND BREAK UR HEADS ….THIS ALL IS IMPOSSIBLE

BUT I HAVE ONE DOUBT….IF HAWKE WAS (JANE &JOHN) WHY HE DIDN’T RECOGNIZE THE STORY TOLD BY JOHN OR JANE IN THE BAR

Hi Abhilash, its not that Hawke doesn’t recognize the story John tells him in the bar (he does), its just that he is giving John the chance to open up about his life so he can then offer him the opportunity to travel him back in time and kill the mysterious man who ruined his life. As we find out, Hawke’s plan is actually to have John fall in love and impregnate Jane so Hawke can then take the baby back to the orpahange in 1945 to keep time loop entact.

The paradox in the film is impossible for a simple reason: When Hawke takes the baby and jumps back in time, there would already be a baby and a Hawke in that point in time for every previous loop. It wasn’t the first loop either because Hawke already had attempted to stop the bomber more than once. So simply not possible.

Also, if we accept that Hawke has to kill his older self at the Laundry for the loop to survive, then his older self never gets to plant the bomb the next day that kills thousands. So how does he get to fight with himself the day of the bombing if the bomber always dies the day before?

The bombing where they fought wasn’t the final one (1975). It was one of the random bombings (1970) that the fizzle bomber got his name from. Also, im pretty sure the bomb that killed thousands never happens and only happened once in the original timeline before the loop was created.

After the Bartender kills the Bomber, he slowly goes crazy and becomes the bomber. Years go by as he jumps through time and does several other bombings before coming back to 1975 for the big one.

You miss a possibilty from outside the movie, but alluded to: they can jump forward or backward in time 50 years from 85… so, what if, in 2030, genetics is advanced and so Robertson, in some other, unseen timeline, was assigned to plant a test tube hermaphtodite (the original baby) in order to create this particular paradox we see in the film? We dont see a lot of jumping back to the future by Hawke, but the clippings in fizzles book show he lived through a lot of tragedies and finally decided to become this bomber with his undeactivated violin… the bomber who dies the day before is a preemptive jump of an older bomber., not the first bomber. So, when Robertsons creation turns into the bomber, he is tasked with fixing it. Which he has tried many times before. However, it has never worked because he tries to manipulate Hawke into not becoming himself… they eventually learn a lot about travelers and jumpers, and use that knowledge to createthe rules for other agents. This loop happens outside of real time, and is Hawkes own private hell, created and sustained by Robertson, who thinks working outside the guidelines can be good… However, at some point, Robertson becomes part of it, being predestined to always make the same mistakes which always repeat the cycle. Predestination.

What if shouldn’t be a reason this movie would work. lol

I thought the same thing as you regarding the possibility of Robertson’s use of genetic engineering to artificially create the hermaphroditic baby. By interacting with the baby as it grows up, he ensures that this artificially created human perpetuates itself through time and eventually becomes a terrorist that is extremely challenging to catch for the crime-prevention agents in order to improve their efficacy at their jobs. Presumably, he calculated that doing this has saved more lives in the long run (or has fulfilled some other goal of his).

I had not considered the possibility that the man he meets in the laundromat is not the fizzle bomber presently perpetuating the bombings in 1975, but rather an even older version of himself. It seems like a plausible explanation to me, and definitely an interesting one!

Jason, a “what if”, if plausible, IS a reason this movie would work (if by “would”, you mean “is a possible way it could function and make sense”). A “what if” certainly doesn’t prove that this interpretation is the objective truth, but until disproven, it cannot be ruled out as a way that the movie would work.

it is very possible.remember time travel makes your mind go crazy.his older self the bomber tells him to live together and he says ‘i will not become you’ so he kills his older being.so you say he kills himself(in this case the bomber) before everything happened.yes he does it but by time he goes crazy.after that day (the next day)the bombing event will not take place in this time.when he goes crazy(maybe 20 years later) remember he still has time travel kit and he can go back to the day after(which is he killed his older version) and bomb the city. if 1 exists with a time machine or travel kit so to say,there is an unlimited version of paradox happens.

That is why this movie is not a loop but just an alternate time line… it follows a person and not a time based event.

People, there is NO “starting point”…that’s the entire problem with time travel and “effect before cause” and why it’s so hard to figure out….the “starting point” you are looking for occurred in the FUTURE. Jane had no “normal parents” because that is the entire point of the movie!

Baby Jane, Mother Jane, Father John and Hawke cannot exist without a point of Origin to begin the Cycle. Mother Jane, Father John and Hawke cannot exist without Baby Jane. Baby Jane cannot be conceived without Mother Jane and Father John. Which is a Loop in itself. Therefore it is not possible, even if Time Travel was. The Baby Jane that was conceived by Jane and John was born a Girl. However when Hawke jumps back in time with Baby Jane, the jump alters Baby Jane into a Hermaphrodite. Which the Original Baby was also. Suggesting the two were the one and the same, which is impossible as nothing can create itself. For it to even be possible the Original Baby Jane would have to be conceived/Created by someone else as a point of Origin to begin the Loop. Hawke is told he has not beginning or end. Everything has a beginning, Point Of Origin otherwise it is not possible to exist. And he has an End when he kills his future Self. He knows his own Future/End. It was one Timeline that actually had multiple Loops. One being Baby Jane, Mother Jane, Father John and Hawke. Second: John, Hawke and The Fizzle Bomber. Third: Hawke and his Future Self. There are others if you delve deeper, but they are the primary ones. Even with the Snake that eats it’s own tail. It has to have a point of Origin (The Head) and an End (The Tail). The Head has to exist first to be able to swallow it’s Tail to create the Loop. In short as the movie goes, even if Time Travel was possible. The Paradox Loops could not possibly exist as there was no Point Of Origin/Beginning to create the Cycle/Loops.

Baby Jane, Mother Jane, Father John and Hawke cannot exist without a point of Origin to begin the Cycle. Mother Jane, Father John and Hawke cannot exist with Baby Jane. Baby Jane cannot be conceived without Mother Jane and Father John. Which is a Loop itself. Therefore it is not possible, even if Time Travel was. The Baby Jane that was conceived by Jane and John was born a Girl. However when Hawke jumps back in time with Baby Jane, the jump alters Baby Jane into a Hermaphrodite. Which the Original Baby was also. Suggesting the two were the one and the same, which is impossible as nothing can create itself. For it to even be possible the Original Baby Jane would have to be conceived/Created by someone else as a point of Origin to create the Loop. Hawke is told he has not beginning or end. Everything has a beginning, Point Of Origin otherwise it is not possible to exist. And he has an End when he kills his future Self. He knows his own Future/End. It was one Timeline that actually had multiple Loops. One being Baby Jane, Mother Jane, Father John and Hawke. Second: John, Hawke and The Fizzle Bomber. Third: Hawke and his Future Self. There are others if you delve deeper, but they are the primary ones. Even with the Snake that eats it’s own tail. It has to have a point of Origin (The Head) and an End (The Tail). The Head has to exist first to be able to swallow it’s Tail to create the Loop. In short as the movie goes, even if Time Travel was possible. The Paradox Loops could not possibly exist as there was no Point Of Origin/Beginning to create the Cycle/Loops.

Another person who says something is impossible because their small mind can’t figure it out. Granted, “effect before cause” is a toughie. Maybe checkers is your thing.

Wtf upscaleman? Actually they’re 100% correct. I think YOU need to stick to checkers… Time travels in one direction, therefore any loop must begin at the END. There isn’t “effect before cause”. That’s the entire point, even in this ridiculous movie! If there was effect before cause, there would be no need to travel back in time, since you could change the past from the present. You can’t suggest time travel is theoretically possible, or even interesting, without acknowledging that. Way to be the only guy that “understands” something that isn’t correct lmao.. You must be getting your Nobel this week for proving Newton and Einstein wrong… We are all dumber for having read your post. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

WTF Steadman? Since you’ve confused time itself with time travel, you don’t even understand my argument, let alone “effect before cause”

Enjoy your stupidity.

You’re wrong mate. Jason is right. Look up some stuff about time travel told by Stephen Hawking, he explains stuff pretty good.

lmao… You completely missed my point. I didn’t confuse anything… Time flows in one direction, therefore changing it can only alter time in that same direction. You can never begin a sequence from the end point of a different timeline. It’s nonsense. Honestly I don’t believe time physically exists, I was just humoring it for sake of the discussion. But calling people “stupid” in a conversation about physics obviously makes you correct, so carry on. I’m sure you’ll tally a lot of debate wins that way.

“Everything has a beginning, Point Of Origin otherwise it is not possible to exist.”

The origin of the universe remains extremely murky at best with Big Bang theory attempting to describe the moment of change from nothingness and no existence to a universe filled with spacetime. However, just like the origins of an infinity loop, it is still unable to answer the fundemental question of whether the universe has always existed like we see it now, or whether it somehow just came to be.

What a splendid film, wonderfully shot, directed and acted, with a fabulous, challenging plot that allows you to go as deep as you care to, with all sorts of really nifty twists and serpentine logical mazes. (Spoiler alert below!) I am not sure that I agree that the time loop is predestined to force Hawke to continue jumping after he has killed the crazy fizzle bomber version of himself, thus ensuring he will become delusional and evolve into the Fizzle Bomber. By killing his older self, he has prevented the bombing from happening within a day or two. The then-current Hawke would have to literally jump out of that time and place immediately to allow himself the potential to spend the years becoming that delusional older self. With an endlessly functioning portal, he would, in fact, be able to prevent all the other “disasters” from the future from happening; but, in fact, the very existence of the book of clippings suggests that Hawke always prevents the fizzle bomber from succeeding, because those events did happen, and he does not stop them, so the loop is logical – Hawke can exist from 1975 forward happily and have killed the Fizzle bomber version of himself, preventing the massive bomb from exploding, as he always has, while allowing the other disasters to happen, which is inevitable, and not things the Agency necessarily needs to intervene with. He does not have to become the crazy older version again in this new timeline, he gets to live out his life. Meanwhile, John the newly recruited agent in 1985 wakes with a smile and a purpose, knowing that he will lead a life of purpose, as he must complete every single mission that always fills in the search for the Fizzle bomber – the first mission is as important as the last – an exciting and fully engaging use of his “superior” “elite” intellect and abilities. The list of suspects and their routines suggests he becomes one of many busy agents collecting clues to the fizzle bomber’s persona and location. The open questions for me are why the machine reactivates — is this the Agency’s way of retaining his services for unauthorized interventions, or a necessity under general relativity? Also, he is deeply in love with himself (the young John version), the only person who really understands him. Will he live on from 1975 and seek out the agent in 1985? Or will he understand that to tamper with that iteration of himself risks undoing the entire timeline that created him (or more accurately allowed him/her to create him/herself!) This was a really fun and engaging film, visually stunning, with a spectacular performance from Sarah Snook, who is a hottie in either version, and the homoerotic subplot is brilliant. The only film I’ve seen recently that had that extra cerebral “oomph” was “The Babadook” – a movie that makes you think and that you can talk about for hours trying to satisfy yourself with how things turn out – or trying to rationalize a version that you want to be the “right” one! Kudos to Hawke for finding a great script to work with – the guy can be irritatingly pretentious, but he just might be that rarity – an actor who keeps trying to prove he’s not just another dumb pretty face, and actually isn’t. He’s made too many really good movies for it to be happenstance, and maybe he really did deserve to take Jude Law’s spot in “Gattaca” because he actually has what it takes! (lol)

If changing an event of the past is impossible, how could the paradox been created in the first place? For example, if the original event was Jane meeting a man who is not herself and then have a baby with him, (which causes her to have to change sex) how could the first John have travelled back in time and prevented Jane of meeting the other man and instead fall in love with himself?

Interesting question. I would assume that according to the theory the movie is based upon, as the past is immutable (predestination) any attempts to change it would lead to a predestination paradox or circular loop in time like the one(s) seen in the movie. Trying to break such a loop is the stuff time travel movies are made of, although Hawkes main goal is actually to keep the loop intact or else cease to exist. It’s also mentioned the importance of continuing the paradox for the Bureau, but unfortunately not how.

Just watched this movie and loved it….but now my brain is so fried that I want to go back in time to before I watched it…and kill myself before I get a chance to watch it.

Lol! naaaaah. Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you smarter!

Could it be possible that in the end when Hawke takes the baby back to the orphanage that that baby does not grow up to be the same Jane/John, but a different Jane/John, thus, creating more agents for the bureau? And the older Jane/John continues on the same path until he gets killed when he becomes the Fizzle Bomber, because this entire loop is caused by the bureau to make Hawke purposely go crazy so that he ends up being the bomber who kills a lot people because THIS was the ONLY way to prevent the death of many more people.. just like he said to Hawke in the launderette: “We’re just puppets. We are! Robertson, He set the whole thing up. He played us for fools. He’s laying out the dominoes. You know, we’re just watching it fall.”

Or maybe the times that they might have tried to break the loop, it goes to hell, so they go back in time and do it all over again, and that is how the Fizzle bomber knew personal stuff about the girl in the gallery. And after all the failed times at breaking the loop, he, in the end, tries to make Hawke angry by agitating him, to get Hawke to kill him, and thus, maintaining the loop.

Hi Reem, I like your theorizing, and there certainly seems to be any number of different scenarios which might help explain the events in this mind-bender of a movie. In this comment section, mcsnugggles has touched upon your idea of the possibility of the 11 agents mentioned working for the Bureau possibly being different John/Jane/Hawkes stuck in closed time loops of their own. Its not clear, however, why the paradoxes are necessary for the Bureau’s operation, only that Hawke’s mission is critical to its success.

And like you say, the mysterious Mr Robertson seems content to see Hawke driven crazy within the time loop and become the Fizzle Bomber, as this ensures the loop continues to exist. One interesting theory I’ve heard is that while Robertson tells Hawke he is changing the past, perhaps, it wasn’t Hawke but the Fizzle Bomber who was successfully stopping the crimes the Bureau was claiming to have stopped, but he couldn’t tell Hawke because he wouldn’t be ready for that fact, yet? By Hawke killing Fizzle and becoming him, Roberston is then assured the loop will be maintained.

What kind of a sick person would make this kind of movie? How do you even come up with all this? The mother of the twins must be proud. Very proud. I get 65% of the movie but still confused.

The Australian Spierig brothers’ Predestination is a movie adaptation of a time paradox short story by Robert A. Heinlein’s called “All You Zombies”. Interestingly, the story was initially rejected by Playboy, before being published in ‘Fantasy and Science Fiction’ magazine in 1959.

Best comment in the movie

” You’re a son of a bitch. ”

That’s when I knew assuredly everyone, was one.

Yes, only when the agent eventually retires to New York in 1975 does he finally discover that he is the Fizzle bomber. Remember, he is an agent tasked with stopping the bombing, and if he had known before he was the Fizzle bomber then he might have chosen an alternative method to stop the bombing, possibly by killing himself like in the movie Looper. The agent’s boss Mr Robertson gives him the location of the Laundromat the bomber was last sighted, where he then sees that the Fizzle bomber is an older version of himself. We can therefore assume that the agent continues to use his time device after retiring, leading to him becoming delusional and after many years becoming the Fizzle bomber. Its important to note here that the Fizzle bomber believes he is doing good and preventing more deaths by blowing things up.

No, this doesn’t make sense, because he has chosen to go to New York just a very short time before the big blast. There would not be “enough time” for him to become that delusional and grow that hellabeard. In my take, Hawke has created a new timeline, and he gets to live on in 1974 (or 5) and the bombing now never takes place. This is supported by the book of clippings of all the other disasters “caused” by people or events that survive because the huge blast finally does not ever happen… he has succeeded. His tapes of instruction to young John now in 1985 remind him that he has a happy new life and purpose, to fulfill every mission he always has, that collect the clues and information to get Hawke/John to that Laundromat just a bit before the big blast to shoot old, crazy Hawke/John.

He does have time. If he uses the device and continues to travel (and grow his beard), and then travels back to a point near the time he killed his psychotic self, he could have lived another 3 years in other times and grown that beard in the process of becoming psychotic from these missions. As stated above, the fact that the articles exist means that those events do end up happening.

Knowing what he knows, and the fizzle bomber being the creation of the Agency, wouldnt the whole point be to undo the disaster they created? That is their purpose. Once this is accomplished, i believe John Hawke settles down, and writes longingly of how he misses young John/jane the only person he has ever loved. There is no reason for him to jump except to be woth her/him, of which there is no evidence., and he says he doesnt have to become the bo,ber before he shoots him. The timeline was created by the agency, and it has undone the worst part of it.. Im sticking with my happy, purposeful, but lonely ending.

John/Jane is stuck in a closed time loop, for one reason or another. The origin of the time loop or time travel is unknown. So what I noticed was that at the end, Jane wakes up in a hospital bed listening to a tape John previously recorded for Jane. There was no event in any year that left Jane to be in that bed; therefore, I believe that after John killed his future self, the Fizzle bomber, the time loop reverted to a period where John wakes up as Jane, putting an end to the time loop. I’m not sure if this makes it more clear or more confusing but I think it makes sense. I feel that this is a movie you need to watch about a hundred times to somewhat understand..

… I think John killing his future self put an end to the loop and started his life over as Jane, stopping the Fizzle bomber, or preventing him from happening. I think John/Jane was created as a hermaphrodite for this reason, possibly for Robertson and the company to experiment with time travel, such as a test run, in order to have an alternate option of closing the time travel loop, which the alternate option was the alternate sex of John/Jane.

I just took a moment to think of it all again and I think there are too many unanswered questions. Such as why were the villain and the agent the same person? How did the one character come to have both sexes? Why did we never see any other agents, was there only one? I think for proper explanation this would have had to been a three or so hour long or so movie. Not sure, could be wrong.. the purpose could have been to simply have people think Wtf? At the end of it all.. I don’t know. Would be nice if the writer/directors came out and explained it..

Not sure if that all makes sense, but think in just made myself very sick and a migraine that may take time travel to heal..

Jane/John wakes up in a hospital bed because he/se travels 22 years into the future when he/she is not used to

Just saw the movie. Just read this article. Now I’ve read these comments and I literally have a headache.

I’m feeling the same and I still don’t understand

This movie is very confusing, right? Other time loop movies like Timecrimes (2007) https://www.astronomytrek.com/timecrimes-2007-explained/ are weird, but Predestination takes weirdness to a whole new level!

Confusing, that’s for sure. Just watched the movie. Not a physics expert, but as a movie vote thumbs down.

Same 🙁 What I can’t figure out that’s bothering me is there had to be a beginning at some point and if Jane and John conceived a baby there is no way that it could turn into Jane and John, it just couldn’t, could it? Unless we are looking at some type of cloning going on?? Ugh lol

There was no genetic diversity so technically it was just his/herself

In the real world an exact copy of the parents would not be produced. Within the close time loop in the movie, however, the circumstances are different as John is both his own mother and father with one set of genetic codes, whose existence doesn’t seem to originate from anywhere. Being a special case, as the loop repeats itself and fertilization occurs, the same genome would be produced leading to the baby being born in the exact same way.

Nah, still makes no sense. You would have to be born and grow up before you could (time travel and) have a baby with yourself, so you could never be your own parent. Time loops would have to start at the end. Genetics codes wouldn’t make this even theoretically possible. Maybe there’s Disney magic involved that they didn’t tell us about. lol

What if originally Jane/John was born from two parents. He/she happened to be a hermaphrodite. Mr. Robertson wants to create a time loop, so he hires Jane. He convinces her to be turned into a male, John. He sends John back in time where he falls for Jane. Now their baby is basically a clone. The baby is stolen and taken to the orphanage. This would be one way to start the loop.

Time travel movies in general can be quite challenging, and Predestination is certainly one of the more complicated explorations of the concept. They are invariably filled with interwoven, overlapping timelines, paradoxes and plots that never end, and are often intentionally designed to confuse the viewer and leave them with a myriad of unanswered questions which they are then asked to solve themselves. All this, despite the fact there is no uniformity of time travel theory amongst scientists, with many believing that time travel to the past itself is not possible, and others believing any attempt to do so would be fatal.

In the meantime, those people interested in the concept of time travel can at least get to experience some of the challenges theoretical physicists face through watching movies, and reading books on the subject. Needless to say, it’s a special film that gets better with repeated viewing and in my opinion Predestination is such a movie. Anyone in the game for watching the most complex time travel movie ever made, I recommend “Primer”, after which I guarantee you will change your opinion about Predestination. I have provided a post on Primer (2004) here for anyone looking for some after explanations on the movie. https://www.astronomytrek.com/primer-2004-explained/

Same here! I saw the movie and now Reading these comments giving me a feeling like wtf is happening after watching the movie… Am i gone insane? Pardadox? Jane? Time? Oh yeah! 4-5 hours are gone and still i am figuring out about that movie? Totally Awesome.

1981 – time machine invented 1985 – Temporal Bureau created 11 Temporal Agent, one of them is our hero john/jane/bartender Our bartender have last mission before retired – to create himself but he do mistake…. 1. After jump to 1963 send john to meet jane, next mission is to 1964 to take baby but he do ilegal jump 2. In the moment he fight with fuzzle bomber, he get new clue about device from bomber bomb, in this time there are event when he get burn, this moment is relate with his ilegal jump, think…. he lose fight and the bomber get weapon from him, then young john get interupted by someone and get burn, so our bartender realize that his action is cause his accident, but he get new clue, looping is break

Ok so we go to 1975 when old john get retired, he get order to find clue from device he get, and find the bomber is future himself, well u know Looper right…. when our young one take action then old one know , i dont know in this event what happend to future john aka fuzzle bomber realize or not but we can think that he get sick/mad and his memory become mess

Our john have choice… when he do ilegal jum he create new timeline, he change future, he change his face, and now he kill himself to prevent thousand people kill but wait….

1993 – agent john get burn and get plastic surgery, he looking to old newspaper and found that 1975 still happend and so what happend then…

I think that after john kill himself, he become crazy, he continue bomber job, snake eat his tail infinity

Temporal agent must go back in time after killing the Fizzle bomber to become old by 1975.

Wouldn’t there be two Janes, two babies, when John takes baby Jane back to 1945? At least in the first loop, there would have been original baby Jane and manufactured baby Jane existing at the same time unless John or the Beurau took action to prevent original baby Jane from existing, killing the original, or by changing original baby Janes entire life (say by moving her to a different orphanage). Original baby Jane would have completely different parents.

This is the only thing I could think of that couldn’t be reconciled in my mind.

the original baby is the created one. nothing is original or fake in a loop.

That’s my thoughts, too. There is only one baby when Hawke transports her back to 1945 because baby Jane was not born in 1945 but 1963, so there is no reason for there to be a baby in 1945 until Hawke drops her off.

I understood everythin except: why did the agnet decide to become the fizzle bomber? Was it becosue he got insane? Did he prevent even moe crimes with bombing? We are left by him sitting at the table deciding on if what?

I guess he tries to go to the past to prevent the bombing that the fizzle member has already done. With every jump he becomes crazier.

When the fizzle bomber shows you the clippings of all the lives he saved, that shows that he made a lot of jumps. That is what made him crazy,

No, the existence of those clippings shows that John always finally succeeds in erasing the big bomb and stopping his old crazy self from ever setting it off. That iteration of him still goes nuts, but the young John who wakes up in 1985 will compete every necessary mission to get Hawke to that Laundromat to kill him.

No, its living without the fizzlebomber and watching all that happen in this timeline that makes him decide to become the bomber, you see… after killing a man, to stop the fizzle bomber, he learns to justify the other killings after all…

Just don’t see it that way. If the fizzlebomber ever succeeds, then all those other disasters never happen, so John always kills the older version of himself, EXCEPT in the original timeline that allowed the fizzlebomber to succeed. In that timeline, before the Agency comes into being, John never goes back and interrupts Jane’s life, she is a discreet and unique person. Once John goes back and seduces her, he takes the place of the man in her life, and creates himself. That child then is abducted, jumped back, and brought to the orphanage. So, instead of Jane becoming John who becomes a jumper agent who goes crazy and becomes the fizzlebomber, Jane becomes John who loops back to make himself the father of the baby that becomes him, and then, uses all the clues he has amassed in all his jumps to locate himself and shoot the crazy old dude before he can blow up the City. It’s an awesomely constructed paradox that gets to the heart of the impossibility and mental puzzle of time travel. After killing the fizzlebomber, John doesn’t make any more jumps. He has already had a fulfilling relationship (with his female self) and it will only be 10 years or so until the younger him arrives to begin his career as an agent. The loop is permanent, and there will be no endless repetitions and iterations of him, unless he gives in – but he states that he misses her, with no implication he will. There are no other Jane/Johns left straying through time. Mission accomplished.

Awesome take on the movie. I think your comment is the most well rounded that I have seen so far.

I really liked this explanation, as I couldn’t figure out where would the burns and the fight come from, if the fizzlebomber was killed right before the event. On the other hand, where would the paper come from to motivate John in seeking the fizzlebomber, getting into a fight with himself, as well as getting a new face. I still feel like he just broke the loop by shooting himself.

This is a brain teasing film depicting the predestination paradox.This is a crazy and awesome movie which constantly plays with brain and mind.This film reminds me of ‘The Terminator’ where Kyle Reese (from future) is the father of John Connor.But this film takes the ‘chicken or egg’ paradox to a whole new level.But there are a few things that haven’t been clarified.

How could Jane forget the face of John? Wearing a coat and a hat can be that deceiving?

After becoming a man John/Jane should have recognized himself (as the man from 1963) while he was looking at the mirror.

Even after meeting Jane at the college,John could have avoided the situation…When Ethan met his older self, he came to know that if could break the chain by not killing his older self (he killed his older self and became the older Ethan, i.e. Fizzle Bomber)…but I guess some things are predestined. 🙂

Hi there, as I understood it Jane doesn’t recognize John because from her perspective it’s the first loop and she never met himself/herself before that moment. She will herself become John later, after she had John’s baby and the sex change. John indeed recognizes Jane as himself before the operation. Gosh, one really has to be careful about wording when talking time travel, it’s really easy to get the exact concepts off kilter ;o)

Psychology 101 could explain the memory loss. Such as, the mind doesn’t allow connection, that he/she was her own lover, because of how absurd it is or PTSD from losing a baby and becoming a man.

Certain plot points could explain it as well:

– 7 years pass between last interaction between John and Jane

– Jane/John rarely examine themselves in a mirror so the baseline to recall from is near nonexistent

– John has never seen himself in a coat or hat because the style is out of fashion by the time the full female to male conversion is complete (so yeah, a bit deceiving)

– They’re only seen together at night or in low light (in so far as I recall)

– They may have only spent a few hours together total, a specific amount of time isn’t indicated, which would explain the night time only scenes

Agreed, like you say the John which Jane met must have been a few years older at that point (unmarried mother in the bar) than how Jane would have looked when she first became a man. The rest, as you say, can be explained by memory fading over time, the brevity of their encounter, and an aversion to looking in the mirror.

Jane would never forget the face of the only man she ever loved and now truly hates. Their encounter was not brief either, Hawke only came back to take John with him a year later

When Jane becomes John and saw the reflection in mirror it reminded him of the mystery lover…

Also a quote prior to the meeting of Jane and John is “strange, every time I looked in the mirror I was reminded of the bastard that ruined my life”.

He didnt enjoy looking in the mirror, even as Jane. I’m guessing that quirk continues astute her sex change

so…after killing the crazy old self, the only way for Ethan to break the loop n put an end to this cycle is by making a report of his malfunctioned time travel device ?? ….. if that was me, i’d do that, i mean f**king urself literally over n over again, n wondering who the heck is ur parents forever n killing urself again n again, that’s no way to live, man………

anyway, THIS MOVIE IS AWESOME !!!! i was really entertained by it…..by far the only movie related to timeline featuring a single person f**king himself xD hahahahahaha

ohh, and this article is good too, good explanation OP 🙂

Movie was’t bad it was nice in fact but doesn’t make any sense most of the time travel movies doesn’t make sense because it’s not possible to time travel to the past

Hi Rahul, you may find some of the explanations behind the various time paradoxes here useful https://www.astronomytrek.com/5-bizarre-paradoxes-of-time-travel-explained/

Thanks for the link but I can’t agree with everything it has to say… Especially for grandfather paradox… Gun wouldn’t fire doesn’t make sense but you can’t go back to past does.. Maybe I can go to future but not past…

Yes you can. Einstein proved it. And if we could go to the future, why the heck shouldn’t they be able to go to the past.

Because time isn’t a “thing”. The past doesn’t exist, nor does the future. Time is simply an abstract, arbitrary concept of motion relative to other objects.

It is possible to “travel” into the future because time is relative. By traveling at the speed of light, or near/in a black hole, time somewhere else (let’s say Earth) moves at a different rate.

You cannot go into the past because the past doesn’t exist. As far as we currently know, timelines don’t exist and there is nothing to suggest they do.

Although violating the law of cause and efect, there is nothing in Albert Einstein’s theories of general and special relativity to rule out time travel to the past. Many physicists may not like the possibility on account of the paradoxes it may throw up, like the ones mentioned here, but even these have ways in which they can theoretically be avoided or resolved.

Amongst the methods which have been proposed as possible are travelling faster than the speed of light, or using black holes, or traversable wormholes to create a closed timelike curve allowing the traveler to travel and return to his own spacetime. You might find this article interesting if you’d like to read more on the posibilities of backward time travel..

https://www.astronomytrek.com/black-holes-relativity-and-time-travel/

You could go back with a wormhole (which most likely don’t exist). Or travel faster than the speed of light (which will never happen), but if you could then time would run backwards relative to your view.

Wait. What? Really?

This is purely theoretical.

Yes, it is possible to time travel to the past or, at least, it’s not IMPOSSIBLE (see, Einstein, a guy WAY smarter than you).

The time travel movie does not make sense to you because you have a pitiful understanding of temporal mechanics. Specifically, “effect before cause” and the predestination paradox.

Don’t worry, however, because this is complicated stuff and not for the average Rahul.

Read harder, my friend, it will come to you. FYI, the grandfather paradox is easily solved by the multiverse theory.

Do you really know anything about Einstein’s theories. He said you could never travel back in time. To achieve this you would have to violate the speed-of-light barrier. And this is not possible according to relativity theory. and many scientists dismiss time travel into the past as an impossibility. Even Stephen Hawking clearly says that time travel to past is impossible.

Well then, it must be so. We should all listen when people tell us we can’t do things because this is how progress is made, right?

Except the multiverse theory explains nothing as its just another layer deeper. Likely that multiverse is a subset of another multiverse. Eventually you’ll go so deep and come to a halt like the zooming of pixels on an hd television. Or, it is infinite, thus the paradox.

Although it seems like time travel it really isn’t. When you are far away, it would appear that you went back in time when you look back at earth, but it is only an appearance. If you were to continue your journey back to earth after traveling faster than the speed of light you are still in the same time.

Rude and high and mighty comments by some people, pathetic.

So you view a comment as “high and mighty” and refer to them as “pathetic?”

Are you way too effin stupid to realize that your comment, in itself, is “high and mighty” and, therefore, pathetic?

God bless the stupid people of the Earth, but don’t try and get into a pissing match with me, son, cause your dick, your brain and/or your fist is no match for mine, loser.

I think this movie was based more on human psychology and the idea of true narcissim than than the nature of time travel. I also think that some peoples comments reassure this notion and the idea that ones intelgents and total being could be more important than another’s. But the time travel and self fu king is a lot of fun.

Wanna point out everything else in every movie that isn’t possible?… It wont take you…

Doesn’t make sense to me yet, how does the agent when old get burned by the bomb, but somehow he also is killed by his younger self? Where is the loop? Assuming he breaks the loop by shooting him older, still how does the loop go on with both alive? And where is the agent conected to John/jane? There has to be more then 1 loop going on in this movie, which makes things too easy right? And in a way seems impossible for Robertson and space Corp to control many loops going on at the same time, the movie would probably have to be extended by a lot of hours, and still I don’t see how things could fit perfectly.

dude… you completely didn’t understand the movie

Maybe stick with a nice comedy buddy. This movie is not meant for your level.

omg this is too funny

You just created yourself a loop mate, its over, let go..

In this movie there are four versions of the same character existing at different stages along the same time loop, with Jane becoming John who in turn is burnt and becomes Hawke, who after retirement then becomes the Fizzle Bomber. Hawke completes the loop by 1) taking baby Jane back in time to grow up and become the main character 2) Hawke causing the delay which resulted in John getting burnt and needing surgery, before retiring to 1970’s and shooting the Fizzle Bomber before then becoming him.. Time travel is then invented in 1981 making the whole scenario possible.

As for Robertson controlling many loops at the same time, its possible the Temporal Bureau exists on one timeline with many time loops branching off of it. Why should that be the case? Well its all a matter of speculation, maybe the Bureau created a causality loop each time they tried to interfere with time resulting in these time loops; maybe they were necessary to avoid a ‘Let’s Kill Hitler Paradox’ in the Bureau’s own timeline, or maybe they were needed in some other way for preventing crimes from happening.

If we follow all the stuff about time travel, the thing that i cant understand is the child being borned from itself (John & Jane), should be a new person, not Jane, not John, not Hawke. You could have a child from yourself, but not be born from yourself!

Could be because John/Jane is a special person because he is in a loop-knot paradox in which he is his own mother and father, meaning in the movie’s timeline his DNA comes from nowhere.

That doesn’t make it magic DNA that can create the exact same person though.

You’re right, in the real world, never the exact same person. The movie is in a closed loop, with no beginning and end, and the point is made with the chicken and egg joke. The answer was a rooster.

Since Jane was born with both male & female she/he has sex with himself after being sent back in time. So we are looking at 1 set of genetic code, the odds off the chromosomes working out exactly the same way are infinitesimally small (including the same condition). So genetically they have the same code, but there would be variations at the recombination and epi-genetic level resulting in slight appearance changes etc (like real identical twins) this would not really impact the plot, however.

The movie was telling a story of a paradox you can’t ask it to explain how it’s possible. It is after all fiction, and the movie never broke its own laws.

But in the spirit of predestination theory and the movie: the moment that baby was born fertilization happened a particular way, resulting in a particular genome. So naturally, when we come full loop, the baby will be born in the exact same manner.

Your cells replicate all the time… why would two identical beings with the same exact DNA not generate the same being? There is no mix of new DNA from either side.

even if two beings had the exact same DNA (which is statistically impossible, but let’s say it’s true because the person traveled back in time to meet him/herself), the way that reproduction and joining of the sperm/egg works and splitting of the cells makes it statistically impossible to generate a third being with the same “expression” of DNA, even if the actual DNA is the same, the “expression” of DNA would be different, even if the two parents are identical because they are the same person from two different times.

you don’t really get to understand this until at least 2nd or 3rd year genetics in university, but trust that you can’t generate the same being even if there’s no “new” DNA from either side. but this is too technical, it’s science fiction, time travel itself can’t be done either so don’t over think it 🙂 even i’m just showing off my background in genetics, haha. i liked the movie, plot holes and all.

The film is tightly based on a book written in July 1958….before the concept of DNA came into the public’s consciousness. That would explain this seeming discrepancy. Yes, DNA had been discovered but the intricacy of how it works was unknown to all but a few specialized scientists in the 50’s.

As tiger tiger stated above: ” the movie, which not only stayed incredibly faithful to the storyline, but a large portion of the dialog was taken directly from the original story, verbatim. It’s even more amazing when you consider that Heinlein wrote it in a single day, back in the late 1950s. It’s actually a very short story, which can be read right in-line, by googling the original title, “All You Zombies.””

Mayra as i understand it, its because that child (lets pretend no identity right now) was taken back to the orphanage to become them, so whatever child was born ended up being her/him by being taken back to the orphanage. Look confusing because you cant pinpoint a start. i came to find answers but im just getting more questions too.

Taking a baby to an orphanage doesn’t make it have the same genetics as you though. It is genetically impossible to give birth to yourself, even twins arent exactly the same.

Thats true but I get where Ozy is coming from. In the movie, it spans across all the babies showing how alike they are at that moment aside from gender (just little crying nameless souls waiting to be nurtured). We are all never more alike than when we are all just born. Its our experiences that actually change us. Therefore, when Jane decided to name the baby Jane, she had triggered/began to continue the paradox, had she named the baby Tina, it would have altered the story/timeline. Hawke continues the paradox by taking the baby to the same orphanage where Jane herself had grown up; thus, placing the baby back in the same environment to go through the same bad experiences to become the same lonely young lady.

If that baby is you, it would. You can buy the time travel but not the even less outrageous biology? “It is genetically impossible to give birth to yourself,” It is also impossible for a male version of oneself to have sex with the female version of that same person by going back in time before a sex change… It’s seems this movie might not be a documentary.

Predestination Theory states that if a time traveler goes back in time to stop his friend from dying in a car accident he can’t actually stop the accident from happening, he merely changes HOW the accident happens. The time traveler will/might discover that instead of the original person killing his friend in the accident it was instead HE who was driving the car that killed his friend. This is due to the law in Predestination Theory that the event is destined to happen no matter what but if someone was to try to stop the event they would only be changing HOW it happens not IF it happens.

So Jane will always be the baby at the orphanage in 1945, the bartender is merely changing HOW she got there, regardless of who conceived her.

Thoughts? That a lot of theories are ridiculous…. like sayings, there is always a contrary and assertive opposing example. making not just one nonsense, but both.

There is no way to reconcile this for me. It is genetically impossible for that to happen.I agree

Genetics are are a bunch of random codes. No matter how improbable an identical person could be born. Its just extraordinarily low….

And just go with it, it’s just a movie.

time travel is impossible to if you’re looking for something realistic this was not the movie to see

The not quite perfectness of it only ramps up the mind-f**kery… and that is not such a bad thing. I think the film is a bit like Stairway To Heaven…. written in a day and full of things to criticize that fans do not want to see because their love is too invested in it. That’s not such a bad thing either. I choose just to love Predestination anyway… Stairway to Heaven is not in my heart, so I just rip it to sh**. The same is happening here with Predestination. Those who love it forgive it. But, objectively-speaking, it is not a perfect film in terms of logic.. only in an argumentative, no beginning no end way. The film insists upon this ‘truth’ (the snake that eats itself forever and ever) to make the film perfectly work. But I believe what I believe and I do not believe in the snake theory or predestination theory, so I examine the time travel plausibilities, fixate on the ‘order’ and find holes. C’est la vie.

I was about to write a long post about this! You are right! It’s impossible that every time Jane and John had sex, the same egg got fertilized by the same sperm, and even if so I guess there would be differences! For me this is the only big plot hole I can find and one I can’t wrap my head around.

But if genetics are random events that happen every time. Would it not be conceivable that the same “random” event would happen if it repeated itself in the same moment in time. Thus ensuring that when John and Jane procreate in the same manner and in the same time period then the same random genetic anomaly will happen. Making it part of the events that are predetermined.

what about the big plot hole that is time travel? The movie is obviously not made to be realistic, enjoy it for the story tells

Not to throw a whole new discussion into this forum (which is awesome), try this one out…in an original timeline (one that exists outside of the loop), Robertson is the original baby, a non-hermaphrodite. He invents time travel, is able to go back in time to replace his actual father with himself as the father. This allows for the beginning of the loop and explains why the baby was born with two sets of organs (because of the similar DNA). The new baby is manipulated by Robinson, and he is able to create the paradox by manipulating events from there. There are a few holes in this idea (Robertson’s age, for one), but I think they can be explained away. Thoughts?

I’ve been trying to figure this out myself and came to the conclusion that the baby taken at the hospital is not the same baby at the orphanage. There’s mention of 11 agents working for the agency these agents are the occurrences of babies taken from the hospital. There is only one baby Jane!

I think they created 11 agents (11 babies), the baby that is taken from the hospital is not the same baby that is left at the orphanage

It is passed off as plausible as there is no beginning nor end in the film’s ‘truth’… Which is nonsense. High concept over logic. Still great film though. Those who think the Universe is everywhere and always will think Predestination is perfect and watertight…. those who think the Big bang expanded it and surrounding it is nothing, which is more logical, will find holes in the plot as it mus have an ‘order’. Simpe as that.

Maybe after becoming a man, John didn’t recognize himself as the man who dated Jane because his mind blocked out the bizarre, unnatural thought of having impregnated himself. He even said he didn’t like looking in the mirror, possibly for the same reasons.

This is the one thing that possibly ruins the movie for me. Hopefully there is an explanation, otherwise it comes across as a writing error.

Or obsessive fans pouring over it instead of enjoying it… lolz, jokes

…but when he meets her, in person, he clearly knows that it’s his earlier, female self. How could he not have known who he was looking, talking, and interacting with? So, it really doesn’t matter that he remembers the “meeting” or not–when they copulate, he *has to know* that it’s his earlier, female self.

I think it’s because no one else really showed the care or love all their lives’ so 2 speak and that may have been a way of not being lonely. John at the time was not planning to leave Jane and try to correct his wrongs even though Hawke would always convince him not to do so. The copulation with yourself is a bit weird but that also may result from the loneliness/unloved factor (remember this is when John and Jane are still ignorant of the truth of Hawke and the fizzle bomber and trying to save the world and so on).

Look…. the biggest HOLE is the fight between the two Hawkes. They are face to face… there is light, at times bright and they are in close combat. He must see it is himself…. the suggestion otherwise is not just convenient, it is preposterous and ridiculous.

ok, why didn’t Jane (as she turned into a man) freak out because she looked just like the man she fell in love with? or am I confused. Some places on the web are saying that a hermaphrodite could be the result of incest now,if true..hmmm

i thought the same thing!

Jane doesn’t recognize John as for her it’s the first loop and she had never met John before that moment. After the operation Jane may not have recognized herself as John as the John she originally met would have been older than the one she is now by a number of years. Besides she said she rarely looks in the mirror. Its also unclear how many nights John and Jane stayed together, and its possible it may have been just the one night we saw in the movie, and so its natural for her recollection to then fade over time.

There’s also the line that the Unmarried Mother tells the Bartender that whenever John looks into the mirror he is reminded of the man that left him when he was Jane.

But John remembers everything he was thinking at dinner when he was Jane…

This is the problem: John knows it’s his earlier, female self he’s falling in love and mating with–this is revealed the moment he bumps into her, so it seems. That doesn’t work, for me. Ruins the whole movie, basically. What kind of f__ked up individual would proceed to fall in love with and *mate with* him/herself? He/she wouldn’t–film destroyed.

I dunno, I’m kind of hot. I think I might fu** my brains out!! Most people are most attracted to those that are like themselves… so the most attracted you would be would be to literally yourself if gay, or literally the exact female version of yourself (if a man) if not. Trippy.

I’m wondering why in the beginning, John gets burned who then is transformed into Ethan Hawk. Who understands that he now has a new face, which to me means he remembers his old one. But what Im wondering is shouldn’t have John knew immediately that he was Hawk as right after he sees Hawk pushing the time machine towards him, he gets reconstruct, resulting in looking exactly like Hawk. Knowing this shouldn’t he know as Hawk not to make the illegal jump that would result in a distraction to John that would leave him to getting burned.

So in order to break the loop that is John turning into Hawk, He could have upon recognizing after the surgery that he was indeed the one who pushed the case to John, he as Hawk should have never made the jump and there the bomb could have been properly disarmed and John would have lived on in I guess a different timelines from that of Hawk who never made the jump, he could have lived on in a different one.

Im not sure I make sense but I was wondering if anyone can explain why this wasn’t he case or why it could not be.

Yes, you are touching on some of the holes I spoke about. The disadvantage of writing something in a day and something that was short but ultimately fleshed out and exposed.

Or it could be the plot is not watertight.

Pete has the right answer, but most importantly, after Jane has finally become John (while telling the story to the bartender) that whenever he/she looks in the mirror she is reminded of the man who left her. So there’s the hint, but memory just did not work that way for them.

Exactly! I just posted this before reading yours.

Well, it is the result of sleeping with YOURSELF. More precisely. 😎

so, what exactly is meant by illegal jump going back to the time where he have been and trying to change the event? Alright, another conclusion.The thought that came across my mind is if the temporal agent did not save john from the burning due to improper detonation,’new agent’ (john) should have died, therefore no older temporal agent which means no explosion that cause 10000 people to die for nothing.This just bringing us to a fact that this crazy time loop is triggered by the illegal jump.

so, two mistakes done by temporal agent that would trap him inside the time loop. But who cares, same time but different soul.

1) illegal jump 2) did not report the time machine error

This movie is flawless, cant find any mistake thou, unlike back to the future, they mixed up the grandfather paradox and parallel universe theory both.

And the penalty for an illegal jump was death right? The person ceases to exist I think he said. So Robertson is the enforcer making sure John has removed himself from the regular timeline and has put him in the loop, so he effectively ceases to exist and keeps ultimately killing himself in the loop.

It has holes.. unfortunately.There must be an original sequence of events… and this creates the holes. Only a scientific try-hard there is no beginning and no end interpretation allows for the holes to disappear. Convenient. Loved the film though… LOVED it!!

Just to add it will go on and on. No beginning.

I just fancied seeing if there were any discussions on google about this film, and come across this site. I took from it that there are 11 different ethan hawkes. From his point of view its happening once but as viewers were seeing 11 perspectives. theres 11 agents temporal agents. Just to keep the agency alive. The ‘rooster’ is Classic cliche but masterfully executed.

Interesting observation from the part where Robertson? says there are 11 agents working for the bureau.

That’s intriguing. From the one child, set up multiple additional loops which each result in a “new” temporal agent. Would be interesting to see a sequel showing them juggling that 😀

can you please explain the rooster joke. so lost!

Predestination leaves viewer pondering the origin of the Jane/John character, especially as Jane and John together produce a baby which is transported back in time and grows up as Jane before later becoming John. A classic chicken and egg paradox, albeit inside a time loop. The only way I can help you understand the coarse joke mentioned in the movie is that the rooster (John) must have “come” at some point, to impregnate the chicken (Jane).

Thanks Pete, that was very helpful.

Sorry Pete, I wrote my answer before reading yours. didn’t mean to be redundant.

Not at all, I liked your answer too, lol.. interestingly the chicken and the egg joke in Predestination was not mentioned in the original short story by Robert A. Heinlein, and was an inspired touch added by Peter and Michael Spierig.

Then that was a mis-step. As the egg came first. That is why, odds-on, a writer is smarter and more forward-thinking than a film-maker! 😎

Again, as stated further above, I know what you are trying to say.. but please do not reference the chicken and the egg scenario? The egg came first. This has been established now. It is fact.

Gen, I’m not so certain it is a joke, in and of itself. It’s more of a way to potentially divert one from worrying about which came first, “the chicken or the egg”.

By introducing the rooster into the equation, one no longer has to be concerned with which came first (egg or chicken), but now must accept the rooster as a satisfactory answer, or might wonder, then where did the rooster come from. I’ll leave you with that potential understanding of the rooster joke as I interpret it.

What a great place this is!

Thank you for your explanation. 🙂

Im quite sure it is a joke, it sounds like the classic Double Entendre of a Rooster ‘Coming’…. Just my opinion, of course.

Dear God!! Did you misplace your sense of humour!? It means the Rooster CAME (i.e. ejaculated) first!! I mean Hey Zeus!!

It’s a play on the multiple meanings of the word “came”. In the original question, the meaning of the word “came” is basically, “came into existence”.

However in sexual terms, the word “came” means that one has achieved sexual satisfaction, or orgasmed, which is the meaning used in the answer.

So, which came (ie., orgasmed) first? the chicken or the egg? … The rooster.

Phew! Someone gets it! But, yeah, the egg came first. Google it (if you must) or just think about it… think BEYOND the deep thought that brought about the riddle…. A saying invented and put into circulation BEFORE scientific knowledge answered the question literally.

You are wrong Nikko, stop applying your view as fact, some people might find you annoying by doing that.

What I can conclude is that Robertson is behind all these things and that what he is trying to do is to experiment with the time machine and its effect on humans, time continuity and events. Somebody please explain to me what are the illegal jumps that Robertson repeatedly spoke about.

Robertson asks the temporal agent how many illegal jumps he made, to which Hawke says only one, which presumably was the one which created the original time loop.

For me the only one illegal jump is when he tries to kill again the fizzle bomber and is here when the bomb burns his face. It was not part of the mission, the mission was to continue the loop not to kill the fizzle bomber.

So, how did the first baby exist in this time loop, since the past event is inevitable to change, then why is it still necessary for somebody from the future to set up John and Jane together. Because, even if he let the time flow, he still exist,.. Haha this is the craziness of time traveling. Maybe this story is trying to tell us that time traveling is bad.

If Jane kept the baby, and she was never taken back to 1945 and left at the orphanage then Jane would cease to exist leaving no one to give birth to the baby. If the loop is broken and Hawke, John, Jane, and baby all cease to exist, then all the work done for the Bureau thus far would be undone.

Lolz… Basically, yes. The message of the film is simple…. Stop yourself making a mistake BEFORE it happens. For some errors cannot be undone AND/OR the human condition is to need and want love…. Without it, we can become something different, something monstrous. That’s the irony of such a scientific and smart film… it has the simplest and most romantic of messages. What I don’t see many people doing is questioning the film’s brilliance. And we’d all be right not to! In fact, if I hear they want to ‘do a sequel’, well, I will personally ensure this does not occur. Even if I have to use my time ma – oh, hang on…

This movie is crazy as it gets!!

I think the first hermaphrodite baby existed and continued normally as agent, changed to Ethan Hawke by using a random facial transplant and died as Fizzle bomber by his creation… Ethan Hawke. In the mean time, Ethan Hawke goes back, finds himself and RE-Recruits himself in order to send himself back to reproduce with the hermaphrodite. Then comes out the first baby born inside a time loop witch can follow the same storyline, and have the same face transplanted again, but always have to kill itself when decomissioned. The question is what did happen to the first baby. The first Baby (outside the loop) should have been somewhere when Ethan abbandoned the second (born inside the loop). And he can’t have vanished it because is essential for the loop to exist. So may be the first baby was left in a different town istead of the town that the loop is going on and on. (he started the loop in a different area in order to allow the babies (outside and inside the loop) to coexist for a period of time.

Maybe Robertson is the first baby and by that he makes up everything

Wrong. By it’s very essence, the loop is infinite. That’s literally what it is. It’s a paradox. There is no ‘first baby’. If the baby was by different parents, it would have been a different person, not Jane. Or it would have been Jane and when Jane impregnated herself THAT would have been a different baby that was not Jane. The point of the plot is that it is infinite. Hence the chicken and the egg. There is no first chicken or first egg. It’s infinite.

You are half right. If you start from the beginning..there is a baby “Jane” that is left at an orphanage… If this baby is the product of Jane and John, a meeting that happens in the future….. but because the future hasn’t happened yet, the baby can never exist to start with…

I disagree. In the logic of this story they don’t say the only possible way Jane could have been born was to reproduce with herself, that is just how she is an anomaly that she can in effect clone herself since she has both sets of reproductive organs. So theoretically, Robertson just finds the original Jane born of normal parents after time travel is invented and runs experiments artificially inseminating her and out comes an exact genetic clone of Jane. It is once they create this exact genetic clone of Jane that they through her into 1945 to start the loop.

I also think that the fizzle bomber in the first timeline before time travel is invented has to be a totally different person, but because of the predestined paradox to prevent the fizzle bomber from blowing up New York they create the Jane we know in the perfect loop to stop the fizzle bomber by becoming the fizzle bomber and killing himself.

EXACTLY!! Uroboros- The snake eating its tail forever!! They even quote this in the movie!! THERE IS NO BEGINNING, get that out of your heads- There is always a future, and even if there was a “first time through” then John came back in time and impregnated Jane. That’s it. Like coolguy said, it’s infinite with no beginning- that’s the whole point- to create someone with no natural origin. The reason it hurts our brains is because it’s a paradox. (Think about the universe going on forever in all directions. This is a fact, but the brain cannot conceive of forever.)

Actually a universe going on forever is easy to conceive. Try thinking of a universe that has an end on all sides. That’s really inconceivable.

Nope. That’s called a box. I’d say an infinite amount of matter in an infinite space is a bit trickier to picture than a box, no?

More than tricky, it is nonsensical and impossible. Think about it. Or was the big bang always!? Nope. We might not know it, but it has a date. Before that date? Our version of nothing. The nothing that the Universe has shifted, but not replaced…. Oh, hang on…. brain just explod— &%$#^ dhnaljt gkdsl……

No, THE BIG BANG was not always… But the stuff that went BANG!!!… was. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, therefor, there was ALWAYS something. When it went BANG! is irrelevant.

Your argument just ate itself. If there was only matter/energy before the Big Bang expanded it…. then there was nothing to expand into. If there was empty ‘space’ then it cannot be fully filled out, just expanded and sent further afield. I am happy to know that it is unkowable and that we will never know, but can logically assess it without doing so. You are saying we will know when we know… which gets us NOWHERE as we never will. By your logic, we should not even be discussing Predestination… but look what everyone here is doing. We were given brains to think so we could know, not know so we could think. You’re all arse-to-front…. Like anyone debating that the chicken came before the egg when the egg factually came first. Why do we now know this? Because, as expected, we become MORE intelligent and have greater and greater insights… even the other half of humanity’s masses seems to dumb down in an equally proportionate manner. Sigh.. No matter, we forge ahead anyway.

Wrong. the universe is expanding, or not, but either way it is not forever. Or else, what existed before the big bang if NOT nothing… the nothing that still exists on the ‘outskirts’ of the universe. It is human’s fear of what that means that makes you think forever is the inconceivable, when the opposite is true. It is easier to believe it is unending… and for our purposes, it is anyway as we cannot catch up with its expansion or reach its end.. And the idea that the time-line of the movie has no beginning nor end and that is plausible, well, this exists to avoid the many plot holes that occur if you conceive differently…. So, um, well done writers. It holds up less-strongly to other assumptions or truths, such as an original truth / reality that has been warped in a successive way. Also, she is not an hermaephrodite in an equal sense… she has underdeveloped male organs, as these secondary organs were brought about, IMHO, by the union of self with self. She is a ruined woman… but ruined by her future male self. As soon as this is accepted, there are plot holes. It was originally a short story after all. Great stuff though! Loved the film. I knew that Ethan was the fizzle bomber and called it early.. but the ol’ Hawke is actually EVERYONE moment!?? Sheer brilliance and could not stop grinning. I know this will sound arrogant, but what the hey…. You gotta be on the ball to pull one past me and make me see what you want me to see and not what I want to see per se…. and this film straight down-trou’d me! I was like, SNAP!! Touche! 😎

This is shortsighted. To say there is no end implies that we have discovered said outer limits of the universe. Even if we had, and there was nothing (a void) on the other side of this ‘wall’- that void is still a part of the conceivable universe, and thus…the universe has no end.

Tell me- what is the edge of the universe like? What is beyond?

Who cares what is beyond? And, no, we will never discover it as it is too far away….earth will die first and we will never reach it on a ship due to fuel requirements. To know nothing about something, does not mean that it does not exist. I am humble and know nothing about the nothing, just that it must logically exist. Are you saying there was always something always and it is everywhere?? ‘Cos that is just fu**ing ridiculous. Think about it… if your head does not blow up first/ Shortsighted? That is the pot calling the kettle black.

I’ve just seen this movie and I’d like to contribute to the conversation with my thoughts. Let’ start by the end: since Fizzler Bomber dies in 1975 before the mass murdering bombing, the only one who could have placed that bomb is Hawke himself, an act that states the fact he accepted the Bomber role. But I think that HawksFizzler Bomber role goes farther than that. I think that Fizzler is the one who gave to Robertson’s agency the time machine: Robertson says that thanks to Fizzler Bomber they have learned a lot, and the only answer I can think of is Time travelling. Time travelling has been invented in 1985, and it caon only be used 53 years before and 53 years after this date or otherwise our dmension will collapse. I think that this detail is strictly connected to Sarah/John/Hawke/Fizzler life span. It cannot be used out of this lapse of time simply because out of this time belt, the Anomaly cannot exist, which means also that the Anomaly activity extends up to 53 years before and 53 years after the invention of Time travelling. So, why not believing that the Anomaly created the future tragedy that Fizzler Bomber tried to avoid? According to Robertson, the Anomaly is the only one who can intervene on history without making it collapse, that’s because the Anomaly is just intervening on himself in a strict, unavoidable pattern. Too late to keep thinking, buy I’d like to read your thoughts about this interpretation.

I started reading all these comments because what bothered me is the question of who had placed the bomb of the mass murdering. I like your thought about Hawke giving the time travelling device to Robertson’s agency because that would explain his motive. If the motive was only about saving lives it would’ve made no sense because in the end the fizzle bomber caused the massive terror attack just to keep the loop ongoing. And about the “dust settling in”, I believe that the main reason why it was worthwhile is to give his own anomalite life a reason and to meet his own self in the future once more. Which is weird, because one of the things that gave him purpose is the fact he was saving lives, but in order to do so he had to kill many others. if you count the big attack he made I’m not even sure he saved more than he killed. Which leaves us with the only purpose of not being alone, even if it’s only for one last time meeting his younger self, the one that will kill him minutes later.

Um, hate to do this, but the chicken and the egg ‘paradox’ has been solved. The chicken evolved from an egg-laying amphibeous creature… thus the egg came first. Hatching to become the first chicken. 100% fact. So, the loop may be infinite, and thus impossible to ‘paradoctor’… but, it is no ‘chicken and the egg’… which now has a specified order.

Then, what came first? The egg-laying amphibious creature, or the egg? It has to start somewhere. I hope you’re not going to tell us that it’s a 100% fact that the amphibian was hatched from caviar or something. : )

By the way, how many amphibian/chicken eggs were hatched before we got the perfectly operational chicken prototype? There must have been hundreds (millions?) of trial eggs until we ended up with the legs, wings, digestive system, eyes, beak, etc, all working and tuned correctly go give us a walking, squawking chicken. Or, did it just emerge fully functional from the very first chickenized amphibian egg? I wonder what mechanism would trigger an amphibian to begin creating chickens? Hey – Was Col Sanders around back then? Such a deviously clever old coot! And, I wonder what Ms. Amphibian had to say when she saw her little progeny? And how she fed baby chickie? And refrained from eating the cute fuzzy little thing? Or drowning the baby in the swamp, inadvertently. I guess evolution (or old man Sanders?) somehow had that all mapped out in advance, or it just wouldn’t have worked. Turns out evolution is quite the intelligent designer! : )

No, it is very simple. I say again, the creature was evolving…eventually into the chicken (scientific fact)…. at one point in time, chronologically FIRST, it laid an egg…inside was the creature evolved the tiniest bit further and labelled as what we would term ‘a chicken’. So the egg came first… the chicken was inside. It is not verbal trickery, but scientific fact. It’s not a big deal and not being argumentative. It was on QI – Quite Interesting – a programme with a reputation for statin only incontrovertible fact. Look, we learn and we evolve… so does the information we are privy to. Chicken and the egg is an old and now superceded proverb. A riddle for the uneducated. That is that. Be hapy to know. Cheers.

Whilst your sprawling questioning might be humorous, it ignores that the difference between the previous creature at the end of its evolution and the actual chicken is the equivalent of a freckle. They would seem the same to each other. But to us, by definition, a chicken is a chicken. But once upon a time it was not… It just laid an egg that would be. It’s not a riddle… or even that complex. It was a saying…. why be surprised it was not foolproof and ended up being debunked? Most sayings have an opposite anyway…. “no regrets…” / “Learn from your mistakes”….. So, largely, sayings are nonsense anyway.

What’s humorous is your interpretation of an analogy as literal. We’re not talking about the chicken species or eggs as a reproductive faculty. The question is asking what comes first, a creator or the created? (considering that the creator must have somehow been created itself) The joke is that the rooster (or pre-evolved creature) “cums” first in order to fertilize an egg to create a chicken to begin with, but the serious posit to the philosophical question is that there is an ultimate being that has always existed and seemingly has come from nothing. Neither mother nature or what she produces, but rather, father time. 😉

why it has to start somewhere? Just look at it – you never saw starting anything in you whole life, yet you assume there must exist such a thing. Everything you can saw has casual effect before, and that before and before…You cannot trace back even start of your own consciousness, yet you assume it must exist? It is only limit of the mind not to be able to comprehend infinity. But if you start digging into it, this whole existence is completly incomprehensible by mind. You can get a great insight into causal effects, but if you take existence as a whole in time and space, it is just incomprehensible. So no need to think about it. It is idiotic to look for invisible man with your eyes, so is idiotic to think unthinkable…

It’s really not so incomprehensible. Look at things that are created by humans. Great creativity. Great creations. Complex designs, mechanisms, artistic patterns, works of literature. How? Through intelligence. Through the will to create things of beauty and purpose. Now, look at the natural world and all that’s in it. Everywhere, there is abundant evidence of far greater creativity – the results of a prolific creative will. The existence and activity of God is not incomprehensible to those who are willing to open their eyes and hearts to it. One must realize that perhaps man in his pride does not really have all the answers, and that arrogantly and blindly eliminating God from the equation is a gigantic mistake.

Infinity is incomprehensible. What you are talking is not what i was refering to, and your explanation is, of course, comprehensible. But I was not talking about explanations….God is comprehensible, if your image of it is comprehensible…But when you look through eyes instead of your mind (which is in fact blind) even trees are not comprehensible, so how can be God? If there is anything comprehensible, it si just your image in you mind, not the real thing. Your model can somehow resemble the reality, like computer model of molecule can resemble properties of real molecule. But it is just a model. Model is comprehensible, molecule is not. That is how it is. Most of the people are ignorant to source of their knowledge, but when you will enquire from where it came, you will find out that most of the thing you believe in are just creation of your mind to hide incomprehensible reality behind comprehensible models and have no direct contact with reality…..and to next order of business: It is very arrogant of a man if he thinks he created something significant through his intelligence. Every significant creativity is spontaneous and out of the comprehension of his “intelligence”, so can be the creativity of the nature. It can be spontaneous and does not need to be govern by som intelligence. Water falls down, does that mean there is some angel telling her it should go down? It is just the way it is…So is the with everything. And even if there is some angel, how can you know for sure? And if you think you know, just look from where that knowledge come from?

Can you comprehend the image of your own mind? Not your brain, your mind. Our limited perception is a microcosm of the macrocosm of infinity. It doesn’t matter why the water falls, only that it falls. You could say that it is an angel, God himself, poseidon or gravity. The reason is ultimately always the same: to be. You can explain it however it makes most sense to you in your limits. It doesn’t need an explanation because we already know it to be. Consciousness encompasses every being as the supreme being itself. Always existing because nothing is impossible. The answer to the question why is there something rather than nothing (which seems much more likely from our limited perspective) is because counter-intuitively nothing is impossible (which seems much less likely). If you had nothing, nothing would exist, meaning nothing could be possible, meaning we wouldn’t exist in any sort of semblance of this conversation… but clearly we do; I think, therefore I am. It’s the only truth known to man that is seemingly incomprehensible… nothing is impossible; the possibilities are infinite. The REAL paradox is that not even a metaphysical notion of either could exist without the other. Consciousness couldn’t exist without the metaphysical concept of there being “nothing” as an impending consequence of being itself. In turn, the idea of “nothing” couldn’t exist without us here to think it… I mean clearly. It’s quite obvious. Ontological paradox. “Only things I preach are things that should never have to be said.”

It was the eventual evolution of a single celled organism, that eventually laid a egg first. came about by a genetic mutation if you like

A genetic mutation changes – very slightly – an existing organism. A mutation does not create an entirely different organism or creature. It does not create new devices (wings, talons, etc). Two amphibian parents do not contribute two sets of amphibian DNA to an egg, to find upon hatching that a chicken has been produced. Millions of years? Billions of years? No amount of time can account for the totally different creature with its own features and functions, perfectly operational. And once a chicken has somehow arisen from the ranks of lizards, where will he find a mate? He will have to wait another billion years or so for another like him – and really hope that chance brings him a female this time. And by then, he would probably not be up for it any more. Maybe chickens were designed as chickens from the get-go. Seems a lot more plausible.

lol You’re killing me bro. I understand where your doubts are coming from, but think about it like this if you like… the chicken WAS designed as a chicken from the get-go down to the exact MOMENT it would evolve. HAHA. Nothing in this universe except for the universe itself appeared seemingly magically out of nowhere. Everything since the big bang has had a cause. In terms of biological evolution, what happens is your parents (amphibians if you will) give birth to you and all your brothers and sisters over different generations (they’re a freaky pair) and while MOST of your siblings retain the same attributes and characteristics, some are slightly different… as time goes on some of those new novel characteristics are favoured by other distant cousins in the genepool and when they mate they create whole NEXT generations of that particular unique trait that sets them apart from all the rest of their aunt’s and uncle’s families who remained mostly the same as their amphibian parents. Then eventually over a LOOOOONG LONG time those organisms from the unique gene-pool change again and again and again creating new pools of unique organisms until finally an iteration of the species is so physically different from the original amphibians that it can no longer physically mate with those so distant cousins, sometimes the change can be so significant that it becomes genetic (hence the chicken). Since we don’t classify species over 1, 2, 5, 50, or even 100 generations, but by their ability to reproduce with one another, you can consider the overall tree of life to be made up of one single “holy spirit” if you will, or family that creates connections and relationships with its own “kind” to the point where we have the diverse array of life you see today. The only significant division between the species being that they can only interact to reproduce with their own specific kind. It’s not until we see clear divisions like this over expansive time periods can we classify them as individual species, although, we can always trace it back to the era of origin, it would be nearly impossible to narrow it down to the exact single characteristic in one particular organism that started the “path” of evolution for the species because again all the paths overlap and our class system is just a comfortable way of comprehending the differences we see between ourselves. Technically each person is a new generation of species that could evolve into it’s own, but science won’t label you as such until you’re ultimately so different from what we know as humans that your kind (offspring) can no longer mate with their original source kind. Get it?

The last line (in the timeline) is wrong i think. Before killing his old self, his old self asks “want to know what we will do tomorrow?” He immediately shoots him after that…because that shows that his old self didnt pull the trigger when he had the chance. At least thats what i got from it. He didnt know he was the fizzle bomber. As long as the current ethan doesnt continue traveling through time there will not be another fizzle bomber and the new agent can chase new bad guys as long as he sets up his birth. Man its trippy shtuff.

My interpretation is that the retired temporal agent did not want to become the Fizzle Bobber and so killed his future self in the launderette. However, broken, alone, and also missing the past versions of himself he later starts using the non-decommissioned time machine to travel in time and stop the Fizzle Bomber, but slowly succumbs to psychosis as a side effect of excess time travel, and eventually becomes the Fizzle Bomber. Its also hinted that his boss Mr Robertson may have arranged for the the time machine not to decommission properly so as to ensure that Hawke becomes the Fizzle Bomber, John has to ytavel back in time to catch him, and the closed loop continues to function.

Interesting thought. We see when John wakes up in bandages that he sees two notes, one of which reads “If at last you do succeed, never try again.” Perhaps this was foreshadowing that after the retired temporal agent kills the fizzle bomber in the laundromatte, he would then use the non-decommissioned time machine to try and stop the fizzle bomber earlier and earlier in time until he finally succumbs to psychosis and ultimately becomes the fizzle bomber (again). What I don’t really understand, however, is if this is a closed time loop where everything happens in the same sequence and order, why doesn’t the fizzle bomber know when he is about to be assassinated by his younger self? I know he’s crazy and all, but wouldn’t he know where and when his younger self catches up to him since he went through the exact same experience?

Neat thoughts there, Drew. As to the Fizzle Bomber going to the Laundromat, he does indicate that he had preempted his encounter with retired temporal agent Hawke, but in his advanced delusional state it does seem the Fizzle bomber genuinely believes he can now persuade Hawke to chose another path and not kill him. Remember he say to Hawke something like “You can end this, love me!” Therefore, it seems that as the Fizzle Bomber slipped further and further into madness from loneliness, his plan was to persuade Hawke to not kill him like before, but to work together. A naive idea from a now delusional and desperate man. Needless to say, his plan did not work out too well at all.

That would certainly explain why the fizzle bomber had his book of newspaper clippings with him (to convince his younger self to join him instead of shooting him; I doubt he carried that with him all the time). It’s just that it seemed that the fizzle bomber was surprised to see his younger self when he came through the door, which led me to believe that the fizzle bomber didn’t see it coming, but I may be wrong. I need to go back and re-watch that scene.

I agree, I think that due to the reoccurring nature of the paradox, the fizzle bomber did not see him coming every time the timeline reached this point. And perhaps this was exactly how Mr. Robertson intended it to be to ensure the paradox continued. However, (my interpretation) was that when the fizzle bomber said Hawke could stop it by loving him, Perhaps it was a way out of the paradox loop. I feel like everything has a loop hole or exception to the rule. It was a way out of the paradox just by giving the poor crazy guy the same love he never had due to his lonely life. Yet, instead of picking up on the way out, he believes the fizzle bomber is just trying to fool his way out of death and Hawke kills him, thus restarting the whole story over by going lonely, then mad from time travel abuse to becoming his (and others) own worse enemy aka Mr.Fizzle bomber.

basically long story short, this movie could be interpreted in so many ways. haha

Moral of the story….love means death

I believe mr Robertson was in his own loop as well

That can be true when they make the sequel about Robertson’s story..

And you also have to remember the rule that two of the same entity can’t exist at the same time, so it would’ve created a paradox if both the fizzle bomber (future demented John) and John both existed at the same time, in order for the future to progress John had to kill himself to move forward in time. Was the Fizzle Bomber really insane though? Yes and no. In a way yes, because his bombings caused hundreds if not thousands of civilian causalities. And in a way no, because these bombings had a purpose in that they were to prevent even more horrendous crimes from happening in the first place (hence keeping the clippings). John just wasn’t too precise about it though. If I were him I would’ve invested in some sniper rifles (lol) but in doing the killing the way he does (due to time travel dementia and loneliness), he gets his name/label (fizzle bomber) and fulfills his predestined role

Jermac said, “remember the rule that two of the same entity can’t exist at the same time” The first time I encountered that concept was from a movie called “Time Cop”. Not knowing anything about such things, I just accepted that as a “true” rule because the movie script said so.

Now having seen “Predestination” and reading the wonderful comments thus far made, and having explored such things as “Can There be Spatially Coincident Entities of the Same Kind?” and other links related to the concept, that rule no longer seems absolute to me. Not that I have anything to offer in the way of a more lucid concept of whether that rule is so, or not, I just wanted jump in the swim with you folks. Thank you for being!

You guys forget what he says to baby Jane/John, my future needs a rest. The only real way for the paradox to end would be for Hawke to kill himself after killing the “fizzle bomber” that would allow John to travel back in time with the same mission to make himself, himself without EVER having to chase the bomber because after Hawke kills him, IF he killed himself, game over. ALSO there are literally 3 Johns at that point in time at the beginning of the movie, the young unaltered John, Hawke, and the aged Hawke. I’d add more, but the sleeping pills are kicking in.

“my future needs a rest” should be quoted as he says it to baby Jane/John/Hawke.

Close but not correct. This whole thing starts because of the fizzle bomber. If Hawke kills himself after the fizzle bomber then the fizzle bomber would never exist because Hawke becomes the fizzle bomber.

If Hawke kills himself, or decides not to become Fizzle Bomber by not jumping time again, then it doesn’t mean that Fizzle Bomber wouldn’t exist. Before being killed the Fizzle Bomber shows a list of things he has already done – chemical factory, something in Germany, etc. etc. Which means that in a non-screwed up timeline he had already existed and left his mark with these activities. He hasn’t deployed the bomb in NY though killing 10-11k innocent people yet though (which Hawke is afraid of). So Hawke has successfully averted the NY bombing and it is up to him to continue as a bomber or not. This is open to imagination on whether he continues as a Fizzle Bomber or not. Can stop himself from further travels, can kill himself, may marry the girl who sold him typewriter and live happily. Infinite possibilities in future.

I believe Hawke can’t, and simly doesn’t want to, kill himself after shooting the Fizzle Bomber. Remember, the Fizzle Bomber is the purpose of John’s life: if Hawke kills himself, he would be taking away John’s purpose of life… And he remembers all about living without one. Actually, I believe he does know he has to become the Fizzle Bomber. This, plus all you guys said… Also, I do believe that, in order to know the kind of tragedies that happened when he didn’t exploded that bomb, there must have been a timeline in which Hawke didn’t kill his future self, and didn’t become the Fizzle Bomber… However, seeing that exploding it would be a “less harm”, he leaves the fold somewhere in the future in order to see that he MUST commit that disaster. That’s why the Fizzle Bomber takes it with him from then on, to prove jo Hawke he was doing good. But with this, proving he can not be spared. Just, wow.

” it would’ve created a paradox if both the fizzle bomber (future demented John) and John both existed at the same time, in order for the future to progress John had to kill himself to move forward in time. ”

No, that’s not right. There is no reason to believe that any such mechanic is in play in “Predestination”.

But how though? He can’t exist on the same plain of existence twice can he?

If by that you mean two or more copies of him (at different ages) overlapping in the world at the same time, then, yes, of course. It’s essential that this is the case: John has sex with himself (as Jane), so obviously two versions of him are together at the same time.

He does though. He’s right there in the story twice and sometimes three times at once. (4 times if you count that Jane is pregnant with Jane when barkeep John comes to pick up younger John at the park with Jane). What – you have no problem with him being his own mother and father but this is impossible? He has a fist fight with hisself. He has sex with herself, She give birth to herself. That’s a whole lot of co-existing.

“the rule that two of the same entity can’t exist at the same time, ” That’s only a rule in some stories. it’s nowhere a rule in this story. Through much of the movie there are 2 Johns. Jane and John are the same person and they coexist along with a second John for a while too. Jane is literally pregnant with herself for 9 months. That “rule” has no application at all here, since it not a thing unless the author says it’s a thing

perfect explanation

Thanks, I try. Lol

lol, I’m sorry, this really reminded me a guy on another discussion channel who went around deleting other people’s posts and his own posts, then one point in time things got changed and reversed and almost every post and effort he made got deleted. He could not understand why it was happening to him, but he forgot he was the one who started the whole deleting process in the 1st place and everyone else was just imitating his behaviour. 😉

We only see the edited timeline but I believe Mr.Robertson setup the loop to get an agent who can work inside & outside the timeline. He encounters Jane and instantly knew the unique opportunity she could be by sending her male version to empregnant her & create the paradox he needed. Also, that kind of Paradox, if possible, would be the result of experimentation and not something that happened naturally.

Mr Robertson seemed the same age at every point in the loop, so in his propertime, he was manipulating across decades all in a day or week.

HIS story needs to be told. Did the loop always exist or was it created? How would one even start such an enterprise?

What if it was all a lie? These were all clones or Robertson and Jane’s sex-change was a fake and a lie, her consciousness was implanted in a male clone.

All the deaths were terror acts. The time travel was real but there were several temporally distinct clones of Robertson.

Robertson was Al Qaeda.

Just kidding.

You’re are not the only one to come up with the idea, but that doesn’t really quite work. Simply sending John back to impregnate Jane just creates a baby. It’s a unique baby as it really only has one parent, essentially a clone of Jane. But the baby would not be Jane, but a new person. If you took the baby back to 1945, you would find Jane was already there too, since the two are not the same person. If you swapped the two, the replacement would be genetically identical, and in the same environment might grow up in a similar (but not identical) way, but what would be the point? You already have the original there. If there was an original Jane, born of two ordinary people and you need Jane to be pregnant with herself in the scenario you suppose – How do you create that? I can’t think of a way. This is not meant to be a thing created, but a boot-strap paradox, that can’t be explained by an outside cause. Self-caused, uncaused. It always was, it always will be.

I only rented this movie for one night, and don’t have access to it anymore. But somewhere is a discussion about the date of the bombing, in which the Fizzle Bomber “keeps changing the day”. So maybe there are some slight variances in the continuum, especially when making jumps with a malfunctioning time machine (remember “error”) that the Fizzle Bomber doesn’t know the exact moment of Ethan’s arrival.

But is he so crazy at that point that he WANTS his younger self to kill him in the laundromat, because he knows it will perpetuate the cycle? He even knows exactly what to say to his younger self to provoke him into shoot him.

It is mentioned early in the film that the Fizzle Bomber “keeps changing the day” of his 1975 attack. Perhaps the Temporal Agent, also having access to a working time machine, keeps changing the day of his arrival at the laundromat, thus confusing his older self as to the day of their ultimate meeting.

Yeah the whole idea was that he “preempted” him. Preempt doesn’t mean “know about before they come”. It means “to act in advance of someone to prevent them from doing something”. He says “I preempted you… and you’re HERE!” in astonishment. Meaning that the fizzle bomber knew HE killed the previous fizzle bomber as his former self, so in an effort to prevent the agent from catching him he changes the day, but the point is that regardless of whatever day the fizzle bomber chooses (it could literally be any), as the best temporal agent of all time, his former self WILL find him. How is it possible? With the help of Robertson. The whole movie is about the joke. “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” Meaning what came first the mother or the child? The joke is the “rooster” or male “cums” first in order to fertilize the egg. The meaning is that our entire existence is predicated on a supreme being… a state that we achieve at the end of time that is powerful enough to create the existence that we live and learn from. To essentially “know thyself”. The character in the movie is not only the chicken and egg, but also the rooster as is pointed out in the kidnapping scene. Mr. Robertson has the same time traveling device as the agent. Comes seemingly out of nowhere in the agents life, directs their path through spacecorp, in the agency and even out of retirement. It is my impression that Roberston represents the meaning of “God” who created the agent in his own image, gave him purpose, love and caused himself great suffering in order to have any sort of existence at all. It’s said there are 12 agents, 11 other than the bartender. The end scene shows 13 shots in the culminating montage. Bear with me here. 0. A hand strokes Jane as a baby in a manger. 1. The baby Jane in a crib. (never sick) 2. Jane as a child realizing she has no past. (envied kids with parents) 3. Jane as a teen realizing her unique desires. (sex confused me) 4. Jane as a young adult realizing her natural talents. (Robertson recruit) 5. Jane as an adult falling in love. (bumping into her older male self) 6. Jane after she was pregnant going through a sex change into John. 7. John while working as the Unmarried Mother. (telling his story) 8. John while working as a new temporal agent. (finding her purpose) 9. John with his face blown off. (bumping into older self again) 10. John changing into the veteran agent with his new bartender face. 11. The agent just after killing himself near the end of the movie. 12. The fizzle bomber’s blood splattered across the words: “WHEN WILL HE STRIKE AGAIN?”

First of all, it has to be stated, that it turns out, physicists have done the math on the physical existence of our reality and it turns out that consciousness as we stand is made up of 12 dimensions and we as human beings clearly experience the 3rd dimension from our perspective. That being said, there is still a theoretical “zeroth” dimension, that is so hard to put into words that it’s hardly explainable. Essentially the zero dimension is a single point… a singularity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emlcwyvnsg0

Now, if you see what I’m getting at here… I think that the gloved hand stroking the baby in the first shot is originally Robertson’s hand or “The hand of God” (if you will) who started off the whole actual existence of the 12 agents or dimensions in question. This is interesting to me because in all future loops the hand becomes the agent’s (when they both meet at the hospital during the kidnapping scene with time travelling devices), so INDIRECTLY, “they” are robertson, or in other words our human perspective of reality was created in the image of God. We just experience one dimension of our ultimate reality (the 3rd, where Jane discovers SELF-LOVE which ultimately becomes their whole purpose or reason for being… hence the hand stroking the baby.

Also, in the same scene where the agent is explaining to John about the agency, John asks “so where is Robertson” as in ‘if all this crazy shit is actually real then prove it by letting me see God, where is he???’ and the bartender says to him that he is “AT THE POINT OF ORIGIN” at “ZEROPOINT” or the INVENTION of time travel that “will be in 1981”. The reason why you can only travel 53 years before or after that point and the time distortion field will disintegrate is because that is the timeline of the violin box itself. The time machine is from that era. When he says “the bureau” doesn’t allow for “deviations from the mission” and it will result in the “termination of your life” it means that to travel outside the existence of the timeline time-travelling exists in would end their entire existence, but clearly this is impossible because they exist… if it were to ever happen they would have never existed. Take a second… September 20th 1945 is farthest back he goes (36 years). April 3rd 1991 is furthest forward he goes (10 years).

Time-lapse: Creating time-vortexes using a violin box. Paradox: Self-sustaining people who travel back in time. child Jane/Jane: The Barkeep before giving birth to child-Jane. John/new agent: The Barkeep after giving birth to child-Jane. The Barkeep/vet agent: John after time-lapsing to 1993. The fizzle bomber: Nature’s creation in response to time-lapsing; John himself. Mr. Robertson: Architect of the time-lapse paradox; head of the agency.

The whole “bureaucratic” control is the natural laws and consequences of being and logic which are the rules that God or Robertson ‘the causal time loop architect’ bend when using time travel to prevent terrorism or lessen suffering. Essentially it’s an answer to the question “If God exists, why does suffering exist?”. Robertson facilitated the path of the fizzle bomber (the terrorist representing evil) because it was the only way to allow Jane to come into existence as a baby at all, considering the fact that the invention of time travel by the agency came from the fizzle bomber himself going back to 1981 and giving Robertson the time travelling device prior to the 1975 incident where he meets his demise. For proof of this try and count the number of time travelling devices there are in the film. It was an act of love that caused Robertson to originally kidnap Jane’s baby by convincing the bartender to do it to himself. In the same way, the fact that good can only exist if it casts a shadow of evil, Robertson did all this because the Fizzle bomber himself had always (indirectly) been a part of his existence. Therefore I think Robertson is the 0 shot or 0 dimension or ultimate key. During the kidnapping scene he lights his cigarette, which up to this point he has only held and not lit, but he lights it with the same lighter that the bartender uses when the same one that the unmarried mother had was out of fluid and when the vet agent/bartender asks Mr. Robertson what he’ll do when he has to live without knowing his future, Mr. Robertson replies, “You’ll just have to take it one day at a time like everyone else” implying not only that since Robertson ALSO has use of the case, that he is not everyone else, so also in some way the same, but that regardless of their perpetual time travelling they will have to take it one day at a time all the same… just over and over with small changes in an effort to reduces suffering a little every time.

Finally, I think the significance of not showing the fizzle bomber in the last shot is to illustrate the idea that the shadow doesn’t actually exist, only the good is there to cast it. In the same way you can’t cover a light with a shadow. It has it’s purpose, but in the end that’s not what mattered. Ultimately it was Robertson and his Love for his only begotten child and creation that he gave up for his humane agency. 😉 😉

In that same scene, John asks his older self: “So I get to be one of these temporal agents?” Meaning of course there would no longer be 12, but then 13 and who knows who “other agents” would be recruiting so he wouldn’t have mentioned the specific number of 12. The vet agent answers: “If you PROVE yourself.” Meaning if he does what he has to as he’s always done before in order to remain existing up until the point he has to make those choices… then he will be able to prove not only to the bureau and ultimately himself that he deserves it, but essentially he will “establish the validity” or truth of himself and his very existence… It’s insane how a human being fit this entire concept into a short story sometime in the 50s. Also too how the brothers who directed it extrapolated no doubt.

Again same scene, he says, “I’m starting to suspect he [the mystery man who bumps into Jane] is the fizzle bomber. The only thing that’s clear is that he’s the main obstacle that’s held you back.” The irony is REAL. The fulfillment of nothingness, yet parturition of gratification. The good created the evil. The suffering allowed for the love. …and all this came from nothing… but only because it’s always been. 😀

If the intention of the bureau was to prevent attack of bomber, why the need of creation of janeband john arose?

Exactly what I thought! But there are other lines that are contradictory to it. Such as “If you kill me, you become me”. Maybe the fizzle bomber had ideas for what they could do tomorrow, instead of knowing.

Yes, of course that is what is occurring. The truth or nature of the movie is, ironically in such a complex film, a love story that is doomed. He cannot love her (literally) and he cannot stop loving her. Ignore all the hard, cold science and look upon it as one who has been heartbroken and not moved on (only a few of you will know this state of mind) or as a writer… He travels to avert his brokenness, not to save lives or anything so noble. The deluded killing to save lives psychosis comes after repeated discovery of being without her every time. The last line is crucial and signposted as such with its dramatic cut to credits, “I miss you dreadfully.” Carefully chosen words for a reason. In the end, he will travel again, because he cannot be without her… himself. And dreadfully is a strong word. Also, on another matter, I also wonder if the double sexual organs comes about from a person having sex with themself and the genetic mash-up. Raher than the repeated suggestion here that it just happens that she has this condition and therefore would be great for using to create a person with no ancestry / identity. I also believe the film has a plot hole or two… which can happen when a short story if stretched out and exposed so fully. The article glosses over this issue as if the film is watertight. It is not. Unless of course the original narrative has only John, but it cannot as John has come about from Jane… and so on and so forth. The endless plot hole that devours itself, forever and ever. Superb film regardless… keep making films for smar people? There’s enough crap for the masses… and then some.

“I also believe the film has a plot hole or two…” “The article glosses over this issue as if the film is watertight.”

I’m not really sure if you grasp the concept of a paradox.

Relating to the ‘what we’ll do tomorrow’ line, I was under the impression that he was talking about what younger John was going to do with the non-decommissioned time machine. Just before that, he was talking about the lives he’d saved.

I think he ends up semi-consciously becoming the Fizzle bomber. First, note what the bomber says to him when he walks in the laundromat: “I’ve missed you!” The last scene shows John sitting at the table staring at the violin case, presumably thinking back on his life and his realization that he was alone from this point forward. I think he weighed all the options, and realized that he wanted to see Jane again. The very last line of the film after fading to black is ’75 John whispering “I miss you.”

Coupled with his guilt over shooting himself, and with full knowledge that he would be perpetuating the loop, he allowed himself to fall into the bomber’s rationale. “When the dust settles, you’ll see the light.”

Lovely explanation. I think you’ve got it.

Yeah, but, it’s “I miss you dreadfully…” and, from memory, and the differences are important, it is “When the dust settles, you’ll see I’m right.” Peace and love 😎

Time travel invented in 1985. So what was the first action by bureau? How did the loop began??? If we say the its a loop then it has to begin somewhere. It must be after invention of time travel only.

Where does a circle begin? Where does it end? Google “bootstrap paradox”

I actually understood everything you wrote , but the one thing that I couldn’t understand: When in the timeline does “Ethan Hawke” become “Sarah Snook” ??

Sarah Snook becomes Ethan Hawke when “she” gets facial reconstruction, I believe.

Sarah Snook becomes Ethan Hawke, not the other way around.

Try ALTERNATE dissapointing scenario of the movie but may lead to a better ending.

https://www.astronomytrek.com/predestination-2014-explained/#comment-1830166757

you are an absolute genius

Did we just get punked? 😛

The timeline loops forward thus sarah snook becomes Ethan hawke and not the reverse. In the timeline sarah snook gives birth to the baby sarah, which helps in looping .

Jane becomes John becomes the Barkeep becomes the Fizzle Bomber. Simple.

Ethan Hawke never becomes Sarah Snook. Hawke dies and Sarah is recreated when guy Sarah conceives with girl Sarah.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

© Copyright 2023 Astronomy Trek

Culture | Film

Predestination - film review: Ethan Hawke stars with Australian newcomer Sarah Snook

ethan hawke movie time travel

Ethan Hawke turns out to be the second-best thing in a US time-travel thriller full of unexpected jumps. He’s a “temporal agent”, masquerading as a bartender, trying to stay one step ahead of a terrorist called The Fizzle Bomber. Australian newcomer Sarah Snook is the intersex customer “John”, born “Jane”, who becomes embroiled in his plans.

No wonder Danny Boyle picked Snook to star alongside Michael Fassbender in his upcoming Steve Jobs biopic. She has the clenched charisma of a young Jodie Foster and proves mesmerising as an orphan who, on every level, winds up chasing her tail. Jane embarks on a space corps programme that basically pimps women to astronauts. Later, complications following childbirth force her to make the switch from Jane to John. Prissy, aggressive, hungry for love... she’s the emotional centre of the story while John, bursting with alt-cool, will win his own set of fans.

The plot, which involves John being recruited into an “elite” force of freaks, may sound a touch indebted to the X-Men series. In fact, All You Zombies (Robert A Heinlein’s short story on which the film is based) predates the comics. Hawke starred in the 1997 sci-fi gem Gattaca. Predestination is a dafter, more hokey-looking affair but boasts the same kind of intensity. I think it’s destined for cult-classic status. It’s a shame we can’t all leap into the future to check if I’m right.

Latest film reviews

ethan hawke movie time travel

JK Rowling responds as India Willoughby reports her to police over misgendering

The blonde bombshell's best moments in film

The blonde bombshell's best moments in film

The top 10 Marvel post credit scenes ranked

The top 10 Marvel post credit scenes ranked

First look at exceptional new London properties for sale in 2024

First look at exceptional new London properties for sale in 2024

TUI Discount Code

  • Stage 6 Films

Summary A Temporal Agent (Ethan Hawke) is sent on an intricate series of time-travel journeys designed to prevent future killers from committing their crimes. Now, on his final assignment, the Agent must stop the one criminal that has eluded him throughout time and prevent a devastating attack in which thousands of lives will be lost.

Directed By : Michael Spierig, Peter Spierig

Written By : Robert A. Heinlein, Michael Spierig, Peter Spierig

Where to Watch

ethan hawke movie time travel

Ethan Hawke

The barkeep.

ethan hawke movie time travel

Sarah Snook

The unmarried mother.

ethan hawke movie time travel

Noah Taylor

Mr. robertson.

ethan hawke movie time travel

Madeleine West

Mrs. stapleton, christopher kirby, christopher sommers, kuni hashimoto, dr. fujimoto, sara el-yafi, lab technician, boxing commentator 1, boxing commentator 2, news report announcer, christopher bunworth, jamie gleeson, dirty hippy, christina tan, female reporter, dennis coard, mayor davidson, milla simmonds, baby jane 1, ruby simmonds, ben prendergast, carmen warrington, sharon kershaw, critic reviews.

  • All Reviews
  • Positive Reviews
  • Mixed Reviews
  • Negative Reviews

User Reviews

Related movies.

ethan hawke movie time travel

Seven Samurai

ethan hawke movie time travel

The Wild Bunch

ethan hawke movie time travel

North by Northwest

ethan hawke movie time travel

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

ethan hawke movie time travel

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

ethan hawke movie time travel

The French Connection

ethan hawke movie time travel

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

ethan hawke movie time travel

Mad Max: Fury Road

ethan hawke movie time travel

The Incredibles

ethan hawke movie time travel

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope

ethan hawke movie time travel

House of Flying Daggers

ethan hawke movie time travel

Assault on Precinct 13

ethan hawke movie time travel

The Hidden Fortress

ethan hawke movie time travel

Gangs of Wasseypur

ethan hawke movie time travel

Captain Blood

Related news.

DVD/Blu-ray Releases: New & Upcoming

DVD/Blu-ray Releases: New & Upcoming

Jason dietz.

Find a list of new movie and TV releases on DVD and Blu-ray (updated weekly) as well as a calendar of upcoming releases on home video.

2024 Movie Release Calendar

2024 Movie Release Calendar

Find release dates for every movie coming to theaters, VOD, and streaming throughout 2024 and beyond, updated weekly.

Every Denis Villeneuve Movie, Ranked

Every Denis Villeneuve Movie, Ranked

Before French-Canadian filmmaker Denis Villeneuve earned the attention of sci-fi fans with excellent Dune and Blade Runner films, he made a name for himself with crime thrillers and indie dramas. Here, we rank every one of his films to date from worst to best by Metascore.

March Movie Preview (2024)

March Movie Preview (2024)

Keith kimbell.

The month ahead will bring a conclusion to the Dune saga, a Ghostbusters sequel, an indie comedy with terrific early reviews, and more. To help you plan your moviegoing options, our editors have selected the most notable films releasing in March 2024.

February Movie Preview (2024)

February Movie Preview (2024)

The month ahead will bring new films from Matthew Vaughn and Ethan Coen, Oscar nominees from Wim Wenders and Matteo Garrone, a Spider-Man spinoff, and more. To help you plan your moviegoing options, our editors have selected the most notable films releasing in February 2024, listed in alphabetical order.

Predestination (2014)

Predestination.

Predestination chronicles the life of a Temporal Agent sent on an intricate series of time-travel journeys designed to prevent future killers from committing their crimes. Now, on his final assignment, the Agent must stop the one criminal that has eluded him throughout time and prevent a devastating attack in which thousands of lives will be lost.

Red Billabong Trailer Unleashes a Monster in the Outback | EXCLUSIVE

Two brothers discover that a horrifying Australian legend may be real in the new trailer for the upcoming thriller Red Billabong.

Magnificent Seven Reteams Ethan Hawke & Denzel Washington

Ethan Hawke will reunite with Training Day star Denzel Washington and director Antoine Fuqua for The Magnificent Seven remake.

Steve Jobs Biopic Begins Production in San Francisco

Production has officially started on director Danny Boyle's Steve Jobs biopic, starring Michael Fassbender as the Apple co-founder.

Predestination First 7 Minutes: Ethan Hawke Goes Time Traveling

Ethan Hawke stars as a Temporal Agent who is sent through time to find an elusive serial killer in the opening moments of Predestination.

Predestination Poster: Ethan Hawke Must Save the Future

Ethan Hawke must protect his past to save the future in a new poster for the sci-fi thriller Predestination.

Predestination Trailer Sends Ethan Hawke Back in Time

Ethan Hawke plays a Temporal Agent who tries to catch the one criminal that has eluded him in the time travel thriller Predestination.

an image, when javascript is unavailable

By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy . We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Review: Ethan Hawke’s ‘Predestination’ An Overlong, Pretentious & Underwhelming Sci-Fi Thriller

Drew taylor.

  • Share on Facebook
  • Share to Flipboard
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
  • Submit to Reddit
  • Post to Tumblr
  • Print This Page
  • Share on WhatsApp

This is a reprint of our review from the 2014 SXSW Film Festival.

There seem to be two Ethan Hawke s working in the movies these days, operating in parallel universes. They look the same and sound the same, but their choice in movies couldn’t be more wildly different. There’s the Ethan Hawke whose warm, naturalistic performances in things like “ Boyhood ” are amongst the best in the business, profoundly moving and deeply identifiable. Then there’s the Ethan Hawke who makes things like the horror romp “ Sinister ,” where his defining character trait is his oversized cable-knit sweater that he wears in every scene. Last year might have reached a “Back to the Future, Part II ” paradox, with Hawke starring in both one of the year’s best movies (“ Before Midnight “) and one of the worst (“ Getaway “). So it makes sense that he would sign on to “ Predestination ,” a twisty time travel adventure that deals in alternate timelines and parallel dimensions. The question is: which Hawke showed up for this one?

When the burned man returns to the headquarters of the mysterious agency he works for (this might be in the future, but it’s is never really made clear), they tell him that his face will be almost completely unrecognizable, but that he will look pretty much like middle-aged Ethan Hawke, which isn’t necessarily a terrible thing. Through gravelly voice over, Hawke lets us know that he works for an agency that can affect history through time travel and that he’s currently working on stopping the Fizzle Bomber, a terrorist responsible for killing over ten thousand people in New York in the mid-seventies. There are certainly gifts, he explains, that make him uniquely suited for the demanding physical and psychological effects of time travel (even though he seems to be experiencing some kind of psychological break at the beginning of the movie). “You could say I was born with it,” he voice-overs.

Most Popular

You may also like.

Kaleidoscopic Sundance Doc ‘Soundtrack to a Coup d’Etat’ Dizzies With Burst of Pop and Politics (EXCLUSIVE)

A mind-melting time travel sci-fi ties itself in knots on Netflix

You'll be left thinking about this one for a long time.

Predestination

Time travel movies are often very confusing, and in many cases that’s the point. One of the things fans love about the sci-fi subgenre is diving into the nitty gritty machinations behind the mythology, but even then, 2014 cult favorite Predestination was almost impossible to predict.

Written and directed by The Spierig Brothers, the sibling duo re-teamed with Ethan Hawke to deliver their second enthusiastically-received collaboration in a row after the popular vampire thriller Daybreakers . With Predestination , the filmmakers continued setting out a stall as a creative duo capable of freshening up a familiar concept in suitably spectacular form.

Predestination

Hawke’s Agent Doe is a temporal agent, which is effectively a time traveling cop who tries to prevent crimes that happen throughout various points in history. Heading out on the fabled “one last job”, the veteran law enforcement officer seeks to track down and apprehend the Fizzle Bomber, his arch-nemesis who mounts a terrorist attack that claims thousands of lives, but has so far eluded him throughout all of time.

Diving any deeper into specifics runs the risk of giving away spoilers, and you’re much better off going into Predestination without an inkling of how things ultimately pan out. Hopefully, that’s the boat Netflix subscribers have been finding themselves in this week, with the ambitious mind-melter having become the 16th most-watched title on the platform’s global charts per FlixPatrol .

An 84 percent Rotten Tomatoes score highlights the acclaim that greeted Predestination , and there’s a high chance you’ll be left with your jaw on the floor by the time the revelations start coming thick and fast.

Maxim

Ethan Hawke, Time Traveler

The Boyhood star and Golden Globe nominee on revising his obituary.

  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Pinterest

Ethan Hawke , Hollywood’s least decorated actor’s actor, earned his first Golden Globe nomination last week for his role in Boyhood , the suburban epic he and director Richard Linklater shot over the course of twelve years. Hawke, who has long alternated between playing guys with guns and guys with feelings, might be the only legitimate movie star who would even consider following that prestige picture up with a sci-fi flick about time-traveling; And there he is playing a government agent named “The Bartender” in Predestination , out January 9. It’s not Boyhood , but it’s more complex and intelligent than you’d expect – in no small part because Hawke carries it. The guy gets up and goes to work.

We caught up with Hawke at a recent press day for the film to discuss why he’s so interested in a story about the passage of time. The actor, who is as intense and thoughtful in person as he appears onscreen, talked about the inevitability of life, his fascination with aging, and what it means to deal with awards season.

It’s pretty hard to find similarities between Predestination and Boyhood, but let’s try . Both are about – on some level – the fact that time passes and there is nothing we can do about it. Did you, as a guy who has been in the public eye for a long time, think about that a lot? I’m always thinking about time. I made Before Sunset and Before Midnight while I was making Boyhood and those two movies are also about time. So time has been very relevant and it’s something I often think about. Even when I was little I remember thinking about what would be on my obituary. I remember thinking, ‘God, whatever college I choose will be in my obituary.’ Like, ‘He went to such-and-such university.’ It’s the first decision you make that’s going to show up in your obituary and that’s the way my brain has always functioned. Every time I do one of those red carpets people assume it must be glamorous, but I’m always thinking, ‘Will this be my last known photo? If I die later tonight, this will be the photo.’

That’s pretty dark. It doesn’t feel dark. It creates this feeling in me like ‘I’m really glad to be here.’ I feel like it’s a privilege. But it makes you think about time all the time. I found a brother of sorts in Richard Linklater; he thinks that way too. We’ve made all these movies about it together.

When you first saw Boyhood all cut together as a film, what was your reaction? I thought, ‘Holy shit, a friend of mine just made a masterpiece.’ I’ve been friends with [Richard] since 1993. I had started a theater company and he came to see a play we were putting on because one of the guys from Dazed and Confused was in the play. He came to it and we all went out and talked and flirted with girls all night long and had a good time.

I didn’t know I was meeting a lifelong friend that night, but it felt like that. I’ve known this guy a long time, more than 20 years. We’ve been talking and working on this movie and, watching it, I felt a penny drop where this friend of mine made something I’d never seen before. It’s really beautiful. I felt a sense of pride for him. That was my overwhelming sensation, like ‘Oh, it worked!’

How did you feel about watching yourself age onscreen? I don’t care about stuff like that.

You don’t? Well, I care about it in the same way I do when I see a photoshoot from 1995 and think ‘Shit, I don’t look like that anymore.’ I can tell in girls’ eyes. I don’t need a photo to tell me. But there’s something else happening and I prefer what’s happening now. I don’t need to wake up with another girl saying ‘This is just like Before Sunrise .’ I like my life. My relationship with my wife is something I never thought was possible. I heard corny people say things and I didn’t think it was really possible. But it is really possible to have a lover who is great friend. It’s a really amazing thing to happen.

Do you and Richard Linklater have any more secret movies in the works? We’ve got nine million secret movies, but whether any of them are any going to happen or not is up in the air. I just did a movie that reimagines the life of Chet Baker and 15 years ago I was making a Chet Baker movie with Richard Linklater. We couldn’t get the money for it. We worked hard trying to make that movie happen, but we just couldn’t get anybody interested. But life is mysterious. If that had happened I wouldn’t have gotten to do this version. Richard and I have plans for lots of movies, but one of the things that’s wonderful about him is that he’s on a mission to make good movies. I don’t know how the dominos will fall.

How are you feeling about the awards attention Boyhood is getting? It’s hard in the world we live in not to pay attention to it. It’s everywhere. I’ll be on the subway and someone will be like ‘You got my vote!’ And I’ll say, ‘Well, I wish you were a voter.’ In truth, in this moment in my life, it’s about helping EllarColtrane and Lorelei Linklater understand all that. To see that we’ve won by even being in the dialogue. The arts are not a competition – everybody knows that – but having these ceremonies helps the arts. If you didn’t have these awards, producers wouldn’t make anything but zombie movies. These people who vote on these things like movies so if they say they like your movie, it is a compliment. But it doesn’t mean you have to hang yourself if you don’t win. The first time I ever went through this dance was when Dead Poets Society got nominated for Best Picture and I was 19. And now here I am.

It’s interesting because you are very much a working actor and you make unpredictable choices. What drew you from lo-fi to sci-fi for Predestination ? I felt like somebody shot off the roof of my head when I read the script. I’ve been doing this since I was a boy and it’s really rare that anyone does anything original. It’s so hard to find. Most movies these days are all trying to be successful, they’re trying this or they’re trying to be that. And this movie just doesn’t seem to give a shit and I love that. It’s an old-fashioned science fiction movie. It’s got a time travel action sequence but at the core of it there’s something incendiary and political and it has something to say.

It does feel like a throwback in some way. You know what it reminded me of? When I was little I used to always watch the old Twilight Zone episodes with my dad. They were always these brilliantly acted, brilliantly shot episodes. They looked like movies. They were beautiful to look at and they always had cool actors in them. They would just bend your head. The second they would end you’d be thinking about something. They could manage to be philosophical in a way that most things are pretentious about. I felt like this was a feature-length Twilight Zone episode. It makes it sound small when I say that, but I mean it as the highest compliment. I don’t think there’s been anything better than those Twilight Zone shows.

In the film, there’s a discussion of how certain things in life are inevitable. Have you found that to be true? I find it very weird that when you’re living life you have no idea whether you’re going to go left or right in the moment, and then when you look back at it seems like you were always going to go the way you went. I remember being can’t-sleep-at-night, out-of-my-head worrying about what to do when I dropped out of college, what my parents were going to say.

I look back at it now and it seems like I was always going to do what I was going to do. I don’t know why I had to torture myself about it. I think back about certain relationships in my life and feel like ‘Oh, if I’d said that’ or ‘If I’d done that,’ but in truth it was always going to go down the way it went down. It feels that way in hindsight, but maybe it wasn’t. Maybe there’s another reality where I did stay in college.

What job do you have in that reality? God, I don’t know. I have no idea.

Photos by Associated Press

ethan hawke movie time travel

  • Copy from this list
  • Report this list

Ethan Hawke Filmography

  • Movies or TV
  • IMDb Rating
  • In Theaters
  • Release Year

1. Explorers (1985)

PG | 109 min | Adventure, Comedy, Family

A boy obsessed with '50s sci-fi movies about aliens has a recurring dream about a blueprint of some kind, which he draws for his inventor friend. With the help of a third kid, they follow it and build themselves a spaceship. Now what?

Director: Joe Dante | Stars: Ethan Hawke , River Phoenix , Bobby Fite , Bradley Gregg

Votes: 23,627 | Gross: $9.87M

Ben Crandall Nominated *Young Artist Award, Best Leading Young Actor in a Feature Film

2. Lion's Den (1988)

25 min | Short, Comedy, Drama

Two up and coming triple threats try to fight their way through the insanity of the perverted world of Hollywood and Film and go insane thinking they've got it all. This is their journey to redemption.

Directors: John Ottman , Bryan Singer | Stars: Brandon Boyce , David Laszlo Conhaim , Ethan Hawke , Dylan Kussman

3. Dead Poets Society (1989)

PG | 128 min | Comedy, Drama

Maverick teacher John Keating returns in 1959 to the prestigious New England boys' boarding school where he was once a star student, using poetry to embolden his pupils to new heights of self-expression.

Director: Peter Weir | Stars: Robin Williams , Robert Sean Leonard , Ethan Hawke , Josh Charles

Votes: 540,295 | Gross: $95.86M

Todd Anderson

4. Dad (1989)

PG | 117 min | Comedy, Drama

While his mom recovers in hospital from a heart attack, John puts his busy life on hold to fly home and help his elderly dad around the house. John's son later joins them and they all truly bond for the first and, tragically, final time.

Director: Gary David Goldberg | Stars: Jack Lemmon , Ted Danson , Olympia Dukakis , Kathy Baker

Votes: 5,258 | Gross: $19.74M

Billy Tremont

5. White Fang (I) (1991)

PG | 107 min | Adventure, Drama, Family

Jack London's classic adventure story about the friendship developed between a Yukon gold hunter and the mixed dog-wolf he rescues from the hands of a man who mistreats him.

Director: Randal Kleiser | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Klaus Maria Brandauer , Jed , Seymour Cassel

Votes: 22,319 | Gross: $34.79M

Jack Conroy

6. Mystery Date (1991)

PG-13 | 97 min | Comedy, Crime, Romance

Tom's in love with the cute house sitter next door. He's too shy but his older brother visits and helps Tom with the first date. Things don't go as planned.

Director: Jonathan Wacks | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Teri Polo , Brian McNamara , Fisher Stevens

Votes: 3,341 | Gross: $6.17M

7. Waterland (1992)

R | 95 min | Drama, Mystery

In 1974 Pittsburgh, a high-school history teacher seeking closure tells his class about his experiences as teenager in England during World War II.

Director: Stephen Gyllenhaal | Stars: Jeremy Irons , Sinéad Cusack , Ethan Hawke , Grant Warnock

Votes: 2,444 | Gross: $1.03M

Mathew Price

8. A Midnight Clear (1992)

R | 108 min | Drama, War

The Ardennes Forest, December 1944. A squad of six US infantrymen is sent to occupy a house to use as an observation post as the German Army is expected to advance through that area. However, the Germans seem oddly friendly.

Director: Keith Gordon | Stars: Peter Berg , Kevin Dillon , Arye Gross , Ethan Hawke

Votes: 9,720 | Gross: $1.53M

9. Rich in Love (1992)

PG-13 | 105 min | Drama

The Odoms of Charleston, South Carolina have lived a life of the traditions of the American South in their longtime, large-family beachfront home.

Director: Bruce Beresford | Stars: Albert Finney , Jill Clayburgh , Kathryn Erbe , Kyle MacLachlan

Votes: 910 | Gross: $2.15M

Wayne Frobiness

10. Alive (1993)

R | 128 min | Adventure, Biography, Drama

After crash-landing in the snowswept Andes, a Uruguayan rugby team has no choice but to turn to desperate measures in order to survive.

Director: Frank Marshall | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Vincent Spano , Josh Hamilton , Bruce Ramsay

Votes: 63,947 | Gross: $36.73M

Fernando Parrado

11. Reality Bites (1994)

PG-13 | 99 min | Comedy, Drama, Romance

A documentary filmmaker and her fellow Generation X graduates face life after college, looking for work and love in Houston.

Director: Ben Stiller | Stars: Winona Ryder , Ethan Hawke , Janeane Garofalo , Steve Zahn

Votes: 53,377 | Gross: $20.98M

Troy Dyer Nominated *MTV Movie Award, Best Kiss (Shared with Winona Ryder)

12. Floundering (1994)

R | 96 min | Comedy

In this scathing and subversive social comedy, life in post riot Los Angeles is dissected under the sardonic eye of John Boyz, an unemployed thirty nothing flounderer on Venice Beach who is... See full summary  »

Director: Peter McCarthy | Stars: James Le Gros , Shaka , Zander Schloss , John Cusack

Votes: 1,374

13. Before Sunrise (1995)

R | 101 min | Drama, Romance

A young man and woman meet on a train in Europe, and wind up spending one evening together in Vienna. Unfortunately, both know that this will probably be their only night together.

Director: Richard Linklater | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Julie Delpy , Andrea Eckert , Hanno Pöschl

Votes: 336,782 | Gross: $5.54M

Jesse Wallace *Nominated MTV Movie Award, Best Kiss (Shared with Julie Delpy)

14. Search and Destroy (1995)

R | 90 min | Action, Comedy, Drama

A satire about desperate hustling, pop philosophy and big money.

Director: David Salle | Stars: Griffin Dunne , Dennis Hopper , Jason Ferraro , Robert Knepper

Votes: 1,381 | Gross: $0.39M

15. Gattaca (1997)

PG-13 | 106 min | Drama, Sci-Fi, Thriller

A genetically inferior man assumes the identity of a superior one in order to pursue his lifelong dream of space travel.

Director: Andrew Niccol | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Uma Thurman , Jude Law , Gore Vidal

Votes: 321,536 | Gross: $12.34M

Vincent Freeman

16. Great Expectations (1998)

R | 111 min | Drama, Romance

Modernization of Charles Dickens' classic story finds the hapless Finn as a painter in New York City pursuing his unrequited and haughty childhood love.

Director: Alfonso Cuarón | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Gwyneth Paltrow , Hank Azaria , Chris Cooper

Votes: 56,698 | Gross: $26.33M

Finnegan 'Finn' Bell

17. The Newton Boys (1998)

PG-13 | 122 min | Action, Crime, Drama

The story of the Newton gang, the most successful bank robbers in history, owing to their good planning and minimal violence.

Director: Richard Linklater | Stars: Matthew McConaughey , Ethan Hawke , Skeet Ulrich , Vincent D'Onofrio

Votes: 12,335 | Gross: $10.30M

Jess Newton

18. The Velocity of Gary (1998)

R | 100 min | Comedy, Drama, Romance

Ex porn star Valentino and Gary are in love with each other. But Valentino also has a girlfriend. Tragedy hits them, when Valentino collapses and is hospitalized with AIDS.

Director: Dan Ireland | Stars: Vincent D'Onofrio , Salma Hayek , Thomas Jane , Olivia d'Abo

Votes: 1,871

19. Joe the King (1999)

R | 93 min | Crime, Drama

A disadvantaged, abused, neglected, exploited but basically decent kid slips into criminality while trying to cope with his harsh, inescapable reality.

Director: Frank Whaley | Stars: Noah Fleiss , Karen Young , Camryn Manheim , Austin Pendleton

Votes: 2,947 | Gross: $0.06M

20. Snow Falling on Cedars (1999)

PG-13 | 127 min | Drama, Mystery, Romance

A Japanese-American fisherman is accused of killing his neighbor at sea. In the 1950s, race figures into the trial. So does reporter Ishmael.

Director: Scott Hicks | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Max von Sydow , Yûki Kudô , Reeve Carney

Votes: 14,533 | Gross: $14.38M

Ishmael Chambers

21. Hamlet (2000)

R | 112 min | Drama, Romance, Thriller

Modern-day New York City adaptation of Shakespeare's immortal story about Hamlet's plight to avenge his father's murder.

Director: Michael Almereyda | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Kyle MacLachlan , Diane Venora , Sam Shepard

Votes: 9,961 | Gross: $1.57M

22. Waking Life (2001)

R | 99 min | Animation, Drama, Fantasy

A man shuffles through a dream meeting various people and discussing the meanings and purposes of the universe.

Director: Richard Linklater | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Trevor Jack Brooks , Lorelei Linklater , Wiley Wiggins

Votes: 66,716 | Gross: $2.89M

Jesse Wallace (voice)

23. Tape (2001)

R | 86 min | Drama

Three old high school friends meet in a Michigan motel room to dissect painful memories from their past.

Director: Richard Linklater | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Robert Sean Leonard , Uma Thurman

Votes: 21,053 | Gross: $0.49M

24. Training Day (2001)

R | 122 min | Crime, Drama, Thriller

A rookie cop spends his first day as a Los Angeles narcotics officer with a rogue detective who isn't what he appears to be.

Director: Antoine Fuqua | Stars: Denzel Washington , Ethan Hawke , Scott Glenn , Tom Berenger

Votes: 469,693 | Gross: $76.63M

Jake Hoyt Nominated *Academy Award, Best Supporting Actor *SAG Awards, Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role

25. Chelsea Walls (2001)

R | 109 min | Drama

This movie tells five stories set in a single day at the famed Chelsea Hotel in New York City, involving an ensemble cast of some 30-35 characters.

Director: Ethan Hawke | Stars: Paz de la Huerta , Vincent D'Onofrio , Bianca Hunter , Kevin Corrigan

Votes: 2,212 | Gross: $0.06M

Sam (voice)

26. The Jimmy Show (2001)

R | 96 min | Comedy, Drama

A failed New Jersey inventor embarks on a career as a standup comic, turns to drink, and labors to keep his family together.

Director: Frank Whaley | Stars: Frank Whaley , Carla Gugino , Ethan Hawke , Lynn Cohen

Votes: 623 | Gross: $0.00M

27. Alias (2001–2006)

TV-14 | 42 min | Action, Drama, Mystery

Sydney Bristow is an international spy recruited out of college, trained for espionage and self-defense.

Stars: Jennifer Garner , Ron Rifkin , Carl Lumbly , Kevin Weisman

Votes: 54,442

CIA Agent James L. Lennox (Episode: "Double Agent", 2003)

28. Taking Lives (2004)

R | 103 min | Crime, Mystery, Thriller

An FBI profiler is called in by French Canadian police to catch a serial killer who takes on the identity of each new victim.

Director: D.J. Caruso | Stars: Angelina Jolie , Ethan Hawke , Kiefer Sutherland , Gena Rowlands

Votes: 94,930 | Gross: $32.68M

James Costa

29. Before Sunset (2004)

R | 80 min | Drama, Romance

Nine years after Jesse and Celine first met, they encounter each other again on the French leg of Jesse's book tour.

Director: Richard Linklater | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Julie Delpy , Vernon Dobtcheff , Louise Lemoine Torrès

Votes: 286,001 | Gross: $5.82M

Jesse Wallace Nominated *Academy Award, Best Adapted Screenplay *Independent Spirit Award, Best Screenplay *National Society of Film Critics Award, Best Screenplay *Online Film Critics Society Award, Best Adapted Screenplay *Writers Guild of America Award, Best Adapted Screenplay (Shared with Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy, and Kim Krizan)

30. Assault on Precinct 13 (2005)

R | 109 min | Action, Crime, Drama

A police sergeant must rally the cops and prisoners together to protect themselves on New Year's Eve, just as corrupt policeman surround the station with the intent of killing all to keep their deception in the ranks.

Director: Jean-François Richet | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Laurence Fishburne , Gabriel Byrne , Maria Bello

Votes: 81,766 | Gross: $19.98M

Sargento Jake

31. Lord of War (2005)

R | 122 min | Crime, Drama

An arms dealer confronts the morality of his work as he is being chased by an INTERPOL Agent.

Director: Andrew Niccol | Stars: Nicolas Cage , Ethan Hawke , Jared Leto , Bridget Moynahan

Votes: 335,222 | Gross: $24.15M

Jack Valentine

32. The Hottest State (2006)

R | 117 min | Drama, Music, Romance

A young actor from Texas tries to make it in New York while struggling in his relationship with a beautiful singer/songwriter.

Director: Ethan Hawke | Stars: Mark Webber , Catalina Sandino Moreno , Laura Linney , Daniel Ross Owens

Votes: 2,890 | Gross: $0.03M

33. Fast Food Nation (2006)

R | 116 min | Comedy, Drama

An examination of the health risks involved in the fast food industry as well as its environmental and social consequences.

Director: Richard Linklater | Stars: Greg Kinnear , Bruce Willis , Catalina Sandino Moreno , Wilmer Valderrama

Votes: 25,057 | Gross: $1.00M

34. Robot Chicken (2001–2022)

TV-MA | 11 min | Animation, Short, Adventure

Pop culture references fly thick and fast as stop-motion animation is featured in sketches lampooning everything from television movies to comic books.

Stars: Seth Green , Matthew Senreich , Breckin Meyer , Tom Root

Votes: 46,034

Godzilla Jr. / Jason (Episode: "Squaw Bury Shortcake", 2007)

35. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)

R | 117 min | Crime, Drama, Thriller

When two brothers organize the robbery of their parents' jewelry store the job goes horribly wrong, triggering a series of events that sends them, their father and one brother's wife barreling towards a shattering climax.

Director: Sidney Lumet | Stars: Philip Seymour Hoffman , Ethan Hawke , Albert Finney , Marisa Tomei

Votes: 110,907 | Gross: $7.08M

Hank Hanson *Boston Society of Film Critics Award, Best Cast *Gotham Independent Film Award, Best Ensemble Cast *Satellite Award, Best Cast – Motion Picture Nominated *Broadcast Film Critics Association Award, Best Acting Ensemble

36. What Doesn't Kill You (2008)

R | 100 min | Crime, Drama, Thriller

Two childhood friends from South Boston turn to crime as a way to get by, ultimately causing a strain in their personal lives and their friendship.

Director: Brian Goodman | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Mark Ruffalo , Brian Goodman , Amanda Peet

Votes: 13,149

Paulie McDougan

37. Chelsea on the Rocks (2008)

R | 89 min | Documentary

Chelsea on the Rocks celebrates the personalities and artistic voices that have emerged from the legendary residence, the Chelsea Hotel, in the heart of New York. Once considered an ... See full summary  »

Director: Abel Ferrara | Stars: Ira Cohen , Gerald Busby , Stanley Bard , Quentin Crisp

Votes: 495 | Gross: $0.01M

38. New York, I Love You (2008)

R | 103 min | Comedy, Drama, Romance

Eleven love stories set in one of the most loved and hated cities of the world, New York City.

Directors: Fatih Akin , Yvan Attal , Randall Balsmeyer , Allen Hughes , Shunji Iwai , Wen Jiang , Shekhar Kapur , Joshua Marston , Mira Nair , Natalie Portman , Brett Ratner | Stars: Shia LaBeouf , Natalie Portman , Bradley Cooper , Hayden Christensen

Votes: 47,541 | Gross: $1.59M

39. Little New York (2009)

R | 96 min | Comedy, Crime, Drama

The lives of three residents of New York's Staten Island intersect as they struggle to get ahead.

Director: James DeMonaco | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Vincent D'Onofrio , Seymour Cassel , Julianne Nicholson

Votes: 5,335

Sully Halverson

40. Corso: The Last Beat (2009)

Documentary

Following Beat Poet Gregory Corso - literary compatriot of Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg and William Burroughs -- throughout Europe, discovering his past, and facing his death.

Director: Gustave Reininger | Stars: Gregory Corso , Allen Ginsberg , William S. Burroughs , Ethan Hawke

Narrator /Himself

41. Daybreakers (2009)

R | 98 min | Action, Horror, Sci-Fi

In the year 2019, a plague has transformed almost every human into vampires. Faced with a dwindling blood supply, the fractured dominant race plots their survival; meanwhile, a researcher works with a covert band of vamps on a way to save humankind.

Directors: Michael Spierig , Peter Spierig | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Willem Dafoe , Sam Neill , Harriet Minto-Day

Votes: 134,548 | Gross: $30.10M

Edward Dalton

42. Brooklyn's Finest (2009)

R | 132 min | Action, Crime, Drama

Three unconnected Brooklyn cops wind up at the same deadly location after enduring vastly different career paths.

Director: Antoine Fuqua | Stars: Richard Gere , Don Cheadle , Ethan Hawke , Wesley Snipes

Votes: 66,240 | Gross: $27.15M

Detective Salvatore "Sal" Procida

43. Moby Dick (2011)

PG | 184 min | Adventure, Drama

The sole survivor of a lost whaling ship relates the tale of his captain's self-destructive obsession to hunt the white whale, Moby Dick.

Stars: William Hurt , Ethan Hawke , Charlie Cox , Eddie Marsan

Votes: 2,196

44. The Woman in the Fifth (2011)

R | 84 min | Drama, Mystery, Thriller

A college lecturer flees to Paris after a scandal costs him his job. In the City of Light, he meets a widow who might be involved in a series of murders.

Director: Pawel Pawlikowski | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Kristin Scott Thomas , Joanna Kulig , Samir Guesmi

Votes: 7,076 | Gross: $0.11M

45. Sinister (I) (2012)

R | 110 min | Horror, Mystery, Thriller

A controversial true-crime writer finds a box of Super 8 home movies in his new home, revealing that the murder case he is currently researching could be the work of an unknown serial killer whose legacy dates back to the 1960s.

Director: Scott Derrickson | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Juliet Rylance , James Ransone , Fred Thompson

Votes: 277,850 | Gross: $48.09M

Ellison Oswalt

46. Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God (2012)

TV-14 | 106 min | Documentary

Alex Gibney explores the charged issue of pedophilia in the Catholic Church, following a trail from the first known protest against clerical sexual abuse in the United States and all the way to the Vatican.

Director: Alex Gibney | Stars: Alex Gibney , Terry Kohut , Gary Smith , Pat Kuehn

Votes: 4,075

Pat (voice)

47. Before Midnight (2013)

R | 109 min | Drama, Romance

We meet Jesse and Celine nine years on in Greece. Almost two decades have passed since their first meeting on that train bound for Vienna.

Director: Richard Linklater | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Julie Delpy , Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick , Ariane Labed

Votes: 171,225 | Gross: $8.11M

Jesse Wallace *Broadcast Film Critics Association, Louis XIII Genius Award *Los Angeles Film Critics Association Award, Best Screenplay *National Society of Film Critics Award, Best Screenplay *Hollywood Film Award for Screenwriter of the Year Nominated *Academy Award, Best Adapted Screenplay *Critics' Choice Movie Award, Best Screenplay *Independent Spirit Award, Best Screenplay *Online Film Critics Society Award, Best Adapted Screenplay *Satellite Award, Best Adapted Screenplay *Writers Guild of America Award, Best Adapted Screenplay(Shared with Richard Linklater and Julie Delpy)

48. The Purge (I) (2013)

R | 85 min | Horror, Sci-Fi, Thriller

A wealthy family is held hostage for harboring the target of a murderous syndicate during the Purge, a 12-hour period in which any and all crime is legal.

Director: James DeMonaco | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Lena Headey , Max Burkholder , Adelaide Kane

Votes: 238,725 | Gross: $64.47M

James Sandin Nominated *MTV Movie Award, Best Scared-As-Shit Performance

49. Getaway (I) (2013)

PG-13 | 90 min | Action, Thriller

To save his kidnapped wife, Brent Magna must drive at the orders of a mysterious man.

Director: Courtney Solomon | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Selena Gomez , Jon Voight , Paul Freeman

Votes: 25,185 | Gross: $10.49M

Brent Magna

50. Boyhood (I) (2014)

R | 165 min | Drama

The life of Mason, from early childhood to his arrival at college.

Director: Richard Linklater | Stars: Ellar Coltrane , Patricia Arquette , Ethan Hawke , Elijah Smith

Votes: 366,124 | Gross: $25.38M

Mr. Mason *Boston Society of Film Critics Award, Best Cast Nominated *Academy Award, Best Supporting Actor *BAFTA Award, Best Actor in a Supporting Role *Critics' Choice Movie Award, Best Supporting Actor *Critics' Choice Movie Award, Best Acting Ensemble *Golden Globe Award, Best Supporting Actor – Motion Picture *Gotham Independent Film Award, Best Actor *Independent Spirit Award, Best Supporting Male *Online Film Critics Society Award, Best Supporting Actor *Satellite Award, Best Supporting Actor – Motion Picture *Satellite Award, Best Original Song ("Split the Difference") Screen Actors Guild Award, Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role

51. Predestination (I) (2014)

R | 97 min | Action, Drama, Sci-Fi

As his last assignment, a temporal agent is tasked to travel back in time and prevent a bomb attack in New York in 1975. The hunt, however, turns out to be beyond the bounds of possibility.

Directors: Michael Spierig , Peter Spierig | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Sarah Snook , Noah Taylor , Madeleine West

Votes: 302,829 | Gross: $0.07M

The Barman/Temporary Agent

52. Cymbeline (2014)

R | 98 min | Crime, Drama, Thriller

A gritty story of a take-no-prisoners war between dirty cops and an outlaw biker gang. A drug kingpin is driven to desperate measures.

Director: Michael Almereyda | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Ed Harris , Milla Jovovich , John Leguizamo

Votes: 4,227

53. Good Kill (2014)

R | 102 min | Drama, Thriller, War

A family man begins to question the ethics of his job as a drone pilot.

Director: Andrew Niccol | Stars: Ethan Hawke , January Jones , Zoë Kravitz , Fatima El Bahraouy

Votes: 24,853 | Gross: $0.32M

Major Thomas Egan

54. Seymour: An Introduction (2014)

PG | 84 min | Documentary, Biography, Music

Meet Seymour Bernstein : a beloved pianist, teacher and true inspiration who shares eye-opening insights from an amazing life. Ethan Hawke helms this poignant guide to life.

Director: Ethan Hawke | Stars: Seymour Bernstein , Ethan Hawke , Sam Bachelder , Sam Bachelor

Votes: 1,143 | Gross: $0.58M

55. Ten Thousand Saints (2015)

R | 113 min | Comedy, Drama, Music

Set in the 1980s, a teenager from Vermont moves to New York City to live with his father in East Village.

Directors: Shari Springer Berman , Robert Pulcini | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Asa Butterfield , Hailee Steinfeld , Emily Mortimer

Votes: 5,988 | Gross: $0.06M

56. Maggie's Plan (2015)

R | 98 min | Comedy, Drama, Romance

Maggie wants to have a baby, raising him on her own, but when she gets romantically involved with John, a married man, things get complicated and all the balance of Maggie's plans may collapse.

Director: Rebecca Miller | Stars: Greta Gerwig , Ethan Hawke , Julianne Moore , Maya Rudolph

Votes: 18,201 | Gross: $3.35M

57. Born to Be Blue (2015)

R | 97 min | Biography, Drama, Music

A re-imagining of jazz legend Chet Baker's musical comeback in the late '60s.

Director: Robert Budreau | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Carmen Ejogo , Callum Keith Rennie , Tony Nappo

Votes: 9,229 | Gross: $0.83M

58. Regression (I) (2015)

R | 106 min | Crime, Drama, Mystery

A detective and a psychoanalyst uncover evidence of a satanic cult while investigating a young woman's terrifying past.

Director: Alejandro Amenábar | Stars: Ethan Hawke , David Thewlis , Emma Watson , Dale Dickey

Votes: 42,370 | Gross: $0.05M

Bruce Kenner

59. In a Valley of Violence (2016)

R | 104 min | Action, Western

A mysterious stranger and a random act of violence drag a town of misfits and nitwits into the bloody crosshairs of revenge.

Director: Ti West | Stars: Ethan Hawke , John Travolta , Taissa Farmiga , James Ransone

Votes: 20,695 | Gross: $0.05M

60. The Phenom (2016)

Not Rated | 88 min | Drama, Sport

A rookie pitcher undergoes psychotherapy to overcome the yips.

Director: Noah Buschel | Stars: Johnny Simmons , Ethan Hawke , Paul Giamatti , Sophie Kennedy Clark

Votes: 2,385

61. The Magnificent Seven (2016)

PG-13 | 132 min | Action, Adventure, Drama

Seven gunmen from a variety of backgrounds are brought together by a vengeful young widow to protect her town from the private army of a destructive industrialist.

Director: Antoine Fuqua | Stars: Denzel Washington , Chris Pratt , Ethan Hawke , Vincent D'Onofrio

Votes: 227,151 | Gross: $93.43M

Goodnight Robicheaux

62. Maudie (2016)

PG-13 | 115 min | Biography, Drama, Romance

An arthritic Nova Scotia woman works as a housekeeper while she hones her skills as an artist and eventually becomes a beloved figure in the community.

Director: Aisling Walsh | Stars: Sally Hawkins , Ethan Hawke , Zachary Bennett , Gabrielle Rose

Votes: 21,193 | Gross: $6.17M

Everett Lewis *Canadian Screen Award for Best Supporting Actor *Irish Film & Television for Best International Actor Nominated *San Diego Film Critics Society Award, Best Supporting Actor

63. Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)

PG-13 | 136 min | Action, Adventure, Fantasy

A dark force threatens Alpha, a vast metropolis and home to species from a thousand planets. Special operatives Valerian and Laureline must race to identify the marauding menace and safeguard not just Alpha, but the future of the universe.

Director: Luc Besson | Stars: Dane DeHaan , Cara Delevingne , Clive Owen , Rihanna

Votes: 195,800 | Gross: $41.19M

64. First Reformed (2017)

R | 113 min | Drama, Mystery, Thriller

A minister of a small congregation in upstate New York grapples with mounting despair brought on by tragedy, worldly concerns and a tormented past.

Director: Paul Schrader | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Amanda Seyfried , Cedric The Entertainer , Victoria Hill

Votes: 62,177 | Gross: $3.45M

Reverend Ernst Toller *Chicago Film Critics Association Award, Best Actor *Detroit Film Critics Society Award, Best Actor *Gotham Independent Film Award, Best Actor *London Film Critics' Circle Award, Actor of the Year *Los Angeles Film Critics Association Award, Best Actor *National Society of Film Critics Award, Best Actor *New York Film Critics Circle Award, Best Actor *New York Film Critics Online Awards, Best Actor *San Diego Film Critics Society Award, Best Actor *San Francisco Film Critics Circle Award, Best Actor *Seattle Film Critics Society, Best Actor *St. Louis Gateway Film Critics Association Award, Best Actor *Toronto Film Critics Association Award, Best Actor *Vancouver Film Critics Circle Award, Best Actor Nominated *Critics' Choice Movie Award, Best Actor *Satellite Award, Best Actor – Motion Picture *Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association Award, Best Actor

65. 24 Hours to Live (2017)

R | 93 min | Action, Sci-Fi, Thriller

An assassin seeks redemption after being given a second chance at life.

Director: Brian Smrz | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Qing Xu , Paul Anderson , Rutger Hauer

Votes: 16,047

Travis Conrad

66. Juliet, Naked (2018)

R | 97 min | Comedy, Drama, Music

Annie (the long-suffering girlfriend of Duncan) has an unlikely transatlantic romance with once revered, now faded, singer-songwriter, Tucker Crowe, who also happens to be the subject of Duncan's musical obsession.

Director: Jesse Peretz | Stars: Chris O'Dowd , Rose Byrne , Ethan Hawke , Kitty O'Beirne

Votes: 24,509 | Gross: $3.44M

Tucker Crowe

67. Blaze (2018)

R | 129 min | Biography, Drama, Music

A reimagining of the life and times of Blaze Foley, the unsung songwriting legend of the Texas Outlaw Music movement.

Director: Ethan Hawke | Stars: Ben Dickey , Alia Shawkat , Josh Hamilton , Charlie Sexton

Votes: 3,626 | Gross: $0.07M

68. Stockholm (2018)

R | 92 min | Biography, Comedy, Crime

Based on the absurd but true 1973 bank heist and hostage crisis in Stockholm that was documented in the New Yorker as the origins of the 'Stockholm Syndrome'.

Director: Robert Budreau | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Noomi Rapace , Mark Strong , Christopher Heyerdahl

Votes: 14,620 | Gross: $0.30M

Kaj Hansson / Lars Nystrom

69. The Kid (II) (2019)

R | 100 min | Biography, Drama, Western

The story of a young boy who witnesses Billy the Kid's encounter with Sheriff Pat Garrett.

Director: Vincent D'Onofrio | Stars: Jake Schur , Leila George , Chris Pratt , Dane DeHaan

Votes: 9,425 | Gross: $1.51M

Pat Garrett

70. Adopt a Highway (2019)

Not Rated | 81 min | Drama

An ex-felon discovers a live baby left in a dumpster.

Director: Logan Marshall-Green | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Christopher Heyerdahl , Chris Sullivan , Elaine Hendrix

Votes: 4,679

Russell Millings

71. The Truth (2019)

PG | 106 min | Comedy, Drama

A stormy reunion between scriptwriter Lumir with her famous mother and actress, Fabienne, against the backdrop of Fabienne's autobiographic book and her latest role in a Sci-Fi picture as a daughter of a mother who never grows old.

Director: Kore-eda Hirokazu | Stars: Catherine Deneuve , Juliette Binoche , Ethan Hawke , Clémentine Grenier

Votes: 7,754

72. Tesla (I) (2020)

PG-13 | 102 min | Biography, Drama

A freewheeling take on visionary inventor Nikola Tesla, his interactions with Thomas Edison and J.P. Morgan's daughter Anne, and his breakthroughs in transmitting electrical power and light.

Director: Michael Almereyda | Stars: Ethan Hawke , Eve Hewson , Eli A. Smith , Josh Hamilton

Votes: 10,338

Nikola Tesla

73. Cut Throat City (2020)

R | 123 min | Action, Crime, Drama

Set after Hurricane Katrina, four boyhood friends out of options reluctantly accept an offer to pull off a dangerous heist in the heart of New Orleans.

Director: RZA | Stars: Shameik Moore , Demetrius Shipp Jr. , Denzel Whitaker , Keean Johnson

Votes: 3,159

Jackson Symms

74. The Good Lord Bird (2020)

TV-MA | 335 min | Drama, War, Western

Ethan Hawke stars as abolitionist John Brown in this series based on the novel. "Onion" is a fictional enslaved boy who becomes a member of Brown's family of abolitionist soldiers and finds himself in the 1859 raid at Harpers Ferry.

Stars: Ethan Hawke , Hubert Point-Du Jour , Beau Knapp , Nick Eversman

Votes: 7,350

List Activity

Tell your friends, other lists by vaneheraz.

list image

Recently Viewed

  • Entertainment

Everything You Need to Remember Before Seeing Dune: Part Two

F ollowing a two-year hiatus—and an additional four-month delay brought on by the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes— Dune: Part Two is set to arrive in theaters on March 1.

The long-awaited sequel to the first film in Denis Villeneuve's Dune saga will conclude the story told in Frank Herbert's classic 1965 sci-fi novel, which follows Paul Atreides (played in the movies by Timothée Chalamet ) as he's thrust into a galactic war for the valuable but deadly desert planet of Arrakis.

In 2021, Dune: Part One adapted the first half of Herbert's novel, centering on Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac), Paul's father and the leader of House Atreides, accepting stewardship of Arrakis only to be betrayed by the leader of rival House Harkonnen, Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgård), with the covert support of Padishah Emperor Shaddam Corrino IV (played in Part Two by Christopher Walken), ruler of the galactic empire known as the Imperium. Dune: Part Two picks up right where the first movie left off, with Paul and his mother, Lady Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson), navigating an alliance with the Fremen, the native people of Arrakis, while seeking revenge against those who destroyed their family.

"For me, this film is much better than Part One . There’s something more alive in it. There’s a relationship to the characters,” Villeneuve said at a December press conference . "I was trying to reach for an intensity and a quality of emotions that I didn’t reach with Part One and that I did reach with Part Two ."

Here's everything you need to know before seeing Dune: Part Two .

Read More: Denis Villeneuve Refuses to Let Hollywood Shrink Him Down to Size

What to remember from Dune: Part One

Set tens of thousands of years in the future in a feudal interstellar society in which various noble houses control planetary fiefs, the Dune universe is not for the faint of sci-fi heart. The story is complex, complicated, and grows increasingly bizarre as Herbert's series of novels progresses.

Dune: Part One opens with a voiceover from a young Fremen woman named Chani ( Zendaya ) explaining what's been going down on Arrakis since House Harkonnen took control of the planet 80 years earlier.

"My planet Arrakis is so beautiful when the sun is low. Rolling over the sands, you can see spice in the air," she says. "At nightfall, the spice harvesters land. The outsiders race against time to avoid the heat of the day. They ravage our lands in front of our eyes. Their cruelty to my people is all I've known. These outsiders, the Harkonnens, came long before I was born. By controlling spice production they became obscenely rich. Richer than the Emperor himself. Our warriors couldn't free Arrakis from the Harkonnens, but one day, by Imperial decree, they were gone. Why did the Emperor choose this path? And who will our next oppressors be?"

Dune

The so-called "spice" that Chani speaks of is a a byproduct of the lifecycle of the giant sandworms that inhabit Arrakis and therefore can only be found on the desert planet. It's a mysterious, psychedelic substance that expands consciousness, increases life expectancy, and allows for interstellar space travel, making it the most valuable commodity in the universe. Basically, whoever controls the spice has the power to rule.

Meanwhile, on the oceanic planet of Caladan, the ancestral home of House Atreides, Leto is set to accept the Emperor's offer to take over stewardship of Arrakis from the Harkonnens. Despite suspecting there is foul play at hand, Leto cannot refuse the Emperor's "gift" and must prepare House Atreides—specifically Jessica (his wife in all but name whom he cannot marry for political reasons) and their son Paul—for the dangerous road ahead. During a conversation with Paul, Leto reveals the Emperor is threatened by how popular Leto has become in the Landsraad, the conclave that represents all the Great Houses in the Imperium, and fears his growing political power. He says the Emperor wants to incite a war between the Atreides and Harkonnens in order to weaken both houses, but Leto is planning to ally with the Fremen to tap into their "desert power" and become stronger than ever.

Dune

As for Paul's mother, Jessica is a highly-trained and skilled sister of the Bene Gesserit, a shadowy, all-female order whose members possess extraordinary mental and physical abilities—like the Voice, a cultivated skill that allows the user to speak in such a way that another person must obey anything they say. A powerful political, religious, and social force, the Bene Gesserit have worked for centuries to quietly exert influence over the Imperium in order to achieve their goal of producing the Kwisatz Haderach, an unparalleled Bene Gesserit male capable of accessing all of his ancestral memories (both male and female) and seeing all possible futures. In other words, the chosen one.

Using the Bene Gesserit ability to decide the sex of an embryo at conception, Jessica was intended to conceive a daughter with Leto who would then go on to produce the Kwisatz Haderach with Vladimir Harkonnen's nephew, Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen (played by Austin Butler in Part Two ). Jessica chose to have a son instead, believing he would have the potential to become the chosen one.

While the Atreides are still on Caladan, Jessica's Bene Gesserit superior, the Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam (Charlotte Rampling), arrives to test Paul's "humanity" by forcing him to hold his hand inside a box that simulates excruciating pain while threatening to pierce his neck with the Gom Jabbar, a needle tipped with an extremely deadly poison that results in near-instant death, if he pulls away. "If you had been unable to control your impulses, like an animal, we could not let you live," she tells him after he passes the test. "You inherit too much power."

Dune

When the Atreides arrive on Arrakis, Paul learns that many of the planet's native people believe he could be the Lisan-al-Gaib (or, "Voice from the Outer World"), a prophesied messiah who will lead the Fremen to freedom. This prophecy was planted by the Bene Gesserit hundreds of years earlier and has since been proselytized among the Fremen by the order's agents. When Paul is exposed to the spice on Arrakis, it fully awakens his prescient abilities and he begins to see future events with more clarity. He learns through these visions that Jessica is pregnant.

Leto begins to make inroads with the Fremen but it doesn't take long for the Harkonnens, with the help of the Emperor's elite army of Sardaukar, to strike. The Atreides are betrayed by one of their own—the family's personal physician, Dr. Yueh (Chang Chen), who believes the Harkonnens are holding his wife captive and endlessly torturing her—and the majority of the house, including Leto, are slaughtered.

Jessica and Paul, however, manage to escape into the desert and, after a series of near-death trials, eventually make contact with a band of Fremen led by Stilgar (Javier Bardem). One of the Fremen, Jamis (Babs Olusanmokun), challenges Jessica to a duel and Paul fights as her champion. Paul kills Jamis with a crysknife (a blade made from the tooth of a dead sandworm) given to him by Chani and Stilgar agrees to bring Paul and Jessica back to their community's desert sietch .

What to expect in Dune: Part Two

Without giving too much away, Dune: Part Two covers the entirety of the second half of Herbert's Dune , which chronicles Paul's initially reluctant rise to power among the Fremen and eventual revolt against the Emperor. Rather than jumping two years ahead like the book does after Paul and Jessica join the Fremen, the movie opens at roughly the same point in time. This alters the timeline of how some aspects of Herbert's story play out, particularly with regards to Jessica's pregnancy and the birth of Paul's sister, Alia Atreides.

Rebecca Ferguson as Jessica in 'Dune: Part Two'

But while Villeneuve does put his own spin on the source material, the director has said that Part Two is intended to make one often overlooked element of Herbert's story abundantly clear: the idea that Paul is not a hero.

"When Frank Herbert wrote the book, and then when the book came out, he was disappointed by how people perceived Paul Atreides," Villeneuve told Screen Rant . "At the time, he felt that people were talking about Paul as a hero, and for him, he was an anti-hero. He was a dark figure. The book was a warning for him about a Messianic figure."

More Must-Reads From TIME

  • The Fight to Free Evan Gershkovich
  • Inside the White House Program to Share America's Secrets
  • Meet the 2024 Women of the Year
  • Breaker Sunny Choi Is Heading to Paris
  • Long COVID Doesn’t Always Look Like You Think It Does
  • Column: The New Antisemitism
  • The 13 Best New Books to Read in March
  • Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Write to Megan McCluskey at [email protected]

You May Also Like

Read the Latest on Page Six

Ethan Hawke once owned this NYC townhouse — and now you can, too

  • View Author Archive
  • Email the Author
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Get author RSS feed

Contact The Author

Thanks for contacting us. We've received your submission.

Interior of the living room.

A Chelsea townhouse formerly owned by Ethan Hawke — once dubbed the greatest actor of his generation by Esquire — is about to hit the market for $5.98 million, Gimme Shelter has learned.

Hawke, who recently starred with Julia Roberts in the Barack and Michelle Obama-produced political apocalypse film, “Leave the World Behind,” bought the home at 353 W. 21st St. in 2005 for $3 million via a trust, according to property records.

That was the year Hawke and Uma Thurman finalized their divorce.

They share two children together, Maya and Levon. Hawke, who got married a second time to Ryan Shawhughes in 2008, lived in the home until 2013, when he sold it to the current owners for $5.86 million.

Close up of Ethan Hawke.

The four-story, 21-foot-wide home is in a landmarked district. While the ground floor is a legal second unit with its own entrance, the home has been occupied as a single-family residence for several decades.

At 3,600 square feet, the residence features six bedrooms and 4½ baths. The home opens on the parlor level, with a roomy living and entertaining space with a gas fireplace. There’s also an eat-in chef’s kitchen with a retro red refrigerator and painted cabinetry left over from Hawke’s time in the home. Large double pocket doors with translucent green glass panels separate the living area from the hall stairs, while a separate dining area is framed by large casement windows showcasing the backyard.

Upstairs, the second floor comes with three bedrooms, two baths and a laundry room. The third floor is a full-floor primary suite with a gas fireplace, a walk-in closet, two additional closets, an ensuite spa-like bath and a planted wooden terrace with a retractable awning that overlooks the garden. The ground floor, with its own entrance, can work as a separate two-bedroom unit.

There’s also an unfinished basement and a new coated copper roof. The backyard space boasts an irrigated watering system, a sunken patio and a retractable awning.

The listing brokers are Daniel Nassi and Alana Normile of Brown Harris Stevens. 

Share this article:

Close up of Ethan Hawke.

Advertisement

ethan hawke movie time travel

ethan hawke movie time travel

Ethan Hawke to visit Milwaukee for screenings of his new film

Maya Hawke (left) plays author Flannery O'Connor under the watchful eye of director (and dad) Ethan Hawke in the new film "Wildcat."

It’s been a big week for “Hollywood comes to Milwaukee.” A few days ago, John Ridley announced an event at Nō Studios to accompany the premiere of his new movie, Shirley , at the Oriental Theatre on March 14. Two months later, Milwaukee Film will bring another star to town when Ethan Hawke visits for two screenings of his film, Wildcat .

Milwaukee native John Ridley on set with Regina King during the filming of "Shirley."

“Ever since our screenings of his documentary series, The Last Movie Stars , in July of 2022, we’ve been looking for ways to get Ethan to see our gorgeous cinema palace,” Milwaukee Film artistic director Cara Ogburn said in a release. “And we are so honored to get to bring him to the Oriental Theatre with his latest project alongside the film’s editor and friend of our organization, Barry Poltermann, for what is sure to be an inspiring Q&A.

“The film will challenge your assumptions about the relationships between an author’s life and work, so I’m excited to dig into those choices made in the filmmaking process with our audiences in May.”

Hawke and Poltermann will both be on hand for a Q&A session following showings of Wildcat at 7:30 p.m. Saturday, May 18, and at 2 p.m. Sunday, May 19. The movie is the latest directorial effort from Hawke, who helmed his first big-screen project in 2001 and has gone on to sit in the big chair for five in all. On the music front, he also directed the music videos for Lisa Loeb & Nine Stories’ breakout “Stay (I Missed You) and Ben Dickey’s “Down the Shore.”

In Wildcat , he tackles the story of Southern Gothic writer Flannery O’Connor and gets the chance to work with his daughter, Maya Hawke, in the lead role. The film centers on O’Connor getting diagnosed with lupus (the disease that killed her father) at 24 and visiting her mother, Regina (played by Laura Linney).

“The inspiration for Wildcat came many years ago, when my daughter, Maya, was trying to find an audition piece for Juilliard,” Ethan Hawke said in the release. “[I]nstead of turning to Shakespeare or Chekov, she assembled a monologue from entries in O’Connor’s Prayer Journal , a personal diary Flannery had written in her youth.

“When Maya stood in the kitchen and performed it for our family, it blew us away… even after [her acceptance to Juilliard] it seemed Flannery served as a personal touchstone.”

Tickets for both Q&A screenings are on sale now via the Milwaukee Film website .

ethan hawke movie time travel

Wealth of Geeks

Wealth of Geeks

Fantasy Flashback: 14 Fantasy Movies That Defined the 80s

Posted: November 15, 2023 | Last updated: December 18, 2023

<p>Many iconic movies in the fantasy genre came out in the 1980s. A movie fan in a popular online entertainment forum asked for a list of 80s fantasy films they could introduce to their young child. Here are 14 amazing picks for 80s fantasy films that are still entertaining today.</p>

Many iconic movies in the fantasy genre came out in the 1980s. A movie fan in a popular online entertainment forum asked for a list of 80s fantasy films they could introduce to their young child. Here are 14 amazing picks for 80s fantasy films that are still entertaining today.

<p><em>Willow</em> is a 1988 fantasy/adventure film starring Warwick Davis, Val Kilmer, and Joanne Whalley. Directed by Ron Howard, this fun family-friendly flick is a solid choice for your next movie night. The film features great performances, high production value, and plenty of adventure. Many people love the nostalgia factor, too.</p>

1. Willow (1988)

Willow is a 1988 fantasy/adventure film starring Warwick Davis, Val Kilmer, and Joanne Whalley. Directed by Ron Howard, this fun family-friendly flick is a solid choice for your next movie night. The film features great performances, high production value, and plenty of adventure. Many people love the nostalgia factor, too.

<p><em>Labyrinth</em> is a musical fantasy film directed by Jim Henson which stars Jennifer Connelly and David Bowie. Fans of the film still rave about it, all these years later. One person noted, “This was a movie I watched repeatedly as a kid and I'll always have the entire script memorized.”</p> <p>They continued, “Now I make my kids watch it with me and regularly test them by singing ‘you remind me of the babe'… they've passed every test so far.”</p>

2. Labyrinth (1986)

Labyrinth is a musical fantasy film directed by Jim Henson which stars Jennifer Connelly and David Bowie. Fans of the film still rave about it, all these years later. One movie fan said they watched it so much when they were young, they had the entire script memorized. They passed their love of the film down to their kids.

<p>Dan Aykroyd's fascination with ghosts inspired <em>Ghostbusters</em>. The movie is about three eccentric parapsychologists who start a business devoted to catching spooks in New York City – just before a spiritual event triggers an apocalypse. Its phenomenal cast includes Aykroyd, Bill Murray, the late Harold Ramis, Sigourney Weaver, and Rick Moranis.</p> <p>Arguably the best movie of its kind, <a href="https://wealthofgeeks.com/a-grown-ups-guide-to-the-ghostbusters-franchise" rel="noopener"><em>Ghostbusters</em> is a hugely influential</a> technical triumph with incredible special effects. In addition, it's brilliantly acted and contains some of the most iconic lines in movie history. If you watch one comedy-horror in your lifetime, it has to be this one.</p>

3. Ghostbusters (1984)

When a group of misfit scientists in New York City discover that ghosts are real and wreaking havoc on the city, they band together to form a ghost-catching business, calling themselves the Ghostbusters. Their services are in high demand as they battle a demon named Zuul and prevent the end of the world. Starring Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Sigourney Weaver, Ghostbusters became an instant classic with its comedic and spooky tone, memorable characters, and iconic theme song.

<p>A group of young misfits embark on a thrilling adventure to find a pirate’s treasure and save their beloved neighborhood from being demolished. Along the way, they encounter booby traps, a family of criminals, and the legendary One-Eyed Willie. Starring Sean Astin, Josh Brolin, and Corey Feldman, <em>The Goonies</em> is a beloved coming-of-age tale that has entertained generations with its fun-loving spirit and unforgettable characters.</p>

4. The Goonies (1985)

A group of young misfits embark on a thrilling adventure to find a pirate’s treasure and save their beloved neighborhood from being demolished. Along the way, they encounter booby traps, a family of criminals, and the legendary One-Eyed Willie. Starring Sean Astin, Josh Brolin, and Corey Feldman, The Goonies is a beloved coming-of-age tale that has entertained generations with its fun-loving spirit and unforgettable characters.

<p>From the brilliantly weird mind of Tim Burton, <em>Beetlejuice</em> is a quintessentially Burton movie. It's about a recently deceased couple existing as ghosts in their former home. When a new family moves into the said home, they contact Betelgeuse – a somewhat perverted “bio-exorcist” from the Netherworld – to scare them off.</p> <p>Michael Keaton is a revelation in the role, but what makes <em>Beetlejuice</em> stand out is its stunning aesthetics – the sets are fantastic and so obviously heavily influenced by Burton. As a result, it's creepy and funny in equal measure. In addition, it has a brilliant and eccentric supporting cast led by the likes of Alec Baldwin, Geena Davis, and a teenage Winona Ryder.</p>

5. Beetlejuice (1988)

When a couple dies and becomes trapped in their home, they enlist the help of a crude and mischievous ghost named Beetlejuice to scare off the new living occupants. But when Beetlejuice gets out of control, chaos ensues. Starring Michael Keaton, Winona Ryder, and Alec Baldwin, Beetlejuice is a darkly comedic and visually stunning film that has become a cult classic with its quirky characters and bizarre sense of humor.

<p>A troubled child summons the courage to help a friendly alien escape Earth and return to his home world in this classic film from <a href="https://wealthofgeeks.com/spielberg-movies-ranked/">Steven Spielberg</a>.</p>

6. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

A young boy named Elliott befriends a stranded alien and helps him evade government agents to return home. Along the way, Elliott learns valuable lessons about friendship, courage, and the importance of love. Directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Henry Thomas, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is a heartwarming and timeless classic that has touched the hearts of millions.

<p>When teenager Marty McFly accidentally travels back in time to 1955 in a DeLorean time machine created by his eccentric friend Doc Brown, he must find a way back to the present while ensuring his parents fall in love and avoiding changing the course of history. Starring Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd, <em>Back to the Future</em> is a sci-fi adventure film that has become a cultural phenomenon with its iconic DeLorean, quotable dialogue, and memorable soundtrack.</p>

7. Back to the Future (1985)

When teenager Marty McFly accidentally travels back in time to 1955 in a DeLorean time machine created by his eccentric friend Doc Brown, he must find a way back to the present while ensuring his parents fall in love and avoiding changing the course of history. Starring Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd, Back to the Future is a sci-fi adventure film that has become a cultural phenomenon with its iconic DeLorean, quotable dialogue, and memorable soundtrack.

<p>Setting up a potential sequel in the closing moments of <em>Back to the Future</em>, Zemeckis returned to the franchise that made him famous with 1989’s <em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_Part_II" rel="nofollow noopener">Back to the Future Part II</a>.</em> Defying expectations when it comes to subpar additions to a beloved series, Zemeckis cranked out a sequel that lived up to the heights of the original <em>Back to the Future</em>. With a more high-stakes storyline involving branching timelines, the crisscrossing chronological events of <em>Back to the Future Part II</em> allowed for a faster-paced adventure film with a darker edge.</p>

8. Back to the Future Part II (1989)

In the sequel to Back to the Future , Marty and Doc travel to the future to prevent Marty’s future son from making a terrible mistake. However, their mission becomes more complicated when they discover Biff Tannen has stolen the time machine and created an alternate timeline where he is the wealthy and powerful ruler of Hill Valley. Starring Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd, Back to the Future Part II is a thrilling and entertaining continuation of the first film exploring time travel’s consequences.

<p>When a scientist accidentally shrinks his kids and their two friends to the size of insects, they must navigate their way through the backyard to find a way to reverse the effects and return to normal size. Starring Rick Moranis and Marcia Strassman, <em>Honey, I Shrunk the Kids</em> is a family-friendly adventure film that captures the imagination with its inventive special effects and sense of wonder.</p>

9. Honey, I Shrunk the Kids (1989)

When a scientist accidentally shrinks his kids and their two friends to the size of insects, they must navigate their way through the backyard to find a way to reverse the effects and return to normal size. Starring Rick Moranis and Marcia Strassman, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids is a family-friendly adventure film that captures the imagination with its inventive special effects and sense of wonder.

<p><span>We all miss the ’80s. The decade that gave us a conveyor belt of post-Star Wars Reaganite cinema, featuring a host of musclebound franchises with big set pieces. </span><span>However, interspersed throughout was a feast of brilliant, beautifully written gems featuring stellar acting talent.</span></p> <p>The decade that brought us <em>Indiana Jones, Rambo</em>, and <em>The Terminator</em>, also gave us <em>Raging Bull, Chariots of Fire,</em> and <em>On Golden Pond. </em>I grew up in the ’80s and ’90s, so all of these screen legends are dear to me. <span>Here are 25 acting legends from the ’80s. </span></p>

10. Splash (1984)

When a man falls in love with a mysterious woman who turns out to be a mermaid, he must find a way to help her return to the ocean before the government captures her for scientific study. Starring Tom Hanks and Daryl Hannah, Splash is a romantic comedy that blends fantasy and reality in a way that captures the imagination. As Allen and Madison’s relationship deepens, they must navigate the challenges of love and the complications that arise from Madison’s aquatic nature.

ethan hawke movie time travel

11. The NeverEnding Story (1984)

When a young boy named Bastian discovers a magical book that transports him to the land of Fantasia, he becomes embroiled in an epic adventure to save the land from a darkness that threatens to consume it. Starring Barret Oliver and Noah Hathaway, The NeverEnding Story is a visually stunning film that explores the power of imagination and the importance of courage.

<p><span>Someone acknowledged, “</span><a href="https://wealthofgeeks.com/80s-movies-that-aged-well/"><em><span>The Princess Bride</span></em></a><span> – both are practically perfect in every way.” “I loved this movie for many years,” shared another, “I finally read the book to my daughter at bedtime when she was five, and I was floored by how wonderful it was. They are both masterpieces. I miss Andre.” A third person clarified, “The abridged version only, though! The unabridged version is ugh.”</span></p>

12. The Princess Bride (1987)

When a young woman named Buttercup is kidnapped and held for ransom by a group of bandits, her true love Westley sets out to rescue her, encountering a cast of quirky characters along the way. Starring Cary Elwes, Robin Wright, and Mandy Patinkin, The Princess Bride is a beloved romantic comedy that appeals to audiences of all ages with its witty dialogue, memorable characters, and timeless message of true love.

<p>When a young man receives a mysterious creature called a Mogwai as a Christmas gift, he inadvertently breaks the rules for caring for it and unleashes a horde of mischievous and malevolent gremlins on his town. Starring Zach Galligan and Phoebe Cates, <em>Gremlins</em> is a darkly comedic horror film that has become a classic with its iconic creatures, unique sense of humor, and holiday setting.</p>

13. Gremlins (1984)

When a young man receives a mysterious creature called a Mogwai as a Christmas gift, he inadvertently breaks the rules for caring for it and unleashes a horde of mischievous and malevolent gremlins on his town. Starring Zach Galligan and Phoebe Cates, Gremlins is a darkly comedic horror film that has become a classic with its iconic creatures, unique sense of humor, and holiday setting.

<p><em>Explorers</em> is another film ruined by an ending involving aliens. The film is about teenagers building a spaceship to explore outer space with. However, most seem to hate it once aliens are introduced, with one user referring to it as “That stupid plot twist alien reveal.”</p>

14. Explorers (1985)

When three teenage boys build a homemade spacecraft, they embark on a journey into space and encounter a group of friendly extraterrestrials. Starring Ethan Hawke and River Phoenix, Explorers is a coming-of-age adventure film that celebrates the power of friendship, imagination, and the wonders of the universe.

Source: Reddit .

<ul> <li class="viewsTitleText"><a href="https://wealthofgeeks.com/movies-destroy-you-from-the-inside/" rel="noopener"><span>25 Movies You Can Only Watch Once Because They'll Destroy You</span></a></li> <li><a href="https://wealthofgeeks.com/iconic-90s-movies-nostalgia/" rel="noopener">14 Iconic 90s Films That Will Ignite Your Nostalgia</a></li> </ul>

More From Wealth of Geeks - 25 Movies You May Only Watch Once Because They’ll Destroy You

Some movies can leave such a profound impact on us that we can't bear watching them again. Ever. These films stay with us long after the credits roll, haunting our thoughts and leaving us emotionally shattered. Here, we've compiled a list of 25 movies deemed one-time experiences by viewers on an online forum who have been through the emotional wringer.

ethan hawke movie time travel

More From Wealth of Geeks

While some films from the 80s have become iconic, etching themselves into our collective memories, a treasure trove of lesser-known films has gradually faded into obscurity. Not to worry, we've compiled a list of 25 gems, based on IMDb, that graced our screens with their offbeat charm, eccentric characters, and captivating narratives that defy convention.

ethan hawke movie time travel

More From Wealth of Geeks - 12 Exhilarating Films That Will Terrify You to The Core

Looking for movies that redefine the word horror? Sometimes, it's not just about the spooky movies you've heard of, sometimes it's the ones that delve deep into horror that have a greater impact. Sit back, try to relax, and dive into these 12 films that are absolutely bone-chilling.

More for You

Donald Trump in Florida

Donald Trump Faces New Republican Threat

Opinion: The Georgia case against Trump may be fatally compromised

Fulton County ethics board drops Fani Willis complaints from hearing

Emma Flint smiling

I'm abrosexual - it took me 30 years to realise

Former Home Depot CEO issues labor market warning

Former Home Depot CEO issues warning on the 'tremendous shift' in the US job market — cites wage increases, still-hot inflation for the big change. Here's what he means and how to prepare

I Was Diagnosed With Colon Cancer at 32. Here Are the First Symptoms I Had.

I Was Diagnosed With Colon Cancer at 32. Here Are the First Symptoms I Had.

31. Centreville, Illinois (62207)

41 States That Won’t Tax Social Security Benefits in 2024

Trump's lawyers are hunting for the identity of secret consultants who approved Pulitzer prizes for Russiagate coverage

Trump's lawyers are hunting for the identity of secret consultants who approved Pulitzer prizes for Russiagate coverage

Texas Republicans censure House Speaker Dade Phelan

Opinion: Political earthquake in Texas: Austin’s oligarchy cracked on Tuesday

Federal judge rules minority business program must serve white people

Federal judge rules minority business program must serve white people

Steve Jobs in room full of computers in 1984

Steve Jobs adopted a no ‘bozos’ policy and said the best managers are those who never wanted the job—here are his 3 best management tips

NEWS: [Subcat: US] Map shows the best place to buy a house in US to survive nuclear war (SEO) METRO GRAPHICS Credit FEMA / Getty / metro.co.uk

Map reveals best places to live in the US if nuclear war breaks out

tesla electric model 3 car_iStock-1277254968

Avoid Buying These 5 Electric Vehicles That Will Likely Break Down After 50,000 Miles

Screenshot 2024-03-07 134928.png

Seth Meyers reads out Trump’s entire rap sheet in breathless opening monologue

Can You Eat Sprouted Potatoes?

Can You Eat Potatoes with Sprouts?

New York Attorney General Letitia James booed at FDNY ceremony

New York Attorney General Letitia James booed at FDNY ceremony

ethan hawke movie time travel

"I'd rather play Michael Jordan a few times than play somebody like that" - James Worthy hails Domantas Sabonis's impact on the Kings

Joe Biden speaks in Washington DC

Joe Biden Calls Out Supreme Court to Their Faces

Viking sword pulled from a UK river.

1,100-year-old Viking sword pulled from UK river by magnet fisher

The Daily Show (Photo: The Daily Show)

Mark Robinson's 'Lunatic' Vibes Laid Bare In Withering 'Daily Show' Supercut

Nevada Republican congressional candidate and former professional wrestler Daniel Rodimer speaks during a rally for U.S. Vice President Mike Pence at the Boulder City Airport on October 8, 2020 in Boulder City, Nevada

Former congressional candidate endorsed by Trump surrenders for murder

IMAGES

  1. If You Love Time-Travel Movies, You’ll Love the Ethan Hawke–Starring

    ethan hawke movie time travel

  2. Ethan Hawke plays a Time-Travel Agent in his new film 'Predestination

    ethan hawke movie time travel

  3. Predestination First 7 Minutes: Ethan Hawke Goes Time Traveling

    ethan hawke movie time travel

  4. What Is Going On In Ethan Hawke's Time Travel Flick Predestination?

    ethan hawke movie time travel

  5. 10 Movies Like Predestination With Mind-Bending Time-Travel

    ethan hawke movie time travel

  6. Ethan Hawke sci-fi Gattaca predicted the future of the suit 25 years

    ethan hawke movie time travel

VIDEO

  1. What’s your favourite Ethan Hawke movie? #ethanhawke

COMMENTS

  1. Predestination (2014)

    Predestination: Directed by Michael Spierig, Peter Spierig. With Ethan Hawke, Sarah Snook, Christopher Kirby, Christopher Sommers. As his last assignment, a temporal agent is tasked to travel back in time and prevent a bomb attack in New York in 1975. The hunt, however, turns out to be beyond the bounds of possibility.

  2. Predestination (film)

    English. Budget. $5 million [2] Box office. $5.4 million [3] Predestination is a 2014 Australian science fiction action-thriller film [4] written and directed by Michael and Peter Spierig. The film stars Ethan Hawke, Sarah Snook, and Noah Taylor, and is based on the 1959 short story " '— All You Zombies —' " by Robert A. Heinlein .

  3. Predestination movie review & film summary (2015)

    Predestination follows the lead of some of the best films about time travel by embracing the potential paradoxes rather than trying to ignore or explain them away. ... are the two central performances by Ethan Hawke and Sarah Snook that bring genuine emotional weight to a storyline that could have easily plunged into utter nonsense. Hawke, for ...

  4. Predestination

    Movie Info. A temporal agent (Ethan Hawke) embarks on a final time-traveling assignment to prevent an elusive criminal from launching an attack that kills thousands of people. Rating: R (Nudity ...

  5. Predestination Movie Plot Ending, Explained

    Predestination Ending, Explained. It all started in the year 1895, when H.G. Wells' carefully woven story around Time Travel encapsulated the combined geniuses of the likes of Newton and Einstein in the form of an art, a novel. 'The Time Machine' is a continued, timeless splendor that has given birth to the cult behind Time Travel.

  6. Predestination (2014)

    Predestination (2014) on IMDb: Movies, TV, Celebs, and more... Brilliant. Thought-provoking mind bending brilliance. Coming under the radar and screening on Tuesday night as part of the Toronto After Dark Film Festival schedule, Predestination stars Ethan Hawke (Sinister) in a film that caught us off guard and sent us home with the reality of just witnessing one of the best films of the year.

  7. Predestination (2014)

    Synopsis. A time-traveling agent (Ethan Hawke) goes back in time to 1970 in order to catch an infamous terrorist known as the "Fizzle Bomber". The agent stops the bomb but is severely injured. The Fizzle Bomber escapes and the agent travels into the future, to 1992, using a Coordinate Transformer Field Kit - a time machine disguised as a violin ...

  8. If You Love Time-Travel Movies, You'll Love the Ethan Hawke-

    Hawke plays it low-key, solemn, enigmatic, his emotions kept in check for a Reason to Be Named Later. He throws the movie to his principal co-star, a mesmerizing, redheaded Aussie actress named ...

  9. 'Predestination': A Complex Protagonist Walks Into A Bar : NPR

    Hawke packs his violin-shaped time machine and jumps to 1975 New York to pose as a bartender, which gives the low-budget film a lot of mileage from one basement bar set. The bartender's purpose ...

  10. 'Predestination' Review: Ethan Hawke Stars in Time-Travel Saga

    Now working as a bartender, Hawke's agent strikes up a conversation with a tough-talking, androgynous-looking male patron (Snook) who identifies himself as "the Unmarried Mother," the byline ...

  11. The Ending Of Predestination Explained

    Starring Ethan Hawke ("Moon Knight") and Sarah Snook ("Steve Jobs"), it tells the story of a time traveling investigator on the hunt for a deadly bomber who has been terrorizing the past. But ...

  12. Predestination explained

    On the surface, the movie is about a special investigator (Ethan Hawke) who can travel back and forth through time to catch criminals, and his current case (and the last one before he retires) is ...

  13. 'Predestination,' Starring Ethan Hawke

    Predestination. Directed by Michael Spierig, Peter Spierig. Drama, Mystery, Sci-Fi, Thriller. R. 1h 37m. By Manohla Dargis. Jan. 8, 2015. Jumping across time and space is tough, thankless business ...

  14. This Underrated Sci-Fi Movie Has An Amazing Time Travel Twist

    Predestination chronicles the life of a temporal agent (Ethan Hawke) who is sent on hundreds of time travel missions to ensure his career at law enforcement. Temporal agents' jobs involve having ...

  15. 'Predestination': A Time-Travel Hidden Gem Starring Sarah Snook and

    Enter ' Predestination ', which stands as not only the strongest of the Heinlein adaptations, but also the most faithful. Written and directed by Michael and Peter Spierig, and based on Heinlein's 1959 short story "'—All You Zombies—'", this is a time-travel movie that takes its subgenre to the logical extreme.The Spierig brothers are known mostly for directing horror movies ...

  16. Predestination (2014) Explained

    In the movies time travel typically results in one of two paradoxes, either a grandfather paradox type situation where altering the past changes the future (Back To The Future), or secondly the variety where a time traveler intending to change history simply causes the events which cause it (Predestination). ... Ethan Hawke kills himself at the ...

  17. Predestination

    Ethan Hawke turns out to be the second-best thing in a US time-travel thriller full of unexpected jumps. He's a "temporal agent", masquerading as a bartender, trying to stay one step ahead ...

  18. Predestination

    A Temporal Agent (Ethan Hawke) is sent on an intricate series of time-travel journeys designed to prevent future killers from committing their crimes. Now, on his final assignment, the Agent must stop the one criminal that has eluded him throughout time and prevent a devastating attack in which thousands of lives will be lost.

  19. Predestination (2014)

    Ethan Hawke plays a Temporal Agent who tries to catch the one criminal that has eluded him in the time travel thriller Predestination. By Brian Gallagher Sep 26, 2014 Join Our Content Team

  20. Review: Ethan Hawke's 'Predestination' An Overlong ...

    To think that this is really the central narrative thrust of a movie that claims to be about the repercussions, both personal and historical, of time travel, and about a man on the brink of ...

  21. A Mind-Melting Time Travel Sci-Fi Ties Itself in Knots on Netflix

    via Stage 6 Films. Hawke's Agent Doe is a temporal agent, which is effectively a time traveling cop who tries to prevent crimes that happen throughout various points in history. Heading out on ...

  22. Ethan Hawke, Time Traveler

    Dec 16, 2014. Ethan Hawke, Hollywood's least decorated actor's actor, earned his first Golden Globe nomination last week for his role in Boyhood, the suburban epic he and director Richard ...

  23. Ethan Hawke Filmography

    Rate. 62 Metascore. Jack London's classic adventure story about the friendship developed between a Yukon gold hunter and the mixed dog-wolf he rescues from the hands of a man who mistreats him. Director: Randal Kleiser | Stars: Ethan Hawke, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Jed, Seymour Cassel. Votes: 22,303 | Gross: $34.79M.

  24. Dune: Part Two: Everything You Need to Know

    Dune: Part Two picks up right where the first movie left off, with Paul and his mother, Lady Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson), navigating an alliance with the Fremen, the native people of Arrakis, while ...

  25. Ethan Hawke's former NYC townhouse to list for $5.98M

    Hawke, who got married a second time to Ryan Shawhughes in 2008, lived in the home until 2013, when he sold it to the current owners for $5.86 million. 7 Ethan Hawke.

  26. Ethan Hawke to visit Milwaukee for screenings of his new film

    Hawke and Poltermann will both be on hand for a Q&A session following showings of Wildcat at 7:30 p.m. Saturday, May 18, and at 2 p.m. Sunday, May 19. The movie is the latest directorial effort from Hawke, who helmed his first big-screen project in 2001 and has gone on to sit in the big chair for five in all.

  27. Fantasy Flashback: 14 Fantasy Movies That Defined the 80s

    Starring Ethan Hawke and River Phoenix, Explorers is a coming-of-age adventure film that celebrates the power of friendship, imagination, and the wonders of the universe.

  28. Opinion: Why a line of dialogue truly can define a film

    It was this dominant cult of imagery that drove Ethan Hawke into a passionate monologue at a 2018 event for the Film Society of Lincoln Center. "This drives me crazy. "This drives me crazy.

  29. Oscar nominee Ethan Hawke is coming to MKE for screenings of his new movie

    Film Oscar nominee Ethan Hawke is coming to MKE for screenings of his new movie. The "Training Day" and "Before Sunrise" actor will bring his new movie "Wildcat" to the Oriental Theatre.