Rating: 
Summary: This One Really Makes You Think
Review: I loved this version. Not only did it have a great twist on the original story line but it took you a huge step further by adding the twist -- which was changing the future. However, this is where I got lost in the story. I have seen this movie five times over the last few years and I have figured out all the other confusing questions. But I have not been able to figure out how he was able to "change the future" by doing something to his pocket watch, placing the watch inside the time machine in such a way that it jammed the time machine gears, and setting the time machine to either go backwards or forward in time, which destroyed the Morelocks and their underground caves completely and by those events changed the future for 800,000 years to come. ...Richard ---
Rating:
Summary: loved it
Review: I loved this movie.i seen the teaser and feel in love with the time machine straight away.I even bought a piece of the movie by purchasing the future bike riders out fit.Go in watching this movie with a open mind,some pop corn and a nice large cold coke and you will do just fine .Trust me.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Effects Bad Movie
Review: A new adaptation of H.G. Well's classic tale with a twist; Enamoured savant seeks to meet with lost love but then gets really lost. The acting is unimpressive and the base of the story too generic to be called creative. The actors playing the natives render a monotone reading of the script with placid faces bringing a real yawn from those who are watching. The motivation of the main character is a pretty dull formula; trying to change the past. As one reviewer said, wouldn't the curiosity of knowing what the future holds be motivation enough? In terms of the science fiction in the story, the notion that there would be anything left of the 19th or even 21st century after almost 1 million years is equally absurd: suddenly the character is able to find the exact location of his home even after the state of New York has transformed into the new Grand Canyon? Please. It seems that the script writers were so concerned about having a politically correct script that they lost their imagination all together. The special effects are great but that's about it. The 1960 George Pal version is better in story and the effects are still worthy of note. This is a good movie for girls in their early teens . Worth renting and watching at least once; I wouldn't waste my money buying it.
Rating: 
Summary: Much better than the original
Review: Although critics and reviewers alike say the original Time Machine was better, I disagree. I think this movies special effects, music, and scenery more than make up for the acting and script. Samantha Mumba is not a terrible actress after all. If she keeps wearing the skimpy outfits, I'll see all her movies a few times! This is a good movie any sci-fi lover should like!
Rating: 
Summary: A Lousy Movie With A Great Music Score
Review: I always say if you're going to remake a classic you'd BETTER make it better than the first! Unfortunately it seems everyone in the creative department was asleep at the wheel on this one. The plot holes in the script came directly from Script Writing 101 (gotta give him a reason to go on in the future! OK, we'll kill off his wimpy and severely accident prone girlfriend!)
And so they did...twice. It was getting rather funny. I was wondering how many times they'd "off" her before he was allowed to go play with this fantastic machine! Wouldnt just the sheer curiosity of the future be enough? The machine got wrecked, so he couldn't come back to the love interest anyway. Also, sigh, the issue of the Morlocks. Gotta say the fat guys in the original in the green tights,Tina Turner wigs, bad teeth and pen-light eyes were 10 times scarier than these unoriginal, many times copied creations of Stan Winston, who is only trotting out the same design as he did way back in "Pumpkinhead." (An extremely under-rated movie by the way.) However, I did love the score and purchased it. I caught this movie on HBO and won't buy it in any form.
Rating:
Summary: An Original tale from teh vaults of original fiction
Review: Nothing pleases me more than to see a film that is so powerful in it's own way than this. Films like this are the reason I go to Film School. I watched over and over again the orignal version, and this came out, and I was so overwelmed as soon as it opened on the screen that my eyes welled up.
Anyone that doesn't enjoy this film lacks alot of imagination, sequence after sequence of a goosebump creating story just make you want to watch it again and again.
Mixed with an amazing score and Guy Pearce's amazing acting as Alexander Hartdegen, this film is not worth turning away from.
Rating: 
Summary: Fun action movie, but wide of the mark
Review: It's always difficult to bring a masterpiece of writing to the screen, and poetic licence aside, this is a reasonable attempt.
Guy Pearce, shows some versatility in the lead role and ultimately learns the message that "Some things Cannot Be Changed" when he becomes locked away and obsessed with creating the machine of the title, after the murder of his true love, in a bungled mugging incident. The Victorian back drop is quite faithfully and believably recreated, and the acting performances on the whole are well directed. Sadly however, the script seems to have felt the need to deviate so widely from the original story (one assumes to embrace a more modern view) that it tests even the most implausible aspects of the science fiction genre. The SfX are well integrated, and this is by no means a BAD movie - but one feels that a more faithful following of HG Well's ideas, (however dated) would have resulted in a better picture. I wanted to give more, but 3 stars is really the limit.
Rating:
Summary: Sorry to say ....
Review: H G Wells invented the time travel story, alien invasions, tanks, death rays,air wars, mutation stories, etc. Having read just about everything H G wrote, the "Time Machine" is probably the most succtinct and visionary of his works (ignoring the class struggle elements implicit in the tale).The original story for the "Time Machine" was written by Wells in a frenzied night and morning session and it was superb.No subsequent cinematic production has done any justice to the original. The 1960 George Pal version was silly and dated, but at least Rod Taylor of Australia bought a bit of verve to the film. The rest of the 1960 cast, cold fish Yvette Mimeux, and Alan Young with his phoney Scots accents, were pretty abysmal. Unfortunately more time and labour was expended on this disappointing effort than can be justified. Guy Pearce, the male lead, is a gifted actor (seen "LA Confidential" or "Memento" ?) (and another Australian time traveller) and I can really can't criticise him more than to say he is languid and unimpressive. Guy must have realised the thin-ness of the material. Jeremy Irons is wasted in a cameo and the rest of the cast is utterly forgettable. The liberties taken with the story, complete with happy ending, make the whole movie practically unrecognisable from the original story. Its not being suggested that a film has to slavishly follow the original work, but if you deviate greatly from the original at least some degree of originality or quality should be sorted. The plain dumb "science" (blowing up the Moon and having the fragments rain on the Earth, computers surviving eight thousand centuries without a service, ruins with discernible writing on them after 800,000 years, etc) are insults to the intelligence of even the most forgiving audience. The "romance" of Mumba and Pearce is dull and passionless. The Morlocks are creepy but uninteresting. Quite disappointing.
Rating:
Summary: Science Fiction not exactly... but
Review: I think every reviewers here somehow lost an idea itself.
Looks like people only care about effects and logic of the story.
I think there is a little bit more to it.
Rating:
Summary: A decent story
Review: I would have rated this one only 3 stars, if not for the potent charisma of Orlando Jones, who is quickly coming into his own as an actor. This is a decent story based on a classic adventure. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though, but didn't there seem to be an extraordinary amount of Guy Pearce close-ups? I think he's good-looking and all, but man-oh-man, it was as if the camera crew had a crush on him or something! Samantha Mumba did an unremarkable job in her (granted) very limited role. I'm okay with this for the kids--it does, after all, have that remarkable H.G. Wells foundation, which has never been a bad thing.
| 
