Rating: 
Summary: Miscast Pearce, Lousy Story
Review: Take one totally miscast hero--Guy Pearce--throw in a turgid, meandering storyline, and for spice, mix in a totally boring heroine and you've got a complete waste of time. How Guy Pearce was selected to be the major character of an action movie like this is something only out-of-touch movie moguls will ever know. But you think of such charismatic could-be's: Hugh Jackman, Mel Gibson, Jude Law--even, for God's sake, John Travolta--who could have been more believable. And then the idiotic story line. I'm a sucker for the simple, dazzling l961 George Pal version starring that glorious hunk, Rod Taylor, who gave the movie so much resonance. Thank God I only rented this one. The special effects are like those you'd expect from a Sci-Fi Channel original movie. One day, let's hope they really remake this fascinating idea into the magnificent project it could be. Only this time, get a hero who doesn't look like he's just been released from the emergency room of an inner city hospital.
Rating: 
Summary: Dazzling special effects for time travel but that's about it
Review: I was not an especially big fan of the George Pal film version of "The Time Machine," but then I was never that much of a fan of the original H. G. Wells novel. However, in this 2002 film version of the story I find that the same things I liked in the 1960 film are what I liked this time around as well, and that would be when our young scientist, Alexander Hartdegen (Guy Pearce), gets in his time machine and we see the years pass while he looks on in wonder. Of course, the 2002 version has the advantage of state of the art CGI effects so this time not only do we get to see flowers, automobiles, and manikins herald the passage of the years, we get to see massive geological changes in the same fashion. But once we get 800,000 years into the future and our hero discovers the split in human evolution between the Eloi and the Morlocks. At that point the Wells story is dressed up social commentary on the British class system and the action is fairly melodramatic. That was the case with the George Pal version and director Simon Wells (great-grandson of H.G. Wells) follows suit. Of course, now we have anomorphic faces for the Morlocks and the Eloi are more environmentally conscious, but the last act is still little more than a variation on the pulp magazine commonplace of man rescues woman from monsters. The script by John Logan, which references both David Duncan's script along with the Wells novel, adds a personal level to the hero's quest this time around, as Hartdegen begins more interested in going back to the past to right a great wrong rather than head off into the future. I also liked the reason for the decline of earth's civilization, which we get a quick look at in Hartdegen's brief visit to the year 2037; in fact, if the movie had stopped at that point it probably would have been more interesting. It also would have had the virtue of not being too predictable, but then how many of the people who watched this movie ever read the novel or saw the original movie? It is the concept of the time machine that is a staple of science fiction, not the story that spawned the genre. This version of "The Time Machine" is certainly pretty and the special effects certainly overwhelm the performances; the time machine itself is truly awe-inspiring. But you have to wonder about any film where the best performance is turned in by Orlando Jones as Vox, the holographic compendium of all human knowledge. This is actually not a knock; Jones shows what he can do in his second scene and I have to like any riff on science fiction and time travel that includes mentioning Harlan Ellison while throwing in a mock Andrew Lloyd Webber song. Pearce is supposed to be playing an non-traditional hero-type, which is certainly true, but that just ends up ringing hollow when he is confronted with the violent Morlocks and manages to come out ahead. Still, there is one timeless happy moment in the film when Alan Young makes the requisite cameo appearance by a member of the 1960 film. I was not offended by this film, because the George Pal film does not hold a special place in my heart or mind, but neither was I inspired by this film; there has to be more to movies like this than the special effects. Ironically, if there is anything in this world where people get to go back and fix mistakes it is major motion pictures and if you listen to the commentary track with the director and film editor it is amazing how even months later after the finished project they are still coming up with ideas that would have made it a better flick.
Rating:
Summary: Technically a good film, but not a beautiful story
Review: I do not like this movie, because the story is very sad. Pearce builds an amazing time machine to get back into the past and revive his girlfriend who had been shot, for her ring; however she dies again from an accident. Finally something wrong happens and Pearce is projected into the future, at a time when a strange but technically adavanced civilization manages to blow up the moon by mistake; the effect is disastrous for the Earth's climate and for mankind. So Pearce goes even further into the future and finally reaches a very remote time, when civilization has been nealry completely wiped out of the surface of the Earth. Strange mnsters inhabit the Earth's undergound caves and use humans as food. The end of the movie is very disappointing, as the time machine explodes and Pearce cannot escape from the future; because of that he will never be able to revive his dead girlfriend. It is a sad end, but this movie is not a good one anyway.
Rating:
Summary: Wide Screen Format is Terrible
Review: The movie is in wide screen format and millions of people have to squint the eyes to view the movie on TV sets that do not accomodate wide screen. They need a duel layer disk so all customers can enjoy the movie. Don't buy any wide screen movie for a standard TV set.
Rating:
Summary: boring, rediculous, and stupid
Review: This movie is the worst science fiction movie anyone could ever watch. It is boring, rediculous, and stupid. It doesn't even follow the original book. Don't waste the time or the money on this one. Just plain don't.
Rating: 
Summary: Not bad especially if you like special effects
Review: This movie wasn't bad. It was a more plausible remake compared to the remake of The Planet of the Apes. If your into special effects, then you should enjoy this movie more so than the original. I would rent it before I bought it. For me the original was better, of course.
Rating: 
Summary: Lacking in charm, untrue to original story
Review: This 2002 cinematic version, supposedly of H.G. Wells time machine, is totally lacking in any of the charm of the 1960 version. As another viewer pointed out: H.G.Well's story is social commentary, and like the writings of Dickens, stands the test of time while pointing out the continued failings of humanity. To claim this cannot be protrayed in a movie version has as much truth as saying Citizen Cane whould have been better to avoided the subjects of greed, corruption, and averarice. Skip this version - buy the 1960 version.
Rating:
Summary: H.G. is rolling in his grave
Review: If one must start with the good in a show, this was cute. The acting was fine, and the music well done. As to the rest, well, in context, I'm one of the few of the species who prefers the original "Star Trek," which I saw in black and white in those days, and even the original "Outer Limits," which was produced in black and white, despite the superior special effects and even scripts of the later models. Oh, and those effects. This version of The Time Machine seemed to have been produced for the effects. Interestingly, most of them I'd seen in other films, from the original "Invaders from Mars," to at least one Star Trek film, to "The Relic," to "Contact." Well, giving the devil his or her due, perhaps there is only so much one can do with special effects. But the plot! With his original novella, Mr. Wells intended to predict the down-side of the industrial revolution and what developed as global capitalism: the evolution of two separate human species. The Eloi, meek, weak and prey, were what was to happen to the aristocrats. Members of the working class were to become the Morlocks, a bigger, brutal predator living beneath the surface and condemned to darkness. The original, 1960 film depoliticized the novel to a degree but repoliticized it in the context of the nuclear holocaust fearing 1960 world. This one not only depoliticized it but made it into a romance novel; the lead becomes obsessed with production of a time machine after his fiancé is murdered. Quaint, but H.G.'s whole point was missed (if I may risk the passive voice.) And why did they make the lead characters American and in New York? Guy Pearce is from down under and the guy who played his closest friend, Philby, I'd only seen before in "The Full Monty." He's English! But they cast those men into roles of Americans in New York in a film that was written late in the 19th century by an Englishman. That was bad judgment in either casting or screenwriting. Alan Young, before his outstanding role as Mr. Ed's straight man, played Philby in the original. He, frankly, was a more convincing Englishman than Rod Taylor. He has a cameo in here, presumably to pull in fans of the original. The Jeremy Irons character added almost a third human species, a sort of pharaoh of the brutal Morlocks. That added still another dimension so much as to destroy HG's objectives. For shame. There were portions I liked. The holographic library resource, for instance, referred to the George Pal production (the 1960 film) before describing the eccentric late 19th century Alexander, to whom the hologram is speaking. Cute. And the teacher threatening to resequence an unruly student's DNA, or something to that effect, reminded me of the futuristic movies of the 1950s. A great effect. Other additions, e.g., the moon's annihilation because of mining or something going on there, that was done, I suppose, for dramatic effect. But that would be more appropriate to another story, maybe by the same people who wrote "Robocop," not this one. The effects of the Pal production were good for the time. The Morlocks were more like professional wrestlers with blue make-up but they were convincing for a youthful, 1960 audience. In this production the special effects were better done but at what cost? It's not a bad movie, really, if you're into thrillers. But if you want any of the spirit of the novella, this isn't the one to see. I'm new to DVDs and this is the first film I saw that had those DVD add-ons, e.g., a deleted scene. I don't know why people are so excited about that extra stuff. It doesn't make a bad movie better, or a good one worse. Perhaps I'll grow to like those bells and whistles, For now, give me the 1960 production any day over this one, especially in terms of being true to the fine H.G. Wells novella.
Rating:
Summary: sabotage
Review: a total sabotage of the authors intent the only resembelence between this movie and the book is the stolen title.
and maby some of the charictors.
check out the 1960 version for a good idea!
Rating: 
Summary: Bite you tounge if you gave this a bad review
Review: This is a great movie! It is not any kind of copy cat time cheating movie. Most of the ideas are very original. And the special effects soooooo amazing! You witness skyscrappers being consturcted in a matter of seconds. And yes there is an orbiting moon thats being partially destroyed. I was really encaptivated by the story. It has eveything, action, suspense, and romance. The songs and music lines are also great. Thats probably because the female star is an Irish singer. She demonstrates excellent acting in this movie and her beauty is very exotic. This is a great movie to watch, especially with your girlfriend.
|
