Rating: 
Summary: Not a classic, but still very good.
Review: I am a big fan of the original TIme machine. I believe it to be the first movie I ever saw in a theater.
Fortunately, I didn't go to this move thinking that it would be the classic that the original was. And it wasn't.
This film was very good in it's own right. I suppose that with a little more thought it could have been as good as the George Pal version. It is very hard to re-make a classic and live up to the reputation created in forty years of viewing. At the time of it's release, I don't suppose the original really got much more notice than this version. Perhaps in another forty years or so, this one might be considered a classic too. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to make a new version of "The Sound Of Music"?
In any case, I gave it four stars for effort. I would have given it five if it had been as good as "Batman" or "The Princess Bride".
Rating:
Summary: An entertaining ride from beginning to end.
Review: Guy Pearce is a scientist who develops a time machine to save his ill-fated fiancee. Unfortunately, disaster strikes again, and he heads toward the future, only to discover human society is doomed. Modern adaptation of H.G. Wells classic novel isn't very faithful to its source, but remains a fairly spirited and always enjoyable sci-fi adventure. Plot holes are abound, logic is questionable at best, and the movie somehow loses some momentum when it kicks 800,000 years(!) into the future, but Pearce's likeable performance, the intriguing story, and competent direction keeps this film surging forward. On a technical level, the special effects and score are both effective, the former sometimes being even quite spectacular, as seen in the time-traveling sequences .
*** 1/2 out of *****
Rating:
Summary: What if...?
Review: After the death of his fianceé, Professor Alexander Hartdegen gets obsessed with the idea of "what if?" What if the past could be changed and he could go back to save his girlfriend? After 4 years of experiments and studies, he finally achieves his goal in building a time machine. But soon realizes his girlfriend was suppoused to die that day, no matter how hard he tries to save her.That's the reason he goes to the future, in order to get the answer to find a way to save her. By some eerie events in the year 2037, he ends up in the year 802,701, where mankind is now divided into two groups: the underground Morlock and the helpless Eloi. Guy Pearce, Jeremy Irons and Orlando Jones star in this well-done movie that is not really receiving the reviews it deserves. First of all, it was really cool for me to see a sci-fi movie like this, so pure and so simple but yet, so interesting. Seems a lot of movies try to be so complex lately, and sometimes, that's not really necesary. We have Guy Pearce here, in a really great character and he gives us, as usual, a great acting job. Orlando Jones' character is really interesting and probably, the point of reference to certain things the film is trying to tell us. The reference to some of the messages. I only give it 4 stars because I was the movie was way too short... I wanted more! If they made me stay nearly 3 hours in The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, why can't I ask that running time for a movie so cool as this one here? I wanted more! Apart from that, the music, the cinematrography, everything is great! It really moved me in a lot of ways and I think more people should be open to watch a movie so cool as this one.
Rating: 
Summary: And it deserves 5 stars too!
Review: "The Time Machine" (2002) The Time Machine is likely to be one of the most underrated and misunderstood movies of the year. I had read reviews of this movie before seeing it, and they were mostly bad. When I saw the film I was shocked because I thought the movie was so good and couldn't understand how critics could bash such an excellently made and well-paced movie experience. And then even the reviews that were above average only claimed the adventure to be "a fun and entertaining movie, no more". Personally, I thought the movie was more than just fun and entertaining, it had a good message and was a terrific adaptation of H.G. Wells' classic. Most of the critiques I've read of this movie say that it is bad because it is so unrealistic and blah blah blah. Um, hello? Knock knock! Come back into the word of reality! This is a movie about a time machine. So it's totally gonna be believable and realistic? Of course not! It's a frickin fantasy for Christ sakes! You have to suspend your belief of technology and what is possible to fully enjoy this movie. If you go to a movie called The Time Machine and say "this is going to be totally true-to-life" then perhaps you should rethink going into it at all. I thought the movie was visionary and engaging. The ideas the movie (and the book) come up with for the future and past are stunning. From the moon breaking up to monkey-looking Moorlocks climbing to the top of the food chain the movie never stops at giving us fantastical and creative possibilities. The director absolutely ensures these ideas are done to the best quality they can be done. I really liked it how the director of the modern remake was the ancestor of the book writer. Cool stuff! The sets and production design are very moody and atmospheric at times, and very joyous and happy at others. They reminded me a lot of last years The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring sets. The cinematography by Donald M. McAlpine (who also photographed last years best movie, Moulin Rouge) was absolutely breathtaking and allowed many opportunities for the action sequences. The special and visual effects in The Time Machine are perfect and some of the best I've seen in the past few years. The time-travel sequences in particular are quite astonishing. If I had one complaint about the technical side of this film, it would be the Moorlocks. Sometimes they look unintentionally funny, but their evil presence is usually there. Again, they reminded me of something: the orcs from The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. This movie and that one are very similar! The acting is pretty good. Guy Pearce is once again enjoyable and suits his role, but at times I don't think he quite knew what accent to use. For his better performances, check out Memento or L.A. Confidential. He still does quite well as a scientist though, who as we all know can speak in many different languages! R&B sensation Samantha Mumba was likeable and plausible in her role, and I would've liked to see more of her. Her brother Omero Mumba played the brave-kid-helping-the-action-role with a terrific charm and he wasn't at all annoying. Jeremy Irons had a small but effective evil role, he looked reminiscent of Saruman off The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring...arg, this movie just has too many similarities to that one. But that's never a bad thing. My favourite performance of the well-chosen cast is very surprising: Orlando Jones. I hated him last year in Say It Isn't So and Evolution, but in his clean-cut and expressive computerised role, he works terrifically. The Time Machine allows its audience to feel a range of emotions, it has a lot of genres involved in the story. Action, adventure, romance, revenge, fantasy, blockbuster, horror, thriller, science fiction, drama...you name it, its got it. Phew! If there were a couple of things I could change about the movie I would maybe fix up the Moorlocks a bit, perhaps have Stan Winston do the special makeup effects? I would've liked the movie to run a bit longer as well. A full 2 hours would've been great. Overall this movie definitely entertained and enthralled me as a viewer. I liked the cast, the music (terrific score), felt sympathy for the characters and loved the sets and designs. I strongly suggest not trusting the critics with this one, it's a great movie on par with some classic action films. Highly recommended! MY GRADE: A-
Rating:
Summary: where would you go
Review: i couldnt think of a clever tag line so i stole the one from the actual film. i wish there was some to give this film 3 and a half stars, but since there is not i decided to round up and give four. this is an average little film that had a lot to live up to because people seem to love the original-myself included. also, when people heard h.g. well's great-grandson was directing they expected a very literal interpretation-they were sorely mistaken. guy pearce's acting is good but not great-he seems to be unsure whether he should be serious in his portrayal or act like a fun loving action star. also i love guy pearce but it seems as though this film was not right for him. he appears handsome but so thin that when you see the moorlocks coming you know he can't fight them. he'll just have to stand there and take it-rod taylor was such a buff looking guy, you knew he could fight if needed. on the plus side, the time machine itself looks awesome and the evolvement of the outside as guy travels through time is spectacular. the best part of this movie is probably vox(orlando jones) who is hysterical as the snobbish futueristic internet. in short go see this film if you want simple action without well's philosophy.
Rating: 
Summary: Avoid like the plague
Review: Okay this movie was flat out horrible. Before I rip into it, let me first mention the ONE good thing about it - the time travel special effects. As the guy travels through time the scenery around him changes at a very fast rate as time progresses and I'll admit, I could watch this part of the movie all day long. Unfortunately, this part of the movie doesn't last all day long and I'm left to watch the rest of this utter waste of film. Okay, first of all, let's say you traveled into the future and ended up in the year 2100. That's only about a hundred years from now, but can you imagine how different the world will be? Your eyes would probably fall out of your head just looking at how far technology had advanced in that amount of time, right? Well, the first time this dude travels 100 years into the future (give or take), he does not seem to even notice that there are automobiles. Cars DRIVING down the road. Geez, there's ELECTRICITY and this guy is oblivious. As he advances through time, holy [moly] - there's a guy on a transparent piece of glass talking to him. He doesn't even flinch! Totally unbelievable, and it makes this movie lose so much credibility. The whole idea of traveling through time is to explore and discover, but this time traveler, once he arrives in another time, doesn't explore or discover anything. He just stares blankly. Okay, so when he finally arrives in his final destination (the distant future, I forget what year), there are these...monster things that are THE WORST excuse for a special effect I could imagine. Imagine the makeup job a monster might have had in a movie made in 1940 and that's what we've basically got here. Now that computers are used to make so many things look at least halfway believable, these things look like [totally bad]. My girlfriend and I could not believe this was actually meant to be taken seriously. The people around us must have been annoyed at how we were just laughing uncontrollably as this movie got more and more ridiculous. God I could go on and on about this movie but I've suddenly lost interest. There are numerous questions unanswered and plot points that are never explained. This was just HORRIBLE and I want my money back. Guy Pearce, you're supposed to be cool. I saw Memento, and you were COOL. Not anymore, though. Now you [aren't too good].
Rating: 
Summary: Not Very Wells done, but OK.
Review: As an adaptation of H.G.Wells excellent classic, this movie is a bit of a mixed bag. The special effects of course are sublime, as the time traveller travels through time one can observe the speeding up of plant growth, the erosion of the landscape, the fashion changes, and so on, which themselves are worth the price of admission alone. But the script, well, it is a little shonky-especially towards the end. Don't get me wrong, there are some very good scenes, but the film suffers from what often happens in Hollywood films, it becomes overly contrived and predictable. His discussion with a virtual librarian about time travel is one of the best parts in the movie. "Time travel??" says the librarian. "Can't be done. Science fiction!- H.G.Wells-the Time Machine"...". The prevailing theme that he is a conflicted, tormented individual unable to escape from his predicament, is good, and this probably improves on the original book. At one point in the future he is told by his depraved future descendants, "you are trapped in 'what if'. You are the inescapable result of your tragedy, just as I am the inescapable result of you". Overall ok, but the first half, based a little more on H.G. Wells' themes, is better than the second half, that is if you can deal with a romance and then the loss of a loved one, in about 15 minutes, at the start of the movie. The casting is ok, Guy Pearce (the Memento guy) as a research scientist *almost* works, but there isn't much other character development, apart from a scantily clad girl in the future who likes to pick flowers with runaway time travellers. 7 out of 10 for the inspiration from H.G. Wells' very good themes, 5 out of 10 for how much better it could have been, 9.5 out of 10 for the special effects. The old 1960s film version is definitely worth a look on video, as it is a probably better script overall. It is amazing how dated it is-eg womens roles, the silly hand combat, the special effects- I wonder how dated this film will be in 40 years (womens roles, the silly combat scenes, ?the special effects). But the old film has a certain charm about it. And if you are really keen, there is always the original book! At 100 or so pages you can read it in a night, and most people who read it-like me-are quite impressed. A classic 19th century style work of very early science fiction, combining a sense of decency and graceful language with Wells' before-his-time visionary escapism. I'll give you an example to whet your appetite-from the very first two paragraphs... "The Time Traveller (for so it wil be convenient to speak of him) was expounding a recondite matter to us. His grey eyes shone and twinkled, and his usually pale face was flushed and animated. The fire burnt brightly, and the soft radiance of the incandescent lights in the lilies of silver caught the bubbles that flashed in our glasses. Our chairs, being his patents, embraced and caressed us rather than submitted to be sat upon, and there was that luxurious after-dinner atmosphere, where thought runs gracefully free of the trammels of precision. And he put it to us in this way-marking his points with a lean forefinger-as we sat and lazily admired his earnestness over this new paradox (as we thought it) and his fecundity. "You must follow me carefully. I shall have to controvert one or two ideas that are almost universally accepted. The geometry, for instance, they taught you at school is founded on a misconception.........."
Rating:
Summary: Good, but disappointing
Review: If you never read the book, but saw the 1967 movie, this is an excellent work. I only have one major beef with this movie, and that is that it is just as stripped of the true message of the book as was the 1967 movie. I mean, if the "Island of Dr. Moreau" at least hinted about the purpose of religion as social control, then why not have the social class message part of this re-make. Only on the surface were these books about time travel and genetic engineering. I can understand it in the previous movie, for back then, there was still a "red scare" in hollywood, but not for today's release.
Rating:
Summary: ... big time!
Review: I honestly can't believe how much this movie .... My friends and I wonder how they made it to a cinmea release. This movie should not even be aired by television stations- ever! It's the biggest heap of ...I've ever seen. The plot was just way out and did not make any sense. The movie tried to have about 4 mini-plots within it that were virtually unrelated. It's movies like these that make me want to see the previews before going to a movie! Really don't bother. Even if you can see it for free.
Rating:
Summary: Where would you go?
Review: "The Time Machine" is fun, exciting, intriguing, and full of beautiful scenery, stunning special effects, and stellar acting. What more could you ask for in a science fiction action flick? Guy Pearce follows up his brilliant performance from this year's surprise hit "The Count of Monte Cristo" with a convincing portrayal of Professor Alexander Hartdegen. The story begins with the killing of Alexander's fiancée, Emma by a street robber. Alexander is devastated and falls into a state of depression. As a scientist, he becomes obsessed with building a time machine to bring him back in time so he can save Emma. He does manage to go back in time, but Emma is killed in a different way this time. Alexander doesn't understand why he can't change her fate, so he goes into the future searching for answers. After a few stops in the future, Alexander still has not found the answer to his question. While traveling even farther into time, an unfortunate accident sends him millions of years further then he wanted to go. Alexander wakes up to a future that instead of being even more technically advanced, has instead been reduced to living in small huts and wearing animal cloths, very much like cavemen. To me, this is a rather interesting idea. We pushed technology too far and ended up destroying everything and landing back on square one. I've always wondered when we're going to push it to far. In "The Time Machine", the reason for the destruction of our modern world was that we tried to fiddle around with the moon, so it started to break apart and crash onto Earth, destroying everything. I was surprised to find something philosophical like that in a movie such as this. The special effects in this film are stunning. When Alexander arrives millions of years into the future, there are beautiful wooden sculptures that move in the wind and huts built so that they are hanging off the walls of a canyon. It's breathtaking. You find yourself gasping along with the rest of the audience when scene after scene, more amazingly beautiful things are revealed. My only complaint is that the film takes a little too long to get into the "main part" of the story, which would be when he's millions of years in the future.
| 
