Rating: 
Summary: What a disappointment..........
Review: I am a fan of the 1960s George Pal classic movie and when I saw the preview of the 2002 remake I couldn't wait to see it. Unfortunately this movie was a complete disappointment. Where do I start?, well, The storyline is completely different than the book and the 1960s original. The movie has no scientifical explanation and/or fascination regarding time travel in general. The soundtrack does not draw you in. I get the feeling that this film was a quick put togheter project rushed out to the big screen hoping to make it big relying on the success and the following of the original movie. The only thing I liked was the actual machine, althought not as stylish and elegant as the original it is nevertheless a beautiful piece of machinery, more on the mechanical side than the classic one. Overall: MEDIOCRE.
Rating: 
Summary: A Timeless Machine
Review: Yes, we know the story, and yet this has a charm all its own. Passion, a mortal pushing against the immortality of time to rescue a tragic lost love. Even conquering time cannot bring her back, nor heal his broken heart. And yet he hurdles through the centuries like a comet. At the end he meets the Terrible, head Morlock who can sift through his mind, every memory is there for his viewing and study. His question is answered, She is lost and cannot be recovered. To set the world right our time traveler takes on the Morlock and expunges him and all those with him. He destroys his time machine and lives and loves those he finds in his present time. Who has not lost a love and who would not be haunted at the thought of traveling back to retrieve her? Who would unlock himself from his own time and charge headlong into the future and past to find her, to save her? Great Flick !
Rating:
Summary: Not worth it
Review: This movie was in one word "Terrible." I watched the movie after having read the book and was utterly disappointed. Apparently Simon Wells (the director) had no intention to preserve the plot of the book. He added characters (Emma) and changed the appearance of the Eloi - just to name a few minor details. In addition to the disparities between the book and the plot, the appearance of the Morlocks in the movie was almost fake (think Congo). The only bright spots in the movie were the acting of Jeremy Irons (Uber-Morlock) and the beautiful women - Sienna Guillory and Samantha Mumba. Not only would I not go buy a ticket in the movie theater to rent this, I wouldn't even rent it on video. I think there are other versions which I understand are better.
Rating: 
Summary: Not dreadful, but marred by unnecessary plot alterations
Review: On the upside, this film turned out to be not nearly as bad as the reviews I had read would have led me to believe. It had, in fact, a number of good aspects. It was great to look at, and the special effects added considerably to the story. Guy Pearce was good in the lead role, and Samantha Mumba was remarkably fetching as Mara, the woman he would meet 800,000 years in the future. But there were just too many undeveloped or hard to swallow elements for this to be a good film, and it too often became merely unintelligible. I have read Heidegger and Spinoza, Habermas and Derrida, Duns Scotus and Deleuze, so I can understand difficult texts and ideas when called to. But there is a different between a merely difficult idea and an unintelligible one, and the central dilemma of this film--"Why can't I change the past?"--was dealt with in an unacceptably blithe and confused manner. The "answer" as mouthed by Jeremy Irons, in a role that was more of a cameo than a real part, was unforgivably simplistic and superficial, not to say unconvincing. But there were so many other moments that were so improbable that it was hard to take this movie seriously. For instance, the Orlando Jones computer generated character appears not only in the early 21st century, but in the distant future as well, in the ruins of a former city. What powered the computer that contained his database? How did people hundreds of thousands of years in the future retain a perfect knowledge of the dead English language, and speak with a perfect accent? How did our hero know that jamming the gears of his time machine would have the effect it would? There were a host of other problems as well. If you don't ask questions of this film, and don't expect it to deliver much, it can provide a couple of hours of delicious eye candy. But if you try to force it to make sense, you will hate it. In the former, you end up not taking it seriously, which is on one level to do it and its makers a disservice. On the latter, however, you do them the compliment of taking the film seriously, but at the cost of condemning it. I hope I can be forgiven for taking it as simple minded, light entertainment.
Rating:
Summary: So-so adaptation could've been better...
Review: The novel "The Time Machine" is a classic. It's a dark, horrifying story about man's future. This is a bright, hopeful movie that seems a little pointless and too short to really give us much of a story. It wastes time playing with the machine itself and less time in the future. Running just barely an hour and a half, this provides a few cheap thrills, but nothing more. Guy Pearce plays the time traveler who loses his wife and wants to go back in time to save her. The book didn't waste its time with this subplot, and instead went straight to the future. This movie should've done that, but it wants a love story, so who cares. Finally he goes to the future and sees that man has separated into two species, the Eloi and the Morlocks. Morlocks live underground and feast on the Eloi. Eloi are peaceful people who are innocent and unaware of the Morlocks. Guy Pearce wants to fight the Morlocks, who have stolen the time machine. We get what's supposed to be a villain, but really he's just doing what evolution has brought him to do. But I'm putting too much thought into a film that doesn't want to think at all. A shame. This was a great opportunity to make an intelligent, creepy thriller. Instead we get happy and naive. I guess you can't win 'em all!
Rating:
Summary: the time machine
Review: this movie started out with such potential for a good story and special effects. then a third of the way into the movie it got bogged down with an utterly stupid plot and died there. what a waste of what could have been a fantastic movie.
Rating:
Summary: What was the point?
Review: I rented this movie thinking it was going to be enjoyable, boy was I wrong. The special effects were cool, but the story went nowhere. I usually can follow plots and storylines, even the really complex ones, but this one was beyond me. Maybe I'm wrong, but I highly encourage you not to buy, rent or see this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Where is ¿The Time Machine¿ Taking Us?
Review: I'm a big fan of classic science fiction, be it H.G. Wells, Jules Verne, or their more modern contemporaries like Isaac Asimov and Ray Bradbury. Keeping that in mind, I was greatly disappointed to miss "The Time Machine" while it aired at the movie theater. Now that I've rented the film, I no longer regret missing it at the theater. In a nutshell, the film is a gorgeous piece of eye candy, but not too much more. Wooden acting and a slow plot kept this film from being a commercial success. Only serious "Time Machine" fans like me could find some value with the movie and even that was difficult. PROs:
- The film's special effects for the Morlocks were outstanding. I've never seen a visual representation of them that was so well done. They were truly creepy. - The Eloi were also well done. I really got the impression of a Utopian society of naïve children. The special effects directors drew inspiration from Native American culture heavily in their representation of the Eloi. - Parts of the film have a campy feel to them that I found appealing. The movie's explanation of the world's destruction (moon shattered by a nuclear accident), reminded me heavily of the old "Planet of the Ape's" movies or the Kurt Russell film "Escape From New York." - Jeremy Iron's depiction of the evil Morlock mastermind was a masterful performance. If you can't get the creeps from his performance, it's likely you never will! - Samantha Mumba, who plays Mara, the exotic Eloi beauty was very easy on the eyes. She's a beautiful woman. CONs:
- The story is very LOOSLEY based on the wonderful H.G. Well's science fiction book of the same name. It trades in H.G. Wells's social commentary for an action movie plot and then fails to deliver. - The story is very hard to believe, even being science fiction. The Eloi of the future still speak English despite a world disaster and centuries if not millennia of change. Suspend your belief or you're in for a hard ride. - Until the Morlocks appear in the film, the plot is EXTREMELY slow. My roommate and I almost fell asleep watching it (In fact I did, but he woke me up.). - Orlando Jones, who plays Vox, a sort of holographic librarian, from the future puts a very weak display of acting forward. The role is a serious one, but Orlando still tries to inject too much of his comedy into it. The end result was that he appeared silly rather than humorous. - Guy Pierce is uninspiring. He also looks like he could use a meal the whole film with sunken cheeks that make him look curiously primate like (anyone in the mood for "Planet of the Apes?"). My roommate was inspired to make monkey noises several times during the film thanks to Pierce's odd appearance and even odder acting. Guy Pierce was much better in "L.A. Confidential." I recommend the movie for someone looking for great special effects, but not for a fan of the H.G. Wells novel, "The Time Machine." In other words, the movie is great eye candy, but don't expect any intellectual stimulation. I greatly prefer the 1960 film version of "The Time Machine" with Rod Taylor. It had much more primitive special effects, but kept a much better plot and stayed much more accurately to the plot line from the H.G. Wells book. Review by: Maximillian Ben Hanan
Rating: 
Summary: Good, but could have been better
Review: I would say it's more like 3.5 stars. This is an overall good movie, it has some great special effects and an interesting story. I was hoping that it would be as good as movies like The Mummy or Jurassic Park because I like these type of movies, but it lacks something compared to them. It lacks some more action and some "major" event of some sort. Also it doesn't feel as a big adventure like the other 2, it has a smaller feel to it. They should have added an extra half hour. By the way, I've never read the book or seen the original, and basically I don't care about watching a movie from 50 years ago. Anyways, it's a nice little movie and if you enjoy adventure, special effects and science fiction, then you will have a good time. It could have been better, but it's still good. 3.5/5
Rating:
Summary: Great but short
Review: I origionally did not see The Time Machine because I never see movies where I knew the ending. (Missed Titanic at the theaters too.) When I did see it, I was amazed and entranced. The sound tract was hauting and beautiful. The time machine floating through time in it's bubble of light was facinating. There was so much action, I didn't realize it was only 95 minutes, and I wanted more!
|
