Factual error: In scenes that take place in 1912 on the porch of the hotel you can sometimes see American flags in the background. The flags in the movie have 50 stars. The 50 star flag wasn't adopted until after 1959. (01:25:15)
Continuity mistake: When Reeves signs the guest register at the hotel in 1912, his signature is different from the one that he saw in the register that he found in the attic.
Factual error: When Richard Collier encounters the young Arthur in 1912, Arthur is playing with an inflatable rubber ball. Balls of this style were not made until the 1960s.
Plot hole: Richard eventually manages to travel back in time by removing all the modern items from his room. But what about the spotlights above his bed? (00:31:40)
Revealing mistake: When Richard first wakes up after travelling through time, he's supposed to be lying on a couch. Yet there is a wall behind him. It's blatantly obvious that it's the same shot from the modern bedroom, and all they did was change the lighting. (00:33:45)
Answer: Because they had met before. When Richard went back in time to 1912, Arthur was a five-year-old boy. Old Arthur remembers, or at least recognizes, Richard from that time.
raywest
Except that Richard hadn't travelled into the past yet.
Like all time-travel fiction, if he will, then he already did. The portrait he saw in the gallery of Jane Seymour is another example: He brought the smile to her face and IIRC, she changed her pose upon seeing him.
kayelbe
Exactly right. Time-travel films rarely make sense plot-wise. They employ a "suspension of disbelief" where the audience just accepts the premise so the story can be told, regardless of whether or not everything makes sense. As I recall, Jane Seymour's "old character" told Richard to "come back to her," meaning she wanted him to go back in time to when she was young.
raywest
Time Travel movies and shows do this sort of thing often. This movie actually keeps to the premise of time travel pretty well.