Rating: 
Summary: Rock around the clock!
Review: It's about TIME this movie was made. It's the SECOND version of the book to be filmed, and having to wait so long TICKED me off. We WATCH it all the time. The DIGITAL effects are very cool. It's become HOUR favorite movie!
I put MORLOCKS on my video cabinet, so nobody would take my copy of this awesome movie!
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, perplexing, likeable, but somewhat unlikeable.
Review: This movie is very complicated to explain. The first time I saw it, I hated it. HATED it. But, after I was thinking about for a while, I couldn't figure WHY I hated it. There wasn't really any reason to hate it. The story couldn't be bashed, since it's the same story that H.G. Wells wrote so long ago, it had great special effects, GOOD acting, good music, no tid-bit to pick out honestly, that's terrible. But, then I realized that it was the ending which threw me off. So, I just recently rented it, and it was much better. I think it's one of those rare films where the first time you see it, you think it's terrible, but the second time it gets better, the third time it gets better yet, and so on. But, really, it is a good movie. But, for those of you who hated it, and only saw it once, I think you should give it another chance, with an open mind. Unless you hate Guy Pearce. Then, there's no hope. But, if you like Guy Pearce, like the story, saw it and went "bla", try it again....You might find your opinion of it alters...So, in conclusion, I gave the movie four stars, because it is an overall good movie. If it hadn't been for the fact that it's one of those 'aquired tastes' movies, I'd have given it five.
Rating: 
Summary: Fun but forgettable
Review: "The Time Machine" is loosely based on H.G. Wells' sci-fi masterpiece, written in 1897. The book was also made into a movie forty years ago [available on DVD at Amazon.com]. Back then, the major studios had decided to cash in on the craze created by independent, low-budget sci-fi and horror films. MGM, for example, produced "The Time Machine" as well as "Forbidden Planet". These pictures - sleeker and glossier than anything the independents could make - used what were, at the time, state-of-the-art special effects. Today's version of the Wells classic utilizes the same tools. While the results are at times spectacular, it lacks a key ingredient - a dash of intelligence - that made the earlier version more memorable.The time is the very end of the 19th Century. The place is New York. Alexander Hartegen [Guy Pearce] is a brilliant, absent-minded professor of science who is madly in love. When his fiancée dies tragically, he feels somehow responsible. Sequestering himself in his laboratory for four years, he builds a time machine. His plan is to go back, change the past and prevent his lover's death. When this fails, he realizes that any answer lies in the future. He travels to the New York of the mid-21st Century where he finds the planet in the midst of a catastrophe. The moon is breaking apart, and chunks of it are plummeting to Earth. In this melee he is knocked unconscious and awakens 800,000 years in the future. There he finds that the moon's destruction has caused mankind to split into two different species - one beautiful, innocent and benign, the other hideous and very dangerous. As a fast-paced, mindless adventure, "The Time Machine" frequently succeeds. To truly enjoy it, you simply have to leave your sense of logic behind. The time travel sequences are beautifully rendered, although the fact that the machine always manages to wind up in the same spot is beyond ludicrous. The creatures who prey upon the pretty people of the future are deliciously gross and mean, but the way they move is not only obviously computer-generated but also in defiance of all know laws of gravity and of physics. Some of the people still speak English, which has not changed one bit in all those years. Think about how it's changed in just the last few hundred years. Archeological remnants of the past, which have apparently sat outside for 8,000 centuries, seem perfectly preserved. And, as to what would REALLY happen to the planet if the moon fell apart, let's not even go there. Maybe it's just me, but sometimes it seems as though the smarter computers get, the dumber action/adventure and sci-fi movies become. It's as though the filmmakers are so infatuated with the gadgets and electronic wizardry that they forget all about the script. Much like the recent remake of "Planet of the Apes", "The Time Machine" winds up being fun but entirely forgettable.
Rating:
Summary: Not bad! Not bad at all!
Review: I have read all the Well's stories and I have seen the original Time Machine. The book was wonderful and the Rod Taylor film was, for its time, a decent film, made during a time when not many serious science-fiction films were produced. I bought the DVD in spite of several negative reviews because I thought it would be a good film to watch with the kids. Aged five to ten. They didn't have enough patience to wait for the trip to the future, the Eloi, and the Morlocks. I, on the other hand, was totally pleased. It was as if I were seeing a SF film from the sixties made with today's technology. The machine itself was just as I imagined it when reading the book, the bamboo houses on the cliff side were great, and I liked the soundtrack. Guy Pierce did not seem to stay in character through the film but I suppose if I were being chased by a morlock I would change, too. The plot had some holes - notibly "I can't change the past after one try so I will go into the future to find the answer" - but nothing I couldn't live with. I liked it, the wife liked it, and the kids came back to see the rest of the movie when the time machine set out for the future. To properly enjoy this movie you have to imagine you are twelve again going to the Saturday Matinee. And have some popcorn.
Rating:
Summary: The message behind the movie
Review: The movie and the story are beautiful. What makes the movie so good is the message behind the movie; we can't change our past, but we can make a better future. Everything else (the acting or the actors) about the movie seems trivial.
Rating:
Summary: Better than expected, perfect family movie (for older kids)
Review: I just got through watching this movie with my husband and 10 year old son so the movie is fresh in my mind. My husband and I felt the 1960's version was better but our son thoroughly enjoyed this newer adaptation. Plus, he had plenty of questions afterwards - mostly about time travel and space.
Adults should be forewarned that this movie definitely is designed to engage younger viewers but even with that in mind, we still enjoyed it. Updated computer and digital techniques make ensure that the special effects are truly awesome.
With so much junk fare out there in theatres and on television, this is a great choice for family viewing. I'm surprised this one didn't get better reviews.
Rating:
Summary: Original was better ??? LET'S BE SERIOUS !!!
Review: First off anyone here that isn't on social security that says the original movie was better , needs to up their medication ... I am a huge Movie Buff ... And, yes there may be some areas in the film that aren't the greatest thing that could have been done to match our opinions of what we personally want. But as far as a remake of a less than desirable original this is leaps and bounds above that . The original " Time Machine " Sucked ... Go watch it then make up your own mind .. For people who like movies at least see it once, you'll be entertained ... 8>)
Rating: 
Summary: Another Pitiful Remake
Review: This movie had much promise but was sadly disappointing. I really wanted to like this film. After all, it is a remake of a classic movie based on a classic book. Unfortunately, the screen writers (if that's not an oxymoron) decided to re-write H. G. Wells, badly. The hero's new motivation for attempting to change time to save his fiancé was unnecessary at best and delivered poorly. The distant future treated, so well by Wells and the original film, was not well developed or portrayed. The idea of a super intelligent Morlock leader exercising thought control over his specially engineered "hunters" was poorly conceived and implemented. In fact, the Morlocks have such superhuman strength and speed in this version, escaping them at all is implausible. The Eloi in this version seem far too industrious for their situation and Weena (badly played by Omero Mumba) as a school teacher gives new meaning to absurd. And then there's the matter or using the time machine as a poor man's thermonuclear device. Overall, the plot was just not well thought out. The acting was barely acceptable but uninspired (would you be with this script). One should always be wary of pop recording star actors. The one redeeming value was the scenery and special effects. Too bad they were wasted on this effort. If you like the idea of time travel, please see the 1960 version with Rod Taylor and Yvette Mimieux or Time After Time with Malcolm McDowell. Save this one for when you have absolutely nothing better to watch.
Rating:
Summary: Good but not enough
Review: This is a good film. I liked the premise and the thought the film invokes as you watch it, but yet it lacks depth. There are many questions the film leaves unanswered, especially dealing with the scientific questions of time travel. It is only assumed that he learned the way to travel through time, but yet no evidence (even fictional) is offered as to the whys and hows of time travel. We are not made to be impressed with the machine itself and no real reason was given as to the importance of the moon being destroyed, but just that it was an event that was inevitable. If he really wanted to change the fate of the lives of the Eloi and the Morlocks, would it not have been better to go back before the explosion of the moon and stop that action from happening? As we learn in the year 800,000, the reason the Elois and Morlocks lived the way they did was because of that one singular event. It puts a lot of emphasis on one event that is brushed over rather swiftly. So I guess the more i think about it, I actually did not enjoy the film as much as I thought I did. Oh well. Good special effects though.
Rating: 
Summary: The Time Machine
Review: When i heard this movie was out at the cinema i was eager to see
it even though guy pearce was in it. for the record i think he is a terrible actor and hes just painful to watch. But because i love the story of the time machine i loved the original movie even though it was in black and white it blew me away, i thought making a new version was a way of introducing the movie to a new audience. so i went along with an open mind but yet again hes a dissapointment, the sfx were amazing but apart from that nothing. If they wanted to show how good this movie could be they should of copied the 60's version and just updated the effects and would have been brill.
|
