Rating: 
Summary: Great Movie, Bad reviews
Review: First of all, I am a great fan of Guy Pearce so my reviews are inherently biased about his films. Don't let other reviews spoil this film for you, it is indeed a great film. Many of the other reviews criticize the film for not following the book but if any of those people actually followed the film industry they would know that the director of The Time Machine intended from the beginning to make it different from the book in many ways. It's too bad many of the other reviewers on this page were either too cynical or just plain too stupid to realize this. If you like movies then see this one.
Rating: 
Summary: An Excellent Adaptation
Review: This is not H.G. Wells' original story, although it is based upon it. I have been an enormous fan of Wells' classic since childhood but I have to say this reworking is a better story. Leaving aside most of the terrific special effects, this version is far meatier, deeper and darker, plus (shock, horror!) features a love interest with a tragic ending. Ok, so the main protagonist does eventually find a replacement, but it's still very refreshing to see Hollywood produce a movie where the hero's true love dies and (not to spoil it too much), there's not a thing he can do about it. Compared to the original, the Moorlocks are much scarier, as well as more believable than Wells' night-prowling troglodytes. The Eloi are also much more substantial than 1960s movie's near-mindless, blonde Moorlock chow. All in all, this is great stuff. I've already seen it twice and I plan to see it at least twice more while it's in theatres.
Rating: 
Summary: Not what I thought
Review: I thought this movie was going to be better. I didn't really care for it that much. It is a very sad movie. There were also some very disguisting scenes as well as some scary ones. It was alright, but I don't think I will be seeing it again. The only thing that got the two stars for it from me were the special effects. There were some strange and scary things that it said would happen in the future. I sure hope that those things won't really happen. I'd rather not really go into too much detail. So I don't really recommend it. I don't think I'll be watching it again.
Rating: 
Summary: Too much cheese
Review: The Time Machine is one of those movies that had potential but became lost in its own ambition. The filmmakers were trying to make the next Indiana Jones, but really the best it could ever be was a dumb but entertaining adventure flick, like Congo, or Hook. It falls short on both levels. It's neither grand entertainment, nor does it have a cultish "good" bad movie status. Instead, it's just flat, cheesy, and overstuffed. In many ways, the Time Machine never had a chance. Though it stars Guy Pearce, Samantha Mumba who are both talented and likable, and has a good director at the helm, Simon Wells, a story of this scale needs a Spielberg behind the camera, big name movie stars, a budget that can afford good special effects, amd a script that can convey the novel's deeper philosophies and action-packed wonderment. The Time Machine doesn't have any of these essentials going for it. But what prevented this film from being even a good popcorn flick? One explanation would be the editing and the effects it has on the pacing of the film. Every connecting scene appears cut and pasted, with no adherence to conventional narrative structure, and thus dramatic continuity. The beginning is too long, the climax occurs in the middle, and the resolution is so tacked on and absurb that it just raises more questions. Time Machine wraps around itself, and is made with little enthusiasm or energy. The only times the filmmakers are self-aware enough to correctly grasp their own incapabilites are in the funny sequences with Orlando Jones as a futuristic hologram and Jeremy Irons as a fishy Morlox. THE PLOT:
The story begins with David (Guy Pearce), a sweet natured physics professor at Columbia University circa 1900. He has the sort of chatty absent-minded brilliance that is played to death in movies like this one. One night he goes ice skating with his girfriend, Emma, only to have her murdered by a mugger literally seconds after he proposes to her. Vowing to change history, David builds a time machine and returns to the moments right before his love's death, except the same fate awaits her. David then travels to the future to find out why history can't be changed, and finds himself in been there done that images of the future. Not only are these scenes pointless to the structure of the plot, they're poorly executed and imagined. How many times do we have to see people in silver suits? The plot then moves forward to where David finds himself in the year 9000. He is nursed to health by a dark-skinned tribe, and their English-speaking multi accented woman, played by the African-Irish actress/pop singer, Samantha Mumba. The two are supposed to hit it off, but never generate more than a brother-sister relationship. Then Attack of the Morlox! the bad guys- hideous white beasts that look as though they were created by the same effects/animatronics as the gorillas in "Congo" (a much superior film by the way). They suck the dark-skinned tribe underground to use them for food, and David goes looking for the Mumba character. By this time the film is 2/4 over when it should 1/4 over. So our hero enters underground and searches for her, only to find her in captivity with a freakish, fishy Morlox played by Jeremy Irons, intentionally or unintentionally hilarious depending on how you look at it. The big fight ensues. But shouldn't this occur toward the END of the film? Then David finds a plot to kill the Morlox, save Mumba, and oh, all the air has been let out, so why bother with these sequences? Once the resolution arrives, it offers up a ridiculous message that makes no sense with the story that we've just seen about how "David found what he was looking for." Right. If this film were recast, re-directed, re-edited, and re-shot it might be okay...
Rating:
Summary: Time Machine gave me time to get some sleep.
Review: Great Special effects, but I was bored out of my mind! To much ambiguity or less you read the book. I would not watch this again. They should use that time machine to go back and see what went wrong with this production. Barely a rental. Please rent it!
Rating:
Summary: We walked
Review: It started with the bad acting. By the time the creatures appeared we just nodded to one another and left. Maybe it improved later, but I'll never know. It's the first movie I have walked on since National Lampoon's High School Reunion.
Rating:
Summary: Good movie. For a remake....it deserves credit. Good Job!
Review: I have been a big fan of the book, and original movie for a long time. When I heard that they were making another remake, I was reluctant. This movie doesn't have the same storyline, and specific setting that the book or original had, so it has some originality to it. I think that the way that the production company carried itself was wonderful. Not releasing too much on the trailers, and still being able to attract big crowds. Good Job. Guy Pearce did an outstanding job. The same could be said about his performance in The Count Of Monte Cristo. Overall this movie deserves your attention. You may not want to see it more than once, but it is worth watching atleast that many times. Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: Not Only A Major Disappointment, This Film Is Really Bad!
Review: I saw the original release of this film, back in 1960,
The brilliant: George Pal Masterpiece. The Original had
no ability to tap into todays high tech computer graphics,
enhanced Dolby digital sound, and relied on the pure art of
talented film making. It's Direction, Production, Cast, and
Storyline, all worked as finely as a fine Swiss watch (no pun
intended). The Current remake is an absolute failure. The Story
line is all over the map, and doesn't even vaguely follow, Wells' original novel. The character's are lacking emotion, talent, and
give the viewer no clear sense of their being connected with the
storyline, which is missing in action, unto itself. Jeremy Irons
as the "brains" of the Morlocks was completely disconnected from this film. The Morlocks themselves, were more believable as horrifying mutant beings in the orignal film. In this ghastly
production, the Morlocks come across as non-sentient beings, that
have no true abilty to be acting other than what one might expect to see in a really bad B-Movie from the 1950's. As they are portrayed as non-thinking, rabid dog type animals. The very first mistake in this horrid remake, was to bring the setting to the USA. It really should have been true to form, by being kept in England, as the original story was written. The Character's in this remake are never given an opportunity to have any true connection to the audience, as they do not evolve, from the moment this film begins, right through to it's detached ending.
If you have not yet seen this film, save your [money] and
purchase or rent the original classic, You will be very happy, that you made this choice, as the original release of this same title, is one of the very best Sci-Fi films ever made. I believe
that if George Pal was still alive today, he would be shocked by the butchery of his original, and still wonderful classic, even
by today standards of film making.
Rating:
Summary: Poor remake of a classic
Review: The concept of time travel and its ramifications are the stuff of great story-telling. This movie in large part ignores the complexities and possibilities of time travel and relies instead on cool special effects to carry it. The great thing about the original movie adaptation of H.G. Wells novel is that it provokes some thought on what we do now and how it affects our future. Though the viablity of time travel is left up to the viewers' ability to suspend disbelief, the story is relevant enought to hold the viewers' attention while maintaining internal consistency. This remake does neither. The story is not compelling, neither the plot nor the characters are well-developed, and one leaves the theater stunned by how short the movie fell rather than stunned by the inexorable questions that time travel poses. I had the choice of going to see "A Beautiful Mind," "We Were Soldiers," and this movie. I chose to see this out of nostalgia and a love for science fiction. I chose poorly.
Rating: 
Summary: I expected much worse
Review: I went to see this movie because I happen to be a fan of HG Wells. Having read all the reviews, I was prepared for a rather [bad] flick. The movie isn't all bad (at least not until Mumba is introduced). Acting is decent, and the movie's plot is somewhat solid. The movie's full of logic holes, but it's nothing very surprising, and is not the reason why this movie deserves the 3 star rating. My main complaint is usage of a teenie "pop star" (and her brother) for a sci-fi classic. Computer effects in the movie are nothing short of impressive. Passage of time is convincingly done, though the under-dwellers could certainly have been made to look better. Time Machine left me with a few questions, that could probably be answered by watching the film again, which I won't. At least not until it's released on DVD and I rent it. See it, but be prepared for less-than-mediocre acting.
|
