Rating: 
Summary: Time Machine is actually pretty good.
Review: The Time Machine has Drama / Sci-Fi / Adventure / Action / Fantasy (more). There is no sex or foul language (which is nice for teens). Special effects are cool. However, this movie is not for pre-teens! It contains grotesque creatures and some violent, disturbing scenes with the creatures attacking humans. Time Machine is not emotionally deep but is good and worth the $$. I highly recommend seeing it.
Rating:
Summary: a great concept, great start, loses it toward the end
Review: Well it was an exciting movie for the first 3/4 of it and then it just blew it. The story -- the fact that someone went hundreds of thousands of years into the future was *great* and original -- but the story had so many flaws, its as if the storwriters ran out of steam and just wanted to quickly end it -- and they did. It did not make any sense in the end and there were so many holes to the story... maybe this deservers a 3.5, its definetely cool -- the special effects and such, but the movie could have been so much better. In my opinion, rent it -- save your money and time in the theater --...
Rating: 
Summary: Great Grandson carries film on name only
Review: Be forewarned, this movie is not a remake of the earlier film by the same name. The movie is based on the HG Wells novel, and though it does follow the same basic storyline of the film, at no time does the movie offer the same explanations that the film did. If you loved the film, then stay away from this movie unless you are prepared for disappointments. If you haven't seen the original, then see this one first and then see the original for explanations of what happened...Although this movie gave a more human approach (i.e. instead of wanting to travel in time, the movie does give the hero a reason to want to do so other than being curious), the time-lapse photography left me wanting more, the story seemed weak, the way he gets to the future is more by accident than intentional (our hero is unconcious during this trip and doesn't experience the splendor) and I left without wondering anything. The only redeeming feature is that it is directed by a relative of the author. While it does give better credence to the Eloi/Morlock lifestyle than the original, It is in my opinion that this movie could not hold itself as a "must see" movie. It will be forgotten just like "Lost in Space" has been. Want to see a good time-travel movie? Go rent "Time After Time" which was also based on the book.
Rating: 
Summary: The time flies by in "The Time Machine"
Review: ... No better words describe the type of film that "The Time Machine" is better than "crowd pleaser." The movie tries to cram action, romance, drama, philosophy, tragedy, and even light shades of comedy all into a movie that has a surprisingly short running time (The movie comes in approximately an hour and twenty minutes, give or take, by my count). And while some of these aspects of the film succeed at varying levels, the movie is flawed and gives off the feeling that it was rushed. It should be noted that this film is VERY loosely based on "The Time Machine" by H.G. Wells, and while it does share certain aspects of plotting and style with the book, H.G. Wells purists should probably not go see this movie, which adds much in terms of plot twists. The movie tells the story of a man (Guy Pearce) who is haunted by the fact that his fiance was killed, so he sets out on a quest to build a time machine so that he can go into the past to change what happened. He has success with the building of the time machine, but finds failure in his altering of the past. So, disparaged, he travels 8,000 years into the future, and that's really where the story starts. I wont say much more of the plot so not to spoil anything, but if you've seen anything about this film you'll know that he eventually becomes a hero, in one way or another. The plot additions onto the original H.G. Wells story work fairly well and manage to steer clear of the trap of being cheap or corny. The performances are fairly good too. Guy Pearce manages to do a surprisingly good job of showing us his character's pains of memory and obsession with time travel (in other words, Guy Pearce carries the film valiantly). There is also a small but quaint role for Orlando Jones as a sort of "cyber-encyclopedia" in a library. The role is meant to be the comic relief, and while it is briefly funny, Orlando Jones manages to give it a nice dose of emotion too. Despite it's strong points, however, "The Time Machine" fails to be a great film. It's pace, as mentioned before, is incredibly fast, and while most films could stand to be cut a little, this film actually needs more added to it. The film also has a few plot holes in it as well, so it doesn't really make complete sense. And an appearance by the usually fantastic actor Jeremy Irons is so brief and unfulfilling, you sort of wonder why he and his character were even in the film at all. Great film or not, however, "The Time Machine" is an entertaining film and makes for an enjoyable watch. If you're looking for something to just pass the time with...you might as well give "The Time Machine" a go.
Rating:
Summary: all effects, no substance
Review: TIME MACHINE is another good example of how all the special effects in the world can't save a lame story. In fact, there's only about 15 minutes worth of story in the film (boy loses girl, boy gets depressed, boy meets new girl, saves girl, the end), with the rest being filled with effects and speed frame cutting. The end chase scene is particularly hard to watch, to the point of being laughably absurd. I really can't recommend this movie to anyone. All of the "cool" scenes are in the trailer, so don't expect to see more similar footage. And the end solution to the film pretty much offends the whole "can't change the past" premise established throughout the first three quarters of the movie...
Rating: 
Summary: What Were They Thinking?!?!?!?!
Review: Talk about a let down! This movie seemed so promising in the previews and looked like it would make an awesome film. I have never read the book and I think I have seen the original version a long time ago, but none of that mattered. The point was that it looked like it could be a good movie. Boy, was I wrong! I read a little of Roger Ebert's review of the movie and thought he used harsh words. Well, that was BEFORE I saw the movie, and now I think he was a little too kind by giving it one and a half stars. The only reason why I would even think of giving this movie ONE star is because Guy Pearce did an awesome job acting, but I'll get to that later. The movie is so fast paced, you don't even know what's going on. The characters do not explain what's going on, or at least not in terms you and me would understand. Guy Pearce plays an inventor who loses his fiancee in a robbing gone wrong. After that happens he decides, all of the sudden without any thinking behind it, he is going to change the past by building a time machine. We do not get to see how he comes about to building this. We just assume he knew it right away and built it within four years. Without any malfunctions or problems, at least ones we never get to see, it works and Pearce is able to start his quest in changing time, but he is about to find that changing the past is not going to be so easy. Like I said, there's no rhyme or reason to this movie. Things happen out of nowhere and the writer and director expects us to accept what is going on? The moon is falling a part, for crying out loud?! I don't think so. And don't even get me started on how it comes to the ridiculous conclusion. I have no idea how it ended, there was no clear explanation or logic. Just a cheap attempt at tacking on a happy ending without trying to explain what has just happened. I have never read the book, and from judging the movie I don't think the writer and director has either. I think they just took the name and said it was based on the classic novel. The movie made no sense!! Guy Pearce, like I said, did a very good job acting and proves that once again is capable of taking on a leading roll in a movie. I think he picked the wrong movie, that is all. I wish I could ask him what he was thinking when he agreed to take on this movie. Maybe the writer and director had dirt on him and decided to blackmail him into doing the movie. Too far fetch, you say? See the movie for yourself and you'll know what I'm talking about. It's a shame that Guy Pearce's great acting talent is wasted on such a horrible film. Am I being too harsh and insensitive? That could be, but I wasn't the only one who was disappointed with the movie. I did not hear one positive comment when I left the theater. It seemed like everybody thought it was horrible. Again, I shouldn't be the one making up your mind for you. If you have your heart set on seeing the movie, then by all means, see it. Just keep in mind you're in for a big disappointment. Why not save that money and see something like, "Black Hawk Down?" See "A Beautiful Mind" with that money. "We Were Soldiers" is out, and is getting critical acclaim like crazy. Even Brittany Spears' flop of a movie, "Crossroads" seems better than this one. All in all, "The Time Machine" was a ridiculous movie that had no thinking behind it whatsoever, (My opinion, of course). Maybe they should build a time machine and go back to the past so this movie would never be made. P.S. Please do not write a review about a movie when it's not even out yet and claim that it's going to be awesome. There were a couple of those reviews for this one. Wonder if they still feel the same way.
Rating: 
Summary: Timestreaming
Review: The Time machine is a remarkably beautiful film. A pure Shockwave of talent, imagination, thrills and magnitude. Yet sadly, underated by alot of people.
Rating:
Summary: Back to the Future?
Review: Novelist H.B. Wells was a man of vision, so it's somehow ironic that all these years later his own great-grandson, Simon Wells, would direct an adaptation of one of his novels, and bring it to the screen with such a lack of imagination. Because, despite a bit of flash, "The Time Machine" that Wells gives us is just another Sci-Fi movie that doesn't mean much, and simply isn't that entertaining. And the problem lies in the fact that Simon, unlike H.G., lacked the vision he needed to make this a viable commodity; he lost the metaphor, and with it, the film. Professor Alexander Hartdegen (Guy Pearce) has invented a machine that-- he hopes-- is capable of time travel; and for it's maiden voyage, he visits the past in an attempt to alter a devastating event in his personal life. When he comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to change the past, however, he decides to try the future where, perhaps, he will find the answer to his dilemma. But what he finds, 800,000 years in the future, is a civilization turned against itself, with a society defined by two distinct factions: Those who live on the surface of the earth, and those who dwell in the darkness beneath it. And all that's left of the world Alexander knew is a few remnants of what is now an ancient and inexplicably inconsequential past. It's now a world of light governed by the dark; a world in which it is doubtful that he will find the answers he seeks. Very doubtful, indeed, because throughout the film Wells is seemingly unable to figure it out himself. Early on, you have to wonder what it is, exactly, that he's trying to tell us here. Where is he going with this? The initial sequences, in which Alexander goes back in time, plays out like an episode of "The Twilight Zone," but then the film switches gears and blasts! into the future, propelled by fairly anemic motivation on the part of the protagonist. The screenplay (by John Logan) is uninspired and unimaginative, with a plot that is so convoluted it fails to maintain much interest. It's one of those movies that, while you're watching, you keep waiting for it to really kick in and get started-- and it never does. Instead, they take us to a future with a setting that looks borrowed from the remake of "Planet of the Apes," where we're introduced to a bunch of people, the Eloi, who live on the sides of some cliffs, but aren't particularly interesting by any means. There's nothing especially enigmatic about them, nor are they apathetic to what's going on around them. If they were either of these, it might spark some interest, but it just isn't happening. And when we meet the Morlocks, those who live underground, it doesn't help matters any. These are supposedly the other half of the human race, but there's nothing about them that looks human at all; they look more like beasts born of a Wes Craven/Stephen King collaboration. But then we meet the "Uber" Morlock (Jeremy Irons) who is one of the more highly evolved members of the family, with powers that one would think could've enabled him to improve their living conditions a bit. By this time, however, you've probably finished your popcorn and could care less. As Alexander, Guy Pearce gives new definition to the "absent minded professor" character, and does it in a way that is unconvincing and with a presentation that is rather pretentious. In a film that demands you suspended disbelief in the first place, his portrayal does nothing to help in that regard. It's hard to believe that the Alexander Pearce creates has the resolve, resourcefulness, drive or tenacity to undertake such an adventure as this. And there's nothing about him that would lead us to believe that those in the future will be any better off for having encountered him. He just doesn't come across as a guy who's going to make a difference. It's obvious that Pearce was attempting to create something unique with this character, or at least had something specific in mind, and for that you have to give him credit. But as it is with any artistic endeavor, it doesn't always work. And this one didn't. There is a positive aspect to this film, however, and it's the performance of singer Samantha Mumba, as Mara, the girl of Alexander's future. She has a definite screen presence and an affecting, natural delivery, all of which should insure a successful career as an actress, should she decide to pursue that path further. The fact that she was able to create a memorable character in such an insipid film as this speaks volumes about her ability and talent, and hopefully, she will opt for more work in film. The supporting cast includes Mark Addy (Philby), Phyllida Law (Housekeeper), Omero Mumba (Kalen), Sienna Guillory (Emma) and Orlando Jones as Vox, a kind of hologram/encyclopedia (and another of the more ridiculous aspects of this film, especially after you think about it for awhile and really put it into context). A film that will be remembered primarily for wasting the talents of Pearce, Jones and especially Jeremy Irons, "The Time Machine" is a misfire destined to be one of the biggest cinematic disappointments of the year. And it's a shame, because the filmmakers had all the tools with which to work, but didn't know what to do with them. Even the F/X were disappointing, which is surprising, given all the resources available to a big-budget production such as this. It's interesting that the tag line for this film is "Where would you go?" because the answer seems so obvious. But if there's any doubt, let me jump in here and say, "To any movie other than this one--"
Rating:
Summary: Extremely Bad
Review: I would not give it one star, but Amazon's software forced me. This was probably one of the worst I have ever seen. At first I thought it was just me, but when I noticed people leaving the theater, I felt justified. The script was poorly written and Guy Pearce's monotone delivery of the lines did not help. The effects had not improved from the 1960 version. On the other hand, the 1960 version was more entertaining. A definate don't see.
Rating:
Summary: Very cool movie! Great music!
Review: Well, just about every review I read about this movie prior to seeing it said it was terrible, lame and disappointing. So what did I do? I went to see it of course (with a couple of good friends). :) To make a long review short(er): It was great! Totally Jules Verne all the way and splendidly done. The musical score was really cool too! Especially the tribal singing in the latter part of the film. Can't wait to get the soundtrack! It had been so long since I'd seen the original that was made in like 1960 that I couldn't even remember it and I never read the book either, so I wasn't critical of this movie like I know some of the fans of the original movie were. I just thought it was a very entertaining waste of $7.25 for a Saturday night. ;) This movie had some other positives too; I can't remember any vulgar language at all, no nudity or sex, and just a lot of really cool special effects and an over-all good feeling to the movie. Parents should be cautioned as this movie would probably not be suitable for small kids because there are some frightening scenes with the Morlock creatures. While The Time Machine probably won't make hottest movie of the year or meet all of the expectations of those who loved the original, it is still a pretty cool flick that was fun to watch. I don't think it was the best film I've ever seen but still a really great looking movie with a lot of entertaining elements and a pretty good story... I most likely will add the DVD to my collection when it's available. I haven't seen that the soundtrack is available yet but I will surely buy that too if it becomes available. If you've been thinking about seeing The Time Machine but read the negative reviews and figured you'd better save your money, just go see it and forget what you've heard that's negative. It's a fun film, worth the money for a night at the movies. I don't think you'll be disappointed. I know I enjoyed myself.
|
