The Time Machine

Rating:
Summary: You Won't Lose Any Time With This One
Review: There have been many movies, television shows, and books about time travel. From the "Back to the Future" saga to "Doctor Who" to Michael Crichton's novel, "Timeline," they've run the gamut on quality, story, and overall enjoyability. None of them, however, can match the brilliance of the original "Time Machine" book written by H.G. Wells. The original film based on that book does quite well also.

With that in mind, I didn't expect much from this remake starring Guy Pearce. I was pleasantly surprised. Though it lacks the appeal of the old Rod Taylor version of the time traveller, there is something captivating about this film. It has the whiz-bang special effects that have become commonplace these days. The story moves at a hearty pace that doesn't give you much time to breath. Orlando Jones is splendid as a holographic librarian who accesses information for Pearce. Samantha Mumba does a good job as well. Pearce is good, especially considering that this film lacks the substance that the original book contained. The only person who didn't fit in this film was Jeremy Irons. He is a fine actor, and his performance is nice, but his character just doesn't work in this movie. It slows down the pace a little as well.

The Morlocks are hideous looking creatures, and are quite something to see. The way that they come out of and return to the ground looks a little shaky, but if suffices.

I recommend this one to sci-fi buffs who like a little more thought put into their movies. Yes, there is the token fight scenes and CGI glory, but this movie is based on a book that was written well beyond its years, and that is still evident in this version of "The Time Machine."

Rating:
Summary: Entertaining Remake of the Classic "Time Machine"
Review: This is a very enjoyable, updated 21st Century romp through an approximation of H.G.Wells classic novel "The Time Machine". At an hour and a half, it's perfect for a quick night or weekend viewing. The movie has all of the feel of a 'page-turner novel', drawing the viewer in, and curiously seems as much akin to world of "The Matrix" as to the original novel. It gets quickly to the point from scene to scene with little fuss and unnecessary distractions. We can move along with the main storyline, and it's secondary off-shoots, with little need for technical questions. At some point, the Time Machine exists, so let's get the adventure on! The cinematography is wonderful as are the CG and creature effects.

As a time travel fan, I especially enjoyed how they bring up and answer 'the time travel paradox' which is usually a hangup in most time travel books and movies. By answering this question early, we know why the hero does NOT do certain things later in the movie. Nice touch, producers. Having an H.G.Wells relative around probaby nailed that question early on.

Guy Pearce (as Alexander Hartdegen the inventor) and Samantha Mumba are excellent in their roles as people struggling to gain control and understanding in a universe that's gone out of control. Orlando Jones and Jeremy Irons have extended cameos that are outrageous acting fun and add to the movie's total enjoyment. And is it just me or is young Guy Pearce almost a clone of Jeremy Irons of two decades ago? Spooky!!

The opening sequence in Britain is so well done, I wished we could have spent much more time in jolly old England. And the movie soundtrack is sumptuous and adds a great deal to the movie. The new, improved Time Machine is a wondrous "new" creation in a long line of attempts in previous movies to nail down H. G. Wells' intent of how it looked. "The future world" is wonderfully staged by Director Simon Wells, a direct descendant of H.G.Wells. Pop some popcorn and grap a box of Tropical Dots candy, you'll enjoy this upgraded "Time Machine" ride. I won't talk plot, but the Moorlocks will blow you away. It's PG-13 rated for fight scene violence; no sex, nudity, or profanity that I could detect (but then I do use TVGuardian to filter out the bad words), but I think 11 year olds could possibly view this movie. Four Totally Enjoyable Stars!!

AFTERTHOUGHT: For those who want more of H.G.Wells'time travel world with the same characters/creatures addressed in a new context, try Stephen Baxter's excellent paperback novel "The Time Ships", a logical, smooth, enjoyable extention of the classic novel. It's beautifully written and a brisk read.

Rating:
Summary: Don't compare to the original!
Review: Personally, I haven't seen the original, and haven't read the book either. Why does everyone have to compare them? Why can't this movie just stand alone by itself, without being compared to its predecessors? Having done some hard looking, I haven't seen a good review about this movie. This is a great movie, which stands alone by itself, and is Back To The Future, and Mummy Returns (you'll see why later) all rolled into one.

I wanted to get this movie, because I heard a lot about Samantha Mumba giving up music for this (she's an Irish singer, and a few hits over here, by the same guy who managed Westlife & Boyzone, Louis Walsh). There's so much hoo-ha about singers-turning-actors and actors-turning-singers. Everyone wants to criticise them. Frankly, all the guys will like Samantha in this, as at one point she's running in a very see through midriff-bearing top, and obviously they didn't have bras in 800,000 AD or whatever it was. It's like Baywatch all over again! Also, I vaguely remember Guy Pearce from Neighbours - or maybe I don't, it's that long ago, and I was so young, I probably remember clips shown on TV later on. I've never seen him in a movie, never seen LA Confidential, or anything else he may have been in. All I know is, especially in the earlier scenes of the movie, and particularly in profile, he looks like an ape! His whole face seems to jut forward, and gives a likeness of an ape.

I found this movie really sad, especially when he's trying to stop his girlfriend from being killed, you know it's gonna happen. But you know by just seeing Samantha, she's be the pretty chick in this, who'll mend his broken heart, or some love-sick nonsense.

The start of this movie is based in 1899, yet one little thing I'm not very sure about - the fact he carries a locket necklace thing, with a COLOUR photo in it. In 1899? It could have been a painting I suppose, but not that small.

Guy Pearce is brilliant in this. Although I much prefer him when he has shaggy hair and stubble, as it lessens the ape-like effect. And he just so happens to get his shirt off when he arrives in 800,000. Nothing wrong with that. He is awfully gaunt around the face though.

Watch out for almost comedy performances from Mark Addy & Orlando Jones - both very funny, and should have had bigger roles.

The reason why I mentioned the Mummy Returns earlier, was because the Morlocks characters, created by Stan Winston, reminded me of bigger pygmies from Mummy Returns! They had the same facial shapes and everything. Although I did think they were cute! Not scary in the slightest.

There's not many extras on this, considering what they could have possibly done with it. There were three trailers (teaser, theatrical & international), so I was in my element with those! There were also: a commentary by director, producer, editor and visual effects supervisor; deleted scenes; featurettes: "Creating The Time Machine", "Creating the Morlocks" and storyboards.

I wish people would look at these films with comparing them to previous movies. It really doesn't give this terrific movie a chance. I enjoyed it. And that's all that matters.

Rating:
Summary: Great Saturday evening movie ...
Review: This is a movie you might actually want to see more than once, probably late on Saturday evenings. Great story and musical score.

Don't get hung up over the supposed superiority of the 1960 version. I've seen it and, unlike this film, have no desire to see it again. Cheesey can be fine, but it was much less believable and more than a little tedious.

This movie doesn't follow the book as closely; so what? Consider it a different story and get over it. If you want the story in the book, read the book. It's still there and this movie hasn't affected it at all. It stands on it's own.

There is a dialogue problem in this movie though, and at the penultimate intellectual moment to boot: the Morlock character at the end says " ... so we bred ourselves into castes ..."

Then, moments later, he says "Who are you to question 800,000 years ... of evolution?"

Of course, if they bred themselves into castes, that means they followed a planned (designed) course, so are indeed morally responsible. Hardigan's criticism was justified (and the Morlock doesn't come across as being as brainy as they meant him to be).

Minor issue as far as enjoying the movie though.

Rating:
Summary: See the original instead!!
Review: Yes, the special effects here are state of the art, but that's about it. The first 20 minutes or so are actually an improvement over the 1960 film; they give the character some more depth. But after that, the film begins to fizzle, and quickly. The eloi aren't depicted as Wells intended them, and what should have been the most fascinating and enjoyable part of the film -- the changes around him as he travels through time -- were severely limited and truncated. Jeremy Irons role was almost unnecessary, as was Orlando's. Nice try, but it didn't work, guys. The nod to the original w/ an Alan Young cameo was a nice touch, though.

Rating:
Summary: Don't Waste Your Time On This Time Machine
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: Great movie!
Review: But this verison holds it's own. I loved the first one, everyone seems to dump on a remake but I think this version adds to the first one. It fills in some blanks of the original, it has to be veiwed and enjoy as its own work.After seeing it I purchased both one for the memories,I'm 45 and one for the new ones.This generation. It will be their classic. I enjoyed the remake with a nine year old and enjoyed the awe again,but he has to see the first one for the hole picture. Enjoy both with you children. Kirk B.