Rating: 
Summary: I Don't Get It
Review: This movie was choppy to say the least, the story itself is intreguing however it's too choppy, not a whole lot of explanation going on there. However with a story of that magnitude and a running time of only 90 minutes, there's not a whole lot you can do. It seems like they spent their whole budget on the "Time Machine" prop rather then story editors.
It's not bad, but it could have been WAY better!
Rating: 
Summary: WASTE OF TIME
Review: The WORST movie in the world! I wouldn`t know where to begin. . I really wanted to see it when it came to theaters, but waited until the dvd release. I was in shock at how badly it was made. It would be a waste of my time and yours to write the review it deserves. Just do not see it!
Rating: 
Summary: An all new take on the story.
Review: althouth this is pretty loosely based on the original it is still a decent movie.
Guy pearce is always watchable, and Jeremy Irons falls into the category of the most evil villians ever.
the rest of the cast seems kind of weak,but hey! Samantha Mumba wears a see-through mesh tank top! so thats at least worth seeing.
all in al it's a good movie and worth owning.
Rating:
Summary: TEMPUS FUDGE-IT. ...
Review: Even the always stellar GUY PEARCE cannot save this catastrophe - Pity! The premise is fair - a misguided love-story, marred by tragedy - with a faint possibility of 'righting' it all - NOT!Mr. Pearce is our new traveller [previously Rod Taylor also fellow 'Oz'] but it's silly to compare the Great George Pal version to this one - although it would have been delicious fun for Guy Pearce to discover Mr. Taylor and Ms. Mimieux of the original version happily settled 'somewhere in time' .... This one gets bogged down once we reach the future - Great art direction / sets, etc. costumes are OK ish, but very unlike the Eloi considering their limited resources. AND yes we do find the obligatory remnants of New York ala "Planet of the Apes" - Pal's version had more 'dread' - relics of the distant future found in the 'distant-distant' future - there we really had the feeling of "WHAT went wrong ......?" [We don't quite find out - which adds to the dread]. Special effects are OK - the time machine resembles two lighthouse beacons welded together by lasar - standard fare. The dreaded Morlocks? Not! [Just a 'pinch' of "The Mole People" here ...] Soundtrack - strangely Polynesian .... The strangest kick? Jeremy Irons as a Samurai-dominatrix - now that's something to behold! Better fare? The George Pal original also "Time After Time".
Rating:
Summary: Not as Good as the Original, but Better than Expected
Review: I went into this movie expecting absolutley nothing. And, I came out a little surprised. It was better than expected, but lacked in certain areas, mainly the story and characters. Now, I'm sure most people were going to compare this to the original. Of course it's not going to live up to the original, that's why it's the original! And in defense of this particular remake, look at some of the other remakes these days - i.e. "Planet of the Apes". This time around, the story is greatly changed from the original, but the story isn't exactly what makes this movie "good". It's the special f/x. The story, however, isn't tedious, and actually has some interesting thoughts. I especially enjoyed the paradoxes involved, even if they weren't followed through after they were mentioned. Guy Pearce does a marginal job, nowhere close to his role in "Memento". Samantha Mumba is okay, better than most pop stars in movies nowadays. And Mr. Irons? Even though his appearance is short, you hate him the entire time. A good job for a villain. As I said, the special f/x made this movie. I was surprised that it was as different from the original as it was. But it's not a bad thing. The story is enjoyable, and I was pleased to see that Pearce's character didn't turn into a bonafide hero like Rod Taylor did in the original. It could have been much better, but it could have been A WHOLE LOT WORSE. I'd reccommend this to people who haven't seen the original, and people who are in the mood for some semi-mindless action.
Rating:
Summary: Poor Adaption
Review: If you are looking for a good adaption of H.G. Wells, The Time Machine, please look elsewhere. The movie does not try to stay true to the book in the slightest bit. Other than the special effects, which is nothing new, this movie does not bring much to the table. The ending was rushed, and did not appear to be thought out or explained. Overall, I turned off my TV disappointed when the movie ended, almost to the point of being mad.
Rating: 
Summary: Some Reasons to Defend This Mildly Entertaining Film
Review: As you know, this version is from the first under our suspicious eyes -- remake of George Pal classic? (I can hear some of you say "No more remakes!") Or, who's the director Simon Wells -- H.G. Well's great-grandson? (So what?) Well, this is not exactly a remake of that 1960 version, and Mr. Simon has actually directed films in the past (see "Balto"), so he is no newcomer who doesn't know anything about moviemaking. And before you criticize this entertaining version of "Time Machine," you should remember one thing, and this is it. Many complaints are based on our preoccupied idea about Time Machine and its concept. You expect some genuine Sci-Fi story like Tom Cruise's "Minority Report." Wrong. "Time Machine" of 2002 sticks fairly closely to the original novella written by H. G. Wells, and if you have read that, the filmmaker's intention is clearer. There's a lot of cool gadgets (especially the time machine design and its time travel seqences), but the original story had another agenda which the film tries to preserve, and I will explain later below. The story of the film, to be honest, is pretty weak. It follows a scientst living in New York, 1899 (Guy Pearce), who is to invent a time machine to change the past. For he is to lose his finacee, so he decides to go back before she is dead, and tries to change her fate. But he fails, and despair makes him time-travel further, this time to the future, to find the reason. He goes on and on, finally arrives at the future 800,000 years later from his original time. So far, all right, though somewhat the story is far-fetched. But now the trouble follows unless you're prepared for the drastic turn of the story. For many audience will witness the future looks like ... the past! Actually, humans are living in coarsely made houses, wearing "Flintstone"-like clothes. Night is pitch dark, no books, no TVs, nothing. In fact, I heard one of the audience sitting in the theater say, "It's like an episode from "Indiana Jones," as if being perplexed, or cheated. This is what happens if you expect here another P. K. Dick world. You might feel like being served a wrong dish you didn't order in a restaurant. But the original book goes exactly like this as this film shows, and Time Traveller is to see wicked Morlocks killing meek Eois, and that bleak world is usually thought to be H. G. Well's satire of the comtemporary English class system. The film justly observes that point, but whether it is exactly what the audience of the 21st century wanted is another matter. Considering the number of negative reviews, they didn't. So, keep these things in mind, and aceept the film as it is, discarding your own images about time machines. The CGI techniques are all first-rate, serving as joyful eye-candy, and special make-ups of Morlocks are astonishing, courtesy of Stan Winston Studio. Pearce is reliable, which we all know (and I know because I saw "Memento"), and an unexpected find is Irish singer Samantha Mumba as Mara (her brother Kalen is played by Samantha's real brother Omero, who is also good). It's a bit pity that Mark Addy and Phyllida Law (Emma Thompson and Sophie Thompson's mother) are given small roles, and as to Jeremy Irons, ... er ... officially I announce, he is now a character actor, playing evil mastermind Uber-Morlock. Not a perfect film, I admit, but "Time Machine" might become a better film if you just change the way you look at it. It's not about the theory of time travel (if you want that, see "Back to the Future"); it's not about thrilling future world (in that case, "Blade Runner"). It is an attempt to make a new and faithful adaptation of H. G. Wells classic, but perhaps should not have to be so faithful as that.
Rating:
Summary: The Special Effects OK. Where's the Story?
Review: Guy Pearce hardly broke a sweat in this one and minimal supporting cast meant alot of special effects. Some interesting new concepts were raised but never developed. Morlocks looked like they came from Planet of the Apes. It's a toss up for which movie was the most boring and both were pretty short.
Rating:
Summary: Not the book really or even the original movie but still fun
Review: I remember when I was about 16 I was reading the Time Machine in High School and saw the movie around the same time as reading the book and loved both. The original wasn't actually the book but it's much more accurate than this Simon Wells remake. It added too much and even changed the names of the main characters. Instead the Time Machine being made in the sake of science, Alexandra (Guy Pearce) creates the Time Machine to try and stop his girlfriend from being killed. Instead of the Eloys being pretty small like in the book or being a bunch of blondes like in the original movie they are all natives with their own language. They know they're in danger and pretty much know they're cattle to the Morlocks in this version as well. Plus there's a leader to the Morlocks played by Jeromy Irons in this version and he looks more like Mr. Freeze. For being related to H.G. Wells who wrote the book, Simon Wells the director butchered up the story a lot. Still I must say I enjoyed the movie, it's still a fun popcorn movie. The visuals are good, as are the action and the performance by Guy Pearce...The oscar winning special effects are a bit dated and the Morlocks are obviously just people jumping around in make-up and suits. Still it is one of my favorite science fiction films of all time. I guess since this one is a little different, that is what's fun about it though . Mostly since you don't know what to expect from it.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: I am basically just reviewing this movie because most reviews are very unfounded. Movies are meant to entertain and make you think. What if time travel was possible? What would I do if it was? I was fascinated by this movie and its special effects, I did not go see it to compare it to the book or analyze it for trite meaningless inaccuracies, I saw it because time travel is a thought-provoking subject, and I wanted to see how the future is presented. Personally I doubt that the Earth will still be in tact as far as this movie goes through time, but it was still interesting to see how humans basically retrograded back to primitive times. I don't over-analyze movies, and none of you should either, it takes away the enjoyment. Spending an entire movie picking it to pieces leaves no time to see what you are watching or to appreciate the work put into it. It is entertainment people, not an editor's desk, leave it be and enjoy the show, I sure did.
| 
