Rating: 
Summary: Waste of Time
Review: The beginning of the movie is not too bad but it definitely goes downhill after about 30 minutes and never managed to hold my attention once Alexander arrived 800,000 years into the future. Guy Pierce also is so emaciated in this movie - he looks like a living skeleton. The trailers are better than the movie.
Rating:
Summary: IN THE TOP TEN LIST FOR WORST MOVIES EVER!
Review: Now that I have stopped wretching, I feel I must share my views with the world about this POS. However, I do feel some relief in that I only rented it and did not purchase it. Yes, I was taken in by the flashy pictures and reviews contained on the video box. But the movie.... I'm sorry, I can't continue with this review because the mere thought of thinking about this film(?) makes me ill to the maximum. BE AFRAID!! BE VERY AFRAID!!
Rating: 
Summary: Despite Logical Flaws, an Interesting Retelling
Review: First of, I have not yet read H.G. Wells novel that this movie is based on, though I have seen the original movie from the early 60's (yeah, I know, what kind of sci-fi nerd am I?) However, I know enough about it to know that this movie is NOT like the book. Some of the changes were good, some were not.
The movie begins with the death of the professor's fiancee, which I thought was a nice addition; it created empathy for the guy (no pun intended,) and also a motivation for building the time machine and putting himself in possible danger by using an experimental invention. I liked Guy Pearce's portrayal; a moody, eccentric, almost Dr. Who-like protagonist was refreshing for someone who doesn't swoon for fearless, wisecracking badasses.
On the downside, the logical flaws are many: the often-mentioned fact that the English language as it is spoken today managed to survive an apocalypse and 800 *thousand* years of evolution. Oh, yeah and the only one who can speak said 'old language' fluently just happens to be a young, gorgeous unattached woman. And there's this supercomputer and its flat-screen glass panes that managed to survive 800,000 years of geological movement and erosion.
The main thing I found troubling was the fact that the socio-economic angle that made the book and original movie such a disturbing vision of the future was downplayed to the point of non-existence. There's no mention of the upper and working classes evolving into the Eloi and Morlocks, so the second half of the movie has more of a "good guys vs. the monsters" feel than a reversal of social classes. The Eloi are supposed to be as tragic and disturbing as the Morlocks are.
Despite the plotholes and watering down of the original lesson, it was a fairly good movie that I don't mind seeing again. It has inspired me to finally read the book!
Rating: 
Summary: Special effects OK, story dreadful
Review: The makers of this film saw fit to re-write H.G. Wells classic. Wells was a genius. The rewrite man was a "hack". Apparently significant changes were made to fit the graphic desigh of the wotld of the future. In doing so the original plot was rendered mindless. If you have never read the book or seen the last "Time Machine" you might possibly like this one, even with the nagging sense of "this does not make sense".
Or buy this one then treat yourself to the good version from the 1950s or thereabouts.
Rating:
Summary: Better than your average fare... Well, not really.
Review: This movie was tripe, or at least very nearly so. I did give it three stars however, and this is why. The first star is for effects. I really enjoyed the time-lapse sequences and the instant vaporizing effects; on the whole, passage of time was well done and fun to watch. The Morlocks were also scary-looking and disgusting, which made them fun to watch too. Second star goes to H.G. Wells; NOT his great-grandson. Good story old chap. Too bad your descendant butchered it a bit. I really dig stories that move along a the-future-will-suck theme... And this one is no exception. The movie strayed quite a lot from the book, though, and therein lay it's downfall. What happened to the innocent Eloi, who were reliant on the Morlocks for their every amenity and necessity (including food and shelter)? These went up in smoke with the nearest nocturnal Morlock, apparently. The day-time raid was just ridiculous, if you insist on believing that the Morlocks could not resume normal life on the sun-stained surface of the planet. Also, the beginning is too drawn out. In the book it jumps right to the chase - with the scientists in his study (or lab or whatever it was, I forget). Cutting straight to the action would have given them more time and money to spend on writing a good script. The third and final star goes to Jeremy Irons. I am and will always be a big fan. He pretty much made the movie for me, with his villainous wiles and freakish eyes. If it weren't for him... well, if it weren't for him I wouldn't rate this movie three stars...
Rating:
Summary: Very low 3 stars !
Review: Yes , very low 3 stars ! The story is exellent ! I red it the first time , when I was 8 . The visual effects - very good ! What is missing ?
1. I went to the movie theatre to watch it the first time , with my girlfriend ... before she was diagnosed with ALS... she was still able to walk then .
He gave it up on the second try ?! His girlfriend's life , and possibility to save it ? No way ! I keap trying to find a way at list to slow down her progression ... and no way , I am going to give it up ... not after 2 , not after 500 tries !
2. This version of the H. Wells story doesn't give me the feeling of it . It does remind me of " Congo " - too many stories in one film , and non of them was complited . You leave with amptieness , instad of thinking . Not a good sign . Not good at all !
3. The old film gave me much more sutisfaction ... this one - only dissapointment .
Rating:
Summary: Would've been great if it didn't collapse at the end!
Review: Consider it a 2.5 star rating! Good eye candy! Not the greatest or even close, but good! I really liked how they kept the spirit of the actual Time Machine's design! But eye candy is not everything... I agree with those who say they don't care about the differences in this flick when compared to the earlier George Pal film version and HG Wells book. I would by no means consider it a "loose" adaptation of it's predeccesors. Besides, I think it's always nice to add some freshness... Albeit if it is done well! And while I do feel that most of the time the variations do succeed in keeping this old tale ripe, there are some that will leave the viewer dissapointed because of their inane delivery! As some of mentioned... There's a bad plot inconsistency here and there that does leave one with a feeling that they botched the job on this one. And these errors are delivered in one great batch at a critical juxt of the film which doesn't help matters! I found this movie rather enjoyable and intelligently handled right up to about the last fifteen minutes... Then it just dissolves into stupidity! While I was satisfied with the answer to Pearce's time "paradox", which is the main plot-line of the movie... I reckon the makers settled on upping the tempo for the remainder of the ending to give it more of an action movie feel, and just failed in delivering it convincingly. A pity! Still, I like the movie, own it, have watched it multiple times, and shall watch it again one day. Granted I'm one of those rabid collectors though! In my honest opinion it's definitely worth a look... As a rental first! And because I saw someone state it in a review here... I wouldn't go as far to call this a kid's flick! In fact my 15 year old neice who can handle the Evil Dead films had nitemares the night after watching the Moorlocks ransack the Eloi village! And let me mention the cannibalism and a certain pit of human by-products! So parents don't expect Disney because of that one off base review, use discretion!
Rating:
Summary: H.G Wells has been left in the past with this film 'remake'
Review: There is a number of things that you would question in the movie, surely the use of computer graphics to spruce up the picture which did lead a more dazzeling film, but to use the title 'The Time Machine', that of HG Wells original book is rather more an insult for that it does not hardly follow the original ideas of the novel. I enjoyed parts of this film, a good soundtrack also complimented to the mood, but a weak plot, a poor beggining and even a poor ending of the film had spoilt it in effect from start to finish,,,,,,,, a man who can read minds was not able read the words that would lead to his death. The film is in no way a comparison to the novel, it does not show the meaning of that what was intended through the novel, it is a average film that would please most of the audience until somthing new comes out, it surely is no masterpeice.
Rating:
Summary: OK
Review: I rented this movie only out of curiosity, I heard the bad reviews that it received but still I wanted to see it. Like everyone else I enjoyed the beginning and thought maybe they were wrong. But then a third of the movie went by (I also notice had a running time of 96 minutes!) and I started to wonder. I felt like some of it had been accidently left on the cutting room floor, mistakenly not edited back in. At times it felt like the script was beening written as they went, without much thought to previous scenes. I too feel as though it was rushed, if only another 30 to 45 minutes were added it would have been much better and maybe several things could have been answered in that time. I think I will rent the other one just to see what I have missed.
Rating:
Summary: The Time Machine
Review: Bad movie, weak plot, lots of plot inconsistencies. Very poorly done. The original was much better. This DVD is not a keeper.
|
